Charles -

Excellent stuff!  You made me realize I needed a post on the blog which invites
comments like yours.  I just created it today,

Would you mind putting this comment there?

I will comment both here and there:

You say there are some large stone structures at Flagler?  Concrete, of course,
implies 19th or 20th century, but still everything at these locations is
something to be aware of.  We can't expect there to be nothing modern, and
identifying what clearly IS modern helps to get to the bottom of this.  Navy
operations will be something to look into.  My first reaction is that they may
have just been patrolling in the already existing canals, as part of coastal
defense.  But that is just speculation on my part at this point.  We can't go on
speculation, not without turning it into something verifiable.

Steve


--- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, charles bruns <charbruns@...>
wrote:
>
> Dear Steve
>  
> outstanding!!!  I spent a couple of years poling a johnboat around Flagler
1&2.  at that time (2003) locals told me it was relic of US Navy operations on
the intercoastal during WWII.  never 'dug' into that as currently mound looting
is a capital offense or something in Florida.  actually the less said about it,
the better.  anything i ran across megalithical was made out of concrete. my
favorite area was located 1/4+ mile south of 100 on the main channel.  it was
called 'Bottle Beach' & was the old dump site.  salty tides have dissolved
everything but the glass.  Just one insite on one site by one member at one time
in his life.
>

An article about the Wallum Olum was written by Dr. Linda Grover and published
in March 2009 in the Newsletter of the Bois Forte Band of Chippewa.  The below
hyperlink on page 11 below shows the article.

http://www.boisforte.com/documents/Feb-March.pdf

The article describes how the Walllum Olum (painted record) includes much of the
Lenni lenapi knowledge on ancestry and migrations. The Ojibwe identify the Lenni
Lenapi as their "grandfathers" who recorded such knowledge on birchbark scrolls
or wooden tablets.

@Charles -

Thanks for your input.

We will be asking anyone we can find about the canals.


Steve

--- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, charles bruns <charbruns@...>
wrote:
>
>OMG.  someone asks me to put something somewhere?  However, have put two cents
in before and proved the depth of my foolishness.  Ask Florida Navy vets, there
are even some still above ground from that era.  Flagler public library, the
nice parkinglot in Flagler 2 and just south of 100 on the intercoastal, is
another good source and has extentive raised walkways over these wetlands -
worth a picnic-nice spot & free. 

Okay everyone. Go to your public library and look in a book on physical geography. You will then find that most of your "ancient canals" can be attributed to natural coastal features, such as barrier bars, spits, and dunes; also many coastal areas have networks of man made dredged canals, rivers and bays so developers can sell vacation home lots for docks and boats. And, the best way to connect inland coastal docking waters, both natural and man-made, is with linear canals, which like roads, get one from one place to another mostly efficiently by being as straight as possible. Also, some canals exist simply to keep swampy coastal real estate dry.

Shores in many places are lined with hotels, condos and private homes, and many of these front into the seashore and the boats used by shore dwellers and tourists must be docked in inlets, bays coastal rivers and lagoons. And also there is the Inter-coastal Waterway to consider. And, since a straight line gets a moving object from place to another, coastal canals are dredged that way wherever possible.

Deepwater dredges can be found docked in coastal areas when not in use, and can be spotted out on the ocean when in use. Keeping beaches from being washed away is serious business for the tourist trade. The dredges suck up sandy ocean water and deposit it into barges or it is pipe it directly onto a beach.

William Conner
Columbus, Ohio
BSJ Ohio University School of Journalism
Retired science writer, and author of "Iron Age America"

I am glad to see some fine replies to Steve's letter and invitation for input of the new research group and blog....from Charles, Ted, William Connor, as well interesting links submitted by Vince and MinnesotaStan that well relate to ancient navigation and waterway routes.

I tried to post a more detailed letter last night about my interest and at least ten days spent over two trips to the Miami Circle/Bay of Biscayne when hundreds of indiginous folks were staying on-site (and I in a sleazy hotel two blocks away) during early excavation before imminent domain was established and the giant DuPont Hotel project halted.  Vince's article sent to this group the other day mentioned Dr. Robert Carr, who was head archaeologist of the investigation taking place 'on the other side of the metal fence' from where we all were.  Even back a decade or so though long known that remains of countless civilizations over the millinnea rest under water, there still was little considerabtion ('considering the possibilities of....') among the various academic fields about drastic changes in water levels, shorelines, water routes/canals, etc. at particular significant sites. After I get better computer access, I will write more about my favorite pick of sites at the Miami Circle area....the large volume of 'boat' traffic I was told about by elders, shaman from Guatemala, Mexico/Yucatan, even into South America..."we all were there..." at that important site over a long, long period of time, even before the Tequesta layer of civilization that was being uncovered.  Not ruling out the possiblities of intra-continental sea traffic several millinnea ago, heavy boat traffic would create the necessity for the creation of wide, not very deep canals than it would the passage of large, heavy ships.  

In at least one of the links t Vince sent, archaeologist Robert Carr was mentioned.  I recall reading awhile back that Dr. Carr used the term "ancient canals", dated at least one site to 400 AD and possibly long before.  He was the head archaeologist at the Miami Circle dig when I flew down for a couple of visits just for the purpose of observing.  His assistant archaeologist spoke of the many layers of civilization evident to the dive team along the walls of the horridly polluted Bay of Biscayne yards from the ancient Circle. He said there was undoubtedly evidence far more ancient that had been covered over decades ago, resting forever beneath the parking lots of nearby major hotels.

Anyway, my personal trips to the Miami Circle and the fact that I was born near Miami during WWII (my dad was a bombardier) is one site I would focus my attention and assistance, if needed down there sometime for whatever reason other than financial.  My free airline "parent pass" is about to expire within the next few months because my son is leaving Delta for another job.

Here is a reply from Michael Cremo to my letter to him and a number of other non-AWS members that I sent to  Steve's and John Jensen's Ancient Canal Builders blog last night (beneath Ted Soja's fine commentary letter):

RE: http://ancientcanals.blogspot.com/
November 22, 2010 7:15 PM
From: "Michael A. Cremo"
To: beldingenglish@...

Dear M. Susan English,

Thank you very much for acquainting me with this interesting case in American prehistory. I have looked over the links that you provided, and the issues to me are clear. The authors are proposing lots of canals and waterways built in ancient times, and critics are suggesting they are either natural features of the coastal areas or recent manmade features. It seems to me the authors realize that the issue will most likely be settled by on the ground research. I certainly have no preconceived notion that the authors are not correct in their analysis. They could be ancient waterways. As you say, I am extremely busy. So I am not going to be able to actively join in the research. But it will be interesting to see what happens as the research continues.

Sincerely yours,

Michael A. Cremo

-------------------------------

Subj: http://ancientcanals.blogspot.com/
Date: 11/20/2010 11:28:26 AM Pacific Standard
From: beldingenglish@...
To: mail@...

Dear Michael,

I am a longstanding 'fan' of your work, books, etc., very much enjoyed the two hour Oopa Loopa Cafe radioblog interview you did a couple of years ago with Rick Osmon. Rick is a member of our Ancient Waterways Society yahoo group; he posted recently that he will be interviewing John Jensen soon on one of his radio programs.

AWS member Steve Garcia, a Chicago engineer who grew up near the Cahokia Mounds is a longtime close friend of David Hatcher Childress, Chris Dunn, Dr. John DeSalvo and many of the board members of the Great Pyramid of Giza Research Assoc. Steve has been actively involved with founder John Jenson and the Ancient Canal Builders in America team: http://www.ancientcanalbuilders.com/

This week, looking for input, Garcia and Jensen began the Ancient Canal Builder's blog: http://ancientcanals.blogspot.com/
which was the reason behind his invitational post to our small Ancient Waterways web group:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_waterways_society/message/1913

I have little problem fathoming very, very ancient canals and that wide water routes existed thousands of years ago, or that those once of considerable depth would still be visible by such imagery as Google Earth. It is my hope you know of others who are able to keep open minds in studying satellite/GoogleEarth imagery, when scuba diving ancient water routes and shorelines.

Only one so far has subscribed to Garcia's and Jensen's Ancient Canal Builder's blog, and these are very bright fellows who take strong scientific and broad field, large picture views.

I know you are extremely busy, Mr. Cremo, but if anyone can evidence and /or consider the possibilities within some of the research of Jensen, Garcia, etc., it would be you.

Thank you for the courage and perserverance within your life's work.

Cordially,
M. Susan English, C. Wisconsin
a co-host at Ancient Waterways Society
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_waterways_society/

November 23, 2010 2:35 AM

 In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "bigalemc2" <puppet@...> wrote:
>
> I've been away for quite some time. I ran across something related to AW that I thought you should all know about.
>
> At www.ancientcanalbuilders.com you will find the darnedest thing - a huge system of canals all over the upper U.S. Gulf coast and eastern seaboard. It is possibly more than one system, actually, and possibly more than one time period.
>
> Some of the canals are up to 300 feet wide and 100 miles long. Some seem to be waterways and some appear to be irrigation canals. They extend all the way from Maine to Texas. The bayous of Louisiana being one major area, and Seabrook, NH is perhaps the largest one.
>
> One of the most amazing thing about these is that no one noticed them till now. John Jensen from Florida was browsing Google Earth looking for something else entirely, when he saw something that wasn't supposed to be there - straight canals, some extending out into the Gulf of Mexico. The patterns are very complex.
>
> No clear explanation for them comes to mind, though irrigation is one prominent one that is being explored. But irrigation does not require canals well over 100 feet wide and 25 feet deep.
>
> There is also a blog at http://ancientcanals.blogspot.com/, and you are all invited to acquaint yourselves at the ancientcanalbuilders.com site and then comment on the blog.
>
> I'd like to hear your take on all this. I've allowed myself to get shanghaied into creating and moderating the blog, something I wasn't sure I should do.
>
> But I figured if anyone had intelligent input the folks here at AW would.
>
> Come check it out.
>
> Steve
>

One of the issues we will be dealing with on the canal sites will be the question of age: How old ARE these things, anyway?

