N

S

Reference: Alternate Perceptions Magazine online. November 2005.Note: All photos and text © 2005 by Greg Little. Redistribution and copying prohibited without authorization.

Underwater Stone Formation at Bimini: Ancient Harbor Evidence

— Uncovering the Bimini Hoax—

By Dr. Greg Little

hoax \ vt.: to trick into believing or accepting as genuine something false...

hoax \ n.: something accepted or established by fraud or fabrication.

Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (1996)

Scientific fabrication: Making up data or results.

Scientific falsification: Changing or misreporting data or results.

National Academy of Sciences (1995)

On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research; Misconduct in Science

Introduction

In 1968 a 1600-foot long J-shaped formation of stone blocks was reportedly discovered

about one mile off the west coast of North Bimini, Bahamas by a Miami-based biologist, Dr. J.

Manson Valentine. The formation was initially thought to resemble a collapsed wall or a road and

the unfortunate name “Bimini Road” was attached to it. Media coverage speculated that the site

was associated with Atlantis and sensationalized reports about the formation were widely

disseminated. Shortly thereafter, four geologists asserted that the formation was nothing but natural

limestone. Most archaeologists and geologists have accepted the four geologists’ claims without

question. However, an inspection of the site shows that the skeptics’ most important claims about

the formation are inaccurate. More importantly, however, a careful evaluation of the prime skeptical

geologist’s original research results indicate that his published findings were changed, misreported,

and misrepresented in later reports that presented the same data. By definition, this geologist’s

claims about the Bimini site, based on his later reports, constitute a hoax that has now lasted 25

years. A well-known archaeologist appears to have participated in the hoax as a coauthor.

Paradoxically, these coauthors alleged in several articles that a hoax had been perpetrated at Bimini

by others. It is demonstrated herein that USGS geologist Eugene Shinn and archaeologist Marshall

McKusick published a series of articles wherein they presented false and misleading results

summarizing Shinn’s research findings at Bimini.

1

Left: In the 1970’s, Dr.David Zink, an Englishprofessor, spent severalyears examining the BiminiRoad. His research waspartly funded by the ARE.One of most importantthings Zink accomplishedwas to make a map of theformation. The map depictsonly the largest stones thatare visible from the surface.Illustration—ARE.

The Skeptical Geologists

Not long after the discovery of the Bimini Road, a Virginia Beach, Virginia geologist, Wyman

Harrison (1971), sampled two stones of the formation and visually observed the site reporting that

all the blocks were limestone that had fractured in place. Harrison added, “at no place are blocks

found to be resting on a similar set beneath.”

Harrison also examined 30 cylinder-like columns found near the site. He reported that two

of the columns were fluted marble and noted they were not from the Bahamas. He wrote that

“Georgia is probably not the source and there is only a small chance it could have come from

Vermont.” The remaining cylinders Harrison asserted were cement noting, “The cement cylinders

are also composed of material which is not indigenous to the Bahamas.” Harrison believed it to be

a form of hydrated natural cement. Samples of the cement were evaluated by several others and

their conclusions were reported by Harrison. One researcher stated that the cement seemed to be a

high-temperature product resembling the overburnt product of lime kilns. The other researcher

reported that a chemical analysis found quartz and coal particles in it suggesting that it was probably

made sometime after 1800. Harrison reasoned that the cylinder-like columns were probably dumped

by modern or historic ships, but made no attempt to compare the columns to similar artifacts that

had been discovered at ancient harbors in the Mediterranean or to ancient cements.

Ball and Gifford (1980) began by relating that Harrison had shown the formation was

completely natural, based on Harrison’s examination of the two small stone pieces and his visual

observations. Ball and Gifford also observed that no blocks on the formation rested squarely on

other blocks and that no regular prop stones were present under any of the large blocks. In essence,

they asserted that all of the blocks were either lying on bottom sand or on the solid limestone

foundation forming the seabed.

Another geologist, Eugene Shinn, who had worked a few years for the U.S. Geological

Survey’s new field office in Miami (1978), published findings from 17 stone block cores he allegedly

made at the formation. Shinn’s later reports (McKusick & Shinn 1980; Shinn 2004) claimed that all

17 cores showed “constant dip direction from one block to the next” (1980) and that all 17 cores

“tilted toward deep water” (2004) essentially proving that the formation began as a single piece of

limestone that formed on an ancient beach. This type of limestone is commonly referred to as

“beachrock,” but according to Shinn (1978) the stone becomes as hard as iron.

2

Above: One of the piles of the columns that are located near the harbor entrance be-tween the islands of North and South Bimini. They are located approximately a half-mile from the far southern end of Proctor’s Road. Right: Close-up photos of severalcylinders. In 1971, Wyman Harrison determined that at least two of the columns werefluted marble and samples from a few others showed that they were a form of cement.Most skeptical reports assert that all the columns were cement ignoring the fluted marblereport. While Harrison asserted that they were dumped by modern ships, their origin isunknown and they bear similarity to ancient columns. Photos—Greg Little, 2005.

In the Mediterranean, beachrock was a common construction stone utilized in building

harbors (http://www2.rgzm.de/Navis2/Home/Frames.htm), but that fact is apparently either unknown

or ignored by the geologists. Few archaeologists and geologists apparently actually read Shinn’s

original 1978 article because the now-obscure journal, Sea Frontiers, is difficult to find. Instead,

skeptics cite Shinn’s later (1980; 2004) summaries of his 1978 work, which were published in

widely circulated journals. For example, Kenneth Feder’s popular archaeology textbook (2006)

asserts that the Bimini formation has been shown to the result of “natural erosion processes,” citing

only McKusick & Shinn (1980) and Harrison (1971). Feder, apparently, assumes the 1980 summary

of Shinn’s results originally published in 1978 was accurate.

While the idea that Harrison proved that the entire Bimini formation, comprised of thousands

of stones, was completely natural limestone from only two samples is a stretch, the coring result

from Shinn is the key to the beachrock explanation. Based on the findings of the expedition described

in this report, and also from an analysis of Shinn’s 2004 article, a careful examination of Shinn’s

actual 1978 results was made. As shall be fully documented in this article, Shinn’s actual 1978

results do not match what he and McKusick asserted in their 1980 article and also in later articles.

In fact, it can be statistically argued that what Shinn reported in 1978 actually supports the idea

that the Bimini Road is manmade.

Shinn alleged that a hoax was perpetrated at Bimini in his articles and Marshall McKusick

published a later article in Archaeology relating that the Bimini hoax was perpetrated to increase

tourism at Bimini and to promote Edgar Cayce. McKusick’s article was a major development in

academic archaeology’s attack on what they term pseudoscience and cult archaeology. However, it

is now clear that Shinn and McKusick engaged in pseudoscience themselves by reporting a

completely misleading and inaccurate summary of results. That is, they changed the actual results

Shinn obtained. This presents an amazing twist to the entire affair. This was not an expected

development when the present project began and it took this writer by complete surprise.

