Featured: Current Archaeology Book of the Year 2019!

Current Archaeology Book of the Year 2019!

Random Image


Battlesbury Camp

Sign the Petition to Protect Broxy Kennels Hillfort - Click Here

Sign the Petition to Protect Broxy Kennels Hillfort - Click Here

Who's Online

There are currently, 474 guests and 3 members online.

You are a guest. To join in, please register for free by clicking here

Sponsors

<< News >> Cuban Underwater City

Submitted by kooljeff on Monday, 01 April 2002  Page Views: 66657

MysteriesA cuban geologist, Manuel Iturralde, has stated that an investigation into an unusual rock formation off of Cuba's coastline, should reveal whether it is the remains of a 6000 year old city.

The rock formation is on the seabed off of Guanahacabibes Peninsula on the western tip of Cuba. It is said to cover 20 km2 area at depths of 600 metres.

Already words like "Atlantis" are being bandied around and many scientists are sceptical about its veracity.

More: Yahoo News

<< New contract for A303 Stonehenge Bypass

Knowth reveals its wonders to the public >>

Please add your thoughts on this site

Prehistoric houses at Sumburgh in Shetland

Prehistoric houses at Sumburgh in Shetland

Sponsors

Auto-Translation (Google)

Translate from English into:

"Cuban Underwater City" | Login/Create an Account | 68 News and Comments
  
Go back to top of page    Comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.
Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Thursday, 07 February 2013
Why cant we understand,there were giants in the world untill they left. if you are a giant then these dont seem so big.
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Sunday, 28 October 2012
Please note that in the late 19th century people (and some scientists) were certain that the Mars channels were made by intelligent beings. It turned out to be natural phenomena, just as the Japanese Yonaguni Monument, and the wall at Taiwan Straight. Sometimes natural geological geometry reaaches a complexity that suggests intelligence, but remains natural geology.
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Tuesday, 23 October 2012
There may be no proof that civilization is older than just over 5000 years???

think that again and look for GOBLEKI TEPE...
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Monday, 06 August 2012
Usually with these sorts of things, theres a definitive. Either they go on and find it to be nothing, or there is further investigation. The strange thing about this is there isnt either one available, and its been over 10 years since its discovery. I think a lot of people make a lot of good points. I would agree that its silly to assume this is Atlantis, but I DONT think its silly to suggest that this could be something very important. If Atlantis was real, if there was a large body of land that had been sunk, it could have very well extended into the parts of the waters where Cuba now sits. Another important thing to note, is its location. It would be absolutely perfect for a wide variety of cultures to meet and utilize as a sort of trade route.

this is cuba, i just can not imagine that it had not already been explored by military operations in the past few decades. Whether by Cubans, Soviets, or Americans, somebody had to have been down there or mapped the underwater topography by now. could it perhaps be some remnants of hush hush activity? who knows, but whatever it is very strange to see there STILL isnt any information on it at all.

[ Reply to This ]
    Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Friday, 07 September 2012
    I have also been looking at various archeological sites round the world via the internet, and I find it terribly disappointing that so little is being done about them. All these sites could be part of mankind's history, and nobody seems to be taking them seriously. Anything that would require a rewrite of the history books seems to be conveniently swept away beneath a dogmatic load of academia, or worse, by governments which don't want ordinary people to know anything about their lives. How is it possible to trust anybody, teachers, institutes or governments, if they try to deceive the ordinary man. It is all very counterproductive for children's education.
    [ Reply to This ]

Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Thursday, 28 June 2012
The deep water Cuban megalithic find story is looking increasingly like a huge cover up of the facts, primarily by way of the deafening silence since 2002.

We have the ADC (Advanced Digital Communications) company lead, Paulina Zelitsky, who discovered the structures back in 2001 saying how they (the sturctures) are very similar in appearence to early Teotihuacan constructions, (themselves still a mystery) and made of Granite which isn't to be found naturally in the area (only limestone), and how she wants to 'enter' the structures, and that samples had been brought up showing "very polished granite"...and the geologist Manuel Iturralde-Vinent, Ph.D. who says "I cannot explain these structures by any geological means right now"...and then, for a decade...silence.

50,000 years is up to ten times the current accepted age of civilisation, and in my opinion, finds like this which demonstrate clearly the academics have gotten almost everything wrong, will not be encouraged to see the light of day...especially if the builders were VERY technological.

Almost certainly a cover up.
[ Reply to This ]
    Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Friday, 29 June 2012
    That'll be "almost certainly" as in "almost certainly" going to win this weeks lottery I guess.
    [ Reply to This ]
      Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Monday, 06 January 2020
      It could be a cover up, but not as most suspect. In the late70's or early 80's ruins, that seemed to include paved stone roads and walls was discovered off the coast of Cuba, near Miami. Some the stones were removed and used on the Miami breakwater walls. An investigative dive team were beginning to do serious research in the 1990's. Now you not only don't hear anything about it, but this new Cuban underwater find, which is really unlikely, is the only one that appears on internet searches. Unfortunately I dont have the book written in the 1980's about the site (Nor re-call its title). This new site may well be a read herring masking the true earlier site of interest. It was on a sandbank, in shallowish, easy diving water.

