Saturday, April 21, 2007

[atlantis] the bimini and other questions

As it's nearly impossible to approach any topic with an open mind, for a long time my research method has been to approach a hypothesis with a desire to believe it from the very first, to run with the idea, to adopt it, research it and argue for it, then see how the idea holds up over time.

If the idea proves truly insupportable on current evidence, e.g. the world is flat, then it dies a natural death and isn't mentioned again. But if it really does have something about it, then it never dies a death but continues to challenge.

Here are four hypotheses:

1] Tony Blair's government and the EU are destroying Britain as we know it;

2] Jesus Christ has the capacity to save you from hell;

3] Climate change is happening;

4] Atlantis certainly existed as a civilization.

Reactions like "well, you got one out of four right" or "it's been scientifically disproved" or "that's simply rubbish" or "N1 and N2 are two completely separate issues" - these, I'm afraid, cut no ice.

They're not proof, they're only opinion.

A considerable number of people have put all four forward as valid hypotheses and all have documentation to support them. You can say: "Prove them," and I say: "Disprove them."

No takers.

No one has definitively disproved any of these four. Therefore, for now, the weight of truth is on their side. I'm not being deliberately belligerent or provocative here but I am searching for the truth. Let's go with Atlantis, for example:

In support

Dr. Heinrich Schliemann ran some tests on some Central American vases and some from Troy and concluded that they had been made from the same peculiar clay, not existing in either place.

Dr. Paul Schliemann [the grandson] was advised to break a Trojan clay 'owl' vase by his grandfather and he found a square of metal inside, too big for the neck of the vase, engraved in ancient Phoenician.

In 1958, Dr. William Bell took photos on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean of a six-foot spire. There were light emanations from the bottom of the shaft.

In 1968, pilot Capt. Robert Brush and co-pilot Trigg Adams, spotted a rectangular feature in the shallow waters off Andros. Avec la découverte, en 1968, de ce qui sembla être une gigantesque route formée de rochers polygonaux dans des eaux peu profondes au large de l'île de Bimini, beaucoup pensèrent être très proches de la découverte imminente de l'Atlantide.

On September 2nd, 1968, M. Valentine dived and discovered "The Bimini Road". The 'road' is found about 800 metres out from Paradise Point, Bimini North Island, in five metres of water, and its length is of 638 metres, in a J shape. Fallen monoliths and a three-metre ring of large stones were also discovered.

In 1969, Robert Fero and Michael Grumley found pillars on the Atlantic floor. The rock from which parts of them were made was not found in that part of the world.

In 1970, Dr. Ray Brown, a naturopathic practitioner and lecturer from Mesa (Arizona), was diving in the Berry Islands, Bahamas with five others. They found a pyramid illumined inside, with rooms. He said that in the centre of the room there was a slab and on the pyramid slab was a crystal held by two hands. The hands seemed to be made of copper. A metallic rod was hanging down from the ceiling and its end was a multi-faceted red gem, pointing to the crystal.

He removed the crystal and still has it and shows it to lecture audiences. The crystal seems to have been tested by the University of Florida and the result was that the crystal amplifies energy that passed through it.

In 1974, Dr. David Zink visited and reported: "The ocean floor is essentially level, not sloping."

In 1978, Ari Marshall photographed a 650-foot pyramid at about 1500 feet underwater, off Cay Sal.

In 1982, Herbert Sawinski, explorer, diver, and chairman of the Museum of Science and Archeology in Fort Lauderdale, found and photographed stone pavements at a depth of 25 feet, in the North of Cuba. The main wall continued for a quarter of a mile out to sea, then it disappeared into 2500 feet of water.

In contradiction

Science gives this explanation: the formation is natural, a result of the water being supersaturated with calcium carbonate. A continual deposition of calcium carbonate sediment is responsible for the cementation process, which had actually built the whole Bahama Banks. This calcium concentration helps with the rapid formation of limestone beach rock.

Sea-level has been constantly rising since 15,000 B.C., and for 600-700 years it has witnessed a continuous fluctuation, that accounts for the parallel, linear 'road'. The different levels of water, the sun exposure, and the calcium carbonate are the true 'builders' of the 'road'.

Samples were taken from the core of the rocks, in a way to show the orientation of each block. [This] means that the rocks were once part of a"single ribbon of beach rock" (Eugene A. Shinn, geologist).

