a few newer pictures of the monument, not sure how trustworthy the site is,
http://members.toast.net/rjspina/Japan%27s...ter%20Ruins.htm

I was watching something about this. They said when that was "made" the sea level was lower. Then what it is now. And they also said it's natural. It's not man made.

Psh. Please. It was so man made.

Yeah, I just look at this

.. and I'm trying to think of the last time I saw such straight lines in nature...
Interesting stuff

See, right there is another civilization that we know not that much about. I have said before that the ocean could possibly be holding clues to the human race's past and that there could be civilizations a lot older than we ever thought. How much of the ocean bottom have we really explored? And how much is buried under layers upon layers of silt?

Exectly.

We've only explored some of it. Not much. :3 I think it's kinda awsome.

Yonaguni is at a depth of 80 feet or if you prefer approx <25 meters
this chart shows sea level rise going back 24000 years



as you can see this means that Yonaguni could have been above water
as little as 8000 years ago, thats 6000bce
which is exactly the same time that the Jomon were building identical
structures all over that area anyway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jomon_period#Neolithic_traits
ask yourself, why didn't anyone mention these irrefutable details in
any of the claims at the Morien Institute
then ask yourself why does the Florida tourist board publish the fact that last year off the coast of Florida there were 3 fatal shark attacks yet doesnt mention that there were 1500 unexplained dissapearances
Money

Great news! I will check this home with more attention. Thank you for the great post!

If you like this (and your not already familiar with him), have a look at Graham Hancock's work, he has spent time at Yonaguni and other submerged sites round the globe.

Just bear in mind, Hancock is a researcher not an archaeologist.

looks natural to me, i havent seen anything yet from that site so far that looks definately man-made. As they investigate more and present a plan of the site...rendered into a 3d model...it will be easier to decide.

Admittedly on a smaller scale, but ...... such formations do occur in nature dependent on the strata and erosive processes present



Though no reason why stone age peoples - who we know lived in the region at the time - couldn't have partially shaped the rock outcrop at Yonaguni, before it was submerged.

Duality, thank you! I will do some reading. I read about this Yonaguni some time ago when it first appeared. I think this can possibly be man made, lets see what further research can show us.

Good find Essan, I now take back my comment
Still, although the photo's on the site aren't the greatest of quality it does look man made to me (in my uneducated way ).. either way, it is interesting eh

Ok then explain all the straight lines and the head, statue looking part.
bit weird that nature made all that in the same area.

Natural Indeed

Essan

Many thanks for the pic, i have seen the suggestion that the Yonaguni formations are natural, however, having seen the video of the whole site, it does appear to be man made (i'll keep an open mind for now however).

IF anyone does have any pictures of rock formations on the same kind of scale as Yonaguni, i would be most interested.

I think running a sonar survey over the whole area will give sufficient 3d imaging to look at it seriously... always hopeful

This Is What Its Supposed To Look Like

Duality,

If you look at the island of Yonaguni Jima, you can see that the entire island is of a similar morphology to the so-called "monument" underwater. With perfectly flat stone surfaces fractured in almost perfect 90 degree vertical "steps." About the only places you can't see this on the island are places covered with soil and vegetation.

This is the first thing that Robert Schoch (pseudoarchaeologist and geophysicist that postulated a much older date for the Sphinx) noticed when he went to Yonaguni to investigate. He came away believing the "monument" was a natural formation. Nobody ever called that guy mainstream or orthodox.

Someone in an earlier post mentioned that the Jomon built things exactly like this underwater thing. That's not true in the least. But the Jomon were in the area in 10,000 BC. Probably not on Yonaguni though, or we'd have some artifacts. The Jomon were the earliest potters we've ever found (14,000 - 16,000 BC) but no shards from the Jomon have ever been found on Yonaguni.

The principle proponent of the idea that the formation is man made is Graham Hancock. He makes the same complaint as an earlier poster that said there's not enough underwater archaeology going on or some such. Hancock makes this claim practically every time Yonaguni comes up in an interview or in one of his pseudoscientific books of flat out bull.

Funny how he never mentions the Jomon, a real culture that really lived in the same area as this formation. Also funny is how there are several Jomon villages/camps being excavated now (and as Hancock was first whining abpout Yonaguni) that are completely submerged by the ocean due to the fact that they were originally occupied before the ocean level rose after the last Ice Age.

Funny he doesn't tell us all about this culture. Maybe it's because it might throw some doubt on his constant lament about nobody doing any underwater archaeology.