      Does anyone know where I can get info on this earlier site?
      Contact me please on instagram @everydayarchaeologist
      [ Reply to This ]

Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Tuesday, 28 February 2012
Let's be realistic. When we look for the truth of things, we should look for the simple answers first. Odd geometric shapes (like the Giant's causeway in Northern Ireland) are actually very common in nature. An open minded individual will not blindly follow any doctrine, but a reasonably intelligent person will feel it most likely natural until proven otherwise.
There is no proof civilization is more than 7,000-10,000 years old. Believe me, I would like to think it is older also... But I have to use common sense to override my impulse to believe such fantastic claims.
Remember always- fantastic claims require fantastic proof!
[ Reply to This ]
    Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Saturday, 14 July 2012
    There may be no proof that civilization is older than just over 5000 years, but there is no proof that it isn't either. I'd like to point out that complex musical instraments dating back 35000 years have been found that predate written language and musical notation by 30000 years. There are maps that predate accepted dates for exploration. To be blunt, there is at least enough evidence to warrent serious consideration and exploration. I fully agree that the blatent and profound ignorance on the part of scholors is strange and suspicious. Any real study on historical mysteries should make even the least interested amatuer historian curious. Why then aren't the people we pay to investigate these curiosities involved. and why do they seem hostile to anything that may upset the status quo?
    [ Reply to This ]

Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Saturday, 21 January 2012
It's alluring, it really is. But it's dropped off the face of the earth. Why?? Any real "news" on any google search is years old. Why? Someone with alot of money will need to bankroll a well prepared look to settle the matter and I don't think I'm going to hold my breath.
[ Reply to This ]

Paulina Zelitsky contact by Anonymous on Thursday, 14 July 2011
Could anyone help to contact Paulina Zelitsky as we want to humbly ask her to come to Malta (Europe) to our school with a lecture or for a meeting with our students? Thank you. principal@rbsm.ru
[ Reply to This ]

April Fool's Day by bat400 on Saturday, 02 April 2011
(User Info | Send a Message)
"We may have the answer to the end of Scientist/Religion conflict under that Cuban water."

The first posting was nine years ago today. Any time now.... just saying.
[ Reply to This ]
    Re: April Fool's Day by Anonymous on Sunday, 28 October 2012
    "We may have the answer to the end of Scientist/Religion conflict under that Cuban water."

    Any science/religion controversy ended when churches started to place lightning rods on their churches.
    [ Reply to This ]

Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Thursday, 31 March 2011
Lol either Importand People are trying to hide such evidence to prevent more "Hitlers" from popping up to re-create their own super-civilisation, or such a thing just goes beyond their belief. It cannot possibly be Atlantis - wrong place, for a start, and it was constructed in a manner that didn't necessarily fit the Arlantean ultra-culture, as far as Edgar Cayce is concerned.
There's also evidence of a river-bed that flows through the structures.

It's probably either Lemuria (sank a few thousand years before Atlantis), or an extension of the Mesoamerican regions that sank long ago, or was flooded.
I suspect that it may very well be a man-made formation, as nature does NOT write on strangely symetrical structures in Heiroglyphs and Runes... But, before I set my mind to anywhere too drastic, I'm going to just wait for all the experts and proffessionals to stop whinging at something that may go against their previous evidence, and to go get us common folk some ANSWERS! Also, Paulina (apparently) was arrested and detained in Mexico for fraud, when she didn't really do anything to upset such laws. She was released before a year went by and said she was glad that she got out alive and was able to tell the tale.

BTW:
I know finances for these things are tough to get a hold of, BUT: That Japanese underwater monolith is under very close investigation; so is - or was - the ancient ruins of that ancient mythical Indian underwater city.
Also, I'm tired of people who think they know better and whom also cover up evidence of anything that goes outside of their little square. I'm sick of of hearing biased little nobodys or scientists that complain about something that may prove them wrong. I'm tired of hearing about things on this earth that are completely ignored JUST because some ship of fools who call themselves experts are completely debunking any 'outside' ideas just because they don't like it/them - one has to consider all options and theories first in order to establish a better understanding of what it is one is investigating or attempting to understand.
However, scientists, experts, proffessionals, archaeologists, paeliontologists (spelling?), and anything-else-ologists are about as shallow-minded and packed to the rafters in beliefs and their own little world as andy devout Catholic (no offence). No doubt it's because they (experts) think they know everything just because they read a book in a room in front of some random in a tweed jacket. Their job is to give us answers to the world's mysteries, and many do, but all who are associated with this Cuban structure appear to consider it nothing more than a weird-looking rock. Yes, what a great answer. A rock that's the perfect shape of a bent pyramid, a set of rocks piled on top of one-another to form a religious-looking structure (hence it's resemblance to symbols in Yucatan), and many other bits and bobs are just 'natural formations'? There's little doubt, too, that it would also be denied by the church, considering the option if it pre-dated Adam and Eve. We may have the answer to the end of Scientist/Religion conflict under that Cuban water.

