If people think that such regular formation cannot be natural, i Would invite them to look at and consider the Giants Causeway in Northern Ireland and Scotland.
That is something completely different tho. Its formed with lava. Such phenomenon can be also seen in other volcanic islands like Jeju Island or Iceland. However, I do think Yonagumi is (at least party) man-made. It is certainly possible that it is 100% natural, however, it is very unlikely.
Kataklizm pochłoną ten obszar, można było tam znaleźć specjalny gatunek kamienia. Potrzebny do ówczesnych budowli i posągów. Kamieniołomów takich było więcej, kolejny to kamieniołom Holaton.
Come to think of it its only 25 meters deep so i think a few thousand years ago it might be a not underwater and its a rock quarry. Human in the old days have knowledge of rock splitting
Spot on. A Cataclysmic occurrence happened 10 to 12 thousand years ago. Causing sea levels to rise at least 50 ft. The Sphinx has also been researched to under water at least over 38000 years ago. Amazing.
@@cyllanhicks8988 not underwater but weathered by water. It last rained in that part of the world regularly 10000+ years ago. And I dont think it was 38000 years, it was around 12K. If you move the stars back to where they were 12000 years ago (precession) and if the sphinx was originally a lion which it may have been as its current head is way to small, it would have been facing the Leo constellation in the sky at roughly 12000 years ago.
There's a new wreck off the shores of Port Sanilac that remains unidentified. My father's friend found it. My father was the first to dive it. It's estimated to be from the 1800's, but it's history a total mystery. Dad thinks it may just be the Twilight. You should do an episode on the mystery ship. If you want details, let me know.
@@LucyFire7 nah it's fine to shoot fish. Take Florida for example the lion fish which is invasive and has no natural predators doing dreadful damage to the natural fishies numbers. The problem is the massive fishing trawlers taking everything and anything while also destroying EVERYTHING in its path coral and ripping up the bottom compared to one scuba boi with a spear gun
Well you can see eyes and possibly a mouth... but why it's so low and the mouth is nearly covered up doesn't make much sense. And it really doesn't help knowing that there's probably been alot of erosion on that rock that's just deformed it.
I wonder if perhaps it could be both a mix of man-made and natural in it isn't so much a monument that was used for rituals or anything like that but perhaps a place that had simply been carved out because of the material, mining in a sense. Maybe it was carved over many years for the material to make roads, paths and other things along those lines. What you would then be left with if a feature that had the remains of being carved out but not used itself for anything else other than a place to gather the material there.
Interesting idea. Just because it's not pristine or accurately chiseled, that doesn't mean it can't be man-made. I mean, stonehenge, as fascinating as it is, doesn't look exactly pretty either.
this show is great, i love how they present the different opinions and then go explore for supporting evidence. way better than most shows on TV (I'm looking at you ancient aliens).
Put my love for diving on the side, I just love UK documentaries. So many info, educated but humble people and the most important - not so much "Omg I'm gonna die" Kardashian drama. Talking back to diving, it's incredible. Next, please!
@@kshatriya1414 That may be true but I don't think the technical aspect is his problem. He has 20-30 years of SCUBA experience and has led many underwater expeditions and has even made discoveries that are still being explored to this day. If there's a diving cert he doesn't possess, I have a strong feeling it was something else that kept him from obtaining it.
And in the previous episode, they showed it's all about equipment. He dove to a depth of 64 meters there but he himself said that without the extra cilinders, he would've died. He has the experience to know better.
It's not that easy. It took me 9 years to become a master diver. I'm certified to dive to 100 m. Although it's a big difference with my career I'm a saturation diver for a company in the North Sea. That's a little bit tougher to do lol neither is for the weak minded or weak hearted
Thank you for this amazing inspiration. I saw this documentary first in 2017 as an OWD and was simply stunned. I thought one day I will dive the Arch. Now after hundreds of dives, working myself as PADI instructor and multiple Tec courses, I finally came back to Dahab. A month ago I had the chance to dive it and it is even better than I could imagine. This dive is spectacular and worth all the training to do it safely. Blew my mind.
