Re: Underwater "road" or "structure"?
Excellent letter you wrote to Herb...and you are right that Herb's
photos look more man-made that the Bimini Road. Herb, I'd probably
not even spend much time looking at Bimini. That was the only
underwater I'd seen I felt was similar.
The little archeological web site I sent, and even moreso, Steve's
astute ideas and insights in his post below have provided a finer
knowledge base of things to look for than hours of web sites, old
literature I glanced at. Likely divers David Hatcher-Childress, Frank
Joseph, and Wayne have sites more similar to those in your photo.I
just sent them your links, too. All of these fellows are friends yet
also complimentary magazine competitors (Ancient American and
Adventures Unlimited), and I hope will watch the site and do a bit of
research along with those here who are intriqued, and especially be
following Herb's progress, come Spring.
--- In email@example.com, "bigalemc2"
> Herb -
> Great photos!
> Well, you certainly have turned up something unusual.
> It took me a while to look at these, finally, but I did and am glad
> see them.covered
> I can hardly add anything to your speculations on them. You've
> most of the possibilities.argument
> My POV on the photos is that you have good reason to think they are
> man-made. They look more man-made than the Bimini road, to me. The
> first photo was narrow enough that I thought it was a wash between
> man-made and natural, but in the latter ones the weight of the
> - IMHO - pushed over to the man-made end of the spectrum.with
> Personally, what I like to do is to argue that they are what I DON'T
> want them to be, and see if that holds water - without getting bozo
> speculation and diversion from Occam's Razor, which says that thecorrect
> simpler explanation that covers all the bases is probably the
> one. More than a few little questions come to mind, so I will layout
> what those are, for what it is worth.straight
> Numbering the photos from top to bottom #1 through #5:
> #1 questions and notes:
> 1. What kind of stone is it?
> 2. Is there any evidence that the stone(s) was not laid there
> 3. Is the kind of stone present known to crack naturally in
> 4. Does this kind of stone also crack naturally in such a
> near-rectilinear fashion? Some may, most would not seem to.
> 5. This photo does not show right angles on all the cracks.
> 6. How uniformly wide are the cracks?
> 7. If they were naturally formed, is there evidence that all the
> cracks might have been formed naturally at the same time, under the
> forces or influences?they
> 8. How extensive is the entire stone area?
> 9. Does the area extend under the aquatic vegetation upstream or
> 10. Does the area extend under the river bank?
> 11. Are the edges of the entire stone area natural-looking?
> 12. How level is the top surface?
> 13. How deep are the stones set into the river bottom?
> 14. Is there more than one layer? (This mirrors your idea that
> may be the roof of a structure.)asked
> 15. What underlies the stone area?
> 16. Does the alignment follow along the bottom of the river bed?
> Across it? At an angle?
> Some of these are trite questions, but these and more need to be
> to determine if the formation is natural.formed
> Photo #2 and #3: I do not see any stone in those.
> Photo #4 - all the same questions and comments apply as to photo #1,
> 1. This one raised my eyebrows. A LOT.
> 2. This pattern would be difficult to argue as natural
> 3. The right angles are quite evident
> 4. The alignment of the cross joints is amazing if naturally
> 5. The two narrower stones have nearly aligned cracks on bothsides,
> which make it hard to argue for natural formationseems
> 6. The crack between the larger stone and the one 'above' it
> not to have parallel sides, which would tend to argue it isnaturally
> 7. The top surface does seem to be essentially flat, if not
> Photo #5 - all the same questions and comments apply as to photo #1and
> #4, plus:similar
> 1. The pattern is definitely rectilinear
> 2. This seems to suggest a long, linear pattern to the area,
> to a road or a paved fordtrue?
> 3. Are the long cracks parallel? If so, to what degree?
> 4. The 'roadway' seems to be crowned. Is that an illusion or
> 5. One stone in the top of the photo does not match up crack-to-crack
> with those around it, in the simplest rectilinear pattern. Themating
> one on the right is actually two stones. Does this occurelsewhere?
