10,000 year old underwater pyramids found off the coast of Japan

We keep being wrong about what we're capable of and when. Hook that to our constant glorification of how end-product-of-evolution we are now, and we're probably so off mark that our atrophied accuracy makes our ancestors blush. Maybe science will have to change its assumptions yet again!

Humanity's ancient past is slowly emerging. We need to open the book of history and put in some prologue and it should be written by scholars, not governments or religions.

Maybe this is the link between the pyramids in Egypt and South America. How many set backs in technology has mankind endured?

This is a little old... I read about this in an airline magazine nearly three years ago. They're quite incredible... very mysterious too.

This story has been completely de-bunked... several times.

The formations (not structures) are geologic and are the same shape and size as the shoreline cliffs just a few hunderd yards away! They are millions of years old. this bogus story is being promoted by an old Japanese "scientist" and and American diver that wants to make money taking people down there.

Oh, and there are no "pyramids" there.

its just godzillas home, rerax.

Atlantis exists!!! Although, aliens probably lived there, not quirky DIsney characters.

Excellent post and responses.

Any culture can find a genius or ten in its midst. An Einstein, Mozart, Newton, Bach, or Tesla. Given the right respect and support for that genius the most astonishing things can happen.

As a symptom of our own inertia, decadence and sclerotic decline we show more idolatrous respect for technology that harms or kills others than is useful to ensure our mutual survival.

Now again, another Lascaux Mystery stares us in the face and we say - "But no! That's not possible! They couldn't do that! They weren't ready! They were primitives!"

How very objective. Like we just looked out from our cave or tree-top 10,000 years ago and said "Nope, same as always, living in squalor! Everything's normal!"

What will surprise me is, if someday the consensus on a discovery like this one starts with - "Small wonder. Consider the marvels the human brain is capable of! Let's see how far they got!"

This HAS been debunked... the "face" can only be seen from a certain angle and doesn't look like a face otherwise. Classic Virgin Mary on french toast.

How does old news keep popping up?

Okay. Who are the jokers that placed it there?
Come on. Stop laughing and 'fess up.

Let us rejoice and let us sing, and dance, and ring in the new -- Hail Atlantis! ;-)

Pannida offered this gem,

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/070919-sunken-city.html

Which results in this -

"The page you requested cannot be found.
It may have moved or no longer be available."

While we're on the subject of debunking for fun or profit ...Let's see now. Debunked theories...

- Parts of continental landmasses “looked” like they fit together. What a childish hallucination!.

If there was such a thing as 'continental drift' then the movement of continental landmasses, floating on magma, wasn't impossible. Move a continent? They're too heavy! They'd sink!

Aboriginal artifacts which predate the proposed Siberian land bridge have been discovered and dated too far south for the land bridge to be a plausible corridor. Can't be! They could only have walked to get there after the land bridge opened up!

It was a mathematical certainty that humans could never fly. The moon couldn't possibly be the result of an impact between the earth and another large body.

It was a mathematical certainty that humans never could escape earth's gravity, carry with them adequate supplies in an environment enabling them to reach the moon, walk around and return.

A whacking great impact from one large celestial object hitting the earth around Guatemala was impossible – where's the evidence?

Evolution was impossible to prove..But fossils found in rocks proved that animals evolved from stone.

Quantum mechanics. Too complicated for Occam's Razor enthusiasts, and useless.

Binary mathematics? What for? Life could not possibly exist elsewhere. The building blocks of life could not possibly have been the result of a long rain of space debris.

All been debunked with great self-congratulations. And subsequently debunked in turn. Claiming something has been debunked is no guarantee that what motivated the effort wasn't to perpetuate a bias.

As The Onion News reported recently, archaeologists now understand that our most ancient ancestors lived under a lot of sand.

That Occam's Razor?

It cuts both ways. (hint) Keep an open mind.

This is old news, to some... Many archaeologists and historians speculate it could be what the other ancient cultures would consider their Atlantis, that is a culture that sunk with all it's secrets beneath the sea.

I do indeed keep an open mind. But there's a difference between testing theories and hypotheses with evidence in a scientific matter, and just accepting notions based upon ones willingness and faith in them. One cannot just cherry pick or make up facts to reinforce one's world view or wish something to be true in the face off contrary evidence.

Now Occam's Razor is a neat principle to judge things, but it is hardly a universally true method of reaching a correct or reasonable conclusion. Now in regards to your other "debunked" theories, they are hardly appropriate for this discussion since we are talking about these 10,000 year old underwater pyramids.

If the link doesn't work for you try researching for yourself, rather than throwing this into a bag of things people falsely debunk. [Google: Julian Ryall National Geographic News]

Keeping a open mind doesn't mean ignoring evidence.

pannida,

What a marvellous inventory of circular and strawman arguments.