I understand trying to support a theory for a man made structure when it is so obviously important to some of the local experts, but in doing so I think perhaps a blind eye has been turned to some fundamental observations. For instance, if this was a magnet for human society, where is the evidence of man made roadways and civil structures to support human activity? The dive shown next to last really showed me there was no heavy human activity because no roadways leading to and away from the structure existed. Another observation I made was the eyes and mouth of the face followed natural cleave marks in the stone, making it a bit like seeing animals in the clouds: yeah, sure the clouds look sort of like it, but it's not a man made vapor. Additionally there were many examples of the same geological structures on land above water that were not man made but rather were the result of naturally occurring phenomenon. This may seem like a crazy question, but why would an ancient Asian civilization carve a cross into a stone? This is a classic example of human beings imputing human characteristic and ideas into natural phenomenon. But I did enjoy the episode and learning new things, both in nature and culture. Thanks a bunch.
As for your first few sentences, the host made a valid point about weather from both above and below water, as well as the general wear and tear of thousands of years of existence and the fact that water being drawn across the structures' surface by the current would expedite the erosion process. So things like the "face", roads, or any other kind of infrastructure would be very difficult to make out or it's possible they simply don't exist anymore. But there are some very valid points on both sides of the argument, which is why more concrete evidence is necessary. But there's one thing I know for sure - we have a nasty little habit of underestimating past civilizations, so when people see those giant slabs of rock and say (and I know you weren't implying this) "well there's no way humans could have erected such enormous stones with such primitive technology!" I normally completely ignore that argument.
Well based what observation are you made of? Video? Go to the real place and come back again make a claim. Its not to late, by judging and observation some documentary video didn't make you become an expert.
Xiao Mose I’m from Japan and I’ve never dived before, but saw many tv programs and photos and read about it since it got famous. And I agree with you. That’s a human made structure and made when it was on land. One thing for sure , if it’s man made, it was made on the ground.
It’s natural. A geologist take you in the land right next to the “monument” and shows you all of natural features that can occur but people still want to believe humans did it. Nature makes straight lines all the time. Look at giants causeway in Ireland. Mother Nature made hexagon shaped rocks.
Interesting, on the Natural formation side we have Schoch, John Antony West, Patrick D Nunnand and Richard J Pearson all of whom are at the top of their fields and hardly close minded (especially Schoch) On the Artificail Sructure side we have a TV presenter, a couple of pseudoarchaeologists and poor old Mr Kimura who has somewhat blown his credibility in academic circles recently by now claiming to have found a pyramid, castles, roads, monuments and..... and I swear I'm not making this up, a stadium at the site, in his last paper he also put forward the theory that the site may be a remanant of the lost continent of Mu...oh dear Needless to say his....er....evidence is somewhat lacking Personally, and call me a bluff old traditionalist, but I'll go with the chaps with the Doctorates and PHDs rather than the ones wearing the tin foil bowlers.....
Mr Kimura is a very well respected geologist and a PhD. There is a wealth of evidence that calls into question natural -vs- manmade unfortunately no smoking gun for manmade.
@@douglasbennett8980 Mr Kimura WAS a respected Geologist but as stated he has rather lost any credibility he once held once he started finding underwater pyramids and stadiums that NO ONE else could see. So these days I'm afraid he is rather held at arms length by the Japanese authorities
@@skindancer01 Im not buying that its natural this documentary really doesnt present that much of the best footage of the site. I dont see the face but there are way too many right angles and flat surfaces that extend equidistant from the back walls for extended lengths. Also considering how turbulent the water is in that particular area how on Earth would you get such uniformity in the structure? Doesnt make any sense, ive been diving in a lot of places and wherever u go that has chaotic surge currents u get total random jumbled and chaotic rock formations just as youd expect not 90 degree angles and flat surfaces. Also considering there are numerous others examples of flat terraced surfaces cut from the rock up on shore it shows that this practice has been taking place in Japan for a very long time.
@@skindancer01 Also the fact that its absolutely known that this site would have been above water during the last ice age and no surface weathering could possibly explain the geometry means all of what theyre referring to as "natural phenomenon" would have to have taken place in a few thousand years which is nothing in terms of geology.
Archeologists who argued that the beaker people didn’t cause the mass extinction of the mega mammals in North America had their reputations and careers ruined until a couple of years ago. Then Gobelli Tepe chucked a spanner in the works. Humanity suffers from amnesia. We all know it.
