posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 04:04 PM
I am familiar with the accepted timeframes for habitation in the region, and have to respond with the traditional, perhaps tired, but I think true
explanation of coastal habitation. Tthe area of Cuba that is exposed now would have been a small area of mountain top in the Ice Age.
Hans: Ah no, the area of Cuba is less now than it was then. They weren’t isolated mountain tops. Why would you think that? With a drop in the water
line of 100 meters Cuba would still be out of sight of land. One reason I put in the image of the stone tool collections in the US is to point out
that ancient man didn’t just live by the sea. There is no recorded instant of a culture that stayed only on the coastal plain.
Which is not the case with Florida's Ice Age geology, hence artifacts are found there dating to 15, 000 B.C. You make the point that man was able to
migrate over water to Australia.
Hans: Yep they did but they didn’t seem to have done so in Cuba case – and a lot of other islands. It was probably due to personality, clan
cultures, local weather, religious restriction, etc. The problem is how can there have been a major city (mega) without any sign of human habitation
Don't you find it anomolous that these Ice Age sea farers didn't figure out how to settle on land they could, from the looks of the maps we are
referencing, ACTUALLY SEE?
Hans: As I have noted before they probably couldn’t, which would explain why the evidence shows they didn’t go. If you stand on a beach and in
perfectly clear weather with no wind you can see about 6 kilometers. If you are on a headland you can of course see farther.