Pre-Ice Age Complex Found Off Bahamas Coast

page: 1
29
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Pre-Ice Age Complex Found Off Bahamas Coast


www.edgarcayce.org

Researchers for the Association for Research and Enlightenment (A.R.E.) have investigated an underwater site with what appears to be the remains of a collapsed multi-room building. The building foundation has manmade mitered limestone corners and other debris inside the outer walls. A sample of beach rock from a long, straight foundation wall was carbon dated to between 21,520 BCE and 20,610 BCE. These dates are astonishing, because prior to this discovery most researchers considered the oldest dates for humans in this area to be 1000 BCE.
(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Remnants of Atlantis Discovered!?!?
apmagazine.info...
edit on 17-8-2011 by EthanT because: (no reason given)
edit on 8/17/2011 by semperfortis because: Copy exact headline




posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
This was recently "leaked" on the Alternate Perceptions magazine web site, by Greg Little, who is one of the leading Atlantis researchers out there today.

I suspect even this article is not the "full monty", because there is supposed to be a larger announcement to ARE members. We'll see if there is more in time and I'll be sure to share, if so.

Clearly, they are not making any direct claims of ties to Atlantis here, but this site is an anomaly, either way. It shouldn't be there based on what we currently know. We'll have to see if it all pans out. Hopefully, mainstream researchers will also give it an honest look.

Just like the Bimini Road, it's showing there was a (seafaring) civilization in the Atlantic region in certain areas much earlier than we thought. Will it all tie back to Atlantis one day? Only time will tell?

In the meantime, I am sure it will be highly controversial

www.edgarcayce.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 17-8-2011 by EthanT because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Carbon dating rock???? I guess I don't believe it enough to read it after that.

Line dux



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikellmikell
Carbon dating rock???? I guess I don't believe it enough to read it after that.

Line dux


Might want to also read the earlier thread on this where this is discusses.

Limestone beachrock can be carbon dated, but there are challenges that can leave uncertainties up to +-3120 years. Remeber beachrock isn't your typical "rock"

So, okay, 20,000 BC +- 3120. It's still an anomaly and potentially a HIGHLY significant find.

Also, I'm looking to get the name of the place/lab, but apparently the ARE uses the best one in the country for carbon dating. The numbers come from them, and NOT the ARE

edit on 17-8-2011 by EthanT because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Just because I know this will be mentioned again, here is more info on limestone carbon dating:


In order to test the role of limestone in producing anomalously old radiocarbon ages in land-snail shells, 14C analyses were performed on shell carbonate of modern land snails from limestone and nonlimestone areas of Jamaica. No anomaly was found in snails from the nonlimestone area, implying that such material is suitable for radiocarbon dating. Snails from limestone areas produced variable anomalies of as much as 3,120 yr due to incorporation of 14C-free limestone into shell carbonate. All rock-scraping snails and most leaf-litter–feeding snails from limestone areas showed anomalous 14C contents. Because of the variability in 14C content even within species, no standard correction factor for limestone anomaly can be applied. However, dating error can be minimized by selecting ecologically appropriate species or by comparison of analyses of several fossil species, within a stratum, to their modern counterparts.


Source

edit on 17-8-2011 by EthanT because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikellmikell
Carbon dating rock???? I guess I don't believe it enough to read it after that.

Line dux


You didn't know that rocks can be carbon dated? They just use a different method of dating them.


Can you find the age of rocks by using radiocarbon dating or are they generally too old? If a rock was shot from a volcano and isn't that old, can we use radiocarbon dating?

Samples of rock are not able to be dated using radiocarbon, because rocks contain no organic carbon from living organisms that are of recent enough age. Most rocks formed hundreds of thousands if not millions of years ago. Geologic deposits of coal and lignite formed from the compressed remains of plants contain no remaining radiocarbon so they cannot be dated. Radiocarbon dating is limited to the period 0 - 60 000 years, because the 'half-life' of radiocarbon is about 5700 years, so to date rocks scientists must use other methods. There is a number of different techniques available. We can date volcanic rocks using a method called argon-argon dating for instance. This method uses principles of isotopic decay like radiocarbon, but different isotopes (argon-39 and argon 40) which have a longer halflife (1250 million years). This means scientists can date rock which is many millions of years old. The technique can date materials the size of one grain of volcanic ash, using a laser. There are other methods which can be used as well which operate using different radiochemistries. The only way to date a volcanic ash layer using radiocarbon dating is to find ash within a lake sediment or peat layer and then date the organic carbon from above and below it, and therefore fix an age for the ash event. This is a commonly used approach to date volcanic events over the past 60 000 years around the world.


Here's the link K12
edit on 17-8-2011 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)


+8 more 
posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
How does knowing how old the rock is help at all to tell when the building was built though? Just because a rock is a million years old and part of a building doesnt mean the building was build 1 million years ago. Maybe its just me but I fail to see the logic in announcing things like this to be X amount of years old when the age of the rocks doesnt mean anything? Cool find though.
edit on 17-8-2011 by Boomstix because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
As with the other forms of dating they still have underlying problems as they all have base assumptions that allow them to work.

These are:


* Beginning Conditions Known
* Beginning Ratio of Daughter to Parent Isotope Known (zero date problem)
* Constant Decay Rate
* No Leaching or Addition of Parent or Daughter Isotopes
* All Assumptions Valid for Billions of Years


There is also a difficulty in measuring precisely very small amounts of the various isotopes


With this you can find great discrepancy as researchers have found in the past

Examples of this are:


Dalrymple's work early work on 26 historic lava flows showed that many of them had excess argon and were not set to zero at the eruption of the volcano.

