Cuban 'Atlantis' Cover-Up Solved?

Did find these links hopefully it has not been seen before. Mainly more speculation.

The link

2nd link

3rd link

4th link

5th link

[edit on 26/7/08 by Hanslune]

Cuba Satellite Image of anomalous area.

The Bermuda Triangle could be an -underwater alien instalation-, perfect for picking up people, and taking them underwater working on them. The electromagnetic charge would be created in high energy places such as these. A compass going haywire because there is no sense of time, or linear mechanics, from a higher density, the magnet finding the pole positions would have a hard time registering it.

The deeper you go in the ocean, the more you realise (the energy) it would take to live there. Definately off the charts.

Yeah Atlantis was off the the coast of Florida.

That's one big craft down there. Perhaps that triangle is one of those dark metalic crafts seen, hence the shape triangle.

reply to post by Hanslune


Thanks for puitting up those links in order, I have been referencing them as well throughout. Which I am only pointing out because I have noticed that you and Byrd tend to pile on the threads in this forum and begin to aggressively 'debunk' the OP's w/o looking at their supporting data or seemingly fully reading the OP's first post (See: Byrd's first comment and your subsequent comments of supporting her first two postions).

My intent is not to offend, but to state a pattern I see here.

Anyway, from the 5th link -- after the second expedition that was undertaken with Archaeologists and world reknowned Geologist Iturralde -- Zeltisky states:

"We think that this is no longer a hypothesis, it is a fact, supported by scientists who specialize in geology and archaeology", says the investigator. "The existence of pyramidal structures deep underneath Cuban waters is verified. We only needed to gather the details ".

After this THE SILENCE....

[edit on 26-7-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]

Originally posted by DeltaNine
Good thread this, one of the most interesting I've seen on ATS actually. Good info, robust debate and a thrilling backstory. Great stuff!

?? Whaat ??

in our local jargon I'd say the whole thing was on the caliber of 'polishing a turd'


at best
the introduction of several archeologists into the mix was a case of name-dropping (for the anticpated result of gaining some venture capital)...

or, which is not so very reasonable...
the Cuban Govt was promoting the expedition as a 'cover-story'
for all the surface ship activity in the area... as the Cubans, along with the sophisticated radar ship of an Ally was in the vicinity...

they (the whole party of interests) might be attempting to recover a "Broken Arrow"
(which is code for a lost nuke missile, of which the harpoon class anti= ship launch platform was operating in those Cuban waters,,,, some time previously)


I always thought 'Acheologists' dealt with things and artifacts at established sites & studied them... those type of scientiests are not
anywhere near proficient at interpeting side-scan radar images

bob ballard had the robot camera aparatus to take real time & natural world photos of the Titanic ...as a reward for helping to find that
US nuclear sub.. these people may be doing the same type of thing but in a 10 year lapse of technological ability...


this 'City' screams of the same creativity as ' Richard Hoaglands' "City on Mars", that he's been exploiting for a generation already!

reply to post by St Udio

at best the introduction of several archeologists into the mix was a case of name-dropping (for the anticpated result of gaining some venture capital)...

What are you talking about? Nowhere are archaeologists being named, dropped or otherwise, in this thread. I named Zelitsky and Iturralde, a Geologist, out of the gate. In the face of Byrd's ridicule and presumptive suppostion that these people were:

"just two people", "apparently none", "maybe the crocodiles et it?", "no" and "no one outside some Atlantis enthusists. They can't even get tv channels desperate for ratings interested in them."

I pointed out Iturralde's credentials. I don't think that qualifies as 'gaining venture capital', whatever that means, but getting facts -- that were required to even let this thread live -- straight.

As to your statements of:

the Cuban Govt was promoting the expedition as a 'cover-story'
for all the surface ship activity in the area... as the Cubans, along with the sophisticated radar ship of an Ally was in the vicinity...

they (the whole party of interests) might be attempting to recover a "Broken Arrow" (which is code for a lost nuke missile, of which the harpoon class anti= ship launch platform was operating in those Cuban waters,,,, some time previously)

Uhh... I'm not sure how to respond to that as it is ... some...random stuff you wrote down. If you have something to support this in relation to Zeltisky or the timeline here, be my guest. Make your point, but please don't drag the timbre of the thread down with nonsense.

(Edited for repetitive sentence)

[edit on 26-7-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]

Fantastic thread here, good work TWISI and everyone! Keep up the solid information and debating

I just want to ask all the 'sceptics' three questions - Hanslune, Byrd, you two especially.


