Stephan: This is a fascinating new discovery, one of several recent sites discovered on deep under the sea. It is not Atlantis, at least not the Atlantis of the Theosophists, Edgar Cayce, or Rudolf Steiner, although is close to where Cayce placed Atlantis. But it will reveal whole new chapters of Human history. I particularly want to point out something not really focused on in this piece. This site is estimated to be 1968 feet to 2296 feet beneath the ocean surface. For that to be true there had to have been a massive shift in the tectonic plates and, I think, we should take that as a cautionary warning of what can happen, because it has happened. As the ice of Greenland, and the poles melt millions of tons of weight on the plates beneath that ice will vanish. No one has any real idea what that could mean.
Underwater archaeological complex off the coast of Cuba
The remains of what may be a 6000-year-old city immersed in deep waters off the west coast of Cuba was discovered by a team of Canadian and Cuban researchers.
Offshore engineer Paulina Zelitsky and her husband, Paul Weinzweig and her son Ernesto Tapanes used sophisticated sonar and video videotape devices to find “some kind of megaliths you ‘d find on Stonehenge or Easter Island,” Weinzweig said in an interview.
“Some structures within the complex may be as long as 400 meters wide and as high as 40 meters,” he said. “Some are sitting on top of each other. They show very distinct shapes and symmetrical designs of a non-natural kind. We’ve shown them to scientists in Cuba, the U.S., and elsewhere, and nobody has suggested they are natural.”
Map showing the location of the supposed ancient city discovered by Paul Weinzweig and Pauline Zalitzki.
Moreover, an anthropologist affiliated with the Cuban Academy of Sciences has said that still photos were taken from the videotape clearly show “symbols and inscriptions,” Mr. Weinzweig said. It is […]
You are not wrong. This report dates to 2002. The return was supposed to be 2004.
Stephan Schwartz
on Thursday, July 9, 2020 at 1:38 pm
You are all right. I saw the original story years ago, and covered it at the time but cautioned it was unchecked by a third party. I ran this updated piece because Archaeology World is a well-respected journal, and I knew they had fact-checked it before publishing it. I probably should have said all that.
Seems you failed to mention that this happened almost 20 years ago, or did I miss something???
You are not wrong. This report dates to 2002. The return was supposed to be 2004.
You are all right. I saw the original story years ago, and covered it at the time but cautioned it was unchecked by a third party. I ran this updated piece because Archaeology World is a well-respected journal, and I knew they had fact-checked it before publishing it. I probably should have said all that.
— Stephan