> (This seems to suggest that natural forces did not crack the two onthe
> right, since the natural force would also have been trying to crackthe
> single one, too.)any
> Photos #4 and #5 are pretty amazing.
> Old maps would seem to be the order of the day, to see if any show
> road here known to early settlers or to known industries in thearea.
> You have to show that these are not known to anyone at any earlier
> I suggest reading this book: The Island of Seven Cities: Where theDiscovered/dp/0312362\
> Chinese Settled When They Discovered America
> 056/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200295531&sr=8-1> . Thehe'd
> author went through the same kind of proving out - to himself - that
> your site will pretty much need to do. He assumed that the site
> found was known to earlier settlers, then exhausted every one ofthose
> possibilities. What was left was not what he had ever consideredhave
> possible, but it turned out to be the probable answer.
> I do not profess to have covered all the possible questions, nor to
> any great insight into anything about this. If any of the abovehelps
> you in your thinking, Herb, go for it.
> Steve Garcia
- Susan -
I noted the comment by Chris and that particular photo, too, but - maybe it is my old fogy eyes - all I see is a long leaf curled up. I saw the round thing and wanted to see something there, but that is all I see. Is it actually something IN the stone? Or is it an optical illusion?
I mean, it seems essentially the same color as the undersides of the other leaves in the photo.
At the same time, I DID wonder why Herb took the picture. If not for that, then what for? My only guess was to show the tangle he had to swim through.
But if it is a really something in the stone, that is, of course, a different story.
Okay: I saved the image to my hard drive, then opened it in a graphics program and zoomed in on that 'circle'. It appears to me to be a loop in a continuation - the end - of the long, slender leaf that stretches diagonally across the image in a slightly sinuous pattern from the lower left. I can even follow the leaf between the two - the sinuous part and the loop at the end.
There even seems to be another leaf below it.
Here is the enlargement of that area:
Somebody tell me I am wrong...
Herb? Did you actually see something there? Was this something on the photo when you saw it later?
Herb, Steve, and All,
When I first opened the email reply from Christopher it had on the
page one of your little photos. Now it isn't and it boggles my mind.
But I see what he was referreing to. Maybe Steve Garcia does, too.
He is an engineer and long into ancient studies. Steve is a longtime
personal friend of Christopher Dunn, Hatcher Childress and some of
their associates while I am more an acquaintence through conferences.
Do you fellows and members at this message board see the circle
within the green reedy photo on Herb's new web page (within the
paragraph "That day, chilled by the...")?
Dunn had written..."This photograph has a round depression in it that
looks remarkably precise. Can you find out more? Thanks, Chris"
- Herb -
Yeah, you got an enigma on your hands, Dude. Good find!
Yes, it might be natural, but I am leaning to it being something man
made from a relatively recent time period. To me, that is the Occam's
razor on this. It makes what the images show make sense in the simplest
way. Oh, it would be lovely if it is something from the copper age,
but. . .
From the images, it would certainly seem to be man made, rather than
naturally occurring. Those cracks being at 90 degrees (mostly) is one
point in favor of man made. Nature tends to not do things in 90-degree
patterns - though one can't rule it out.
That non-continuous crack in that one spot seem to rule out nature; if
there were stresses in the stone that caused it to crack along some
crystalline fault (like a diamond would do), I would expect the crack to
extend across the entirety, IMHO. I can speculate on ways that the
break wouldn't be fully across the area, but they have problems in
themselves, so I threw them out of the argument.
I think it best to find old records, preferably maps. If man made, this
will show up there. No one builds without leaving some record. Roads
of whatever kind are labor intensive, so no one would go to that trouble
and then not put it on a map.
I'd recommend also to see how long it extends, as soon as possible. If
it is a road, there will be much more of it. If it is a stone bottom
put in for a post-Columbian ford, then there should be some remnants of
a real road on both sides of the river. It may not appear obvious right
near the bank, due to erosion, occasional flooding, etc., so looking
many feet away from the banks might give the best results.