Harte

Harte

Thanks for this, i did have a peek at Robert Schoch's website earlier, and noted his conclusions, i would add that he was careful to state that it was his considered opinion, and there was room for debate on the subject.

I will see what i can find on the Geology of the Island (picture wise) and post anything i find, as it might make it clearer for everyone.

I do disagree with you about Graham Hancock, i don't digest his theories carte blanch, but he does try to open up the debate on prehistoric civilisations, something i feel Archaeologists generally shy away from.

I do feel that where he goes wrong is seeking too much sensationalism in his books (which i'm sure gives him good book sales) but it does mean the little gems of discovery get a tad lost.

What he does very well is to bring Archaeology into mainstream interest, something that most Archaeologists appear to shun (not including Tony Robinson and his Time Team buddies).

Well

After a bit of a search, this is what i have come up with:-

Another site by Schoch

http://www.affs.org/html/ryukyuan_landforms.html

A rather miffed comment on Hancock

http://www.theos-talk.com/archives/200210/tt00024.html

Rissho Uni Satellite assessment of Yonagni

http://www.a-a-r-s.org/acrs/proceeding/ACR...ers/P-2_P32.pdf

Still no picks of similar formations, though i did note that the island does contain similar formations above sea level, which does not really prove anything either way.

There's nothing natural about that. Just look at how straight the lines are on that monument, Not to mention the drain system and the archway. Definetly man made.

actually what he does is pretends that Archaeologists know all these secrets that he reveals but are hiding them from the general public
without the seedy sneaky archaeologists running round covering up the truth none of his claims hold water

Kinda puts it in perspective. That actually looks really natural.

Maybe it was natural, and they built into it?, sort of like how they built Petra in Jordan

Oh, i'm new, sorry, hi *waves*

*waves back*

Praps. It just looks too random and un-functional to have been manmade.

Very true, though i see some parts of the structure that could look like it was man-made, like possible stepsand paths, i think its natural.

Hi there! Welcome!

I think this could be carved direct in the stone but looking at this image our friends posted, it looks very natural formation.

Its an abandoned city of Deep Ones! IA! IA! DAGON! IA! IA! HYDRA!

I actually saw this also on the Discovery channel maybe two years ago? I think the show was In Search of History or something like that. There's also some carvings on the stones that look vaguely similar to the "hieroglyphs" in Australia. I believe there was one that was an Anubis, not sure though.

I am still torn on whether or not it's man made. While I'd love it to be man made, I have a few questions that I've yet to see answered.

1) If this is man made, are there tool marks?
2) If this is man made, what functional purpose does it appear to have?
3) Where are the internal structures? It seems that almost all of the man-made things we see have "rooms" or "roofs" or things like that. Especially monuments.
4) Is there silt or soil evidence of human inhabitation?
5) Aside from the rather odd formation of this place, is there any....absolutely any precedent for this area to be used by humans? IE, pottery on the floor of the sea, bones....something??
6) In reference to the face statue, is there alternate views available or is this the Face on Mars all over again?

Just my six cents, take it as you will....I'm still a newbie!

Excellent point. Given how ancient the people would had to have been to do it, it would seem most likely that they would have just refined what nature had provided in the first place as early stone constructs.

Robert Schoch, a geologist (those who study rocks), debunked this a long time ago. Every formation there is natural and can be made naturally by rocks. Rocks and minerals and sediments can do amazing things. It's easy for mother nature to trick us.

Don't even get me started on Hancock. When you are a researcher, and your goal is something totally unproven and unprescedented, anything can be considered proof for your ultimate goal. He believes that humans were much more intelligent that we think (I agree) and were building monuments much earlier than we believe (I have a hard time with this one.)

For example, I watched a recent documentary on Egypt that forced me to rethink my own beliefs about the Great Pyramids. For a long time I have believed that the later dynasties of Egypt really reworked history to make it look like they created the pyramids, when actually they were already there in the first place. BUT, after seeing the Sothic cycle hypothesis, I'm starting to think that the sphynx, the pyramids, everything, was built by the people we think. It's complicated and I can't explain all of it right now, deserves it's own thread, but anyway, the Egyptians essentially placed their monuments in such a way where you could convince yourself that they are many thousands of years older than they actually are. So anyway, its stuff like this that gets Hancock thinking he discovered something thats tens of thousands of years old, and man made at that!

Whatever, its not true.

Baloney! simple and effient answer.