Yes, but after reading this things don't really add up...
ShawnOsaid...
January 23, 2013 at 9:36 PM  I know that beforeitsnews.com wrote the story, but I will still comment on it. There are a lot of very big problems with it. I will discuss a few of them. 1st, the great pyramid at Giza is between 450 and 480 feet tall. That would put it's top only 120-150 below the surface of the water in this area, where the water is 600 ft deep. Obviously anything larger than the great pyramid would rise nearly to the surface. The photos in this article show pyramids that are covered by water several times their height, so much so that we cannot even see the surface. Also, the light that the ROV is shining on a pyramid as is takes a pic of it is illuminating nearly the entire pyramid. Underwater lights on submersibles such as the one shown in this article do not have a long range, and would have to be very close to the pyramid to photograph it, meaning we would only be able to see a very small part of it, unless it was really small, like 20 ft tall or less.
2) The supposed ruins are located between Cuba and the Yucatan Peninsula, which is west of Cuba. This is not in the Bermuda Triangle as the article says, because the Bermuda Triangle is on the East side of Cuba, and actually lies a couple hundred miles away from Cuba to the East. That fact destroys a major claim of the article.
3) If Cuba was part of the culture associated with this alleged city, as claimed by the article, then why didn't the people simply move to the higher areas of Cuba? Also, why are there no signs of advanced culture on Cuba other than some symbols carved on rocks?
4) All of the information about the Olmecs and prior cultures that is written in this article is untrue. We have no clues to the language of the Olmecs or any earlier civilizations, as there are none surviving, and they were gone long before the Aztecs and Mayans. We cannot read their hieroglyphs. We do not know any of their myths or legends, because none of their language survives. Unlike the supposed anthropologist said in the interview in this article, there is no legend of 3 families surviving an earthquake/island disaster, with one named "Olmec". The Olmec did not call themselves "Olmec". "Olmec" is not an Olmec word (remember, we don't know any of their language), it is an Aztec word that means "rubber people" and it is what they called the people living in the Gulf lowlands in the 15th & 16th centuries, 2000 years after the Olmec culture died out. Archaeologists and anthropologists gave the name "Olmec" to the ancient culture that they later discovered in that same area.
I think that's enough for now.
Shawn O'Steen, Anthropologist |
