SRSEN - Thanks so much for opening up the dicussion while not taking the thread off course. I think there could be some interesting ways to have the debate about skepticism and use info surrounding MEGA, Zelitsky, and even include Bimini, Andos, Carribean, land bridge from Cuba to Mexico etc. as the discoveries that have been increasingly coming of that area that point to all of that being one landmass above ground seemingly in the same era which is causing even mainstream science to review their postions on dating.

CORMAC (and his fellow Skeptics) - Welcome! Thanks for joining in! The primary objective of this thread is introducing the idea that A) a conspriacy has silenced Zelitsky regarding MEGA and B) speculation on why and who did it. I don't think we can ever hope to 'agree' on that topic unless we can agree that there is mounting evidence that strongly indicates there was a pre-historic civilization on now sunken landmass, landmass that seems to have been displaced and submerged in a sudden violent motion.

So as OP I am officially opening up that idea for debate for both sides to use and hope that we can all be flexible while trying to be 'right'.

MERKA - Welcome! I am going to see if I can put together what evidence is available about the MEGA site -- along the same lines as the 2nd timeline on page two -- that perhaps will be convincing enough so that as a group we can at least agree that it is anomolous and outside of the realm of what science would consider naturally occuring.

HAANSLUNE - With all due respect, I linked to that site three times. Once on the first page, twice on the second. As to 'piling on', yep, sorry, it means more than just "something other than expressing opinions and asking questions" when those opinions seem pre-formed out of the gate and also to be inflexible regardless of what is presented.

And I think there is a tendency for 'questions' to be asked w/o A) properly reviewing data links (see: your not knowing I linked to three times to that website) and B) with the goal of shutting down the dialogue (see: your first comment where you didn't even bother to ask a question and then summed up with "Sounds like a lot of "UFO" style buzz, a lot of noise and nothing substantial").

Having said all of that, I sincerely appreciate your participation and am not trying to pick a fight with you. As a matter-of-fact YOU are the one I would most like to bring over the 'other side' of this debate. To that end I am off to get a cup o' joe and then will be back with more research. Cheers!

Originally posted by Hanslune
I am saying there is no proof there is SOMETHING down there.

With your repetitive monotomatic "There is no proof" mantra from ATS-Thread to ATS-Thread you act as an agent of discouragement rather than an agent of curiosity.

I dont think the divers shown here (meditarranean) shared your attitude.

Diver Pictures, Source undisclosed

And BIGFURRYTEXAN, I did not see your posts until after my last went up. I'm so glad you're here! Can you please send me the link to your NIng Li Thread?

And SKYFLOATING, can you send me links of where some of the pics you've just put up are from? Which part of the seabed and who took them is what I could use if you have it. Thanks!

[edit on 27-7-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan


Sky, the second set of pics...where are they of? Is that more of the Alexandria stuff?

I dont know the source of the second set of pics as I have all kinds of this stuff saved on my computer. I do remember that these are not pictures coming from the research-scene but from the divers-scene, taken by Florida divers. Hence "source undisclosed".

Someday I´ll have to take all the stuff on my harddrive and try to have it sourced and verified.

Bad form there Sky you know we were talking about mega thing and not known and accepted sites {slap on the head}

i agree that there are those that are awaiting further info. However, can you honestly say that, given the apparent obfuscation combined with the available information, that SOMETHING is going on?

Oh something may be going on but an evil suppression of archaeology ain't it. Your "apparent obfuscation" to me is just a lack of upto date information. If there was an evil conspiracy the second expedition would not have occurred.

Originally posted by Hanslune
Oh something may be going on but an evil suppression of archaeology ain't it. Your "apparent obfuscation" to me is just a lack of upto date information. If there was an evil conspiracy the second expedition would not have occurred.

You may know a thing or two about archaeology, but you dont know much about covert-operations and keeping secrets. A well-thoughtout conspiracy includes the pretense of things like a "second expedition for the public".

Originally posted by Hanslune
Oh something may be going on but an evil suppression of archaeology ain't it.

The conspiracy we´re talking about isnt necessarily evil but for the protection of mankind. Protection from what? From technology that could destroy the planet like it was destroyed back in Atlantis days.

You may know a thing or two about archaeology, but you dont know much about covert-operations and keeping secrets. A well-thoughtout conspiracy includes the pretense of things like a "second expedition for the public".

Actually I do Sky - so the idea is we send a second expedition, find stuff then make everything disappear-then no one will notice, eh? Doesn't seem to have worked very well. How about a second expedition and public and overwhelming media coverage of what wasn't found.

