The Trump campaign issued a short statement Sunday afternoon saying Trump was safe after gun shots were fired in his vicinity. The statement did not disclose Trump’s location. (Statement by the Secret Service added to end of article)
Reports are coming with the usual caveat that initial reports are sometimes wrong or incomplete.
Update: The New York Post reports shots were fired near the Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, Florida, and that Trump was not a target (excerpt):
The Secret Service is responding to a shooting near Donald Trump as he left his golf club in West Palm Beach, Florida, according to law enforcement sources.
…Two people exchanged gunfire outside of Trump International Golf Course West Palm Beach. The shooters were targeting each other, and the gunfire was not targeting Trump, the sources said.
Natalie Winters with Steve Bannon’s War Room reports via X twitter a much more serious incident: “Shots were just fired at Trump international golf course in West Palm Beach, Florida. Trump was there golfing. An AK-47 was discovered in the bushes and the suspect fled over a nearby wall, per a source in Florida law enforcement….Per my source, the suspect has been arrested in Martin County. White male.”
“BREAKING: Trump placed in a hard room for protection after shots rang out at his West Palm Beach golf course per FL law enforcement source.”
Trump survived an assassination attempt at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania on July 13 in which he was miraculously only hit in the ear while one nearby supporter was killed and two wounded.
Trump campaign statement:
“President Trump is safe following gunshots in his vicinity. No further details at this time.” – Steven Cheung, Trump Campaign Communications Director
Statement by the Secret Service:
“The Secret Service, in conjunction with the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office, is investigating a protective incident involving former President Donald Trump that occurred shortly before 2 p.m. The former president is safe. @pbso (sic: @PBSO_fsrp) will have more details soon.”
Associated Press: ” No injuries were reported after gunshots near Trump’s golf club in West Palm Beach, sheriff’s spokesperson says…It was not immediately clear whether the reported shots were targeted at the GOP presidential nominee. A law enforcement official said officials were trying to determine if the shots were fired near Trump’s West Palm Beach golf course or on the grounds.”
Over the course of several weeks—the next 70 days—it will become clear whether or not the Democrats have been successful in reframing the terms of ‘imperial succession.’
My friend John Batchelor is the host of the CBS Eye on the World radio program. Not content with that content creation, he also hosts a personal podcast, The John Batchelor Show, regarding current events. I have been honored to be a weekly contributor on this podcast, albeit if only to lower the bar so that other guests can leap over it. This they easily do, given their depth of experience and level of expertise in an amazing array of subjects. It is impossible to listen in on a conversation between Mr. Batchelor and one of his guests (other than myself) and not come away with new information nor discover an idea upon which to muse.
One of my personal favorite podcasts is “The Londinium Chronicles, 90 A.D.” In these episodes, Mr. Batchelor and Michael Vlahos don the roles of two Roman aristocrats, “Gaius” and “Germanicus,” off in occupied Albion and sitting along the banks of the Thames in Londinium. The pair ponder which play to see and discourse upon the events roiling faraway Rome and its empire. Of course, this theatrical device is ironically employed to facilitate limning the historical parallels between that former empire and today’s American empire. In their conversations, “Blue” is the left (Democrats and progressives); “Red” is the right (GOP and MAGA); and “Rome and the Empire” is Washington and America.
Per the show’s site, Mr. Vlahos is a writer and author who has taught war and strategy at Johns Hopkins University, the Naval War College, and Centro de Estudios Superiores Navales (CDMX) and is a longtime weekly contributor to The John Batchelor Show. In his role as “Germanicus” to Mr. Batchelor’s “Gaius,” Mr. Vlahos has proven an exceedingly astute observer of our chaotic contemporary political scene.
Consider the following “Londinium Chronicle,” wherein at approximately the 8:20 mark, Mr. Vlahos identifies not only what the two parties have at stake in the 2024 election, but more importantly, what is at stake for the American people, the presidency, and the electoral process itself. (Given his role as Germanicus, for the sake of clarity, I have occasionally put in brackets what Mr. Vlahos is referencing in modern American politics.)
Blue [the left] is attempting to redefine legitimacy itself, so that legitimacy does not require any sort of cognitive or leadership capability. It simply involves presentation, however orchestrated and managed it might be. In other words, ‘Blue’ is attempting to redefine the office of ‘emperor’ [president] as a mere figurehead; and, thus, as the representation—the face—of what is, in effect, oligarchic rule.