The Natural Beachrock Hypothesis

To understand the geologists’ position on the Bimini formation—that it is a slab of natural

beachrock that fractured in place—it’s necessary to briefly describe how beachrock forms. Beachrock

forms rapidly in the Bahamas where constant wave motion and tidal flows push sand and small

pebbles onto the gradually rising beach. The water has a high concentration of carbonate material

in it some of which settles onto the sand and pebbles that are accumulating on the shore.

3

Left: Beachrock on the Bimini shore. Notethat the forming limestone is tipping towardthe water. Right: Close-up of a cut slab ofbeachrock at Bimini. The stone is still usedfor construction. The internal layering of thestone is visible and the tilt toward the rightis toward the water. Photos—Greg Little.

In the simplest of terms, the carbonate material chemically fuses with the sand and pebbles

creating a cemented stone that gets, as Shinn related in 1978, as hard as iron. The stone is actually

coarse limestone, but on a beach it’s commonly referred to as beachrock. Because the motion of the

waves pushes the sand and pebbles upward onto a beach line, the forming beachrock almost always

tilts toward the water. If the rock is cut, the interior of beachrock often shows a distinctive bedding

pattern of visible layers that tilt toward the deep water. Consistent internal bedding of the sand and

pebbles and the tilt of the internal layers toward deep water are the critical factors that are used to

determine if a beachrock formation is in its natural location or was moved. Shinn’s assertion that all

17 of his cores tilted toward deep water is the critical point in the geologists’ belief about the

Bimini formation, as Feder (2006) shows. Shinn speculated that the Bimini Road began as a massive

slab of beachrock that formed on a deep layer of sand that once extended above the surface. The

sand washed away, gradually settling the slab to the bottom. Over time, the slab fractured into

rectangular and square blocks resulting in the formation seen there today. If Shinn’s results actually

did show that all 17 cores dipped or tilted toward deep water, it would be a powerful argument that

the Bimini formation is completely natural. The assertion that there are no blocks set on top of each

other and that there are no regular prop stones under any blocks only serve to support the natural

beachrock idea, but these assertions are not even mentioned by Feder. The presence of multiple

tiers and prop stones would help prove that the formation had been altered. However, even if multiple

tiers and prop stones were present at the site, the issue of all 17 of Shinn’s cores “dipping toward

deep water” would still prevail. Later in this article it will be shown that all of the assertions made

by the skeptics (regarding Shinn’s core results, multiple tiers, and prop stones) are not true. In fact

the key component of the geologists’ claims, regarding the core results, constitutes what is by

definition a hoax.

Other Research on the Site

The Bimini formation has seen a host of other, well-qualified researchers examine portions

of the site. Dr. Dimitri Rebikoff, a famed marine engineer, retrieved “micrite” from the Bimini

formation (1979) noting its similarity to ancient Mediterranean harbors. Rebikoff also photographed

several prop stones under large blocks, but his evidence was ignored by the skeptics. Rebikoff

presented his findings at meetings where French archaeologists and geologists concurred with his

conclusion that the site was an ancient harbor. According to archaeologist Bill Donato, Zink (1976)

made 12 cores at Bimini utilizing a stable tripod and also found micrite in the stones. A neutron

activation analysis compared shore stone samples to cores from the formation. Results showed

fewer trace elements in the formation’s stones implying it was not in situ. Zink also photographed

multiple tiers at the site, but his evidence was dismissed or ignored by skeptics. In addition, ongoing

archaeological research has found numerous stone blocks at the site exhibiting mortises and tenons.

As far as is known, only three archaeologists have personally examined the site and all have the

4

Left: One of Zink’s1978 photos showing ablock squarely sittingon top of anotherblock. Right: Area ofthe Bimini Road that isunusually uniform.Photo—Greg Little.

opinion that it is artifactual. One stone recovered from the site and later analyzed at the University

of Colorado was determined to have tool marks, deliberate shaping, functional wear, erosion features

similar to steps, was once in an area with a minimum of two seasons, and was exposed to surface

wave erosion (Donato, 2004).

May 2005 Results

In May 2005, a week long underwater and surface examination of the Bimini formation was

conducted with constant film documentation. Archaeologist William Donato, M. A. accompanied

Dr. Lora Little, Doris Van Auken, two dive operators at Bimini, and the author on the expedition.

Film was taken both on the surface, in water, and underwater.

Proctor’s Road Findings

In 1971, an obscurely known line of stones was reported about a half-mile closer to shore

from the Bimini Road. The discoverer, Stephen Proctor, named the site and reported that stone

circles, spaced at regular intervals, were present there. Proctor’s Road also was described as passing

directly across ancient shorelines (Richards, 1988) and strangely, it has been almost completely

ignored.

Our May 2005 trip began with an aerial survey to identify the exact location of Proctor’s

Road. The area is not on any of the regular flight paths to the Bimini airport and appears to have

escaped the attention of nearly everyone. Surprisingly, the weather conditions were perfect, and all

of Proctor’s Road was clearly visible from an altitude of 500 feet. Using digital video and a zoom

lens, we were able to clearly identify five large stone circles in the shallow water as well as many

other partial circles.

Diving at the site the next day, we filmed the entire formation underwater as well as taking

numerous photos. What appear to be numerous ancient shorelines were clearly visible, and the

mile-long line of stones comprising the formation passed directly over many of these. We easily

found the stone circles, which were formed in two ways. Some of them consisted of large stone

blocks simply piled into a heap, forming a circle. The most curious circles consisted of large

Above left: Aerial photo of the Bimini formations taken from 6000 feet. Photo—ARE. Above right: The red area(A) is the main formation known as the Bimini Road. B (the blue line) is the shoreline when sea levels were 15-feet below present level. C (yellow line) is Proctor’s Road. D (green line) is the shoreline when sea levels were 8feet below present levels. E (light green) is the present Bimini shoreline.

5

6

Left: Frame from aerial digital video(utilizing a zoom lens) showing threeof the stone circles on Proctor’s Road.The discoloration comes from reflec-tions on the plane’s window. Bottomleft & center: Examples of the piles ofstone forming circles at Proctor’s Road.Center & bottom right: Portions of largecircles formed by arrangements ofstone blocks. The blocks are all at leasta foot thick and are generally three tofour feet square. The areas between thecircles are generally covered bysmaller, flat white stones. Photos—Greg & Lora Little.

rectangular blocks arranged into a circle, where the middle of the circle was simply the seabed.

These were clearly anomalous. The circles are located at fairly spaced intervals and between them

thousands of small, flat stones cover the bottom. The large blocks forming the circles stand out in

stark contrast to the smaller stones on the bottom. Several other “partial” circles were found and

occasionally one of the large blocks sits among the smaller flat stones. Wedged under some of the

large blocks associated with the stone circles we found several eroded wooden beams and planks.

