Atlantis Online
July 15, 2024, 09:14:43 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Giant crater may lie under Antarctic ice
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn9268
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Updated Report on May 2005 Bimini—Andros Expedition

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Updated Report on May 2005 Bimini—Andros Expedition  (Read 444 times)
Desiree
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3882



« on: May 01, 2007, 12:48:18 am »

 
Updated Report on May 2005 Bimini—Andros Expedition: Bimini Road-An Ancient Harbor

by Dr. Greg Little





Above Photos—Left: One of dozens of rectangular slabs at the Bimini Road. They are typically 1.5 to 3-feet in width, about 8 inches thick, and 3 to 4.5-feet long. Their surface, when brushed clean of sand, is smooth. Some of them stick vertically out of the bottom and are lithified into the constantly forming seabed. The water at the Bimini Road is becoming shallower as the seabed rises. This fact was also observed by the dive operators who have been measuring the depth there for years. Right Photo: Several rectangular slabs serving as "leveling prop stones" under a massive block on the Bimini Road. The very top of the photo shows the underside of a huge block. Skeptics have stated that any carved or cut stones that have been been found on the Bimini Road have been obviously dumped there by historic or modern boats. This photo is one of many that proves that argument is wrong. Many of the massive blocks, which from the surface appear to be lying on the bottom, are actually supported and leveled by underlying prop stones, which are comprised of other blocks, stone cubes, and rectangular slabs like the one shown in the right photo above. This particular stone was supported by a stack of rectangular blocks. While this is only one example of depicting the rectangular slabs under large blocks, there are others. It should be understood that natural beachrock cannot and does not form into such a configuration. As I was taking this photo, Lora videotaped me from the surface. Without lights or a flash camera, it's impossible to see most of the details under the huge blocks. From the surface video, it appeared as if the block was lying on the bottom, because from the surface it appeared that there was no way to actually get under the huge stone. This factor is one that probably led skeptics to claim that all the Bimini Road stones were simply lying on the bottom or on sand. In short, skeptics who claim to have carefully examined the Bimini Road (and this is actually less than a handfull of individuals) have only viewed a small portion of it from underwater focusing on coring stones. Most of their "observations" were made from the surface and it seems that only a small portion of the site was examined from the surface. In fact, as we have now discovered, some of their work there was probably not on the Bimini Road itself. In addition, it is obvious that the skeptics failed to take time to try to make observations under the blocks. It should be noted that the photos and video stills in this article are not the all the evidence for the Bimini Road having the hands of humans involved in its formation. But the assertion that the formation was utilized in some way by humans is a near certainty. All of the supporting evidence of this will be documented in subsequent articles and a video documentary.

 
« Last Edit: May 01, 2007, 12:49:56 am by Desiree » Report Spam   Logged

This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean. But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Desiree
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3882



« Reply #1 on: May 01, 2007, 12:50:51 am »

Summary of Findings

From May 3 to May 11, a joint team comprised of the ARE's Search For Atlantis Project and The Atlantis Organization performed detailed underwater investigations at both Bimini and Andros. Drs. Greg and Lora Little, archaeologist Bill Donato of The Atlantis Organization, and the ARE's Doris Van Auken were accompanied by Eslie and Krista Brown, who operate KnB EZ Dive at Bimini.

Hundreds of photos were taken during the trip, including several spectacular underwater shots of artifacts and stone formations previously unseen or ignored by prior investigators. About 15 hours of underwater video was shot, documenting nearly 14 hours of scuba dives and the various discoveries. Bill Donato is preparing two articles on the finds and I (Greg) am in the process of producing a documentary on the trip, which will be released at the ARE's Annual Ancient Mysteries Conference in October. In addition, we plan on soon submitting sevaral articles to professional journals.

