As suggested in the previous letter, we need to examine the usefulness of the ice-age theory in explaining the facts on the ground - in particular, the erratics, striations, polished surfaces, and till. Because of the critical nature of this material, this explanation is a little longer than usual.
However there is a shocking question to be asked before that - did the ice-age as commonly taught actually happen - or not?
The standard proposal is that a massive ice sheet covered the top of the globe reaching from the north pole down to say New York City and down to the straits of Gilbraltar. The Northern version is presented as more extensive than a Southern polar cap.
A first and perhaps prime fact you need to know is that ice does not go uphill. Water doesn't and ice doesn't and glaciers don't. Even over level ground ice doesn't go very far. Specifically it goes up to 7 miles on level ground. Ice just can't push ice further than that. If pressure is applied to push more than 7 miles worth of ice then it gets crushed or melts instead.
"If a solid be so heavy and so big that it requires more than a certain force to move it, it will crush rather than move, that is to say, the whole thrust will be dissipated by the object being reduced to pulp, or even liquid, which will flow away rather than move en masse." [ Howorth, H.H. 1905 Ice or Water? vol 1, p383]
A look at the map shows that the ice would have to be pushed much farther than 7 miles.
With just this info you can see, the ice-age didn't happen!
In the early 1800's the proponents of the ice-age were aware that if there were a massive ice sheet then there would of necessity have been very large mountains at the North Pole, from which the ice could have slid down to cover a large part of the earth. They must have been very high mountains, right? Science was in fact so sure of this that those polar mountains were assumed to have existed without any doubt.
Here is the catch. Science has now examined the North Pole for those huge mountains and there has not been a trace found of them!
It gets worse. It was not long before science found evidence that there had been an "interglacial" period when it was warm. Then more interglacial periods were found. The proposed length of the pleistocene finally reached over 2 million years for its assumed length. For each interglacial period it was assumed those polar mountains dropped in height. Then they went back up. So what we actually have is yo-yo polar mountains bobbing up and down over 2 million years. They had to be there. Yet now there is not a trace of them.
Are you doubting yet the ice-age?
The ice-age was first presented with much credit by Agassiz in 1840. He studied the Alps. There was something he did not know that we now know. The Alps did not attain the bulk of their current height until the end of the ice-age! Now they are some 15,000 feet high. Prior to that rise they were only some 2,000 to 3,000 feet.
Also the mountains of Scandinavia - important shedders of ice in the theory - did not have their current altitude during the ice age. In general the ice age theorists were assuming that the current topography was the one in effect during the pleistocene event. But as I have indicated earlier their assumption of a constant topography is very seriously in error. What does this do to the ice-age theory? Are you beginning to wonder why you have not heard these simple facts?
There are numerous other smaller issues.
The erratics are often sharp edged. This means that their dislocation occurred quickly. That dislocation was not caused by the slow grinding of glaciers.
In many places there was supposed to have been glacier action but it is absent. For example, in Siberia and Alaska, in places where ice is thought to have passed by, there are still standing thin rock pinnacles. Thick ice would have ground them to a pulp and not left them standing.There are broken stumps and roots of large trees that are frozen into position along with their original leaves, flowers, and fruits. Thick passing ice would have swept them away instead. But they are still standing. North of Siberia many thousands still stand.
In Arctic Canada there are marine shells found at high altitudes. If a glacier had placed by there as asserted then the shells would have been crushed.
There are many instances of areas that ice theorists claim have been glaciated but evidence of that glaciation cannot be found. For example, there should be glacial deposits on the floor of the Barents Sea, north of Norway. But none have ever been found. In several cases in the North Sea, if the glaciation had come from Scandinavia as claimed we would see evidence of movement from North East to South West. Instead the evidence shows movement from North West to South West.
Many mountains and hills in the northern hemisphere have their northern sides only scored and striated from top to bottom. So we are to believe that as ice slowly climbed up the surface (which it can't do)it left these marks but on the other side, perhaps going down fast gravel and till that is on the northern and northwestern side of mountains appears to be "plastered up" against the hillsides with "great force". The boulders are rammed into the hillsides.
So we have places that the ice is claimed to have reached but never did. We have the opposite. We have erratics in places where the theory says the ice never reached! For example, there are large erratics in the Sahara Desert, on the Mongolian plains, and in subtropical Uruguay.