The dive operators, who have operated there for many years, were not aware of these formations

and were surprised by the discovery.

Associated with the stone circles we made a series of discoveries that we had not anticipated,

which took us some time to understand. We found at least eight stone anchors, varying from circular

stones with a large hole drilled in the middle to large, wedge-shaped anchors with multiple holes.

The anchors are identical to ancient Roman, Phoenician, Greek, and Egyptian anchors recovered at

numerous ancient Mediterranean harbors. All of these were left in place. Several large blocks

showed what appear to be mortise cuts and grooves.

7

Above, left & center: Views of ancientshorelines at Proctor’s Road. Above right:Krista Brown of KnB EZ Dive examinesa wood plank under large block at Proctor’sRoad. Far right: Another wooden boardwedged under stones at Proctor’s Road.Immediately right: Small, wedge shapedstone anchor about 20 inches long in stonecircle at Proctor’s Road. Photos—Greg &Lora Little.

Broken end

Right: Krista Brown marks large anchor at Proctor’s Road so GPS coor-dinates can be taken. Bottom left: Large stone anchor showing multipleholes with the narrow end broken off. Bottom center: One of severalwedge-shaped stone anchors at Proctor’s Road. It is approximately 2 feetlong. These are identical to Phoenician anchors recovered in the Mediter-ranean, however, it is not asserted that they are Phoenician in origin.Bottom right: Example of large circular anchor at Proctor’s Road. Pho-tos—Greg & Lora Little.

Unexpectedly, we also found several holes bored through large stone blocks on the far

southern end of Proctor’s Road. These appeared similar to some of the core holes we had seen on

the Bimini formation. In an email correspondence with Eugene Shinn (Little, 2005), he related that

any 4-inch cores that we found were his.

We have since discovered that several ancient Mediterranean harbors, especially one at

Cosa, Italy, utilized “mooring circles,” constructed by forming large circles of stone. These ship-

mooring areas were generally built outside of the main harbor area for ships that were only making

a brief stop or for those that were not allowed in the main harbor. Cosa had five of these and they

appear similar to the ones at Proctor’s Road.

Interestingly, at Cosa, the main harbor is formed by a 330-foot long breakwater that still

exists. On the Cosa breakwater, dozens of cylinders, virtually identical in appearance to those not

too far from the end of Proctor’s Road, have been found. The Cosa cylinders—or columns—are of

two types. They are either fluted marble or cement—precisely the same kind at Bimini that were

described by Harrison in 1971. Modern chemical analysis of the hydrated cement used by the

ancient Romans has shown that they used fires to heat limestone and added a host of other minerals

including sandy quartz from sandstone. In addition, ancient Greek cement has been extensively

analyzed (Efstathiades, 2000) and is surprisingly similar to modern cement. The presence of the

anomalous stone circles and the stone anchors are highly suggestive that the area served as a harbor

at some point in the past. The area is under about eight feet of water, less than half the depth of the

main Bimini formation. Thus, its possible use for mooring is probably more recent than the main

Bimini formation. The anchors, wood, stone circles, and the cement cylinders merit further analysis.

Bimini Road Findings

Over 14 hours of scuba diving was made by each of two divers (the present author and

archaeologist Bill Donato) to examine various portions of the Bimini Road and other areas. All of

these activities were continually videotaped by Dr. Lora Little while snorkeling on the surface.

Hundreds of photographs were also taken supplemented by bottom videotaping.

At least a dozen multiple tiers of stone blocks were easily found in direct contradiction to

the claims of Harrison (1971) and Gifford & Ball (1980). Several of these were set “squarely” on

top of an underlying block, but the top blocks generally showed substantial erosion. These were

found primarily in an area of the formation that has a large amount of coral and plant growth.

Massive schools of fish were present in this area to such a degree that it was difficult to actually see

through the fish. Sharks are often present in this area of the formation, and it can be speculated that

the skeptics may have avoided this area or primarily viewed it from the surface. Bimini is an area

with numerous sharks and a Shark Lab is operated on the island.

Curiously, the multiple tiers of stone in this area cannot usually be discerned from the surface.

Indeed, all of the blocks usually appear to be resting on the sandy bottom. However, while scuba

diving on the bottom, these are very visible and were actually easy to find. In many places, it is

clear that large underlying stone blocks are present just under the sand that covers the bottom edges

of the blocks that are viewed from the surface. At other spots in this area, especially at the far

northern ends of the “J,” some blocks appear to be heaped on top of others in a haphazard, jumbled

manner. While some would argue this is the result of dumping, it also has the same appearance of

breakwaters where stone is simply piled and allowed to fall into place.

One intriguing set of blocks we found was three tiers high. The bottom block rested on a

large pile of rubble, which again, directly contradicts skeptics’ claims. The top block of the three

tiers showed a distinct U-shaped channel cut across its entire bottom. Groove marks were also

visible along the ends of this block. It is approximately 5-feet in length and nearly two feet thick.

8

Left: Stone with whatappears to be a mor-tise cut at Proctor’sRoad. Right: Theside of a large blockat Proctor’s Roadshowing what ap-pears to be a largegroove cut. Photos—Greg & Lora Little.

In addition, numerous cube-like prop stones were found under many blocks. This finding

also directly contradicts skeptics’ claims about the formation. Without external lights or a flash, it’s

impossible to see anything clearly under the blocks. It is reasonable to assume that the observations

made by Harrison and Gifford & Ball were primarily made from the surface or without the aid of

lights. Gifford ignored the question when it was later presented to him. We estimate that we looked

under less than 10 percent of the blocks on this end of the Bimini Road, but those that were not

covered by sand showed either prop stones or a far more intriguing leveling stone under them. In

addition, the presence of sand can certainly make it appear, from only a cursory look, that most of

the blocks are resting on the bottom.

Scattered around the entire site are numerous rectangular stones averaging about 3 feet in

length, by 2 feet in width, and 8-inches thick. Inspection of our video has shown several dozen of

these obviously cut, smoothed stones in various places. When these blocks were first encountered

during the 2005 expedition, they were intriguing, but we immediately realized there was no proof

where they came from or when they were placed there. In brief, the idea that they were dumped was

initially the most logical explanation. However, during the time we inspected under massive blocks,

we were astonished to find many of these rectangular slabs under the larger stones. In all these

cases, the massive blocks visible from the surface were literally resting on top of the smaller

rectangular slabs. In several cases, we found several of the rectangular slabs literally stacked on top

of each other essentially leveling the massive block on top of them. There is no way that these slabs

9

Right: The Bimini Road from the air showing a fishhook-like, inverted J-shape in the middle. The boat inthe photo is over 30-feet long, showing how the areainside the J would have been large enough for a harborenclosure. The dark coloration surrounding the forma-tion is primarily turtle grass. Below: an area of theBimini Road that I found intriguing. Photo—Greg Little.

