That's what I love to see, evidence that there were cultures building massive structures in a region which supposedly wasn't populated. That's what I love to see, evidence that there were cultures building massive structures in a region which supposedly wasn't populated.The effects of the huge meteor strike which convoluted and created the Gulf of Mexico may have some bearing on the elevation /suubsidence geodynamic over time. It is reputed to have destroyed the dinosaurs and much of the fauna which dwelled on the surface. So these deeper areas, such as the current site off Cuba now 2500 feet below sea level may have been at some point dry during the glacial era as sea levels were much lower. This posits that the Cuban site may be a great deal more ancient than 4000 years. It would more likely have to be 15000 to 25000 years old, which would cover the extent of that glacial period. The land would have been populated by mammoths and such, and the actual site may have been a port at sea level as it then was.
The larger question about the subsidence is whether it was cataclysmic or gradual, or both in different geological eras. The imagery of the Cuba site buildings do not appear to be damaged by cataclysm. So the water levels likely rose to cover it as the glaciers melted and sea levels rose around the world.
This site will reveal a lot about ancient history and the antediluvian civilizations, the evidence of which remains spotty and is rendered scientifically anomalous,a huge mistake. At one time the Gulf of Mexico was a huge basin, full of rivers and lakes, just as much of the Mediterranean was during the glacial era.Cuba would have been a mountain range at the foot of which the ancient structures were built.