Underwater Pyramid City Discovered Near Cuba

originally posted by: FatherLukeDuke

originally posted by: Marduk


i believe the egypt pyramids are a lot older than archeologists believe aswell

Why

Cos archaeologists hate old stuff, donchaknow?

All of them are are involved in a mass conspiracy to make stuff look as recent as possible. As we all know that's what brings in the cash money money and the ladezzzz.

I thought it was because there was a spaceship hidden under the paw of the Sphinx, with Ronald Reagan, Marilyn Monroe and Jimmy Hoffa on board. But shhh, the less people know the safer we will all be from the Illuminatati

This does have pertinance to this thread, and it is worth watching especially given how many deliberatly set out to deny/discredit/destroy claim's about site's such as this city.
It threaten's there view so after some may set out to disect and deny the argument's of this video with there own OPINION's which of course they posit as fact's.

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: FatherLukeDuke

originally posted by: Marduk


i believe the egypt pyramids are a lot older than archeologists believe aswell

Why

Cos archaeologists hate old stuff, donchaknow?

All of them are are involved in a mass conspiracy to make stuff look as recent as possible. As we all know that's what brings in the cash money money and the ladezzzz.

I thought it was because there was a spaceship hidden under the paw of the Sphinx, with Ronald Reagan, Marilyn Monroe and Jimmy Hoffa on board. But shhh, the less people know the safer we will all be from the Illuminatati

You baised arse - you forgot Elvis!

Harte

originally posted by: Marduk
right, so you admit you aren't qualified to decipher the image and your best idea is to get a load of other unqualified people to back you up and you're recommending "common sense" as a guide. Well common sense would say that there's no evidence surely.

What passes for science in your world ?

So are you a Qualified Expert! ?

Sorry I don't have a Degree Ocean Graphic Sonar Image charts ..
but been in the Military and Seen GPRs and UIT's ( you know Locations for Bunker Busting ) type of a Thing !


No, i was Trying to get a Load of People that Are, or Know of Someone that Is Qualified


LOL

What passes for science in your world ?

Fact !

Seeing there no Evidence there isn't a So called City ( Artificial Structure ) either
and no Official is saying its just a rock formation!
and not much of anyone saying about it ! is a cause for a Concern to me ...
a Swept under the Rug ordeal ..

So find me a link to
someone that has been there at the location in Cuba and seeing the actual Site up front and personal
you known somone that had been there!!
that had a Team and Equipment ! and Actual Pics too of the Site



Seeing i have a Hard time Finding one ?

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Wolfenz
LOL!!!

Even National Geographic is Talking about it !!!!! back in 2002

New Underwater Finds Raise Questions About Flood Myths
Brian Handwerk
for National Geographic News
May 28, 2002
news.nationalgeographic.com...

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."

And NatGeo stopped talking about it when they actually took a look at the evidence.

NatGeo is the reason this story is a fringe favorite. They were a major part of the story from the very beginning.

"Even National Geographic is talking about it."
Ha. That;'s the only reason anyone ever heard of it - NatGeo in 2002.

Harte

Could you show me a link of this Evidence?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: hellobruce

Also the picture on the page the op linked to is just a computer-generated image....

Artist's concept would be more accurate.

You mean like every picture from space we see ?????

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: hellobruce

Also the picture on the page the op linked to is just a computer-generated image....

Artist's concept would be more accurate.

You mean like every picture from space we see ?????

A large number of pictures "from space" are photographs, not artists' concepts. What does that have to do with the topic at hand?

When it comes to 'qualified people" I have found that most all report what the people who pay them want reported and not necessarily what the public want to know about - so much is neglected that might change our currently starring historical record - which many acknowledge as incorrect, incomplete and in some cases darn right negligent.

When you look at people who have gone to look at these sites and fund their own research by writing books which they reference brilliantly, I prefer their take on what they find because they haven't been brainwashed into accepting the official version of history and they don't have university seats to loose.

a reply to: Shiloh7

I take it you have no formal education in archaeology, history, or anthropology...

originally posted by: Wolfenz

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Wolfenz
LOL!!!

Even National Geographic is Talking about it !!!!! back in 2002

New Underwater Finds Raise Questions About Flood Myths
Brian Handwerk
for National Geographic News
May 28, 2002
news.nationalgeographic.com...

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."

And NatGeo stopped talking about it when they actually took a look at the evidence.

NatGeo is the reason this story is a fringe favorite. They were a major part of the story from the very beginning.

"Even National Geographic is talking about it."
Ha. That;'s the only reason anyone ever heard of it - NatGeo in 2002.

Harte

Could you show me a link of this Evidence?

What evidence?
That NatGeo backed out?
It's in the thread.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Wolfenz

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Wolfenz
LOL!!!

Even National Geographic is Talking about it !!!!! back in 2002

New Underwater Finds Raise Questions About Flood Myths
Brian Handwerk
for National Geographic News
May 28, 2002
news.nationalgeographic.com...

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."

And NatGeo stopped talking about it when they actually took a look at the evidence.

NatGeo is the reason this story is a fringe favorite. They were a major part of the story from the very beginning.

"Even National Geographic is talking about it."
Ha. That;'s the only reason anyone ever heard of it - NatGeo in 2002.