Left: Surface video demonstrates how hugeschools of fish can obstruct the view from the sur-face. The area shown has several multiple tiers ofblocks. Below: From the suface, it usually appearsthat the blocks are resting on the bottom, how-ever, many of them have had vast layers of sandswept away by storms and hurricanes. Most of theexposed undersides of the blocks have prop stonesor rectangular slabs under them, apparently usedas leveling stones. Photos—Lora Little.

10

Below, right: The area showing many multiple tiers is filled withhuge schools of fish. Above, left: From the surface, when the fishmove away, it is sometimes possible to see stone blocks under thelarge surface blocks.. Left, bottom: double-tiered blocks obscuredby fish. Photos—Greg Little, Lora Little, & Bill Donato.

could have been dumped from ships. It was one of the most important discoveries and it can be

asserted that it constitutes definitive proof that the hand of humans was involved in altering the

formation. To our knowledge, these rectangular blocks serving a leveling stones have never before

been reported. It took considerable effort to get under some of the stone blocks to access the underside.

A bottom surface search yielded several artifactual finds. A unique “u-shaped” mortise cut

into a 3-foot square stone was discovered. It is possible it could be natural, but a few ancient stone

anchors found in the Mediterranean are identical to it.

The view from the bottom (while diving) is very different from the surface view. The

simultaneous presence of both views enabled our team to discover several other important artifacts.

While snorkeling and filming from the surface, Lora Little saw a strange looking stone with a

plum-bob like shape. After gaining our attention while we were diving on the bottom, she directed

us to it. The stone, about 3-feet long, had a large hole bored through its middle. On both ends

groove marks were clearly discernible where a rope had been attached. The stone is identical to

several ancient Greek stone anchors that have been recovered at Thera. It was covered with a deep

layer of coral and carbonate crust on the exposed side and was found just to the outside of the main

J-shape, toward land. Lora also discovered another stone anchor within the main J-shaped formation.

It was a large circular stone about 4-feet in diameter with a large hole drilled through the middle.

Lora spent about 25 hours snorkeling over the formation, all the while videotaping and photographing.

When necessary, she directed the boat to exact locations so GPS coordinates could be taken one

each find. All of these obviously archaeological artifacts were left in place.

One of the objectives of the expedition was to attempt to find a specific stone block that Bill

Donato photographed in 1998. Under this block, Donato found a wedge-shaped prop stone, but its

specific location wasn’t noted back then. We did not find the specific stone Donato photographed in

1998 due to the presence of vast amounts of sand, but the search led us to brush sand from the sides

of several blocks.

As we began brushing sand from around one particular block, several smaller and unusual

stones became visible under a corner. As these stones were removed, more and more stones were

11

Above: Various areas where multiple tiers are found. Since the skeptics claimed that not a single example of these existat Bimini, it is obvious that their claim is wrong. Photos—Greg Little, Lora Little, & Bill Donato.

Right: Triple tier ofblocks resting onrubble. Note the in-verted U-shapedchannel runningacross the bottom ofthe top block and thecuts on the ends.

Bottom photos: Examples ofnumerous prop stones foundunder large blocks at the BiminiRoad. Photos—Greg Little &Bill Donato.

12

Below: Examples of what are obviously cut and polished rectangular slabs scattered around the Bimini Road. All ofthem are about 8 inches thick and generally three feet long by two-feet wide. Photos—Greg Little & Bill Donato.

Below: One of many cube-like prop stones under massive blocks. There are many similar to this one. This is also onethat was found and reported by Rebikoff. Photos—Greg Little & Bill Donato.

13

Above: This is probably the best photographic example we obtained of a cut and polished rectangular slab serving as aleveling prop for a huge stone block. The underside of the surface block can be seen at the top of the photo. The hugestone that is seen from the surface is resting on an angular, cut, smooth rectangular block identical to those scatteredaround the site—the stones some have claimed were dumped. Immediately under the large rectangular slab, portionsof two other rectangular slabs can be seen. This stack of stones serves to level the top block. Without using lights or aflash, nothing can be seen in this area—it is almost completely dark and difficult to access. Photo—Greg Little.

Left, top, bottom: Coral-coated rectangular slabs are seen underneathanother large block. The large block is not resting on the bottom, but ison the slabs—note the light showing from the other side or the top blockin the left hand corner. Several areas show similar slabs haphazardly inplace. Bottom: Another underside of a different block can be seen in thetop of the photo. The block rests on a smoothed and cut rectangularstone. Photos—Greg Little & Bill Donato.

14

Left, top to bottom: Bill Donato measures the unusual square stone showinga U-shaped cut to its middle; Close-up of the U-shaped stone; Broken artifactfound by Bill Donato showing a cut edge. Photos—Greg Little & Bill Donato.

Right top: Frame from surface video showing the unusual stone anchor foundat the Bimini Road. Bottom: Lora directed Greg to the anchor, and this framefrom surface video was taken just as Greg turned it over. Photos—Lora Little.

visible. From under this block, over two-dozen black, cut stones were recovered. These varied in

size from irregularly shaped brick-like stones to highly angular triangular shapes. They appeared to

be granite and a group of geology students from an Ohio college performing a field practicum at

Bimini agreed the stones were probably granite. In the states, the stones were sent to two independent

commercial geology labs. An SEM with elemental X-ray analysis revealed that the stones lacked

one element to actually be granite. The stones were identified as contact metamorphic stones

(limestone and clay combined under heat and pressure) and fossilized limestone. In essence, they

are a type of gray marble. The stone is apparently indigenous to the Bahamas, but not to Bimini.

According to one of the labs, this type of stone was a highly desirable building material. The lab

believes that these stones were perhaps dumped ballast. An alternative is that they were discarded

because they were too small for construction. But because they were found under a large block, the

possibility they were dumped from a passing ship as ballast is improbable.

One other finding merits discussion. In his 1978 article, Shinn provided an illustration of

one area of the Bimini Road where he did about half of his cores. We searched the surface of the

stones at the Bimini site looking for all cores. Our efforts turned up no more than 10 cores on the

entire formation. But in the only location Shinn actually described and illustrated in his article, we

could not find a single core. Curiously, Shinn’s drawing of this area closely matches an illustration

that was included in David Zink’s 1978 book, The Stones of Atlantis. Zink mentioned this area

because he felt it was extremely important. It is possible that some of Shinn’s cores were deeply

compacted with a dense sand, but even though we brushed sand off many of blocks we were unable

to find any of them. Curiously, some 4-inch cores at other places on the formation were easily

visible and quickly found.

The results of the May 2005 expedition point to the Bimini formation as once serving as an

ancient harbor. Stone anchors, quite dissimilar to historic-type anchors, are present at both the

Bimini Road and nearby Proctor’s Road. The main J-shaped formation appears to have been

constructed as a breakwater utilizing the same techniques that were used by Phoenicians and others

in the ancient Mediterranean. Harbors were often made at convenient shore locations where natural

beachrock had accumulated on sand bars and ridges that jutted into the water forming natural

harbor areas. Some beachrock slabs were cut and placed in areas that needed additional support.

