Perhaps we do have a right to the Americas. An amateur historical speculation.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: Solvedit

Good for him!

After knowing what to do and with modern technology things are easier. You may have noticed that the man took 8 weeks to do more or less the same voyage Christopher Columbus did in six, only he was on a row boat and had to stop to rest.

So you are saying the pirates-turned-smugglers who may or may not have regularly sailed the Atlantic, said to themselves: "We caanot sail to this land with exploitable natives and mountains of gold. The trip will take two weeks too long!!!"

You do know the Vikings sailed and rowed to the New World 500 years before Columbus, right? In case you don't realize, they also settled and raided the Mediterranean, so there is a very good chance the cultures of the Mediterranean could have known everything the Vikings did about America and about sailing.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Solvedit
...According to some researchers, the site is completely identical in design to a known harbor and installations submerged in the Mediterranean..."

According to geologists, it looks like a natural formation.

Anthropologists and geologists. No citation given.

Are you simply arguing what they taught you about the discovery of the New World in primary school?

I am sure some geologists guessed that it was a natural formation, until the identical harbor installations were discovered in the Mediterranean and someone realized they were the same as the Bimini road.

originally posted by: Solvedit
So you are saying the pirates-turned-smugglers who may or may not have regularly sailed the Atlantic, said to themselves: "We caanot sail to this land with exploitable natives and mountains of gold. The trip will take two weeks too long!!!"

No, I'm not saying that, that idea of "pirates-turned-smugglers" is a result of your imagination, not mine.

What I have been saying is that pirates "work" depends on capturing vessels with valuable cargo, and there was none of those crossing the Atlantic, so pirates had no reason to stop attacking ships to go to a place with no ships just to see if there was any riches on an area that was supposed to have none.

You do know the Vikings sailed and rowed to the New World 500 years before Columbus, right? In case you don't realize, they also settled and raided the Mediterranean, so there is a very good chance the cultures of the Mediterranean could have known everything the Vikings did about America and about sailing.

Yes, Vikings reached North America and made at least one settlement there, but on an Island, any contact with the continent was, apparently, limited, as there are no signs of it.
And yes, Vikings also made settlements on the Mediterranean (none in Portugal, although they made some raids on this region), but you are again letting your imagination run wild, as there isn't any record of Vikings having told other people about their settlement on the other side of the Atlantic and much less about sailing, as the ships and techniques used by the Vikings were not that different from those used on the Mediterranean at the time.
Mediterranean people had been sailing before Vikings existed.

originally posted by: Solvedit
Anthropologists and geologists. No citation given.

That takes time, of which I don't have as much as I would like.

Are you simply arguing what they taught you about the discovery of the New World in primary school?

I don't even remember if I was taught about the discovery of the New World in primary school. But whatever information I have about it has come, obviously, from other sources, as I wasn't there. I am getting old, but not that old.

I am sure some geologists guessed that it was a natural formation, until the identical harbor installations were discovered in the Mediterranean and someone realized they were the same as the Bimini road.

No, they analysed the rock formations and reached the conclusion that they were natural.
Here's one opinion.

a reply to: Solvedit

No, but there might have been quite a lot.

Could have been a lot of things, in theory, but you said

the descendants of a trafficking victim

Singular.

Opium may also have been one of the things they were trafficking.

What has that to do with a few victims changing the lineage of an entire people, as premised?

originally posted by: ArMaP
No, they analysed the rock formations and reached the conclusion that they were natural.
Here's one opinion.

It could be carved out of beachrock. Why haul stone from some inland quarry when you can make your dock out of beachrock? And so the layers all point a certain way. Why carve a dock out of beachrock then turn some of the blocks over?

And why does it look just like a harbor in the Mediterranean?

originally posted by: SirHardHarry What has that to do with a few victims changing the lineage of an entire people, as premised?

