>As i said i am not a geologist nor do i pretend to be one, I openly admit my naivety on the subject >therefore i do not want get into a 'heated' discussion on subject matter i am not familiar with Well that hasn't stopped you from replying in a geologic contexts to my posts and to others in the past, so why would it bother you now? >On the other hand you are a distinguished expert in your field, so you say, Never said that. That's the part I read that stuck. Neither one is legit, and if you google Archae Solenhofen, seems like he is just another internet researcher.. I find zero information published by him other than his quality site.. Here is his site UNFORBIDDEN GEOLOGY I would rank him as a full on skeptic who goes against everything, probably cause he once believed in something and then seen it was a lie, so now doesn't believe in anything mysterious. So yeah, neither are a real geologist.. There are plenty of sites where there was minimal to next to nothing when it comes to evidence of tool work. Look at the pyramids, there is still debate on how that was done, and that's a site on LAND. Yeah, may have been water there before, that could of washed stuff away, but I would think that being underwater would increase that tenfold. If water can easily shape 90 degree angles, I doubt they'd need more than some chisels.. Plus, the currents there are said to be strong. More than enough to carry away anything loose, much much more than sites not in water.. What geologist? I see a skeptic who is far from open minded. Also, I have yet to find a comment about the stage. Since I can't go off photos, I have to use the wording. Do a page search on 'stage' 'eyes' 'head' (as in headdress) and nothing is matched. If you search 'pillow', only #20 is matched up and that's about a "burial mound". You yourself are always posting links about new discoveries, like how man may have come out of Africa earlier, like 10K years? Mainstream doesn't seem to be interested, so Yonaguni happens to fall on websites where they talk about UFOs and crop circles. Because of that (with you being a skeptic of paranormal things) you're not even going to give it much of your own thought.
Not quite the case. Solenhofen is not a geologist per-se but an archaeo-geologist. His work is well known and admired and used as reference by geologists in their own work.What he writes can be found here, and you'll see that understanding geology is integral to it. Rock properties He may not be a 'geologist' working full time in the field, but has studied it as a key part of his work, and I guarantee he knows his geology far more than the person he's speaking to. The poster has not a clue, and doesn't even get what Solenhofen is describing. That's not even close to being true I study early civilisations from about 10k BC, there are none that haven't left behind ample evidence of their existence around their monuments. In the case of Egypt we have hundreds of pounding stones that were used to chisel the stone, workers marks and internal holes for wooden supports used during building. We know how it was marked out and the ground leveled, that the first stones came from the ground it stood on, that it has a stone core not a block one and that it isn't made of millions of perfectly cut stones. We know where the workers lived, their bakeries and breweries. It now looks like it was built from the inside out using pulleys and ramps, evidence has been found inside them using radar. We know much. At Stonehenge there was a vast temporary village that left behind remains that included thousands of bones. Nothing avoids leaving a mark of some kind. The formations are exactly those that are found on land there is no reason at all to think that they are anything special. See above, the bubbles from the diver's tanks show no strong currents. Secondly, the tools they would have had to use are stone, there was no metal then. There would need to be tens of stone chisels (and their remains) them to carve a single wall. No poundings stones have been found. Artifacts are rarely displaced very far from wrecks, even two thousand year old ones in deep water and strong currents. I'm not quite sure what you're saying here? To find a comment where about the stage? If you want to know what pillow lava is, type that name into google images. These have science behind them and proof. That they change our views isn't a challenge to science, but something that's welcomed. Yonaguni has nothing that would indicate it's anything other than natural. Because it's not anything of interest. If it turns up any artifacts or any proof that it's other than natural then science will be all over it. Yonaguni is on woo-woo sites because it's linked by those who promote it to woo-woo theories. It's not being ignored by uncaring science. It's natural, what can science say without other evidence? LOL! A remarkably inaccurate supposition. Firstly, I never dismiss or accept anything without considering it fully first. Do you really think that any person with a bit of hope and imagination would not want a remarkable new discovery to be found, whether it challenges current thought - their own thought - or not? Secondly 'Me being a skeptic of paranormal things' - a bit on the wrong side there too. I believe in a form of telepathy, of precognition, in UFO's, OOBE's and whole bunch of other things that would probably make your hair curl. I also write about the nature of transcendental experiences and their reality. Just because I believe in those things doesn' t mean that I have to leave my brain at the door and accept every other new age theory, or the nonsense that people like Icke, Bauval, Schock and all the rest throw out. Their 'paranormal' is purely about selling books and DVD's and not truth as they claim. There's hardly a writer in the field who hasn't tried to mislead his readers with misinformation. Not a skeptic at all, but someone who is open-minded enough to see that Yonaguni is not what is being claimed. MelT
I still don't think this Solenhofen is anyone of importance. I can't find anything other than his site, old site. It's the only "work" I can find from him. I doubt his name too, lol. I mean Archae, archaeo-geologist. Could very well be a pen name or maybe he even changed it, but it makes it all the more difficult to find out who he really is. If you're able to find more than I, please post. Never said they don't know how the pyramids were built, just saying there seems to still be debate among people. I personally think it was how you say, pulleys, ramps, and manpower, probably slavepower.. I know what pillow lava is, I was saying that based off the descriptions, I can't find where he refutes the "stage/headdress" photo. You said he said it was pillow lava, but the only spot where he mentions pillow lava is for something else. That spot is what I am focused on, lol. I could care less about the rest. I think that most of that is natural, some spots could go either way, and other's (like the stage thing) I don't see as natural. I'm not suggesting aliens did it or even that it was a metropolis. If I were to pull a theory out, it'd be that there was an island type culture who didn't live too far away. I know they talked about a location not far from there where they know people did live. They were probably "tight" with the seas, seen this and how perfect it looked, assumed it was made for them to make sacrifices, did minimum work to carve a face where they'd do the killing, and used it for that. Right along the coast, perfect spot to do it at. Lol, if I ever visit it and can look at that stage area firsthand and I end up seeing that it is natural, I'll bump this thread and say so but for now, to me, that was made by man. And I'll admit calling you a skeptic was incorrect. After I read what you said and thought about it, I started to remember, you're not a paranormal hater, you're a paranormal in the science section hater.