The following is the data from these tests:
* Hualalai basalt, Hawaii (AD 1800-1801) 1.05 to 1.19 million years
* Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (122 BC) 100,000 years
* Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (AD 1972) 150,000 years
* Mt. Lassen plagioclase, California (AD 1915) 130,000 years
* Sunset Crater basalt, Arizona (AD 1064-1065) 210,000 to 220,000 years
* Glass Mountain (BP 130-390) 130,000 years in the future
* Mt. Mihara (AD 1951) 70,000 years in the future
* Sakurajima (AD 1946) 200,000 years in the future


This is only my stance on the dating method and the dates they arrive at ( I believe they may be less than stated)


As for the find of the actual area, this is very cool. It would be interesting to see how this ties in with Etna smoking and other Cayce prophecies.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Boomstix
 


shhh, the new agers don't like statements that make sense



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boomstix
How does knowing how old the rock is help at all to tell when the building was built though? Just because a rock is a million years old and part of a building doesnt mean the building was build 1 million years ago. Maybe its just me but I fail to see the logic in announcing things like this to be X amount of years old when the age of the rocks doesnt mean anything? Cool find though.
edit on 17-8-2011 by Boomstix because: (no reason given)


Excellent question!

Because beachrock forms fairly quickly and forms, well, on, or near, the "beach", it can often be used to determine past sea levels.

This structure was found at around the 10,000 BC shoreline. But, it was dated to much earlier. This implies , from what we know about how the sea level has fluctuated in the past, that somebody took beachrock from an earlier, lower shoreline and then moved it "uphill" before using it to construct the structure in question.

en.wikipedia.org...


Because beachrock is lithified within the intertidal zone and because it commonly forms in a few years, its potential as an indicator of past sea level is important.


I believe this is also discussed in the links provided above (alternate perceptions interview)

edit on 17-8-2011 by EthanT because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Cool find, but with alarm bells. A.R.E. has a pre-conceived agenda. They want to "prove" Edgar Cayce's prediction that Atlantis will be found near Bimini. The archaeology department at Brigham Young University does the same sort of thing. They can show you artifacts found in South Ameroca that have a Middle-eastern origin. They use these to "prove" the Mormon story that North and South America had a wide-ranging civilization which culminated in this big battle in Elmira, New York, which destroyed everything and, oh, by the way, when Jesus went missing for a few days he actually came to the Americas to preach. This is all in the Book of Mormon given to the original head Mormon guys by the angel Moroni. That couldn't be read until you put on a pair of magic glasses.

So, yeah....but let's be careful jumping to any conclusions here.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   
What do we know from all tihs? that minimum this building was created at 10,000 BC given the age of the shoreline at the location it was found ..the age of the rock means little except that it's maximum age is 21,500BC or so .. we just know it couldn't have been built earlier than that..

The oldest known structures I'm aware of are in Tepe which date around 10,000 BC as well .. so we know man existed and was already constructing buildings at this time.. so what's the big news? is it that it's the first humans in this area? or what .. I don't see it as earth shattering.. but definitely fascinating

This is info about the structure in Tepe here
edit on 17-8-2011 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   


Sorry, I couldn't resist poking a little fun with Giorgio. You know that we'll see this discovery the next season of Ancient Aliens.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by graceunderpressure
 


* for that picture, that guy is one I both love and hate .. lol and also for the mst3k picture.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   
...there are lots of blue holes in the bahamas, which sits on top of an extensive cave system that used to be above sea level... lots of divers have died trying to explore the caves and the blue holes...

...some years ago, a highly experienced group explored one of the most notorious blue holes and filmed it (see link to video below - its very interesting, imo)...

...its not a big reach to think that an ancient civilization once inhabited those caves and that the holes were natural cisterns... however, making the reach to atlantis and/or a sea-faring civilization from somewhere else is a narrow focus, imo...

video.pbs.org...



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by miniatus
What do we know from all tihs? that minimum this building was created at 10,000 BC given the age of the shoreline at the location it was found ..the age of the rock means little except that it's maximum age is 21,500BC or so .. we just know it couldn't have been built earlier than that..

The oldest known structures I'm aware of are in Tepe which date around 10,000 BC as well .. so we know man existed and was already constructing buildings at this time.. so what's the big news? is it that it's the first humans in this area? or what .. I don't see it as earth shattering.. but definitely fascinating

This is info about the structure in Tepe here
edit on 17-8-2011 by miniatus because: (no reason given)




Thought you might find this link interesting www.eurasianet.org...

I find it interesting that the date of the first civilizations are getting pushed back further and further. Nice find OP, very interesting.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Great, what i already knew was true was proved again. The earths oceans have risen and swallowed ancient civilzations from 12,000 B.C.E. on back.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   
All that information an no pics?
did I miss something?



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Is this the only source we have?
Are they an accredited archaeology scientific team?
I really do want to see whether or not Edgar's prophecies are correct,
but haven't seen it yet.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by EthanT
 


you may be able to date when rocks were formed, but not when they were hewed from the quarry's, cut and squared for the builders use. i can take that very stone and build a house for my dog, and it would not mean my dog house was 60,000 years old...
edit on 17-8-2011 by Themadalchemist because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-8-2011 by Themadalchemist because: typo





 
29
<<   2 >>

log in

join