Replies

Posner had a follow-up article the next day that highlighted some of the skeptical views of this discovery.

Relevant excerpt from the article:

"But Martin Dean, director of the University of Britain's St. Andrews marine archeological unit, said yesterday that "the world's seas and oceans are full of underwater limestone formations. Some of them cover many square miles, which are mistakenly interpreted as sunken cities with monotonous regularity."

Another critic, Alistair Crame, head of the Geological Sciences division of the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, claimed the site is too deep to have any structures fashioned by humans.

"It's very unlikely that the seabed would drop 650 metres in 6,000 years," he said.

The 650-metre depth, he added, is 550 metres below the lowest global sea levels experienced over the past million years.

I don't want to spoil anyone's fun, but the likelihood of this discovery being an archaeological find is low.

Thanks, I saw that somewhere else recently. What I thought was interesting was the critics who have never seen the find or the data just say it's unlikely due to the conventional wisdom. Of course it seems unlikely, that's why it's news! More relevant is this from the article:

...Ms. Zelitsky, a Soviet-trained offshore engineer, rebuffed the criticism. "I'm here in Cuba and what we've found is here. It's local, not in the United Kingdom. And it's not a matter of opinion -- it's objective reality."

She said the project team, which includes Mr. Weinzweig, her son Ernesto Tapanes and representatives of Cuba's Academy of Sciences, was initially "very suspicious of the site's manmade nature," and thought the megaliths might be limestone.

Cuban geologists have recently said the stones are "too smooth and too hard to be a natural limestone formation. Geologists think they are granite."