1) What would it take for you to turn your back on your beliefs and admit that there are more questions than answers as far as earth's history and man's origin goes, and that cover-ups in this regard do exist?

2) In your opinions, is it more or less likely that something majorly significant and history-changing has been found off the Cuban coast?

3) Why is it SO unbelievable that man lived on the earth and destroyed himself (or was destroyed) during periods in which 'textbook science' says nothing of the sort existed?


Simple questions, honest answers please

reply to post by srsen


Thanks srsen! If you feel that strongly and have not have not done so, could you flag it? I would like to keep this going long enough for others to see it and jump in with corroborating, or even defintive 'debunking', data.

MEGA is, IMO, a facsinating story that deserves far more attention and thought than it has received. Cheers!

reply to post by srsen

1) What would it take for you to turn your back on your beliefs and admit that there are more questions than answers as far as earth's history and man's origin goes, and that cover-ups in this regard do exist?

This is actually a two part question, the answer:

a. There are more questions than answers as far as earth's history and man's origin goes, no skeptic has said otherwise.

b. Prove there is a cover-up. Claims to that effect are irrelevant.

2) In your opinions, is it more or less likely that something majorly significant and history-changing has been found off the Cuban coast?

Without evidence to support the claims and the long delay in verifying them, it's just as likely that the findings were so dismally disappointing as to be professionally embarassing.

3) Why is it SO unbelievable that man lived on the earth and destroyed himself (or was destroyed) during periods in which 'textbook science' says nothing of the sort existed?

Because without evidence to back it up, it's pointless speculation.

cormac


[edit on 27-7-2008 by cormac mac airt]

reply to post by TheWayISeeIt


Already flagged long before i posted


reply to post by cormac mac airt


I have another question for the 'skeptics' - inspired by Cormac's comments:

b. Prove there is a cover-up. Claims to that effect are irrelevant.

Without evidence to support the claims and the long delay in verifying them, it's just as likely that the findings were so dismally disappointing as to be professionally embarassing.

Because without evidence to back it up, it's pointless speculation.

So, does a 'skeptic':

a) Use the existing evidence and theories to debate speculative concepts and theories with the intention of finding the real truth.

or

b) Just write off all the presented data and keep stating, ad nauseam, "where's the proof" "prove it" "no evidence" "no proof", while dogmatically guarding the official story.


I have learnt many a thing from the 'skeptics' here on ATS, and that's why i love this site, but i find that the line "prove it" is used way too often and often when the 'skeptic' KNOWS the person in question can't possibly prove it.

How is that denying ignorance?

How are we, interested individuals searching for the truth, supposed to prove this stuff??? I mean, experts with millions of dollars funding struggle to satisfy the 'skeptics' despite having sonar scans, photographs and more all SHOWING THE STRUCTURES.

I mean, the photos and scans all PROVE one thing: there are ancient structures under the sea off the Cuban coast which hail from a time where man was not meant to have been able to build such structures.



[edit on 27-7-2008 by srsen]

Originally posted by srsen
I mean, the photos and scans all PROVE one thing: there are ancient structures under the sea off the Cuban coast which hail from a time where man was not meant to have been able to build such structures.

Do they really prove that? Has there been a definitive attempt at dating them? I dont think so, considering the whole story is diffuse with nothing to show aside from a few inconclusive photos and witness accounts.

Its not really a matter of skeptisicsm: hell I'd love if there really was a city down there! Its a matter of the data we have available.

[edit on 27-7-2008 by merka]

reply to post by merka


According to Iturralde, the MEGA site could be 50,000 years old.

I’ll quote TWISI from his post earlier in the thread.

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
reply to post by lostinspace

 

Iturralde says that at the rate that Cuba sinks now, 15mm a year, it would take 50k years to get there. But he also acknowledges that there is no volcanic activity in the area today, while they did recover volcanic sediment at the MEGA site. In fact MEGA sits, all 8 sq. miles of it, on Volcanic sediment.

If you think about sudden catastrophe and landmass being suddenly 'displaced', consider that directly after the '04 tsunami the Strait of Malacca went from 4000 feet deep to 100, so a sinking a city moves sort of moves into the realm of science.

I think the recent tsunami was a great example. The land movements there were epic, and it wasn’t even THAT big of a tsunami compared to what mother nature is capable of.

But anyway, I think we at least have some kind of time period to go by here.

EDIT TO ADD: Are the sonar scan images REALLY that inconclusive though? I mean, REALLY? They look pretty solid to me - I wonder how many other sonar images could be produced which are known to be natural but look like that.

