Atlantis Found: Giant Sphinxes, Pyramids In Bermuda Triangle

page: 8
175
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   
i would love for this to be true...

so we can show it to Zahi Hawass and say, see you little twerp, the pyramids were a creation of the atlantians not egyptians. now go back under your rock and never come out.

one can only dream




posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   
I dont really believe this is what we call Atlantis which is closer to Europe. The reason is there are many cycles. In the hobbit for example, lord of the rings, they speak of middle earth. They also spoke of swords fashioned from the first cycle, or much older time, and the elves were going WEST to ancient lands and place.

I keep seeing pyramids, two faces of worn pyramids in the mountain tops, and suspect, that there was change in plates, in uprise of mountains, and that the oldest pyramids are in the Americas (not the current ones in South America) and in the Pacific for example. That everything went form west to east. Lemuria came before Atlantis.

To me anything off of North and Central America on either side, predates, Atlantis which was off of Ireland and there were land masses around Europe and the middle east that went down.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   
The time period for Lemuria coincided with Mars and it wasnt 12 000 years ago roughly, but a period that was 65-120 million years ago when asteroids or meteors collided and seemed to relate to both mars catastrophe and at the same time or a little later on, ending dinosaurs on earth as if in preparation for changes in in habitants.....

www.space.com...

In other words, the many cycles of earth and what is buried, some of this stuff, if it ever could be found and it wasn't scrubbed clean by snowball ice, which has happened in the past to earth as well, global ice age of miles high ice, plates going up and down, land masses under the ocean, etc, some of the pyramids would be probably over 100 million years ago, and further.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 11:38 AM
link   
By the way, there is another source for this for those that are skeptical.

You can find it here: New Underwater Finds



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 


I remember the similar story (cited in the article) from the 60's, when the Dr. said he found Atlantis with all the crystal artifacts. I believe it was on the news of the time briefly. He had "pics" too. As a child I was amazed and it is probably one of the reasons I have found fringe science and the paranormal so interesting since around that time, right up until my current Cronage.

On a real scientific level, there have been ancient ruins and what appear to be ancient ruins found submerged throughout the world. Some are explored, others not. The problem with exploring complex ruins that would seem to date from ten to fifteen thousand years ago is that is flies in the face of most all "approved" knowledge of human civilization. I do think though that the understanding is beginning to shift to accept that humans have evolved, devolved and re-evolved many times.

My belief; it has happened before and it will happen again. Our current level of civilization is particularly vulnerable to global cataclysm because we rely so much on electricity/electronics. We would become a stone age society in pretty short order should all of our technology be lost. The irony of that scenario is that it would be the most primitive of societies living today that would be ahead of the curve when we start again.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 


Whatever is down there has been found and taken by the United States Government. It said in the article that navy subs found the area during the Cuban missile crisis which I believe was in 1963. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I did a search on the last report of a ship to go missing in the Bermuda Triangle and sure enough exactly as I suspected the last time was in 1962.

So whatever WAS down there is by now looooooooooong gone unfortunately. It's fallen into the hands of the dark side.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
These poorly made youtube videos with cryptic gothic sounding music and lame subtitles are ruining everything for me. If this were some truly amazing discovery, film crews and production studios would have been all over this. All I've seen from the footage from the submarine are big rocks with closeups enough to make them look like big walls. They don't zoom out at all, they don't show anything that seems to be made by a human. I'll remain skeptical and sane about this until there seems to be some sort of professional involvement.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   
113 flags for a bulls**t story from beforeitsnews.com.... You people are so blinded by your ignorance of the real world it's beyond pathetic
edit on 24-1-2013 by TheLonewolf because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-1-2013 by TheLonewolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 

And, why are the ships and planes missing there? If that are only ruins, long time ago submerged?
edit on 24-1-2013 by dragnik because: additional text



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 
Danged induced global warming... just goes to show you, if they had paid up their carbon tax, it surely wouldn't have been inundated. I guess we'll have to start calling those Cubans -- including Castro, Atlantians. He looks just like what I might have imagined an Alantian might look like for the purported cusp of humanity.

