LOST TRIBE, Wandering's ...: Update About Cuba Underwater Megalithic Research    
 Update About Cuba Underwater Megalithic Research14 comments
10 Jul 2002 @ 22:34, by Anthony Marsh

Looks like it's what it is, a lost city, if the Yucatan and cuba where connected at one time. Then it's posable that the astroide that got the dino's happened more recently than 65 million years? Yet at least the scientists are admiting that there was some kind of volcanic/techtonic thing that sunk this city. And are admiting that there shouldn't be polished granite down there. Read the updated artical, I think it will make you think.

[< Back] [LOST TRIBE, Wandering's ...]



11 Jul 2002 @ 01:35 by ming : Underwater city
Yeah, I'm looking forward to the further discoveries there. A 50,000 year old city 1/2 mile underwater, made of granite only found 1000's of miles from there. Might rock some scientific theories.  

11 Jul 2002 @ 22:41 by vaxen : Yeah bro...
Trillions in the 'national debt' and billions vanishing, and billions more going to war, war, and more war...do'nt tell me this worlds peoples' are'nt absolutely crazy when these people find $2,000,000.00 prohibatory.

I guess at one point in time I may have been interested in such findings. Interestingly enough my interest is rapidly fading. This world is totally absurd sans any kind of redemtion, self created or inspired from the heavens!

There is a temporal anamoly somehwere and this world is the result...created by what monster?  

27 Jul 2002 @ 08:53 by sindy : reveal
there is much that scientist know my love.. but the time is for such.. just as the computer it has been there for long.. but we go with the human mind and how fast they work within that frame *see you and thanks for the post*  

26 Sep 2005 @ 04:55 by Canuck @ : Underwater City
Hmmm. How did anyone come up with a date of 50,000 years for a sunken city? That area of Cuba could have submerged 600 years ago and nobody would have been around to record it? Also, granite may have been unknown in that area around Cuba, but it is found in Mexico...not 1000's of miles away...but probably within 200 miles. The last I heard was that National Geographic was going to co-sponsor a photographic and exploratory expedition to this area in 2006 so I think it would be a good idea to wait until the results of that mission are well documented before anyone speculates, exaggerates and/or publishes outlandish claims of this discovery. The only way it will be truly extraordinary is if discovery was made of writing or carvings that are totally unknown and uncomparable to the cultures already discovered. But if Mayan or Aztec writing or artifacts are recovered from this site I would only fathom a guess that a great cataclysm of large magnitude had recently claimed the lives of many...and not that Atlantis has been discovered.  

23 Jan 2007 @ 11:09 by Danny @ : Pity
I think it is sad that when an event like this happens, 'educated' scientist would rather pipe off negative statements from a comfortable distance rather than embrace an opportunity for real knowledge. It appears to me that they get so wrapped up in being right that they in a sense become ignorant.

This find may very well not be Atlantis. Atlantis as an actual city may very well be a myth. The fact is that for a metropolitan type area to be underwater and to the best we know, at the moment, intact, means that this is potentially very old. Somewhere amongst the oral traditions of many cultures lies a truth that should be self evident missing only details. Man may have very well been much more advanced thousands of years ago and due to things beyond their control or by their own hands forced them to start over. Who knows, we may find ourselves in that very situation again.  

14 Feb 2007 @ 00:32 by Canuck @ : Re: Pity
I'm trying to determine who the "educated scientist" is to whom you refer. And what negative statements did they state from a comfortable distance, rather than embrace an opportunity for real knowledge?

At the moment I think it's best that we keep speculation as just speculation, and only speak of knowledge as that of what we truly "know". There is consensus among geologists that a great cataclysm occurred in the area where this recent underwater discovery was in Cuba. As I mentioned in September, 2005, that cataclysm could have occurred as recently as 600 years ago, and there would have been nobody around to record it; hence, the underwater structures could really only be 600 years old.