Here is another kind of problem:
"Eroded and fragmentary shells occur within the 'drift' deposits on Moel Tryfaen, a mountain in North Wales rising 1,300 ft (400m) above sea level. Perplexingly the species represented include not only northern but also temperate and southern forms adapted to very varied habitats. Some required deep and others shallow water, some sandy and others muddy water, and some were peculiar to shingly and others to a bare rocky environment." p 46 Cataclysm.
Ice would not have brought together such a collection. (Of course water might have.)
In others cases we have to ask, why are there erratics at the top of the mountains but not on the lower ground?
Let that rest the case. The 2 million year long Pleistocene Epoch (ice-age) did not happen.
You may find this passage from Cataclysm! to be particularly helpfulin offering an informed modern perspective:
"More up-to-date views of the Ice Age world, in discarding the near-hemispheric ice-sheets of the earlier theorists, have replaced those with a series of much smaller fluctuating ice-sheets radiating out from separate northern ice domes, with ice-free regions, some little more than corridors, existing between them. The retention of the term 'glacial', initially devised to accurately reflect the nature of the icy model postulated by nineteenth century glacialists, and its application to modern Ice Age concepts, although technically correct, unfortunately still tends to perpetuate a false (the discarded)panorama for interested modern lay-readers as yet familiar only with the older nineteenth century Ice Age doctrines. Certainly very few of the multitude of facts and details nullifying the earlier views which we are about to review have percolated down to them. ... Accordingly, much of what follows, though factually correct, may at first seem not merely novel but startling and perhaps even disturbing, as cherished conventions fracture and totter." p 39 Cataclysm (available at Seekerbooks in the late fall.)
To put it more succinctly "... the notion of the Ice Age can never have been more than a grand illusion". p 39 Cataclysm.
Let me add one little oddity to this list. There does appear to have been a significant drop in temperature at 10,000BC along with some ice formation from 10,000 BC to 8,000 BC. Particulates in the air may have caused this. Ironic that the extra ice that did form was just after the end of the ice age.
At this point it may be useful to note a quote from HPB. She says in SDii71:
"Moreover, what matters it that science places the birth of man in the "pre- or post- glacial drift," if we are told at the same time that the so-called "ice age" is simply a long succession of ages which "shaded without abrupt change of any kind into what is termed the human or Recent period ... the overlapping of geological periods having been the rule from the beginning of time." The later "rule" only results in the still more puzzling, even if strictly scientific and correct, information, that "even to-day man is contemporary with the ice-age in the Alpine valleys and in the Finmark."
Now if you read that carefully - rereading it as necessary - she is not supporting the ice age! Instead she is mocking it! She is saying that if the reasoning of the scientist's is correct then we are still in the ice age.
But she is even more striking. She says the 'so-called "ice age" '. Why does she say the "so-called"? Generally in a context such as this, that is what people say to indicate they disbelieve in some alleged thing. Now the next and related point. Those quotes around "ice age" are hers. Why does she put the term "ice age" in quotes?? There is no obvious reason except that she knows that there is something inaccurate about it.
So a question is raised. Does she warrant another vindication for knowing that the ice age as commonly considered, did not happen? Is it surprising she said this? How did she know?
Where does this leave us? First, the ice-age as commonly conceived did not happen. Secondly, if it had happened - even to the extend commonly conceived - it still would be inadequate to explain all of the facts on the ground - the erratics, striations, polished surfaces and till. So then where are we?
Back to square one. Science has some fast talking to do.
This letter, I suppose, begins the "heavy lifting". If I don't say it, it is meant with a feeling of sympathy and appreciation for all scientists - even when I disagree. I believe they search after truth just as we on this list search after truth. Though as you note in one of your letters - other motives unfortunately get mixed in.
To understand how geology got here it is necessary to go back to the days when geologists were called naturalists.
Most of us have heard of the hairy mammoth (an extinct animal) found fully frozen in Siberia. What we may not know is that there have been many more and starting in the 1700's. (Why haven't we known this?)
The first woolly rhinocerous was found fully frozen in Siberia in 1772. Part of a hairy mammoth was found frozen in Siberia in 1787. These finds naturally excited the curiosity of the naturalistsand cried out for explanation. But other serious problems and oddities began demanding explanation as well.
