Cuban 'Atlantis' Cover-Up Solved?, page 6

privacy

Pages: << 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 25 times

reply posted on 29-7-2008 @ 12:25 AM by Hanslune

Good initiative lostinspace, let us know what you find out

(this refers to the finds in Cuba and around)

They are not proven or unproven, the road was a bit of no go - at a way to large of scale to be anything.

reply posted on 29-7-2008 @ 07:19 AM by ElectroMagnetic Multivers

reply to post by Hanslune

It is quite big, but through shallows, would it not look distorted anyway? with the image being underwater it would seem magnified slightly? although they do look very big, i'll give you that, lol.

EMM

reply posted on 29-7-2008 @ 11:28 AM by bigfatfurrytexan

if that is not a road, i would be interested to hear suggestions on what it might be.

there also appears to be a road coming from north to south out on the continental shelf. Maybe from something like Maryland to Brazil, or thereabouts.

The marking is VERY anomolous, given its intersection with Andros.

reply posted on 29-7-2008 @ 11:40 AM by Hanslune

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Before we go farther it might be helpful if we are all on the same sheet of music.

Would one of you post which picture(s) we/you are looking at. I want to make sure we're all commenting off the same ones.

reply posted on 29-7-2008 @ 12:27 PM by TheWayISeeIt

Here is a map from an old CIA Factbook, ironically, which using detailed data from Navy underwater mapping. This is a great example of the detail of the landmass in that region. One can easily see the pre-ice age coastal plain and and how clearly FLA, Cuba, Mexico and the Caribbean Islands were connected.

PS - I'd like to give a SHOUT OUT to lostinspace for taking the time to teach me how to load an image.

reply posted on 29-7-2008 @ 12:39 PM by Hanslune

Connected? I'm not sure about that

The area is large but it looks to be that the three areas were not directly connected. However man has shown the ability to pass such barriers (as demonstrated by humans pass over the straits to Australia)

Ah forgot the link to the last two maps

Maps

[edit on 29/7/08 by Hanslune]

reply posted on 29-7-2008 @ 12:49 PM by Hanslune

Something to look for our Spanish speaking friends

There should be in Mexican archaeological records a map like the one I'm posting for the US.

This time coincides with the introduction of people in the New World and colonizing virtually every region of it. Consequently, evidence for human occupation sites, particularly sites left by colonizing fluted point bearing people, is expected on the continental shelves. The map shown to the right is a compilation of the distributions of fluted points across the United States. It reveals several areas of concentration that may have components submerged offshore.

Site for map of fluted points

reply posted on 29-7-2008 @ 12:52 PM by ElectroMagnetic Multivers

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt

Here is a map from an old CIA Factbook, ironically

lol, hilarious

You can see the difference in the blues, which differentiate the depth, and notice how the pacific edge is also similar in colour to the gulf of mexico etc, rather than the atlantic. So this area, pre diluvial, could well have been nestled in a kind of resevoir, as water levels rose and cascaded over, they were sunk beneath a folly of waves.

reply posted on 29-7-2008 @ 12:59 PM by Hanslune

One older map of the Straits of Florida. Looks to be to deep for a direction connect.

Howdy EMM

You seem to have a posted a map in before me. Question on your paragraph below the map. I don't get what you are saying. Can you explain a bit more. Why the "pre diluvial" comment?

[edit on 29/7/08 by Hanslune]

reply posted on 29-7-2008 @ 01:00 PM by TheWayISeeIt

reply to post by Hanslune

Thanks for the colorful maps, and while they speak to generally accepted theory of plate tectonics and shifts they don't really help when trying to make out what was exposed from approx. 20k to 10k b.c. during the last Ice Age.

I quoted and linked to this this a couple of posts ago, but we've established how bad you laissez faire you can be, so I will post a portion of it again:

Some 20,000 years ago, for example, ice sheets locked up much of the world’s water, lowering the oceans and laying bare vast coastal plains—attractive hunting grounds and harbors for maritime people. Today these plains lie beneath almost 400 feet of water, out of reach of all but a handful of underwater archaeologists. “So this shines a spotlight on a huge area of ignorance: what people were doing when sea level was lower than at present,” says Geoff Bailey, a coastal archaeologist at the University of York in England. “And that is especially problematic, given that sea level was low for most of prehistory.”

reply posted on 29-7-2008 @ 01:05 PM by Hanslune

Thanks for the colorful maps, and while they speak to generally accepted theory of plate tectonics and shifts they don't really help when trying to make out what was exposed from approx. 20k to 10k b.c. during the last Ice Age.

Actually they do, just like your maps which also show no direct connect.

The underwater structure will not have changed that much during that short geological time.

