Jump to content

Talk:Bimini Road: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)
 
(66 intermediate revisions by 32 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talkheader}}
{{reqphoto|in=the Bahamas}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=

{{WikiProject Paranormal|importance=Low}}
==When?==
{{WikiProject Science Fiction|importance=Low}}
When was this "road" discovered? I'm guessing 1969, but it really should be mentioned early on. [[User:Optrirominiluikus|Optrirominiluikus]] ([[User talk:Optrirominiluikus|talk]]) 20:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Islands|importance=}}
Done! Thanks for bringing this to our attention. [[User:Firecircle|Firecircle]] ([[User talk:Firecircle|talk]]) 03:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
}}
{{Reqphoto|in=the Bahamas}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| archive = Talk:Bimini Road/Archive %(counter)d
| algo = old(60d)
| counter = 1
| maxarchivesize = 200K
| minthreadsleft = 5
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| archiveheader = {{Talk archive nav}}
}}


==Atlantis==
==Atlantis==
Line 27: Line 38:
: Actually Plato was telling what Solon was supposedly told by an Egyptian priest - only the story isn't mentioned anywhere in the historical record at all and mentions Athens. Problem is that the timeframe is all wrong and at the time the story says the Athens-Atlantis war was fought, Athens was at best a collection of mud muts. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 15:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
: Actually Plato was telling what Solon was supposedly told by an Egyptian priest - only the story isn't mentioned anywhere in the historical record at all and mentions Athens. Problem is that the timeframe is all wrong and at the time the story says the Athens-Atlantis war was fought, Athens was at best a collection of mud muts. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 15:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


:: [[Graham Hancock]] suggests that the Bimini Road is shown on that island top-left of the [[Piri Reis map]] and that now the island is under water. -- [[User:Barecode|Barecode]] ([[User talk:Barecode|talk]]) 07:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
==Links==
::: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NGfNMb5p2Y at 7:20 [[User:Kdammers|Kdammers]] ([[User talk:Kdammers|talk]]) 19:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I have added two links: one is an essay by Dr. Greg Little. I have found this info on him (below):
::::We really need to set up archiving here. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 20:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

:::::Autoarchive enabled (and this thread will not expire until 60 days of inactivity, of course). Hancock is not a reliable source, but when independent RS report about his notable views they can sometimes be mentioned and put in context with the analysis of that source. —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 20:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
:"Bio
:Dr. Gregory Little holds a master's degree in psychology and a doctorate in counseling from Memphis State University. He is co-editor of Ancient Mysteries, a monthly newsletter for members of the official Edgar Cayce organization, The Association for Research and Enlightenment. Beginning in 1997, Greg began investigating a portion of the psychic readings of Edgar Cayce, which specifically covered the history of ancient America. This research culminated in the books “Mound Builders,” “Ancient South America,” and “Secrets of the Ancient World.”

:In 2003 Greg and his wife Lora, took over the A.R.E.’s long running Search for Atlantis project, which focuses on the Bahamas area. During 2003, Greg and Lora made numerous trips to Bimini and Andros Island investigating sites that had initially been discovered in an extensive satellite imaging project as well as enigmatic underwater formations photographed from the air in the 1960s. They found that all of the sites had natural or modern explanations. But unexpectedly, on what they had initially planned to be their last day on Andros, they discovered a massive, three-tiered stone platform under shallow water. ["http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guests/75.html Find him here]

And a second link is to a video clip on explorations of the Bimini Road.[[User:Drakonicon|Drakonicon]] 18:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

:Right. An analysis of someone else's psychic readings is FAR more accurate than say, actual science. O.O I'll tag it as pseudoscience.[[User:Mzmadmike|Mzmadmike]] ([[User talk:Mzmadmike|talk]]) 12:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[[User:Firecircle|Firecircle]] ([[User talk:Firecircle|talk]]) 22:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Greg and Lora little has since found a number of places, not only along the so-called "Bimini Road," but in numerous other places among the islands, including Andros island, where a second, and sometime a third, layer of stones lies below the "beach rock". Here's a link to these discoveries. ["http://www.mysterious-america.net/biminibeachrock.html] [[User:Firecircle|Firecircle]] ([[User talk:Firecircle|talk]]) 22:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