The most obvious problem were the erratics - large stones that were out of place. They were found standing isolated in fields, balanced on mountain tops, stretched out along mountain ridges andclogging valley exits. They were found hundreds and even a thousand miles from their source! They sometimes were literally miles long. In one case a town in England is built on one. To make matters alittle worse they often had rough edges suggesting that whatever awful force had moved them had done it quickly.
Another problem was that there were striations (serious scratch; marks) found on stones all around the world. What had caused the striations? The usual direction for the striations were from North or North West to South or South East. Why should there be a common direction of the striations around the world?
Then there were polished surfaces of rocks. The polished surfaces and the striations were often found closely connecting suggesting they had a common source.
The obvious solution to the naturalists was that moving water caused all of these features. But how could water be moving in the necessary way?
There was yet another geological feature called Till. But to explain this, I would rather quote, at the risk of some repetition, from the book "Cataclysm!" found at Seekerbooks (available in the late fall.) This is the book I recommend number one to resolve the larger geological issues relevant to this discussion of Atlantis. It is filled with science. Perhaps I will say more on it later. But I place it number one.
Here I give a long quote from scientific finds in Cataclysm:
"The Siberian finds increased naturalists' interest in thenumerous mammoth and woolly rhinoceros bones which had long been known from, and were indeed still being met with in, more southern European latitudes. These, it was quickly realised, generally occurred either in caves or rock fissures or in superficial surface deposits like sands, gravel, clays or marls. Usually unconsoldated (loosely held together), these deposits were also largely unstratified (unlayered)and often of very irregular linear extent and thickness, exhibiting every sign of having accumulated under agitated conditions which had apparently affected huge areas of the globe more or less simultaneously. Due to the exceptional nature of these surface deposits special names were coined to distinquish them, e.g. 'Boulder Clay', 'Hard Pan' and 'Till'. Researches showed that the lowest of these deposits, the 'Till', usually lay directly upon solid bedrock, the upper surfaceof which , irrespective of the kind of rock involved, had frequently been smashed, fissured, striated (marked with linear ridges, furrows, or scores), polished or pulverised into countless fragments. This phenomenon not only extended susrprising lateral and vertical distances, but had affected a great variety of extremely hard rocks.
To most naturalists at the time it was perfectly obvious that some tremendous even had occurred which, among other effects, had fractured hard rocks over immense distances, and had deposited the resultant debris equally extensively as gravels, sands, clays and muds. The bony remains of hordes of animals which had been destroyed by the event now lay within these deposits, which, in northern Siberia, had become permanently frozen. These interrelated remains thus represented the debris of a former but now-broken world.
Clearly any agency capable of venting so much devastation must have been not only awesomely powerful but must, from the evidence, have affected the entire world. ... On the other hand they were being confronted with mounting evidence that something traumatic, something catastrophic, had affected the whole Earth, geologically extremely recently.
Men were not long in concluding that this event had been the Deluge of Genesis and widespread tradition, and that perhaps the scriptural record and the accumulating geological record could, after all, be reconciled. Many books appeared on this theme during the first thirty years of the nineteenth century. ... Had a long-lost Golden Age been suddenly and disastrously terminated by a frightful global Flood? The growing evidence suggested to many that this may indeed have been the case, and efforts were redoubled to investigate these possibilities. ...
The first quarter of the nineteenth century, when geological science grew apace, saw much attention given to rock striations and polished rock surfaces, and to the vast number of boulders which, because they were usually foreign to the districts in which they reposed, were accordingly called 'erratics'.
The rock striations were generally found to be aligned north-west to south-east, both north and south of the equator. At many places either side of the Atlantic the striations occur only on the summits of high hills or only on the northern or north-western slopes of mountains. Locally, however, other striations cross the predominating examples at all sorts of angles or even at right-angles to their long axes. Such evidence suggest that whatever produced them proceeded from a general northern or north-western direction and totally ignored pre-existing topography.
At many localities these rock striations furrow extraordinarily smooth rock surfaces, in some instances exhibiting a glass-like polish. Such surfaces are of irregular extent, but occur with ornear striated rocks so frequently that little doubt exists that the striating and polishing of these surfaces had a common origin, both in cause and time.
