

Originally posted by TheWayISeeItRegardless, I would love to hear any thoughts or knowledge you have about the MEGA site.





One thing we found, the anthropologist found, was an American cross. It’s a Central American cross.



LMH: Two long ovals crossing each other the way a cross crosses?



PW: Yes, the way a cross crosses, only the shape is not a single line. It is a flattened circle.







PZ: Yes, thank you. I was overhearing my husband and I don’t want you to make any bad mistakes mixing Greek, because it is not Greek. It has the same tendency, but it is not Greek. We don’t know what it is, and scientists are trying to decipher it.



LMH: Right. It has some resemblance in lettering to Greek, but is not Greek. And there are some like pictographs that would fall into the hieroglyphic category as well?



PZ: Yes, and symbols as well.



There are different signs, more like American nature, like they have found in Central America. Pyramids. And strong delineation of the structures which suggest pyramidal type, American pyramidal type, not Egyptian pyramidal type.



PS - Who's talking about "channelers"? Nothing in the thread mentions anything about channelers....

Until I see artifacts and bones, I'm reluctant to call any site an archaeological site. To date, no one has returned with any of these. Mikesingh's pictures really don't convince me.Zelitsky wasn't that convincing, either. Yes, I agree she sounds sincere, but what I have never seen is any credentials that back up her claim of who she is and how she would know things. I think the reason that the expedition never "made" was that NatGeo came to the conclusion that her findings were either fraudulent or incorrect. If she'd found anything, every archaeologist in the world would be all over it...as would every hunter for the fabled Atlantis. Heck, NatGeo and History Channel (and Discovery) have backed some pretty wacky undertakings. It's not political sensitivity that made them drop this -- but I do think they dropped it because she couldn't convince them that she had found something.Reading the "Shift of the Ages" chapter adds to the sense that someone is making things up. There are so many wrong things there:I've seen a lot of Central American crosses and rock art and can say I've never seen that. So I'm suspicous of an "anthropologist" who makes the identification. Furthermore, anthropologists aren't the ones who dig up and identify artifacts -- it's archaeologists. That makes it doubly suspicious.I did look at the picture of the rock art, and while those are genuine pieces of rock art, the symbols when seen in context are actually stars.This one was a real eye-roller, too:Hieroglyphs and letters? No. That's not believable. Furthermore, he's going on about "American pyramidal types" when the photo shown of her on the expedition shows a very clear "egyptian pyramidal type" with smooth sides and so forth. So the words contradict the pictures.And where are those wonderful pictures? It's said they were given to the Cubans (a government that we are not on good terms with and haven't been on good terms with for about the last 60 years.) Did they just wade ashore and ask for directions to the University and hand over cameras and everything else? They kept no negatives for themselves? No prints? Nothing to show NatGeo?And the "anonymous informant" at the bottom of the page who "confirms" her story with one about "cities with working machines" really lacks credibility. How was it that they knew they were "mapping Atlantis" and "it was all over the site" in 1980 -- when according to the 2004 expedition the language hasn't been decyphered? The two accounts don't match and I'm most skeptical of the "military informant" who "came forth" with "secret information." The pattern is similar to that of UFO hoaxers... a pseudo-insider in a military operaton who miraculously gets access to top secret info.Bottom line -- where is the evidence?Speaking as a scientist, if I had located something important, the first thing I do is get a GPS fix on it AND photos -- and the second thing I do is round up a bunch of colleagues who will come along on their own to go confirm this. There are folks in the academic community who will go to stupid lengths to get to a new find, and who will trek out into the back of nowhere (or dive there) to confirm or challenge a finding. When you're in the scientific community, there's a whole network of people who "know someone who knows someone" and you can collect an expert in nearly any field you like by talking to colleagues and mentors.Instead, they have an unnamed anthropologist (wrong field!) and a Cuban Academy of Sciences (unlisted colleagues and associates.) If they really did have these, they'd name the names (the old saw "well, they can't name the Cubans because their government would kill them" won't fly... because the government would have already known about it and if they knew about it, they'd publish it immediately to show the rest of the world what a great and important place Cuba was.)In looking at cultural evidence, ask "who gives the evidence", "what are their credentials (do they know anything about what they're looking at)","where is the evidence?", "has it been dated," and "who supports them?"So far it's "just two people", "apparently none", "maybe the crocodiles et it?", "no" and "no one outside some Atlantis enthusists. They can't even get tv channels desperate for ratings interested in them."Well, Atlantis was mentioned, but Plato never said anything about pyramids, etc. That was channeled info from the 1800's.