Is this attempted redefinition born of an ideological imperative or by necessity? Germanicus—er, Mr. Vlahos—believes both. “This is a risky move, and it is the only move ‘Blue’ has, given the fact that it has found itself for a second time in the position where it does not have a person who is up to the job.”
In sum, having secreted and steered the cognitively impaired Mr. Biden through the COVID pandemic’s restricted campaign possibilities, the Democrats found it impossible to do so a second time. Consequently, following his abysmal debate with former president Donald Trump, the handlers of Mr. Biden were confronted with the necessity of removing and replacing him as the Democrat Party’s [“Blue’s”] nominee. Their handpicked selection was his vice president, Kamala Harris.
It was an unprecedented switch in modern American politics, and, as Mr. Vlahos notes, ordinarily would spell disaster for “Blue”:
In any other situation, the other party would have destroyed any hopes that ‘Blue’ might prevail in this election, because were they to advance an effective leader who is part of the institutional framework of the ‘imperial office,’ then they would be marching to a very strong victory. But that is not exactly the case. So, you have a weak Republican leadership offer, and you have a nonexistent ‘Blue’ [Democrat] leadership offer; and the way that the ‘Blue’ oligarchs have tried to reframe the entire process is to do so as if it were an event, in which one could invest their emotions, because it is no different than a divertissement – an entertainment – and many in the electorate buy into that. So, you have the opportunity here to alter the terms of the constitutional order itself, where the president becomes no more than, say, the monarch is in the United Kingdom…
In sum, then, the Democrats have made two calculations. The first is the recognition that, whatever else the office entails, under ordinary circumstances one only needs to win a primary and a general election to become president. In the instance of Vice President Harris, her handlers have dispensed with the primary and now merely need to help secure the general election.
The second calculation is that the Democrats’ symbiotic relationship with the corporate media and Big Tech parroting their party line and stifling the opposition; with big banks, Wall Street, and a host of billionaires larding their party coffers and dark money accounts; the use of the federal bureaucracy and public and private employee unions to drive out the vote and help ballot harvest, V.P. Harris could be installed as president as readily as Mr. Biden had been in 2020.
As a result, we witness the spectacle of the junior partner in the Biden-Harris administration running a campaign of systemic deceit, pretending to be an agent of “change” and stuffing the failures of the administration she serves down the memory hole. It is a personality-driven exercise in identity politics and personal attacks upon her allegedly despotic Republican opponent, despite the fact that she has stolen many of his once-considered “authoritarian” positions. But again, all Blue must do is win one election.
If it does, V.P. Harris will be inaugurated as a president, and, following on the heels of her caretaker, stage-managed predecessor, Mr. Biden, and with the abetment of her complicit comrades in the media, academia, corporate America, and elsewhere, her elevation will transform the entire conception of the role of a president from a duly elected, active chief executive into a caretaker beholden to priorities and the perpetuation of the unelected administrative state. And a fourth, separate, unequal, and unaccountable branch of the federal government will have been cemented: the administrative, bureaucratic state.
This, of course, makes perfect sense. For despite their limp protestations to the contrary, the Democratic Party is not democratic. Under the guise of “their democracy,” all the power of the sovereign people is to be reposed in the federal Leviathan, from which it can never be returned. Their aim is the elitist rule of “experts” to govern the lives of formerly self-governing and sovereign citizens. In this light, the selection of V.P. Harris and their ensuing campaign of systemic deceit is all of an ideological piece.
As of time of writing, the polls between “Blue’s” and “Red’s” candidates for “emperor” are evenly divided, and whether Blue’s cynical decision to foist V.P. Harris upon the electorate will be rewarded remains to be seen. Per Mr. Vlahos:
There is an expectation, I think, among the broad swath of the electorate for a capable person to be inaugurated as president; and that (opportunity) does not now exist [on the part of ‘Blue’]. So, there are tremendous risks that ‘Blue’ runs right now. We will not know in the course of this week or next week. But, over the course of several weeks—the next seventy days—it will become clear whether or not the Democrats, ‘Blue,’ has been successful in reframing the terms of ‘imperial succession.’
And, therefore, it will become clear whether or not “Blue” has replaced the reality of an election with the illusion of an election, redefined the Post-Modern Presidency as merely a caretaker for the administrative state, and eviscerated the very concept of the consent of the governed.
All discussion around Joe Biden just 2 months ago was about who senile he was. The debate with Donald Trump laid bare what Democrats in and out of the media had denied for years – that Biden’s senility had overtaken his lifelong stupidity and he is unfit for office. Enter Nancy “Brutus” Pelosi to stab him in the back and insert Kamala Harris to “save the Democratic Party.” Then the public got a good look at her, and Kamala may be worse than Biden.