So, someone who is well-versed in geology and has his work quoted by actual geologists is a nobody? Hmmm, then what does that make the guy in the other half of the conversation above, who doesn't even understand the terms that Solenhofen uses? One knows geology well enough to be quoted by geologists, the other has nothing except photographs and an attitude. Which should we sensibly believe? It is a pen name, 'Solenhofen' is a kind of Limestone. Considering his work and its link to geoology, the fact that every one of his descriptions of the so-called ruins at Yonaguni are all perfectly accurate and have a mundane cause, why should we even begin to doubt him? You were using the pyramids as an idea to support your statement that there were civilisations that did not leave any remains behind. There is no such civilisation. This being the case, with no artifacts or evidence of human activity, it shows again that the site is purely natural. I'm saying pillow lava. If you already know what it is then why say this is a head dress, as it's obviously an eroded outcrop? The 'stage' is refuted in the same way as all the rest, a purely natural bedrock of the kind that can be found up and down the coastline there. Then you have a problem, as no such civilisation has ever been found there that would coincide with the right time scale. As above, no artifacts. If any are found that can be linked to the site then science will be all over it. But how many years has this been known about and still not a shred of evidence that it's anything at all? Sort of but not quite, I'm a bullshit hater and unfortunately, 99% of the claimed paranormal is bullshit. Once any aspect of it becomes proven science then it has a rightful place here. What I am more concerned with is the rise of beliefs like this, not really that people will choose to think it's real, but that those who originally put these myths around do not have our best interests at heart. I've followed the paranormal in all its guises for tens of years, and it's a sad truth that the people within it who claim to bring you the 'secret truth that science does not want to admit' are almost all liars or deceiving by omission. Not just a handful, but tens and tens of writers and theorists that litter the history of the field, all feeding out misinformation about everything from history to science. I did a thread on them not long ago and it quickly became unwieldy because of the sheer weight of numbers of them. Why do writers like Hancock, Bauval, Icke, Tsarion, Melchizedek, feel they have to lie so much to prove their points? The answer is easy:- money. MelT
As you probably know, Schoch is a fringe geologist who leaps on every chance to re-date sites to make them 'mysterious'. A real geologist on the side of fringe science who you would think would welcome Yonaguni with open arms. He wasn't impressed: "... Schoch has made a few dives on Yonaguni; Kimura has made over a hundred. Nevertheless, Schoch noted what is, I think, the single most damning point against the idea that Yonaguni is manmade: "...The structure is, as far as I could determine, composed entirely of solid 'living' bedrock. No part of the monument is constructed of separate blocks of rock that have been placed into position. This is an important point, for carved and arranged rock blocks would definitively indicate a man-made origin for the structure - yet I could find no such evidence." The paleogeology of the region is well known, and Schoch brought samples of the Yonaguni rock to the surface for analysis. He found that they were, as suspected, mudstone and sandstone of the formation called the Lower Miocene Yaeyama Group, which was deposited some 20 million years ago. "These rocks contain numerous well-defined, parallel bedding planes along which the layers easily separate. The rocks of this group are also criss-crossed by numerous sets of parallel and vertical ... joints and fractures. Yonaguni lies in an earthquake-prone region; such earthquakes tend to fracture the rocks in a regular manner... The more I compared the natural, but highly regular, weathering and erosional features observed on the modern coast of the island with the structural characteristics of the Yonaguni Monument, the more I became convinced that the Yonaguni Monument is primarily the result of natural geological and geomorphological processes at work. On the surface I also found depressions and cavities forming naturally that look exactly like the supposed 'post holes' that some researchers have noticed on the underwater Yonaguni Monument." In recent years, Dr. Kimura has acknowledged that the basic structure of the Monument is probably natural, but asserts that it has been "terraformed" by humans, thus creating the specific details such as Jacques' Eyes and the roads. He has also found and identified what he believes to be quarry marks and writing. To my eye, these don't look anything like quarry marks or writing. It's not a testable claim; the analysis simply comes down to personal opinion and interpretation. But it's