[This is from a discussion on Usenet and is posted here by permission of the author].
[NOTE: The original links to the Team Atlantis site no longer work. I'm not sure Team Atlantis has done, but the Image Gallery is no longer accessible from their site. Archae has kindly found some new links where possible. Doug Weller, Sept 12 1999]
Re: Jap. underwater pyramids
Regards,
>>Boy, your are just chalked full of irrelevant speculation now aren't you.
>Well you haven't given me anything to alter my perception of the site.
>>I thought the meaning in my above statment was rather clear nd straight forward, but yet you
>But it seems thats exactly what you want me to do.
Yes, that is right. I want you to tell us what is so unnatural about the structures in the photographs at the http://teamatlantis.com site.
>As i said i am not a geologist nor do i pretend to be one, I openly admit my naivety on the subject
Well that hasn't stopped you from replying in a geologic context 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 is why i am asking you to explain the 'geological abnormalities', or at least help explaining the
So let me get this straight...
I originally ask one person to give examples of photos that
exhibit unnatural formations at the Yonaguni Jima site . You
then jump in and say all those at teamatlantis.com website are
examples of this. I then ask _you_ to tell us what is unnatural
about them. Now you are telling me it is my responsibility to
explain all 'geological abnormalities'.... is that right? Ya, talk
about "throwing it back". Look you are the one who introduced
the teamatlantis.com photos as examples of unnatural formations;
it is your responsibly to tell us what is unnatural about these
photos... so far you have failed to do that but instead fall back
on the "I am not a geologist" excuse (which is irrelevant since
you don't think they are natural).
>I think all you have said on the subject is that its called jointing. Not alot in that for me really.
Well the discussion on columnar jointing was in response to your claim
that the Giant's Causeway had "no similarities whatsoever" in common
with the Yonaguni Jima outcrops. Your argument was essentially based
on your explanation of the processes involved in the formation of the
Giant's Causeway morphology, which was overly simplistic and very
lacking reflecting your poor knowledge of geology. As for jointing,
this should be of great interest to you since the blocky angular
morphology of the Yonaguni Jima site is the main argument for
artificiality.
>>> anyway,
>>Where does it say that on their site? Do they tell us if they are interbedded sandstone
>Look, for the last time i am not a geologist,
I cannot find the information that you claim is at the
>all you are doing is confusing the original question by firing upon every comment
The original question was "what is so unnatural about these photos?". So
far you have failed to address this.
>>>There is an image at http://ancientamerican.com/japan2.htm
>>So by jumping to another website and a photograph location apparently 300 miles from
>I think from what i have seen so far that the forms that have been shown are not all natural.
Which ones? Since you are unwilling to actually discuss what is
unnatural about the rock outcrops. I will start you off.
http://www.teamatlantis.com photos from webpages:
2) http://www.eagle-net.org/phikent/japan/japan_2.jpg
3) http://www.eagle-net.org/phikent/japan/japan_5.jpg
4) http://www.eagle-net.org/phikent/japan/japan_6.jpg
5) http://www.eagle-net.org/phikent/japan/japan_7.jpg
6) http://www.eagle-net.org/phikent/japan/japan_8.jpg
7) http://www.eagle-net.org/phikent/japan/Japan_10.jpg
8) http://www.eagle-net.org/phikent/japan/Japan_11.jpg
9) http://www.eagle-net.org/phikent/japan/Japan_12.jpg
10) http://www.eagle-net.org/phikent/japan/Japan_13.jpg
11) http://www.eagle-net.org/phikent/japan/Japan_14.jpg
12 ) http://www.eagle-net.org/phikent/japan/Japan_15.jpg
13) http://www.eagle-net.org/phikent/japan/Japan_16.jpg
14) http://www.eagle-net.org/phikent/japan/Japan_17.jpg
15) http://www.eagle-net.org/phikent/japan/Japan_18.jpg
16) http://www.eagle-net.org/phikent/japan/Japan_19.jpg
17) http://www.teamatlantis.com/plan/images/pyramid.gif
18) http://www.teamatlantis.com/plan/images/cut.gif
19) http://www.teamatlantis.com/plan/images/flat.gif
20) http://www.teamatlantis.com/plan/images/mound.gif
21) http://www.teamatlantis.com/plan/images/angle.gif
22) http://www.teamatlantis.com/plan/images/well.gif
---
My god... Finally some photos with captions, unfortunately they
are not that detailed.