It's important to remember that Biden has only been going senile for the last 5 to 7 years, he’s been dumb his whole life. What was easily dismissed as him simply being wildly ignorant while completely arrogant, morphed into the terrifying realization that he wasn’t all there anymore. When he crossed that line from simple boob to unaware shell we will never know, he seems to have one foot in each category most of the time, leaning one way or the other depending upon how long ago he’d been given his medicine.
Kamala Harris, on the other hand, has no excuse. She’s not old or going senile, and she’s not noted for being particularly dumb (talk to any Senator who served with Biden and they’ll privately tell you he’s never been smart). What she is known for is being all sizzle and no steak.
There are plenty of people in politics who just do not stand for anything other than their own glory – the not bright, not quite stupid who lean one direction or another, but don’t really believe in anything as a principle, only as a means to an end. That end is always their own glory, their own power.
These people will do anything, say anything, to obtain power. They like the trappings – the people sucking up, the power of God on a small scale, the ability to reward or punish, the sex (yes, politicians have groupies, though most don’t indulge). Many are rich but feel empty; politics is a hobby, a way to pass the time a normal person would need to work, and gives them meaning they can’t find in friends and family.
Where Kamala Harris falls in those categories is anyone’s guess, but one thing is perfectly clear: she does not have any core beliefs and has not done the work to even form them. Why is anyone’s guess, but I suspect it has to do with an ability to skate by without doing it. Most people will do just what is required to get what they want, which is why wildly successful people who work their asses off even after remarkable success are exceedingly rare.
Kamala has dined out on the idea that she’s “historic,” but never that she’s successful. It’s easy to claim accomplishments as an Attorney General, but the work is actually done by prosecutors across the state. Maybe you make a decree, but you’re not running cases and showing up in court every day – you’re a figurehead, an administrator managing people and budgets more than the day-to-day legal arguments (though, especially in high-profile cases, there is a bit of that).
As a Senator, Kamala did nothing, didn’t even really try. She was only there a couple of years, but she had zero bills become law.
Given the chance at some responsibility as Vice President, Harris balked. Don’t call her Border Czar! It’s a major part of the reason there were stories of tension between the Biden people and the Harris people – she wasn’t reading her briefing papers and was not willing to stick her neck out at all and take the risk to get anything done. Things don’t just happen; someone has to take a risk and the responsibility of things don’t work out. Kamala was not willing to accept that last part.
After 30 years in politics and elected office, she still seems to have no idea what she believes in. Every policy statement she’s ever made, no matter how fervently, has been declared inoperative by her current handlers. She is not capable of articulating any vision. Hell, went asked the basic question about how she is feeling about her chances in Pennsylvania, Harris responded (because I can’t use the word “answered,” since it wasn’t one), “I am feeling very good about Pennsylvania because there are a lot of people in Pennsylvania who deserve to be seen and heard. That’s why I’m here in Johnstown, and I will be continuing to travel around the state.”
Honestly, could you imagine a more worthless word salad answer?
You can spot the people who got by on charm and ass-kissing in school by how they answer questions. People who did the work and learned the lessons get to the point as quickly as possible, they know their stuff and can pull out the needed information with little effort.
Then there are the people who didn’t do anything until the night before a test who end up writing overly-long essay answers, adding every little tidbit of information they can remember even tangentially associated with a topic in the hope of either getting partial credit for writing some of the teacher was looking for, or confusing the teacher to the point that they aren’t sure if the question was answered or not and just give them points anyway.
Joe Biden has a heavy dusting of senility over this salad of stupid, Kamala Harris has an empty bowl. She’s not stupid, she’s lazy. The way the Democratic Party is structured – they highlight and elevate things unrelated to accomplishments and abilities – rewards certain, approved types of existence over anything else and enables people to rise without earning it. Do you think Eric Swalwell’s life involves merit? He wears slip-ons because there’s a 50/50 chance he strangles himself when he ties his shoes.
Kamala doesn’t do the work because she’s never had to do the work. She wasn’t chosen as Biden’s VP because of her grasp of the issues she demonstrated against Joe in the primary, she was picked because Democrats love to use the word “historic” as a shield. Why would anyone think she’d be any different now?
