Thiaoouba Prophecy?
- Thread starter exsto_human
- Start date
Churchward concocted Mu. So for Desmarquet to mention it means that he was willing to use the fictions of Churchward to create his own. Fiction, either way you look at it. Fiction.
Your conclusions are purely based on your imaginations and limited to unverified subjective speculations. You can't do better than that? why you keep going around the subject when you claim that you can rip the whole book in one blink of an eye?
When your grandmother makes coffe and I start drinking coffe, does it mean that I'm drinking the coffe that your grandmother made?
There are numerous major things in Churchward's books that appear more or less the same in Desmarquet's book. I agree. But that doesn't mean anything, and you know that. You formulate lies for yourself and you lie to yourself. Did you know that the logical chance of Desmarquet having been in enough acquaintance with Churchward or his works in order to be able to make a single attempt to fabricate the book is simply Zero? Do you know why?
See the closest hit toward Desmarquet's description of MU
P.S. You clearly don't even know what Chruchward has written in his books. How can you be such an illiterate skeptic?
When your grandmother makes coffe and I start drinking coffe, does it mean that I'm drinking the coffe that your grandmother made?
There are numerous major things in Churchward's books that appear more or less the same in Desmarquet's book. I agree. But that doesn't mean anything, and you know that. You formulate lies for yourself and you lie to yourself. Did you know that the logical chance of Desmarquet having been in enough acquaintance with Churchward or his works in order to be able to make a single attempt to fabricate the book is simply Zero? Do you know why?
See the closest hit toward Desmarquet's description of MU
P.S. You clearly don't even know what Chruchward has written in his books. How can you be such an illiterate skeptic?
Please. Elucidate for us. What evidence exists for Churchward's Mu? Indeed, what evidence exists for Desmarquet's fantasy.
The bottom line is that Desmarquet's work is fiction. It has no basis in fact. He created a fiction based loosely on some existing lore created by figures like Churchward -a fantasy that took place in his head. Then he says, "its all true, because it cannot be proven otherwise."
Pure poppycock. Show us what in Desmarquet's extended fantasy demonstrates the veracity of his wild claim of truth. The Mu example I gave is one that demonstrates his fiction.
You can go on supporting that nonsense all you want. Hell, you can even go on believing it to be true. The only truth you demonstrate is your gullibility. But if it works for you, knock yourself out.
The bottom line is that Desmarquet's work is fiction. It has no basis in fact. He created a fiction based loosely on some existing lore created by figures like Churchward -a fantasy that took place in his head. Then he says, "its all true, because it cannot be proven otherwise."
Pure poppycock. Show us what in Desmarquet's extended fantasy demonstrates the veracity of his wild claim of truth. The Mu example I gave is one that demonstrates his fiction.
You can go on supporting that nonsense all you want. Hell, you can even go on believing it to be true. The only truth you demonstrate is your gullibility. But if it works for you, knock yourself out.
Last edited:
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Robanan, I should like to focus for a moment on the existence, or non-existence, of Mu. Given the unparalleled success of the paradigm of plate tectonics to explain two centuries of geological observation; given the clear distinction within this paradigm between continental and oceanic crust; how do you account for the disappearance of this alleged contintent?
Do you reject the geological consensus, or do you have some explanation that permits Mu, yet is consistent with current theory?
Do you reject the geological consensus, or do you have some explanation that permits Mu, yet is consistent with current theory?
I'm sorry I didn't join to this forum to proove any kind of truth to anyone. You could have noticed that through the coherence of my posts.
You personally were always too busy framing my posts to make them softer for your pets to swallow, just to spit them back to me again, twisting every single word.
And now you pray for elucidation? As a man you have no integrity.
I quote the part which is relevant to our discussion from: http://www.sacred-texts.com/atl/ssm/index.htm
And you still dare to say Desmarquet "... created a fiction based loosely on some existing lore created by figures like Churchward"? You are just insane. Churchward has already created all that it was possible to create from his works. His works are of no use. If they were, Desmarquet would have already been proven true, and I would have never come to look for alternative ideas on your forum. If you really belive something as coherent as Desmarquet's narration of Mu could come out of Churchward's works then You can go on supporting that nonsense all you want. Hell, you can even go on believing it to be true. The only truth you demonstrate is your gullibility. But if it works for you, knock yourself out.