Great fantastic find... heard about it on the news this morning. Thanks for posting the links.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheLonewolf
113 flags for a bulls**t story from beforeitsnews.com.... You people are so blinded by your ignorance of the real world it's beyond pathetic
edit on 24-1-2013 by TheLonewolf because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-1-2013 by TheLonewolf because: (no reason given)




Here is a story from National Geographic for you:

news.nationalgeographic.com...

What about this "bulls**t" now?
edit on 24-1-2013 by GLontra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeoVain
The obvious is lost on you i see.


yes we are all still wondering why a bunch of blurry non descriptive photos and some fat guy sweating up a storm in a sonic the hedgehog tshirt speaking in Spanish constitutes fact.

You think that what, Russia isnt basking in the glory of world wide media attention over Vostok and they just happened to overlook Atlantis being found at the door step of there commie buddy Cuba and decided not to lend there support to garner that attention too? - Did the cold war teach you nothing about national pride?

If someone could find a link to the Mufon episode where they went to South America to research UFO claims that may add some perspective here to the reliability of South American news.

Wait I have one better.

edit on 24-1-2013 by circuitsports because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Sketchy source.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   
I'll say it one more time....this topic was first discussed on ATS in 2008. This "discovery" happened in 2002. PLEASE REVIEW MY POST ON PAGE 6 FOR THE END-ALL CONCLUSION THANK YOU



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 


The article states the city is 600 ft below the ocean. The article states water levels were previously 400 ft below current levels. The article states at least one of the pyramids is larger than any in Egypt.
Khufu's Great Pyramid at Giza is the largest pyramid. It is 146.6 meters tall. I wish I knew how to post a drawing showing the correlations of these measurements. Please make a rudimentary drawing on a piece of paper. It just doesn't jive. I'm not saying there is not a city or pyramids or whatever. What I am saying is that the numbers don't work. If the figures are true, either the city was built partially submerged, or it would currently be visible above the ocean's surface. Typically when simple "facts" about discoveries dont correlate probably, then deceit is involed. Although, sometimes they are misrepresented or understood. I could just be misrepresenting the measurements to myself. I'm wrong please show me.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Artorius
I'll say it one more time....this topic was first discussed on ATS in 2008. This "discovery" happened in 2002. PLEASE REVIEW MY POST ON PAGE 6 FOR THE END-ALL CONCLUSION THANK YOU


The only thing you confirm is that it is a real, ongoing story, that very much deserves attention today, where the archeological dig is far from finished. Although this matter was briefly covered on ATS some years ago, new info is found out about it today.

This is one potential place to discuss these new finds. We don´t want the interest in a find of this magnitude to die off right?
edit on 24-1-2013 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by yamammasamonkey
reply to post by NeoVain
 


The article states the city is 600 ft below the ocean. The article states water levels were previously 400 ft below current levels. The article states at least one of the pyramids is larger than any in Egypt.
Khufu's Great Pyramid at Giza is the largest pyramid. It is 146.6 meters tall. I wish I knew how to post a drawing showing the correlations of these measurements. Please make a rudimentary drawing on a piece of paper. It just doesn't jive. I'm not saying there is not a city or pyramids or whatever. What I am saying is that the numbers don't work. If the figures are true, either the city was built partially submerged, or it would currently be visible above the ocean's surface. Typically when simple "facts" about discoveries dont correlate probably, then deceit is involed. Although, sometimes they are misrepresented or understood. I could just be misrepresenting the measurements to myself. I'm wrong please show me.


Seems like you got your facts wrong. Its 2000 feet below water level, not 600 feet. 2000 feet is 600 meters, well more than what would be required to bury a pyramid double in size to Khufus pyramid.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Is there any chance that to be some military installations, base, or similar? Soviet Union was present on Cuba for a long time... Option, Kowalsky...



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 


Misread that. Twice. Thanks. I new something wasn't right.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   
This is sort of like an update from bad archaeology.



Paulina Zeltisky was predisposed to see artificiality, because that is what she was being paid to do (even if the artificiality she was specifically interested in involved sunken ships). Others have seen geological formations.





Although some may see this as evidence that she has been warned off it, it is more likely that she has been unable to persuade anyone to finance an expedition in search of something that in all likelihood doesn’t exist.


badarchaeology.wordpress.com...





top topics
 
175
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join