Prop stones were placed under many large beachrock slabs to level the top of the breakwater. In key

15

Below left: Close-up photo of the unusual stone anchor. It is virtually identical to ancient Greek anchors found atThera. Note the rope grooves on the left end and also on the right end. Typically, large sticks were pushed through thecenter hole and a rope was secured to the anchor’s ends and the stick. The stick was used to dig into a sandy bottom.Below right: Round stone anchor found at Bimini Road. Photos—Greg Little & Lora Little.

Below: Photo of limestone wedge Bill Donato discovered under a stoneblock at Bimini in 1998. Photo—Bill Donato. Right top: Surface videoshowing where the marble pieces were found. Below right: The upperright hand corner of the photo shows the underside of the block wherethe marble was removed. The marble is shown in the middle with shellsand other debris. Photos—Greg & Lora Little.

areas, flat, rectangular slabs, called ashlar blocks, were placed on the top of the breakwater to form

unloading platforms. The rectangular slabs scattered across the Bimini site are identical to ashlar

blocks. In fact, several virtually identical J-shaped breakwaters, formed from beachrock, are at

Dor, Atlit, and several other harbors in the Mediterranean. At Bimini, the long double line of uniform

stones, located about 100 feet from the J-shape toward the present shore of Bimini, appears to have

been a quay, a paved cargo staging area that was constructed along the shoreline. The Phoenician

harbor at Atlit, has a similar quay still in existence.

Many of the first discoveries at Mediterranean harbors were stone anchors lying on the

bottom. Subsequent excavations into the silted harbor areas yielded maritime artifacts. Virtually all

of the ancient Mediterranean harbors were found with silted harbor areas. Due to annual hurricanes

that hit Bimini, small surface artifacts would have been covered or swept away. The area that would

have formed the harbor has an easily penetrated, silted, sandy bottom. No excavation has ever been

done there.

While skeptics have made much over the inaccurate “fact” that there are no multiple tiers of

stones at Bimini, the results from this report show that their assertions are untrue. There are numerous

double tiers of stones at Bimini. Only one of these is needed to invalidate their claim. The one

16

Below: Close-up video stills of two pieces of the marble removed from under a block at the Bimini Road. Because thestones were found tightly wedged under a block, essentially buried there, it is highly unlikely that they are ballastdumped from a passing ship. Photos— Lora Little.

Above: Surface video still showing two cores. These are depicted inseveral of Shinn’s articles. Right: Closeups of these cores. Photos—Greg & Lora Little and Bill Donato.

three-tiered formation we found shows what seems to be a silt-flushing channel cut across the

bottom of the top block. However, there is one other aspect to the ancient harbor theory that skeptics

have avoided mentioning. Many of the Mediterranean harbors had only one layer of stone blocks

forming a breakwater, for the simple reason that breakwaters were often built on the top of natural

ridges jutting into the water. One layer of stones was all that was often needed.

Information on Mediterranean harbors is easily accessible. The books History Under the

Sea, Under the Mediterranean, Man: 12,000 Years into the Past, Ships, Shoals and Amphoras,

Sunken History, Diving into the Past, and Phoenicians are only a few that contain relevant

information. The European Commission maintains a large and detailed website on research on

ancient Mediterranean harbors that includes the history of research at each as well as photos. It can

be accessed at: http://www2.rgzm.de/Navis2/Home/Frames.htm

The possibility that the Bimini formation was an ancient harbor is intriguing and

archaeologically problematic. The enclosure is similar in size, shape, and construction techniques

to harbors at Dor, Atlit, and many others (McKee, 1969). The stone circles at Bimini are similar to

those at Cosa, where similar marble and cement columns have also been found.

According to Shinn, carbon dates he reported on a few Bimini stones (ranging from 2000-

3000 B.P.) were done by bulk dating and are not reliable (Little, 2005; see final section); thus, the

formation date of the stones comprising the Bimini formation is actually unknown. In their 1980

report, Gifford & Ball did report one Uranium-Thorium date obtained from a sample “beachrock”

core taken between several large blocks on the J-formation. That resulting date showed that the

stone formed about 15,000 B.P. This date doesn’t allow any speculation, it only relates that the

limestone immediately under the Road formation probably formed around 15,000-years ago.

The main Bimini formation is under 15-20 feet of water while the stone circles are under

eight to ten feet. Current sea level estimates for the Bahamas (Faught & Carter, 1998) indicate that

modern sea levels were reached as early as 5000 B. C. and no later than 3000 B. C., implying that

the use of the Bimini formation as a harbor could have been somewhat earlier. But this is definitely

inconsistent with currently accepted archaeology timetables for the Bahamas. Nevertheless, the

main Bimini harbor, formed by what is commonly known as the Bimini Road, may have been

utilized before 5000 B.C.—the time when sea levels in the Bahamas were about 15-feet lower.

Faught & Carter have found that in 10,000 B.C., the Bahamas sea levels were no more than 90 to

110 feet lower than today.

17

Below: This is a photomosaic of three still images from digital video of a portion of the uniform row of stones runningparallel to the J-shape closer to the shore. The middle portion of the photo is distorted to make the images blend. Therow is straight and is identical to quays built along the shoreline at ancient Mediterranean harbors Photo—Greg Little.

Above: Archaeological reconstruction artist’s conception of how the Bimini Road may have appeared when the sealevel was 15-feet lower than the current level. The features are scaled to the actual size of the Bimini Road, and showthe shoreline at the location where current depth charts of Bimini show 15 feet of water. The right hand side of theillustration is to the South, and the curved J would have diverted strong currents from the Gulf Stream. However, asmall opening would have allowed flushing of silt from the harbor. The harbor area, enclosed by the J and the quay andpier on the shoreline, is today covered by a deep layer of sand. The openings that have been noted at the Bimini Roadmay well have served as boat slipways and mooring areas. At the time the shoreline would have abutted the line ofstones running along it, the area where the stone circles are currently located (Proctor’s Road), would have been onland. Credit— Dee Turman © 2005. Reproduction, redistribution, or reuse by any means is prohibited by law withoutauthorization from the author.

18

Left: The Bimini Road does not reston a flat bottom as is sometimes as-serted. All of the stone features, withthe exception of the double line ofuniform stones closer to the shore,actually rest on elevated areas. Thisis similar to many Mediterranean har-bors, which took advantage of natu-ral features that rose from the bottomor jutted into the water. This enabledbreakwaters to easily be constructedutilizing convenient beachrock lo-cated nearby. This fact also meantthat many breakwaters needed onlyone thick layer of stones. It is likelythat the area at the Bimini Road show-ing multiple tiers needed additionalheight to reach the needed level.Photo—Bill Donato.