Actually, can anyone find any? Could be interesting to compare.

[edit on 27-7-2008 by srsen]

Just for interests sake - here another pic of the sonar scan.




(click for full image - only half shown)

Source: www.unknowncountry.com...

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
reply to post by St Udio

 

at best the introduction of several archeologists into the mix was a case of name-dropping (for the anticpated result of gaining some venture capital)...

What are you talking about? Nowhere are archaeologists being named, dropped or otherwise, in this thread.

Kindly refer to the link provided in your OP
concerning the Oct 2004 "Mayan Atlantis' article... where in the FIRST sentence it tells of ,,,, a team of archaeologists...etc etc etc

I pointed out Iturralde's credentials. I don't think that qualifies as 'gaining venture capital', whatever that means, but getting facts -- that were required to even let this thread live -- straight.

since your throwing out everything and anything as support of this fanciful yarn of 'Atlantis'...(& hoping something sticks,)
i lump in the 1981 correspondence from a supply clerk, the 2001 expedition then the 2004 expedition and attending articles as a pot-luck mix of leftovers
(like making our childhoods' Hungarian Goulosh)...

so making a focus point of the Geologists ?degree? , Iturralde's credentials
is a uninteresting verve off the path...
to slam me is not of good character and also shows that your yarn is just than... a jumble of many interreated Points... disguised by the author as 'Facts'

As to your statements of:

the Cuban Govt was promoting the expedition as a 'cover-story'
for all the surface ship activity in the area... as the Cubans, along with the sophisticated radar ship of an Ally was in the vicinity...

they (the whole party of interests) might be attempting to recover a "Broken Arrow" (which is code for a lost nuke missile, of which the harpoon class anti= ship launch platform was operating in those Cuban waters,,,, some time previously)

Uhh... I'm not sure how to respond to that as it is ... some...random stuff you wrote down. If you have something to support this in relation to Zeltisky or the timeline here, be my guest. Make your point, but please don't drag the timbre of the thread down with nonsense.

??Random stuff you wrote down...'

once again, your using the supply clerks hearsay information overheard about the military detailing the buildings and streets of this underwater city, characterized as Atlantis by the secret mission seamen...
using that titalating info as a good lead-in for Atlantis...but then divorcing that body of info for the re-direction of the thread to only include Zelitisky
and what is related to her.

My point: the military/naval mission back in the 1980s was a cover for recovering a 'broken arrow' and the Atlants yarn was a attention diversion.


pretty simple... all the meanderings your dragging in then conviently dropping at your convienience, so as to solidify your point is more a carnival barkers repitiore

[+] In answer to your befuddlement of 'venture capital' dealings;
attracting a few venture capital investors/sponsers is much easier with dropping names like Iturraldi, or a 'team of explorers', or 'archaeologists',
as they are addressed in the various related articles you cite---
makes it much easier to fund another expedition.

Howdy Twisi

Thanks for puitting up those links in order, I have been referencing them as well throughout. Which I am only pointing out because I have noticed that you and Byrd tend to pile on the threads in this forum and begin to aggressively 'debunk' the OP's w/o looking at their supporting data or seemingly fully reading the OP's first post

Hans: you have only one of them link to in your articles, I found the extra links by pursuing your own link. The other four were important in the document chain. "pile" on means something other than expressing opinions and asking questions?

Byrds response was in regards to your use of the name Atlantis. She was correct.

Howdy Srsen: Yep what Cormac said, evidence is extremely important. There is a trait in some people that causes them to misunderstand the concept of speculation, speculation based on known facts is, speculation, speculation based on no facts or contrary to known facts is fantasy.

It would seem we have a maybe mystery here. I would suspect that the either the agreement with the Cuban government ended or that the results from the October expedition showed natural and not artifical and support was dropped.

PZ may have dropped out of sight to avoid believers contacting her.

ADC, many contract companies are setup solely to provide support for a single contract, once it is completed the company ceases to exist. (it make accounting a lot easier especially across one or more countries). I've done that myself.

Originally posted by merka
Do they really prove that? Has there been a definitive attempt at dating them? I dont think so, considering the whole story is diffuse with nothing to show aside from a few inconclusive photos and witness accounts.

Its not really a matter of skeptisicsm: hell I'd love if there really was a city down there! Its a matter of the data we have available.

[edit on 27-7-2008 by merka]

I think that is part of the problem. We all (the CT community) watched with baited breath as Mrs. Z made her claims. And now we have turned blue in the face holding our breath waiting for a follow up. Where is it?