One way is to look at erosion.  Not all are susceptible to erosion, but we don't have to measure every one to have an idea of erosion rates.  One site that erosion was visible is at Barnegat, NJ - actually out on the barrier sand bar at Loveladies, NJ...

...This tells us that it has been 210 years since that last bar of land began eroding through at this point along the length of the canal.  Add or subtract 40 years from that for the assumed 20% imprecision, so the date is from 170-250 years ago.   That would be 1760 to 1840.

BTW, this assumes two things: That the erosion rate was constant, and that there was only ONE bar.  For each additional bar, add approximately 280 years.  We cannot assume additional ones, but neither can we rule them out at this time...

...Conclusions:  

1. The 80-foot wide canals are at least 170 years old.  Reason: Recent erosion rates, extrapolated back in time.

2. The 4-foot canals are older than the 80-foot canals - probably by several years, if not decades or centuries.  Reason: Digging the 80-foot canals did not completely remove evidence of the 4-foot canals.

3. The purpose of the 4-foot canals was different than the purpose of the 80-foot canals.  Reason: The PATTERN of the 4-foot canals is different from the 80-foot canal pattern.

4.  Modern developers re-utilized existing canals, which were conveniently spaced and sized for their purposes.  Reason: Measurements of similar on-water developments in FL show a range of 55-145 feet for canals and 210-300 feet for land between canals.  The 80/242 here falls well within those ranges.

In what direction to the Chattahoochee from the Springs and Euchi Valley? This
is exciting! Something to consider in my own project I somehow over looked.

I am sorry to report that possible Wari marbles ((107c)of quartz, marble and
clay were destroyed in house fire presumably, conditions exceeding 1200 degrees.

be well,
jamey



--- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, William Conner
<conner6343@...> wrote:
>
> Vince Barrows:
>
> Thanks for your detailed defense of your ancient canals theory!  It now seems
to
> me that you have a mystery on the level of the giant Nazca imagery of South
> America.   Also, you have won me as a convert after I zoomed down to the
high
> country there and revisited the Nazca lines.  What really struck me in
comparing
> the two is that the extremely long and straight double lines in your areas in
> North America closely resemble the extremely long and straight lines of
Nazca! 
> You have a mystery!
>
> I certainly have not intended to be adversarial maliciously but to draw out
from
> you the detailed defense.  So it may be that your prehistoric imagery was
> created for the same reason as my newly discovered huge animal effigy in
Central
> Ohio and a possible and even larger snake effigy just above.  To prove I was
the
> first to discover these images, I posted them to the web on my blog
"Explorer's
> Bill's Science Fiction."  Doing this is one of the great wonders of the
web! 
> You find something new and stake a dated claim to it by posting the imagery on
a
> web site or on a blog.
>
> William Conner
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Vincent Barrows <v_barrows@...>
> To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, November 22, 2010 5:20:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [ancient_waterways_society] Re: "Ancient Canals?"
>
>  
> A set of ancient canals was built in Florida nearby Ortona Mound. These
canals
> are identified by Archaeologists as the longest set of "prehistoric" canoe
> canals. The 5-mile long Ortona Canals have been identified to have
> been constructed around 1200 AD.   See the following sources for more
> information:
> http://www.mnemotrix.com/geo/ortona/ortona.html
> http://www.mnemotrix.com/geo/ortona/ortona.pdf
> http://www.nps.gov/nhl/designations/samples/fl/Mud%20Lake%20Canal.pdf
>  
> So we cannot rule out the possibilty of more ancient canals, even though
more
> research is needed to confirm the date of construction for these features.
>
>  
> The contribution of this information as possible ancient waterways is
> appreciated. A potential research path for further discussion is the
> construction and use of prehistoric aquaducts. 
>
>  
> Thanks;
> Vince
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: bigalemc2 <puppet@...>
> To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, November 22, 2010 1:26:50 PM
> Subject: [ancient_waterways_society] Re: "Ancient Canals?"
>
>  
> (This is being cross-posted at http://ancientcanals.blogspot.com/)
>
> William -
>
> Thanks for your information and opinion. We agree with you that - though the
> name of the site is "Ancient Canal Builders" - we should do everything we can
to
> try to explain them as modern, up to the moment that explanation doesn't fit.
> The title does tell visitors that we have looked into this, and - to our own
> satisfaction - the modern explanations do not suffice. We have put many, many
> hours into this already and would not be continuing without having asked a lot
> of questions ourselves. Part of our early efforts are to explain to visitors
why
> we have come to this conclusion. That will take some time, and in the meantime
> we do expect others to question our thinking.
>
> To begin:
>
> We are aware of all the things you point out. It is our opinion at this time
> that those 'explanations' do not suffice to explain the geographical extent of
> the canals, their provenance, nor their number, nor the geography of any of
> them. We may find some that are explainable as modern, and their similarities
> argue that if any are modern, then all of them are modern - and if any of them
> are shown to be not modern, then probably none of them are. So a good deal of
> our effort is going into determining what they are not.
>
> They are clearly not barrier bars. First of all, they are canals, not
> protuberances sticking up out of the water. (Did you even bother going to the
> site?) They are not spits. They do not appear at all like dunes; in fact, they
> do not appear in sandy places. Most are in mud flats or grassy areas.
>
> BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5542438692150511410 width=779 height=607>
> Weekapaug, RI
> (Those canals are mostly less than the width of a car.)
>
> Some are actually submerged in the Gulf of Mexico.
>
> Many - perhaps most - of the canals branch out off rivers and streams hundreds
> of yards (some of them even miles) from the current shore line, after which
they
> branch again and then again, several iterations, all with canal widths that
are
> unnatural in their consistency.
>
> Our preliminary conclusion: These do not appear to be barrier bars, dunes or
> spits. They are definitely not natural. If you have been to the site and seen
> the satellite images you would see that immediately.  Your opening generic
> statement that "most of your "ancient canals" can be attributed to natural
> coastal features" turns out to have no substance.
>
> We are looking into records of man made dredging. One thing is certain: If
these
> were done by the Army Corps of Engineers, they are not taking credit for them
in
> our first perusal of the COE information. We do not rule that out at this
time;
> it is too early to say.
>
> As to developers, there are plenty of retirement/vacation home or waterside
> developments to compare these to. Based on lot size, spacing of canals, width,
> geometry, configuration, etc., we have reason to believe this explanation
falls
> short. It is under consideration, and if it turns out this is correct, we will
> readily go with that. There are two types/classes that we've seen that seem to
> warrant comparison with water-side developments. One has many short wide
> branches and one has long parallel narrow canals. Neither class appears
similar
> in any particular ways to developed ones nearby, so if developers did all
these
> - known developments, short wide canals, or long parallel ones, then we find
it
> odd that the developed ones look nothing like either of the other two classes.
> So, for now, we believe we are justified in being open to other explanations.
>
> If these are from developers, they dredged what appear to be thousands of
miles
> of canals which they never actually developed. Developers are not prone to
such
> waste of money. But we do take this possibility seriously, nevertheless.
>
> One odd feature of these canals is that there are no, or next to no,
> developments using them or any of the same geometry. No boats, no homes, no
pier
> facilities. If there are exceptions to this, they are rare. We are talking
> thousands of these smaller canals.
>
> As to keeping coastal real estate dry, this is a reasonable observation, one
we
> are also aware of. This might explain a small minority of these smaller
canals.
> However, many of the exact some types are located in areas clearly not in need
> of drainage. We will, however, consider this for these areas too. We do not
> pretend to know all the reasons people do things. This explanation of yours
> sounds good on the surface, but if you look at the satellite photos, you would
> see features and locations that support our skepticism about this explanation.
> Many of these are deep in the bayous of Louisiana while the same exact type is
> in New Hampshire. We believe that a common explanation is needed; we doubt
this
> one is adequate to explain them all.
>
> Intercoastal Waterway - two of the three people involved are coastal dwellers
(I
> am not), and they are quite familiar with these. I am reasonably informed
about
> these, even though I don't live there. The vast majority of this type canal is
> in the bayous of Louisiana, criss-crossing like pick-up-sticks. Many
> Intercaostal waterways are not done like that. There also is no Intercoastal
> Waterway in that area. These canals are oriented to all sorts of skewed
angles,
> with a high density that contributes nothing to coastal transportation.
> BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5542448207126046546 width=777 height=666>
> SE of Golden Meadows, LA
>
> (This area of mud flats is all but in the Gulf of Mexico. The whiter areas on
> the left are developed areas. The wider canals are over 300 feet wide. The
> double canal extends for about 100 miles east to west, going from nowhere to
> nowhere. The myriad crossing canals - what could they possibly be for?
> Development in mud flats? Not gonna happen. Intercoastal waterway? The double
> canal possibly, but the others? Protecting land? Please, tell me what sort of
> plan they were following. The dead end canals? The ones west of Golden Meadows
> are 200 and 300 feet wide wider than a football field - what developer or
> waterway management would make such wide canals. The land between the canals
> west of Golden Meadows is mostly not land, but water; essentially they are
> canals dug into water - what purpose could those possibly serve?)
>
> This argues against that explanation for the majority of these. Also, if you
> claim they are part of the Intercoastal Waterway, can you point to a source
that
> asserts this? If you are floating this explanation, please provide evidence,
not
> just that an Intercoastal Waterway exists. There IS no ICW in Louisiana, where
> the large canals are most common. If there is one in this specific area that
you
> know of? Who built it? Who maintains it? If you have answers, we are all in
> favor of hearing it. Generic hip shooting doe not answer questions. If they
> appear to be answers to you, they don't meet our level of questioning.
>
> In the middle of the large canals in Louisiana SW of Venice, near the mouth of
> the Mississippi River, is an elliptical canal about 2 miles in diameter with
> short canals extending in and out from it. Clearly not Intercoastal Waterway
> canals, even though they are along the coast.
>
> BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5542451858378181650 width=778 height=443>
> SW of Venice, LA
>
> (The oval on the right is 2 miles across.  All over this image are narrow,
wide,
> long, short canals that either go somehere or don't go somewhere,  There are
> short cross-connecting ones that are near the mouths of two canals - why have
> these when a few hundred yards away is open water?)
>
> Beaches - the large canals are certainly in areas in which there are no
beaches.
> Off the top of my head, none of the smaller ones are, either, since their
> inflowing water tends to be upriver and beaches are not in areas just upstream
> of the mouths of rivers. A cursory look at the canals on the web site will
show
> you this is a non-explanation.
>
> Even with a cursory glance at the images on the Ancientcanalbuilders.com site
> would show almost all of your speculations to be uninformed about the features
> the site talks about. So again I have to ask: Did you even visit the site? Did
> you even look at one image?
>
> I would just ask that you visit the site, look at the images, and then ask
> yourself if you would still toss out these speculative explanations.  We do
not
> have answers for these.  We put out no preconceived ideas as to what they are
> for.  If you have speculations, join the club.  But please don't just throw
out
> your BSJ and expect us to cower in the face of your already covered
> possibilities.  Tossing them out into the mix is fine, just don't do it and
then
> walk away.  Join the conversation.  Ad hoc speculation is not science, as
you
> would know, so if you could add substance and sources to your comments in the
> future it would be nice.   We would love that. 
>
>
> I will do so, too. Our single main source will continue to be the satellite
> images, but when necessary (and when we can find them) we will include
sources.
> When we speculate we hope to be consistent in labeling them as speculations. 
If
> we fail in that, please point it out.   When you speculate, can you label
them
> as such, too? Our main point at the present time is to ask questions. We are
> actually trying to not speculate even on who built them, if it appears someone
> in the long-ago past did; but we agree with you that first we should look at
> possible modern explanations.
>
> (I am cross-posting this at the blog site at
> http://ancientcanals.blogspot.com/.)
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, William Conner wrote:
>
> Okay everyone. Go to your public library and look in a book on physical
> geography. You will then find that most of your "ancient canals" can be
> attributed to natural coastal features, such as barrier bars, spits, and
dunes;
> also many coastal areas have networks of man made dredged canals, rivers and
> bays so developers can sell vacation home lots for docks and boats. And, the
> best way to connect inland coastal docking waters, both natural and man-made,
is
> with linear canals, which like roads, get one from one place to another mostly
> efficiently by being as straight as possible. Also, some canals exist simply
to
> keep swampy coastal real estate dry.
> >
> >Shores in many places are lined with hotels, condos and private homes, and
many
> >of these front into the seashore and the boats used by shore dwellers and
> >tourists must be docked in inlets, bays coastal rivers and lagoons. And also
> >there is the Inter-coastal Waterway to consider. And, since a straight line
gets
> >a moving object from place to another, coastal canals are dredged that way
> >wherever possible.
> >
> >Deepwater dredges can be found docked in coastal areas when not in use, and
can
> >be spotted out on the ocean when in use. Keeping beaches from being washed
away
> >is serious business for the tourist trade. The dredges suck up sandy ocean
water
> >and deposit it into barges or it is pipe it directly onto a beach.
> >
> >William Conner
> >Columbus, Ohio
> >BSJ Ohio University School of Journalism
> >Retired science writer, and author of "Iron Age America"
> >
>