23) http://www.teamatlantis.com/plan/images/web1a.jpg
24) http://www.teamatlantis.com/plan/images/web2a.jpg
Completely untrue... erosion of jointed rocks often form rectilinear
features. This fellow should take a walk along the shore of Yonaguni
Jima.
25) http://www.teamatlantis.com/plan/images/web3a.jpg
26) http://www.teamatlantis.com/plan/images/web4a.jpg
27) http://www.teamatlantis.com/plan/images/web6a.jpg
Wow the first snippet of geological information I have seen so far.
Strong currents?
More likely an earthquake induced gravity side, which is obviously
common in the area or else there would not be those cliff on the
island's shoreline. Note the non-right angles and conchoidal
fractures. Suction during submarine slide is most likely
explanation for removal of small debris and the clean look of the
outcrop.
28) http://www.teamatlantis.com/plan/images/web7a.jpg
Considering how little weathering and coral growth it
must have been very recently.
29) http://www.teamatlantis.com/plan/images/web8a.jpg
30) http://www.teamatlantis.com/plan/images/web9a.jpg
31) http://www.teamatlantis.com/plan/images/web10a.jpg
More likely this is another example of a joint decoupment due
to earthquake induced mass erosion. Kind of gives one an idea
as to how unstable the cliff face actually is.
32) http://www.teamatlantis.com/plan/images/web11a.jpg
Looks like part of a talus slope (the debris from a gravity slide) or a
small translation decollement fault (i.e. an earthquake has caused
movement along a horizontal joint or bedding plane separating two joint
bounded blocks.
One also need to look more closely at the degree of weathering of
joint surfaces which is very different from the other outcrops
suggesting that this is a lot older surface
33) http://www.teamatlantis.com/plan/images/web12a.jpg
34) http://www.teamatlantis.com/plan/images/web14a.jpg
But fails to go down a take a look at the talus slop that most likely
in at the base of the cliff
Here is a little extra:
I love this glaciation animation. I wonder why they give no
source.... however it is not surprising considering how incorrect
the glacial distribution and paleoshorelines is on the global map. I
especially love the huge landmass in the middle of the Pacific ocean.
Another example of the very poor science that is being presented at
this website.
>There seems to be a wide diversity in a very small area.
How wide is this diversity? How small is the area?
The diversity consists of mainly jointing, blocky joint bounded
erosional morphology; dikes, a lava flow, a possible collapsed lava
tube, and a couple of tree casts or potholes. That is not that diverse...
We also have no information given about the size of the area
in which all of the photos were taken. I guess your assertion that
asking about details like location is not important, does not hinder
your ability to estimate the study area. Please, can you give us an
estimate as to how large a study area all of these photographs were
take in. Remember, you are the one who is making the claim that
it is a small area so it is your responsibility to back up that claim,
not mine to prove it for you.
>Maybe this is common in geology, but it doesn't seem so with all the
>>How convenient that there is no scale and exact location (BTW, 31 miles south
>It's only a photograph,
That's right... What is it a photograph of? A rock formation... junk
on the seafloor... part of a shipwreck... a model in someone's bathtub.
Without the scale you cannot even start to make conclusion as to
what it is?
> I just thought it might have been of interest.
Well at the moment we are discussing the Yonaguni Jima outcrop
so maybe we can stay there for the time being.
>but no, you have to insist on detail, I'm sure there is a geologist out there
>who would like to comment.
Without the "details" (which are actually quite simple to give in a
website photo caption) the photograph is useless. You should know
better than to give it as an example of evidence for a possible artificial
structure.
>If it is such an "open and shut case" why all the
What people... What fields?
