It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Cuban 'Atlantis' Cover-Up Solved?

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 04:13 AM
You keep going ahead, jumping from thread to thread and spreading the "there are no secrets and special interests" stuff.

I choose to believe that there are hidden interests at work in your field of interest, and there is not anything that will change that since Ive seen "it" at work in first-hand experience. (And it may or may not be at work here).

posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 08:08 AM
VERY fast reply, here... sorry to be brief but I'm out of town this weekend on a research trip.

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
Several years ago,(1998) Zelitsky reached certain notoriety in the mass media when she located the resting place of the Battleship Maine, whose sinking ignited the Spanish-American War. The ship was located about five kilometers off the Coast of Havana at almost a thousand meters of depth. Zelitsky’s equipment was able to capture impressive video of the shipwreck location.

I looked, but didn't find that much notoriety... but the story is very old and the articles I found were from about 2000. It did, however, lead to another article that discussed why the "lost city" idea was rejected at least by some. The "explorer in residence" for National Geographic said

Ballard said he has heard of the formations in the Yucatan Channel but is not convinced they are the work of humans.

"That's too deep," he said of the 2,000-foot site. "I'd be surprised if it was human. You have to ask yourself, how did it get there?

"I've looked at a lot of sonar images in my life," Ballard said, "and it can be sort of like looking at an an ink blot -- people can sometimes see what they want to see. I'll just wait for a bit more data."

Until then, I didn't realize that what they'd found was actualy in a trench (low spot) on the ocean bed. I would tend to agree with the above -- if they'd found it in the shallow coastal waters that would have been above the ocean during the last ice age, it would have been a tad more convincing.


Everyone should keep an open mind, said geologist Iturralde.

"These are extremely peculiar structures, and they have captured our imagination," he said. "If I had to explain this geologically, I would have a hard time."

But, he added, just because no natural explanation for the so-called ruins is immediately apparent, it doesn't mean there isn't one. "Nature is able to create some really unimaginable structures," he said.

They say a second visit to the site was unsuccessful because of turbulence. They have been waiting for funds ever since then (I believe.)

So -- the story this time mentions nothing about crosses, scripts, etc, etc. Just "we found what we think is a city" and "we went out a second time but conditions were too bad to take a better look."

And per Iturralde, that's just what they did:

Five or six months after this news and the beginning of the investigations I was called to join the group as a geologist, because in the group everyone else was an archaeologist.

Now we have another mismatch. The newspapers say nothing about archaeologists, and other news sources say that Zelitsky's ship is one of the treasure hunter ships (which usually don't carry archaeologists ... but might have them.) It's not that I doubt this totally, but I really would like to know the truth. One famous photo shows her with a pyramidal structure" but other photos show that they were taking sonar findings.

Do you have a good news source that clears this up? I have not had time to translate this page (which is in Spanish) that shows SOME of the pictures, but not the "script" that they supposedly found and the photos that are shown are pretty disappointing.

As to getting a 'GPS fix on it', there is no question that they know exactly whre the site is:

to the west of Cuba, in the Guanacabibes peninsula. Two kilometers towards the Yucatan channel near San Antonio. In the vicinity of San Antonio there is a mountain that arises from the bottom of the sea.

...indicating a geologically active area (and Cuba is.) That's where you find odd looking rock formations.

What we don't know is who else was involved becuase the whole thing has been SILIENCED. I did email Iturralde and asked him to clairify who the video data was sent to.

I'm looking forward to his reply. I don't think the thing has been silenced. They said they needed $8-$9 million for it and the last word I saw was that they didn't have the money.

BTW, I did google him in Spanish... interesting fellow, apparently a specialist also in the megafauna of Quaternary era Cuba.

posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 09:38 AM
Good thread this, one of the most interesting I've seen on ATS actually. Good info, robust debate and a thrilling backstory. Great stuff!

posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 09:49 AM
Howdy Sky

You keep going ahead, jumping from thread to thread and spreading the "there are no secrets and special interests" stuff.

Hans: I keep saying it that because you never provide evidence of said conspiracies. You also never answer my questions as to its effects and scope. In your world it "just exists and may not be questioned". Odd no one in Archaeology can seem to detect this massive conspiracy. So you keep going ahead, jumping from thread to thread and spreading, "there are secrets and special interests- this explains the lack of evidence", the thing is I'm willing to discuss and analyze it - you are not, you just stamp your feet and say it exists and refuse to discuss it further. LOL

I choose to believe that there are hidden interests at work in your field of interest, and there is not anything that will change that since Ive seen "it" at work in first-hand experience.