Sorry Charlie,

According to anthropologist at FSU, the Timucua never were from what I gather a
coastal people; perhaps assigned to protect inland interest of possible invaders
but more than likey the Euchee or the Yuchi were no threat either just as they
were no threat to the European invaders either nor a threat to other
southeastern tribes as if they were a boarder patrol for many tribal peoples.
Euchee Valley may be assigned the southern most point of settlement but their
interests are at strategic locations. The first Scotchman to settle in the area
of the Yuchi describes the Springs (Defuniak)as pure and the area free of plague
and I was born 159 years later not even a quarter mile from the only circular
mound in all of North America.

Euchee Valley if I have my geology correct is south of the Springs. I have not
considered other settlements south of the the Springs besides Euchee Valley and
not aware of any suggestion or implications to prove or disprove otherwise.

In Educated political circles the idea of trading sacred objects is a profane
idea. To transport such an object would have to be virtually undetected. The
versatility of such bearers would have to be prepared and deliver. It is my
assumption also for such canals. There are only two artifacts of basalt that I'm
aware of, only one that has been  been transported discovered between 2000-2002
at the mouth of the Miami River the other could have accompanied such an event.
And that would be the object permitted to my care and research. These two
objects in my opinion were made for a specific event possibly an ordination that
accompanied some succession or grant or great defeat.

The GNAT photo here if views upside down resembles a serpent.

