It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Underwater Pyramid City Discovered Near Cuba

page: 5
26
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: LABTECH767
As for National Geographic.

They backed out because Zelitsky was asking for far too much money and the images were not up to broadcast quality according to them but but kept the EXCLUSIVE right's which they had already paid for up front in there installment ensuring no one else get's a look in as Zelitsky and co are bound by legal contract and can not sell it to anyone else, being in debt as running that type of operation is hugely expensive they had probably already spent the deposit from national geographic so could not pay back and back out of the contract, read between the line's.

If national Geographic were genuine on this matter they would have sent there own expedition to film the site as there are plenty of outfit's for hire with the necessary equipment, more so today with underwater drone tech coming along just nicely and if they wanted to go for quality they could do a lot worse than to hire an oil exploration contractor as they have the very best equipment, possible even better than the military.


do you have a source on this tirade, or are you also like Wolfenz ignorant of the evidence against there being anything there. Neither Natgeo, Esso or anyone else is going to put up money for a fools errand. They live in the real world.

Maybe you should go fund it yourself ?


How about you provide your source for there being nothing there rather than a cleverly worded but ultimately flawed and highly inaccurate opinion of the matter, is it perhaps that you do not want it to be there so that some dearly held belief remains unchallenged.




posted on May, 26 2016 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: LABTECH767
As for National Geographic.

They backed out because Zelitsky was asking for far too much money and the images were not up to broadcast quality according to them but but kept the EXCLUSIVE right's which they had already paid for up front in there installment ensuring no one else get's a look in as Zelitsky and co are bound by legal contract and can not sell it to anyone else, being in debt as running that type of operation is hugely expensive they had probably already spent the deposit from national geographic so could not pay back and back out of the contract, read between the line's.

If national Geographic were genuine on this matter they would have sent there own expedition to film the site as there are plenty of outfit's for hire with the necessary equipment, more so today with underwater drone tech coming along just nicely and if they wanted to go for quality they could do a lot worse than to hire an oil exploration contractor as they have the very best equipment, possible even better than the military.


do you have a source on this tirade, or are you also like Wolfenz ignorant of the evidence against there being anything there. Neither Natgeo, Esso or anyone else is going to put up money for a fools errand. They live in the real world.

Maybe you should go fund it yourself ?


How about you provide your source for there being nothing there rather than a cleverly worded but ultimately flawed and highly inaccurate opinion of the matter, is it perhaps that you do not want it to be there so that some dearly held belief remains unchallenged.

Plenty of sources have already been provided.
Also, any info you can provide concerning how to prove a negative would be appreciated.
The fact is, there is no reason to believe this claim (no evidence for it) and plenty of reason not to believe it (again, no evidence for it.)

Harte



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 07:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
How about you provide your source for there being nothing there rather than a cleverly worded but ultimately flawed and highly inaccurate opinion of the matter, is it perhaps that you do not want it to be there so that some dearly held belief remains unchallenged.


Science doesn't work like that, you need to actually provide some evidence first. you haven't, so there's nothing to debunk



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

Now what do you know of Science, what is your Scientific training, are you a qualified scientist or is that your opinion.

Now let's put this to the test, view of the evidence is an opinion but it is based on sound reasoning and rational, now the argument against has no substance, it is based on opinion and entrenched criteria - not proven criteria but accepted criteria which is another matter entirely, this is not like taking a couple of petri dish' filled with agar gel and placing sample and controls for observation, no this is barely even scientific at all.

What we DO have is sonar scan's showing anomolous formation's which are extremely unlikely to have formed under natural condition's, What we do not have is any evidence that they are natural and scant evidence to say that they indeed could be and what we also have is a strong belief and entrenched argument against them that is using a knowledge filter (Denying anything that may support them being artificial or even simply ignoring it) to deny there validity.

Now I find my argument eminently therefore more scientifically valid than the argument against but the case not proven either way until we get proper archeaology done on the site, Proper not biased with sadly is all too often the case as shown if you have a look at that video I linked, you know there are some on this site whom even claimed that the woman whom found those artifact's in mexico had not been discriminated against so they were litterally calling her a liar but that is in an earlier thread, still it emphasises the level of hypocrassy of the denial crowd and the level's they will stoop to in order to deny the fact's.

The fact's so far point far more strongly to the site being man made or at least intelligently made but I will warrent there is not enough YET to prove that but must point out there is actually NO evidence to disprove it at all.



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Marduk

Now what do you know of Science, what is your Scientific training, are you a qualified scientist or is that your opinion.