The monument or rock formation is 5000 years older than the great pyramids, so that archeologist's point is not substantial. Evidence of Ancient Egypt keep coming out every year, yet skeptics keep dismissing something that 5000 years older.
I think humans could definitely have been around during the period when the structure was formed but I don't think they had anything to do with the structure. It definitely looks natural to me, apart from the straight edges (which is seen a lot in geology, I'm a geology student) there is nothing that looks like it's been deliberately made/shaped/carved/designed etc. All that the stone with the cross in it "proves" is that humans lived around there and maybe even used the structure for something, it doesn't mean they built it. Plus, if the team is only looking for evidence for the structure being made by humans then it's biased and isn't scientifically viable because they're ignoring what they don't want to find.
Human history is constantly being pushed back, further and further. When academia finally admits it and disregards their profits, humans will be pushed back millions of years...
Come to think of it its only 25 meters deep so i think a few thousand years ago it might be a not underwater and its a rock quarry. Human in the old days have knowledge of rock splitting
They almost had me convinced it was a man-made structure until they showed the "rock face" that looked like -_- accompanied by dramatic music, almost lost it hahaha.
@23:30 The rock shows clear signs the 2 holes were eroded naturally but the X or cross carving is very recent. The tool markings are far too smooth with 0 erosion or pock marking which would happen in sandstone and most stone as can clearly be seen on any part of that rock or the structure itself.
I enjoy your shows, but have to point out that your "demonstration" of rising sea levels due to melting ice is an incomplete explanation and can be easily misinterpreted. The only melting ice that could possibly contribute to rising sea levels is ice that is atop land. If the ice is sea ice (floating) as your pictures seem to show, then sea level will not be affected at all at is melts. You can demonstrate this yourself by filling a glass with water and some ice and then watching the (non)change in the level of the water as the ice melts. This is largely misunderstood and a huge source of confusion about the threat of melting ice. This is what Archimedes brilliantly showed when he demonstrated buoyancy through displacement.
I agree, but we absolutely know through ice core samples ancient ice vs new ice that there was catastrophic global flooding that raised sea levels by roughly 400 feet during the time of the Younger Dryas cataclysm 12,500-11,500 years ago which can be seen as Meltwater pulse 1A and 1B. Prior to this event, this area at Yonaguni would have been well above sea level
I never thought this was some man made structure. I've seen Schoch talk about this previously as well. He makes a pretty convincing argument with his example. There's no reason to believe man might have used it for something, and rising sea levels caused it to be where it is, but that's nothing special. I do believe that some cataclysm caused the last ice age to end rapidly though. I studied physical geography, and have seen/studied many examples of massive deformations that could only be caused by massive amounts of water rushing across the land, especially in the US
Where do all you idiots come from claiming to be geology students with your idiotic statements with nothing to back it up. Here we have perfect corners, 90 angles, rounded edges, raised platform, multi tiered, proportional.... and your going to say your BASIC geology class taught you that this is naturally made. I'd get a full refund if I was you. But im beginning to think your bots or paid deceivers...
While all the professional world expert divers were calculating wind, wave, temperatures, currents, & praying... The founder Japanese dude is probably LOL, giggling 😆. He had free dove many times to this site, on any random day.
Could be a quarry, could have been a civilization. People could have used the natural formation for shelter or it could just have a natural formation over time with tectonic activity due to all the rounded rocks. Then again, people do make igloos out of ice
Or it could be that 4400 years ago. There was a flood on this Earth and when that water went down for the next several 100 years. The Earth was settling. People would build settlements and then the water would shift. That could also be a possibility.
i'm from there and seen other megalithic sites in Japan. my conclusion is, its NOT a building or castle or city ruin. It's totally natural in origin. However its been altered by human hands. What i mean is that it was a rock quarry. Ancient people would get there stones out of there to build a structure somewhere else. For example, Yonaguni looks like an underwater version of Nokogiri Mountain, which is an ancient rock quarry that can be visited today.
