Cuban 'Atlantis' Cover-Up Solved?

page: 4
30
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 11:07 AM
link   
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!




posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 11:08 AM
link   

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.





posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Diver Pictures, Source undisclosed










posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   
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]



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 11:31 AM
link   
The satellite pictures can be found HERE

The pictures of zelitsky and ancient cave art can be found by typing "zelitsky ancient cave art" or similar into google.



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWayISeeIt
 


www.abovetopsecret.com...

that is the ning li thread.

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

Hans: 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?



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   

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.



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   

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".



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   


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.



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWayISeeIt
 


I've never really cared for the "Because we don't know the answers, there must be a conspiracy" mentality, but it's your thread, so have at it.

Could there be man-made structures off the coast of Cuba hundreds, if not thousands, of years old, yes. Are there? Unknown at this time due to lack of scientific verification.




unless we can agree that there is mounting evidence that strongly indicates there was a pre-historic civilization on now sunken landmass


Mounting evidence would indicate a body of evidence that is being significantly added to over a period of time in support of the original claim of man-made structures. Since the original claim was made in 2001 and everyone has gone effectively silent since then, that would appear to be patently false.

cormac



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by cormac mac airt
 


I am not limiting the discussion of landmass and a "Mega America" FLA, Cuba, Bimini, land bridge to Yucatan etc. to only what Zeltisky, et al said on the subject. There are numerous studies and discoveries leading many branches of geology and paleontology to question the timeline and I will post some of them later as I have to ditch right now.

I'm v. sorry I'm, leaving w/o linking, but will do so when I get back if someone has not beat me to it.



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWayISeeIt
 


The title of this thread would then appear to be misleading. It suggests a Cuba specific cover-up and you are suggesting, or at least entertaining a more regional one. I wish I'd have known that from the start.

cormac



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 01:12 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   
One tiny piece of information

From the Hall of Ma'at

Quote

Re: Anything New About Paulina Zelitsky And Her Undersea "Ruins" ??
Posted by: Doug Weller (IP Logged)
Date: May 24, 2006 10:46AM


See this blog: [www.nwidi.org]

Last year Linda Howe wrote on some forum that Zelitsky was working on ships off Mexico trying to gain money to continue her work.

Doug Weller

Director/Moderator The Hall of Ma'at
Doug's Skeptical Archaeology site: [www.ramtops.co.uk]

A little tid bit

Link

Cannot copy from this link as its an image but about 3/4 the way down it has some interesting information on what the site might have been.

Under Cuba "unwater structures"

From the Hall of Ma'at discussion of the link above

Quote

.....John failed to mention that the same article also
suggests that sunken city off of Cuba consists of
debrie,i.e. missle containers, trucks, etc dumped
there as a result of the Cuban Missle crisis. This
is a fascinating hypothesis.

If the area is a dump site for debrie from onshore,
it possible that large rocks found at the site
consists of waste material generated by harbor and
other Soviet construction onshore and dumped at
that location offshore. Offshore dumping of such
material is a common practice. A person might be
able find documentation on this having happened,
if this idea is valid. The results of the latest
investigations at the Cuban "megalith site", if
they are ever released, should be interesting.

End quote



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
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.


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.


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.


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? they could be wrong, rendering this more probable.


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


To me again, this is guilty until proven innocent., we no longer use this to condemn people, yet it is favoured when considering theories, or more specifically 'fringe' theories.


I for one would love to find such a civilization.


Then we agree on something, theres still hope.


Great thread, star and flag


Thanks. EMM

Edit: Pics of the crew on this page.
www.morien-institute.org...


[edit on 27-7-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

[edit on 27-7-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Just reading the site for the morien institute, puerto rico, Yucatan, cuba and the dominican republic were all connected, the islands being the tops of the then mountain ranges. Then goes into the gulf of mexico aswell as the carribean islands and it says that Iturralde is well known for his research into this possibility, the supposed sight of these ruins could at one point have been a fertile valley, around what time would this have been innundated?

My best guess would be the last major glacial shift, water levels rose and the 'resevoir' broke, so to speak, so if the last peak was around 11-12,000 years ago, we could say this could have happened then, although 50,000 years isn't too unbelievable, for me at least, I believe this 'major glacial shift' would have sped up the process somewhat. Interestingly, the glacial shift before that is reported to be 40,000 years ago.

This said, using the site sky linked to, there are reported underwater sites stretching from Florida and spreading south, south-west, now although these do not show conclusively that this was the case, it raises interesting questions as to how far this stretches. On the Morien sight linked, they asked:

"There have been reports since the 1950's by light aircraft pilots of submerged buildings, evident from the air, to the north of Cuba and to the Bahaman Channel, has ADC expoored those ruins, and if not, do you have any plans to explore them in the furute?"

Dr. Paul Weinzweig:

"Probably not, since our research is currently confined to Cuba's deep territorial ocean waters, ocean images recorded by aircraft would be in shallow waters accexible by divers. Our expertise are in deep ocean technology and investigation."

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, more than possible IMO, but then thats all it is.

EMM

Edit: Site sky linked for the ruins and possible 'roads' off the coast of Florida.
www.satellitediscoveries.com...

[edit on 27-7-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

[edit on 27-7-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   
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]



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   

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'.





new topics




 
30
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join