P.S.
I really think somebody should write a book on that mystery:
"Why is Atlantis the Least Discussed Topic or Option Amongst Scientists?" It's starting to piss me off to the point where I had to rant. HERE, of all places!
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Thursday, 21 October 2010
Can it be seen on Google Earth? what are the coordinates?
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Friday, 15 October 2010
it is obvious that civilisations have existed long before this spate. what puzzles me is the heavy architecture that took efforts to build that we would struggle to equal now. and the lack of technicaly advanced hardware found. these megas have been around so long theyre bound to be effected by global shifts and weather related events. it seems to me that symbolism that can stand the test of time and be seen from a great height plays a major part in the signature of the builders. as if to mark territory to viewers from very high above. the mechanical assistance is probably not of earth origin by this lack of residual evidence. its total ignorance to even think a 3 billion plus year old planet hasnt had its share of visitors. those in the know probably feel secure in the cliq. in the end we all go the same way so what is their benefit? we all know who the real ego manic fear peddlars are.
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Friday, 08 October 2010
There are now uncertain probabilities to reach these remains again, so I think it could be possible to analize the available data: i. e. the architecture, the urbanistic distribution of the buildings, streets ans squares, and to compare it against what we have registered in the history of other civilisations. Perhaps we could find something in common. Perhaps we could not.
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Wednesday, 03 February 2010
Dumped concrete doesn´t have pictogrphic and gerogliphic scripture over it nor is made of granite (not natural in that area of the world). You can´t make a whole city by dumping concrete from the coast. Use the brain, before using the tounge, or the finger...
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Thursday, 10 December 2009
Oh, I forgot to mention Mormonism into the list of things I sure as hell don't buy.

--Chris
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Thursday, 10 December 2009
Funny, that prior post coming after the conspiracy-preaching rant before it. Made me laugh. But dumped concrete doesn't land in precise shapes, formations, columns, keeping exact distance from the other randomly dumped concrete slabs, etc. Nor does it land in pyramidal shapes. I don't buy Atlantis, I don't buy dumped concrete, I sure as hell don't buy Lemuria, but I do believe its something. There are plenty of underwater sites off the coasts of India and Japan, inside lakes in Peru and China, that are reminants of man-made buildings and structures. Do I believe that there could have been an advanced civilization before, during, or immediately after the last Ice Age? Yes. Come on, over 200,000 years as Homo Sapiens Sapiens, and we only got 'civilization' figured out in the last 5,000? What were all those uncountable ancestors of ours doing for 195,000+ years? Sitting around a fire, grunting and laughing at farts?

--Chris
[ Reply to This ]
    Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Tuesday, 28 February 2012
    Dumped cement structures would retain their shape at any depth. It was never mentioned that the cement was dumped wet... Think about it... It was concrete from build missile silos. Very well could be the answer... At least as plausible as a city 2000 feet underwater.
    If it's 200 feet underwater, it could be an old city...
    [ Reply to This ]

Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Friday, 20 March 2009
I suppose this is old news but the ruins turned out to be discards of cement, etc. from the disposed of remnants of missle cilos,etc. from the 1961 Cuban crisis. Alas, I wanted to believe too.
[ Reply to This ]
    Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Saturday, 04 July 2009
    The concept that the ruins are cement discards from missle silos is utterly ridiculous. Having seen underwater photos of this city with columns and building foundations, I know your comments have no basis in fact.
    [ Reply to This ]
    Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Thursday, 05 November 2009
    There is also the matter of the original expedition bringing up samples of hard granite that the structures were made from, which is nothing whatsoever similar to cement or modern buiding materials. They had commented that this white granite was not local, that it would have needed to come from Mexico.

    The sonar scans were extremely detailed, and the buildings were described as quite huge. You can clearly see what appears to be steps at an entrance, and architectural details that really could only be found in a city design. It is very hard to imagine these things as anything but buildings.

    About the only question I have about it is it's age. How the hell did it all get so deep, but remain basically intact? That's a huge mystery.

    I'm not surprised no one will fund a real enterpirse to give it an honest look. Scientists are appalled at the idea that modern archeology might have man's timeline all wrong. The only people who are interested in the truth about the matter are those who havent invested their lives and beliefs in the safe old stodgy traditions and histories of civilization going from point A to B to C in a safe, neat, organized, written down way.

    If this should turn out to be some 40,000 year old, relatively advanced civilization; everything we think we know about man in the hazy past would collapse in a heap of refuse. Scientists would look like idiots, textbooks would need rewritten.

    Cant have that, so, scientists are frightened to death to really look.