==Tessellated pavement?==
There hasn't been any citation given for this in a while (since it was tagged in July), should it be removed? It's possible that the "road" might have been created by this, but unless a citation can be found, it shouldn't be on Wikipedia, regardless of how likely or unlikely the explanation is. [[User:170.215.83.212|170.215.83.212]] 03:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
:Here's a picture of the TP in Tasmania (you'll have to scroll down) [http://www.photoseek.com/Australia-Tasmania.html] [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 21:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
::The evidence gathered by Eugene Shinn's geological study does not seem to conflict with the "tessellated pavement" theory. Why is tessellated pavement mentioned as an "alternative" theory, rather than a "supporting" theory? I'm also concerned by the fact that the ''scientific'' evidence is thrown in the bottom of the article, as if it were a mere afterthought, when the article would be better served by mentioning Shinn's study, as well as the Tasmanian rock formations, at the beginning of the article. [[User:Brash|Brash]] ([[User talk:Brash|talk]]) 03:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

== Phenomenon? ==

The first sentence calls it a phenomenon. It isn't - a [[phenomenon]] is an event. What would could we put instead, that describes it? Feature? Object? Structure? [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 15:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

== Tagged as confusing ==
I've tagged this article as there is no indication of what the Bimini Road exactly is (aside from a "formation"). A formation of what? Steel? Marshmallows? There's no indication of whether it's in the water or on land (after all, it does say "in" the Bahamas) What are the dimensions? Many miles? A few hundred feet? This article contains who, when, where, how, and why, but not what. -[[User:71.51.51.120|71.51.51.120]] 22:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
: I've expanded and re-arranged a bit. Hopefully, the article is less confusing now. At the very least, I've put the marshmallow theory to rest. --[[User:Spasemunki|Clay Collier]] 08:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but surely that should take away some of the mystery and allure from the topic? Pardon my cynicism, but the Bimini Road is having one its regular resurrections - and will doubtless be debunked, yet again, soon. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 09:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should give a depth beneath the surface for this formation. One can infer from the text that it is probably less than six feet, but a specifically stated range would be better.
[[User:Olan7allen|Olan7allen]] 02:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


== Dredged up stones ==
== A Few Facts About the Formation ==
[[User:Firecircle|Firecircle]] ([[User talk:Firecircle|talk]]) 22:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC) I, along with several others, visited Dr. Valentine in Miami and learned a lot about his discovery, and his opinion of it, in June 1970 (about a year after his discovery). He gave me a copy of the ''Muse News'' (a publication of the Science Museum of Miami) in which he describes the so-called Bimini Road in detail. He gives the depths of the water in which it lies, the length of the formation, the type of stone, the size of the stones, etc. Would you like me to enter some of these details early (like 2nd para.) into the article so people might get some idea of what kind of formation it is? [[User:Firecircle|Firecircle]] ([[User talk:Firecircle|talk]]) 22:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


There are sources [http://www.edgarcayce.org/_AncientMysteriesTemp/androsbiminiupda.html] [http://web.archive.org/web/20080228200609/http://www.altarcheologie.nl/index.html?underwater_ruins/bimini/bimini_analysis.htm] claiming that many stones were dredged up in 1920's. I added the latter to the external links, but it's an important detail to include in the main body of the article once someone could find a reliable source to back it up firmly. [[User:Logos|Logos]] ([[User talk:Logos|talk]]) 11:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
[[User:Firecircle|Firecircle]] ([[User talk:Firecircle|talk]]) 22:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC) I'm waiting for a respnse. I hesitate to enter something without some sort of permission. I have four short paragraphs of factual material all ready, gleaned from the ''Muse News'' article. Also, I wonder why the unsubstantiated "hypothesis" concerning the Chinese shipwrek remains as part of this article. Nothing has yet appeared to back it up, and I believe it detracts from, rather than contributes to, what might eventually become an excellent article. [[User:Firecircle|Firecircle]] ([[User talk:Firecircle|talk]]) 22:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


== clarity regarding age ==
[[User:Firecircle|Firecircle]] ([[User talk:Firecircle|talk]]) 17:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC) I didn't get a response, so I went ahead and made changes. I also did some cleanup work (proper references, etc.) and added three categories. Take a look, and make sure everything is Ok. [[User:Firecircle|Firecircle]] ([[User talk:Firecircle|talk]]) 17:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