How about this Sky the second expedition went out found nothing that wasn't natural and the backers dropped there support? Isn't that a wild unsupportable idea? Failure is rarely documented.

Instead of idle speculation I would suggest you search for more information on the incident. Your automatic response to anything "its a conpiracy". As we have noted before there is no rational motive for such a conpiracy.

Mounting evidence

That can be looked at in two ways:

Fringe stuff that is multiplying at a steady rate unfortunately it appears to have no basis in fact.

Real stuff more and more studies of this that and the other thing (in many areas of science), all showing what that region was like. Oddly there doesn't appear to have been an advanced civilization lurking there.

Does this mean their wasn't one? No, it means we haven't found evidence to support it.

I for one would love to find such a civilization.

Howdy EMM

Fact is a perception and changes from person to person, what you consider to be fact, others may not, myself, I try not to say anything's fact. What your talking about IMO, is the currently popular theory or theories and as we know, these change and evolve, so who knows what we'll discover in decades to come, to assume its wrong, as it is not yet proven or even 'popular' is like assuming guilt, until proving innocence.

Hans: Well let us look at Cuba what do the studies show? No sign of habitations before 8,000 years ago, no stone tools, pottery, indications of controlled fire, agriculture or death of certain species that are vulnerable to human hunters. None, that is not subject to one persons opinion. Those facts are there, openly published.

From these facts we can then conclude, that going back several hundred thousand years there were no humans on Cuba or there were humans on Cuba who somehow didn’t follow other typical human behaviors and left no trace OR the scientists have been horribly unlucky and missed contrary evidence. Sky would add a fourth, that the evidence exists and its all being hidden by a massive conspiracy!

Science doesn’t use the legal sense of guilt and innocence. Either the evidence is there or not. Example, an area is considered to not have been inhabited if no evidence is found of people being there or all hills are natural unless shown to be artificial.

For now, that is true, but there is speculation and even the theory's you talk about have opposing theories, in all fields, who says that those that discredit this find are right?

Hans: Like what? Are you talking speculation or theories backed up by evidence? If the former yes if the later no. This is an absolute example one can find exceptions to this.

To me again, this is guilty until proven innocent.,

Hans: Again the legal wording just doesn’t work well in science. See my comments above. The default is natural or not there unless proven.

From your second post

I don't think that there is a lack of evidence, circumstantial or not, for the existence of ruins around this area, only a lack of validation of what these ruins are, or who built them. Even though these are much deeper, at one point this could have been dry land,

Hans: But the problem is this is all "reported" there is no verification. circumstantial evidence in bulky doesn't turn into data. Until someone can find a site that can be studied in detail the story remains, null.


[edit on 27/7/08 by Hanslune]

Originally posted by Hanslune
Hans: Well let us look at Cuba what do the studies show? No sign of habitations before 8,000 years ago, no stone tools, pottery, indications of controlled fire, agriculture or death of certain species that are vulnerable to human hunters. None, that is not subject to one persons opinion. Those facts are there, openly published.

From these facts we can then conclude, that going back several hundred thousand years there were no humans on Cuba or there were humans on Cuba who somehow didn’t follow other typical human behaviors and left no trace OR the scientists have been horribly unlucky and missed contrary evidence.

I don't know if we can link no evidence for life 8,000 years ago to no evidence of life hundreds of thousands of years ago - bit of a jump.

But see, thats the point - it is highly possible that we have looked in the wrong places, gotten unlucky OR hidden what we found. All are JUST as likely as having found nothing at all.

And you make a good point, how do we know how we might have lived all those years ago - maybe we are looking for the wrong signs or in the wrong places or for the wrong type of remnants. To quote the great KG - "anything's possible"



If we, just for a moment, chose to use our own intelligence and consider what all these discoveries MOSTLY point towards, the odds are in favour of ancient civilization.

As i said before, those sonar scans certainly don't appear natural to me. Or at least they appear more 'man-made' than natural.

Originally posted by Hanslune
Sky would add a fourth, that the evidence exists and its all being hidden by a massive conspiracy!

Why is it simply not possible that the powers that be, whoever they are, hide such major discoveries because either:

a) they think the public can't handle such history-changing truths; or

b) they can somehow profit or prevent another party from profiting by hiding such discoveries.

I mean, is that REALLY such an impossible thought? Really? I personally don't find it so impossible.

Are we not all learning something by the whole UFO thing going on at the moment? (and lets not discuss this here please) But alot of us here predicted EXACTLY what is happening now (in regards to media acceptance, coverage and so on) and yet were told by 'skeptics' that it just won't happen- 'its a conspiracy theory'.