be well,
jmcjr


--- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, charles bruns <charbruns@...>
wrote:
>
> what the hey?  i learned something and it even touched my physical
space/location.  that spot the water meets the land, often called shore, has
attracted folks for a long time.  when you throw in the changing levels and
climates, doesn't that make the bowl spin.  great interaction on a fast paced
forum that cetainly allows diversity and a super data delivery.  Am real
thankful to get this stuff. 
>
> --- On Wed, 12/1/10, james m clark jr <jameyboy@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: james m clark jr <jameyboy@...>
> Subject: [ancient_waterways_society] Re: "Ancient Canals?"
> To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, December 1, 2010, 12:38 PM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> In what direction to the Chattahoochee from the Springs and Euchi Valley? This
is exciting! Something to consider in my own project I somehow over looked.
>
> I am sorry to report that possible Wari marbles ((107c)of quartz, marble and
clay were destroyed in house fire presumably, conditions exceeding 1200 degrees.
>
> be well,
> jamey
>
> --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, William Conner <conner6343@>
wrote:
> >
> > Vince Barrows:
> >
> > Thanks for your detailed defense of your ancient canals theory!  It now
seems to
> > me that you have a mystery on the level of the giant Nazca imagery of South
> > America.   Also, you have won me as a convert after I zoomed down
to the high
> > country there and revisited the Nazca lines.  What really struck me in
comparing
> > the two is that the extremely long and straight double lines in your areas
in
> > North America closely resemble the extremely long and straight lines of
Nazca! 
> > You have a mystery!
> >
> > I certainly have not intended to be adversarial maliciously but to draw out
from
> > you the detailed defense.  So it may be that your prehistoric
imagery was
> > created for the same reason as my newly discovered huge animal effigy in
Central
> > Ohio and a possible and even larger snake effigy just above.  To prove
I was the
> > first to discover these images, I posted them to the web on my blog
"Explorer's
> > Bill's Science Fiction."  Doing this is one of the great wonders of the
web! 
> > You find something new and stake a dated claim to it by posting the imagery
on a
> > web site or on a blog.
> >
> > William Conner
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Vincent Barrows <v_barrows@>
> > To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Mon, November 22, 2010 5:20:50 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ancient_waterways_society] Re: "Ancient Canals?"
> >
> >  
> > A set of ancient canals was built in Florida nearby Ortona Mound. These
canals
> > are identified by Archaeologists as the longest set of "prehistoric"
canoe
> > canals. The 5-mile long Ortona Canals have been identified to have
> > been constructed around 1200 AD.   See the following
sources for more
> > information:
> > http://www.mnemotrix.com/geo/ortona/ortona.html
> > http://www.mnemotrix.com/geo/ortona/ortona.pdf
> > http://www.nps.gov/nhl/designations/samples/fl/Mud%20Lake%20Canal.pdf
> >  
> > So we cannot rule out the possibilty of more ancient canals, even
though more
> > research is needed to confirm the date of construction for these
features.
> >
> >  
> > The contribution of this information as possible ancient
waterways is
> > appreciated. A potential research path for further discussion is the
> > construction and use of prehistoric aquaducts. 
> >
> >  
> > Thanks;
> > Vince
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: bigalemc2 <puppet@>
> > To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Mon, November 22, 2010 1:26:50 PM
> > Subject: [ancient_waterways_society] Re: "Ancient Canals?"
> >
> >  
> > (This is being cross-posted at http://ancientcanals.blogspot.com/)
> >
> > William -
> >
> > Thanks for your information and opinion. We agree with you that - though the
> > name of the site is "Ancient Canal Builders" - we should do everything we
can to
> > try to explain them as modern, up to the moment that explanation doesn't
fit.
> > The title does tell visitors that we have looked into this, and - to our own
> > satisfaction - the modern explanations do not suffice. We have put many,
many
> > hours into this already and would not be continuing without having asked a
lot
> > of questions ourselves. Part of our early efforts are to explain to visitors
why
> > we have come to this conclusion. That will take some time, and in the
meantime
> > we do expect others to question our thinking.
> >
> > To begin:
> >
> > We are aware of all the things you point out. It is our opinion at this time
> > that those 'explanations' do not suffice to explain the geographical extent
of
> > the canals, their provenance, nor their number, nor the geography of any of
> > them. We may find some that are explainable as modern, and their
similarities
> > argue that if any are modern, then all of them are modern - and if any of
them
> > are shown to be not modern, then probably none of them are. So a good deal
of
> > our effort is going into determining what they are not.
> >
> > They are clearly not barrier bars. First of all, they are canals, not
> > protuberances sticking up out of the water. (Did you even bother going to
the
> > site?) They are not spits. They do not appear at all like dunes; in fact,
they
> > do not appear in sandy places. Most are in mud flats or grassy areas.
> >
> > BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5542438692150511410 width=779 height=607>
> > Weekapaug, RI
> > (Those canals are mostly less than the width of a car.)
> >
> > Some are actually submerged in the Gulf of Mexico.
> >
> > Many - perhaps most - of the canals branch out off rivers and streams
hundreds
> > of yards (some of them even miles) from the current shore line, after which
they
> > branch again and then again, several iterations, all with canal widths that
are
> > unnatural in their consistency.
> >
> > Our preliminary conclusion: These do not appear to be barrier bars, dunes or
> > spits. They are definitely not natural. If you have been to the site and
seen
> > the satellite images you would see that immediately.  Your opening
generic
> > statement that "most of your "ancient canals" can be attributed to natural
> > coastal features" turns out to have no substance.
> >
> > We are looking into records of man made dredging. One thing is certain: If
these
> > were done by the Army Corps of Engineers, they are not taking credit for
them in
> > our first perusal of the COE information. We do not rule that out at this
time;
> > it is too early to say.
> >
> > As to developers, there are plenty of retirement/vacation home or waterside
> > developments to compare these to. Based on lot size, spacing of canals,
width,
> > geometry, configuration, etc., we have reason to believe this explanation
falls
> > short. It is under consideration, and if it turns out this is correct, we
will
> > readily go with that. There are two types/classes that we've seen that seem
to
> > warrant comparison with water-side developments. One has many short wide
> > branches and one has long parallel narrow canals. Neither class appears
similar
> > in any particular ways to developed ones nearby, so if developers did all
these
> > - known developments, short wide canals, or long parallel ones, then we find
it
> > odd that the developed ones look nothing like either of the other two
classes.
> > So, for now, we believe we are justified in being open to other
explanations.
> >
> > If these are from developers, they dredged what appear to be thousands of
miles
> > of canals which they never actually developed. Developers are not prone to
such
> > waste of money. But we do take this possibility seriously, nevertheless.
> >
> > One odd feature of these canals is that there are no, or next to no,
> > developments using them or any of the same geometry. No boats, no homes, no
pier
> > facilities. If there are exceptions to this, they are rare. We are talking
> > thousands of these smaller canals.
> >
> > As to keeping coastal real estate dry, this is a reasonable observation, one
we
> > are also aware of. This might explain a small minority of these smaller
canals.
> > However, many of the exact some types are located in areas clearly not in
need
> > of drainage. We will, however, consider this for these areas too. We do not
> > pretend to know all the reasons people do things. This explanation of yours
> > sounds good on the surface, but if you look at the satellite photos, you
would
> > see features and locations that support our skepticism about this
explanation.
> > Many of these are deep in the bayous of Louisiana while the same exact type
is
> > in New Hampshire. We believe that a common explanation is needed; we doubt
this
> > one is adequate to explain them all.
> >
> > Intercoastal Waterway - two of the three people involved are coastal
dwellers (I
> > am not), and they are quite familiar with these. I am reasonably informed
about
> > these, even though I don't live there. The vast majority of this type canal
is
> > in the bayous of Louisiana, criss-crossing like pick-up-sticks. Many
> > Intercaostal waterways are not done like that. There also is no Intercoastal
> > Waterway in that area. These canals are oriented to all sorts of skewed
angles,
> > with a high density that contributes nothing to coastal transportation.
> > BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5542448207126046546 width=777 height=666>
> > SE of Golden Meadows, LA
> >
> > (This area of mud flats is all but in the Gulf of Mexico. The whiter areas
on
> > the left are developed areas. The wider canals are over 300 feet wide. The
> > double canal extends for about 100 miles east to west, going from nowhere to
> > nowhere. The myriad crossing canals - what could they possibly be for?
> > Development in mud flats? Not gonna happen. Intercoastal waterway? The
double
> > canal possibly, but the others? Protecting land? Please, tell me what sort
of
> > plan they were following. The dead end canals? The ones west of Golden
Meadows
> > are 200 and 300 feet wide wider than a football field - what developer or
> > waterway management would make such wide canals. The land between the canals
> > west of Golden Meadows is mostly not land, but water; essentially they are
> > canals dug into water - what purpose could those possibly serve?)
> >
> > This argues against that explanation for the majority of these. Also, if you
> > claim they are part of the Intercoastal Waterway, can you point to a source
that
> > asserts this? If you are floating this explanation, please provide evidence,
not
> > just that an Intercoastal Waterway exists. There IS no ICW in Louisiana,
where
> > the large canals are most common. If there is one in this specific area that
you
> > know of? Who built it? Who maintains it? If you have answers, we are all in
> > favor of hearing it. Generic hip shooting doe not answer questions. If they
> > appear to be answers to you, they don't meet our level of questioning.
> >
> > In the middle of the large canals in Louisiana SW of Venice, near the mouth
of
> > the Mississippi River, is an elliptical canal about 2 miles in diameter with
> > short canals extending in and out from it. Clearly not Intercoastal Waterway
> > canals, even though they are along the coast.
> >
> > BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5542451858378181650 width=778 height=443>
> > SW of Venice, LA
> >
> > (The oval on the right is 2 miles across.  All over this image are
narrow, wide,
> > long, short canals that either go somehere or don't go somewhere,  There
are
> > short cross-connecting ones that are near the mouths of two canals - why
have
> > these when a few hundred yards away is open water?)
> >
> > Beaches - the large canals are certainly in areas in which there are no
beaches.
> > Off the top of my head, none of the smaller ones are, either, since their
> > inflowing water tends to be upriver and beaches are not in areas just
upstream
> > of the mouths of rivers. A cursory look at the canals on the web site will
show
> > you this is a non-explanation.
> >
> > Even with a cursory glance at the images on the Ancientcanalbuilders.com
site
> > would show almost all of your speculations to be uninformed about the
features
> > the site talks about. So again I have to ask: Did you even visit the site?
Did
> > you even look at one image?
> >
> > I would just ask that you visit the site, look at the images, and then ask
> > yourself if you would still toss out these speculative explanations.  We
do not
> > have answers for these.  We put out no preconceived ideas as to what they
are
> > for.  If you have speculations, join the club.  But please don't just
throw out
> > your BSJ and expect us to cower in the face of your already covered
> > possibilities.  Tossing them out into the mix is fine, just don't do it
and then
> > walk away.  Join the conversation.  Ad hoc speculation is not science,
as you
> > would know, so if you could add substance and sources to your comments in
the
> > future it would be nice.   We would love that. 
> >
> >
> > I will do so, too. Our single main source will continue to be the satellite
> > images, but when necessary (and when we can find them) we will include
sources.
> > When we speculate we hope to be consistent in labeling them as
speculations.  If
> > we fail in that, please point it out.   When you speculate, can you
label them
> > as such, too? Our main point at the present time is to ask questions. We are
> > actually trying to not speculate even on who built them, if it appears
someone
> > in the long-ago past did; but we agree with you that first we should look at
> > possible modern explanations.
> >
> > (I am cross-posting this at the blog site at
> > http://ancientcanals.blogspot.com/.)
> >
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, William Conner wrote:
> >
> > Okay everyone. Go to your public library and look in a book on physical
> > geography. You will then find that most of your "ancient canals" can be
> > attributed to natural coastal features, such as barrier bars, spits, and
dunes;
> > also many coastal areas have networks of man made dredged canals, rivers and
> > bays so developers can sell vacation home lots for docks and boats. And, the
> > best way to connect inland coastal docking waters, both natural and
man-made, is
> > with linear canals, which like roads, get one from one place to another
mostly
> > efficiently by being as straight as possible. Also, some canals exist simply
to
> > keep swampy coastal real estate dry.
> > >
> > >Shores in many places are lined with hotels, condos and private homes, and
many
> > >of these front into the seashore and the boats used by shore dwellers and
> > >tourists must be docked in inlets, bays coastal rivers and lagoons. And
also
> > >there is the Inter-coastal Waterway to consider. And, since a straight line
gets
> > >a moving object from place to another, coastal canals are dredged that way
> > >wherever possible.
> > >
> > >Deepwater dredges can be found docked in coastal areas when not in use, and
can
> > >be spotted out on the ocean when in use. Keeping beaches from being washed
away
> > >is serious business for the tourist trade. The dredges suck up sandy ocean
water
> > >and deposit it into barges or it is pipe it directly onto a beach.
> > >
> > >William Conner
> > >Columbus, Ohio
> > >BSJ Ohio University School of Journalism
> > >Retired science writer, and author of "Iron Age America"
> > >
> >
>

Credit is due to Mark Hall moderator of Ethnohistory @ Yahoo newsgroups and
member of ArchaeologyTheoryMethod.

be well,
jmcjr

A team of European researchers says the discovery of what appears to be a strain
of first nations DNA among a small group of Icelanders -- which the scientists
have linked to Viking voyages to Canada about 1,000 years ago -- may represent
the survival, at least genetically, of the Beothuk, victims of Canadian
history's most tragic cultural extinction.

The DNA discovery may also help solve one of the country's most enduring
mysteries: the identity of the so-called "skraelings" of the medieval Viking
sagas -- natives whose attacks forced Leif Ericsson and his fellow Norse
colonists to abandon their landmark New World settlement a millennium ago at
present-day L'Anse aux Meadows in northern Newfoundland.

rest at--

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Extinct+Beothuk+survive+Icelanders/385287\
\
2/story.html

Welcome back, Jamey.   I have always enjoyed  your postings here.  Your
fieldwork a few years ago working with a family (and, coincidently,
another neighbor who had found the same type of objects) in sink holes
and caves on their properties along the Tennessee Highland Rim that were
filled with what seemed to be very ancient stone birds of various sizes
and shapes, and giant animal or reptile bones, etc.    This was and is a
subject that still stirs my blood and I hope to learn more about it.
You were sharing this at the PreColumbian Inscriptions YahooGroup but
also a bit with us at Ancient Waterways.   If anything has progressed
since that time (2008?) that you are able to share, please let us know.
I know there was a confidelity agreement you had at that time.  This
group has probably tripled since you had written here last, so if you
are able to discuss that area of your work with this group, please give
a background on it.