All this is speculation and - like your thoughts on the web page - can
get you going in all kinds of directions. A few more facts can cut that
all way down. The best way to narrow down the possibilities is to go
get more facts. Take more photos, make some measurements, search under
and around the vegetation, blah, blah, blah.
Time to do some detective work...
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "herbswoods"
> Thanks for the thoughtful response. I agree with everything you said
> and all those things need to be done. Photos #4 & 5 are pretty
> amazing, esp. #5 which shows very precise alignment.
> You asked if the stucture has a crown to it From the photo it does
> look like it, but in memory it seems that the structure was level. I
> could be wrong, however, as I was not there very long. I didn't even
> try to dislodge or move a block or otherwise test anything. It just
> didn't occur to me at the time to test anything. All I wanted was to
> obtain photographs and happily I was able to do.
> It's probably of natural origin, but it's fun to speculate as the
> region is a legend-haunted one.
- Steve Garcia., Herb, and All
I see from the enlargement in your (Steve G.'s) email what you are
referring to and perhaps send the enlargement to Herb's emailbox, too.
With the imprint of the green into the circle on the unenlarged photo
on Herb's web site, I am wondering if Herb might have laid a circular
tripod or other poles into silt/mud into the river bottom at that
spot to cause the imbedded circular 'ring' since Herb has the photos
and was there. Herb, is there a lot of silt in parts of the river,
and what do you think? I was snorkeling at Rock Lake near Madison
years ago after a sweat lodge by a bunch of New Agers after reading
Frank Jospeh's Pyramids of Rock Lake book. Deep, deep silt, and he
speaks of the difficulty of investigating rock or any other
structures beneath deep, still water such as lakes, esp. in
agricultural or urban areas.
Sorry I am posting so much but at a dormant time away
from 'fieldwork' and most of us are up at least to our knees in snow,
isn't this armchair line of inquiry interesting? Remember that some
of this group's data can be applied to other, future leads and
avenues of investigation.
Welcome new member Richard from MA (Maine or Massechucetts?)
--- In email@example.com, Stephen Garcia
> Susan -
> I noted the comment by Chris and that particular photo, too, but -
> it is my old fogy eyes - all I see is a long leaf curled up. I sawthe
> round thing and wanted to see something there, but that is all Isee.
> Is it actually something IN the stone? Or is it an opticalillusion?
> I mean, it seems essentially the same color as the undersides of
> other leaves in the photo.for
> At the same time, I DID wonder why Herb took the picture. If not
> that, then what for? My only guess was to show the tangle he hadto
> swim through.graphics
> But if it is a really something in the stone, that is, of course, a
> different story.
> Okay: I saved the image to my hard drive, then opened it in a
> program and zoomed in on that 'circle'. It appears to me to be aloop
> in a continuation - the end - of the long, slender leaf thatstretches
> diagonally across the image in a slightly sinuous pattern from thelower
> left. I can even follow the leaf between the two - the sinuouspart and
> the loop at the end.the
> There even seems to be another leaf below it.
> Here is the enlargement of that area:
> Somebody tell me I am wrong...
> Herb? Did you actually see something there? Was this something on
> photo when you saw it later?mind.
> Steve Garcia
> Susan wrote:
> > Herb, Steve, and All,
> > When I first opened the email reply from Christopher it had on the
> > page one of your little photos. Now it isn't and it boggles my
> > But I see what he was referreing to. Maybe Steve Garcia does, too.longtime
> > He is an engineer and long into ancient studies. Steve is a
> > personal friend of Christopher Dunn, Hatcher Childress and some ofconferences.
> > their associates while I am more an acquaintence through
> > Do you fellows and members at this message board see the circle
> > within the green reedy photo on Herb's new web page (within the
> > paragraph "That day, chilled by the...")?
> > Dunn had written..."This photograph has a round depression in it
> > looks remarkably precise. Can you find out more? Thanks, Chris"
> > __