Decision

Today I asked a client to look at Photos 1 and 2 and asked her, before any explanations were given: "Were these underwater rock formations made by humans or by the natural action of the earth and sea?" She said "human" to both. Doesn't prove much but see what you think.

My own opinion, as of now, is that no one's yet disproved it but it looks mighty likely to be true.

[If you were to argue against the Bimini Road, this is a good place to start - the tesselated pavements.]

2 comments:

  1. I wonder. It reminds me of the story of Max Bethe's student. Bethe was one of the great quantum mechanists of the 20th Century. At one point a graduate student of his came to him and said that he the student had found out something revolutionary about quantum mechanics and showed him 12 slides where the atoms and electrons had moved in ways that the physicists hadn't expected. Bethe took one look at them and said that he could explain each of the twelve without reference to any general theory- there was a bolt on the edge of one which had distorted it etc. I suspect I'm sorry James that all of your instances are explained by different processes which are more likely than the idea that there was a civilisation in the midst of the Atlantic that noone ever came into contact with.

    Have you ever read Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco? I think you would find it interesting because Eco attacks this idea of the various levels of interpretation- at one point for example he shows how its possible for a group of people to misinterpret a laundry list as evidence for the conquest of the world- the first is likely the second unlikely.

    To prove Atlantis you have to prove that every more likely explanation for these features arising- ie the natural ones is simply wrong- we know for example in your example of the 'road' that often nature duplicates features which we account for in humanistic terms- for example vegetables can grow in the shape of faces- they just do. You shouldn't prove its funny or weird, you have ot prove that the natural process could not have happened and that the only good explanation is Atlantis- I'm afraid you haven't done that in this post and thus I'm afraid I'm a non-beleiver.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tiberius, please take this as an argument against the rationalist, not against you personally:

    The closing line: "I'm afraid I'm a non-believer," really sets the agenda here.

    Then the comment:

    "...he shows how its possible for a group of people to misinterpret a laundry list as evidence for the conquest of the world- the first is likely the second unlikely ..."

    And of course, perfectly possible for a group of people to so inure themselves against all but a rationalist explanation, carefully selecting evidence to quote and ignoring the rest.

    In the case of Atlantis, the Bimini road, of course, is only one of many - the pyramid which shone, the evidence of your eyes in Photo 1, [which has zero to do with natural phenomena], the vases and the metal plate with the hieroglyphics - it goes on and on.

    The rationalist takes the Bimini, for which there IS an alternative explanation [I included the Tasmanian link here] and extrapolates that in general to mean that ALL the evidence has an alternative. But that, of course, is just not so and is bad science.

    And in the case of Atlantis, there is no need to resort to such arguments, as the physical evidence is substantive to begin with. A pyramid with rooms is a pyramid with rooms. Looking at Photo 1 again, it can only be a grim determination to say that that walkway where the divers are was naturally formed.

    And when we step back after it all and ask: "Well why not anyway? Why wouldn't there have been an Atlantis?" the mania to automatically and unquestioningly deny is revealed for what it is. Islands are known to have sunk. Why would an island not ahve sunk or even eight or ten of them? Look at the geological movements over the years. Why would a civilization have not sunk into the sea?

    There's not even a rationalist answer to that specific question: "Why not?"

    There is only the rush to "explain away". Why?

    "To prove Atlantis you have to prove that every more likely explanation for these features arising- ie the natural ones is simply wrong- we know for example in your example of the 'road'..."

    Why? Why must every single piece of circumstantial be proved on the authority of a g-d appearing from the sky and saying: "It is so." or the rationalist's g-d, Science, saying: "It is so."

    No court of law applies such a draconian prescription on the advocate. They work on what was beyond reasonable doubt.

    So there is vast evidence of all different types on Atlantis to the point where I say to the rationalist:

    "To disprove Atlantis you have to prove that every more likely explanation for these features arising- ie the man-made ones is simply wrong - we know for example in your example of all except the 'road'..." e.g. Photo 1 and the pyramid.

    You see, the rationalist wishes to set the agenda of the discussion and demand certain impossible things which he doesn't apply to himself. Look at that challenge again:

    "To disprove Atlantis you have to prove that every more likely explanation for these features arising- ie the man-made ones is simply wrong - we know for example in your example of all except the 'road'..."

    So far, the rationalist has singularly failed to do that.

    ReplyDelete

Comments need a moniker of your choosing before or after ... no moniker, not posted, sorry.