Stonehenge twin found in Lake Michigan

Full story here

I think it's amazing that we can still discover things in this day and age. Very cool, I can't wait to read more on this one.



Mod Edit: Use External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 1/10/2009 by Hal9000]

Cool post.

I searched the internet to find pictures of this but could only find what I have in the following link.

Pics

You have to look carefully to see the mastodon.

wow under water!
i really enjoy exploration of our own back yards

That photo is quite a stretch to call it a mastadon. My dog has a mastadon mark on his butt but I'm not drawing any conclusions about that. Unless the creators of archeological evidence breathe water they would have to make structures on land that was once unsubmerged. Where the Great Lakes ever unsubmerged to the depth of these possible ruins?

Underwater archaeology must have incredible stories yet to tell.

very cool story thanks for sharing it.

I lived in southern Vermont for several years back int eh day and all over my area (Southern Vermont in what I called the Brattleboro-Putney-Townshend Triangle) were old stone structures of all sorts. These included cairns, standing stones and hidden underground vaults. The mythos of the area refer to these as Celtic ruins, I personally never saw any 'proof' of this but I believed it.

Also in Northern Massachusetts there was also a stonehenge-ish structure. I believe it is called Mystery Hill.

Again thanks for the great post!

reply to post by stikkinikki

---

I believe the Great Lakes to be the remnants of glaces. That would possibly date them AFTER the ice - land bridge historians talk about as one of the possible routes of ancient peoples to the American Continent.

But to be honest I will have to dig a bit to make any 'claim' this way or that'.

Also, he said, mastodons are not known to have ranged into northern Michigan, although fossil remains have been found in the southern part of the state. They became extinct about 10,000 years ago.

Travers City is in lower MI and about 160 miles from the state line. 160 miles doesn't seem to far to wander over thousands of years they were on the planet.

mikell

Imagine if this thing had been found on mars. We'd already have 20+ posts of people whining about pareidolia & "nothing but rocks"

I haven't seen anything new on this since 2007. I checked the Michigian school website and he doesn't seem to work there anymore.

Mastodon? Hmmm skeptical but a drawing or diagram of the stones would go a long way in supporting this.


Here is the proposal that probably led to this discovery

Proposal

The name Mark Holley seems to be one held by a number of people who have worked in other areas, makes finding papers specific to him challenging. However I can find no published papers on this site.

'Celtic ruins', remember that when the settlers came into the area many came from areas of Europe where agriculture practice was still set in the old ways and they tended to use these methods and styles of building when they arrived.

You can still see the remains of these types of stone built buildings of in the more isolated areas of continental Europe and UK.



[edit on 8/1/09 by Hanslune]

You are correct sir....


seagrant.wisc.edu...

and on the people who have lived here: (I was looking for info in regards to a land bridge)



www.greatlakesforever.org...

---

Mod Note: Quote Reference-Please Review This Link.







[edit on Thu Jan 8 2009 by Jbird]

reply to post by warrenb

---

Is it just me that find the article title a straight out lie?

It doesnt say anything about a stonehenge twin. It talks about a stone circle, which apparently isnt unique to the area. A stone circle is quite a bit of difference to Stonehenge, which is obviously a little more complex than a couple of boulders.

Sensationalist news at work, taking words and twisting them... Just because the source article started with the "iconic Stonehenge".

[edit on 8-1-2009 by merka]

reply to post by merka

---

I'd also note too the non-confirmation of the story. That means:

1. It was found to be natural

2. Grant money was lacking and the initial find remains un-confirmed

I'd say #1 is possible. A failed confirmation usually doesn't merit notification or a news story but 2 is another possibility but given the time lag a bit improbable but not impossible.

Stonehenge?

The mastadon looks like a natural formation of the rock imo. I can easily turn that picture into many others if my eyes allow it.

its pretty crappy resolution photo IMHO, I wouldn't be too condemning or praising at this point until a crisp clear photo emerges since sometimes you really do have to see it with your own eyes and not a blurry photo.

I have seen the images of the so called stone henge..
only the views from above.





I don't believe that they are actually a Stonehenge.

Just because the view provided is circular forces the viewer to give a circular association to the stones.

About the mastodon carving/etching on the rock, i doubt it to be a case of Pareidolia.

may be , its just my observation.

reply to post by coredrill

---

Interesting. I for one wouldn't associate that with human activity - unless I could see the rest of area and how stones are placed in that context.

Thanks for the images CD

It really shouldnt surprise anyone, or taken as a sign of noncredibility that there hasnt been a followup. Money simply seems to dry up when you want to do research into ooparts.

reply to post by warrenb

---

Very cool! I cannot wait to hear and see more of this find! We never know what will be the next great find, or what those finds may implicate to us. Star and flag

reply to post by coredrill

---

Where did you find those images? And do you, or does anyone, have info as to the size of the 'stonehenge twin' rocks?

Also, in the center of the image, the circular indentation and triangular shape around it; is that part of the imaging process? Or is that part of the site?

reply to post by Anonymous ATS

---

That does seem to happen but not for the reason you seem to believe. People who grant grants often are knowledgeable in the area they are granting money in. They can access whether an area of research is a cul-de-sac or worthwhile.

If those images are of the site. I can see why no further work has been done.

Sometimes, (amazingly enough) the initial reports are wrong.