certainly possible. Were there people living there 8-10,000 years ago? From everything we know so far, the answer is no. Yonaguni is one of the Ryukyu Islands, of which Okinawa is the largest, and the earliest archaelogical evidence is that of the Late Shellmound phase which began only as recently as 300 BCE. The Ryukyu Islands are in deep water, at least 500m deep on all sides, and at no time during the last glacial age were the islands accessible by land bridge. This means that if any people were there when Yonaguni was on dry land, they did not stay, and they would have to have arrived by boat. This is something else we can check. Nearby Taiwan has probably been populated since paleolithic times, tens of thousands of years ago, but the earliest population for which we have any evidence was the Dapendeng Culture which began 7,000 years ago. This is about the time that fishermen began to use canoes for coastal travel, about 5000 BCE. If the Dapendeng colonized Yonaguni, they would have had to have done so by boat. This cuts the timing very, very close. Yonaguni was probably already awash when the first Dapendeng canoes put to sea as glacial melt brought sea levels up. Of course, the studies which give us those dates could be wrong. But we do know that if the Dapendeng ever did colonize Yonaguni or the Ryukyus, they did not stay. Genetic studies have shown that the founding Ryukyu populations migrated southward from Japan, not from Taiwan. So taking everything into account, the likelihood that prehistoric human hands ever had the opportunity to touch the stones of the Yonaguni Monument appears vanishingly small. The only evidence that they did is personal assessment of some fairly ambiguous undersea formations, none of which are geologically surprising, and all of which have analogs at known natural sites around the world. If the Yonaguni Monument is truly a Japanese Atlantis, it is a highly improbable one indeed..." MelT
Ancient men are so very stupid, when modern man views them under the microscope of flight, space travel, and near-immortality. We, i.e. humans, built that stuff. Ancient Astronauts are as likely as me being god... What? What was that you said? I am God?! Awesome!
There were the Sumerians which had complex civilizations, writing and even knowledge of cosmology over 6,000 years ago.. the mainstream history of human beings that's shown is obviously waaaay off
No, that appraisal is. Your knowledge of Sumerian understanding of cosmology is due to science and archaeology. It's those disciplines which proved that the Sumerians had their knowledge. None of what they knew was beyond them or ahead of their time,but accrued over a long period of observation. Sumerian knowledge of cosmology didn't really develop until quite late in the Sumerian dynasties after much observation of the heavens, they didn't arrive with it without any previous knowledge or have it handed down to them. Even then it didn't blossom fully until it combined with Babylonion maths and cosmology at a much later date. MelT
Didn't they list all the planets we've only recently discovered including another as well? How did they know Uranus rotated on its side?
No, they didn't. And what they did know we can see was gained over hundreds of years of observation. The growth from them making simple observations of the heavens for the sake of understanding the seasons for farming purposes, to more complex understandings and math, is clearly found in their texts. They didn't begin with the knowledge, but can be shown to have accrued it. The idea that they listed the planets, including a twelfth, Nibiru, is the invention of the new age writer Sitchin. He has been proven to have altered drawings the Sumerians made and changed translations of their texts to 'prove' his theories, but he's been exposed as a charlatan a number of times. There are quite a few sites dealing with his claims and TBH he's a bit of a laughing stock. Try: Home Page Zecharia Sitchin and The Earth Chronicles - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com There are many more. "...Sitchin, like Velikovsky, presents himself as erudite and scholarly in a number of books, including The Twelfth Planet (1976) and The Cosmic Code (1998). Both Sitchin and Velikovsky write very knowledgeably of ancient myths and both are nearly scientifically illiterate. Like von Däniken and Velikovsky, Sitchin weaves a compelling and entertaining story out of facts, misrepresentations, fictions, speculations, misquotes, and mistranslations. Each begins with their beliefs about ancient visitors from other worlds and then proceeds to fit facts and fictions to their basic hypotheses. Each is a master at ignoring inconvenient facts, making mysteries where there were none before, and offering their alien hypotheses to solve the mysteries. Their works are very attractive to those who love a good mystery and are ignorant of the nature and limits of scientific knowledge. They are especially attractive to those who are ignorant of biblical and historical scholarship..." MelT