At the underwater "Bimini Road" off Bimini, several areas were found where at least three massive blocks sat on top of each other and another dozen or so were found that revealed two massive blocks on top of each other. According to skeptics, there are no blocks at the Bimini Road which sit on top of others and no blocks have underlying prop stones. Obviously, that assertion is not true. Many toolmarks were also discovered on blocks showing mortises along with several curious, large, carved U-shapes. In addition to the cuts on blocks, at least two definite human artifacts were found at the Bimini Road during the trip.

In addition, from under a large block, about a dozen cut black stones were recovered. The stones have been tested by two independent commercial geology labs and a university-based geologist has reviewed the findings. The stones were identified as "fossil limestone" and were used for many different purposes. These "contact metamorphic" stones, a combination of limestone and other stone, are also sometimes inaccurately called grey marble because they have many characteristics of marble. This type of stone is a desirable building material and has been widely utilized for construction and ship ballast. They are found in the Bahamas. They were discovered tightly wedged under a huge block and we spent about 30 minutes on this one area—filming the entire sequence of events. The stones could not have dropped from a boat.

A little less than a mile from the Bimini Road, closer toward the shore, we investigated a little-known underwater formation called "Proctor's Road," named for its 1970's discoverer. Prior to filming the entire formation underwater, we flew over it at low altitude and both photographed and videotaped it. Proctor's Road consists of an irregular, 1-mile-long line of stones. Spaced at fairly regular intervals are five large circular formations of massively thick stones totally unlike the much smaller stones running between the circles. Another 2-3 partial and smaller circles are also present. Proctor's Road cuts directly across numerous ancient shore lines that are obvious and are clearly visible on the bottom. This area is perplexing as the main line of smaller stones definitely appears to be natural beachrock combined with unusual stones. However, as stated previously, this line of stones strangely crosses directly over numerous ancient shore lines into deeper water. The stone circles, most of which are comprised of 5-10 huge, thick stones, are anomalous and are clearly out-of-place. As we have previously theorized about these stone circles, they are very similar to large circles of stone that are found in the Mediterranean. At several ancient Mediterranean harbors, such as Cosa, Italy, circles served as mooring areas outside of the main harbor. The presence of these circles in the shallower water may indicate that the shore off North Bimini may have been used as a harbor during a long period of time. The Proctor's Road circles could have been utilized for mooring after ancient sea levels rose to perhaps a level of 8-feet lower than that of today. Supporting that idea was the discovery of at least eight stone ancient anchors on Proctor's Road, all associated with circles. Reliable data shows that the Bahamas sea level was 8-feet lower about 6,000-years ago.

On the Bimini Road, three ancient stone anchors were found including two that are identical to ancient stone anchors found at Thera, off Greece. However, since the sea level over the Bimini Road is deeper than at Proctor's Road, averaging 15-to-20-feet, the use of the Bimini Road as a harbor would be somewhat earlier than Proctor's Road. The mortises, anchors, cut ballast stones, prop and leveling stones, and multiple tiers of blocks all point to the Bimini Road serving as a harbor. In the Mediterranean there are at least three ancient harbors that closely match the Bimini Road. They utilized a J-shape to divert water flow, had associated lines of stones utilized as piers and quays, and were constructed of cut beachrock similar in size to those at the Bimini Road. In general, we believe that the evidence recovered from this expedition is definitive and conclusive, but the skeptics have already derided the finds. The conclusion of this article details the problem of the skeptics.

At Andros, we found, once again, that the greatest portion of the massive stone platform, discovered in 2003, was under sand. But many areas were totally clear of sand allowing complete views of areas of the formation. All of the clear areas were filmed. In addition, a deep, straight seam between two huge blocks was investigated and some material was gathered for dating analysis. Rather unexpectedly, during the investigation we realized that an underwater area to the south of the platform appears to be highly promising—especially for possible building remains. Bill Donato's opinion of the Andros Platform essentially matches ours. It appears to have served as a breakwater enclosing a small harbor at an ideal location. As with many of the ancient Mediterranean harbors, the Andros Platform appears to have been a natural elevated area off shore that was modified by moving large blocks to increase the height of the formation. The constantly shifting sand at Andros is problematic and greatly retards all work there.