>>>Here is a excert from another *recent* posting:
>>Where does it say that on their site? Please present the
>If you look at the thread you might find the information YOU are seeking. I
Again, I cannot find this information at the http://teamatlantis.com
site so I am quite justified in "throwing it all back" to you. It is your
responsibility to verify any information that you present; it is not mine,
which is what you are suggesting by telling me to find it in the thread
(talk about a classic case of "throwing it all back"). If you cannot
verify the information in your quotes than it is you who has added
nothing to this discussion.
>>The question originally was" Maybe you can tell us what you
>Whats unnatural is the amount of abnormalities in such a small area.
What anomalies? You have not yet specified what these anomalies
are.
>If this is common place then maybe you can give some links to sites which show the
Try:
Note the "rectilinear" rock outcrops in the cliff faces
>They don't even have to be the same, but if you are looking to prove your point,
What point is that... all I have said is that I see nothing at the site that
does not have a natural explanation. You on the other hand have
continually asserted that the outcrop is artificial and your only defense
is that there is an apparent diversity in so called "anomalies" that you
seem very reluctant to specify.
Archae Solenhofen (solenhofen@usa.net)
Author: Archae Solenhofen
Date: 1998/10/29
Forum: sci.archaeology
Archae Solenhofen (solenhofen@usa.net)
On Tue, 27 Oct 1998 09:43:14 +0000, "host"
>In article <36351a61.12284360@news.baynet.net>, solenhofen@usa.net (Archae Solenhofen) wrote:
>>seem to be rather confused about it. Do you care to address the statement or just conjecture
>>about my interests or how objectively I can look at a photograph.
>therefore i do not want to get into a 'heated' discussion on subject matter that i am not familiar with.
>natural causes of such a site.
>>>http://teamatlantis.com states the composition of the rock formations as
>>>two kinds of sandstone and basalt.
>>and basaltic flows or a sandstone unit intruded by a diabase sill?
http://teamatlantis..com
site regarding the "composition" of the rocks. So can you give me a source
for this claim of "two kinds of sandstone and basalt"? The point was that
the http://teamatlantis.com site supplies little to no geologic information
about the outcrops. This is rather surprising for a scientific exploration of
an underwater site since it is actually quite easy to do (all it involves is
taking
down a hammer and chipping and bagging a few samples). In fact out of
all the photos at the teamatlantis.com website only one has a rock lithology
in its caption (and in most no scale or location is given although many have
a diver in the photo and this helps). This is an example of the extremely poor
science exhibited at the teamatlantis.com website.
>i add to the discussion..
>>Yonaguni Jima ar you agreeing that the rock outcrops at the http://www.teamatlantis.com are
>>natural in origin?
http://www.teamatlantis.com/plan/gallery.html
1) http://www.eagle-net.org/phikent/japan/japan_5.jpg
Cliff face showing blocky erosion morphology with joint
bounded blocks, straight structure is a dike (probably diabase).
Blocky upper surface produced by decouplment of horizontal
joint or bedding plane (decollement fault) and eroded during
gravity slide.
Joint bounded erosion block.
Same as #1
Top of cliff showing blocky erosion morphology with joint bounded
blocks. Blocky upper surface produced by decouplment of horizontal
joint or bedding plane and eroded during gravity slide (notice the gravity
slide would be towards the cliff face i.e. in the dip direction of the
joint or bedding surface.).
Top of cliff showing blocky erosion morphology with joint
bounded blocks.
Joint bounded cliff face. Note what appears to be a talus
slope at bottom of the outcrop
Top of cliff showing blocky erosion morphology with joint
bounded blocks. Blocky upper surface produced by decouplement
of horizontal joint or bedding plane and eroded during gravity slide
(notice the difference in weathering between the cliff face and the
upper joint surfaces, decouplment and gravity slide is probably a
result of weathering of ancient cliff face and tectonic activity (i.e.
earthquake)).
Top of cliff showing blocky erosion morphology with joint
bounded blocks. Blocky upper surface produced by decouplement of
horizontal joint or bedding plane and eroded during gravity slide.
Rhomdehedral jointed blocks. Note the apparent decoupment of the
block beside the diver. Note the brittle fracturing of the surrounding
blocks. These erosional features are typical of a gravity slide.