Hans: Yes, I'm open to the posibility that a conspiracy might exist but no evidence is ever put forward for its existence. You of course continue on the "closed mind" path and refuse, repeatedly, to discuss it. It just exists and must never ever be questioned.

So what evidence is there of a conspiracy in this case?


posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 09:53 AM
Good analysis Byrd

One thing I was unclear on is the territoriality, is the site in Cuban or international waters?

I agree the depth and location seem odd but its not completely impossible that a city could be dropped by a massive earth movment - however it would probable be levelled by an action of that strength.

Interesting possibilities but I can see how it could just be natural. 97% skeptical on this one.

posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 10:19 AM
I don't know exactly where it is on a map but if it's more than 3 or 12nm (I forget which, I think 12) it's international waters...and anyone can claim it.

posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 11:14 AM
I'm not sure where or how the Cuban economic exclusion zone works in that area.

posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 11:31 AM
reply to post by Hanslune

The site is approximately nine kilometers off the coast of Cabo San Antonio, Cuba in international waters.

posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 11:38 AM
reply to post by TheWayISeeIt

If its within 9 km then it's in Cuba's territorial waters of (12 nautical miles) which makes sense as the person who made the find had been hired by the Cuban government to look for stuff in their areas.

I could see that Cuban politics and the embargo could be effecting this.

posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 12:33 PM
reply to post by Hanslune

I could see that Cuban politics and the embargo could be effecting this.

As nice as it would be, and as hard as I'm working, to bring you over to the side of 'conspiracy' of Zelitsky being silenced, that does not look like the route that's gonna get us there as -- AND BYRD THIS IS FOR YOU TOO -- the timeline of her explorations does not gel with the Cubans funding her last exploration of the site.

The TIMELINE again: In 2000 Zelitsky -- who was under contract with the Cuban government and Geomar for oil and gas exploration as well as casting an eye out for sunken gallleons while she was at it -- stumbled on the MEGA site.

In 2001, after gathering the team of archaeologists that Iturralde referenced himself as joining, they set out again. This time using an Remote Operated Vehicle which sent back:

Images sent back by the ROV confirmed the presence of large blocks of stone -- about 8 feet by 10 feet -- some circular, some rectangular, some in the shape of pyramids. Some blocks appeared deliberately stacked atop one another, others appeared isolated from the rest.
Please note the stones are all WHITE. Anyway, they could not do more with the limtied technology and were somewhat thwarted by strong currents and visibilty.

In 2002 they were in talks with NatGeo, see Byrds link, who said they saw no problems with either Cuban or Mexican govs as it was research and anticipated funding Zelitsky's next voyage whre she hoped to film more extensively using a manned submersible which would allow her to drill into the stones and see if they are granite, which is not indigenous to the region.

In 2004 Zelitsky set sail out of Port Progress, in Yacatan, Mexico on a 2 million dollar, 25 day research expediton that was funded by unknown sources. They found and filmed a pyramid of 35 meters under the waters of the Caribbean, but it had to interrupt the mission due to technical problems.

The mission failed due to technical problems with the submarine and faults in the illumination system, that was "six teams weaker than expected", the scientist said. "Because the apparatus could not move, it took photographs from pyramids from a distance of one to three meters, without being able to take photos from a distance from those structures so that one could have the perspective of the buildings", she explained. We were only able to make superficial dives . We did not remove what we waited for by lack of properly adapted equipment", she said, thus in the next attempt we will use a robotic unmanned submarine.

In July 2005 she announces that she is setting out from Port Progress again in October of that year with over a 100 scientists and submarines which NatGeo was funding and then SHE IS NEVER HEARD FROM AGAIN. Nor is the site, MEGA or the project. LINK

And I am not the only person following this, I've seen a couple of websites dedicated to trying to track her down and NatGeo won't comment.

As to Hanslune's suggestion of simply contacting the people, I did email Iturralde but do not expect to hear back given what I consider the secrecy surrounding MEGA. Zelitsky has well and truly gone AWOL. Her company Advanced Digital Communications (ADC) is 'gone' the weblink goes to a RoadRunner page, etc.