The Ancient Canal Builders in America web site and blog that Steve
Garcia has been sharing with this group and has helped found is
something that will be ongoing in my own personal  investigations and PR
work...very very much at the roots of why I even wanted and needed to
help start an ancient waterways group.  That group and its members are
following scientific and engineering channels that seem to me to be
causing a stir even beyond the Americas.   Google "Ancient Canal
Builders in America" and I see dozens of web groups, sites discussing
their work.

Out of time at the lbirary.  more later.  Susan


--- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "james m clark jr"
<jameyboy@...> wrote:
>
> In what direction to the Chattahoochee from the Springs and Euchi
Valley? This is exciting! Something to consider in my own project I
somehow over looked.
>
> I am sorry to report that possible Wari marbles ((107c)of quartz,
marble and clay were destroyed in house fire presumably, conditions
exceeding 1200 degrees.
>
> be well,
> jamey
>
>
>
> --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, William Conner
conner6343@ wrote:
> >
> > Vince Barrows:
> >
> > Thanks for your detailed defense of your ancient canals theory!Â
It now seems to
> > me that you have a mystery on the level of the giant Nazca imagery
of South
> > America.   Also, you have won me as a convert after I
zoomed down to the high
> > country there and revisited the Nazca lines.  What really struck
me in comparing
> > the two is that the extremely long and straight double lines in your
areas in
> > North America closely resemble the extremely long and straight lines
of Nazca!Â
> > You have a mystery!
> >
> > I certainly have not intended to be adversarial maliciously but to
draw out from
> > you the detailed defense.  So it may be that your
prehistoric imagery was
> > created for the same reason as my newly discovered huge animal
effigy in Central
> > Ohio and a possible and even larger snake effigy just above.Â
To prove I was the
> > first to discover these images, I posted them to the web on my blog
"Explorer's
> > Bill's Science Fiction."Â  Doing this is one of the great wonders
of the web!Â
> > You find something new and stake a dated claim to it by posting the
imagery on a
> > web site or on a blog.
> >
> > William Conner
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Vincent Barrows v_barrows@
> > To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Mon, November 22, 2010 5:20:50 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ancient_waterways_society] Re: "Ancient Canals?"
> >
> > Â
> > A set of ancient canals was built in Florida nearby Ortona
Mound. These canals
> > are identified by Archaeologists as the longest set of
"prehistoric" canoe
> > canals. The 5-mile long Ortona Canals have been
identified to have
> > been constructed around 1200 AD.   See the
following sources for more
> > information:
> > http://www.mnemotrix.com/geo/ortona/ortona.html
> > http://www.mnemotrix.com/geo/ortona/ortona.pdf
> >
http://www.nps.gov/nhl/designations/samples/fl/Mud%20Lake%20Canal.pdf
> > Â
> > So we cannot rule out the possibilty of more ancient canals,
even though more
> > research is needed to confirm the date of construction for these
features.
> >
> > Â
> > The contribution of this information as possible ancient
waterways is
> > appreciated. A potential research path for further
discussion is the
> > construction and use of prehistoric aquaducts.Â
> >
> > Â
> > Thanks;
> > Vince
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: bigalemc2 puppet@
> > To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Mon, November 22, 2010 1:26:50 PM
> > Subject: [ancient_waterways_society] Re: "Ancient Canals?"
> >
> > Â
> > (This is being cross-posted at http://ancientcanals.blogspot.com/)
> >
> > William -
> >
> > Thanks for your information and opinion. We agree with you that -
though the
> > name of the site is "Ancient Canal Builders" - we should do
everything we can to
> > try to explain them as modern, up to the moment that explanation
doesn't fit.
> > The title does tell visitors that we have looked into this, and - to
our own
> > satisfaction - the modern explanations do not suffice. We have put
many, many
> > hours into this already and would not be continuing without having
asked a lot
> > of questions ourselves. Part of our early efforts are to explain to
visitors why
> > we have come to this conclusion. That will take some time, and in
the meantime
> > we do expect others to question our thinking.
> >
> > To begin:
> >
> > We are aware of all the things you point out. It is our opinion at
this time
> > that those 'explanations' do not suffice to explain the geographical
extent of
> > the canals, their provenance, nor their number, nor the geography of
any of
> > them. We may find some that are explainable as modern, and their
similarities
> > argue that if any are modern, then all of them are modern - and if
any of them
> > are shown to be not modern, then probably none of them are. So a
good deal of
> > our effort is going into determining what they are not.
> >
> > They are clearly not barrier bars. First of all, they are canals,
not
> > protuberances sticking up out of the water. (Did you even bother
going to the
> > site?) They are not spits. They do not appear at all like dunes; in
fact, they
> > do not appear in sandy places. Most are in mud flats or grassy
areas.
> >
> > BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5542438692150511410 width=779 height=607>
> > Weekapaug, RI
> > (Those canals are mostly less than the width of a car.)
> >
> > Some are actually submerged in the Gulf of Mexico.
> >
> > Many - perhaps most - of the canals branch out off rivers and
streams hundreds
> > of yards (some of them even miles) from the current shore line,
after which they
> > branch again and then again, several iterations, all with canal
widths that are
> > unnatural in their consistency.
> >
> > Our preliminary conclusion: These do not appear to be barrier bars,
dunes or
> > spits. They are definitely not natural. If you have been to the site
and seen
> > the satellite images you would see that immediately.  Your
opening generic
> > statement that "most of your "ancient canals" can be attributed to
natural
> > coastal features" turns out to have no substance.
> >
> > We are looking into records of man made dredging. One thing is
certain: If these
> > were done by the Army Corps of Engineers, they are not taking credit
for them in
> > our first perusal of the COE information. We do not rule that out at
this time;
> > it is too early to say.
> >
> > As to developers, there are plenty of retirement/vacation home or
waterside
> > developments to compare these to. Based on lot size, spacing of
canals, width,
> > geometry, configuration, etc., we have reason to believe this
explanation falls
> > short. It is under consideration, and if it turns out this is
correct, we will
> > readily go with that. There are two types/classes that we've seen
that seem to
> > warrant comparison with water-side developments. One has many short
wide
> > branches and one has long parallel narrow canals. Neither class
appears similar
> > in any particular ways to developed ones nearby, so if developers
did all these
> > - known developments, short wide canals, or long parallel ones, then
we find it
> > odd that the developed ones look nothing like either of the other
two classes.
> > So, for now, we believe we are justified in being open to other
explanations.
> >
> > If these are from developers, they dredged what appear to be
thousands of miles
> > of canals which they never actually developed. Developers are not
prone to such
> > waste of money. But we do take this possibility seriously,
nevertheless.
> >
> > One odd feature of these canals is that there are no, or next to no,
> > developments using them or any of the same geometry. No boats, no
homes, no pier
> > facilities. If there are exceptions to this, they are rare. We are
talking
> > thousands of these smaller canals.
> >
> > As to keeping coastal real estate dry, this is a reasonable
observation, one we
> > are also aware of. This might explain a small minority of these
smaller canals.
> > However, many of the exact some types are located in areas clearly
not in need
> > of drainage. We will, however, consider this for these areas too. We
do not
> > pretend to know all the reasons people do things. This explanation
of yours
> > sounds good on the surface, but if you look at the satellite photos,
you would
> > see features and locations that support our skepticism about this
explanation.
> > Many of these are deep in the bayous of Louisiana while the same
exact type is
> > in New Hampshire. We believe that a common explanation is needed; we
doubt this
> > one is adequate to explain them all.
> >
> > Intercoastal Waterway - two of the three people involved are coastal
dwellers (I
> > am not), and they are quite familiar with these. I am reasonably
informed about
> > these, even though I don't live there. The vast majority of this
type canal is
> > in the bayous of Louisiana, criss-crossing like pick-up-sticks. Many
> > Intercaostal waterways are not done like that. There also is no
Intercoastal
> > Waterway in that area. These canals are oriented to all sorts of
skewed angles,
> > with a high density that contributes nothing to coastal
transportation.
> > BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5542448207126046546 width=777 height=666>
> > SE of Golden Meadows, LA
> >
> > (This area of mud flats is all but in the Gulf of Mexico. The whiter
areas on
> > the left are developed areas. The wider canals are over 300 feet
wide. The
> > double canal extends for about 100 miles east to west, going from
nowhere to
> > nowhere. The myriad crossing canals - what could they possibly be
for?
> > Development in mud flats? Not gonna happen. Intercoastal waterway?
The double
> > canal possibly, but the others? Protecting land? Please, tell me
what sort of
> > plan they were following. The dead end canals? The ones west of
Golden Meadows
> > are 200 and 300 feet wide wider than a football field - what
developer or
> > waterway management would make such wide canals. The land between
the canals
> > west of Golden Meadows is mostly not land, but water; essentially
they are
> > canals dug into water - what purpose could those possibly serve?)
> >
> > This argues against that explanation for the majority of these.
Also, if you
> > claim they are part of the Intercoastal Waterway, can you point to a
source that
> > asserts this? If you are floating this explanation, please provide
evidence, not
> > just that an Intercoastal Waterway exists. There IS no ICW in
Louisiana, where
> > the large canals are most common. If there is one in this specific
area that you
> > know of? Who built it? Who maintains it? If you have answers, we are
all in
> > favor of hearing it. Generic hip shooting doe not answer questions.
If they
> > appear to be answers to you, they don't meet our level of
questioning.
> >
> > In the middle of the large canals in Louisiana SW of Venice, near
the mouth of
> > the Mississippi River, is an elliptical canal about 2 miles in
diameter with
> > short canals extending in and out from it. Clearly not Intercoastal
Waterway
> > canals, even though they are along the coast.
> >
> > BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5542451858378181650 width=778 height=443>
> > SW of Venice, LA
> >
> > (The oval on the right is 2 miles across.  All over this image
are narrow, wide,
> > long, short canals that either go somehere or don't go
somewhere,  There are
> > short cross-connecting ones that are near the mouths of two canals -
why have
> > these when a few hundred yards away is open water?)
> >
> > Beaches - the large canals are certainly in areas in which there are
no beaches.
> > Off the top of my head, none of the smaller ones are, either, since
their
> > inflowing water tends to be upriver and beaches are not in areas
just upstream
> > of the mouths of rivers. A cursory look at the canals on the web
site will show
> > you this is a non-explanation.
> >
> > Even with a cursory glance at the images on the
Ancientcanalbuilders.com site
> > would show almost all of your speculations to be uninformed about
the features
> > the site talks about. So again I have to ask: Did you even visit the
site? Did
> > you even look at one image?
> >
> > I would just ask that you visit the site, look at the images, and
then ask
> > yourself if you would still toss out these speculative
explanations.  We do not
> > have answers for these.  We put out no preconceived ideas as to
what they are
> > for.  If you have speculations, join the club.  But please
don't just throw out
> > your BSJ and expect us to cower in the face of your already covered
> > possibilities.  Tossing them out into the mix is fine, just
don't do it and then
> > walk away.  Join the conversation.  Ad hoc speculation is
not science, as you
> > would know, so if you could add substance and sources to your
comments in the
> > future it would be nice.   We would love that.Â
> >
> >
> > I will do so, too. Our single main source will continue to be the
satellite
> > images, but when necessary (and when we can find them) we will
include sources.
> > When we speculate we hope to be consistent in labeling them as
speculations.  If
> > we fail in that, please point it out.   When you speculate,
can you label them
> > as such, too? Our main point at the present time is to ask
questions. We are
> > actually trying to not speculate even on who built them, if it
appears someone
> > in the long-ago past did; but we agree with you that first we should
look at
> > possible modern explanations.
> >
> > (I am cross-posting this at the blog site at
> > http://ancientcanals.blogspot.com/.)
> >
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, William Conner
wrote:
> >
> > Okay everyone. Go to your public library and look in a book on
physical
> > geography. You will then find that most of your "ancient canals" can
be
> > attributed to natural coastal features, such as barrier bars, spits,
and dunes;
> > also many coastal areas have networks of man made dredged canals,
rivers and
> > bays so developers can sell vacation home lots for docks and boats.
And, the
> > best way to connect inland coastal docking waters, both natural and
man-made, is
> > with linear canals, which like roads, get one from one place to
another mostly
> > efficiently by being as straight as possible. Also, some canals
exist simply to
> > keep swampy coastal real estate dry.
> > >
> > >Shores in many places are lined with hotels, condos and private
homes, and many
> > >of these front into the seashore and the boats used by shore
dwellers and
> > >tourists must be docked in inlets, bays coastal rivers and lagoons.
And also
> > >there is the Inter-coastal Waterway to consider. And, since a
straight line gets
> > >a moving object from place to another, coastal canals are dredged
that way
> > >wherever possible.
> > >
> > >Deepwater dredges can be found docked in coastal areas when not in
use, and can
> > >be spotted out on the ocean when in use. Keeping beaches from being
washed away
> > >is serious business for the tourist trade. The dredges suck up
sandy ocean water
> > >and deposit it into barges or it is pipe it directly onto a beach.
> > >
> > >William Conner
> > >Columbus, Ohio
> > >BSJ Ohio University School of Journalism
> > >Retired science writer, and author of "Iron Age America"
> > >
> >
>