- You say you keep an open mind. That proves it?
- You accept that "there's a difference between testing theories and hypotheses with evidence in a scientific matter." OK.
- You agree one should never just have faith in unverified ideas. Or make up facts. Good.
- Occam's Razor isn't universally true, it's a tool. Just because other theories proved to be true after first being "proved" to be false isn't an "appropriate" comment when talking about these 10,000 year old "pyramids." Breath-taking.

But show us all, when did I recommend or suggest -
- ignoring evidence.
- resort to anything but scientific analysis.
- cherry-picking facts
- a desire to see anyone inventing facts.
- that Occam's Razor is divinely inspired
- or at all times true - quite to the contrary.
- or that all debunked theories are actually true
- nor did the Japanese professor insist that we've found Atlantis
- or that an actual pyramid exists.

What on earth are you talking about with "Now in regards to your other "debunked" theories, they are hardly appropriate for this discussion since we are talking about these 10,000 year old underwater pyramids." Why is this not another debunked theory which also could be biased and wrong?

pannida you have just debunked - you.

With a closed mind you proceeded under full canvas. This personal conceit, was that your information was sufficient in itself to counter any possible argument without making your own case.

Hence you did not present anything like a comprehensive alternate explanation. You just gainsaid the "world-expert" on the site and that was that.

This is precisely the view of a self-satisfied and closed mind. It is only slightly elevated rhetorically above -

" this bogus story is being promoted by an old Japanese "scientist" and and American diver that wants to make money taking people down there."

'Oh those awful old foreigner scientists! So wicked and crafty! Can't believe a word they say!'

You failed to demonstrate what's wrong with this scientist's views. You merely appealed to authority and took it on faith that other scholars (with pristine motives) would not err. As "proof" you say - go look at what I saw!

The video's interviewer was none too swift because the Japanese professor made a very interesting comment about his European critics' views.

They disagreed that this site was a temple complex, no way! - but instead, it was a man-made harbor! Of course! a HARBOR! How obvious! An island!

Ah.. Hm.. Ponder that for a minute. Picture it.

Because what it suggests is that 10,000 years ago, long before Rome or Athens or Ur, there existed a population on Okinawa large enough to construct a massive harbor complex.

OK, Ready?

For what purpose?

We know of nothing that sailed the oceans 5,000 years ago which could have justified such a monumental extravagance. And 10,000 years ago? Did they build "the harbor" for dug-out canoes?

And on the question of this being an act of nature? At nearly 70 I've seen a good deal of the natural world. And if you or anyone else can show us all where on this planet there is a picture of anything natural - on this scale and this symmetrical - which truly resembles this site then load it up and you win.

Everyone on this site will call you The Omniscient One - pannida!

Sushibandit you've got a problem.

Your hero [and debunker] didn't "debunk" anything. His comments on the Yonaguni Monument can be found here ...

http://www.morien-institute.org/yonaguni_schoch1.html

He is quoted as stating the monument is “primarily, possibly totally, a natural structure” This is not a definitive statement.

The site's author notes discoveries elsewhere, Cuba, India, and the Gulf of Cambay which suggest that many natural structures were “terraformed” and “enhanced by human hands.” You may benefit from what Dr. Schoch has to say about this mad impetuous "theory."

On page 2 Dr Schoch continues -

“My current working hypothesis is that the Yonaguni Monument is primarily of natural origin: that is, its overall structure is the result of natural geological and geomorphological processes. I think it should be considered a primarily natural structure until more evidence is found to the contrary."

How about explaining why you left out the rest of the same paragraph...

"However by no means do I feel that this is absolutely a closed case. The question of its genesis – artificial versus natural – may not be an all or nothing question.

We should also consider the possibility that the Yonaguni Monument is fundamentally a natural structure that was utilized, enhanced, and modified by humans in ancient times.

The Yonaguni Monument may even have been a quarry from which blocks were cut, utilizing natural bedding, joint and fracture planes of the rock, and thence removed for the purpose of constructing other structures which are long gone since.”

He debunked nothing - but you.

Funny thing about academic non-categorical denials – they are reversible the instant better evidence overwhelms them – which is why such scientific disagreements are NOT categorical..

On page 3 he adds this -

“In conclusion, based on my preliminary reconnaissance of the Yonaguni Monument, I am not yet absolutely convinced that it is an artificial structure – but in my opinion, even if it is primarily natural, it may have been modified by human actions in ancient times. This enigmatic structure merits more detailed examination.”

Sushibandit - any further arguments and attempts to convince us that he is wrong - please direct them to Doctor Schoch...

Remember to quote yourself - "this bogus story is being promoted by an old Japanese "scientist" and and American diver that wants to make money taking people down there."

thx

the video was diabled stating "Embedding disbled by request" whats up with that?