How did you decide it must be a few? How is it "as premised" when I in fact postulated the profits from the trafficking funded the Ottoman invasion of Europe?

originally posted by: ArMaPWhat I have been saying is that pirates "work" depends on capturing vessels with valuable cargo, and there was none of those crossing the Atlantic, so pirates had no reason to stop attacking ships to go to a place with no ships just to see if there was any riches on an area that was supposed to have none.

They took a break from piracy to do some smuggling.

I thought we settled the issue about the oceans. Why do you talk as if pirates or smugglers from the Indian or Mediterranean could not have sailed the Atlantic? Was there an official rule that each band of pirates was confined to one ocean?

Yes the Vikings did leave a settlement with stone buildings.

People had been sailing for thousands of years before Vikings but they couldn't cross the Atlantic even though individuals row across it alone today?

How was the New World "supposed to have none (riches)????" Who had decided at the time what it was supposed to have?? It was unknown. Columbus found gold on the first island he landed on.

originally posted by: Solvedit
It could be carved out of beachrock. Why haul stone from some inland quarry when you can make your dock out of beachrock? And so the layers all point a certain way. Why carve a dock out of beachrock then turn some of the blocks over?

Or it's just a natural beachrock formation.

And why does it look just like a harbor in the Mediterranean?

"Looks like" doesn't mean much when we are talking about what is basically a wall.

If that was really a dock, where is the rest of the harbour system? If they needed such a large dock then they had a large movement of goods to and from ships, and there's no sign of any other structure supporting that movement of goods.

Many times, a rock is just a rock.

originally posted by: Solvedit
They took a break from piracy to do some smuggling.

That would mean spending a few months without gaining any money before they were able to do that "smuggling".

I thought we settled the issue about the oceans.

We did not.

Why do you talk as if pirates or smugglers from the Indian or Mediterranean could not have sailed the Atlantic? Was there an official rule that each band of pirates was confined to one ocean?

They could, but why would they stop their regular money getting schemes to spend a few months without getting any thing just to see if they were lucky?
That doesn't make sense.

Yes the Vikings did leave a settlement with stone buildings.

Where?

People had been sailing for thousands of years before Vikings but they couldn't cross the Atlantic even though individuals row across it alone today?

To cross the Atlantic we need two things: the will to do it and a way of doing it.
To have the will they would need a good reason that would take them away from their normal way of living to risk everything on a voyage to the unknown.
They had the way of doing it, but not in an easy way, they had to know the winds and the currents and with ships with square sails and low sides, like the ones used to sail along the shores of the Atlantic or on the Mediterranean (where you are never far from the shores) were not the best to cross the ocean.
In some respects, a rowing boat has advantages over a sail ship with a square sail, as it can move against the wind.
Also, going on an expedition without a known duration would mean taking a lot of food and drinking water, why do you think Christopher Columbus took three ships? One pirate ship wouldn't have the means of doing it alone.

How was the New World "supposed to have none (riches)????" Who had decided at the time what it was supposed to have?? It was unknown. Columbus found gold on the first island he landed on.

Aren't we talking about a time before the discovery of the New World? After the discovery people knew what to expect, but not before.

originally posted by: ArMaP
"Looks like" doesn't mean much when we are talking about what is basically a wall.

If that was really a dock, where is the rest of the harbour system? If they needed such a large dock then they had a large movement of goods to and from ships, and there's no sign of any other structure supporting that movement of goods.

Many times, a rock is just a rock.

They may have built some sort of causeway with wooden walls and earth fill which later mineralized.

The rest of the harbor system has eroded away. The Bimini Road is no longer connected to land if it ever was.

Port Royal was an entire city which vanished during one of the area's earthquakes. It could have happened in other places as well. The area does have earthquake and volcano activity.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Solvedit
They took a break from piracy to do some smuggling.

That would mean spending a few months without gaining any money before they were able to do that "smuggling".

I thought we settled the issue about the oceans.

We did not.

