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- Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://www.grahamhancock.com/images/gallery/bimini/1-4.jpg Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! above water, nearby http://edgarcayce.org/am/biminiexpedition.html Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! background info-
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?
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?
