Subj:	Re: New Lost City Discovered Off Cuba Coast
Date:	5/16/01 2:34:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time

Dear Kent,

Thanks for the link to the Atlantis site.  If there is no evidence of a
sinking of the area where the new city off Cuba was discovered, then the
archeologists who found it were wrong about its ages, necessarily.  It
is yet another example of how the conventional paradigm shapes the
scientific conclusions of archeologists despite conflicting evidence
from geology, astronomy and other disciplines.  Having a major
civilization in the Americas 9,500 years ago is a problem for most
archeologists who are bound by the paradigm of humans entering the New
World over the Bering Straits 12-15,000 years ago, notwithstanding
overwhelming evidence that humans have been here for at least 100,000
years and perhaps longer.  There is an abundance of evidence that
Tiahuanco was founded as long ago as 15,000 B.C., but the conventional
model puts the foundation somewhere between 200 B.C. to 350 A.D.  It
makes a difference which version is right, a huge difference.  The
discovery of this underwater city may be just the evidence needed to
undermine the primacy of the conventional paradigm at last and force
mainstream scholars to deal with the evidence of human antiquity in the
New World.

As for the Atlantean myth, the jury is still out, in my opinion.  Much
of what has been written in the last 15 years about Atlantis and the
so-called proof for its existence is very weak indeed, based upon
misrepresentations of the works of others or upon very shaky scientific
hypotheses.  Still, even mainstream historians and archeologists have on
occasion written that Egyptian, Sumerian and even Pacific remnants
suggest a predecessor civilization of great accomplishment that was
somehow lost to history.  It is a haunting and compelling myth.  But it
is a long way from a myth to a fact.

I would love for Atlantis to be discovered and suspect that if it did
exist, it will be found within the next century, as our ability to
conduct prolonged explorations of the deep grows greater.  At the very
least, much will be found which will set current, conventional
archeology on its ear.  I love this stuff.

Best regards,

Subj:	Re: New Lost City Discovered Off Cuba Coast
Date:	5/16/01 4:24:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time

Dear Kent,

Thanks for your message.  I have a further thought on the discovery announced today:

Note with respect to the ruins found off of Cuba's coast that
they are located in 2,200 feet of water.  In geologic terms,
that is a lot of water, implying a remoteness in time for the
existence of the city which is almost unimaginable and quite
inconsistent with conventional notions of what was in the
Americas back when the waters did not cover the Cuban
coast down to such a depth, keeping in mind that the change
in oceanic depths between 11,500 B.C. and now ranges
between 30-35 meters, depending on which part of the Earth
one looks at (sea level is not the same worldwide, oddly
enough, due to a variety of influences).  But these changes
are nowhere near 2,200 feet.  For such a city to have existed
without there having been a seismic lowering of the terrain to
that depth, it would have to have been built at the height of
some glacial age which robbed the oceans of vast amounts of
volume, laying bare the sunken terrain upon which the ruins
now stand, half-covered with sand.  Such a conclusion is
utterly at odds with almost all archeology, conventional or
otherwise.  It makes one want to don diving gear and take
another look even at the Bimini Road.

I suppose this suggests a third alternative explanation:  that
the folks in the expedition either misinterpreted what they
saw down there or have waxed a bit more lyrical about it than
the observable facts would justify.  I'd say it's about time we
ask to see the photographs.

Best regards,