Now let's put this to the test, view of the evidence is an opinion but it is based on sound reasoning and rational, now the argument against has no substance, it is based on opinion and entrenched criteria - not proven criteria but accepted criteria which is another matter entirely, this is not like taking a couple of petri dish' filled with agar gel and placing sample and controls for observation, no this is barely even scientific at all.

What we DO have is sonar scan's showing anomolous formation's snipped nonsense


You seem to be remarkably uninformed.
You have one sonar track, which a whole host of side scan sonar experts have said shows nothing at all, you have a discoverer who shows no interest in returning to the site and you have a bunch of fringe websites with "artists impressions"
and from that you have "lost city"
Your evidence shows nothing of the sort and no amount of pretence to the contrary will change that

edit on 27-5-2016 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

What we DO have is sonar scan's showing anomolous formation's
We do? Where are these scans? How do you know they show anything "anomalous?"



Now I find my argument eminently therefore more scientifically valid
Because, why?



The fact's so far point far more strongly to the site being man made or at least intelligently made
What facts?



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
What we DO have is sonar scan's showing anomolous formation's


What experts state that?


which are extremely unlikely to have formed under natural condition's,


What experts state that?


What we do not have is any evidence that they are natural


Except that they are, there is zero evidence to show that they are not natural....


what we also have is a strong belief


That is all you have, you so strongly want to believe that they are not natural!


there is actually NO evidence to disprove it at all.


Wrong, there is no evidence at all to show it is not natural.

You seem to think as you want it to be man made science has to prove it is not.... actually the way the real world works is you make the claim, you back up that claim!
edit on 27-5-2016 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Worthless reply, sorry you are capable of so much more but this is pitiful.



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: hellobruce

Worthless reply, sorry you are capable of so much more but this is pitiful.


Um, no, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, its a basic tenet of science

If all you can say to that is "worthless reply", then you have just shown everyone that you are intellectually bankrupt
Now do you have any credible evidence or do you wish to withdraw your claim, that would probably be the best course as your claim was utter nonsense to start with



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
Worthless reply,


So as you are unable to answer simple questions, and have shown your ignorance of how the real world works, you think my reply is worthless....
edit on 27-5-2016 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
Is it under water because of man made global warming?

Or were we just in an ice age?



I'm of the opinion that man is older than what scientist want to admit because if they did people would realize the know jack.



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: jkm1864

originally posted by: onequestion
Is it under water because of man made global warming?

Or were we just in an ice age?



I'm of the opinion that man is older than what scientist want to admit because if they did people would realize the know jack.


Whys that, because all the evidence suggests that man (homo sapiens) is about 195,000 years old
please present the corpse of a man older than that
Bet you can't

edit on 27-5-2016 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: Wolfenz
while your at it send my ass to the Moon at the Cydonia site ! I like to see that too!

Cydonia is a region on Mars, not the Moon.


CORRECT!! its a Region ..


yeah I notice that like 3 hours later I tried to correct it .. when I noticed it
but I was too late..,
DAMMIT I thought it was a 4 hour time Limit ..

maybe i should of placed Mars After .it but seeing this is ATS
the majority of the Members knows what Cydonia is and whats is supposedly placed there

you know a Face mound on Mars pretty much like what is in IRAN ( although Irans Mound is pretty well Worn )
and the pyramids are actually ( 5 sided mounds ) also like whats in IRAN let alone Geometry formation



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: LABTECH767

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: LABTECH767
As for National Geographic.

They backed out because Zelitsky was asking for far too much money and the images were not up to broadcast quality according to them but but kept the EXCLUSIVE right's which they had already paid for up front in there installment ensuring no one else get's a look in as Zelitsky and co are bound by legal contract and can not sell it to anyone else, being in debt as running that type of operation is hugely expensive they had probably already spent the deposit from national geographic so could not pay back and back out of the contract, read between the line's.

If national Geographic were genuine on this matter they would have sent there own expedition to film the site as there are plenty of outfit's for hire with the necessary equipment, more so today with underwater drone tech coming along just nicely and if they wanted to go for quality they could do a lot worse than to hire an oil exploration contractor as they have the very best equipment, possible even better than the military.


do you have a source on this tirade, or are you also like Wolfenz ignorant of the evidence against there being anything there. Neither Natgeo, Esso or anyone else is going to put up money for a fools errand. They live in the real world.

Maybe you should go fund it yourself ?


How about you provide your source for there being nothing there rather than a cleverly worded but ultimately flawed and highly inaccurate opinion of the matter, is it perhaps that you do not want it to be there so that some dearly held belief remains unchallenged.

