In my previous two-part article titled “The Exceptional Cuban Underwater City,” I argued that the existence of a city at a depth of over 2,000 feet (609 meters) below sea level off the coast of Cuba could be explained by the Caribbean Basin having been dry and habitable when the city was built.
Toward the end of the second part of the article, I suggested that the Taino flood myth describing “how the sea was created” was referring to not the creation of the world’s oceans, but the Caribbean Sea in particular, and the land Zuania that the storytellers said was flooded was not South America but was instead the Caribbean Basin.
My theory posited that the Caribbean Basin had plausibly been dry during the existence of behaviorally modern man—an intriguing possibility that could not be ruled out. In this article, I will attempt to provide hard evidence to demonstrate it.
The First Steps Towards Discovery
In the early 17th century, the first telescopes were invented. Like many useful inventions, they were initially regarded as either mere toys or novelties. Later on, the militaries of the time realized that the telescope could be used to detect the coming of ships over the horizon before they could be noticed by the naked eye. But it was not until Galileo Galilei pointed this new invention at the heavens above that the telescope was actually used for what we today most associate it with—observational astronomy.
Though in the long run the new findings that the telescope unveiled came to revolutionize astronomy, awakening it from its Ptolemaic slumber, the astronomers and scholars contemporary with Galileo viewed his discoveries with a hard-headed skepticism at best and hostility at worst.
Most surprisingly, some scholars of his day rejected his conclusions not by arguing that Galileo’s interpretations of the evidence he had collected were faulty, but rather that the images formed by the telescopes he used were themselves flawed. In other words, the craters on the moon and the blemishes on the sun that he observed were not really there, but were image artifacts produced by the telescope itself.
Read More: Here