Happy Hanukkah those of you who celobrate it Jew, Christian or otherwise.

I was never a visitor Doc just unfourtnate at times. Luckly MU carries JSTOR
publictions and a fairly large goodwill here.
Just 3 months ago I stumbled across Pivot of Asia used valued at 103.00 so
basicaly I got it 99% off... it to was beyond repair. My total Library came to
over 3000 for 140 books many I didn't include in the inssurence settlement so I
have to basically start from scratch. One of my fist books was Popuh Vuh it took
4 years to find that book way back when.

Not much progress Susan. I hope TASC Inc. (Tennessee Ancient Sites & Conserancy)
has gotten out of their slump since their Cherokee State Naturalist
represinitive is nolonger with them in the physical world. He was considered a
main contact for the Highland Rim investigation if it was to materalize. I
managed to contact Mark (TASC president) a bit worried informing him of my
predicument... there was no mistaking him for an enthusist more of a rabble
rouser. Richard was a stright to the point kind of guy my only Native American
hope at that time... so I'm considering the long term method hoping to
reestablish some sort feedback eventally. By then hopefully I'll have a
dependable contact in Tennessee or at least trust someone enough to establish
the Native American cause to encourge more Native Americans to be more involved
as they have been since TASC Inc. and Native American Earthworks both
established in 2003.