When you can’t respond to a basic question about what you’re allegedly running for president to do without rambling on about a fictionalized version of your biography, you have no substance. Kamala Harris has no substance, nothing. She doesn’t even have the sizzle, let alone the steak. She’s sock puppet, interested in the trappings of power for its own sake and the glory that accompanies it. The Vice President has all the access needed to educate herself on all the issues of the day, to be able to speak about them honestly and coherently, she’s simply neglected to do so.
Kamala Harris is much, much worse than any of us ever thought. I challenge anyone to watch this whole interview she just did and come away with any other realization.
Progressive reporter Michael Tracey can’t believe what he’s hearing: Democrats are embracing Dick Cheney. The man who Joe Biden called the most dangerous vice president we’ve ever had in 2008 is now some rampart for democracy. Vice President Kamala Harris touted Cheney’s endorsement during the ABC News debate. His daughter Liz, a former congresswoman, also backed Harris. It’s not a shock; one must wonder what took her so long, but it’s beyond comical that liberals think this is some flex.
Conservatives are done with the Cheney family, and it’s not like this endorsement is going to carry a lot of weight; Harris isn’t winning Pennsylvania because of it. Yet, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) said the quiet part out loud, saying that Kamala is trying to win an election.
Tracey seems to be navigating the Twilight Zone as he presses multiple Democrats post-debate about how Cheney was integral in launching the Iraq War based on false pretenses. Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) was even more shameless, adding that Cheney has the credentials to judge the issue about the preservation of our democracy competently. Why? Because he’s supporting a Democrat. It’s laughable. He’s no longer Darth Vader because he’s backing Harris, and there’s no spin these clowns can articulate that can pivot away from that point.
The radical left’s rainbow symbolism obscures the implicit tensions within its Utopian mysticism, reflected in a prism of constant conflicts that pit former social justice allies into bitter division. A recent display of this irreconcilable intersectionality was exhibited by gay rights advocates in Vermont divided over Palestine.
The Pride Center of Vermont has “celebrated gay culture” since 1983, but it shifted mission in December 2023 via a controversial, one-sided endorsement of a Palestinian state and condemnation of Israel for “the ongoing assault on Palestine.” There was no criticism of the October attacks against Israeli civilians, or of calls to eliminate the State of Israel entirely. Three of the Pride Center of Vermont’s seven board members, themselves gay Jews, subsequently resigned, and a prominent founder alleged that “she and a contingent of queer Jews ... have been ignored, silenced and sidelined by the Burlington-based nonprofit.”
A 40-year mission “to celebrate, educate, and advocate with and for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) Vermonters” has morphed into a woke catch-basin for simplistic opposition against ubiquitous “oppressors,” including dreaded Zionists. The organization’s kaleidoscope statement chirped with Leninite vitriol:
Our commitment to anti-oppression extends to all corners of the world and to all people being harmed by the myriad manifestations of the violence of colonialism and white supremacy[.]
One of those myriad oppressions is genocidal maniacs calling for the annihilation of Jews and the Jewish state, often fashioned in the call to reclaim Palestine “from the river to the sea.” Vermont’s gay group became the “oppose white and Jewish people for their race and ethnicity” group, overnight. Small wonder shocked gay Jews recoiled in disgust.
These fractures extend throughout identity politics and its self-immolating ideology. When a liberal Burlington newspaper named Seven Days reported complaints against the Pride Center, there was no retraction or more balanced position proffered (e.g., all genocide is bad) by the Pride Center regarding Israel. Instead, the gay advocacy facility threw Jewish gays under the Palestinian bus, elevating the Middle East conflict above a historic focus on AIDS and homophobia.
The sister cabal of confused reactionaries lashed out in bizarre support of the Pride Center — not for gays, but against Zionists. The Vermont Coalition for Palestinian Liberation (VCPL) issued a sharp rebuke of Seven Days for “[giving] Zionists a platform to defame the Pride Center’s statement as “antisemitic,” portrayed “the Palestinian struggle as part of queer and collective liberation,” and praised the Pride Center for “[upholding] the tradition of queer internationalism.”
Apparently, queer internationalism is not collective when gay Jews are at the table. In its scathing diatribe, VCPL displayed the racist antisemitic toxicity that is shattering gay unity at the Pride Center in the name of collective opposition to Israel, or “anti-Zionism”:
Each Zionist repeats the false allegation that criticizing Israel, even as it commits genocide, is anti-semitic[.] ...
Only Zionists — whether they are Jewish, secular, or Christian (Christians are in fact the vast majority of Zionists) — support Israel, its apartheid state, and its genocidal war. Supporting or opposing Israel is a political position and not one that can be equated with an entire religious or racial group.