Ancient Harbor Evidence

Overall, the evidence from the expedition pointed to an obvious conclusion we have previously put forth: both the Bimini and Andros
   
   Dimitri Rebikoff, a French oceanographer who had a Ph.D. from the Sorbonne, immediately recognized the Bimini Road as an ancient harborworks when he first viewed it in 1969. Rebikoff was personally involved in surveying and photographing dozens of the ancient Mediterranean harbors when they were discovered. Rebikoff presented his evidence from the Bimini Road to a large group of European geologists and archaeologists in the 1970s, and all agreed that it appeared to be a harbor identical to several in the Mediterranean. Rebikoff has either been ignored by the skeptics or depicted as a gullible "new ager." But texts and articles in underwater archaeology describe Rebikoff as "a brilliant oceanographer." During this trip, the evidence we found for human hands being involved with the formation of the Bimini Road is overwhelming and irrefutable. We do not assert that the timeframe for their use as harbors was 10,000-years ago. That issue remains unsettled at the moment, however, with the seabed there constantly increasing in height, the dating of the harbors is quite problematical.

Because the finds from this expedition were completely contrary to what two skeptical geologists and a skeptical archaeologist wrote in their 1970's, 80's, and 2004 articles, the original journal articles published by the skeptics were obtained and carefully reviewed. Another reason that these articles were examined was the astonishing number of factual and spelling errors evident in a 2004 article published in the Skeptical Inquirer by the main skeptic, Eugene Shinn. To understand the background circumstances of the geologist's findings, it is necessary to provide a few details. First, both of the geologists who are the main skeptics only held bachelor's degrees. In fact, Eugene Shinn,who is now 71-years old, the US Geological Survey geologist who published the most damning articles, had nothing but a bachelor's degree in biology until 1998. Shinn stated he was awarded a Ph.D. in 1998 "because of his publication record." Second, the skeptics' time spent at Bimini was very limited and their funds were limited. At least one of them went there with the intention of bringing sense into what was perceived as nonsense.

Discovering that there were serious discrepancies in the details of results presented in the initial study published by the most skeptical geologist (Shinn) with both of his susequent reports, he was contacted along with the other prominent skeptical geologist (John Gifford). After a series of interactions, the following astonishing conclusions, backed by evidence that includes written statements from one or the other of the skeptics, have been reached. Note that none of these conclusions were expected prior to the contacts with the geologists.

First, neither of the geologists appear to know precisely where all their cores were taken. There is definite evidence, both from descriptions in their published reports as well as in our finds at Bimini, that some of their "tested" cores were taken from locations other than the Bimini Road. We counted all the cores on the Road and noted their positions via GPS. (We actually found "misdirected" cores about a mile away from the Bimini Road, took GPS coordinates on them, and both filmed and photographed them.) In truth, in the early 1970s, few people were aware of the precise location and actual extent of the Bimini Road.

Second, all the carbon dates cited by skeptics for the blocks at the Bimini Road are unreliable and do not provide even a rough guess of the age of the stones. This is because of the "bulk carbon dating method " used, which definitely contaminates stone with a constant inflow of modern carbon.

Third, although many skeptics assert that Uranium-Thorium dating was done on stones from the Bimini Road, that is totally untrue. Gifford dated the bedrock immediately under the large blocks (somewhere on the Bimini Road) to 15,000-years ago—utilizing the more accurate Uranium-Thorium technique. Skeptics are loathe to mention that finding, which was published in Gifford and Ball's original article.

Fourth, none of the skeptics could have actually examined all of the Bimini Road from the surface, much less looking closely at stones from the bottom. This is self-evident because their observations about the stones are clearly inaccurate and are actually easily refuted. This factor, along with others, led to inaccurate conclusions about the site.