    Only the truly brilliant, young geniuses...like Einstein, dared to look outside the traditional views, and really consider possibilities that dare to step outside what is assumed to be the scientific truth.

    This underwater discovery is much too deep for anyone who isnt bold, young, and willing to look past the curtain of conventions and assumptions.
    [ Reply to This ]
      Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Sunday, 28 October 2012
      Actually, any scientist would jump at the chance to change the history books. This site is little more than Roswell is for UFOlogists.
      [ Reply to This ]
      Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Wednesday, 06 February 2013
      Usually, scientists go out of their way to disprove theories. That is the whole basis of modern cartesian thinking. When something sound too crazy, it usually is unless it's proven and accepted through rational thought, diligent research, methodological measurement, and the slow process of elimination of doubt. Just look at Egyptology. Nobody can rationally explain EXACTLY how why and when the pyramids were constructed except those who believe and build on theories that preceded Einstein's general theory of relativity. Even documentary producers tried to rebuild them using proposed thories and all of their tries were abandoned or collapsed after time. Engineers, mathematicians, geologists, climatologists, astrophysicists all seem to contradict egyptologists when coming up with questions and all of them getting pre-chewed responses from the "experts".

      The fact is, nobody really knows, because knowledge sometimes ceases to advance due to special interests. If one theory is disproved, it calls into question an entire field of research. However, as younger scientists invade the field, as new data is compiled, as a larger picture unfolds, the truth pushes forward. Inexorably.

      These structures have been around for millenia. They can wait for mankind to grow up.
      [ Reply to This ]

Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Tuesday, 09 December 2008
It is all a big cover-up by the US GOV and other GOVs. Mark my words, WE WILL NEVER HEAR OF THIS SUBJET AGAIN!!!!!!!
The US GOV has known about this since the 80's. Paulina did not find this by pure chance. Someone gave her the coordinates. Someone who was sworn not to do it. Now, she has signed a promise to keep quiet about what she really saw down there. You might as well pretend it was all a dream. You will never hear a peep about this again...unless someone actually goes to DC and prepares a march with a large enough group of people to demand the truth about all this. Check video found on youtube.com called: Underwater city off of Cuba. Good Luck.
[ Reply to This ]
    Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Tuesday, 09 December 2008
    "You will never hear a peep about this again"

    That's a relief.
    [ Reply to This ]
    Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Thursday, 11 December 2008
    As old as this thread is, almost IMMEDIATELY a troll jumps on to offer a snide comment. I've read through most of the comments here, and the havoc you are causing your fellow man is eggregious and harmful. I don't care whether the government is paying you to keep watch on this or not, ignorant complacency has no more use in this world. [Edited for violating Terms and Conditions of Use. 25Apr2010.] It truly takes a level of severe intellectual blindness to block the transparent truth that knowlege and information have been weaponized by the current U. S. "government." Go to http://www.house.gov and search the U.S. Code for Title 28, Section 3002 to see what Obama just got appointed to be the president of. There are now so many lies and so much dis-info that it's quite apparent how things work. The only two conclusions about why the tyrants have covered up so much are (1) They have to maintain control and some quasi-enabling justification in their own twisted minds about why they should rule, or, (2) That the public can't handle the real truth. If 2, it follows that we have been fed a very bland substitution of the truth in order to disable us when we find out what's what and are forced to enter a reconstructive period in our minds to assimilate the new data, thereby creating a problem-reaction-solution instance in our minds which can then be used with careful release of select information to construct a new history and one world religion to effectively encapsulate and control the masses more efficiently. Nothing makes the many police themselves and one another like religion. [Edited for violating Terms and Conditions of Use. 25Apr2010.]
    [ Reply to This ]
      Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Saturday, 28 February 2009
      Where do you get this stuff? Government conspiracies? Intellectual blindness? What exactly are the US "tyrants" covering up off of the northwest coast of Cuba? If the sonar image that Paulina Zelitsky registered in 2001 does prove to be ancient ruins, why would the US government want to cover that up? So what? It could be 2,000 year old Mayan ruins that collapsed under a relatively recent catastrophic event. Would our lives be permanently destroyed because we learned this? What would the US government be shielding us from finding? Perhaps what that sonar image really uncovered was a toxic waste dump left over from the Cuba Missile Crisis back in 1962.

      For one thing, Paulina Zelitsky's project is funded by the Cuban government. Her project has nothing to do with archaeology or lost civilizations. Paulina Zelitsky herself is not trained or educated in ancient cultures, civilizations or even ancient history. That is one reason why we should not take her opinions about her sonar image too seriously, at least for the time being. From what I recall she has been hired by the Cuban government to help them locate oil. The sonar image was from an area 2,200 meters under the water in what is, since the last time I checked, Cuban jurisdiction, not the US government's. This discovery has nothing to do with the US government, nor does the US government have any interest in it. If anyone is preventing Paulina Zelitsky from exploring this further it would be the Cuban government, and why not. They didn't hire her to go on an Indiana Jones mystery hunt.