The Zionists base all their slanderous accusations against the Pride Center on pinkwashing, on painting Israel as a beacon of gay liberation in a sea of Middle Eastern homophobia. But, in reality, Israel is a homophobic society like all societies throughout the world. No society has ended homophobia and no society has a monopoly on that prejudice.
The kaleidoscope cultural-Marxist eyes are spinning red here. “Supporting or opposing Israel is political and not to be equated with an entire religious group,” but “Christians are in fact the vast majority of Zionists.” The gay Jewish critics in Burlington did not “base all their slanderous accusations ... on pinkwashing”; they felt marginalized and racially excluded and complained that the Pride Center was one-sided in its position.
Neither the Pride Center nor VCPL denounces the hostage-taking of Israeli civilians on October 7. VCPL “demands” the release of “all Palestinian prisoners,” including proven criminals, but not Jewish civilian hostages being used as shields by terrorist Hamas. VCPL joins Muslim extremist Hamas in calling for the eradication of the State of Israel and the ejection (genocide?) of Jews, not a two-state solution. Such extremist, indefensible positions have nothing to do with pinkwashing.
The fractious absurdity of these mindless “groups” is a harbinger of future splinterings within social justice alliances. Identity politics faces a fatal ideological cancer: it seeks to employ statist totalitarianism to impose absolute individual liberty (for sexual perversions, fantasy pronouns, and criminality, at least). Yet it stifles critical and thus individual thought, once considered an important aspect of, say, gay liberation or the battle for free speech and equal rights. (Such things as the colonialist, white supremacist Bill of Rights must not intrude on the great Utopian mission!)
VCPL is a hodgepodge of hateful lost souls, including the Central Vermont Democratic Socialists of America, the Champlain Valley Democratic Socialists of America, the Party for Socialism and Liberation Vermont, the Tempest Collective (“a revolutionary socialist collective”), and a bizarre coven of wrinkled white shame-mongers self-identified as Lost River Racial Justice:
We recognize that all indigenous peoples in the occupied land-base known as the United States have the right to self-determination and access to clean and safe land and water. Those of us who are descendants of white settler-colonialism must work to unlearn and dismantle the ongoing colonialist practices of exploitation, domination, entitlement, and individualism that foster disconnection from each other and the land.
Kamala Harris burns with jealousy at this marvelous, head-spinning word salad. The white-people Lost River collective exploits “invisibilized” indigenous people to advance wealth transfers for people “of color” and will magically ensure “rights” to clean and safe water. It also apparently supports Palestine, and gay people.
The social justice milieu clouds further with every rally, statement, and virtue-signaling rant. This monster eats its own, every time.
This is the downside of “intersectionality” — not all interests intersect. As the bizarre magnetism of gripes and whining extends beyond sexual identities and the confused-crowd question-mark alphabet, the endless horizon of revolutionary theories expands. Racist caste systems, hatred of Jews, climate alarmism, and every trendy cause célèbre in the crazy-coot arsenal of weaponized grievances gather. Chaos ensues as the impossibility of this irreconcilable intersectionality atomizes common sense, giving way to anarchy and entropy, deconstructing everything in its radioactive path.
There is something very strange about the crystal blue waters in the Caribbean Sea, dotted with white sand islands and coconut trees, that seems to attract unsolved mysteries.
But unless the minds behind Wikipedia or mainstream science have a change of heart, the ever-mysterious underwater highway known as Bimini Road will likely remain case-closed.
Thereby hangs a tale common to throngs of mysterious places in the Atlantic Ocean east of the Florida Keys wherein ships, divers, and other witnesses speak of the unexplained—only to be scoffed at, derided, and scorned.
As with the Bermuda Triangle, Atlantis, and the fountain of youth, the Bimini Road joined the list of Caribbean enigmas when, in 1968, Joseph Manson Valentine, Jacques Mayol, and Robert Angove dove 18 feet underwater about a mile off of North Bimini, some 80 miles northwest of the Bahamas, and saw what they described as “pavement” on the ocean floor.
A host of roughly rectangular stone slabs, they reported, rounded like loaves of bread by the sand and current over centuries, formed a flawlessly straight line. Its main feature stretched over 2,600 feet and curved like a “J” at one end. There were two smaller line features. Megalithic in size, the blocks were each 7 to 13 feet wide with right angles and seemed laid level by human hands.