be well,
jamey


--- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" <beldingenglish@...>
wrote:
>
>
> Welcome back, Jamey.   I have always enjoyed  your postings here.  Your
> fieldwork a few years ago working with a family (and, coincidently,
> another neighbor who had found the same type of objects) in sink holes
> and caves on their properties along the Tennessee Highland Rim that were
> filled with what seemed to be very ancient stone birds of various sizes
> and shapes, and giant animal or reptile bones, etc.    This was and is a
> subject that still stirs my blood and I hope to learn more about it.
> You were sharing this at the PreColumbian Inscriptions YahooGroup but
> also a bit with us at Ancient Waterways.   If anything has progressed
> since that time (2008?) that you are able to share, please let us know.
> I know there was a confidelity agreement you had at that time.  This
> group has probably tripled since you had written here last, so if you
> are able to discuss that area of your work with this group, please give
> a background on it.
>
> The Ancient Canal Builders in America web site and blog that Steve
> Garcia has been sharing with this group and has helped found is
> something that will be ongoing in my own personal  investigations and PR
> work...very very much at the roots of why I even wanted and needed to
> help start an ancient waterways group.  That group and its members are
> following scientific and engineering channels that seem to me to be
> causing a stir even beyond the Americas.   Google "Ancient Canal
> Builders in America" and I see dozens of web groups, sites discussing
> their work.
>
> Out of time at the lbirary.  more later.  Susan
>
>
> --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "james m clark jr"
> <jameyboy@> wrote:
> >
> > In what direction to the Chattahoochee from the Springs and Euchi
> Valley? This is exciting! Something to consider in my own project I
> somehow over looked.
> >
> > I am sorry to report that possible Wari marbles ((107c)of quartz,
> marble and clay were destroyed in house fire presumably, conditions
> exceeding 1200 degrees.
> >
> > be well,
> > jamey
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, William Conner
> conner6343@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Vince Barrows:
> > >
> > > Thanks for your detailed defense of your ancient canals theory!Â
> It now seems to
> > > me that you have a mystery on the level of the giant Nazca imagery
> of South
> > > America.   Also, you have won me as a convert after I
> zoomed down to the high
> > > country there and revisited the Nazca lines.  What really struck
> me in comparing
> > > the two is that the extremely long and straight double lines in your
> areas in
> > > North America closely resemble the extremely long and straight lines
> of Nazca!Â
> > > You have a mystery!
> > >
> > > I certainly have not intended to be adversarial maliciously but to
> draw out from
> > > you the detailed defense.  So it may be that your
> prehistoric imagery was
> > > created for the same reason as my newly discovered huge animal
> effigy in Central
> > > Ohio and a possible and even larger snake effigy just above.Â
> To prove I was the
> > > first to discover these images, I posted them to the web on my blog
> "Explorer's
> > > Bill's Science Fiction."Â  Doing this is one of the great wonders
> of the web!Â
> > > You find something new and stake a dated claim to it by posting the
> imagery on a
> > > web site or on a blog.
> > >
> > > William Conner
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Vincent Barrows v_barrows@
> > > To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Mon, November 22, 2010 5:20:50 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [ancient_waterways_society] Re: "Ancient Canals?"
> > >
> > > Â
> > > A set of ancient canals was built in Florida nearby Ortona
> Mound. These canals
> > > are identified by Archaeologists as the longest set of
> "prehistoric" canoe
> > > canals. The 5-mile long Ortona Canals have been
> identified to have
> > > been constructed around 1200 AD.   See the
> following sources for more
> > > information:
> > > http://www.mnemotrix.com/geo/ortona/ortona.html
> > > http://www.mnemotrix.com/geo/ortona/ortona.pdf
> > >
> http://www.nps.gov/nhl/designations/samples/fl/Mud%20Lake%20Canal.pdf
> > > Â
> > > So we cannot rule out the possibilty of more ancient canals,
> even though more
> > > research is needed to confirm the date of construction for these
> features.
> > >
> > > Â
> > > The contribution of this information as possible ancient
> waterways is
> > > appreciated. A potential research path for further
> discussion is the
> > > construction and use of prehistoric aquaducts.Â
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Thanks;
> > > Vince
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: bigalemc2 puppet@
> > > To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Mon, November 22, 2010 1:26:50 PM
> > > Subject: [ancient_waterways_society] Re: "Ancient Canals?"
> > >
> > > Â
> > > (This is being cross-posted at http://ancientcanals.blogspot.com/)
> > >
> > > William -
> > >
> > > Thanks for your information and opinion. We agree with you that -
> though the
> > > name of the site is "Ancient Canal Builders" - we should do
> everything we can to
> > > try to explain them as modern, up to the moment that explanation
> doesn't fit.
> > > The title does tell visitors that we have looked into this, and - to
> our own
> > > satisfaction - the modern explanations do not suffice. We have put
> many, many
> > > hours into this already and would not be continuing without having
> asked a lot
> > > of questions ourselves. Part of our early efforts are to explain to
> visitors why
> > > we have come to this conclusion. That will take some time, and in
> the meantime
> > > we do expect others to question our thinking.
> > >
> > > To begin:
> > >
> > > We are aware of all the things you point out. It is our opinion at
> this time
> > > that those 'explanations' do not suffice to explain the geographical
> extent of
> > > the canals, their provenance, nor their number, nor the geography of
> any of
> > > them. We may find some that are explainable as modern, and their
> similarities
> > > argue that if any are modern, then all of them are modern - and if
> any of them
> > > are shown to be not modern, then probably none of them are. So a
> good deal of
> > > our effort is going into determining what they are not.
> > >
> > > They are clearly not barrier bars. First of all, they are canals,
> not
> > > protuberances sticking up out of the water. (Did you even bother
> going to the
> > > site?) They are not spits. They do not appear at all like dunes; in
> fact, they
> > > do not appear in sandy places. Most are in mud flats or grassy
> areas.
> > >
> > > BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5542438692150511410 width=779 height=607>
> > > Weekapaug, RI
> > > (Those canals are mostly less than the width of a car.)
> > >
> > > Some are actually submerged in the Gulf of Mexico.
> > >
> > > Many - perhaps most - of the canals branch out off rivers and
> streams hundreds
> > > of yards (some of them even miles) from the current shore line,
> after which they
> > > branch again and then again, several iterations, all with canal
> widths that are
> > > unnatural in their consistency.
> > >
> > > Our preliminary conclusion: These do not appear to be barrier bars,
> dunes or
> > > spits. They are definitely not natural. If you have been to the site
> and seen
> > > the satellite images you would see that immediately.  Your
> opening generic
> > > statement that "most of your "ancient canals" can be attributed to
> natural
> > > coastal features" turns out to have no substance.
> > >
> > > We are looking into records of man made dredging. One thing is
> certain: If these
> > > were done by the Army Corps of Engineers, they are not taking credit
> for them in
> > > our first perusal of the COE information. We do not rule that out at
> this time;
> > > it is too early to say.
> > >
> > > As to developers, there are plenty of retirement/vacation home or
> waterside
> > > developments to compare these to. Based on lot size, spacing of
> canals, width,
> > > geometry, configuration, etc., we have reason to believe this
> explanation falls
> > > short. It is under consideration, and if it turns out this is
> correct, we will
> > > readily go with that. There are two types/classes that we've seen
> that seem to
> > > warrant comparison with water-side developments. One has many short
> wide
> > > branches and one has long parallel narrow canals. Neither class
> appears similar
> > > in any particular ways to developed ones nearby, so if developers
> did all these
> > > - known developments, short wide canals, or long parallel ones, then
> we find it
> > > odd that the developed ones look nothing like either of the other
> two classes.
> > > So, for now, we believe we are justified in being open to other
> explanations.
> > >
> > > If these are from developers, they dredged what appear to be
> thousands of miles
> > > of canals which they never actually developed. Developers are not
> prone to such
> > > waste of money. But we do take this possibility seriously,
> nevertheless.
> > >
> > > One odd feature of these canals is that there are no, or next to no,
> > > developments using them or any of the same geometry. No boats, no
> homes, no pier
> > > facilities. If there are exceptions to this, they are rare. We are
> talking
> > > thousands of these smaller canals.
> > >
> > > As to keeping coastal real estate dry, this is a reasonable
> observation, one we
> > > are also aware of. This might explain a small minority of these
> smaller canals.
> > > However, many of the exact some types are located in areas clearly
> not in need
> > > of drainage. We will, however, consider this for these areas too. We
> do not
> > > pretend to know all the reasons people do things. This explanation
> of yours
> > > sounds good on the surface, but if you look at the satellite photos,
> you would
> > > see features and locations that support our skepticism about this
> explanation.
> > > Many of these are deep in the bayous of Louisiana while the same
> exact type is
> > > in New Hampshire. We believe that a common explanation is needed; we
> doubt this
> > > one is adequate to explain them all.
> > >
> > > Intercoastal Waterway - two of the three people involved are coastal
> dwellers (I
> > > am not), and they are quite familiar with these. I am reasonably
> informed about
> > > these, even though I don't live there. The vast majority of this
> type canal is
> > > in the bayous of Louisiana, criss-crossing like pick-up-sticks. Many
> > > Intercaostal waterways are not done like that. There also is no
> Intercoastal
> > > Waterway in that area. These canals are oriented to all sorts of
> skewed angles,
> > > with a high density that contributes nothing to coastal
> transportation.
> > > BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5542448207126046546 width=777 height=666>
> > > SE of Golden Meadows, LA
> > >
> > > (This area of mud flats is all but in the Gulf of Mexico. The whiter
> areas on
> > > the left are developed areas. The wider canals are over 300 feet
> wide. The
> > > double canal extends for about 100 miles east to west, going from
> nowhere to
> > > nowhere. The myriad crossing canals - what could they possibly be
> for?
> > > Development in mud flats? Not gonna happen. Intercoastal waterway?
> The double
> > > canal possibly, but the others? Protecting land? Please, tell me
> what sort of
> > > plan they were following. The dead end canals? The ones west of
> Golden Meadows
> > > are 200 and 300 feet wide wider than a football field - what
> developer or
> > > waterway management would make such wide canals. The land between
> the canals
> > > west of Golden Meadows is mostly not land, but water; essentially
> they are
> > > canals dug into water - what purpose could those possibly serve?)
> > >
> > > This argues against that explanation for the majority of these.
> Also, if you
> > > claim they are part of the Intercoastal Waterway, can you point to a
> source that
> > > asserts this? If you are floating this explanation, please provide
> evidence, not
> > > just that an Intercoastal Waterway exists. There IS no ICW in
> Louisiana, where
> > > the large canals are most common. If there is one in this specific
> area that you
> > > know of? Who built it? Who maintains it? If you have answers, we are
> all in
> > > favor of hearing it. Generic hip shooting doe not answer questions.
> If they
> > > appear to be answers to you, they don't meet our level of
> questioning.
> > >
> > > In the middle of the large canals in Louisiana SW of Venice, near
> the mouth of
> > > the Mississippi River, is an elliptical canal about 2 miles in
> diameter with
> > > short canals extending in and out from it. Clearly not Intercoastal
> Waterway
> > > canals, even though they are along the coast.
> > >
> > > BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5542451858378181650 width=778 height=443>
> > > SW of Venice, LA
> > >
> > > (The oval on the right is 2 miles across.  All over this image
> are narrow, wide,
> > > long, short canals that either go somehere or don't go
> somewhere,  There are
> > > short cross-connecting ones that are near the mouths of two canals -
> why have
> > > these when a few hundred yards away is open water?)
> > >
> > > Beaches - the large canals are certainly in areas in which there are
> no beaches.
> > > Off the top of my head, none of the smaller ones are, either, since
> their
> > > inflowing water tends to be upriver and beaches are not in areas
> just upstream
> > > of the mouths of rivers. A cursory look at the canals on the web
> site will show
> > > you this is a non-explanation.
> > >
> > > Even with a cursory glance at the images on the
> Ancientcanalbuilders.com site
> > > would show almost all of your speculations to be uninformed about
> the features
> > > the site talks about. So again I have to ask: Did you even visit the
> site? Did
> > > you even look at one image?
> > >
> > > I would just ask that you visit the site, look at the images, and
> then ask
> > > yourself if you would still toss out these speculative
> explanations.  We do not
> > > have answers for these.  We put out no preconceived ideas as to
> what they are
> > > for.  If you have speculations, join the club.  But please
> don't just throw out
> > > your BSJ and expect us to cower in the face of your already covered
> > > possibilities.  Tossing them out into the mix is fine, just
> don't do it and then
> > > walk away.  Join the conversation.  Ad hoc speculation is
> not science, as you
> > > would know, so if you could add substance and sources to your
> comments in the
> > > future it would be nice.   We would love that.Â
> > >
> > >
> > > I will do so, too. Our single main source will continue to be the
> satellite
> > > images, but when necessary (and when we can find them) we will
> include sources.
> > > When we speculate we hope to be consistent in labeling them as
> speculations.  If
> > > we fail in that, please point it out.   When you speculate,
> can you label them
> > > as such, too? Our main point at the present time is to ask
> questions. We are
> > > actually trying to not speculate even on who built them, if it
> appears someone
> > > in the long-ago past did; but we agree with you that first we should
> look at
> > > possible modern explanations.
> > >
> > > (I am cross-posting this at the blog site at
> > > http://ancientcanals.blogspot.com/.)
> > >
> > >
> > > Steve
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, William Conner
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Okay everyone. Go to your public library and look in a book on
> physical
> > > geography. You will then find that most of your "ancient canals" can
> be
> > > attributed to natural coastal features, such as barrier bars, spits,
> and dunes;
> > > also many coastal areas have networks of man made dredged canals,
> rivers and
> > > bays so developers can sell vacation home lots for docks and boats.
> And, the
> > > best way to connect inland coastal docking waters, both natural and
> man-made, is
> > > with linear canals, which like roads, get one from one place to
> another mostly
> > > efficiently by being as straight as possible. Also, some canals
> exist simply to
> > > keep swampy coastal real estate dry.
> > > >
> > > >Shores in many places are lined with hotels, condos and private
> homes, and many
> > > >of these front into the seashore and the boats used by shore
> dwellers and
> > > >tourists must be docked in inlets, bays coastal rivers and lagoons.
> And also
> > > >there is the Inter-coastal Waterway to consider. And, since a
> straight line gets
> > > >a moving object from place to another, coastal canals are dredged
> that way
> > > >wherever possible.
> > > >
> > > >Deepwater dredges can be found docked in coastal areas when not in
> use, and can
> > > >be spotted out on the ocean when in use. Keeping beaches from being
> washed away
> > > >is serious business for the tourist trade. The dredges suck up
> sandy ocean water
> > > >and deposit it into barges or it is pipe it directly onto a beach.
> > > >
> > > >William Conner
> > > >Columbus, Ohio
> > > >BSJ Ohio University School of Journalism
> > > >Retired science writer, and author of "Iron Age America"
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Pretty interesting stuff.