      Why don't we stop all of this useless hankering and try to apply some educated, well thought out, scientific principles to this recent discovery. Let's stop speculating as if it was the truth. Let's only use the facts and discuss what we know, not what we "believe". I think this discussion would be far more interesting (and believable) if we all stick to a less erratic approach.
      [ Reply to This ]
      Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Tuesday, 01 September 2009
      Thsi is interesting but there was a sudden stop to progress plus no one else can say why u don't hear these finders comment themselves
      [ Reply to This ]
      Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Thursday, 10 December 2009
      Whoa. Paranoid schizophrenia anyone?

      [ Reply to This ]
      Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Tuesday, 28 February 2012
      You sir are an irrational conspiracy nut. Every government in the world has corruption and hides things, but no one is covering this stuff up. Hell, Cuba hates the US government. Do you really think they would coordinate with us to cover this up? The answer is NO btw.
      There are plenty of lies and disinformation... always has been in every civilized government in history... That doesn't equal hiding information about aliens or ancient civilizations. They aren't finding any metal or technological inventions at these sites... Just rock. With enough manpower and a few wooden and stone tools, all of these cities could be built. Hence, what value would there be to hide this? The gov't could care less...
      [ Reply to This ]
    Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Thursday, 11 December 2008
    please take your paranoia somewhere more appropriate.
    [ Reply to This ]

Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Tuesday, 30 September 2008
Titanic is 3 times depper and further in the middle of nowhere and yet we have been able to take cameras, robots, sub-marines, etc. We have been able to extract items and large pieces, so what is the deal? 600 Meters is nothing nowadays. We all want to know what's down there and soon. National Geographic, Discovery Channel, History Channel, even the Travel Channel, isn't any of these interested in the subjet? If this city is trully 50,000 years old it would change our history. We have the right to know.
Look, there is a lot of money that can be made from this dicovery, all we need is one of the ones I have mention to become interested.
Joel
[ Reply to This ]
    Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Friday, 03 April 2009
    "This would change our history" EXACTLY. Thus we are suppressing further exploration and discovery. This is the way of the gate keepers of history.
    [ Reply to This ]
    Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Tuesday, 28 February 2012
    Because no one with enough money is dumb enough to believe there is any merit to these claims. We rewrite history all the time... It's encouraged by the US government. Millions of dollars in grant money flow to colleges around the US for just such investigation.
    The Gov't hides new planes, immoral practices, and information to protect their own butt... Not random underwater formations that may or may not be anything.
    They KNEW the Titanic had valuables in it. It was less risk. There is very little chance of even a piece of gold being found even if this turns out to be a sunken city (which I doubt).
    [ Reply to This ]

Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Saturday, 13 September 2008
Lemuria? Cripes...I have been out of high school now for 30 years and this fascination with "Lemuria" was a dead issue even back then. And, even when it was first imagined it was never considered to be a "mythical" land. At least the story of Atlantis has some historical foundation (i.e. Plato). But Lemuria has none whatsoever.

The concept of Lemuria originated in the 19th century, from attempts by scientists to account for discontinuities in biogeography. It was the result of scientists theorizing how certain geographies and fauna (namely the lemur; hence the name) could be explained in certain areas of Africa, Europe and Asia, and why some of it suddenly stopped in others...and that's it.

This concept of Lemuria has really been rendered obsolete since the modern understanding of plate tectonics (you know, that part of geography that we all learned in Grade-5). Although sunken continents do exist, nothing has ever been linked to anything called Lemuria, especially anything in the Indian Ocean.

This "Lemuria" story is nothing more than myth-building over the past 150 years, which is truly amazing when you consider how people now believe that Lemuria had an advanced civilization, with rocket ships, laser cannons, crystal weapons, a sophisticated political structure, a peaceful and Utopian society plus literature. I mean....come on people :-).
[ Reply to This ]
    Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Saturday, 28 February 2009
    Finally, someone with common sense.
    [ Reply to This ]

Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Wednesday, 13 August 2008
Rather than congratulating Paulina Zelitsky, many are criticisng her in the hope of refuting her discovery of this underwater Cuban city. Previuous writers on Atlantis have shown that the larger pre-historic civilization came frmn Lemuria (MU, see Col. Churchward)
and that Atlantis was one of its many colonies. The extended empire of Lemuria, located in the Pacific, was suffering sinking, and to preserve their heritage, Lemuria's officials began transferring their history to
central America. (Churchward, Nivens, etc.)

The colonies of Lemuria stretched from
its own land (a huge portion of the Pacific north from Easter Island and west to the Asian continent and islands, as well as east to South America and through the Orinoco which then was much wider, as a large waterway from the Pacific to the Atlantic where their colony Atlantis
existed along the mid-Atlantic Ridge.

