QUOTE(coredrill @ Oct 9 2007, 03:02 AM)

Harte, Why is it that you think the Yonaguni Structures to be a natural formation?
I dont think so. You can refer to the pics below, and anbody can associate the straight lines and smooth surfaces of the constructs to be of man made origin.
Coredrill,
The site was investigated by a gaggle of pseudoscientists already.
All of them came away saying it was natural.
If the pseudoscientists say it's natural, when they have everything to gain by claiming it's man-made, then it's time to give it up.
Even Graham Hancock has stated that it's a natural formation. He and John Anthony West got Robert Schoch involved (the geophysicist that claimed the Sphinx was older based on erosion.) Schoch found that it was a natural formation.
These people all say that it's a natural formation that
may have been utilized, even altered, by ancient humans. So what? I can find a rock in my backyard and make the same claim about it.
The surfaces you see in the photos appear very smooth only because the limestone underneath has been overgrown by the flora and fauna of the sea.
There's a report about this written by Schoch. You can find it on the web. A copy is at a site called The Morien Institute.
Besides all this, try to find some photos of Yonaguni. The island, which is much larger than this formation, was obviously above water when the formation was, right? If you look at the island itself, it's shaped very similarly to the "monument." I mean, there are right angles and smooth surfaces everywhere that the bedrock is exposed. This means that the island and the underwater formation have what geologists call the same "morphology." And that's due to them being made from the same rock formation - a limestone formation that has level horizontal layering and a large amount of almost perfectly vertical fissuring, or cracks.
This causes the rock to naturally break off into the shapes you claim are "obviously" man-made.
Lastly, if the island of Yonaguni was above water, and the "monument" was above water, then why isn't there any evidence at all of ancient occupation of the island of Yonaguni?
They've looked. Nothing there but some old tombs - far too recent to be from the era when the "monument" was dry.
QUOTE(coredrill @ Oct 9 2007, 03:02 AM)

Why, there wads this ancient sea port found off the cost in Tamil Nadu in India, near Mahabalipuram, as a result of the Tsunami. They are also under the water, so why dont u classifyt them also to be a natural formation?
As I recall, there was nothing ancient about this seaport at all.
I believe it was flooded in the 1700's or 1800's.
Was this the place with the legend of the seven temples? I mean, several of these temples were known to have existed and known to have been flooded.
The area is undergoing subduction due to tectonic activity.
QUOTE(coredrill @ Oct 9 2007, 03:02 AM)

Harte, this is where i or anyone would take offence. Do we need your permission 'for the time being ,anway' to continue believing in anything, be it the cuban underwater city or the man on the moon? Its actually an individual choice and perspective to believe in anything and that doesnt require any permission from anyone. Sorry, If i rub u the wrong way, couldn't help it, but respond!
Relax Coredrill. Just making fun of myself and of Crystal Sage.
Harte