You personally were always too busy framing my posts to make them softer for your pets to swallow, just to spit them back to me again, twisting every single word.
And now you pray for elucidation? As a man you have no integrity.
I quote the part which is relevant to our discussion from: http://www.sacred-texts.com/atl/ssm/index.htm
And you still dare to say Desmarquet "... created a fiction based loosely on some existing lore created by figures like Churchward"? You are just insane. Churchward has already created all that it was possible to create from his works. His works are of no use. If they were, Desmarquet would have already been proven true, and I would have never come to look for alternative ideas on your forum. If you really belive something as coherent as Desmarquet's narration of Mu could come out of Churchward's works then You can go on supporting that nonsense all you want. Hell, you can even go on believing it to be true. The only truth you demonstrate is your gullibility. But if it works for you, knock yourself out.
Ophiolite said:
So far I think if MU really existed then the most excellent hints that could be followed and researched about it's birth and fall are to be found in Desmarquet's book "Thiaoouba Prophecy". You could help me if you explained how the narration of MU according to Desmarquet is against the geological consensus and scientifically impossible.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
It is my understanding that Mu occupied a substantial part of what is today the Northern Pacific Ocean. There is absolutely no evidence for any continent in that location during. There is abundant evidence that there was no continental mass in that location. The Pacific Ocean is underlain by oceanic crust. Oceanic crust is never exposed in more than very limited amounts above sea level. Oceanic crust and continental crust are not interchangeable. Mu could not have existed.
have you seen the closest hit toward Desmarquet's description of MU?
I guess demanding a millimeter square of continential mass from under the pacific ocen doesn't make sense in the light of the article mentioned above.
Aren't traces of design and Intelligence better to follow?
Even so, You seem to be tempered and scientifically informed. Please Ophiolite let me ask you: Given the magnitude of the catastrophe which swept away MU from the face of the earth as described in the book. What could happen to the continental crust of that supposedly existing continent after about 16000 years? would we still percieve it as continental crust? Could it move away? Our observations, reserches and records of such processes are only hundreads of years old.
I guess demanding a millimeter square of continential mass from under the pacific ocen doesn't make sense in the light of the article mentioned above.
Aren't traces of design and Intelligence better to follow?
Even so, You seem to be tempered and scientifically informed. Please Ophiolite let me ask you: Given the magnitude of the catastrophe which swept away MU from the face of the earth as described in the book. What could happen to the continental crust of that supposedly existing continent after about 16000 years? would we still percieve it as continental crust? Could it move away? Our observations, reserches and records of such processes are only hundreads of years old.
Last edited:
The evidence of the catastrophe itself would be present. There is none. The Yonaguni formation is an example of jointing and bedding. A natural formation. Even from the photographs available of that site -both below and above sea level- its clear to anyone with an understanding of geology.
Undoubtedly, your next post would be to include the alleged authority of the single geologist quoted in the website you linked, but I challenge you to find a citation directly to a peer-reviewed article by that geologist on the subject. Internet journalists can easily create their authorities or put the words they want to hear in the contexts the wish in the mouths of whomever.
Mu was invented by Churchward. Desmarquet uses Mu in his novel. The reliance on a hoaxed/faked continent in his storyline invalidates the claim that the storyline is factual. We are left with a very badly written work of fiction.
Undoubtedly, your next post would be to include the alleged authority of the single geologist quoted in the website you linked, but I challenge you to find a citation directly to a peer-reviewed article by that geologist on the subject. Internet journalists can easily create their authorities or put the words they want to hear in the contexts the wish in the mouths of whomever.
Mu was invented by Churchward. Desmarquet uses Mu in his novel. The reliance on a hoaxed/faked continent in his storyline invalidates the claim that the storyline is factual. We are left with a very badly written work of fiction.