Little could possibly remain today of such civilizations which were inundated
11,000 years ago, but huge carved columns nestling along the western coast of South America were found and reported to the University of Miami, and speculations were then made but omitted the fact that this Lemurian-Atlantean cicilization was almost totally global- with ships and other means of transportation reflecting the Nazca lines and the more recent finding of the Ica Stones of Peru- which are authentic. GDR
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Saturday, 05 January 2008
Unfortunately huge sums of money are needed to properly explore this deep area, and society is more interested in spending billions of dollars on war, drugs and oil, rather than spending just a trace fraction of that money to study our past, and disciplines like archaeology.
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Saturday, 29 December 2007


It would seem people like Paulina Zetitsky,her husband,ADC,the Cuban gov.,Art Bell,George Noouri and the conspiracy authors have cleaned up on this one. It's HIGHLY UNLIKELY anything will be uncovered more on this site,off the Western tip of Cuba.

JFK
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Monday, 12 February 2007
I know of only one written record that tells of cities sunk in the sea in the Americas. It's the Book of Mormon published in 1830. If you read the record you will know that there are more underwater cities down there. The passage below are the words of Christ spoken to an ancient American prophet.
From the Book of Mormon, 3rd Nephi 9:4-8

4 And behold, that great city Moroni have I caused to be sunk in the depths of the sea, and the inhabitants thereof to be drowned.
5 And behold, that great city Moronihah have I covered with earth, and the inhabitants thereof, to hide their iniquities and their abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints shall not come any more unto me against them.
6 And behold, the city of Gilgal have I caused to be sunk, and the inhabitants thereof to be buried up in the depths of the earth;
7 Yea, and the city of Onihah and the inhabitants thereof, and the city of Mocum and the inhabitants thereof, and the city of Jerusalem and the inhabitants thereof; and waters have I caused to come up in the stead thereof, to hide their wickedness and abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints shall not come up any more unto me against them.
8 And behold, the city of Gadiandi, and the city of Gadiomnah, and the city of Jacob, and the city of Gimgimno, all these have I caused to be sunk, and made hills and valleys in the places thereof; and the inhabitants thereof have I bburied up in the depths of the earth, to hide their wickedness and abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up any more unto me against them.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/3_ne/9
[ Reply to This ]
    The Book of Mormon and American Prehistory by bat400 on Tuesday, 13 February 2007
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    Joseph Smith, the author of the Book of Mormon, also told of cities in the New World, built by Middle Easterners who sailed to North America in enclosed submarine type boats. He also wrote of pitched battles involving tens of thousands of people using metal weapons and armor.

    For the more on the connection with the Book of Mormon such mysteries, see "Mound Builders of Ancient America," by Robert Silverberg, New York Geographic Society, 1968. It is contains an entertaining overall history of the myth of "exotic" origins of the mounds of North America.
    [ Reply to This ]

Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Tuesday, 14 November 2006
When the first reports of the possible megalithic city found off of Cuba was made, I have waited and waited for more information.

It seems to me after all these subsequent passing years something more would have presented itself. I feel that this discovery maybe reseeding into the past and fading into the realms of legend like the original tales of Atlantis. :<
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Cuban Underwater City by RJArcher on Wednesday, 12 July 2006
(User Info | Send a Message)
The MEGA Blog has moved to a better home at http://www.TheMegaBlog.com> and is broadening its horizons (no pun intended) to include all underwater sites throughout the Caribbean.

If you haven't already seen it, catch the 2-hour special called Quest for Atlantis on the SciFi Channel 7/13/06 at 11pm or 7/14/06 at 6pm. In spite of themselves, the SciFi Channel (aka NBC) does a pretty good job of covering the work of Greg Little and associates. Bimini Road REALLY IS ARTIFICIAL (although not a road), and they show the evidence!

[ Reply to This ]