Clearly congregate joint sets. Typical of what one would expect if
the rock was stressed by compression either by tectonic activity or
volcanic intrusion.
Same as #9. Note the conchoidal brittle fractures observed in the
top right corner.
Note how vertical and deep the base of the cliff is (very similar
to that of the cliffs on the shoreline of the island) as well the stepped
cliff surface and the brittle fracturing of some of the upper surfaces.
All consistent with a gravity slide of a jointed rock outcrop.
Top of cliff showing blocky erosion morphology with joint
bounded blocks. Blocky upper surface produced by decouplment of
horizontal joint or bedding plane and eroded during gravity slide.
Note the conchoidal brittle fractures.
Weathered upper rock surface. Grove is most likely a weathered
dike partially removed through decoupment and gravity slide
mass erosion at a much older date than the other examples.
Note the weathered diagonal joint on the right side of the photo.
Weathered upper rock surface which looks volcanic, although it
could be sedimentary (no information about the photo is given
for some reason) Could be tree casts if rock is volcanic in origin.
That is structures that form when lava flows, pyroclastic flows or
ash surrounds or buries upright trees, later the trees rots or burns
away. If the rock is sedimentary it could also be tree casts, if the
sediments were deposited rapidly, or it could be potholes (i.e. holes
drilled by rock fragments rotated by current induced localized vortices
over long periods of time.
Don't know what they are trying to show here. Upper surface looks
like a volcanic flow of some kind..
Pyramid? Very hard to tell from this photo. Looks like a joint
bounded block as part of a gravity slide talus slope.
Looks volcanic and highly weathered... possibly a collapsed lava
tube. Note the degree of weathering from the joint bounded blocky
erosion features in the above photos. I hope they are not suggesting
that these were both carved at the same time.
Flat? No Idea what this photo is support to represent. Looks like a
volcanic flow with a surface of brittle fractures a result of mechanical
erosion of the face.
Burial mound?
Extremely poor quality photo. Looks like the leading front of
a solidified lava flow (i.e. pillows).
Congregate join set bounded erosional morphology.
Looks like a lava flow with a lava tube opening. Highly
weathered.
Joint bounded erosion surface
Photo caption states "Such rectilinear features rarely, if ever, occur
naturally".
Strong current is claimed in the caption, but it is not strong
enough to significantly deflect their respirator bubbles.
"perfectly right angles"? Not exactly perfect, but that is not
uncommon for joint geometry. They never seem to mention the
angles that are not 90 degrees in any of these captions.
Photo caption "Could strong currents have simply sheared off
layers of Yonaguni's sandstone..."
The photo caption says "Did ancient humans once walk
upon these giant platforms..."
Same as #7.
Same as #9-11.
Photo caption reads: "Two vertical monoliths (see up-date 6/1/98).
Are these two verticals stones what remains of an ancient calendrical
device..."
Photo caption states "This stone archway... is symmetrically composed
of five blocks...".
Same as #31.
Photo caption states "A curious diver peers off an underwater cliff...".
http://www.teamatlantis.com/plan/gallery.html
>'speculation'.I tend to lean on the theory that it is possibly terraformed..
>>of Okinawa is not exact) given in the text. Can you give me this information, please?
>>That is, what is the length of the object and what is its latitude and longitude.
>speculation and interest? and by respected people in their fields.
>>>
>
>>original source upon which this statement of "most"
>>archeologists in Japan concur with Dr. Kimura's
>>dates". And I am expecting to see in this source a list
>>of those who concur with Kimura?
>wish you would stop throwing it all back as if you have nothing to add yourself.
>>think is so unnatural about these (Yonaguni) rock outcrops?".
>>I will ask it again since you have seemed to missed it for same reason.
>same diversity and abundancy in one location.
Yes, how about http://www.teamatlantis.com itself, mainly in the
photograph of the "team members" where they get a distant shot
of the shoreline. Take away the vegetation and you can clearly see
the same type of jointed morphology as the so called underwater
monument.
http://www.teamatlantis.com/plan/images/web18a.jpg
http://www.teamatlantis.com/plan/images/yon13.jpg
http://www.teamatlantis.com/plan/images/yon09.jpg