Why do you talk as if pirates or smugglers from the Indian or Mediterranean could not have sailed the Atlantic? Was there an official rule that each band of pirates was confined to one ocean?

They could, but why would they stop their regular money getting schemes to spend a few months without getting any thing just to see if they were lucky?
That doesn't make sense.

Yes the Vikings did leave a settlement with stone buildings.

Where?

People had been sailing for thousands of years before Vikings but they couldn't cross the Atlantic even though individuals row across it alone today?

To cross the Atlantic we need two things: the will to do it and a way of doing it.
To have the will they would need a good reason that would take them away from their normal way of living to risk everything on a voyage to the unknown.
They had the way of doing it, but not in an easy way, they had to know the winds and the currents and with ships with square sails and low sides, like the ones used to sail along the shores of the Atlantic or on the Mediterranean (where you are never far from the shores) were not the best to cross the ocean.
In some respects, a rowing boat has advantages over a sail ship with a square sail, as it can move against the wind.
Also, going on an expedition without a known duration would mean taking a lot of food and drinking water, why do you think Christopher Columbus took three ships? One pirate ship wouldn't have the means of doing it alone.

How was the New World "supposed to have none (riches)????" Who had decided at the time what it was supposed to have?? It was unknown. Columbus found gold on the first island he landed on.

Aren't we talking about a time before the discovery of the New World? After the discovery people knew what to expect, but not before.

There's so much wrong with these points that I don't know where to begin.

Did pirates or smugglers have such regular, safe business that they would not walk away from their guaranteed normal income for a few months to check out the possibility of large undiscovered lands which may contain gold or people who wanted to buy their captured wares? Did they never need to sell a boatload of captured wares? Was there no one pursuing them or no competition in their line of work, so that there was no pressure to find a new way to make money? In short, is it a safe, steady job?

originally posted by: Solvedit
They may have built some sort of causeway with wooden walls and earth fill which later mineralized.

No remains of wood were found.

The rest of the harbor system has eroded away. The Bimini Road is no longer connected to land if it ever was.

Why only part was eroded? Erosion is not that selective, and even areas that were used by many people give different signs, like slightly different vegetation or different growth for the same kind of vegetation.
Eroded materials would also leave trace.

Port Royal was an entire city which vanished during one of the area's earthquakes. It could have happened in other places as well. The area does have earthquake and volcano activity.

True, do you know if the Bimini road has any signs of having been affected by earthquake activity? I haven't found any.

originally posted by: Solvedit
There's so much wrong with these points that I don't know where to begin.

The beginning is usually a good place to start.

Did pirates or smugglers have such regular, safe business that they would not walk away from their guaranteed normal income for a few months to check out the possibility of large undiscovered lands which may contain gold or people who wanted to buy their captured wares?

Compared with going in a voyage with no clear destination, duration and end? Yes.

Did they never need to sell a boatload of captured wares? Was there no one pursuing them or no competition in their line of work, so that there was no pressure to find a new way to make money? In short, is it a safe, steady job?

It wasn't a safe job, but it was safer than trying the unknown. And you are still ignoring that such an expedition would cost a huge amount of money.

originally posted by: ArMaPNo remains of wood were found.

After centuries in the ocean some wood might have decayed. They did not excavate the site completely.

I have grown tired of this thread. I don't think I will answer any more.

originally posted by: Solvedit

originally posted by: ArMaPNo remains of wood were found.

After centuries in the ocean some wood might have decayed. They did not excavate the site completely.

Some, or even most, but not all, that's why they are able to find old ships.

I have grown tired of this thread. I don't think I will answer any more.

OK.
I hope someone learned something from this discussion.

originally posted by: ArMaP
OK.
I hope someone learned something from this discussion.

I already knew some people on forums won't be told anything.

You seem unwilling to even consider the notion that there is grounds for speculation and that does not require proof. Perhaps you don't grasp that this is not a thesis defense but an internet forum where any person can post?