Plenty of sources have already been provided.
Also, any info you can provide concerning how to prove a negative would be appreciated.
The fact is, there is no reason to believe this claim (no evidence for it) and plenty of reason not to believe it (again, no evidence for it.)

Harte


LABTECH767 : How about you provide your source for there being nothing there

YOU Harte : Plenty of sources have already been provided.

WAIT!! there Plenty of Sources??

That there Nothing There?

Let back that crap up:

New Underwater Finds Raise Questions About Flood Myths
Brian Handwerk
for National Geographic News
May 28, 2002
news.nationalgeographic.com...

(1)

Cuba's Sunken City Deep in the waters of Cabo de San Antonio, off Cuba's coast, researchers are exploring unusual formations of smooth blocks, crests, and geometric shapes. The Canadian exploration company that discovered the formations, Advanced Digital Communications, has suggested that they could be the buildings and monuments of an early, unknown American civilization.




(2)

"These are extremely peculiar structures, and they have captured our imagination," said Iturralde, who is director of research at Cuba's Natural History Museum. Iturralde has studied countless underwater formations over the years, but said, "If I had to explain this geologically, I would have a hard time."


(3)

Data thus far has been collected using sonar scans and video. The structures are buried under 1,900 to 2,500 feet (600 to 750 meters) of water.


Ive read an Article, ( i think a newspaper clipping that said that NAT GEO that Their Senior Magazine editor
has went over to CUBA to see the Sonar Scans and Video
and talk to the ones that found it Advanced Digital Communications,




At the End of this Clipping from
( South Florida Sun Sentinal )

it Says...

John Echave Senior Editor of National Geographic Magazine
who came to Havanna last Fall and studied the Sonar and Video Images
" We are at a point we would to very much like to solve this riddle"

to See it click on this Thumb to have it blown up to read it !



Snatched it from google books ( screen capture )


Who is john echave ??

John Echave

Specialties: Editor, Photographer

www.nationalgeographicexpeditions.com...


from: Orlando Sentinal
Underwater Structures Look Like Ancient Ruins
U.S. & LATIN AMERICA - CUBA REPORT
October 21, 2002|By Vanessa Bauza, Sentinel Columnist
articles.orlandosentinel.com...

ohh something recent

( Warning Conspiracy site from Bulgaria ) LOL
The Sunken City of Cuba - Officials Ignored it for 10 Years Because it's ' Out of Time and Out of Place '
Published 19:14, 17 February 2016
7tales.net...

well there some underwater Sub videos in there not much to see tho some weird formation shapes of Rocks


edit on 62016SaturdayfAmerica/Chicago5148 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Apparently , there is Other Sunken City's around CUBA ..


Abstracting Atlantis: Scientists Find Evidence of Mayan Underwater City
06/03/2010 04:02 pm ET | Updated May 25, 2011

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Jes Alexander: Well, we believe we have found the remains of an ancient city on the sea floor in the Western Caribbean. It is important to note that we have yet to be to the site, but what we believe we have found is the remains of an ancient city that was formerly above sea level, and perhaps as much as 4500-8000 years old. This has nothing to do with another site, found almost 10 years ago by a Canadian/Russian team working to map the sea floor near the Yucatan Peninsula. Their site is nearly 2 miles below the sea floor. The site we are working with is much shallower - in between 40 and 70 feet of water. We initially found anomalous objects by mapping a grid and searching the sea floor using simple Google Earth technology. As we zeroed in on the site location, we sought out other satellite imagery and ocean floor maps to arrive at this hypothesis.




Paulina Zelitsky discovers symmetrical structures 2200 feet on ocean floor near Cuba
www.youtube.com...


( History Channel ) Very Interesting

Well it shows a little video.. and shows Paula Zelitsky talking about it and
some viewing of her team.. and more detailed of the Sonar Scans , and her showing it !



edit on 62016SaturdayfAmerica/Chicago5148 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)

edit on 62016SaturdayfAmerica/Chicago5148 by Wolfenz because: correcting Spelling !!



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Wolfenz

I'm sorry to have to tell you, that there is no other sunken city in the west Caribean,
The images taken from Google Earth are fairly common caused by overlapping datasets,
There is an article about it here
www.livescience.com...