19

One complicating factor arises in recent findings off Florida’s southern coast—not far from

the Bahamas. Geologists have found that in the past few thousand years, the sea bottom has increased

in height by 35-feet. This is due to carbonate sedimentation settling to the bottom forming a new,

progressively higher crust. The area of the “harbor” at the Bimini Road, shows a similar bottom

crust. Thus, the actual bottom and estimated timetable for use of the area as a harbor is problematical.

Finally, the stone circles at nearby Proctor’s Road bear further mention. Indications are that this set

of stone circles may have been utilized as mooring areas when the sea level was perhaps 7-8 feet

lower than today. This would have been sometime around 4-5000 B.C. While this scenario is certainly

speculative, it seems possible, based on the evidence, that the main Bimini harbor was utilized until

rising sea levels made it unusable—circa 5000 B.C. Then, the mooring circles were constructed

until they too became unusable by rising sea levels perhaps between 4000 to 3000 B.C. In fact, that

was the same time period when the Great Bahama Bank, stretching from Bimini to Andros 100-

miles away, was submerged by rising waters. For whatever reason, the maritime culture that utilized

Bimini as a port was abandoned and probably forgotten. Over the centuries of increasingly warm

weather, hurricanes increased in frequency and ferocity, and with the majority of the prior land

mass submerged under the rising seas, the area was completely abandoned by this unknown maritime

culture.

The Bimini Hoax

It should be mentioned that the Bimini skeptics have invested themselves into their assertions

about Bimini both professionally and also from an ego standpoint. In essence, they have maintained

a position on Bimini for nearly 35 years. All contradictions to their beliefs are probably perceived

as a direct threat to them professionally and psychologically. 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. Most scientists are aware of such examples, and it is not necessary to detail any of

them.

What likely occurs in such situations is the employment of ego defense mechanisms that

are discussed in virtually every introductory psychology textbook. For example, ridicule is often

Below: This is another photomosaic of four still images from digital video of a portion of the uniform row of stonesrunning parallel to the J-shape closer to the shore. The combined photos were made relatively seamless by compuersoftware. The row is straight and is identical to quays built along the shoreline at ancient Mediterranean harborsPhoto—Greg Little.

20

employed as well as denial, rationalization, and projection. Eugene Shinn ridicules those who disagree

with his Bimini assertions by calling them “true believers.” He then asserts that “true believers say

it was prehistoric archaeological site built by extraterrestrials from the Pleiades.” This is explained

more fully later. In addition, rationalization has clearly occurred in the skeptics as will also be

demonstrated in this section. Rationalization is making up an acceptable excuse for something that

is inexcusable. Denial is also present. Behaviorally, a simple example of denial is when a person

closes his eyes and turns away when seeing something undesirable and then muttering the words,

“this can’t be true.”

To summarize this brief introduction to what some will find an uncomfortable sequence of

facts, it must be stated that I have no expectation that any of the skeptics will actually change their

views or even consider any alternatives to their beliefs. In fact, what is expected is denial,

rationalization, and outright ridicule. But it appears necessary to reveal all of the following details

in order to lower the resistance of a group of scientists who need to pay attention—archaeologists.

For obvious reasons, mainstream archaeologists have avoided Bimini as if it was infected

with a deadly virus. They have been convinced by reading others’ summaries of the early research—

not by digesting the actual facts—that Bimini has to be nothing but natural beachrock and that a

harbor cannot be there—therefore it is not there.

Archaeologists who have a genuine sense of ethics and honor, and who have dismissed

Bimini based on what the geologists have written, are urged to obtain Eugene Shinn’s 1978 article

and actually read it. Compare the actual results in Shinn’s article to the 1980 report and his 2004

article. Then, understand that what has been asserted in the present article about Bimini is unrelated

to Atlantis, Cayce, or extraterrestrials from the Pleiades. Skeptics invoke emotion-laden, ridiculing

terms for reasons—one important one is that it keeps people from looking into what they have

actually done.

Shinn’s Sea Frontier’s Article. Eugene Shinn’s original article was published in a now-

obscure journal called Sea Frontiers. It is difficult to find and is seemingly rarely read by skeptics

who have relied on Shinn’s later reports, which are more easily accessible. I assume this, because if

other geologists and archaeologists actually read all these reports, as they sometimes claim, the

discrepancies should be apparent.

Close inspection of Shinn’s original 1978 article revealed one serious discrepancy between

his actual findings, all of which were reported in 1978, and the later reports in 1980 and 2004.

Another, perhaps less serious discrepancy, is also present in the 1980 and 2004 articles. Again,

these facts are easily demonstrated by reading what Shinn actually wrote in 1978, 1980, and 2004.

The emphasis given to all the following bold and italicized sentences has been added—to ensure

that the critical assertions are noticeable.

In his 1978 article, Shinn explained that he did two separate sets of cores at two different

sites on the Bimini Road. He wrote, “The purpose of this was to determine if the bedding in all the

blocks dips uniformly toward the sea (to the west of Bimini). If it does, then it is highly unlikely

that the blocks had ever been transported.”

One area on the site had 8 cores performed and the other area had 9. He actually reported

that at the site with eight cores, no internal strata—no dipping—was visible or present. He wrote:

“Beach bedding was not readily visible in these cores because large pebbles prevent bedding

formation.” Shinn still concluded the stones had all once been joined as a single stone because he

claimed he could trace the pebbles—not because of the tilt, which was the focus of the research.

In his results on the area with 9 cores, Shinn simply reported that “many” of these nine

cores were horizontal while the others dipped toward deep water. The two sentences Shinn used to

21

describe his findings on these 9 cores was: “Bedding in all the cores from this area was either

horizontal or dipping predominantly toward the sea. No blocks were found that dipped

predominantly away from the sea or parallel to the shore.”

Shinn’s results did not report that none of the blocks dipped toward the shore (away from

the sea), they relate none of them dipped predominantly toward shore, implying something else. He

describes them as horizontal—meaning level with no dip present. I do know what he meant when

he stated that no blocks ... dipped ... parallel to the shore.

He strangely reported no actual numbers on how many of these 9 cores were horizontal

versus dipping toward sea or land. The fact that the journal would publish the paper without

having any actual numbers cited in the results is puzzling. But because Shinn specifically wrote

that “many” of the set of 9 cores were horizontal and not dipping, it’s reasonable to assume that

more than half of them were so. And it is also likely, based on Shinn’s descriptions, that some of

them had some tilt toward land, though not what he describes as predominantly.

Summary of Shinn’s Core Findings. In sum, of Shinn’s 17 cores, he reported that 8 showed

no internal bedding planes and no dip. Of the other 9, a reasonable guess is that at least 5 were

horizontal. Thus, it is likely that at least 13 of 17 cores (or 76.5 percent) showed no dip toward

deep water while 23.5 percent or less actually dipped toward deep water.