Here are the two main points i am observing here:

1. The US Navy has mapped the seafloor, but does not share this information. I understand the need for national security and such. But the fact is, the information that they have (on our tax dollars) remains under their lock and key.

2. There are structures under the water. There was a lot of interest. Then all of a sudden it died. Things don't naturally die suddenly...they are usually killed. So where is the data the conclusively proves these structures are natural? Without that, you have the conspiracy theory.

Byrd, Hanslune, I respect both of you quite a bit (Byrd, you are a fellow Texan ). But you rely on the arguement that IF there were something to find it would have made the news. The flip side of that coin is equally interesting. They found something, but never conclusively proved if it really existed or not. The trail just died. Why?

If you can answer that question, you may go a long way to proving your case. Otherwise, we must rely on the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

I have spent several months trying to run down the trail of Dr. Ning Li and her anitgrav research. That is another example of a trail that just dies. Dr. Li has vanished, as well as several of her research peers (I still cannot locate Noevers, reliably). The word i have gotten from some insiders is that she is now with DARPA. That is another example of a HUGE breakthrough that went cold really, really quickly.

It does happen. We all know it.

[edit on 27-7-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]

The flip side of that coin is equally interesting. They found something, but never conclusively proved if it really existed or not. The trail just died. Why?

Hans: Bottomline: we have no specific information on this, speculation is our only recourse. Until a valid source for information is found we are left with speculation. Having seen these types of disoveries before I suspect the recovered info wasn't sufficient to obtain the millions needed ton continue - but that is speculation on my part.

If you can answer that question, you may go a long way to proving your case. Otherwise, we must rely on the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

Hans: better yet "the absence of evidence can best be explained by a conspiracy"

I have spent several months trying to run down the trail of Dr. Ning Li and her anitgrav research. That is another example of a trail that just dies. Dr. Li has vanished, as well as several of her research peers (I still cannot locate Noevers, reliably). The word i have gotten from some insiders is that she is now with DARPA. That is another example of a HUGE breakthrough that went cold really, really quickly.

Hans: You suspect it - it sounds like a researcher may have been given large amounts of money to continue their research for the government- in secret. But your source may be just a rumor.

Amidst all the talking here, lets do a recap of these images which some of you already know.

















Straight lines and grids are no feature of nature and therefore research-worthy evidence of something artificial deep down there.

I have eyes to see, so I´ll ignore all the 4+ voices here stating "there´s nothing down there".




[edit on 27-7-2008 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by Hanslune

Bottomline: we have no specific information on this, speculation is our only recourse. Until a valid source for information is found we are left with speculation. Having seen these types of disoveries before I suspect the recovered info wasn't sufficient to obtain the millions needed ton continue - but that is speculation on my part.

I know we don't have any further information on the Cuba "ruins". That is the whole point. More information is out there, but we are not being made privy to it. If they aren't hiding anything, then why not show us their hand? That is all i ask, and as a reasonable person, i can deduce that they are quiet for a reason. As you have stated, i can only speculate on what that reason actually is. But i doubt it is some technology that would allow for the perfect non-stick skillet, you know?

I would say that you would need to suspect nothing if the recovered info was placed in the public domain. It is this one fact that gives me the biggest hang up.

Hans: better yet "the absence of evidence can best be explained by a conspiracy"

What else would you call it when the data that was gleaned is not made available? If there is nothing there to hide, then just let everyone else pick through the data.

Hans: You suspect it - it sounds like a researcher may have been given large amounts of money to continue their research for the government- in secret. But your source may be just a rumor.

If you haven't read my Ning Li thread, you should. The ARL gave her half a million. According to one of their top headhunters (the very esteemed Dr. Robert Baker) she stiffed the Army for the 500k and just went missing. Do you really believe that? I mean, maybe she is hiding out with UBL, and that is why the Army cannot find her? LOL

Howdy Sky

You might want to note that no one is saying there is NOTHING down there. I am saying there is no proof there is SOMETHING down there. There is a difference in those two concepts. Please note the scale of those pictures. How wide would you say those white lines are?

In many collapsed discoveries there is no incentive to publish negative news.

I can see all kinds of possible complications for this type of exploration.

Now for my favorite comment:

"There is a need for more research"

One observation: I find it interesting in how people react to this information

You have those who believe it the city completely, despite the limited data, some seem to think it is a concrete proven fact.

You have those who think something is there but are not sure

Those who are awaiting more information