A map of North Bimini showing Bimini Road. Rainer Lesniewski/Shutterstock
The anomaly posed many questions to scientists. How did it form? Was it made by man or nature? Could advanced civilizations have existed so early as to make this—in the Ice Age? Before the region sank beneath the sea 10,000 years ago? Or could nature have created something so fine-tuned? Thus began a clash of ideas.
There were two camps.
One dove down and saw a man-made road. Scientists and amateurs alike looked, and their eyes told them enough: this could not be natural.
The other camp was more skeptical. To avoid rocking the boat (figuratively speaking), they used science to explain the road to fit the foregoing research: it was natural.
As discoveries go, this one saw funded scientists fly in to investigate. Eugene Shinn from the University of Miami’s Department of Geology was foremost among them. Mr. Shinn dove down in 1978 and took radiocarbon core samples. Ultimately, he stated, it was beachrock—a mix of sand, shells, and cement—created by nature.
Megalithic blocks form a line on the seafloor off North Bimini. FtLaud/Shutterstock
The so-called “consensus” of science that grew out of Mr. Shinn’s research, more or less, says this: Bimini Road formed under the surface of the island. It was exposed by coastal erosion some 2,000 years ago. Its gaps at regular intervals were opened by natural jointing. This view is widely held and amplified on Wikipedia today.
The other camp is less uniform. Visiting Bimini Road, the notion was put forward: there was “overwhelming evidence that the road is made-made.” Their voices spoke from less lavish soapboxes: alternative media, websites, books, anecdotes. Much of it smacks of “New Age” and probably is sprinkled (or drenched) with misinformation to smear those brave voices speaking truth to orthodoxy. And there were voices whose minds changed.
Among the theorists, archaeologist William Donato told The Epoch Times that Bimini Road isn’t a road; the line of stones forms a wall known as a breakwater, built to protect a prehistoric settlement from waves. This engendered its alter ego: Bimini Wall.
One of the strongest arguments for a man-made Bimini Road comes from Gavin Menzies’s book, “1421: The Year China Discovered the World.” He writes: “Small stones are placed underneath larger ones, apparently to make the sea-bed level;” the structure “contains arrow-shaped ‘pointers’ that can only have been man-made;” and “some small square stones have tongue and grooved joints.”
Mr. Menzies, considered an outlier in both camps, believes ancient Chinese explorers anchored here and built the road as a slipway to repair a ship.
In 2022, British author Graham Hancock appeared on Joe Rogan’s podcast to discuss the road. He said it was artificially “propped up” and “leveled out” with smaller rocks. “When you dive on it,” he told Mr. Rogan, “it’s impossible to believe it’s entirely the work of nature.”
And there have been accounts that got their wires crossed.
Stones ranging from 7 to 13 feet in width pave the underwater road at North Bimini. FtLaud/Shutterstock
Ironically, both Wikipedia and Mr. Menzies offer polar opposite arguments but cite the same man. Mr. Menzies noted David Zink, who explored Bimini Road in 1974, mentioning “small stones” under the larger ones being a second layer beneath the Bimini Road. Wikipedia also cited Mr. Zink but with a reversal: the conclusion about this second layer “was likely incorrect.”
Amid all the clashing, The Epoch Times managed to obtain exclusive insight into the debacle.
Bimini Road, also called Bimini Wall, is believed to have been built to protect a prehistoric settlement from waves. FtLaud/Shutterstock
Psychologist Greg Little, author of “Edgar Cayce’s Atlantis,” revealed to the newspaper another flip-flop. He claims to have evidence of scientists altering core samples to support that Bimini Road was naturally formed. He says they admitted being pressured to do so by “all the craziness” surrounding Bimini Road, that it was “done for fun,” and it was done “to make a good story.”
To verify Mr. Little’s claims, The Epoch Times reached out to the scientist in question, who replied they were “not going to nit-pick over Little’s concerns.”
If true, the claim raises questions: Why would the orthodoxy mislead? What do they stand to gain by disproving ancient man’s involvement in the creation of Bimini Road?
This we posed to Mr. Little, who drew on psychology to explain:
“All contradictions to their beliefs are probably perceived as a direct threat to them professionally and psychologically,“ he said. ”The long history of science has countless examples of widely held beliefs that were proven wrong by research. But even in the face of incontrovertible proof that these beliefs were wrong, many so-called scientists refused to accept the new evidence.”
As for Bimini Road—whether it’s case-closed, as the “consensus” says, or mysterious as ever—there’s perhaps a way to know: Visit Bimini Road. Swim the crystal blue waters. Witness its wonders yourself with your eyes.