In his discussion, Shinn wrote, “The horizontal bedding seen in many of these cores probably

once dipped toward sea.” Of course, the way that sentence is written, it is probably correct. More

specifically, beachrock nearly always tilts toward deep water when it forms on the beach. But if the

blocks are moved, the tilt becomes more variable—if any tilt is seen at all. In fact, if a flat, level

formation were under construction, most of the blocks would show no tilt at all—they would be

horizontal.

The 1980 Nature Article. As related at the beginning of this paper, the Bimini article that

influences archaeologists the most is the 1980 Nature article Shinn published with Marshall

McKusick only two years after the Sea Frontiers article came out. McKusick is, of course, held in

high esteem in the archaeological community. Thus, it is probably unlikely that the vast majority of

archaeologists will have any desire to become aware that the key finding McKusick and Shinn

reported in the 1980 article was essentially untrue. It is not just a case of a “scientific field” protecting

one of its own. It involves denial because the implications are unpleasant. It is similar to closing

one’s eyes and looking away, muttering, “It can’t be, therefore it isn’t.” This internal psychological

trick that we play on ourselves serves as a rationalization—an acceptable reason—that allows us to

look away and ignore something that morally and ethically we know shouldn’t be ignored.

In the 1980 Nature article, the only new data that was reported were a few carbon dates,

which are addressed later. The major point in the article was the summary of what Shinn found in

1978. Here is the exact quote from Nature (1980) that resummarizes Shinn’s 1978 findings (those

detailed on the prior page): “Two areas of the formation were studied, and both show slope and

uniform particle size, bedding planes and constant dip direction from one block to the next.” (p.

287)

That single sentence in the article is the foundation of Shinn and McKusick’s natural

beachrock hypothesis. The bulk of the article is devoted to ridiculing those who disagree with the

conclusion and mounting an attack on psychic and cult archaeology. It should be very clear that the

1980 summary of Shinn’s 1978 results don’t match what he actually reported in 1978.

In Shinn’s 1978 results, less than 25 percent of the cores dipped toward deep water. The

others were horizontal or showed no slope at all. There was no “constant dip direction from one

block to the next.” Nor did all the cores show “a uniform slope.” Attempting to determine

precisely why the actual 1978 results were altered to such a degree that the 1980 summary was a

22

complete misrepresentation—a hoax— is not as easy as it might seem. Surely McKusick read

Shinn’s 1978 article? And Shinn certainly had to be cognizant that there was a major difference in

what he wrote in 1978 and what he wrote in 1980?

2004 Skeptical Inquirer Article. In a 2004 article in the Skeptical Inquirer, Shinn related a

much shorter false assertion about his 17 cores writing: “all the cores dipped toward deep water,”

and said the stones could be traced from one stone to the next, essentially proving it was once a

single slab of natural beachrock. Shinn has also made the same assertion in newspaper interviews

over the past years. The 1980 article, published in Nature, is the most cited skeptical report on the

Bimini formation, and the 2004 Skeptical Inquirer article has been widely disseminated. Yet it is

apparent that what Shinn actually found at Bimini and what he has since reported, are fundamentally

different. Such an alteration of results is, at the least, considered pseudoscience.

It’s interesting to consider that archaeologists often bemoan the fact that “cult archaeologists”

who make fantastic claims often have no sense of ethics or scientific honesty. But during the past

25 years, not one single archaeologist—or geologist for that matter—has apparently noted that

what Shinn reported in 1978 is very different from what he claimed in 1980 with McKusick.

Like most archaeologists apparently, I had not read Shinn’s 1978 article because I could not

find a copy. I relied on the 1980 report with McKusick and trusted that what was reported was the

truth. The primary reason that Shinn’s 1978 results were so closely inspected was because an

inordinately large number of factual errors were present in his 2004 Skeptical Inquirer article.

Many names were misspelled, he related that Plato stated that Atlantis was a “7,000-year old story,”

stated that the Bimini Road was discovered in the “early 1960’s,” and had a completely inaccurate

account of how the psychic Edgar Cayce linked Bimini to Atlantis. In addition, Shinn dismissed

Dimitri Rebikoff, a famous marine engineer with a Ph.D. from the Sorbonne in France, as a “New

Ager” and stated that “true believers say it was built by extraterrestrials from the Pleiades.” All of

these fundamental errors and ridicule raised a host of “red flags” and made me want to read what

Shinn actually reported in 1978. In May of 2005, after returning from the trip to Bimini, we obtained

a copy of the article in the University of Florida library. After reading it, I began a series of email

exchanges with Shinn.

Shinn’s Qualifications as a Geologist. One of the major things that we (our group) were

curious about, was Shinn’s actual qualifications as a geologist. Surprisingly, the Sea Frontiers

article related that Shinn had only a bachelor’s degree in biology—not geology. After working for

oil companies for a few years after he graduated with his bachelors, he went to work for a new and

small field office in Miami for the U. S. Geological Survey.

I then contacted Shinn via email. Shinn agreed that his responses could be used in a

documentary we were making as well as for other purposes. His responses came from his official

government U. S Geological Survey email address, a branch of the U. S. Department of the Interior.

U. S. Department of Interior policies state that all employee emails that are not official statements

from the U. S. Geological Survey must have a disclaimer in them that states the email is only the

opinion of the individual and is not an official position statement from the USGS. None of Shinn’s

emails contained any disclaimers, nor did the emails that he also sent to a newspaper reporter in

response to some of my uncomfortable questions and earlier articles. In addition, Shinn sent me

some details of a talk he was scheduled to do on his Bimini research and “mystics” in October that

listed him as representing the USGS. Thus, Shinn’s emails appear to be an official position of the

USGS.

Asking Shinn about his education, it was clear that until 1998 he only had a bachelor’s

degree in biology. In response to a question, he related, “I received a PH.D in Earth Sciences from

23

The University of South Florida in 1998 based on my 150 some odd scientific publications. (Its the

real thing) Gene.”

I found that odd, especially the statement that “Its real thing.” While readers can concludewhat ever they want about Shinn’s assertion, it was “received” when Shinn was about age 65. Butthe findings that mattered were apparent. Shinn had only a bachelor’s degree until 1998, and itwasn’t in geology. The fields have similarities, but they are not the same major.

Shinn’s Response to Misspellings & Factual Errors. When I inquired about his manymisspellings and other factual errors, Shinn’s exact reply was this: “Im not a verry good speller.”Indeed. In response to another question, Shinn claimed that he got the information on Edgar Caycefrom a pamphlet published by the Cayce organization (the ARE). In his article Shinn claimed that“Cayce asked a patient where Atlantis was” and “the patient told Cayce Atlantis was in the Bahamasat Bimini.” It is an untrue statement and the Cayce organization has never published anythingstating that. Of course, Shinn didn’t remember the title of the “pamphlet” nor does he now have it.

I also asked Shinn why he stated that Plato related the Atlantis story was only 7000-yearsold in both his 1978 and 2004 articles. His reply indicated his level of knowledge on the subject.He asked me what Plato really said? He also admitted that he was not aware of any ancientMediterranean harbors, ancient harbors in the Americas, or effigy mounds.