Because this thread is so readily googled and because of the length of the post, I'm going to reprint a previous post from either this thread or another on the subject:
-----------------------------------------------
In just the first six pages, Desmarquet makes several fallacious comments and un-testable, but pseudoscientific, appeals to the reader's intellect. He might as well state that there exists in his garage a dragon and that it cannot be disproved because he can give a reason for every test conceived: invisible, weightless, non-corporeal, etc. To those that have read it, I'm borrowing Dr. Sagan's analogy in Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.
Desmarquet relies heavily on pseudoscience to make his point right from the beginning. There's a dialog between he and Thao where she points out that Desmarquet arrived at a "parallel universe" through a "warp" such as that which exists at the Bermuda Triangle.
It should be noted that the so-called Bermuda Triangle has never been demonstrated to be anything more than a region of increased ship/airplane traffic due to its geography: warm climate, high population among the Caribbean islands, historically important agricultural center, tourism, etc. Statistically, there is no more significance of catastrophic loss of ships, planes, and people than any other region of the world when the level of traffic is considered. This, however, is lost to significance junkies who only see a large number of "unexplained" losses and cling to the stories told by those who love a good mystery.
The Bermuda Triangle anecdote is Desmarquet's first fallacious statement.
But his convenient use of "parallel universes" and "warps" to them is a pseudoscientific attempt at appealing to the un-testable. This is the dragon in his garage.
The Parallel Universe anecdote is Desmarquet's first pseudoscientific appeal to the un-testable.
Before even arriving at page 6, Desmarquet says that Thao informs him that he is in a world where "time has stopped" and the people there (some for as long as 15,000 years) don't age and their bodies don't rot. Moreover, the people that Thao has to kill who are approaching he and Desmarquet, and are have been there 15,000 years, apparently don't have language facilities but utter "guttural sounds." Perhaps Desmarquet is under the impression that 15,000 years ago, people on Earth were cave men and without language or culture and were "stuck" this way upon entering the "warp" to the "parallel universe."
This is a fallacious assumption since we have an archaeological record that demonstrates that not only were H. sapiens capable of language, they apparently lived in villages and some creative abilities. In addition, these people had art. Moreover, one would not be presumptuous to assume that they would have developed this culture and technology in the 15,000 years that they were away from their home universe.
The a priori assumption that people didn't have enough culture to speak 15,000 years ago is Desmarquet's second fallacious statement.
The notion that time can simply "stop" is Desmarquet's second pseudoscientific appeal to the un-testable.
And that is only before page 6! The rest of the book continues on the same grain. They travel "several times faster than the speed of light," etc.
But not a shred of evidence to any of it. That leaves only a few possibilities:
1) Desmarquet is telling the truth and the events did occur as he retold them.
2) Desmarquet is telling the truth as he believes it, and the events did not occur at all.
3) Desmarquet is telling the truth as he believes it, and some of the events occurred.
4) Desmarquet is lying.
I think we can rule out number 1 based solely on the Bermuda Triangle statement. The Bermuda Triangle is not a mystery and there is nothing more mysterious about it than most other places ships go. But I can see where there would be an argument against my position on that, since it's human nature to be a 'significance junkie' and be impressed with numbers. Otherwise, politicians wouldn't attempt to appeal to voters with them, ad agencies wouldn't live and breath them, and baseball would be boring.
I also think we can dismiss number 4, though not quite as readily as number 1. To tell a story this detailed and say it's true, you have to believe some part of it. If not, you must really think the rest of the world is more gullible than even P.T. Barnum did.
That leaves 2 and 3. If it's 3, then perhaps Desmarquet had an experience that seemed mystical to him, but occurred right her on solid Earth. There are numerous recorded instances in both contemporary times as well as in ancient history in which people were duped into believing that they "passed into another world." These types of events usually occur after the participant partakes in rituals of repetition, physical stress, and/or ingestion of chemical agent. For some, these events have been so real, so vivid, and so "enlightening," they believed them to be religious experiences. And they probably were religious. If not with some actual deity, then by some stimulation of the alleged "god module" of the brain.
