Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Fantastic updates on Cuba underwater structures!

  1. Aug 26, 2005 #1
    "...It is true that down there at heart of the sea, are structures that sometimes have dimensions of several hundreds meters that are unusual, for which we we do not have a simple, direct explanation... "

    "...rocks appear. Some of them are not typical of Cuba. This leads one to think of two hypothesis: one can be that this has fallen there, and the other that all this could be part of the manmade constructions.
    Also there have appeared, dispersed, a material that seems to be volcanic ash and, the information that a Soviet oceanographic research ship in the year 1967 reported to have dredged samples of volcanic ash from that place of the basic character of that formed by a submerged volcano.
    Anyway this information is not confirmed and in my opinion in that location there cannot have been any type of volcano. Therefore these works and these investigations open a whole lot of mysteries on the region..."

    "...A clear explanation does not exist of how these structures formed by natural means. Offered this point of view as geologist, I admit the possibility that it could be a question of not natural, that is to say structures, created by man, or some intelligent entity..." :surprised :surprised :surprised

    - Manuel Iturralde of the National Museum of Natural History of the Havana, considered to be the foremost geologist of Cuba.

    http://www.s8int.com/water28.html

    http://www.s8int.com/water27.html

    Now we have a probable involvement of National Geographic Society or Discovery Channel in funding the project!

    Hot stuff, isn't it?

    This is going to be something really really great!

    Opinions? News?

    Thanks!
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 26, 2005 #2

    LURCH

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I would've liked to see some still frames from some of the "film" that has been reported so far. It's very difficult to gauge what the article is talking about without seeing something for one's self.
     
  4. Aug 26, 2005 #3
    Thanks, great find.

    I'm not that enthousiastic anymore since I heard from it in August 2001. I was working intensely on a physical Earth mechanism (called the Rapid True Polar Wander) that could have explained the most unusual whereabouts of the Siberian Mammoth (walking around on big lucious grassy steppes only a few hundred miles from the north pole some 40-10,000 years ago) and it took me about 2 minutes to understand that the Cuban city fitted exactly into that pattern.

    With this understanding it's easy to see that there is an abundance of evidence supporting such a curious mechanism. Venus, for instance, did the same but started some two - three billion of years earlier.

    The complete idea however proves to be completely unsellable. Instead, when you try, you risk being held for insane. Far beyond "common sense". "Crackpottery" is the reward for trying to explain

    So what will happen is a continuation of the deafening silence that has surrounded this phenomenon since it's discovery and if forced, some scientist will declare that it is complete nonsense and there is no rock solid evidence and the pictures and movies are not convincing etc etc and let's talk about something else as soon as possible. What can't be, isn't, no?
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2005
  5. Aug 26, 2005 #4
    Yeah, but here we have a Job at National Museum of Natural History of the Havana and a reputation at stake!

    And even a Cuban commission is involveld on...

    IMO, if the discovery would be worthless those guys wouldn't have said such statements...
     
  6. Aug 26, 2005 #5
    Well, you can tell De La Rosa and Manuel Itturalde Vinent that there is a sound physical explanation, which however will take another century or so to be acceptable.
     
  7. Aug 26, 2005 #6
    Andre wrote:
    > Thanks Lurch, great find.

    Lurch?!?!?!

    Andre wrote:
    >So what will happen is a continuation of the deafening silence that has surrounded this phenomenon since it's discovery

    You're right, but maybe the 'discoverers' wants to make the big 'boom' at the appropriate time (and with the appropriate funds)...

    >and if forced, some scientist will declare that it is complete nonsense and there is no rock solid evidence and the pictures and movies are not convincing etc etc and let's talk about something else as soon as possible. What can't be, isn't, no?

    This time I think It's different: we are going to have the Cuban geological community from one side, and I guess that they have more than we imagine because they succedeed to 'catch' NGS attention...And I think that we will hear the best part after the expeditions of the autumn that they claim, made, I guess, with the funds...
     
  8. Aug 26, 2005 #7
    ...That is?

    Remember that if you invoke time, the structures are too complex to be older than 50.000 years or whatever...

    But if you follow the subject from 2001 you know already these things...
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2005
  9. Aug 26, 2005 #8
    :blushing: look again.


    I have the details indeed.

    I expect (predict) the (man made) structures to be older than 5000-6000 years but not necesarily much more, although 10-15,000 years would be perfectly fine. The mechanism that caused a subsidence of the area of some 2000+ feet is likely identical the same to the one that ended the abnormal warm "hypsithermal" period in Siberia as well as the African wet period, both around 5000 years ago.

    I wonder if the most abnormal counter intuitive facts allow for counter intuitive solutions as well. Haven't seen that being accepted so far.
     