And an aside, ADC had a 6 yr. 50-50 split deal with Cuban Gov. that expired in 2004, I would surmise that this deal was no longer in effect when she sailed out of Mexico.

[edit on 26-7-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]

posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 01:09 PM
Paula Zelitsky and ancient cave art in Cuba

posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 01:59 PM
Computer re-construction of the possible "look" based on the results of sonar-scans off the Coast of Cuba:

posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 02:19 PM
I bet the US is blocking all the funding to the expedition because they don't want Castro in control of the MEGA site. Castro sees this discovery as a bargaining chip for the US to release the embargo they have on them.

I bet the day the story was announced the US government sent submersibles to the site to see for themselves. They probably extracted some artifacts and put them into a secret warehouse. The US figured out the site was legit and then started blocking funding. I bet the US is sneaking out the gold as we speak. Remember all the gold the Spaniards stole out of the Americas. There must be an astronomical amount of gold in that area if it is truely Aztlan.

Here's an image of the Caribbean Trench.

[edit on 26-7-2008 by lostinspace]

[edit on 26-7-2008 by lostinspace]

posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 02:59 PM
reply to post by Skyfloating

A submerged lost city need have nothing to do with "Atlantis", much less with the stories of a Greek historian.

True. Atlit Yam, Israel and the remains of Helike, Greece come to mind.

The OP uses the word "Atlantis" metaphorically, as we all do when we say "Atlantis discovered in Bolivia!" or "Atlantis discovered in Cyprus!" etc.

That's Bull. Nearly all discoveries in print claiming to be Atlantis will tell the reader why the discoverers believe it to be so. No metaphorical usage required. Seems everyone wants in on the "Atlantis" craze, even some here at ATS.


posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 03:24 PM
reply to post by lostinspace

Thanks for the image -- AND YOURS TOO SKY.

Here's Iturralde's 3-d digital map and explanation of where the site lies. I have to use a link as I don't know how to put up an Image, sorry. MAP

One of the more intersting things, I think, to muse on is what kind of timeline are we talking about here if indeed this is remains of an earlier unknown civilization.

Iturralde says that at the rate that Cuba sinks now, 15mm a year, it would take 50k years to get there. But he also acknowledges that there is no volcanic activity in the area today, while they did recover volcanic sediment at the MEGA site. In fact MEGA sits, all 8 sq. miles of it, on Volcanic sediment.

If you think about sudden catastrophe and landmass being suddenly 'displaced', consider that directly after the '04 tsunami the Strait of Malacca went from 4000 feet deep to 100, so a sinking a city moves sort of moves into the realm of science.

posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 03:32 PM
reply to post by cormac mac airt

No, no, no, no. This thread really has nothing to do with a fascination with Plato, Solon or Atlantis. Atlantis was used 'metaphorically' as it is the nomenclature commonly used when referrring to evidence of pre-historical, submerged civilizations.

What's more interesting than Atlantis is the evidence emerging out of the Carribean of a pre-historic MegaAmerica if you will, i.e. discoveries in Bimini, Andros, and now Cuba. There is mounting evidence of 'ruins' and 'roads' under the water throughout the region.

[edit on 26-7-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]

posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 04:50 PM
Sorry TWISI,

No disrespect intended. I should have left out the part about the OP in the above quote. However, Skyfloating tends to make broad, sweeping statements which bear little relationship to reality, hence my post. Some use the term Atlantis metaphorically, some don't. Sky's not in a position to claim all do. Actually, I find the use of the word "Atlantis" when describing an unknown/unrelated find rather degrading. Rather takes away from the achievements of the peoples involved.


posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 05:18 PM
St. Lucia, Cuba, very old Train Tracks leading out from and into the water. For what? Treasure Cargo?

posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 05:19 PM

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt

No, no, no, no. This thread really has nothing to do with a fascination with Plato, Solon or Atlantis. Atlantis was used 'metaphorically' as it is the nomenclature commonly used when referrring to evidence of pre-historical, submerged civilizations.

My point exactly.

[edit on 26-7-2008 by Skyfloating]

posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 05:24 PM
Probably a simple way of lifting fishing boats and other small ships out of the water for painting and repair

A marine railway or a railline that was on a wooden wharf which has been eaten away by tenedos leaving the rail line.

Marine railway

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in