Many of the 'erratic' boulders are of immense size and weight, the very largest being literally miles long. In some districts they abound in almost unbelievable numbers , perched precariously in long lines along mountain crests, or lie singly upon the very summits of lofty eminences. At other places they choke valleys and gorges or repose in splendid isolation on the surfaces of plains and deserts. Sometimes the boulders are visible in their entirety - elsewhere they are buried almost out of sight by surrounding surface deposits. 'Erratics' are often reported as sharply angular and "fresh-looking, rounded and polished, or as sometimes scored by "well-marked parallel striae", and in every case as having travelled considerable distances to their present locations - their points of origin often remaining obscure. Their angular and "fresh-looking" condition, however, suggest that their transportation was rapid and of sort; duration, a startling conclusion respecting the largest 'erratics'.
Like the rock striations mentioned above, these boulders were evidently dispersed by an agency operating oblivious to older geographical barriers and sometimes obliquely to the long axes of pre-existing ground features. Repeating associations of polished rock surfaces, striations, and erratics are known from many widely-sundered localities, such as Montana, Brazil, and Finland. Clearly these phenomena are different expressions of a singular event which occurred on a hemispheric scale.
The superficial sands and gravels which contain the bony remains of woolly rhinoceroses, mammoths and other large contemporary mammals, also lie unusually to adjacent local topographical features. They are often banked up against northern or north-western mountain or valley slopes only. At other places they mantle only the summits of high mountains, sometimes to depths of several thousand feet or meters. Elsewhere they bury the lower flanks of whole mountain ranges or even fill up entire valleys. They also frequently contain large quantities of geologically recent plant remains, at some places so profusely that, in company with coeval (same age) animal bones, they completely fill caves and rock fissures. Yet, even is such apparently chaotic evidence a curiously consistent theme emerges, for at many sites - around Muggendort in Germany for instance - only the caves and fissures facing northwards or north-westwards have been so filled.
Almost all early geologist attributed these clearly linked phenomena to the action of powerful water currents flowing in a general north-to south direction. The first scientific explanations purporting to account for these phenomena included vast river floods, 'waves of translation' generated by hypothetical giant submarine earthquakes, and the equator-wards drift of huge numbers of silt and stone-laden icebergs of northern origin, which deposited their stoney cargoes in warmer latitudes. These explanations invoked essentially catastrophic causes, and the irregular character of the relevant deposits, due to their supposed transportation by water or ice from one place to another -were soon widely referred to as "drift'. In turn the advocates of such explanations were grouped with those who, like Whiston, had long postulated, recurrent violent episodes in Earth history, and were regarded as 'Catastrophists'. pp 8-11
I might add here that the Till containing debris of earth, animal, and plant was yet more chaotically mixed than appears from this description from Cataclysm. The animals were found disarticulated (bones torn apart), prey mixed with predator, humans mixed in, bones splintered, tree trunks splintered, and creatures found together that are not found together in their natural habitat. Sometimes whales and sea creatures mixed in what should have stayed in the sea. Wild chaos in short and sudden rampaging disaster.
Now I have a question for the list. Suppose you were trying to contribute to a new emerging field called geology around 1830. Suppose you understood that the matters above demanded an explanation. How would you feel about the solution "God did it"?
It happens that in 1930 Charles Lyell published "Principles of Uniformity". It took a view opposed to the Catastrophists. It strongly asserted that all of geology was to be explained by constant principles of nature working relatively smoothly. It was very persuasive and won the day. It became the view of "uniformitarianism". By a handful of years later the idea was beginning that, in keeping with Lyell's principles, there had been enormous glaciers and they were the explanation for the erratics, striations, polished surfaces and till.
In 1840 Agassiz made this view formal. And it stuck.
Still today the orthodox view of science is gradualism. Uniformitarianism - with glaciers added - has held sway for some 170 years. It no longer necessary to say "God did it". Geologists no longer make comparisons to the Noachian Flood. Normalcy and sensibility rule the day in geology.
However, today we have much more geological data available to study. All this raises a question. Exactly how is the glacier "theory" doing today to explain these odd features of geology? Maybe we should revisit the issue.
