That underground room near the paw of Sphinx

reply to post by Sargoth
Hiya sargoth. The image at 54 isn't showing a pyramid and Wilcock is being pretty adventurous with his credibility to then compare it to Sneferu's Pyramid. The waters in which the 'pyramid city' was discovered have long been a place where ships have dumped ballast...particularly Russian. The block in the image is likely to be 20th century concrete block....don't think 'pyramid,' think corner.

The video of the 'pyramid city' hasn't been buried. The discovery hasn't been hidden or denied. Paulina Zelitsky screwed herself. She was offered a great deal from Discovery Channel involving a TV deal for financing. She then approached a rival TV corp and tried to play them both off for more money.

The rival corp asked to see her footage before committing to a deal. When they saw her evidence, they withdrew. Discovery did the same and she was left without finance for further research.

Wilcock is throwing garbage on the wind and exploiting an interested audience who typically fail to check his claims.

Hey Kandinsky, it's been a while. I found more video on the sunken city. I think these experts should be able to figure out a pyramid from trash. The city itself if over 10,000 yrs. old is evidence for Atlantean civilization.


www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 13-5-2010 by Sargoth]

reply to post by Sargoth
Hiya Sargoth, yeah it has been a while

That image Wilcock describes as a 'pyramid' comparable to Sneferu is a close-up shot from a submersible camera. If it was a long-distance view of a pyramid, the camera would be some hundreds of yards away and it clearly isn't.

You rarely believe me so here's a direct quote from one of the guys filming the image...

Dr Paul Weinzweig : "I would not over-emphasize the earlier reports of symbols in rocks. At the time, water clarity and ROV lighting was not optimal. The currents in this particular area are very strong and there is a lot of backscatter light effects from current-driven plankton. Our next expedition to the site will try to improve the video quality with better lighting, low light cameras and some improved perspective shots of megalithic structures evidenced in our sidescan sonar images."

Dr Paul Weinzweig

Wilcock is being dishonest by claiming it's a long shot of the object.

There's no reason why Cuba wouldn't investigate the site themselves. It'd be fantastic national propaganda for Cuba by proving the island to be a cradle of American civilisation. Gotta ask why they haven't?

So are you saying you don't think there is a real city down there?
I was wrong about Cuba not being part of Atlantis. I looked at Nidle's map last night and it shows the western tip Atlantis extending through Cuba all the way to the Yukatan peninsula but it doesn't show anything in the Bimini area. The Pyramid isn't essential for that city to be Atlantean. If it is over 10,000 yrs. old with megalithic structures, I don't see how anyone can deny it being Atlantean.
Maybe the Cubans are studying it but don't want to announce anything because it would start an onslaught of thieves etc.



[edit on 13-5-2010 by Sargoth]

reply to post by Sargoth
No, I don't think there's a sunken city down there. The last time the story came round, there wasn't any evidence of human habitation that supported the timeframe, region or even existence of a culture advanced enough to be building towns or cities. The depth of the alleged city is also against the idea.

The likeliest explanation is they mistook ballast and natural formations as artificial structures. The simple fact that town and city complexes have been discovered beneath the Amazon canopy and documented shows us how little need there is for any cover-ups.

I've had a quick look for any new developments and keep hooking up to Linda Moulton Howe articles.