My point being that we should not be trying to make claims that this find is thousands of years old, or hundreds of thousands of years old....we just don't know yet. And we won't know until someone recovers cultural material from those depths and compares them to what already exists in the region. If then the cultural remains are totally different than what is already "known" and in existence, then it's safe to say that there is the potential that this could be a very significant find. If, on the other hand, cultural material is recovered and it is compared to 600 or 700 year old Mayan artifacts, then it is a slightly different type of find/discovery. It will be an important find regardless of what is found, but we also have to wait until someone actually recovers something that is "man-made" before we can even state whether this is a city or other type of human structure. All we have now are side-scan sonar imagery, of which still could be anything until something (even indisputable photographs) are recovered from that site.

If we let the truth speak for itself we would all be better for it. I hate to be the voice of reason here, but I'm also a realist and understand the scientific method.  

10 Mar 2007 @ 16:08 by Carl @ : "lost city" of Cuba
Is there any update on this story? When you do a search you find nothing after 2002. Where are the pictures? Where is the evidence? You would think if they had really found something, there would be pictures smattered all over the net and the news media. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  

10 Mar 2007 @ 17:17 by bushman : Hmm
Nope, havent heard a thing. Probably can find all the info there is on Linda Howes web site, although she may have moved this story to her pay per view section. The link suplied at the top.  

25 Aug 2008 @ 17:01 by Ed @ : Technology Nowdays
I see of Satellite photos discovery's online about the ocean floor and in the 2008 era online you can zoom in very detailed in some areas. Now just last night for examples I decided try Google Earth http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/download.php?Number=1200354 and zoomed in the Cuba site. The zoom there goes very far. If you zoom in all the way to the pins (some areas of the map zooms more than others so focus on the pins) you can see how the ocean floor is gridded there with square strait cut structures . In fact its massive and you can see there is man made walls and square structures down there . If you take a look at other good zoom spots of the ocean, lets say Japan etc you can tell the difference in natural ocean floor and something like at Cuba which is very unnatural looking and gridded structures. See for yourself. One thing the Eye in the sky don't lie. And this is just a sample of the kinds of things you can find online if you don't have a sub and scuba gear.

It would be nice for the actual research to be more forgoing but I think they are working on a sub that is slated for 2008 that can work at such depths and the money of course. I also hear they are doing a lot of diving down there and are finding it was more extensive than first thought.  

25 Aug 2008 @ 17:08 by Ed @ : Technology Nowdays

the other link was not working right and I dont know how to edit post so here this one should work

There are other satellite photos of detailed sites around the world that are very interesting.  

26 Aug 2008 @ 01:06 by bushman : Ya,
I found several things on land as well with google earth. You have to be a member to edit posts. Anyway its so cool to have access to sats and stuff, lots of people think they try to hide the ancient past, but if people just take the time and effort its all right there to see. :}  

20 Nov 2008 @ 14:46 by Alexander @ : Underwater city off of Cuba on Youtube
There is a Youtube video on Youtube now. It is made up of pictures though.  

17 Jan 2009 @ 16:07 by hershel @ : cuba
cuba is what is of the inland after a meterorite hit south of it and washed it where it is today. I need to seen you a photo of what I think what happen  

18 Jan 2009 @ 01:31 by bushman : Yes, its posable,
several years ago I had gotten a hold of an undersea topo map, and I and a few others came to the same conclusions about how the Gulf of Mexico, could be a huge Astroid impact, or also we had some evidence that it could be simaler to the Yellowstone Caldera, that may one day collaps into its magma chamber. :}  

Your Name:
Your URL: (or email)
For verification, please type the word you see on the left:

Other entries in
11 Jan 2017 @ 20:35: Is my TV watching me?
19 Feb 2012 @ 05:33: End of the 5th Sun?
3 Dec 2011 @ 20:10: Voynich Manuscript
19 May 2011 @ 01:58: Wikileaks DOC, NAU/NAI, Pros/Cons
16 Feb 2011 @ 04:45: Cool Stars & Gas Giants
27 Sep 2010 @ 05:31: Ancient Canal Builders
22 Apr 2010 @ 06:11: "First Light" Pics from SDO.
9 Feb 2010 @ 08:20: SDO, 'Variable Sun' Mission
24 Dec 2009 @ 05:17: Interstellar Discovery
10 Sep 2009 @ 08:00: Hubble Update

[< Back] [LOST TRIBE, Wandering's ...] [PermaLink]?