I think people ought not to blithely say they think Atlantis was in the middle of the Atlantic without understanding what this implies.
To get a handle on this we need to look at the size of Atlantis. As I mentioned much earlier, Plato in his dialogue uses two different words in Greek - one meaning "continent" and the other meaning "island". Indeed in his text he describes two distinctly different sizes.
In one case he says "larger than Libya and Asia combined." Now what did these terms mean to Plato? Libya meant the northern coast of Africa from Morocco to current day Libya. About the size of Europe. Asia did not mean what we refer to as Asia today. It was an area starting at Egypt and moving westwards. I forget the exact limit of it. I seem to recall something like the Ural Mountains. But is thought to be the size of North America.
Now if you combine these two together it is a question whether they are a little bit too big to fit into the North Atlantic. Accordingly most Atlantologists add the word "minor" in front of "Asia"so the reference is only to "asia minor". Then that section of land would extend from Egypt to mid-Turkey. This is a continental size landmass.
Plato also refers to a main plain of the island that is 2,000 by 3,000 stadia. That plain extends down to the water and is surrounded by mountains. Now the exact size of a "stadia" is disputed. However an approximate size is 200 meters or 600 feet. This about 230 miles by 345 miles. That is a large plain. It is almost the size of Spain. If you put mountains around it and maybe just a little other land then it comes to the size of the Iberian peninsula of Spain and Portugal.
So we distinctly have very different sizes indicated within Plato'sdialogues.
Here are some of HPB's statements on the size of Atlantis:
"But as no Initiate had the right to divulge and declare all he knew, posterity got only hints. Aiming more to instruct as a moralist than as a geographer and ethnologist or historian, the Greek philosopher merged the history of Atlantis, which covered several million years, into one event which he located on one comparatively small island 3000 stadia long by 2000 wide; (or about 350 miles by 200, which is about the size of Ireland), whereas the priests spoke of Atlantis as a continent vast as "all Asia and Lybia" put together. But, however altered in its general aspect, Plato'snarrative bears the impress of truth upon it." (SDii405
"That not only the last island of Atlantis, spoken of by Plato, but a large continent, first divided, and then broken later on into seven peninsulas and islands (called dwipas), preceded Europe, is sure. It covered the whole of the North and South Atlantic regions, as well as portions of the North and South Pacific, and had islands even in the Indian Ocean (relics of Lemuria)."
"And they may then perceive that Plato's guarded hints and his attributing the narrative to Solon and the Egyptian priests, were but a prudent way of imparting the fact to the world, and, by cleverly combining truth and fiction, so disconnecting himself from a story which the obligations imposed at initiation forbade him to divulge." SDii405
I may add that Atlantologists sometimes adopt another clever way around these disparate land sizes. They say that the larger size is the area that Atlantis CONTROLLED - as apposed to being the actualland mass. People will have to choose between this explanation and HPB's or who knows whatever other view.
For the purpose of these emails I am mostly focusing on the small island of Poseidonis and taking it to be about the size of the Iberian peninsula.
Now to the geological issue. Can you imagine the Iberian Peninsula sinking below the waves in a day and a night?
Naturally that just does not happen according the standard geological view !! That would violate all the known experience of Geology. Of course Geology looks with scorn upon this proposal when we see how big Plato's "island" was - even in its small size.
Then we need to note that the land in question is very deep. That makes it even less likely according to the Geologist. The Geologist says that if the Atlantean ridge was above water, then it was so long ago that mankind had not yet come into existence!
Yet it certainly would make much sense otherwise if Atlantis was in the Atlantic and about where we have started talking - near the Azores.
In sum - I think people ought to understand that Geologists are being quite consistent with their world view when they dismiss this view of Atlantis. Just that they are wrong. Perhaps we should lookat some coincidences that have arisen with regard to their worldview.
We need to focus for a moment on the date of the sinking of Atlantis.
In the Secret Doctrine HPB gives the date as 12,000 years ago.
Often Plato is taken as asserting a date of 9,600 BC. That could be looked at a little more carefully. Collins, mentioned earlier, calculates a date from the Critias and the Timeaus of Plato of either 9570 or post 8570.
In a more obscure source Theosophy gives a precise date of 9,565 BC. As far as I know this is the only precise date given from any source. More on this particular date later.
