Talk:Bimini Road

When?

When was this "road" discovered? I'm guessing 1969, but it really should be mentioned early on. Optrirominiluikus (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Firecircle (talk) 03:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Atlantis

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Links

I have added two links: one is an essay by Dr. Greg Little. I have found this info on him (below):

"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.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.Mzmadmike (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

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] 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. 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) [1] 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. 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? 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. -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. --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. 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. Olan7allen 02:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A Few Facts About the Formation

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? Firecircle (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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. Firecircle (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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. Firecircle (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"Mythical" exhibits bias

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"). Firecircle (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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.Firecircle (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well call me a skeptic, but I prefer not to read my facts from a TV channel whose very name includes the word "fiction" ! 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. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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?Firecircle (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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.Firecircle (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

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.Mzmadmike (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2008 (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. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

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. (24.7.78.170 (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC))

Why is Little any more credible than von Daniken? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)