• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

'Underwater Pyramid' Discovered Off The French Coast

blessmycottonsocks

Antediluvian
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
9,337
Location
Wessex and Mercia
not necessarily I really don't think there was a standard issue for size - I'm happy to be proved wrong. My families local beach has a few tank traps and they look just like the picture.

Certainly sounds plausible.
The carved rock just 5 metres away from the pyramid adds something to the woo factor though and, if it is an oversized "dragon's tooth" , the mystery remains of what it's doing on the seabed in fairly deep water.
 
It could be a cube of granite which has lodged itself into the sea bed on a corner, creating the illusion of a pyramid. Is it 3 or 4 sided?
 
f5a93813fe812d35eda8a136e883fd74-mystere-autour-d-une-pyramide-dans-le-golfe-du-morbihan.jpg


300px-Westwall01.jpg


German "Dragon's Teeth" from the Westwall.

maximus otter
 
It could be a cube of granite which has lodged itself into the sea bed on a corner, creating the illusion of a pyramid. Is it 3 or 4 sided?

The article states it is 3-sided ( "Elle possède trois faces lisses")
 
The article states it is 3-sided ( "Elle possède trois faces lisses")

Excellent. My GCSE French didn't stand me in good stead for that article. Then it isn't a Dragon's Tooth as they were 4-sided, nor can it be a cube of granite as I suggested.
 
AFAIK all Egyptian pyramids, including small statues, were 4-sided.

The dragon's teeth anti-tank blocks were made from reinforced concrete, whereas the underwater object is described as granite.
 
Do we know if it's sitting naturally on the seabed, or if there's any evidence of something beneath it?
 
Further details (in French), including photos on this diver's blog.
He maintains that its appearance is of granite rather than concrete. It is situated close to other megalithic structures, some of which are submerged, but the pyramid's location would last have been above the water around 10,000 years ago, whereas the other structures date to maybe 6,500 years ago. He suggests the pyramid is aligned along the cardinal points. The mystery remains.

https://www.plongee-infos.com/une-pyramide-engloutie-en-bretagne/
 
Just been perusing this article (in English) about the famous Carnac stones and, in particular, how the straight lines of megaliths extend out into the Atlantic. The full extent of the underwater stones hasn't been definitively mapped. The whole complex is thought to date back to around 4,500 BC.
If you scroll down to Fig. 9.9 in this article, there is a photo of an underwater granite monolith (K11) with a vaguely pyramidal shape. It does look far more weathered than the subject of this thread, but I still thought the resemblance was worth mentioning.

http://www.academia.edu/22386245/Su...y_results_from_acoustic_and_underwater_survey
 
Here's the photo of the Carnac stone, some 15 km away from the Morbihan pyramid:

PSX_20181219_142455.jpg
 
Just been perusing this article (in English) about the famous Carnac stones and, in particular, how the straight lines of megaliths extend out into the Atlantic. The full extent of the underwater stones hasn't been definitively mapped. The whole complex is thought to date back to around 4,500 BC.
If you scroll down to Fig. 9.9 in this article, there is a photo of an underwater granite monolith (K11) with a vaguely pyramidal shape. It does look far more weathered than the subject of this thread, but I still thought the resemblance was worth mentioning.

http://www.academia.edu/22386245/Su...y_results_from_acoustic_and_underwater_survey


In this day and age you wold think that such sites *would* have been mapped. We do now have the kind of technology which could extensively photo graph and film an area. Maybe even scan it topographically.

But I guess such an endeavour would potentially be expensive.
 
In this day and age you wold think that such sites *would* have been mapped. We do now have the kind of technology which could extensively photo graph and film an area. Maybe even scan it topographically.

But I guess such an endeavour would potentially be expensive.

Sadly, the Carnac site hasn't been well managed, with stones being reused as building material or removed to make way for roads.
 
Hmmm. "1.7 metres of the pyramid is visible." That is less than the height of an average man. That is not especially big: just the size of a boulder. There is as yet no evidence that the "pyramid" extends further down below the sea bed.

The Gulf of Morbihan is a "natural harbour": a sheltered anchorage with many islands. It's maximum depth is 23 metres, so if this feature is 20 or so metres down, it is unlikely to extend more than2 or 3 metres below the sea floor.

It is described as "3 sided" which is not a common shape for a man-made pyramid. However, it is the shape of something that is roughly a cube, being tipped on one corner and half buried.

I'm sure we can all think of many reasons why large cube/cuboid blocks of granite might be found in an area where ships have anchored for centuries. At its simplest, it could have fallen from a ship or raft that was trying to transport it somewhere else.

Granite does not naturally fracture at any particular angle. Approximate right angles, or approximate 60 degree angles, or almost any other angle is more or less equally likely if it splits naturally, depending on how the split is caused. Certain angles look to us like they maybe deliberate, because we naturally think in terms of regular shapes and tessellations. Maybe the angles of this pyramid are no more than a coincidence — not unlike some of the more obscure alleged alignments of stone circles and the like.

The area is replete with ancient monuments. The existence of a carved stone nearby does not imply that they are linked in any way. It is one possibility among many.
 
I just posted a query on the French site asking whether they had considered it could be a dragon's tooth anti-tank obstacle.
 
I just posted a query on the French site asking whether they had considered it could be a dragon's tooth anti-tank obstacle.

It may be down to distortion (or visual impairmanet on my part) but when I try to mentally fill in the bits to create a three-sided triangle the geometry looks a little irregular. Which got me thinking: if dragons teeth were being transported by sea and one was lost overboard, or jettisoned in bad weather, and it settled on the seabed sideways, corner down and buried halfway in sand and silt, then you’d end up with an irregular three sided pyramid with a pointed apex (because it’s not really a pointed apex, it’s a corner). Erm…I think that makes sense.

(I see Mikefule has already suggested a tipped object, but it would work for a four-sided pyramid, as well as a cube).

Although it’s not mentioned on the Wiki page I’m pretty sure that dragons teeth were also used as defence against shallow draft boats, landing craft etc. This one would clearly be too deep to be of any use, but it could explain why they may have been being seeded offshore.

And, once you are past the basic principle, there seems to be no hard and fast pattern to such a device – some are ramp shaped (much steeper on the threat side of the block than on the leeward), some cubed, and some are bullet shaped - like huge bollards; the very striking ones at Cramond, on the Firth of Forth, are not much like the squat pyramids you see in most images (although, ironically, they look a lot more like I imagine dragons teeth to be).
 
Last edited:
Looks a bit too regular to be a natural formation to me:

View attachment 13693
You can barely tell that from that picture. There's no scaling, no picture from the top which might show any regularity and no-one thought to apply (say) a tape measure so we might assess it's regularity. It's indistinguishable from a rock at this point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim
Not necesarily a tank trap: the same principle was used, but bigger, and se tjust below low tide level so it would be unseen, to scupper flat-bottomed landing cradft as they came into shore (many designs were built with wooden rather than metal hulls to speed construction and make them "undetectable" to magnetic mines; the American Higgins Boat was a prime example - wooden hull with minimal armour protection on the hull sides). Ripping the guts out of a landing craft before it got to shore and disembarked its cargo was a nasty German defensive strategy on the French invasion coasts, which at the time included Brittany).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim
Back
Top