It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Harte
There are no real "OOPArts."
In U.S. Army Intelligence, I was trained that the truth most often lies in the exact opposite direction of the public rhetoric. You must learn this technique if you are to successfully glean the truth from news reports.
LEARNING TO THINK IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION OF PROPAGANDA
originally posted by: Murgatroid
originally posted by: Harte
There are no real "OOPArts."
If that's what the 'authorities' are telling us, I'm going with exactly the opposite.
originally posted by: Baddogma
a reply to: LABTECH767
My own opinion about past tech peaks and troughs comes from the dna knowledge that tells us modern humans have been around for a quarter million to a million and a half years... and thinking that's a long, long time to stay at a stone-age level.
originally posted by: Baddogma
a reply to: Harte
Oh, dear Harte, it must be nice to be so sure... I, alas, am not.
However, if I ever dig up something, firsthand, that shouldn't exist, then I'll parade it back to this thread and win the internet.
Until then, it's all yours, baby.
Skoal.
Cuba's Sunken City Deep in the waters of Cabo de San Antonio, off Cuba's coast, researchers are exploring unusual formations of smooth blocks, crests, and geometric shapes. The Canadian exploration company that discovered the formations, Advanced Digital Communications, has suggested that they could be the buildings and monuments of an early, unknown American civilization. Many scientists are skeptical of any theory that might tempt people to draw a parallel with the fabled lost city of Atlantis. Geologist Manuel Iturralde, however, has stressed the need for an open mind while investigations of the site continue. "These are extremely peculiar structures, and they have captured our imagination," said Iturralde, who is director of research at Cuba's Natural History Museum. Iturralde has studied countless underwater formations over the years, but said, "If I had to explain this geologically, I would have a hard time."
After the initial flurry of excitement, once scientists began to look critically at the data, especially the sonar images, the story could be seen to be nothing more than hype. For anyone outside the small band of “alternative researchers” and New Age true believers, the story simply died for lack of evidence. But when did a lack of evidence ever stop woo-woos making unsupported claims?
originally posted by: Harte
a reply to: Wolfenz
From your badarchaeology link:
After the initial flurry of excitement, once scientists began to look critically at the data, especially the sonar images, the story could be seen to be nothing more than hype. For anyone outside the small band of “alternative researchers” and New Age true believers, the story simply died for lack of evidence. But when did a lack of evidence ever stop woo-woos making unsupported claims?
So, how do you counter that?
Note the dates on the other sources you used.
NatGeo went to the site. They decided it wasn't worth another trip.
Your sources predate NatGeo going there.
Your blog source is quoting a story from 2009, which is itself quoting a story from 2005 (and lying about it.)
How do you counter that?
Harte
"Nature couldn't have built anything so symmetrical," Weinzweig said, running his finger over sonar printouts aboard his ship, tied up at a wharf in Havana harbor. "This isn't natural, but we don't know what it is."
The company's main mission is to hunt for shipwrecks filled with gold and jewels, and to locate potentially lucrative oil and natural gas reserves in deep water that Cuba does not have the means to explore.
Weinzweig said they have mapped several large oil and gas deposits and about 20 shipwrecks sitting beneath ancient shipping lanes where hundreds of old wrecks are believed to be resting. The most historically important so far has been the USS Maine, which exploded and sank in Havana harbor in 1898, an event that ignited the Spanish-American War.
Manuel Iturralde, one of Cuba's leading geologists, said it was too soon to know what the images prove. He has examined the evidence and concluded that, "It's strange, it's weird; we've never seen something like this before, and we don't have an explanation for it."
After studying the images, National Geographic senior editor John Echave said "They are interesting anomalies, but that's as much as anyone can say right now, but I'm no expert on sonar and until we are able to actually go down there and see, it will be difficult to characterize them." Professor of Oceanography Robert Ballard was quoted as saying "That's too deep, I'd be surprised if it was human. You have to ask yourself, how did it get there? I've looked at a lot of sonar images in my life, and it can be sort of like looking at an ink blot -- people can sometimes see what they want to see. I'll just wait for a bit more data."
Marine Geologist Manuel Iturralde called for more samples before drawing conclusions about the site, saying "We have some figures which are extremely unusual but nature is much richer than we think." Estimating that it would have taken 50,000 years for such structures to have sunken to the depth at which they were said to be found, he said "50,000 years ago there wasn't the architectural capacity in any of the cultures we know of to build complex buildings."
( no Name ? )
A specialist in underwater archaeology at Florida State University added "It would be cool if they were right, but it would be real advanced for anything we would see in the New World for that time frame. The structures are out of time and out of place."[4]
originally posted by: Harte
Continue all you want, but I'd recommend that you stop citing the same story over and over, albeit sometimes written by different authors in different publications at the same time.
Everything you've mentioned comes from the original sidescan sonar "find."
Harte
originally posted by: Harte
Dude, I read every page available at Morien years ago.
They have a lot on yonaguni and the sphinx, that's what brought me there originally.
I think a little critical thinking is in order here.
Why do you suppose NatGeo backed away from this expedition?
If it was to "keep our past secret," then how do you explain all the revelations we've had over the last century or so?
There wasn't a hint of evidence for Sumer, for example. But once it was evidenced, people were all over it.
What about the Denisovians? Homo Floresiensis?
Norse in Canada?
PreClovis cultures?
Trade from Asia to what is today Alaska?
Why didn't they "hide" that too?
There are plenty of threads on this Cuban sonar scan here at ATS. If you search around, I'm pretty sure you'll find a post linking to a geological explanation I read years ago. It might even be my post from three computers ago (bookmarks long gone.) Since you seem to need some sort of explanation, that is.
Also, who, exactly is covering this up? Cuba? I mean, the mean ole USA doesn't control Cuban waters.
Why would Cuba cover it up? They already have enough money?
Third, this site is just off Cuba. Why no such ruins on Cuba?
Harte
originally posted by: Harte
A quick search would have told you I know all about Steen-MacIntyre and the bogus claim about why she became a failure.
Her findings were published, she wasn't blacklisted for her claims.
Several of her peers have also published about it and weren't blacklisted.
She has published papers about the site at least five times since then.
No, Steen-MacIntyre lost her career when she jumped her boss Cynthia Irwin-Williams with her publication.
It was Irwin-Williams site. Steen-MacIntyre was brought in with a group from the USGS when she was not yet a PhD - still a student. She decided to publish the findings before the actual archaeological team in charge published theirs.
Irwin-Williams published the same dates for the find, along with a plethora of other material. Why wasn't she blacklisted if the early dates caused Steen-MacIntyre's woes?
Harte
mportant artifacts have been found in situ (i.e., not redeposited) within lacustrine deposits in the Valsequillo region. These deposits contain many diatoms which indicate an age corresponding to the Sangamonian Interglacial sensu lato (80,000 to ca. 220,000yr BP). Two of the four samples in this study are associated with the Dorenberg skull or with stratigraphic units which contain bifacial tools. The remaining two samples are from diatomaceous deposits which are also Sangamonian and stratigraphically above the artifact units. These four diatomaceous samples yielded 30 extinct and 143 extant diatom taxa. The ages of the four samples correspond to other diatomaceous samples (some of which are associated with artifacts) from nearby Valsequillo localities. A post-Sangamonian age for these four diatom-bearing samples is discounted by the presence of Navicula bronislaae and N. dorenbergi, both of which have short stratigraphic ranges and are known only from the Sangamonian (or its equivalents), and by 13 diatoms which evidently have known long stratigraphic ranges and extinctions before the end of the Sangamonian.