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.

 

‘Mars Face’ Discovered Near Cuban Coast!

page: 3
31
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Interesting find there Mike.


However, I'm not convinced of much with this, though it is definately worth noting. I would think that a connection between the two would need to be much stronger before electing much serious consideration.

I do note your tone of asking as opposed to stating it as a fact, unlike my friend who feels that you should be taken as always presenting facts. There are few real hardcore facts available in the realm you so often trod. And questioning and speculating are all we can do at this point.

A great deal more data will need to emerge before an answer, one way or the other, is clearly supported. IMO.




posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


well yes, I have seen these sort of rock formations before,





This is sedimentary rock, it forms long straight cracks in it's surface due to how the rock base formed.

To even conclude remotely that a face in a rock must be made by some alien civilization or created by an advanced alien civilization is in my opinion setting up a hoax. People believe what you say as fact even though you cleverly disguise your claims under the pretence of opinion and speculation.

to argue my point let's look at this "face"


Certainly resembles a face doesn't it? So therefore an ancient civilization "may" have come along and carved it into the rock to be discovered later and photographed.

I must admit mike you are quite clever, your imagination is very vivid and your writing is exceptional. I doubt you would have the same reaction if the titles to your threads were less sensational and reflected more accuratly the reality of the images that you submit.

your use of indeffinate articles to qualify and protect your position is a facade induced only to promote your theory and divert attention away from the underlying scientific fact.

Albert Einstein said that immagination is more important than knowledge, however imagining something to be true does not make it so.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Yet another cool post Mike!!
I wonder how much of that area of ocean has been explored up close as to prove the existence of a lost city. As for the face....who knows maybe its just a "trick of light and shadow" as the goons at NASA explain away Cydonia. Speaking of Cydonia, if NASA is so sure there is nothing intelligently made there, why the heck don't they just land a rover there to prove it? I personally believe that there is more to the Cydonia than just rocks with light and shadow and that there are many places on Earth that could have very well been created by highly advanced cultures possibly not from here.

Star and flag my friend
If you were to post more per day I would never get any of my work done!!



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   
I get what you are saying. You are posting information and it is up to us to do the reaserch to find if it is true or not. Someone posting that they know for fact that this isn't true, is just blowing smoke in my opinion. The subject is very interesting and I hope to see more on this topic. I have an open mind and beileve we haven't learned all there is to know quite yet.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   
here is another thread about the findings of the coast of cuba.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

this one from Rense
www.rense.com...


"We think that this is no longer a hypothesis, it is a fact, supported by scientists who specialize in geology and archaeology", says the investigator. "The existence of pyramidal structures deep underneath Cuban waters is verified. We only needed to gather the details ".


taken from here: www.freerepublic.com...


www.s8int.com...
this one covers the hypothesis of this city being Atlantis, pretty informative


it would not be strange if they found out this was Mayan in origin, and not as old as they thought..

i mean Tulum, is less than half a mile from there, you can actually see Cuba from the tip of Yucatan, maybe its some sort of twin city, or some sort of harbor...
besides sitting in the Ring of fire
maybe a massive earthquake, maybe the same reason that the Mayan empire disappeared



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


How deep are the anomalies?

[edit on 6/2/2008 by jkrog08]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 07:40 PM
link   
For the OP isn't that head in the sea way to big ?
Looks like 10miles something.


[edit on 3-6-2008 by BcnDiamond]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 07:44 PM
link   
I think the pics of the structures the divers are diving on, where in fact man made it was a big deal a few years ago. There was a documentary on discovery chanel, then it was just dropped like all the intriguing things in this world. That pic of the face in the hills always creeps me out why is the a hole in the ground where the ear should be and only one road going to it makes you think.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Do you know what the object is constructed of?
Perhaps it is not stone but something else?
I just point this out, because I find that the first people who jump to debunk this stuff, do it with out having actually put hands on the object itself, and are merely using "conventional" wisdom, which is always highly suspect, since as I said, you do not have all the facts.
As far as the legends of Atlantis being a parable, this is true, but it is also a strong possibility that it is based on facts. A very strong, almost definite possibility.
Why?
Because there is physical proof that the sumerians had contact with South America (confirmed cuneiform writing found on statuettes in ruins in South America), the Egyptians as well (mummies with coc aine in their systems, which comes from cocoa leaves, which have never grown in North Africa).
All of these possibilities were considered bunk by mainstream archaeologists for years, but they now begrudgingly admit that it is probably a fact.
An archaeologist will not ever think outside the paradigm of their vaunted academic education because they have been brainwashed by the establishment to think in a certain way (those that do, are chastised and ridiculed). This makes any conclusions they come to, suspect and open for debate in any clear thinking individuals mind.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Are you saying it wasn't carved? Now who is being far fetched?