  10. Aug 26, 2005 #9
    The problem however is devastation. Of course we are talking of tremdouos stone blocks but image what an earthquake powerful enough to sink the area 2000+ feet would do with them and their position. Yet the structures seem to be fully intact. Must have been a very very strange earthquake indeed.
     
  11. Aug 26, 2005 #10
    Andre wote:
    :blushing: look again.

    Yes, sorry but the page was still without the correction... :wink:

    Andre wote:
    I have the details indeed.
    I expect (predict) the (man made) structures to be older than 5000-6000 years but not necesarily much more,

    I agree perfectly on this!

    Andre wote:
    although 10-15,000 years would be perfectly fine.

    No, too much...

    Andre wote:
    The mechanism that caused a subsidence of the area of some 2000+ feet is likely identical the same to the one that ended the abnormal warm "hypsithermal" period in Siberia as well as the African wet period, both around 5000 years ago.

    The speedest subsidence documented in geology is some millimeters a year!
    Interesting, but, have you evidence of the mechanism that you mention?
     
  12. Aug 26, 2005 #11
    Yes, that's the problem invoking an earthquake with that power (700 meters of vertical depression): do you imagine the effect on man-made structures? Almost bringed to sand...
     
  13. Aug 26, 2005 #12
    15 mm/year to be exact. But But that's what we assume based on current measurements.We probably need some 100-1000 mm/year to get the Cuban City effect. But those rates don't start and stop like that ovednight. If there was 100 mm/year subsidence a few thousand years ago, it would still be decellerating and we would expect to see several mm subsidence a year still compared to the isostatic theories elsewhere.

    But we see none, it seems.

    A beautiful riddle.
     
  14. Aug 26, 2005 #13
    Well untill I can see some photos, I can't say one way or another what the stones may be. Several "cities and roads*" have proven to be natural. So untill more proof, I won't judge it.


    *Bimini and Japan
     
  15. Aug 27, 2005 #14
    For what it's worth:

    http://www.cuba.cu/ciencia/citma/ama/museo/exmar3i.htm

    and

    http://www.altarcheologie.nl/index1.html?underwater_ruins/cuba/Megalithic Structures Near Cuba.htm

    Assuming that this is accurate, it's not exactly looking that natural.

    http://www.sptimes.com/2002/11/17/Worldandnation/Underwater_world__Man.shtml

    We have been here before:
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=6347
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=38797

    But then again, it's not a peer reviewed publication, is it, so we can just carry on and forget about it, in conformity with the philosophy of this forum.
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2005
  16. Aug 27, 2005 #15
  17. Aug 27, 2005 #16
    Hey, congratulations Andre, you are very well 'links provided' and up-to-date on this subject! You posted the same I would have done...

    However, I think that this time we are at a fork: autumn is near, so if ADC has the money (thanks to the help from NGS or Discovery Channel, I read of the invelvement of N.O.A.A. too...) this time we will know more on the topic, maybe viewing an exclusive footage or film on Discovery Science :tongue2: (this is not a spot o:) )...

    By the way, I don't care if it would be proved as Atlantis or not, i.e. the 'who', but I'm interested in the explanations of the 'how'...
     
  18. Aug 27, 2005 #17
    Well the most important right now, is definite and fully independent confirmation that

    -the blocks are granite at least any "foreign" kind indeed and no granite around.
    -the blocks are still in some sort of regular structures versus random scattering which would exclude dumping ballast blocks from ships.

    I would love to know the general oriention of the blocks. I have asked it but got no information. My little pet idea would assume slightly east of north. Some 005 - 020 degrees off the north south line.

    A dating estimate would be fine, based on direct evidence from the blocks, (rate of sedimentation, carbon dating of embedded foriminafera, opto illuminincense, 10Be-26Al, anything. Why can't it be 10-15,000 years old? It's not because of the Clovis saga? Nowadays we have Mesa Verde in Chile of 13,000 carbon years and the human footprint in Mexico of several ten thousand years of age.

    As very likely there has been no Atlantis, this won't be it. Check this thread:
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=280813#post280813

    I think I have a rough idea about the "explanations of the 'how'" but this is not the place to discuss it.




    -
     
  19. Aug 31, 2005 #18
    Well, I'm interested: just tell me where could this place be...jonin@iol.it
     
  20. Aug 31, 2005 #19
  21. Sep 26, 2005 #20
    Another new picture was released today of the Cuban City. Unless it's fake you can almost spot the traffic light on that junction.

    http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=4801

    Perhaps it will facilitate some times that Earth science faces that we don't know nothing yet.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Fantastic updates on Cuba underwater structures!
  1. Climate Science Update (Replies: 73)

  2. Another climate update (Replies: 21)

Loading...