Re: Cuban Underwater City by RJArcher on Sunday, 23 April 2006
(User Info | Send a Message)
Sorry, my previous post about The MEGA Blog got submitted before I registered with the site. I'm not really Anonymous!
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Sunday, 23 April 2006
I've launched http://spaces.msn.com/TheMegaBlog/ to serve as a clearing house for information on MEGA, the so called "lost city of Cuba." Sr. Iturralde has been kind enough to provide detailed biographical information if you have any doubt about his credentials and recent blogs discuss related information about 4 more sites recently found in Cuban waters.
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Cuban Underwater City by Canuck on Wednesday, 29 March 2006
(User Info | Send a Message)
Atlantis? 12,000 year old and 6,000 year old civilizations? I presume that everyone who makes statements like this has documented and scientific proof that there is even a remote possibility that this could be half true? Why is it that because there's an underwater discovery of something that isn't immediately explainable everyone has to assume that this is Atlantis? Why could it not be just what many scientists are suggesting, and be the remnants of a very recent seismic disturbance that caused an underwater collapse, and what was on the surface is now under 2,300 feet of water? Why could it not simply be a major seismic catastrophe from perhaps 700 years ago that we're only discovering now? How many people would have been around 700 years ago to record such a disaster? Where is the scientific proof that there is a lost civilization? Why could it not be the remnants of a native American (or Mesoamerican) civilization that is merely 700 years old? Why can we not wait until those who have studied such things all of their lives have had the time to research the findings, before coming to a lot of bizzare, uneducated and undisciplined theories and misguided conclusions? Perhaps one of the reasons that National Geographic won't take the time to reveal the Cuban underwater findings on television is because there is nothing to reveal. I'm sure if there was a significant civilization found underwater off the coast of Cuba that Paulina Zelitsky would have been able to find $100,000,000 in funding in less than a week. If there is a significant discovery, I'm sure we will hear about it soon enough because the world will demand it.
[ Reply to This ]
    Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Saturday, 29 December 2007
    there were quite a few people around in the 1300s to record such a disaster. In fact there were quite a few people around to record what initially happened but that knowledge has been suppressed in many ways.
    [ Reply to This ]
      Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Saturday, 13 September 2008
      Who? Who was around in the New World that would have recorded such a disaster in (or around) the 1300's? Columbus only discovered some of the Caribbean Islands in 1492....and he brought the first literate people with him who were starting to record their events. If there was a major seismic catastrophe 150 years earlier who had the ability to write this down in the New World?

      There might have been people around at the time of a catastrophe, but nobody has documented anything because there was nobody around at that time who knew how to document. There might be "folklore" or "oral traditions" that reminisce about such events....but there is no real substantial evidence of this either. Before anyone can talk about what happened you can't just "make it up" or "invent" what you think sounds correct. You need solid, indisputable, concrete evidence to support your claim.

      So you tell me...who suppressed this information and how was it suppressed? And if it was written down, tell me who wrote it and when. Or better yet, show me where the written record is so I can read it for myself. The world needs to know.
      [ Reply to This ]
        Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Thursday, 25 March 2010
        Erm, so there was NOTHING written down or recorded in any way before Columbus??? I think you better do a bit of research, Anonymous (1). Ancient people have been recording events for thousands of years, either passed down through story or pictures and EVEN written down! If you really think the Americas were only civlised once Europeans arrived and raped and plundered their way across the continent, then you are much mistaken.
        [ Reply to This ]
      Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Saturday, 13 September 2008
      I totally agree with anonymous. You cannot blatantly espouse what may have been found until the findings have indeed been analyzed. The Mayans did record a lot of information, and much of it has survived, contrary to what many believe. But a major catastrophe in Cuba could have happened as early as 700 years ago and few would have been around (or would have survived) to record the events at that time.

      I had to chuckle too about some of the dates people were coming up with. How would anyone know how old this is by merely looking at a sonar image? Sure you can estimate age based on what some may feel happened to ocean depths over the years, but this doesn't really mean anything, especially if the area in question was a victim of a catastrophe at one point in time. I mean, ancient Alexandria is currently under about 70 ft of water, but people were walking around those streets just over 2,000 years ago.

      I also had to chuckle a little bit when Paula Zelitsky was hypothesizing on her sonar imagery. Even a trained archaeologist with 50 years of experience would not be able to (or dare to) come up with cultural information about these findings simply by reviewing a sonar image :-). Too funny. I also find it amusing when people who have never studied anthropology, archaeology, or even history have all these theories about cultural events that may not have even occurred. As soon as something unexplained happens then suddenly aliens are to blame, or it must be Atlantis. Bizarre.
      [ Reply to This ]
    Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Wednesday, 03 February 2010
    Canuk, you need to read more, and be less naive. Do u know how many doctorates has been made over "peer reviewed" documents that only promotes old stablishment and current ideas and are only sustained by egos and bad science. History is writen by the winners and the powerful and only reflects the norrow vision of the available sources. How doyou think the church and the smithsonian will handle something like this?
    [ Reply to This ]
    Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Friday, 28 January 2011
    A city doesn't fall 2,300 feet and remain intact. This is a 32,000 year old civilisation. The proof is the water level, it wasn't that low since the last ice-age. Check for foundations. Also, it's in the perfect place for an ice-age era city at the equator.
    [ Reply to This ]

Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Tuesday, 03 January 2006
If anyone can point to a site which shows the NG depiction of what the city "might" look like, I'd greatly appreciate. Thanks.
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Tuesday, 29 November 2005
In one of the original interviews, the Russian women scientist mentions a "huge submarine" at the site which moves off quickly.
No further mention is made of this sub., 1. whoever owns the sub knows of the xistence of the city and has know previously. 2. Was it a sub?
[ Reply to This ]
    Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Saturday, 18 March 2006
    Dude. Don't just make up stuff to add "Mystery" and "Conspiracy". It's already cool enough.

