It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Ancient Bimini Harbor

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Article on how Sketptics perpetrated a hoax to claim the Bimini Road was only natural formations
www.mysterious-america.net...

Videos
www.mysterious-america.net...
www.mysterious-america.net...

[edit on 9-6-2006 by Kilik11]




posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   
so it's a hoax that they're natural formations?

there is absoultely no evidence that they are artificial, so claiming that an opposite claim is a hoax is sheer ignorance.

there are plenty of natural formations that look as if they are natural, so don't get overly defensive by claiming your opponents are hoaxsters.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Could you provide some commentary on any of those links? THe first link is to a 29 page pdf document. The page claims

The documentation of the hoax is clear and definitive


Have you read the document? Can you give us a summary of that evidence?



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 01:01 AM
link   
I've actually read this. Here is the basic problem that seems to seed the whole thing:

"While the idea that Harrison proved that the entire Bimini formation, comprised of thousands of stones, was completely natural limestone from only two samples is a stretch, the coring result from Shinn is the key to the beachrock explanation. Based on the findings of the expedition described in this report, and also from an analysis of Shinn’s 2004 article, a careful examination of Shinn’s actual 1978 results was made. As shall be fully documented in this article, Shinn’s actual 1978

There are many other issues, but the vast majority and most important of them center around the concept that upon discovery of the Bimini road, the analysis and tests that were done to confirm or deny authenticity were either botched, or in the opinion of this author, purposefully "hoaxed".

One intriguing set of blocks we found was three tiers high. The bottom block rested on a large pile of rubble, which again, directly contradicts skeptics’ claims. The top block of the three tiers showed a distinct U-shaped channel cut across its entire bottom. Groove marks were also visible along the ends of this block. It is approximately 5-feet in length and nearly two feet thick.

This is some of the information being provided that is meant to "prove" that the original assumptions by the field geologists were wrong. Images are available if you wish to see them, but I was unable to get a url source for either. If you do not wish to hunt them down yourself, both images show stone with what appears to be man made grooves, cut alongside the bottom edges of the pieces presented. The edges have been smoothed, and lock together nicely, which does seem to eliminate the "random limestone collapse" theory. However, I am trying to remain unbiased in this quick summation. Much of the original hypothesis on this being a natural formation was the "fact" that these stones rested on the sand. When the researcher that authored this paper dug a little beneath the stones, he found rectangular blocks beneath almost the entire area of the road that serve as leveling stones. The research goes on and on. The results are fairly conclusive, IMO, but then, I suppose you would have to read the entire document and make your own decisions. Here is the source of their argument, however, that a hoax was made by the original documentors, namely Shinn. In 1978, he published his findings in Sea Frontiers, findings that claimed the Bimini road could not be man made and why he thought so. His research, however, seemed to point in the opposite direction. This was not the entire problem. In 1980, he published an entirely different hypothesis on the same subject. This is pretty much the focal point of this entire 29 page paper. IMO it is definately worth the download for the info. They do a pretty accurate job of describing what they believe was not a road at Bimini, but once a harbor, farther back than 5000 B.C. There is even an artists rendition along with links to sites offering comparisons to other ancient Mediterranean ports. I had trouble finding these two supposedly contradicting magazine articles, but then the author of this paper claims that he had similar trouble for a long while, as the titles were pretty obscure even for the time. Anyway, that is basically what the paper consists of. There does seem to be incontroversial "proof" upon examination of their evidence and case that the structure was man made. However, the concept of a port is still a matter of imagination. The paper also demonstrates the inaccuracy of Shinn's dating module, and how the stones are actually impossible to properly assess as far as a timeline. They do know, however, that the limestone on which the stones sit are no more than 15,000 years old, and that the core samples taken from the stones show a consistency of something like an ancient form of concrete, and not the substance formerly believed. Hope this helps.




posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
so it's a hoax that they're natural formations?
there is absoultely no evidence that they are artificial, so claiming that an opposite claim is a hoax is sheer ignorance.
there are plenty of natural formations that look as if they are natural, so don't get overly defensive by claiming your opponents are hoaxsters.

I'd read through that paper in the first link he/she provided. The evidence is actually piled pretty high that the road is artificial.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 08:19 AM
link   
After asking for the summary, I browsed through the paper and found that information at the end to be the most interesting, that this Mr. Shinn essentially fudged his data and the reports of his data over the years, and that he himself didn't consider it to be serious research and that he didn't conduct it seriously.

I also found it hilarious that he feels his honorary doctorate is 'the real thing' and justified on his body of work. Yet he clearly, at least in this instance, made things up as he went along in order to meet his pre-determined conclusion, that 'weird people' are bad researchers.
Ironic.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Well, I know this subject string is probably dead by now but here is an article that may help make up your minds as to whether it is a hoax or not. This provides some very real evidence for the harbor being just that. A manmade harbor hundreds, even thousands of centuries old.

www.mysterious-america.net...

This is a link to a document that has now been made available for free.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   
my problem is that bimini is far too deep to be anything but natural. if the sea level was that low, then there is something HUGE that we've missed in the geological record



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
my problem is that bimini is far too deep to be anything but natural. if the sea level was that low, then there is something HUGE that we've missed in the geological record


Too deep? Are you sure we are talking about the same Bimini? Bimini, the one in the Bahama's is only 15 feet deep. The water level has risen roughly 20 feet in the ocean over the past 5,000 years or so. Most of the images of divers at this location are people with snorkel's not scuba. That's how deep it is so I think you must have the wrong location in mind.

For more information on it here is a solid article by someone who actually went straight to Shinn and questioned him on his findings. The guy couldn't even answer the questions clearly. He even began to admit that he didn't take the research seriously and didn't put much effort into it because it wasn't a real effort.

Anyway, so you can see that I am not kidding on the depth here is an article on a dive that was completed last November with the true intent to either discover if it is man made or natural.

www.mysterious-america.net...



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 01:08 AM
link   
the champions of the bimini is a harbour theory are the members of the A.R.E. desperate to prove that not only is it a harbour but that it is also part of Atlantis because their beloved Fuhrer claimed part of Atlantis would rise from the depths in the late 60s
the fact that it was the A.R.E. who in the late 60s claimed thatthis entirely natural feature was atlantis is missed by most people
the fact that this new article was also written by a member of the A.R.E. is also missed by most people
the fact that this member of the A.R.E. has no geological qualifications whatsoever is another thing that is missed by most people
the fact that a couple of easily planted mediteranean style ship anchors do not make it an atlantean harbor are missed by most people
the funniest thing was the start of the claim that there were two m.f.i henges in the area that no one had noticed before was missed by most people
the fact that the henges were totally debunked as being around the same time as the anchors were found is missed by most people
the fact that the only qualified people who have ever examined bimini all say it is natural is missed by most people
the fact that the A.R.E. recently hired Andrew Collins (crank author of the gods were aliens books) as an expert on mediteranean harbours is also missed by most people

the amount of things missed by most people on this subject should give you a clue as to the actual veracity of this claim
i.e. there is no claim
any evidence found to corroborate a man made harbour has all been found by the one group with a huge agenda for it to be so and who created the myth in the first place

like letting a rapist into a sixth form girls college to see if anyones been raped
youre going to find that someone has
and very recently too



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join