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 patheticedit on 24-1-2013 by TheLonewolf because: (no reason given)edit on 24-1-2013 by TheLonewolf because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by NeoVain
The obvious is lost on you i see.
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
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.
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.