Totally confusing jargon:
=="Mythical" exhibits bias==


reported dates of 2780±70 (UM-1359), 3500±80 (UM-1360), and 3350±90 (UM-1361) from whole-rock samples; a date of 3510±70 (UM-1362), from shells extracted from the beachrock core; and dates of 2770±80 (UM-1364) and 2840±70 (UM-1365)
I have substituted the word "Plato's" for "mythical" because the word is a loaded expression exhibiting unwarrented bias. There is much physical evidence in favor of the existence of the lost civilization. Just because that existence is not accepted by mainstream science is no reason to label it mythical. I believe the article benefits from the use of none-loaded terms (such as "Plato's Atlantis" as opposed to "mythical"). [[User:Firecircle|Firecircle]] ([[User talk:Firecircle|talk]]) 23:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


If there is corroborating physical evidence for Atlantis, please cite it. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 22:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


First, do these numbers refer to AGES or DATES? Seems they are AGES, but the term "dates" is used. Important difference.
: Atlantis is mythical (there are myths that describe it), but I'd support your point that using "mythical" here is a loaded term and thus a bad choice of phrase. However your edit war isn't the way to go about this. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 22:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


Second, what is all the UM stuff? Needs clarification. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.111.150.56|68.111.150.56]] ([[User talk:68.111.150.56|talk]]) 12:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
There is no war. No one was identifying himself, or giving a reason for the change. If you would like to see scientific information (not ''proving'' Atlantis, only giving reasonable scientific data in its favor) go to Google, enter Quest for Atlantis, then click on the first one. If you can see all the scientific papers, journals, and other scientific works the information comes from, and maintain the same position, so be it. I am not fighting with anyone--only wanting to be fair. Thanks for responding.[[User:Firecircle|Firecircle]] ([[User talk:Firecircle|talk]]) 22:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
: Well call me a skeptic, but I prefer not to read my facts from a TV channel whose very name includes the word "fiction" ! [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 22:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
: We have to agree to disagree here. This article should put forward both views, but avoid denigrating EITHER one in favour of the other. This is not the place to decide such an issue (if it was, we'd fall foul of "No Original Research" anyway. I'm going to re-name both headings and see if we can find something that's fair to both sides. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 22:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
WHOA, Andy! The "Quest for Atlantis" I referred to was not a TV channel! It's a web site dealing with the scientific evidence for Atlantis authored by an anthropologist named R. Cedric Leonard. The web site goes into oceanographic, geologic, and anthropological aspects of the question using data from mostly scientific sources (identifying each source). Also, I was attempting to keep professional geologist opinion together (separating it from psychic stuff) when I changed the location of that subtitle. Everything I did was in the interest of fairness--Wikipedia deserves no less. Let me know what you think after you,ve thought it over. And let's be friends, Ok?[[User:Firecircle|Firecircle]] ([[User talk:Firecircle|talk]]) 23:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


I have just modified {{plural:2|one external link|2 external links}} on [[Bimini Road]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=747501723 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
Andy, it's my fault! I just checked Google and today it's the 3rd one down (it's usually the first). I don't really want to put the url on this discussion page, so I'm doing the best I can to lead you to it. Take several days to look it over if you like: it covers a lot of territory. And it's nice to met you.[[User:Firecircle|Firecircle]] ([[User talk:Firecircle|talk]]) 23:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090422160200/http://www.gjsentinel.com:80/news/content/news/stories/2005/08/15/8_15_1A_tiled_floor_natural_WWW.html to http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/content/news/stories/2005/08/15/8_15_1A_tiled_floor_natural_WWW.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120529132346/http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_02_2_richards.pdf to http://scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_02_2_richards.pdf


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).
== von Daniken ==
Does anyone have the book citation for [[von Daniken]]'s spiel on the Bimini Road? It would be a useful addition to the article - vD's as crazy as a loon IMHO, but the publication of his theories was a notable point in the history of public knowledge of their existence. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 10:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
:We also need to note that much of what's in here is pseudoscience. Psychic readings. Plato said someone said someone else said some priests told him about an Atlantis, so this flat rock thousands of miles away MUST be that place. It's hardly convincing.[[User:Mzmadmike|Mzmadmike]] ([[User talk:Mzmadmike|talk]]) 12:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 19:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
:: I'd suggest some section headings:
:: * What & where
:: * Straight geology
:: * Creative explanations
:: Wording for these is up to someone more politically correct than me. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 12:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