[edit on 2-6-2008 by morthn1waytoskinacat]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
1. The lost continent of Atlantis is just a story created by the Greek philosopher Plato. It was a tale, a story, a parable as it were. It had no basis in fact and those that consistently seek out this fable will only wind up with more questions than answers.


Sorry mate, but this kind of attitude gives skeptics a bad name. You're probably right about Atlantis, but you speak like it's a certainty. You can no more prove that Atlantis didn't exist than I can prove that it did. Unless of course you're some kind of immortal and were actually around when Plato was writing his story. Beyond that, we're all just putting forward theories.

The difference is that Mike has clearly stated that his 'theory' is just a suggestion. Whereas your 'theories' are stated as absolute fact. Again, your theories are probably the more accurate ones, but you come across as arrogant when you state them as indisputable fact.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 11:42 PM
link   
This is the first time I've posted on any forum of any kind but I just felt the need to on this occasion.
I often read through threads that interest me, be it current events or threads like this that is simply throwing ideas to the public to make make our own minds up. What I never understand is why people like 'whatukno' feel the need to post the way they do. Not for one minute did I take Mikes tread title or opening post to be fact and he clearly didnt intend it that way, he was simply giving us an interesting topic for us to discuss.
I'm a tutor of history at Coventry University in England and I encourage my students to interpret my teaching as they like, make of it what they will. Of course most of history is fact but not everything is set in 'stone'.

Anyway, even if this is false why do you care if people you have never met think this is true?

While I'm here.... I think its a coincidental rock formation like the one on Mars. Interesting none the less. Thanks Mike.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by morthn1waytoskinacat
I just point this out, because I find that the first people who jump to debunk this stuff, do it with out having actually put hands on the object itself, and are merely using "conventional" wisdom, which is always highly suspect, since as I said, you do not have all the facts.

An archaeologist will not ever think outside the paradigm of their vaunted academic education because they have been brainwashed by the establishment to think in a certain way (those that do, are chastised and ridiculed). This makes any conclusions they come to, suspect and open for debate in any clear thinking individuals mind.


Well said morthn1waytoskinacat!! I couldn't have put it across better!
There are those who refuse to see and analyse out-of-the-box concepts! Well, we've been brainwashed into thinking within conventional paradigms since school. It just depends whether one wants to free oneself from the tether. But convention is so ingrained into our psyche that it's blasphemy to even think otherwise!

Cheers!



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 01:41 AM
link   
I thought these were quite interesting. The second image appears to show the outlines of squared city boundries or roads? near the top in the hairline. This is all in Google Earth - you can get a better and much larger view of the triangle roads if you go to the coordinates shown. Those roads appear to come from the coast of the US and stretch across the bermuda triangle.







posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 03:38 AM
link   


Originally posted by whatukno
This is true, but were not just talking about sea life, we are also talking about erosion caused by currents underneath the water.

...

If we were to take into the account that this MUST be Atlantian in origin cause it resembles a face then we must understand that after that long of a time no matter what the substance was made of it would have degraded and dissolved through organic life and water erosion and sand erosion. It wouldnt be there at all because the sea would have completely destroyed it by now.





Originally posted by whatukno

I am sorry but currents and erosion as well as growth of sea life would have destroyed any statue sunk beneath the waters. The sea destroys everything. Im sorry mikesingh
this isn't a good discovery. In fact what you have found is nothing more than a natural phenomenon that occurs everywhere.

Unlike the Cydonia face on mars this face is more exposed to an even more damaging environment. If this had been some sort of statue it would have been unrecognisably eroded long ago.


Sure, sure. If you are talking about when Atlantis was "supposedly" around then possibly, but your statements are just misinformed.

This is an image and article about a marble bust of Caesar that is more than 2000 years old.

Marble bust of Caesar thought to date to 46BC

This is a underwater temple thought to be 8000 years old. Some say, 5000 years and being completely submerged about 2000 years ago.

Yonaguni Monument
More Yonaguni Pictures

These are not in the Atlantean range, but are still very old and have survived in pretty good condition despite the circumstances. Just because something is underwater doesn't mean it is going to be destroyed within a short time.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by apolluwn
 


well said sir !! excellent post !!!

and thanks Mike for another great thread !

thanks

snoopyuk



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


Those pics of the face are the same picture, just diffrent colors! God you people are gullible



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBorg
reply to post by mikesingh
 


If you look just to the SW of your "face", you'll see another larger face staring back at you... I wonder what it looks like.. You see it?

TheBorg


Was gonna post the same exact thing.

As a matter of fact, when i first looked at the underwater face picture, I thought the slightly bigger face just SW of the one he pointed out, was the face we WAS gonna point out.

Two faces, for the price of one!



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   
To be very honest with you, Im not a photo expert or anything closer to that. I can´t see anything. But my options are open. Thanks.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join