Robert Schoch is The Man. His work with Graham Hancock, John Anthony West (RIP), Robert Bauval was instrumental in redating The Sphynx based on geologic weathering and establishing the Egyptian civilization as the legacy of an even more ancient civilization. I trust his assessment of the sandstone as natural.
nothing natural can built a 90 degree angle dont play smart guys !and legacys are only for you because every human on this planet knows that before as it was 4 more civilizations!
@@konstantintop-painting6882 There are plenty of things that are weathered at 90 degree angles... it isn't *ridiculously* common, but it absolutely does happen. They even show it in this video. I'm not sure where you got that from, friend.
Not to forget this thing is meant to have been underwater for 10,000yrs and the cross didn't become a thing until around 2020yrs ago. So I'd say yes man made the cross but only in the last 60odd years
Think about how in awe you were when you first saw the site. If it is naturally made, the ancient people of the area would have most likely been in awe too. I feel like it could have been used by the ancient people as a revered religious site. You would likely use any natural resources as much as possible
I went in thinking this was an exploration of sunken human ruins but as I watched the video I must admit I was rather disappointed. There have been so many times while fishing in a remote area of northern Michigan or Canada that I spotted some rocks or trees that I at first mistook for some human structure. I've seen sunken rock structures that looked like giant turtles and small huts, etc.. We are hardwired to see such patterns and biased to think an intelligence is behind random processes.
Ok, I agree with you on this one. But seriously, isn't it counterproductive to shout pareidolia at everything you don't believe? The thing is that pareidolia can go both ways. You can see a face in a stone when there's none, but you can also see a stone when it's really a face. So with that said, I don't wanna imagine how many crucial archaeological discoveries we've missed because people called pareidolia at the first chance they got.
@@kylebeavan62 I thought that we were discussing an apparent Geological formation not some matter of Marine Biology. I am an Engineer with considerable industrial underwater experience in the last 50 or so years but I would not consider myself qualified to comment on an underwater geological formation .
Schoch is indeed very reputable and a solid source of information on the topic, but there's enough evidence on both sides of the argument that we shouldn't dismiss either of them. Our best and brightest have been wrong before, the only thing that could sway me to one side or the other is concrete scientific evidence that can not be argued against.
They don't tell you what to believe, they just explore the site, for your entertainment, and provide information for you to speculate with. There's no reason to discredit him.
At best it was an ancient quarry. But is is far likely naturally eroded (as were the rounded boulders) as a result of glacial activity and/or tectonic forces.
Wouldn’t you think that the earliest civilizations would utilize natural rock formations and stresses to their advantage before the actual learned to build pyramids??
If a piece of land that large fell into the sea, I would think that that displacement of water would cause at least a local tsunami. Is there any evidence of that in the geology that the professor can point to that can be dated to support his hypothesis? As it is an area known for having tsunamis, other causes would also have to be ruled out. If there is evidence of a tsunami or multiple tsunamis in the target time frame, it would be interesting to see based on models how big a tsunami that event would be likely to cause and to rule out dates if the tsunami encompasses a larger area in the surrounding islands than would be expected as they would likely have another source.
there must have been many many many tsunamis since that piece of rock fell into the ocean. unless theyre looking for something specific, something like that is going to be impossible.
Hopefully they used the thirds rule. Turn around when you’ve used 1/3 of your gas, so you’ll have a third for the exit and another third as backup in case something happens.
Enjoyed this. Want to believe it’s man made but I don’t think it is. It’s all a bit too random. Might be a quarry but I don’t think it’s even that. Also the eyes on the face don’t look very eroded considering. Looks more like someone added them quite recently.
As a geo-archaeologist, 34:30 -- that isn't how geology works. You typically don't get sections of land just falling into the sea from earthquakes. And - if by some insane way it actually did happen, the archaeologist in me says that no "manmade" structure - (The "Manmade" sea stack they show) would have survived, at least standing it that position. So, I'd personally say its unlikely, but I haven't been to that field site myself to check it out - its simply my two cents on the question with very limited ability to fully research it myself. (Just stating that the hypothesis at 34:30 is unlikely - not that people were never there or never used the site.)
i'm from there and seen other megalithic sites in Japan. my conclusion is, its NOT a building or castle or city ruin. It's totally natural in origin. However its been altered by human hands. What i mean is that it was a rock quarry. Ancient people would get there stones out of there to build a structure somewhere else. For example, Yonaguni looks like an underwater version of Nokogiri Mountain, which is an ancient rock quarry that can be visited today.
