3 ms·

Giant Pyramids and Sphinxes discovered offcoast Cuba

7 points by monsterix 13y ago

joelrunyon 13y ago
Interesting but the story seemed light on proof. Digging a bit deeper - the whole thing seems to be contested. Several experts have seen this & questioned it's validity: ""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." Addition reading for the curious: [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_underwater_city http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_underwater_city
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
frankydp 13y ago
Where did the high resolution sonar images in the article come from? This discovery was pretty unconfirmed unless there is some new source I am missing in the article, besides photobucket.
beloch 13y ago
Nothing here really adds up. 1. The earliest pyramids in mesoamerica currently known are about half the age claimed in the BBC article. There are older pyramids in South America (specifically Brazil), but still nothing as old as is claimed here. 2. The linked page says this complex may have been submerged after the last ice-age, but that would actually double the age of the site! 3. The depth of the site (reported on the BBC link) is 650 meters below current sea level, but only 183 meters on the wordpress link. However, at peak glaciation during the last ice age, sea levels were only about 130 meters lower than they are today. If we don't use the BBC article's numbers (could be a metric-imperial conversion error) that still leaves over 50 meters difference, which is rather a lot of subsidence given the geology of the region! 4. The BBC article is over a decade old, but no new findings have been reported in that time. Whether it's 650 or 183 meters deep, somebody would have sent a sub down for a better look by now if it actually existed. Shenanigans! My guess is that this is the blogspam driven resurrection of an old hoax.
ftwinnovations 13y ago
Why is this on the front page? This nonsense isn't news. http://badarchaeology.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/an-underwater-city-west-of-cuba/ http://badarchaeology.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/an-underwater...
namuol 13y ago
This has been bullshit for nearly 12 years, now: http://badarchaeology.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/an-underwater-city-west-of-cuba/ http://badarchaeology.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/an-underwater... Get this crap off the front page, please.

7 points by monsterix 13y ago

Interesting but the story seemed light on proof. Digging a bit deeper - the whole thing seems to be contested. Several experts have seen this & questioned it's validity: ""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." Addition reading for the curious: [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_underwater_city http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_underwater_city

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

frankydp 13y ago

Where did the high resolution sonar images in the article come from? This discovery was pretty unconfirmed unless there is some new source I am missing in the article, besides photobucket.

beloch 13y ago

Nothing here really adds up. 1. The earliest pyramids in mesoamerica currently known are about half the age claimed in the BBC article. There are older pyramids in South America (specifically Brazil), but still nothing as old as is claimed here. 2. The linked page says this complex may have been submerged after the last ice-age, but that would actually double the age of the site! 3. The depth of the site (reported on the BBC link) is 650 meters below current sea level, but only 183 meters on the wordpress link. However, at peak glaciation during the last ice age, sea levels were only about 130 meters lower than they are today. If we don't use the BBC article's numbers (could be a metric-imperial conversion error) that still leaves over 50 meters difference, which is rather a lot of subsidence given the geology of the region! 4. The BBC article is over a decade old, but no new findings have been reported in that time. Whether it's 650 or 183 meters deep, somebody would have sent a sub down for a better look by now if it actually existed. Shenanigans! My guess is that this is the blogspam driven resurrection of an old hoax.

ftwinnovations 13y ago

Why is this on the front page? This nonsense isn't news. http://badarchaeology.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/an-underwater-city-west-of-cuba/ http://badarchaeology.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/an-underwater...

namuol 13y ago

This has been bullshit for nearly 12 years, now: http://badarchaeology.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/an-underwater-city-west-of-cuba/ http://badarchaeology.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/an-underwater... Get this crap off the front page, please.