== No image of underwater feature? ==
Daniken and Cayce, if they are mentioned at all, should be mentioned in a separate section at the end, separated from this other geologist who thinks the formation is made by humans. Whether he is wrong or right, would a professional in the scientific discipline of geology want his statements right next to, and inbetween, statements from some of the biggest liars? If mentioned at all as sources, Daniken and Cayce should be pointed out as people who have made things up in the past and are noted charlatans. ([[Special:Contributions/24.7.78.170|24.7.78.170]] ([[User talk:24.7.78.170|talk]]) 21:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC))


As stated, why isnt an image of the structure being included? It's an article on a feature that isnt even being shown within the article. The bird's eye view of the island doesnt seem sufficient. [[Special:Contributions/172.101.101.107|172.101.101.107]] ([[User talk:172.101.101.107|talk]]) 21:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
: Why is Little any more credible than von Daniken? [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 22:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


:No such images are currently available on Wikipedia or Wikimedia. If you have one with an appropriate license (e.g. CC BY-SA) please upload it and add it to the article. [[User:Hypnôs|Hypnôs]] ([[User talk:Hypnôs|talk]]) 22:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:: I was mainly referring to this Dr. Holm who is described as a professional geologist.
:None are included in the article because the copyrights, which the existing images have been published under, prevents their use in Wikipedia. If someone out there, who dives in the Bahamas and is an underwater photographer, was to take their own original photographs of it and donate them to Wikimedia under an appropriate license (e.g. CC BY-SA), this action would be greatly appreciated. For example, a diver graciously has already done this for the [[:Yonaguni Monument]]. [[User:Paul H.|Paul H.]] ([[User talk:Paul H.|talk]]) 02:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
:: Clearly, anyone who associates with ARE, any religion, or "atlantis" has already cast themselves in a dubious light. However to completely dismiss someone's physical claims because of such an association is also incorrect, after all Isaac Newton believed in a god, and probably many legitimate archaeologists have been members of religions. Little's physical claims about the site (such as if he worked with a team that was videotaped excavating additional layers below the surface) should be treated separately from his defense of Cayce, as we would treat a scientists physical claims about a real world phenomenon separately from a personal belief in religion.
:: Cayce and Von Daniken, if they made physical claims about the site based on actual excavation, could also be discussed. However, Von Daniken has been exposed as lying about even going to see various things he described. A Cayce quotation is used, purportedly proving he predicted the exact date this would be discovered, however the references given for this quotation go to dubious pro-cayce websites and give different years for it, either 36, 38, or 40, and there is not a single reference to where this quotation came from or can be confirmed. With psychic or religious predictions, you need to be extra skeptical when someone claims that they predicted something long ago, but they only announce the prediction after it happened. Like how the Catholic Church has claimed the end of world war 1 and the start of world war 2 were predicted by the fatima prophecies, only these "prophecies" were kept secret until after the events occurred, allowing us to see it is more likely they were made up after the fact. The possibilities are: Cayce really did make such a statement as part of one of his numerous psychic rants and his followers later screened and released the few predictions that had some similarity to the real world; or the "prediction" was made up in 1968 or after.
:: I don't know what the real explanation is, however the human made harbor breakwater or the natural formation are the only two realistic ones, and rational discussions about these two possibilities should be in one section, and irrational discussions of aliens, atlantis, psychic predictions, Cayce, von Daniken, etc should go in another section. Think of it like this, if there were supporters of the natural explanation who additionally relied on psychic or religious evidence ("the lady of fatima told me we would discover a naturally occurring formation!"), would you reference their crazy rants right next to and mixed with the rational explanations, or would you want that type of claim segregated in its own section.
::On another note, Atlantis is completely mythical, it was made up as an allegory by Plato so it was originally allegorical and not mythical, but by now it is mythical because of misinformation. There are real civilizations and individual parts of civilizations which have been submerged, but these aren't Atlantis. By now, the term is generic enough so that "atlantis" refers to any submerged city so on that basis having a tv program called "the search for atlantis" may not automatically make such a program pseudoscientific, but they usually are. We would have to see the specific show to be able to tell whether it was one of the worse ones (the majority).
([[Special:Contributions/24.7.75.93|24.7.75.93]] ([[User talk:24.7.75.93|talk]]) 06:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

Latest revision as of 20:10, 7 October 2024

Atlantis

[edit]

"To others, the Bimini Road is an ancient road, or perhaps a collapsed wall of the civilization of Atlantis. "

Why do people assume it was Atlantis?

Plato made up an island for one of his epic stories. That's why it's called literature though. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Plato a philosopher, not a historian?

I believe that Plato, in this instance can be seen as both a philosopher and a historian. He is passing on a story someone told him - oral history.Drakonicon 18:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any proof? One does not necessarily "make things up" for literature. Troy was not made up for Homer's stories, for example. We do not have access to the mind of Plato, and thus there is no way to know if he made it up or not. Of course if someone actually _did_ discover Atlantis then that would suggest that he did *not* make it up, but proving that he *did* make it up is a whole different ball game, and we just cannot do that. PS. I don't think that the Bimini Road *must* have been from Atlantis -- nothing like it was mentioned in Plato's dialogues, so even if Atlantis did exist there would still be no reason to think that a connection must exist as well. 170.215.83.212 03:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They menstion lack of convincing evidence about the hypothisis of the imperial fleet but, I don't see anyone puting up any evidence of, the alians helped the imagianary Atlantians build it....

One reason I can think of that Bimini ROad is being investigated with the mindset that it may yield portions of an Atlantean sub-continent, is that Edgar Cayce cited Bimini, Azores, and Yucatan (I think?) as yielding Atlantean artifacts. There were three places he mentioned, cant rememebr just now, sorry. Anyway, Dr. Greg Little is one of many ARE investigators who have taken the Bimini hypothesis seriously. (see Links section below) Drakonicon 16:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plato's Atlantis is not necessarily the real Atlantis (if there was one). Plato just reported what he learned in Egypt. However, It could be well possible that he altered the report to what he imagined would be an ideal society; to inspire the fellow citizens of greece.
However, what I am missing in this article: I think the Bimini Road stones where carbon dated to ~1500 BC. If that's true it does not match the usual atlantis timeframe; same as Santoria. However, I cant find a reliable source for that now. 85.176.178.0 19:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Plato was telling what Solon was supposedly told by an Egyptian priest - only the story isn't mentioned anywhere in the historical record at all and mentions Athens. Problem is that the timeframe is all wrong and at the time the story says the Athens-Atlantis war was fought, Athens was at best a collection of mud muts. Darkmind1970 15:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Graham Hancock suggests that the Bimini Road is shown on that island top-left of the Piri Reis map and that now the island is under water. -- Barecode (talk) 07:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NGfNMb5p2Y at 7:20 Kdammers (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We really need to set up archiving here. Doug Weller talk 20:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Autoarchive enabled (and this thread will not expire until 60 days of inactivity, of course). Hancock is not a reliable source, but when independent RS report about his notable views they can sometimes be mentioned and put in context with the analysis of that source. —PaleoNeonate – 20:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dredged up stones

[edit]

There are sources [1] [2] claiming that many stones were dredged up in 1920's. I added the latter to the external links, but it's an important detail to include in the main body of the article once someone could find a reliable source to back it up firmly. Logos (talk) 11:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

clarity regarding age

[edit]

Totally confusing jargon: 

reported dates of 2780±70 (UM-1359), 3500±80 (UM-1360), and 3350±90 (UM-1361) from whole-rock samples; a date of 3510±70 (UM-1362), from shells extracted from the beachrock core; and dates of 2770±80 (UM-1364) and 2840±70 (UM-1365)


First, do these numbers refer to AGES or DATES? Seems they are AGES, but the term "dates" is used. Important difference.

Second, what is all the UM stuff? Needs clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.150.56 (talk) 12:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bimini Road. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No image of underwater feature?

[edit]

As stated, why isnt an image of the structure being included? It's an article on a feature that isnt even being shown within the article. The bird's eye view of the island doesnt seem sufficient. 172.101.101.107 (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No such images are currently available on Wikipedia or Wikimedia. If you have one with an appropriate license (e.g. CC BY-SA) please upload it and add it to the article. Hypnôs (talk) 22:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None are included in the article because the copyrights, which the existing images have been published under, prevents their use in Wikipedia. If someone out there, who dives in the Bahamas and is an underwater photographer, was to take their own original photographs of it and donate them to Wikimedia under an appropriate license (e.g. CC BY-SA), this action would be greatly appreciated. For example, a diver graciously has already done this for the Yonaguni Monument. Paul H. (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bimini_Road&oldid=1249971730"