I would only say one thing, and I may be wrong.  They seem to assume that the
skraelings were at L'Anse Aux Meadows.  Certainly because that is the only one
they have permission to accept, since some of their own proved that one out to
the satisfaction of the peer review P.C. board.

I have a copy of the Norse accounts, and from what I recall the problems with
the skraelings was in Vinland.  Vinland and L,Anse are not the same place.  It
may not be the party line anywhere, but that is my understanding.

Steve

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Well, folks, the ancient canals aren't ancient, after all.

We finally were able to find explanations for them and are satisfied that we
were wrong.

We found out that the long parallel canals were created in the 1915-1960 period
as ways of combating mosquitos.  Beginning with New Jersey, the coastal states
found that literally "draining the swamps" worked quite well as the backbone of
efforts to make the coast more congenial for humans.

Why did we think they were not mosquito abatement measures?  We saw on many
sites that the canals did not reach to the seashore.  The canals were most often
dead-headed short of the shore.  If the bottom end is not open, drainage doesn't
happen.  These dead-end canals thus looked like irrigation canals.

What we didn't know was that in the 1960s they found out they'd changed the
ecosystem and had lost the fauna that had formerly used the marshlands for
habitat.  By then they had other ways of combating the mosquitos, so the
decision was made to close the drains by filling in the lower ends of the
canals.

By the time we came along drainage ditches had long since been turned into what
looked like irrigation - in a place where irrigation didn't make sense, at least
on our modern world.

The symbol features?  A good look at them tells us they are more recent even
than the drainage ditches, since they all are tucked nicely between the ditches.
Had they been older, the more or less random spacing of the ditches would have
broken into the symbols.

So, what did they end up being?  Our best guess is muskrat lodges.   Muskrats
are kin to beavers and are very industrious in terraforming things to suit
themselves.  They make lodges in marshy areas(but not dams), and have the
entrances under water as often as not.  If they need to, they dig their own
ditches around their lodges.  They also dig ditches so that they can swim as
much as possible.  All in all, it is a pretty certain thing that the muskrats
did them.

Google Earth and Bing both flatten out features, so the lodges appear as flat
islands.

We need to take this all as an object lesson:  We cannot trust that what we see
on GE is a true representation.

As to the big canals in the Gulf, we are now aware of how much damage has been
done to the bayou areas, how much land has been lost due to human activity. 
That is one reason Katrina did so much damage - there just wasn't enough barrier
land anymore.  So the submerged ones seem to have an explanation as to why they
are submerged: The wave action obliterated the crests of the canal berms.

But what ARE they?

After finding mundane explanations for the other two, John and I are beaten up
enough to admit there is probably a mundane explanation for them, too.  So, John
is closing down his site shortly, and I will be closing down the blog, too. I
posted there about the "mosquito ditches," and expect that traffic will cease
even if we kept the sites open.

So, this is a mea culpa.  We were wrong.

Sorry to get everyone's hopes up.

Take care.  I will still be around...

Steve

Jamey -

The marble and clay might have been affected by 1200 temps, but quartz is not.

Quartz has amazing  properties.  One of them is that it is very impervious to
heat.  It's "coefficient of thermal expansion" is 0.000, meaning that it does
not expand or contract when it heats up or cools down.  Whatever gives it that
property, it also makes it able to withstand very high temps.

It is used in quartz infrared heating bulbs, some in industry.  I've worked with
bulbs that operate at 4,000F.  That is the temp at the heating element.  The
quartz is the "glass" around the heating element.  The quartz is only about
1/8"-3/16" away from the heating element and the bulb in those is sealed, so
there is nowhere for the heat to go but out through the quartz.  (There is also
a non-sealed version that only gets to 2,000F.)

There used to be a show on TV that challenged claims of products.  I saw the
episode where they tested the claim of Corning that their quartz pans could
actually be used to MELT aluminum pans.  Now THAT is one hell of a claim!  But
they tested it, and sure enough!  The aluminum pan melted INSIDE the quartz pan.
Aluminum's melting temp is right around the 1200F temp mark.

Quartz's melting temp?  Right around 1700C, which is about 3,000F. That tells me
that the temp at the quartz was substantially less than the 4,000F claimed by
the quartz bulb manufacturers, and which clearly was the heating element temp
only.

BTW, that zero coefficient of expansion is an amazing thing.  REALLY amazing. 
No joke.  We were told that we could throw ice water on a white hot bulb and -
other than the water instantly boiling very violently - nothing would happen to
the bulb.  THAT was a challenge too good to pass up, so we did exactly that.  We
took the best precautions we could to protect ourselves, and then flung the ice
water onto the bulb.  The water just EXPLODED on impact.  But when it was all
over, the bulb just sat there, still glowing.

Sometimes you run across things that defy common sense.   But the universe has
many surprises like that.

Anyway, I really don't think the 1200 temp affected the quartz.  Perhaps
something fell on the quartz?


Steve


--- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "james m clark jr"
<jameyboy@...> wrote:
>
>  In what direction to the Chattahoochee from the Springs and Euchi Valley?
This is exciting! Something to consider in my own project I somehow over looked.
>
> I am sorry to report that possible Wari marbles ((107c)of quartz, marble and
clay were destroyed in house fire presumably, conditions exceeding 1200 degrees.
>
> be well,
> jamey
>

Steve and All,

The public admissions and closing down of the Ancient Canal Builders in America project and web sites when holes were found in the research demonstrates to me sound scientific practices as well as high integrity and humility.   Considerable obvious effort has been made by your research team and I've no doubt members of the team are burnt out.  I doubt that any of you are denying that substantial numbers of canals, perhaps canal networks, were in existence hundreds, perhaps thousands of years ago with remnants of scientifically provable evidence yet to be discovered and tested by underwater archaeologists, geoligists and others such as Jensen , you and those willing to lay your time and credibility on the line to consider and explore such possibilities.

I continue to believe America was riddled with ancient, humanly-constructed canals,  some very likely leaving traces and scientifically provable evidence for underwater archaeologists, geoligists and others like Jensen, Garcia willing to explore such possibilities.  Riverways, intra- and intercontinental waterways, humanly constructed/altered canals are at the very roots of diffusionist exploration and to me, advanced socio-cultural research.

I think a parallel here:  as is well known and voiced by avocational, academic researchers,  old texts and many of the populace around the Lake Superior Copper Country.....most, if not all historic copper mines originated from ancient copper pits and mines.   I'd be very surprised if that did not hold true to a certain extent with contemporary canals where water routes have not been totally altered from centuries, millinnea ago.  Unlike the copper mining parallel where tbe physical evidence of discarded hammerstones was present until a few decades ago,  imperical evidence for ancient canals is far more difficult.   If such canals existed and evidence no longer remains, it will be another case where ignorance will continue to prevail,  knowledge of ancient human genius is lost to time, population expansion, and the increasingly total technological dominance of the natural world continues.

I commend the efforts of the Ancient Canal Builders team and look forward to Steve and any of you here at AWS continuing into the roots and scientifically-based intent of some of the fine research the courageous team began not very long ago.

Thanks to so many of you here for the interesting Posts, subjects, and responses to each others' letters here the past couple of weeks.  It is a pleasure to be a member and a co-host of this site.

Susan

--- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "bigalemc2" <puppet@...> wrote:
>
> Well, folks, the ancient canals aren't ancient, after all.
>
> We finally were able to find explanations for them and are satisfied that we were wrong.
>
> We found out that the long parallel canals were created in the 1915-1960 period as ways of combating mosquitos. Beginning with New Jersey, the coastal states found that literally "draining the swamps" worked quite well as the backbone of efforts to make the coast more congenial for humans.
>
> Why did we think they were not mosquito abatement measures? We saw on many sites that the canals did not reach to the seashore. The canals were most often dead-headed short of the shore. If the bottom end is not open, drainage doesn't happen. These dead-end canals thus looked like irrigation canals.
>
> What we didn't know was that in the 1960s they found out they'd changed the ecosystem and had lost the fauna that had formerly used the marshlands for habitat. By then they had other ways of combating the mosquitos, so the decision was made to close the drains by filling in the lower ends of the canals.
>
> By the time we came along drainage ditches had long since been turned into what looked like irrigation - in a place where irrigation didn't make sense, at least on our modern world.
>
> The symbol features? A good look at them tells us they are more recent even than the drainage ditches, since they all are tucked nicely between the ditches. Had they been older, the more or less random spacing of the ditches would have broken into the symbols.
>
> So, what did they end up being? Our best guess is muskrat lodges. Muskrats are kin to beavers and are very industrious in terraforming things to suit themselves. They make lodges in marshy areas(but not dams), and have the entrances under water as often as not. If they need to, they dig their own ditches around their lodges. They also dig ditches so that they can swim as much as possible. All in all, it is a pretty certain thing that the muskrats did them.
>
> Google Earth and Bing both flatten out features, so the lodges appear as flat islands.
>
> We need to take this all as an object lesson: We cannot trust that what we see on GE is a true representation.
>
> As to the big canals in the Gulf, we are now aware of how much damage has been done to the bayou areas, how much land has been lost due to human activity. That is one reason Katrina did so much damage - there just wasn't enough barrier land anymore. So the submerged ones seem to have an explanation as to why they are submerged: The wave action obliterated the crests of the canal berms.
>
> But what ARE they?
>
> After finding mundane explanations for the other two, John and I are beaten up enough to admit there is probably a mundane explanation for them, too. So, John is closing down his site shortly, and I will be closing down the blog, too. I posted there about the "mosquito ditches," and expect that traffic will cease even if we kept the sites open.
>
> So, this is a mea culpa. We were wrong.
>
> Sorry to get everyone's hopes up.
>
> Take care. I will still be around...
>
> Steve
>