But number 2 is my bet. I think Desmarquet started his fantasy as a fiction but then "went native." He came to believe that he was a part of something "bigger than himself." Something grandiose. This is where he satisfies that need for fulfillment and achievement of status that is present in us all, particularly in those that claim not to covet it. In short, he's delusional.
Consider this passage (p. 148):
Pure bunk. "Neutralising the cold magnetic force by raising certain high frequency vibrations" is nothing but pseudoscientific gibberish. It sounds scientific, but only to the undereducated. Vibrations are present in matter, but their frequency doesn't affect their "weight." Raising vibrations to higher frequencies doesn't negate the attraction that the mass of the given bit of matter has on the mass of other matter. Indeed, the methods by which monumental architecture was built in Mesoamerica or Northern Africa (several thousand years and even more thousand miles apart, I might add) are relatively well known and understood. There was no "levitation" as Desmarquet suggests. It wasn't needed.
But the most significant bit of information that Desmarquet cites in that passage is the mythical city of Atlantis and the fictional city of Mu. The former is mostly a modern myth, not even an ancient one. Plato invented it for his dialogs Critias and Timaeus when he criticized the state of Athens for its incursions against the Persians. It was not until Ignatius Donnelly wrote Atlantis: the Antediluvian World in 1882 that Atlantis actually gained any popularity.
Mu, however, is an entirely fictional city that was created in the mind of “Colonel” James Churchward. He stated that Mu was a highly advanced civilization that existed on a continent in the Pacific Ocean, which sank after the "explosion" of "gas pockets," leaving only Hawaii, Samoa, Tahiti, and Easter Island. When Mu sank, massive worldwide earthquakes caused all civilization to collapse into savagery. Not surprisingly, the good "colonel" provides not a shred of evidence, only his "word" that he translated correctly the stone tablets that told the tale; the same tablets that have never been seen by anyone except the good "colonel."
His word from 1924 doesn't stand up to even the most rudimentary of scientific examinations today. The islands he mentioned are created by well-understood volcanic process that involves "hot spots" under the crust and plate tectonics. If a continent ever existed in the region, it would be extremely obvious and quite visible to magnetometer examinations of the sort that have occurred extensively in the region he suggested.
So Desmarquet is piggybacking the fictions of at least two sources independent of him: Plato and Churchwood. That alone, validates numbers 2 and 3 above.
And we haven't even discussed the nonsense about the world exploding due to man's poor stewardship of the planet. Such grandiose delusions have been associated with UFO nutters for over 50 years. Indeed, Heaven's Gate and the Raelians adapted this theme within their own "manifestos."
In addition, there is clear evidence of how the builders of the Egyptian pyramids constructed these monuments. Indeed the evolutionary progression from single-story, simple mastabas to grandiose monuments to the elite is very clear. The tool marks are on the stones. Experimental archaeology and documents left by the Egyptians speak of the methods. There was no cool vibrations at work. This is another example of Desmarquet's fiction.
-----------------------------------------------
In just the first six pages, Desmarquet makes several fallacious comments and un-testable, but pseudoscientific, appeals to the reader's intellect. He might as well state that there exists in his garage a dragon and that it cannot be disproved because he can give a reason for every test conceived: invisible, weightless, non-corporeal, etc. To those that have read it, I'm borrowing Dr. Sagan's analogy in Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.
Desmarquet relies heavily on pseudoscience to make his point right from the beginning. There's a dialog between he and Thao where she points out that Desmarquet arrived at a "parallel universe" through a "warp" such as that which exists at the Bermuda Triangle.
It should be noted that the so-called Bermuda Triangle has never been demonstrated to be anything more than a region of increased ship/airplane traffic due to its geography: warm climate, high population among the Caribbean islands, historically important agricultural center, tourism, etc. Statistically, there is no more significance of catastrophic loss of ships, planes, and people than any other region of the world when the level of traffic is considered. This, however, is lost to significance junkies who only see a large number of "unexplained" losses and cling to the stories told by those who love a good mystery.
The Bermuda Triangle anecdote is Desmarquet's first fallacious statement.
But his convenient use of "parallel universes" and "warps" to them is a pseudoscientific attempt at appealing to the un-testable. This is the dragon in his garage.
The Parallel Universe anecdote is Desmarquet's first pseudoscientific appeal to the un-testable.
Before even arriving at page 6, Desmarquet says that Thao informs him that he is in a world where "time has stopped" and the people there (some for as long as 15,000 years) don't age and their bodies don't rot. Moreover, the people that Thao has to kill who are approaching he and Desmarquet, and are have been there 15,000 years, apparently don't have language facilities but utter "guttural sounds." Perhaps Desmarquet is under the impression that 15,000 years ago, people on Earth were cave men and without language or culture and were "stuck" this way upon entering the "warp" to the "parallel universe."
This is a fallacious assumption since we have an archaeological record that demonstrates that not only were H. sapiens capable of language, they apparently lived in villages and some creative abilities. In addition, these people had art. Moreover, one would not be presumptuous to assume that they would have developed this culture and technology in the 15,000 years that they were away from their home universe.
The a priori assumption that people didn't have enough culture to speak 15,000 years ago is Desmarquet's second fallacious statement.
The notion that time can simply "stop" is Desmarquet's second pseudoscientific appeal to the un-testable.
And that is only before page 6! The rest of the book continues on the same grain. They travel "several times faster than the speed of light," etc.
But not a shred of evidence to any of it. That leaves only a few possibilities:
1) Desmarquet is telling the truth and the events did occur as he retold them.
2) Desmarquet is telling the truth as he believes it, and the events did not occur at all.
3) Desmarquet is telling the truth as he believes it, and some of the events occurred.
4) Desmarquet is lying.
I think we can rule out number 1 based solely on the Bermuda Triangle statement. The Bermuda Triangle is not a mystery and there is nothing more mysterious about it than most other places ships go. But I can see where there would be an argument against my position on that, since it's human nature to be a 'significance junkie' and be impressed with numbers. Otherwise, politicians wouldn't attempt to appeal to voters with them, ad agencies wouldn't live and breath them, and baseball would be boring.
I also think we can dismiss number 4, though not quite as readily as number 1. To tell a story this detailed and say it's true, you have to believe some part of it. If not, you must really think the rest of the world is more gullible than even P.T. Barnum did.
That leaves 2 and 3. If it's 3, then perhaps Desmarquet had an experience that seemed mystical to him, but occurred right her on solid Earth. There are numerous recorded instances in both contemporary times as well as in ancient history in which people were duped into believing that they "passed into another world." These types of events usually occur after the participant partakes in rituals of repetition, physical stress, and/or ingestion of chemical agent. For some, these events have been so real, so vivid, and so "enlightening," they believed them to be religious experiences. And they probably were religious. If not with some actual deity, then by some stimulation of the alleged "god module" of the brain.
But number 2 is my bet. I think Desmarquet started his fantasy as a fiction but then "went native." He came to believe that he was a part of something "bigger than himself." Something grandiose. This is where he satisfies that need for fulfillment and achievement of status that is present in us all, particularly in those that claim not to covet it. In short, he's delusional.
Consider this passage (p. 148):
Pure bunk. "Neutralising the cold magnetic force by raising certain high frequency vibrations" is nothing but pseudoscientific gibberish. It sounds scientific, but only to the undereducated. Vibrations are present in matter, but their frequency doesn't affect their "weight." Raising vibrations to higher frequencies doesn't negate the attraction that the mass of the given bit of matter has on the mass of other matter. Indeed, the methods by which monumental architecture was built in Mesoamerica or Northern Africa (several thousand years and even more thousand miles apart, I might add) are relatively well known and understood. There was no "levitation" as Desmarquet suggests. It wasn't needed.
But the most significant bit of information that Desmarquet cites in that passage is the mythical city of Atlantis and the fictional city of Mu. The former is mostly a modern myth, not even an ancient one. Plato invented it for his dialogs Critias and Timaeus when he criticized the state of Athens for its incursions against the Persians. It was not until Ignatius Donnelly wrote Atlantis: the Antediluvian World in 1882 that Atlantis actually gained any popularity.
Mu, however, is an entirely fictional city that was created in the mind of “Colonel” James Churchward. He stated that Mu was a highly advanced civilization that existed on a continent in the Pacific Ocean, which sank after the "explosion" of "gas pockets," leaving only Hawaii, Samoa, Tahiti, and Easter Island. When Mu sank, massive worldwide earthquakes caused all civilization to collapse into savagery. Not surprisingly, the good "colonel" provides not a shred of evidence, only his "word" that he translated correctly the stone tablets that told the tale; the same tablets that have never been seen by anyone except the good "colonel."
His word from 1924 doesn't stand up to even the most rudimentary of scientific examinations today. The islands he mentioned are created by well-understood volcanic process that involves "hot spots" under the crust and plate tectonics. If a continent ever existed in the region, it would be extremely obvious and quite visible to magnetometer examinations of the sort that have occurred extensively in the region he suggested.
So Desmarquet is piggybacking the fictions of at least two sources independent of him: Plato and Churchwood. That alone, validates numbers 2 and 3 above.
And we haven't even discussed the nonsense about the world exploding due to man's poor stewardship of the planet. Such grandiose delusions have been associated with UFO nutters for over 50 years. Indeed, Heaven's Gate and the Raelians adapted this theme within their own "manifestos."
In addition, there is clear evidence of how the builders of the Egyptian pyramids constructed these monuments. Indeed the evolutionary progression from single-story, simple mastabas to grandiose monuments to the elite is very clear. The tool marks are on the stones. Experimental archaeology and documents left by the Egyptians speak of the methods. There was no cool vibrations at work. This is another example of Desmarquet's fiction.
SkinWalker said:
I didn't present undoubtful evidence of the existence of MU. The only fact is that the Yonangui formation do exist. The point is that angles of 90 degree are more likely to have been created intelligently specially when they form a geometric object. You seem to only have a superficial understanding of geology. If Desmarquet is true those stones are under sea water for more than 10000 years now. You should be happy that they are still there. I'm sorry, That's all? what took you so long?
Those stones were probably underwater longer than 10,000 years. Those stones have probably existed for more than 80 million or more years. Also, not only do angles of 90 degrees exist in nature (I've stood on limestone beds with 90 degree fracturing), the jointing/fracturing present in the Yonaguni site are rhombohedral.
I assure you, my education in geology is more than superficial. Your education is in question, however, when such clear examples of natural formations are so easily mistaken or when you so easily buy into the myth of "Mu." But mostly by your willingness to consider "geometric" forms as less likely to be natural.
To close, that the "stones" were "under sea water for more than 10,000 years" is not evidence that Desmarquet is true. Only that you have limited understanding of geology.
I assure you, my education in geology is more than superficial. Your education is in question, however, when such clear examples of natural formations are so easily mistaken or when you so easily buy into the myth of "Mu." But mostly by your willingness to consider "geometric" forms as less likely to be natural.
To close, that the "stones" were "under sea water for more than 10,000 years" is not evidence that Desmarquet is true. Only that you have limited understanding of geology.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Continental crust differs from oceanic crust in several very distinctive, wholly diagnostic ways, specifically:Robanan said:
1) Thickness
2) Density
3) Composition
4) Complexity
Confusion of the two is not possible. 16,000 years is an instant in geological time, so nothing of significance could occur to the crust in that time frame. Move away? No. Plate tectonics might carry it 1/4 mile. That's a long remove from being swept aside and into oblivion.
SkinWalker said:
Am I wrong in considering that geometric forms are more likely to be of intelligent origin? see: Turtle figure carved into the top of the eastern side of the main monument
Those who have seen those stones are yet to look into and proove the origin of those formations. Just to inform you how much speculation is going around this subject I offer you a link to another article: Scientists Say Underwater Japanese Pyramid Definitely Manmade
At this stage, you are flat out wrong in making any conclusions out of thin air.
