beniki said:
manaman said:
x434343 said:
x EvilErmine x said:
Ok so this is my first thread so go easy on me

)
Be mindful of spelling, some of us are very... stickler-ish of that.
As for ancient intelligents, yeah. Underwater pyramids off the coast of Japan.
There is one guy (and a few supporters) that claim it's not a natural formation, a few people interested in exploring the area more, and then everyone else thinks it's a natural formation - including the Japanese goverment that has no interest in the site.
Even if it is the ruins of a city, it's at the most 5,000 years old. Ancient, but not exactly pre humans. As well as the fact that even the top supporter of it being inhabited doesn't think it was built by humans. He thinks it was a mostly natural formation that was shaped by humans. They have found some 1,600 year old evidence of habitation on the continuation of the formation on the shore.
Is this based off satellite pictures or someone going down in a sub? I know there was a guy who claimed there were structures on Mars from looking at 2-d probe images, but was later discredited when someone produce 3-d ones showing them to just be random natural formations.
O.T: I remember an episode of Voyager where the premise was some dinosaurs developed to the point of star ships, and left Earth to begin a nomadic life amongst the stars.
Sure, all things are possible and nothing is ever true forever.
The formations they are talking about are actually all over the coast of the pacific rim. It's a neat part of the geology of the area, and there are actually sunken walls and other structures which have been modified by humans over the years in places like China and Taiwan. These particular structures actually start on the cost and, according to one very outspoken scientist, show signs of human habitation. Not just built on the site either. He thinks there was a thriving population there that carved statues, built roads and walkways, religious sites, and more.
Like I said before, back on land there are signs of habitation dating back 1,600 years, but even then no where near to the level that the professor claims of the sunken city.
His pictures are misleading as well often taken at the perfect angle to look artificial. What I find the oddest of all is that he claims to have found caricatures and paintings, but has yet to produce any pictures, the only pictures he has on his site even are the same ones he has been showing around since the 90s.