Altogether we should use the round number of 12,000 years ago or 10,000 BC because I will be dealing with various dates from science that are not much more precise than that.
The big question: Does science say anything happened in 10,000BC.
Definitely yes, one fact leaps out. That is when science says the Pleistocene epoch ended!
Science defines the Pleistocene as roughly the ice-age. It is asserted to have lasted some 2 million years and ended in relatively recent times about 10,000 BC.
So my first question is this. Is it a coincidence that the pleistocene ended its 2,000,000 years duration just as Atlantis was claimed by both HPB and Plato to have sunk? Could there be a connection?
Now lets look at orogeny - the science of mountain building. Apparently this is not generally known outside of orogeny circles but ... The Himalayas are young mountains. They are said to have arisen toward the end of the Pleistocene. The alps hardly show much erosion. They are said to have gained most of their height around the end of the Pleistocene. The Rocky Mountains are obviously new. They are said to have risen during the end of the Pleistocene. The Andes are a new chain. Very fresh young rocks. Yes - they are said to have arisen at the end of the Pleistocene. The mountains about Kabul in Afghanistan rose at the end of the Pleistocene. The same goes for more mountains as well.
Science does not know why all these mountains went up at this time.
What does that make people think?? Do people know this?
Next very simple question - if all that earth went up then wouldn't it be reasonable for something to go "down"? Any thoughts?
There is another oddity that occurred at the end of the Pleistocene in the field of biology. During the Pleistocene we lost hundreds (two?) of the large animal species - hairy mammoth, wooly rhinoceros, sabre-tooth tiger etc. But here is the odd part. Some 75 percent of those species lost during the pleistocene were lost during the last 800 years or so of the Pleistocene.
Science does not know why this happened.
Anything to do with the mountains? Anything to do with Atlantis?
It was not only mountains. At one time the population of the American Indian dropped to almost zero. That was around 10,000 BC. Could it be related? No one knows why.
There is a curious item from archaeology. The paleolithic period (old stone) was followed by the mesolithic (middle stone), which was followed by the neolithic (new stone) which was followed by the bronze age, iron age and onward. Paleolithic used crude stone implements. Mesolithic and neolithic civilization introduced weaving, pottery, domesticated animals and agriculture with details depending upon the scholar.
As I read it, everywhere the transition from age to age was smooth. The durations of the different ages differed in different locations.
But there was one exception. The transition from paleolithic to mesolithic was abrupt. And it was abrupt everywhere. No one knows why. But there was a greater oddity - that transition occurred at the same time everywhere! Well you can guess when - at 10,000BC.
Cromagnon man provides one last mystery. Cromagnon man invaded Spain, France and Northern Africa from some unknown source. No one knows from where. Those invasions are thought to have started around 38,000 BC. The last such invasion was called the Azillian Man. It was vastly different from the prior civilizations of cromagnon man. It left only a relatively very thin strata for the archaeologists. Here is the point of note - when did this group from some unknown source, seemingly from the Atlantic, arrive for the last time? Why in 10,000 BC.
So Brian - and anyone else - what are we to think of this? What should a reasonable person think?
Probably most people on this list hold the view that Edgar Cayce said Bimini was the location of Atlantis. I think many people also are of the opinion he even specified that in 1968 or 1969 it would be found rising there. Actually this needs to be reviewed. But first some research info. It appears that just as in the case of Cuba, there is some "people info" that is relevant here as well.
There was a book published in 2001 by ARE. It is "Edgar Cayce's Atlantis and Lemuria" by Frank Joseph. It was distributed to ARE's sponsors as "benefit". The book is highly supportive of the Bimini area. However, it appears to me (and others) that the book is misleading and even wrong. I suggest it be avoided.