Fifth, numerous stones have cube-like and carved rectangular slabs underneath them that serve as leveling stones. Dozens of rectangular slabs were discovered, many of which were literally stacked under larger blocks. Skeptics have claimed that there are no prop stones under any blocks, but this simply isn't true. The carved rectangular slabs under several massive blocks could not have dropped from boats. They appear to be leveling supports for the large blocks.

Sixth, a series of conclusions and observations first published by the skeptics is nearly totally inaccurate and directly contrary to the actual evidence.

Seventh, skeptics claim that not a single block comprising the Bimini Road sits on another block. This isn't true and with an hour or two of diving and exploring they could have easily found many examples. Only a few examples of multiple tiers are shown in this article, but many more will be on the video. The majority of the massive blocks, which have sides not covered in sand, have underlying stones, prop stones, and leveling slabs.

Eighth, the primary claim made by the skeptics about the Bimini Road, that it is a single slab of beachrock that fractured in place, is based on a near-total distortion and a later gross misstatement of what was actually found. In Eugene Shinn's first article, published in 1978 in the journal Sea Frontiers, Shinn reported that he took 17 cores on the Road, with 8 in one area and 9 in another area. The cores were taken in an attempt to look at the internal bedding of the stones to determine their original formation. Beachrock forms on a beach where constant wave motion moves small pebbles and sand onto a continuously cementing carbonate stone. As the pebbles cement into the forming stone, they leave a distinctive inner set of banding layers that dip toward the deep water. Shinn hoped to find that all the stones of the Bimini Road showed the exact same internal bedding—identical layers of pebbles—dipping toward deep water. In the area with 8 cores, Shinn reported that there were no discernable internal bedding layers present. In the area of the 9 cores, he reported that some of the internal bedding layers dipped toward deep water and many of them were horizontal. Because nothing he found in his cores argued for the manmade origin of the stone blocks, Shinn concluded that the blocks had to all be from a single massive piece of beachrock that fractured in place. But in his 1980 Nature article with skeptical archaeologist Marshall McKusick, the summary of the findings from Shinn's 1978 core results stated this: "Two areas of the formation were studied, and both show slope and uniform particle size, bedding planes, and constant dip direction, from one block to the next." In a 2004 article in the Skeptical Inquirer, Shinn again repeated the results of his 1978 cores on the Bimini Road: "Sure enough, all of the cores showed consistent dipping of strata toward the deep water, and distinctive layers of rounded beach pebbles could be traced from one stone to another." In brief, the results Shinn reported in 1978 do not match, even remotely, with what he wrote in 1980 and again in 2004. According to his original detailed findings in Sea Frontiers, only a quarter or less of the cores he took showed a bedding plane toward deep water. About half of the cores, according to his report, showed no internal bedding whatsoever. The other cores showed a horizontal bedding.

Shinn was subsequently contacted and asked about this major discrepancy in his initially reported results and subsequent summaries. He admitted that his 1980 and 2004 summaries were "imprecise" and were the fault of "no peer review." It was an unsatisfactory explanation, especially since Shinn continues to make the same inaccurate assertion in newspaper articles and conference talks. Then Shinn unexpectedly added, "but you can't see internal bedding in 4-inch cores." Interestingly, all of Shin's cores were 4-inch cores. He seemed to be admitting that none of the cores could have possibly showed any internal bedding anyway. He also verified that his carbon dates were done utilizing the unreliable bulk sampling method and that students learning carbon testing did most of the tests. This came after one of his own articles in the journal Geology was cited, wherein bulk testing of beachrock was described as unreliable and likely to be contaminated. Despite all of these factors, Shinn ridiculed the new finds at Bimini and stands by the natural beachrock explanation, despite the facts he concedes in the above.