You should probably have checked, because what looked to you like corroborating evidence, is actually just fake evidence, which doesn't do your argument much good at all

Further the source "Jes Alexander" who it is claimed is an archaeologist and architectural historian, is actually the founder of the French Newspaper and has nothing to do with ancient history at all. Must have been a slow news day

Your previous post just recounted the original news report ad nausea from 2002. Note Nat Geo said "May be", they have since decided "is not", so it was a bit pointless you posting that as we are already aware of it and how it turned out to be the opposite of evidence..

You seem to be having trouble evaluating evidence, let me help
If you discount the original Zelinsky report as "wrong", what evidence do you have
if the Zelinksy report was right, the site would now be world famous, no one in Cuba is involved in a cover up, or are you going to claim like you did before that the Cuban authorities are in league with the USA

Better luck next time



edit on 28-5-2016 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Wolfenz


What we’re seeing on film now are images of foundation ruins, rubble sections of building walls, and ruins of large public edifices. Some of what remains standing clearly show evidence of intelligent structure - post and lintel construction, parallel wall sections, and right angles - things that could not be explained as having been natural in origin.

1) Not film
2) What they are seeing are compression artifacts exaggerated by zooming.



At the moment, we’re working to assemble and fund a very small reconnaissance team of experienced divers, underwater cameramen, and researchers to go down and prove what we are certain is there.
Six years ago.

edit on 5/28/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk
a reply to: Wolfenz

I'm sorry to have to tell you, that there is no other sunken city in the west Caribean,
The images taken from Google Earth are fairly common caused by overlapping datasets,
There is an article about it here
www.livescience.com...

You should probably have checked, because what looked to you like corroborating evidence, is actually just fake evidence, which doesn't do your argument much good at all

Further the source "Jes Alexander" who it is claimed is an archaeologist and architectural historian, is actually the founder of the French Newspaper and has nothing to do with ancient history at all. Must have been a slow news day

Your previous post just recounted the original news report ad nausea from 2002. Note Nat Geo said "May be", they have since decided "is not", so it was a bit pointless you posting that as we are already aware of it and how it turned out to be the opposite of evidence..

You seem to be having trouble evaluating evidence, let me help
If you discount the original Zelinsky report as "wrong", what evidence do you have
if the Zelinksy report was right, the site would now be world famous, no one in Cuba is involved in a cover up, or are you going to claim like you did before that the Cuban authorities are in league with the USA

Better luck next time






Sorry have to tell me ?

yeah I already know what it shows like on mars when it was scanned .. shows the same thing like city's
I didnt say it they said it LOL.. but if they find something .. hey ... I wouldnt doubt that seeing it around 60 to 70 feet underwater near the shoreline ... but no bats an Eye what they found in Egypt a lost city well preserved..


yeah and what are the results from like 6 years ago .. if there was something from the Caribbean ?

so you have been there to say there is no sunken city then huh.. LOL..
your grasping at straws . saying something like that pal!..




Your previous post just recounted the original news report ad nausea from 2002. Note Nat Geo said "May be", they have since decided "is not", so it was a bit pointless you posting that as we are already aware of it and how it turned out to be the opposite of evidence..


Pointless !! lol they have not told what became of it ! ..

show how it turned out to be the Opposite!? show me a Link
besides someone assuming and not from Skeptic or Debuck site doing the conjecture of guess work..

a Legit Site.. thats has been there at these claimed sites
proving there is nothing there with pictures to video !

I bet you cant!!

and trouble evaluating evidence! ?

what is this evidence of just rock formation you are talking about !



If you discount the original Zelinsky report as "wrong", what evidence do you have


same vice versa !

yet there are others that seen the sonar image and video ..

you are just amusing.. is all i see Marduk

show me a link.. but you wont because you cant .

how can you be so sure that Cuba inst involved in a cover up ?

how about you talk to the Seinor Editor of NAT GEO Magazine John Eclave

edit on 62016SaturdayfAmerica/Chicago5148 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wolfenz
how can you be so sure that Cuba inst involved in a cover up ?

Seriously? And you say others are grasping at straws... Smh.



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Wolfenz

Laughable, all you have left is semantics and you're not even very good at that game

Seriously, the Cubans and the Americans working together to hide something that would bring in billions of revenue for Cuba

The burden of proof is on you, you have ignored all the evidence to the contrary, so I'm going to have to ask you to put up or shut up

Now do you have any evidence at all for a sunken city in Cuba, pictures of buildings, evidence of the existence of a
culture that built it, examples of trade goods in other cultures ?

I already know you don't have any of that, which basically means that you are claiming a city on a misread side scan sonar, which even the original claimant has given up on...
Which if you think about it, is completely hilarious...





new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join