The Ancient Bimini Road is not all natural

Kilik

Registered Member
The Ancient Bimini Road is not all natural

Here is an article on how Skeptics perpetrated a hoax to claim the Bimini Road was only natural formations. Deliberately ignoring evidence and being dishonest about the actual arrangement of the blocks-
http://www.mysterious-america.net/biminihoax.html

Videos-
http://www.mysterious-america.net/quicktimebiminif.html
http://www.mysterious-america.net/2003atlantissear.html
http://www.mysterious-america.net/index.html

The way the blocks are stacked on top of short pillar stones at the corners isn't really natural, and the evidence does indeed indicate it was arranged by humans thousands of years ago for either a road, a harbor, and probably as a way to stop incoming waves-
bim3.gif

Biminiroad-Brucepic2.gif

180px-BiminiRoadOverhead2.jpg
 
rock.jpg


http://www.grahamhancock.com/images/gallery/bimini/1-4.jpg
bimini.jpg


above water, nearby
http://edgarcayce.org/am/biminiexpedition.html
sharkbw.jpeg



background info-
Since 1968, with the discovery of the so-called "Bimini Road," a heated controversy has ensued. Several skeptical geologists have, over the years, insisted that it was a natural underwater formation of stones. Located about a mile offshore of the small island of Bimini, in the Bahamas, the "Bimini Road" is a 1600 foot long formation of stone blocks. Soon after its discovery various researchers and followers of the famous "Sleeping Prophet" Edgar Cayce noted that in a 1940 reading Mr. Cayce had in fact predicted that a portion of Atlantis would be found near Bimini in 1968 and 1969.

The geologists skeptical claims soon became accepted as fact by the academic community, and initially Dr. Greg Little, the producer of this documentary, accepted those claims as fact himself. That is, until 2003 and 2004, when Greg and his wife Lora noticed when diving and photographing this formation of underwater stones that some things weren't adding up as the geologists had reported.

And so, in May 2005, Greg, Lora, their friend and colleague Doris Van Auken, all three working on behalf of the Association for Research and Enlightenment, joined up with archaeologist William Donato to try and resolve this matter once and for all. In just five full days at Bimini Road, diving and collecting samples, taking just under 1000 photographs and producing over 20 hours of video, this team of investigators had reached some startling conclusions. They had found at least eight ancient stone anchors, rectangular slabs of cut stone used for leveling large stone blocks, stones with mortise cuts on them, and many stone circles. Why and how the geologists had missed these things often became a topic of discussion among these investigators.

Dr. Little notes in his narration that despite the team's exhausting efforts and hard work to observe and document as much of the site as possible, they had probably been able to closely examine and inspect less than ten percent of the stone blocks. Skeptic Eugene Shinn had described in his writings that he had made a thorough study of the site in only two weekends, which this team viewed as not possible. Shinn's published findings in Nature and The Skeptical Inquirer were found to be riddled with many errors and blunders. He attempted to put down anyone who disagreed with him as a part of the lunatic fringe. He even wrote that "true believers say it is a prehistorical archaeological site build by extraterrestrials from the Pleiades." Though described by fellow skeptics as an eminent and highly respected geologist, Shinn turns out only to have a bachelor's degree in biology. Geologist John Gifford, of the University of Miami, had written that there was not a single example of a stone block laid on top of other stone blocks at this site, but the ARE team and Donato found that there were many! When Dr. Little initially contacted Dr. Gifford, he stated that he was "open" to new findings, but when Dr. Little informed him of their findings and offered to pay his way to the site to reinspect it for himself, despite repeated attempts, communications from Dr. Gifford ceased.

Dr. Little concludes that as the skeptics have long insisted, a hoax was indeed perpetrated at Bimini. However, instead of being wild eyed believers in unfounded absurdies, as the skeptics had claimed, it turned out to be the skeptical geologists themselves who had held the truth hostage and kept real scientific progress at bay. With emotional zeal, under the guise of science, skeptics denounced evidence on the possibility of the "Bimini Road" being anything other than a natural formation of stones. They seemed overzealous to suppress and lay to rest the questions and controversy over the site's discovery in connection with Atlantis and a psychic named Edgar Cayce.


Thus, as a result, the academic community overlooked significant and anomalous evidence, even from those with sound credentials and reputations, like marine engineer Dr. Dimitri Rebikoff, said to be a brilliant oceanographer, who had stated back in 1969 that the Bimini Road formation was identical to numerous ancient man-made harbors discovered throughout the Mediterranean. Rebikoff also disagreed with the skeptics when they claimed that there were no prop or leveling stones underneath the large stone blocks at Bimini.

The ARE team and Donato came to agree with Dr. Rebikoff's assertions. In fact, on this incredible video you will see for yourself comparisons with the anchors, stone circle formations, the stone harbor formations, and other artifacts at Bimini and Mediterranean sites like Cosa, Italy, Dor and Akko, Israel, and Samos, Greece, among many other places. In addition, you will see how remarkably the Bimini anchors compare with ancient Greek, Roman and Phoenician anchors. You will also be taken to Isla Cerritos, a small island off the coast of the Yucatan, which was a Mayan port back around 400 B.C., with remains of an enclosed man-made harbor there.
 
Interesting information.