Harte

Could you show me a link of this Evidence?

What evidence?
That NatGeo backed out?
It's in the thread.

Harte

And NatGeo stopped talking about it when they actually took a look at the evidence.

you said , LOOK at the evidence .. did you not ?

so where is this of what they are saying what it is, is what im asking,

OR did NAT-GEO just Back out from hearing of Here say!!

Last time I checked on reading (" It was a Go " for the Research with NAT - GEO )

As for National Geographic.

They backed out because Zelitsky was asking for far too much money and the images were not up to broadcast quality according to them but but kept the EXCLUSIVE right's which they had already paid for up front in there installment ensuring no one else get's a look in as Zelitsky and co are bound by legal contract and can not sell it to anyone else, being in debt as running that type of operation is hugely expensive they had probably already spent the deposit from national geographic so could not pay back and back out of the contract, read between the line's.

If national Geographic were genuine on this matter they would have sent there own expedition to film the site as there are plenty of outfit's for hire with the necessary equipment, more so today with underwater drone tech coming along just nicely and if they wanted to go for quality they could do a lot worse than to hire an oil exploration contractor as they have the very best equipment, possible even better than the military.

originally posted by: Wolfenz

you said , LOOK at the evidence .. did you not ?

so where is this of what they are saying what it is, is what im asking,

How many times are you going to be told that there isn't any evidence for a lost city at all, but tons against it, before you accept the reality of this situation. seriously, I'm getting to the point where I'm going to drag you to Cuba and throw you off the cliff so you can go check it for yourself

originally posted by: LABTECH767
As for National Geographic.

They backed out because Zelitsky was asking for far too much money and the images were not up to broadcast quality according to them but but kept the EXCLUSIVE right's which they had already paid for up front in there installment ensuring no one else get's a look in as Zelitsky and co are bound by legal contract and can not sell it to anyone else, being in debt as running that type of operation is hugely expensive they had probably already spent the deposit from national geographic so could not pay back and back out of the contract, read between the line's.

If national Geographic were genuine on this matter they would have sent there own expedition to film the site as there are plenty of outfit's for hire with the necessary equipment, more so today with underwater drone tech coming along just nicely and if they wanted to go for quality they could do a lot worse than to hire an oil exploration contractor as they have the very best equipment, possible even better than the military.

Well Some has some kind of Idea of what happened

is there a Source where i could go and find this this out ?

Its funny NAT GEO -- has not said anything else..
you think they would, if had their Own Team .. to find out ...
we would have this thread debate..

originally posted by: LABTECH767
As for National Geographic.

They backed out because Zelitsky was asking for far too much money and the images were not up to broadcast quality according to them but but kept the EXCLUSIVE right's which they had already paid for up front in there installment ensuring no one else get's a look in as Zelitsky and co are bound by legal contract and can not sell it to anyone else, being in debt as running that type of operation is hugely expensive they had probably already spent the deposit from national geographic so could not pay back and back out of the contract, read between the line's.

If national Geographic were genuine on this matter they would have sent there own expedition to film the site as there are plenty of outfit's for hire with the necessary equipment, more so today with underwater drone tech coming along just nicely and if they wanted to go for quality they could do a lot worse than to hire an oil exploration contractor as they have the very best equipment, possible even better than the military.

do you have a source on this tirade, or are you also like Wolfenz ignorant of the evidence against there being anything there. Neither Natgeo, Esso or anyone else is going to put up money for a fools errand. They live in the real world.

Maybe you should go fund it yourself ?

a reply to: Wolfenz

How about you present some evidence to prove your case, rather than calling others names and throwing a tantrum?

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Wolfenz

you said , LOOK at the evidence .. did you not ?

so where is this of what they are saying what it is, is what im asking,

How many times are you going to be told that there isn't any evidence for a lost city at all, but tons against it, before you accept the reality of this situation. seriously, I'm getting to the point where I'm going to drag you to Cuba and throw you off the cliff so you can go check it for yourself

ahh a thousand times!!!

till i see video, pictures, or a official oceanographer, archaeologist, tells the public so! from articles , or interviews on Video ! or a Legit News Site or Science Site , Archaeology Site , NAT - GEO site

Evidence from the Original Team .. well Their evidence ...
yeah Tons Against it .. ( most debunker sites ) Skeptic Sites, if that what you mean..

Reailty .. Yeah Keeping it Real!!

Drag me to Cuba and throw me off a cliff ?

Why the Hell not.. just drop me off to the Location! Pinar del Río Province with a Team! Im game!!
then we can bury it! Ill Share the Loot if theirs a Sunken City ! you will be famous !

while your at it send my ass to the Moon at the Cydonia site ! I like to see that too!
ill promise ill take some good shots!!

and No my name isn't Alice !


or we just can get Robert Ballad or James Cameron to contribute!
and have the History channel do some funding Ancient Aliens! LOL
kind of #!!

No Evidence ... if its a sunken City or Swell Rock Formation of EITHER!!!

and thats THE POINT!

but i kinda would think that an Oceanographer Would Know the Difference
between a rock formation.. to a Ship , or some non natural formed Object ..

originally posted by: Wolfenz
while your at it send my ass to the Moon at the Cydonia site ! I like to see that too!

Cydonia is a region on Mars, not the Moon.