However as I noted before man has shown the ability to pass water barriers of that size before - on his way to Australia. The one other map is an important piece of info - it shows the density of stone tool collections. You should find one from Mexico and Cuba. It will tell you something.

reply posted on 29-7-2008 @ 01:08 PM by TheWayISeeIt

reply to post by Hanslune

Actually your first color, picture/map (the one in the set of three) shows part of Mexico, and okay, I misspoke as they were not all entirely connected, but where they are not connected the distances are MUCH shorter.

EDIT TO ADD:

The underwater structure will not have changed that much during that short geological time.

Unless there was a sudden catastrophy in the region. Which is what I am positing.

[edit on 29-7-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]

reply posted on 29-7-2008 @ 01:28 PM by Hanslune

reply to post by TheWayISeeIt

Yes the water connection were much shorter, but the evidence shows that Cuba was not occupied by humans until 8,000 BPE and that occupation came from the SE up the chain of islands from the area of SA.

Stone tool collections from Cuba show only those types that came up from the SE. Soooo you have people definitely in Mexico and Florida 15,000 years ago (and maybe even before) but not in Cuba until 8,000.

reply posted on 29-7-2008 @ 02:08 PM by monkeybus

Originally posted by Byrd
The BIGGEST problem with all this is:

It doesn't match ANYTHING that Plato said about Atlantis (except perhaps that Atlantis wasn't in Greece.) Since Plato is the ONLY source for the story, in order for the information to be correct it MUST match Plato's account.

There's no large continent there made up of 10 rings of land masses, there's no large central city, and there's no evidence that a culture from Bronze Age Cuba ever ruled over the Mediterranean area.

If anything, the "channelers" are trying to cover up the original Plato story.

plato is not the only scource. i believe he got it from somewhere else, and re wrote it but i cannot remeber where it was originally written. i am inclined to say something egyption but i cannot be sure

reply posted on 29-7-2008 @ 02:12 PM by ElectroMagnetic Multivers

You seem to have a posted a map in before me. Question on your paragraph below the map. I don't get what you are saying. Can you explain a bit more. Why the "pre diluvial" comment?

Apologies, I was refering to before the glaciers had melted enough to raise water levels, the deluge, the great flood etc, was a miss phrase if you like. Was thinking out loud more than anything.

I was wondering whether at one point this was mainly, if not all land, with some water locked in, the chain of islands and the coastal shelf they sit on formed a sort of damn, for the water. As the water levels steadily rose, due to the ice melting, this was deluged with water.

reply posted on 29-7-2008 @ 02:18 PM by ElectroMagnetic Multivers

reply to post by monkeybus

AAARGH!! lol, I keep a bibliography of websites of things I find interesting, I had a website of a researcher than had found many references to Atlantis or variations of the name from around the world, one example would be the Olmecs, they believe their ancestors came from a sunken island call Atlanticú, or something similar. Unfortunately, my laptop broke and I'm on my gf's, started a new bib, but aint found that site since.

If anyone can find it, it would help this discussion I believe, he found varying mentions of Atlantis, through a few sources, not just Critias.

EMM

reply posted on 29-7-2008 @ 02:22 PM by TheWayISeeIt

reply to post by Hanslune

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.

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.

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?

edit: for typos

[edit on 29-7-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]

reply posted on 29-7-2008 @ 02:44 PM by TheWayISeeIt

reply to post by monkeybus

You are thinking of Solon who visited Egypt and the ancient records kept by High Priests there. he was the one who began the the story of Atlantis. Plato was related to Solon anjd inherited the task. His dialogue the Timaeus and a fragment entitled Critias tell part of this story. Per Plato, nine thousand years before Solon's visit to Egypt, a great civilization on an island in the Atlantic Ocean disappeared on a day of great rain and earthquakes. Plato did not finish the story, and what Solon wrote has disappeared.

But Monkey, it is clear you have not read the thread beyond the comment you quoted as all of this is addressed repeatedly on pages 1 and 2. The point of the thread is NOT to debate Atlantis, it is to discuss theories around the expeditions to an underwater arachaeological site known as MEGA.

The topic was then expanded to include debate around the various anamolies that don't jibe with in the mainstream academic geological/archaelogical stance per dating and habitation in the region, in the hopes that we can at least find some common ground. READ THE THREAD.

reply posted on 29-7-2008 @ 04:04 PM by Hanslune

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 near it?

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.

reply posted on 29-7-2008 @ 04:09 PM by Hanslune

Cormac suggested these maps, not the best but we continue to look

A map that allows you to change the ocean level

Let see if this works, yep it does, click on the map and you can change the rise and fall of the ocean to your hearts delight.

Thanks Cormac

[edit on 29/7/08 by Hanslune]

[edit on 29/7/08 by Hanslune]