Ophiolite said:
I think I see your point now Ophiolite, I have nothing to offer... for the time being please accept my apologies, I will get back to you with more input as soon as I find anything worthy of your attention... Thank you. (I love food for thought
)
Robanan said:
It isn't about what's more likely or not. It's about what's expected in geology. Geometric formations are very much expected.
http://acatte.club.fr/_borders/Islande_orgues-basaltiques_colonnes_basaltiques_petit.jpg
http://acatte.club.fr/_borders/Islande_orgues-basaltiques_petit.jpg
http://acatte.club.fr/_borders/Islande_orgues-basaltiques_chute-d-eau-basaltique.jpg
Here's an example of jointing in limestone beds. http://euclid.dne.wvfibernet.net/~jvg/Env105/jointing01.gif
Here's an above sea-level photo of the bedding on the very same island. The darker colored strata at the waterline is probably the same member that appears in the underwater photos that you claim are "man-made." Notice the strike of the strata. http://www.physics.leidenuniv.nl/us...r_ruins/yonaguni/analysis_files/iseki1_md.jpg
The formation at Yonaguni is probably mudstone or sandstone, but very fine and dense. Here's an example of mudstone stratigraphy: http://www.gsi.ie/activities/forthcoming/nhw2004/killala2004/killala2.jpg
Robanan said:
Speculation is meaningless without data, articles of speculation even less meaningful. Try citing one of the "scientists" that the "article" mentions. Where's the peer-reviewed report on the geology and archaeology? Where is the data that demonstrates the site is not natural? The title of the article you linked to alone is misleading, "Scientists Say Underwater Japanese Pyramid Definitely Manmade." The article failed miserably in demonstrating that the formations were of a "pyramid" nor did it demonstrate the formation was "definately manmade."
Robanan said:
There is little else to conclude. The formation is constent with geologic strata of the same member above water; it is consistent with what is known about the geology of mudstones and sandstones; it even resembles the octoganal jointing of basalt in some photos; the features of the formation are decidely not anthropomorphic since the alleged "steps" are each as much as three feet tall!; there are zero artifacts that can be correlated to the formation with exception of two possible post-holes that may have been drilled for WWII-era buoys for all we know.
So it would appear that I am anything but "flat out wrong."
The "Mu" speculation simply doesn't pan out. "Mu" remains a fantasy.
Here's some more from Co Antrim, Ireland, the 'Giant's Causeway';
Cool formations. Whereabouts are the ones you linked Skinwalker?
Cool formations. Whereabouts are the ones you linked Skinwalker?
When you limit the context of your Analysis to geology, you don't expect to see anything more than natural formations. The result of your Analisys (no matter how applausible) won't go further either.
Note that Dr.Robert M.Schoch thinks that the formations are natural. He also confirms and I'm directly quoting him that The Yonaguni Monument is composed predominantly of medium to very fine sandstones and mudstones of the Lower Miocene Yaeyama Group (the rocks themselves were deposited about 20 million years ago). Your input was impressive... thank you.
I encountered a very intresting hint also, The cataclysm described in Desmarquet's book as having been the reason of the fall of MU might very well be the one which triggered the last Ice Age which seems to have ended about 10000 years ago.
The "MU" speculation is far to pan out
Note that Dr.Robert M.Schoch thinks that the formations are natural. He also confirms and I'm directly quoting him that The Yonaguni Monument is composed predominantly of medium to very fine sandstones and mudstones of the Lower Miocene Yaeyama Group (the rocks themselves were deposited about 20 million years ago). Your input was impressive... thank you.
I encountered a very intresting hint also, The cataclysm described in Desmarquet's book as having been the reason of the fall of MU might very well be the one which triggered the last Ice Age which seems to have ended about 10000 years ago.
Ok you are not flat out wrong, your input is just geologically correct as much as the type of stones of those monuments are concerned.SkinWalker said:
SkinWalker said:
The "MU" speculation is far to pan out