    Yeah and the submarine was all black and eerily silent. It had no bubbles and smelled like candy.
    [ Reply to This ]
      Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Saturday, 18 March 2006
      Are you sure it was not a Yellow Submarine? Perhaps this city was populated by Blue Meanies
      [ Reply to This ]

Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Thursday, 17 November 2005
Hi everyone,
check out this site http://www.s8int.com/water28.html
they're apparently busy in organizing / carrying out a new expedition
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Sunday, 16 October 2005

Aug. 16, 2005

Hi, Andrew:

Paulina Zelitsky ran out of money and National Geographic did not do a production contract. I talked with NG about 5 months ago and they confirmed they had not communicated about the deep underwater megalithic structures for at least a year.

The last information I had was that Paulina Zelitsky was working on ships off Mexico for income. She needed an estimated $5 million to do robotic undersea drilling and photography. Don't know when that will happen, but when it does, I'll report about it at Earthfiles and COAST radio.

Sincerely,

--
Linda Moulton Howe
Reporter and Editor
Earthfiles.com
and
Science and Environment News Contributor
Premiere Radio Networks
and Dreamland Online
---------------------------------------
I can be contacted at andrewv17@excite.com(researcher)
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Friday, 12 August 2005
It seems that people in power do not wish to know that there was a previous civilization of significance 12,000 years ago, hence National Geographic is backing off on the exploration of the underwater city in 700m of water off Cuba. A few years ago, the authorities scrapped a documentary on the Bahamas - which indicated a tsunami wiped out a 6,000 year old civilization that was on the Bahama banks,(only the floors remain).(These people gave rise to the Celts and Basques). The only way for exploration on this subject to gain momentum is for an independant body of educated individuals, privately funded to gain permission from Cuba and America to proceed with the project.
There is a great deal of evidence that shows that Central and South America as well as the Caribbean were far more significant players in the beginnings of civilization than is presently accepted.
For more info look up Polynesian Pathways by Peter Marsh (on Google) or look up http://www.polynesian-prehistory.com
[ Reply to This ]
    Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Thursday, 18 May 2006
    if you read graham hancocks book underwater it quotes from several scientific papers that evidence has been uncovered in the last 20 years that there were three major global floods and several minor one following the thaw at the end of the ice age approximately 12,000 10,000 and 7,000 years ago.
    The last one was responsible for flooding whatever civilisation existed in the carribean.
    [ Reply to This ]

Re: Cuban Underwater City by Dough on Monday, 22 November 2004
(User Info | Send a Message)
Since first hearing of a possible Atlantean city located beneath the waters off Cuba and reading 'something' that National Geographic was going full-bore on underwater photography of this site my interest was heightened to say the least. However the last six months has brought nothing further. Has this been deemed a site wannabe? No nothing under the briney deep? I have heard nothing either way. What is happening? Thank you!
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Cuban Underwater City by Condros on Monday, 30 June 2003
(User Info | Send a Message)
The "skeptics" are already lining up to dismiss anything that does not fit within their narrow-minded theories- that is "The Bering Strait Paradigm" -that peoples only came via the Bering Strait land bridge 12 thousand years ago to people the Americas- Which is proving to be as false as the "Flat Earth"- or that "Earth is the center of the Universe" theories- This site and the Pedra Furada site in Brazil- will re-write mankind's "history"- and the incredible feats our early ancestors were capable of- It's about time "Academia" got it's well deserved boot in the butt.
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Tuesday, 28 May 2002
If someone is interested in the latest news about the so called underwater city of Cuba, please visit www.medioambiente.cu/museo and search in Novedades>> "Megalitos submarinos". I am updating this same page as soon as any new data become available. At the present rate of the research, a monthly visit will do it.

Manuel Iturralde Vinent
Cuban Geologists
[ Reply to This ]
    Re: Cuban Underwater City by Anonymous on Friday, 04 March 2005
    The link below will take you to the Cuban Natural History Museum's english page describing the underwater site.

    Cuban Museum MEGA Homepage
    [ Reply to This ]

Your Name: Anonymous [ Register Now ]
Subject:


Add your comment or contribution to this page. Spam or offensive posts are deleted immediately, don't even bother

<<< What is five plus one as a number? (Please type the answer to this question in the little box on the left)
You can also embed videos and other things. For Youtube please copy and paste the 'embed code'.
For Google Street View please include Street View in the text.
Create a web link like this: <a href="https://www.megalithic.co.uk">This is a link</a>  

Allowed HTML is:
<p> <b> <i> <a> <img> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <tt> <li> <ol> <ul> <object> <param> <embed> <iframe>

We would like to know more about this location. Please feel free to add a brief description and any relevant information in your own language.
Wir möchten mehr über diese Stätte erfahren. Bitte zögern Sie nicht, eine kurze Beschreibung und relevante Informationen in Deutsch hinzuzufügen.
Nous aimerions en savoir encore un peu sur les lieux. S'il vous plaît n'hesitez pas à ajouter une courte description et tous les renseignements pertinents dans votre propre langue.
Quisieramos informarnos un poco más de las lugares. No dude en añadir una breve descripción y otros datos relevantes en su propio idioma.