BIMINI ROAD, ANALYSIS

Firstly one should not be confused by the word “road”, this is only a convenient looking name given by the first discoverers. One should see the road initially just as what it is: a collection of stones. The question is: are the shape and arrangement of these stones such that they are artificial, made by man. The usual arguments for this are: regularity, straight lines (not circles, nature is pretty good at making circles), some kinds of symmetry (not all: natural crystals can also be symmetric, but they are usually not bigger than a decimeter), and the like.

So are the stones of the Bimini road arranged regularly enough to be called artificial? Referring to the thumbnail gallery: number 2 seems to show a fair amount of artificial squareness, number 3 an artificial straightness on small scale, and number 4 an artificial arrangement of surfaces. The overview of the entire road shows a fair amount of large scale straightness, and it is irrelevant that this is not as straight as our roads, since the Bimini road need not be a road at all. The curve at the end of one section also seems too deliberate to be natural. This is accentuated by the fact that the other section seems to have a deliberate end at roughly the same place.

Another point is that there are reliable reports that in the 1920's a lot of stones have been dredged up for building purposes, so its present outline may not be its original one. These operations would tend to disturb existing regularities rather than create them. It could also explain the fact that both sections seem split in two: a dredging boat would position itself above the clearly visible structure, above the centre of the narrow target, and dredge along its length; see the picture for a suggested new outline.

The sceptics have given as a possible natural cause that the structures have been formed by the sea deposits at beaches, so-called "beach rock". This is hardly capable of explaining the observable regularities. There also seems to be a counter example of a "road"-like structure that is perpendicular to the ancient beaches, see here.

Any interpretation beyond these remarks is fanciful. Since it would diminish the strength of the previous remarks, further interpretation is not given at this place.

The data on the piles of stones called "columns" is limited to a few piles, and the map that says  there is a row of these piles that is on a 2.4 kilometre long straight line. If the latter is true, an artificial origin becomes quite likely (arguments given by some that these stones are thrown overboard from ships would not explain their lying on a straight line). Whether the stones are really the remains of columns is as yet unsure, although some pieces look uncannily like pieces of the well-known Greek examples.

To the combination of the stones forming the road and those known as columns applies the argument that the presence in each others neighbourhood of two more or less artificial looking structures heightens the probability of these structures being artificial, especially if a correlation between them can be established.. This of course also applies to the data from the Andros platform and the satellite images.

To follow the line of investigation of this site, go to the Andros platform, the Yonaguni introduction, or Machu Picchu gallery, dependent of your earlier route.