I'd prefer a documentary over something with mindless made up drama and shaky camera work. This is what killed discovery and history channels. Thumbed down.
@bob blow The average Joe is easily entertained, that's why the channels that used to teach switched over to reality tv. Love it all you wan't, it's not a documentary. It's a drama. You might as well be drooling in front of game of thrones or something.
It may have been designed to look like a face from only one angle. There are other ancient megaliths that have hidden images, and even look like different animals from different angles.
Steps are too uneven. Both the spacing and elevations. It would be extreemly sloppy workmanship. He says it was before the Pyramids, but they found a cross. Jesus was not yet born. It was before the Roman era, so no crosses were yet used.
i thought it was definitely real until i saw the thing about the sandstone which leads me to believe it was carved and cracked by the strong currents that are there, and the stone tablet was probably quintessential
Looks like a natural geological formation called columnar jointing. The Japanese earth science professor is seeing what he wants to see and as a scientist should know better. If it were manmade then there would be cut and joined blocks everywhere, tool marks, statuary, inscriptions, artifacts, wells or aqueducts, very obvious paths and roads, rooms, etc. I see they finally kinda sorta mention that after fifteen minutes of hype. Got tired of watching.
In the book of Genesis, Cain gone to the east of Eden(mainland Asia) and build a city called Nod and it is approximately 7,000 years ago. Coincidentally Yunagoni monument is indeed in the east of Eden
Great report. Dont believe Mr. Schoch, I experienced his work in Bosnia... it was just "shoching" to see how he rated the clear manmade structures and tunnels also ignoring the unique scientificly confirmed measurements which are reproduced again and again by many physicians and engeneers .... However what you explored in Yonaguni is probably made millions years ago... and its still in this right angular shape... What if this what you saw on alnd are also ruins from ancient cultures ? Just imagine if Schoch is confirming Yonaguni as manmade ... this ruins our whole history-... and many things more .... suddenly many otther places om earth which are igrnored in the same way become a evidence of a culture which exists long time befroe us and which was even more imore developed than us (which is not that dificult) ... Cehck out for palces like Mohenjo Daro, many other Indian sites and technologies, Southamerika, Cheops and so on. Guys like Schock and Hawass are trying to hide the truth from us, and they still successfull.... How much longer ?
While this is, without a doubt, a really cool structure, it isn't man-made. The only evidence for it being man-made is that there are right-angles and straight edges. There are many examples of angular structures in nature.
I recently saw a program about some cities, now underwater and they where, (of what you could see) remarkable similar in the way, they look now. (these citys are well documented)
To keep a show exciting and current there has to be danger and excitement. This show has it all in spades. Though most people not only in the UK but all around the world are like WGAF🤷🏻♂️
I really want to see someone dive by submarine or anything to discover the dangerous bermuda triangle and come back safe and capture their footage for us
@@dumbidiot2698 I know about Giant's Causeway (not staircase) that's a totally different type of formation, with far fewer types of unusual construction..and just because that exists doesn't mean this has to be a natural formation..far better minds than ours have declared it not to be such, so...
It's like 80% they already knew the answer but Monty still sticks to his belief and maybe just to make this docu more thrilling, so it will still gonna stay a mystery... yes of course it would have been awesome if it really was man made but a lot of their research says otherwise...
20:43 "But just a few hundred meters from the dive site". That's Kubura-bari, and it's 7.3 km from the dive site (Iseki point). 20:51 That's Sanninudai, and it is 3 km from the dive site. 35:07 "and it's lain beneath the waves ever since", while pointing towards the sea, - careful, they are at Sanninudai again, and the monument is 3 km to the right.
I would be really surprised if you found stalactites in a sandstone cave. Really no mystery at all (despite the mysterious music themes), it's just a wonderful place to dive to.
When you look at the whole thing from above, doesn't look man made in any way to me. If you want to see something, you see it. I personally don't. Cool exploration though.
Absolutely, it's just a collection of angles, corridors and step like formations. The monument has no purpose or function at all. There is not a single room or structure that is internal to the rock formation, or leading inside the formation.