This suggests that even when the North Pole was in the Hudson Bay area and most of present day North America lay under a huge ice sheet, this part of Arizona at least was green and fertile. I don't know what the situation was like 50,000 years ago at White Sands but it is possible that there could have been a human presence in the south-west of the USA even that far back in time.
You also mention Cuba being further North than the European ice sheets when the North Pole was in the Hudson Bay area. This may have been the case but then the Gulf Stream that today keeps much of North-Western Europe ice free (including where I live in the British Isles) was blocked by the remaining parts of the Atlantean archipelago. This would not have been the case for Cuba, which would have benefited from the warm waters of the Gulf Stream, as it does today.
In addition, we know that the Atlanteans had the power to control the weather using their giant crystals, the largest of which was a crystal pyramid just over 380 miles off the present east coast of Florida:
It is curious that the geologist M
anuel Iturralde [who is also a specialist in underwater archaeology at Florida State University] should have estimated it took 50,000 years for these structures (if that is what they are) to have sunken to the depth at which they were said to have been found since that matches the time period for the war and cataclysm the C's spoke of that annihilated the Paranthas. This may, of course, just be mere coincidence.
The finding initially attracted the attention of the Cuban government, National Museum, and National Geographic, who all made promises to investigate the strange sonar images. News sites were quick to draw parallels with the fabled lost city of Atlantis. However, there have been no reported follow-up investigations and news outlets have gone deathly silent on the matter. What happened to all the promises from the government, National Museum, National Geographic, and other scientists to carry out further surveys? The quick dismissal of the story has led some to question whether there has been a suppression of information regarding the finding. Fitzpatrick-Matthews claims that the story simply went cold and that in the end experts were not convinced that Zelitsky had really discovered a sunken city.
It should be noted though that Paulina Zelitzki and Paul Weinzweig undertake a second survey, using a submersible robot. It was this second survey that returned data that seemed to show pyramids and other structures. Indeed, according to Paulina Zelitsky, the images suggested that the “city” was built from blocks of cut and polished granite.
In order to get better data, Paulina Zelitsky began raising funds for a third expedition to the site. It was announced in October 2004, in a story that seems not to have been picked up by the world’s media, but “
they could not complete the mission due to technical deficiencies of the submarine that rendered it unable to take images from the marine bottom”. Nevertheless, Zelitsky announced that they would be returning in 2005, with funding from the National Geographic Society. This never happened. Zelitsky continues to work as an oceanographic engineer based in Ontario (Canada) and has not announced any plans since 2004 to return to the site.
Problems with the depth
The depth of the alleged remains is the biggest problem of all: during
the Pleistocene, sea levels dropped as water was locked up in the ice sheets that developed around the globe. At the maximum extent of the ice, the drop in level was around 100 m, which is very different from the 600-750 m depth of the alleged remains. At no point during the Ice Age would they have been above sea level unless, of course, the land on which they stand has sunk. This is the claim made for Atlantis: according to Plato’s account (the only primary source for it), it was destroyed “
by violent earthquakes and floods”. However, if we take Plato at his word – the violence of its sinking makes it improbable that an entire city could have survived plunging more than 600 m into an abyss.
How can the existence of this underwater city at this great depth be reconciled with the well-established consensus that the sea level never dropped so low? Author
Graham Hancock response is to say: “
What one would not expect to find in water anywhere near as deep as 700 meters would be a sunken city - unless it had been submerged by some colossal tectonic event rather than by rising sea levels.”
However, the hypothesis that the city was originally built at a higher altitude and subsequently sunk to its present depth through tectonic activity has not stood up to the scrutiny of the experts.
Grenville Draper of Florida International University considers it highly unlikely that such an event could have occurred: “Nothing of this magnitude has been reported, even
from the Mediterranean…”
For more on this issue see:
What Happened to the ‘Sunken City’ of Cuba? | Ancient Origins
In contrast, Brad Yoon advances the bold argument that the Caribbean was once a dry basin to explain how the city ended up being submerged at such a great depth - see:
The Underwater City of Cuba: A New Theory on its Origins – Part I | Ancient Origins.
Is Hancock's argument that the city could have been submerged by some colossal tectonic event so implausible though? In the session dated 1 December 2018, the C's confirmed that an earthquake off the coast of Madagascar was caused by a massive grand chamber collapse on the sea bed equivalent to an extremely large and deep sinkhole on land:
Could a similar event have occurred in the Caribbean off the coast of Cuba some 50,000 years ago? If so, could this event, or a similar such event elsewhere in the Atlantic, have formed the basis of Plato's tale of the lost city of Atlantis?