Two years later, in 2003, ARE published "The ARE's Search for Atlantis" subtitled "The Ongoing Search for Edgar Cayce's Atlantis in the Bahamas" by Gregory and Lora Little. This is an excellent book and I am grateful to ARE for publishing it. It presents realistic research by the two authors from both air and underwater in an open minded search to confirm or refutethe many "sightings" and issues surrounding Bimini. Those two authors have other close connects to ARE as indicated in the book. Taken as a whole it appears to nullify the significance of the mysteries surrounding Bimini. I recommend this book highly for those wanting to pursue the issue of Atlantis at Bimini. It can be found at Seekerbooks (we will be adding the bookstore in the fall 2014)
Here are the finds published in the ARE book:
1. There is a picture that appeared in newspapers showing an apparent rectangular temple on the shallow ocean bottom. However it is not a temple. It is as some had claimed - a sponge pen built by the locals. And there are many of them. The locals build a pen to hold their sponges. The pen is made by ramming sticks into the ground underwater, tying them together with rope, and supporting them with stones. The temple floor plan seen in many places is only a structure made by the locals in the last century. The famous newspaper picture of it, if examined closely, shows some of the individual sticks. Why wasn't this seen??
2. The are mysterious large near perfect circles in the water that would seem to be man-made - possibly ancient. They are natural. In an odd but known way (known to the locals) they are made by fish swimming in circles. Seems odd but true. They were checked out in the water and there was no rock or whatever under the circular waves of dirt.
3. There is an alleged "upright stone pillar" at the southwestern end of the island. However it is little more than a 4-to 6 ft tall sponge. It probably appeared as a pillar on a side-scan sonar record.
4. Moselle Shoals was said to have "colossal square columns". These are just non-rectilinear granite chunks partially on top of modern steel ship and engine parts - certainly modern.
5. The odd formations seen on the surrounding ocean floor are all the result of natural growths of seagrass showing clearly against the ocean bottom.
6. Concerning the "road": There was a study conducted in 1979 and 1980 on two areas of the beachrock formation by Marshall McKusick and Eugene Shinn. [McKusick, M and E. Shinn, 1980, Bahamian Atlantis Reconsidered, Nature, v. 287, no. 5777, p. 11.] These scientists took 17 oriented cores of the limestone boulders and examined them with X-radiographs. The cores from both areas showed "slope and uniform particle size, bedding planes, and constant dip direction from one block to the next. If the stones had been quarried and re-laid there is no reason to suppose bedding planes would carry stratigraphically from block to block. The sedimentary laminations clearly show that these were not randomly laid stones but a natural, relatively undisturbed formation." In other words there is strong evidence that the stones were created in place in-situ by nature.
To be fair it should be noted that the explorer/authors of the book also found a new underwater platform on one of the shallow underwater banks. It is clearly manmade. It is interesting. But it is not clear that much will come of it.
If I had read these negations from some other source I would have been skeptical of their accuracy. However, coming from ARE I find them believable.
So is there any reason why Edgar Cayce's prediction is doing so poorly on the Bimini prediction when he has a clear high batting average in other cases?
Apparently yes. There is difference of opinion within ARE as to how Cayce's readings should be interpreted relative to Bimini. It turns out that Edgar Cayce's readings must be parsed very carefully, at least in the case of Atlantis - just as we sometimes must analyze very carefully various statements of HPB.(Helena P. Blavatsky)
There are several of these statements to be considered carefully. This parsing can go into more detail than may be appropriate for this list. Parsing HPB is enough of a challenge. But here is one example from Reading 996-12 that is short:
Client: Is this [the Biminni area ] the continent known as Alta or Poseidia?
Cayce: A temple of the Poseidians was in a portion of this land.
Now did Cayce say "yes" or "no". Maybe if you read it fast he said "yes". But I (and others) think that if you read it carefully, then he said "no". Try reading it with emphasis like this: A TEMPLE of the Poseidians was in a portion of this land. As though he were explaining patiently that it was only a TEMPLE that was there, not the whole island of Poseidonis itself.
The view of one faction within ARE says:
1. "No reading specifically identifies Bimini with Poseidia".
2. "No reading predicts an underwater road to be found near Bimini and no year.
From checking the readings myself, it appears to me more likely that this faction is correct.
I might note in passing his comment on the year of discovery. It occurred in Reading 958-3 and reads like this: "And Poseidia will be among the first portions of Atlantis to rise again. Expect it in sixty-eight and sixty-nine ('68 and '69); not so far away!".
I have also an apparent year of its sinking given by Cayce as just a little after 10,000 BC. This is of course in complete accord with Theosophy. And both match the science I will presenting.
Now it is on to the geological problem for those who place Atlantis in the mid Atlantic.