If the site was a harbor, it was likely built circa 10,000 years ago, when the sea level was known to have risen about 20 meters, following a period of stabilization of about 2,000 years duration following the ice-age melt-down circa 18,000 to 12,000 years ago in which the sea rose some 80 meters.

Whether this was "Atlantis" is pure conjecture. Another thread about "Atlantis" shows it might well have been the island complex of Crete/Santorini in the mediterranean. That mediterranean site seems more likely, particularly in light of the difficulty of Atlantic crossings to communicate between the America's civilizations and the European/African ones.

It does not seem improbable that early Amerindians might well have civilized to the stage of harbor-building, only to have that work flooded, causing a retreat to higher ground and disruption of their civilization. They were definitely at it again, in many areas of the Americas circa 4,000 years ago, if not earlier, as we have lots of archaeological sites from that more recent era, right up until the Conquistadores arrivals, putting an end to the stone-age cultures of the Americas.
 
This is clearly pseudoscience. The OP is ready to link to some videos as his "evidence" for a man-made road that offers an exaggerated antiquity of man but not willing to actually discuss what points in these videos he deems as evidence of unnatural explanations.

For this to have been a "road" or even man-made, they would have had to be constructed long before humans were present in the region, not to mention that it was only recently that people living there had the technology to construct such things on such a scale.

The "bimini roads" are formed by natural geological processes which are well known. No mystery here. Can someone move this to the pseudoscience section?
 
For this to have been a "road" or even man-made, they would have had to be constructed long before humans were present in the region...
I am--or was--a dues-paying member of CSICOP so I'm no fan of Cayce. Still this statement is wrong. I don't know the date of the oldest authenticated archeological evidence in the precise area of Bimini, but humans had been living in the Americas for some time at the date postulated for the construction of this alleged artifact. With the falling and rising of sea level and the small search field provided by an island it's not unbelievable that they could have traveled there and evidence of it is lost or at least far under water now.

What does make this hypothesis a stretch is that humans had not been in the Americas for very long. Archeological, linguistic, and genetic evidence of a substantial population--the "critical mass" necessary to even comtemplate building a civilization much less do it--doesn't go back much beyond 15000BCE. Whether they came by foot over the traditionally presumed route across Beringia preserving of their original culture only what they could carry, or in boats full of tools and artworks along the coastline as has been recently speculated, they clearly had lost any vestige of advanced culture and technology long before their diaspora reached the Atlantic coast. This is a pretty big continent and there is not one shard of evidence anywhere of them having preserved it.

Their ancestors left central Asia thousands of years before civilizations began springing up in the old World, so they had no "racial memory" or legends of cities to work from. The Paleoindians had to invent it from scratch just like the Chinese, Indians, Mesopotamians and Egyptians did. Those other people had the advantage of tens of thousands of years of slow development from which to draw whereas the Americans had been resolute nomads just an eyeblink previously. It took them a while to build their first Olmec and Inca cities.

To suggest that there was a civilization within boating distance of the Bahamas several thousand years before evidence of it anywhere else in the hemisphere is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary proof. One formation which apparently has virtually all of the respected experts convinced that it's natural--plus a conspiracy theory that couldn't pass muster even during the peak woo-woo era of Flower Power--is simply not enough extraordinary proof.

A claim that the entire community of "skeptical" geologists are participants in a worldwide plot to discredit someone they don't like is beyond "extraordinary." It's presposterous. This is not the era of Galileo when people who call themselves "scientists" are motivated by religious orthodoxy and fear of being burned at the stake. The scientific method has been in use and proven to be both durable and effective for a century or two, and at least in the West what we now call liberalism has permitted even the most reviled voices to get a fair hearing and to undergo a satisfactorily dispassionate peer review. Cayce, the antievolutionists and the other fringe scientists have not been dismissed because they're disliked. They are disliked because their work has been peer-reviewed and found to be flawed, so they decided to bypass their peers and take it directly to the laymen. This is arguably the worst possible violation of the scientific method. It brands them as not merely unprofessional but downright bad.
 
The purported evidence does not evoke pseudoscience. It is reported that some of the stones are propped up by wood, and some are multiple stones on top of each other. This certainly deserves further investigation, and coverage by mainstream archaeological journals.

While I am not convinced it is not a natural formation, the drawings and photographs are more evocative of a man-made harbor formation (not a road). Edgar Cayce is irrelevant to the actual facts, and has no bearing on that determination. This does not look like an "Atlantis", while Crete/Santorini does.

The 15,000 B.C. date for the first Amerindians, to a presumed flooding date of circa 10,000 years ago, would have provided more than enough time for an early civilization, in a fishing community, to construct a small boat harbor to protect against storms, etc.
 
The photograph posted by kilik looks decidedly unnatural. However, if one were selective in ones choice of photographs (not kilik, but Hancock) one could doubtless find an example or two like this from several hundred, where the natural character of the feature was more apparent.
If most, or much, of the feature appears like this I would incline strongly to the possibility that it is man made.

I am uncomfortable with the use of phrases such as "propped up by wood". This implies an interpretation. Let us accept there is wood in juxtaposition with stone. How did this come about? Natural explanations are easily envisaged. Using designer phrases like 'propped up' make a conclusion for the reader. This is wrong.
 
Interesting, and could have been seen coming. Of special note is the second row of stones. I'm looking for an update on this research but can't find much (except reports from 06), any links?
 
Back
Top