This was all completely unexpected, and it seems that the young and inexperienced geologists who conducted the research were influenced by their own biased beliefs and pressured by others with high academic and professional standing. The grossly exaggerated results in the later "scientific" reports are bewildering. McKussick utilized the Bimini study published in Nature, and again later in an article in Archaeology, to state that the Cayce organization is a "cult and a religion." He asserted that Cayce was a fake and that the Bimini Hoax was perpetrated to bring attention to the Cayce organization and tourists to Bimini. In his emails Shinn related that there was "craziness" going on at Bimini and it appears he wanted to bring a scientific resolution to it. The journal editor was happy to get a "geological exlanation" and put an end to the controversy. Shinn admitted that he "did it for fun" and that "there was not the usual rigor associated with our regular research." But whatever actually occured as the results were compiled, what was actually found and what was claimed to have been found are vastly different. The 1980 Nature article by Shinn and McKusick termed the affair "the Bimini Hoax." It appears that they were quite correct, but their assertion about the identity of the hoaxers was projected onto others rather than the real culprits.

Last, while the skeptics claim that there are no toolmarks or a single human artifact ever found there (that couldn't have been dropped from a boat), that has been proven untrue. There are numerous massive and smaller blocks with many toolmarks including mortises and large cuts into stone. (These are not the cuts made into a few stones by the geologists themselves.)

Other than what seems to be quite contradictory and inaccurately reported results in the most skeptical reports, one other fact becomes clear. Numerous textbooks claim that the 1970's and 80's research by the skeptical geologists produced irrefutable proof that the Bimini Road was nothing more than a huge single piece of natural beachrock that fractured in place. These textbooks reference all the skeptical geological "studies." Documentaries on Atlantis, which discuss Bimini, invariably have a skeptical geologist or two who state that they have carefully "read all the research published on the Bimini Road" and that the "evidence clearly shows that it is natural beachrock dated to somewhere around 2000-years ago." If it is true that they actually read all the original skeptical geologists' reports, that means the so-called "scientists" authoring the textbooks and appearing on the documentaries are pseudoscientists themselves—engaging in a deliberate falsification or deliberate misstatement of results to fit a preconceived agenda. However, if these individuals only read secondary sources (subsequent skeptical articles or textbooks describing the results of the original research), then they have also engaged in another form of pseudoscience considered to be nonscientific in textbook writing. This assertion is made because, if they actually "carefully read the original research reports" as they claim, they had to see the obvious discrepancies.

A DVD documentary, tentatively titled "Uncovering The Great Bimini Hoax," is now in preparation with its release scheduled for October 2005. In brief, the documentary will demonstrate that the hoax was perpetrated by the skeptics themselves. That's an amazing assertion, but one that has been totally documented. The release date coincides with the ARE's Annual Ancient Mysteries Conference where all the results will be fully presented. However, the film itself will not be shown at the conference as a detailed talk will be presented with both photos and some video clips.
 
http://edgarcayce.org/am/bimini2005report.html
« Last Edit: May 01, 2007, 12:52:43 am by Desiree » Report Spam   Logged

This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean. But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea.
Desiree
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3882



« Reply #2 on: May 01, 2007, 12:58:02 am »























« Last Edit: May 01, 2007, 01:01:12 am by Desiree » Report Spam   Logged

This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean. But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea.
Desiree
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3882



« Reply #3 on: May 01, 2007, 01:03:30 am »



Above: Photo showing another stone block with a rectangular slab used as a leveling prop stone. Photo—Greg Little



Above: Dozens of rectangular slabs are strewn around the Bimini Road. Photo—Bill Donato



   Above: The area where a dozen anomalous stones were discovered. Note that the large stone in the middle is nearly covered with smaller stones, silt, shells, and debris. Photo—Lora Little
   
 
 
Report Spam   Logged

This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean. But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea.
Desiree
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3882



« Reply #4 on: May 01, 2007, 01:05:48 am »

Free Video Clips From "The A.R.E.'s 2003 Search for Atlantis" in Quicktime:

http://www.mysterious-america.net/2003atlantissear.html
Report Spam   Logged

This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean. But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea.
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy