reply to post by Hanslune
That is the claim the problem is nature does make such structure even Schoch most beloved of fringe believers thought it was natural
What...you mean like Schoch initially stated that in his opinion the apparent weathering of the Egyptian Sphinx enclosure was caused by sand erosion,
and later, after more thorough investigations of said enclosure, changed his stance completely and now states that the weathering on the enclosure is
proof of extreme water based erosion over periods as long as 10,000 years....that Schoch is it?
As has been said, Archaeology is an evolving science, who's theories and hypotheses are only ever as current as the latest finds from the latest
digs...the professionals, by the very nature of the science, very often change their positions on certain artificats and sites.
Personally, the sum of $500,000 for dropping even a large quantity of sonar buoys around the Cuban site is way overestimated for such an exercise.
Google have done similar work all over the world, as has most major oil companies, as have treasure hunters searching for sunken shipping or WW2
relics, as have Universities and even, sometimes (believe it or not) archaeology departments of various countries
None of whom thought their activities prohibitively expensive in pursuit of knowledge and data.
The average cost per sonar buoy is from $250 to $5000...even a half hearted expedition could afford a dozen or so, and have an ROV into the bargain
for another relatively small cost. $30,000 - $50,000 would be more than enough for the entire initial expedition, including bribes for Cuban officials
as and when required...a full investigation following the initial locating and inspection of the site would indeed cost more, but then the expense
would be justified as any other expensive detailed dig anywhere in the world would be.
After all the ENTIRE purpose of archaeology departments anywhere in the world, IS the search and examination of sites, which may potentially add to
the evolving knowledge base already acquired...they have NO other function, but to do this. Archaeology refusing to perform even an initial inspection
of such a potentially massively important site, is like a lawyer refusing to defend someone because the cost of shoe polish to shine his or her shoes
To glibly claim that dropping a dozen or more relatively cheap sonar buoys, behind a research vessel for a few days is too expensive, especially when
the potential payoff is as important as the Cuba site appears to be is utter nonsense. Even at your arbitrary costing figure of $500,000, is dirt
CHEAP considering the crucial importance of such a discovery, a 'Mexican city' doesn't cut the mustard as a description.
They NEVER know what is going to be discovered on any dig, yet they dig anyway because that is their remit, their entire reason for being in the
archaeology departments of the world!
Which brings me back to my original point that refusing to investigate the Cuban site, based on what is essentially such a TINY expenditure for such a
potentially massive archaeological payoff is pathetic and stinks of not daring to attempt to verify the ruins as it would not only totally upset the
archaeological applecart all right, finding an advanced city, 700m under the surface of the sea, would be like finding a fighter jet in a hidden
The ramifications of such a find are not similar to Gobekli tepe, at all. 12,000 - 15,000 yo religious monuments are most certainly very, very
impressive and add greatly to our view of history, and are surprising for their technological and artisan quality among other benefits, but are in no
way paradigm changing...the Cuban ruins being discussed here, should they exist
, would most certainly be paradigm changing and would cause
archaeology to revise their entire subject as it would create a historical anomaly of profound significance.
The simple fact is, a cursory, very basic examination of the area would cost a measly and insignificant amount, perhaps as low as $30,000 - $50,000
total...to not even look citing expense as a reason is rediculous in the extreme and betrays the very foundations of archaeology.
And yes...Troy was indeed considered ficticious or at best a myth by most serious institutions and archaeological authorities - this is widely known,
not speculation on my part in the slightest, despite what you think.
While i'm at it, if you find reading or answering my points 'yawn' worthy, please feel free not to.
edit on 8-6-2013 by MysterX because: added text