Bimini has several land formations that, from the air, are identical in appearance to many ofNorth America’s effigy mounds. The Bimini “mounds” have not been validated, but they haven’tbeen shown to be natural, either. I have no assertions whatsoever about them and did not visit them.In his 2004 article, Shinn asserted that because the alleged mounds can be seen from the air, “true

believers say it was prehistoric archaeological site built by extraterrestrials from the Pleiades.”

That is another odd and inaccurate wide-sweeping claim. Dr. David Zink, whom Shinn refers to as“Edward” Zink, received funding from the ARE for several years prior to the publication of his1978 book, The Stones of Atlantis. In that book, Zink utilized a psychic to attempt to garnerinformation about the Bimini Road. The psychic related that visitors from the Pleiades constructedthe formation. After publication of Zink’s book with the unfortunate Pleiades assertion in it, AREfunding ceased. In truth, I am not aware of any “believers in the Bimini Road” who believe whatZink stated, nor am I aware of any ARE members who make that assertion. But the Pleiades ideaZink put forth was made was about the Road site—not the mounds—and it is Zink’s idea alone.

Below: Skeptics have asserted that the only evidence the proponents of the Bimini Road cite is the regularity of thestones. In truth, that has not been the case. It is true that many areas of the formation do show regularity, but, as has beenpresented in this report, regularity is not the important issue. Photos—Greg Little.

24

After I related details about effigy mounds—and even the fact that the US Park Servicemaintains a National Park with many effigy mounds—Shinn was skeptical about them. He alsoimplied that he thought many of the Mediterranean harbors I told him about, constructed frombeachrock, were probably natural. I found that especially interesting, because Shinn admitted thathe really knew nothing about any ancient harbors—he did not even apparently know that anyexisted.

For those interested, a 1000-foot long beachrock breakwater, thoroughly investigated byarchaeologists, is still in existence just off the coast of Yucatan at Isla Cerritos. We visited the islandin 2004 and filmed the entire breakwater underwater. It is linked to the Maya and is thought to havebeen the main port for Chichen Itza. In 1984-85, a team of archaeologists excavated trade artifactsfrom the island, which were shown to come from Florida, Cuba, the Bahamas, the GuatemalanHighlands, and areas in Central America. The site dates to at least 400 B.C. and the small islandwas covered with 29 buildings and structures. Curiously, the manner of construction of the unusualbreakwater is identical to a harbor in the Mediterranean. Large slabs of beachrock were stuckvertically into the bottom forming a curving parallel set of two rows of stones creating an enclosure.The enclosure was then filled with small stones and rubble. The top of the breakwater was thencovered with flat slabs of stone to create a long platform extending above the water. The breakwaterhad several entrances that had movable barriers. “Perishable structures” believed to be guard towersor lighthouses were built on the side of the main entrance. The island has restricted access becauseso many artifacts and huge beachrock slabs have been looted. Many of the looted slabs are in use atmodern port facilities near Cerritos.

Strangely, Shinn wrote that “there has long been an aura of suspicion between geologistsand archaeologists.” He then gave an example how archaeologists will make silly future mistakesinterpreting ruins and artifacts that are really completely natural. I found his assertions bizarre.Researchers who have worked in the Mediterranean at the ancient harbors have included bothgeologists and archaeologists. It may be that Shinn’s assertion is valid in the United States, butwhat he seemed to be saying in round about way is that only geologists are qualified to make“genuine” archaeological interpretations. As that idea pertains to Bimini, it does appear thatarchaeologists have accepted, without question, the assertions of a few geologists.

In an overall response to my questions about his factual errors and misspellings, Shinnsimply replied that they were irrelevant.

Shinn’s Responses to the Discrepancy in His Results. One of the most interesting exchanges

was when I asked Shinn about what he published in 1978, using exact quotes from his article. It is

important to keep in mind that in his 1980 and 2004 articles Shinn essentially asserted that all the

cores consistently dipped toward deep water. I wrote, “In your initial article (regarding the

northern site) you wrote that ‘Beach bedding was not readily visible in these (8) cores.’”

His reply was befuddling: “You can not see bedding/layers in a core only 4 inches in

diameter.” That was more than confusing. All of Shinn’s cores were 4-inch cores. If you can’t see

bedding in 4-inch cores, why did he do them, and how did he then discern bedding in the other 9

cores? He never addressed this issue, nor did he specifically address why his 1980 and 2004 articles

related that all 17 cores showed an internal strata dipping toward deep water.

Then I asked him about the 9 cores from what he called the “southern site.” I related that in

his 1978 article he stated that, “Bedding in all the cores from this area was either horizontal or

dipping predominantly toward the sea.” How could he then say that they all dipped toward deep

water?

His reply was evasive: “the critical point was that none dipped toward land.” But that was

not what he asserted in 1980 or 2004. In fact, a careful reading of his 1978 article suggests some of

25

his cores did dip to the shore, but not “predominantly” so. Shinn’s “critical point” was a rationalization

that doesn’t explain why he changed his results to all the cores dipped toward deep water.

Directly addressing the discrepancy between his actual 1978 results and what he wrote in

1980 with McKusick, I asked how his 1978 results changed to: “Two areas of the formation were

studied, and both show slope and uniform particle size, bedding planes and constant dip direction

from one block to the next.”

Shinn replied, “You are very astute to note that statement. I should have said only at the

south site.” But even at Shinn’s south site, as mentioned in a prior paragraph, less than half of his

cores actually dipped toward deep water. His “south site” assertion wasn’t true, either.

Then I asked about the inaccurate results and misleading statements he made in the Skeptical

Inquirer article wherein he wrote, “Sure enough, all the cores showed consistent dipping of

strata toward the deep water...”

He replied, “It had been almost 30 years since the first study when I wrote the Skeptical

Inquirer article. I suppose I could have been a little more precise.” Shinn’s admission that he

should be a “little more precise” is a rationalization. It creates an acceptable excuse for him that

says he was only a “little imprecise.” But the alteration of his results—going from less than 25

percent of his cores showing a dip to 100 percent of them showed a dip—isn’t imprecise. It is

misleading and inaccurate and fundamentally altered what he actually found. And a poor memory

probably wasn’t the cause. The same inaccurate claims were made in the 1980 article, written only

two years after his initial article.

The Second Discrepancy—The Marble Columns. In 1978, Shinn briefly discussed the

columns at Bimini, investigated earlier by Harrison writing that they “turned out to be cement

barrels...” He described the two marble pillars Harrison found as “lengths of marble...” but Harrison

implied they were essentially the same size and shape as the cement cylinders.

In McKusick and Shinn’s 1980 Nature article, they began by describing Harrison’s 1971

observations about Bimini. When summarizing the cylinders Harrison investigated, they stated,

“some submarine structures described as pillars were hardened concrete originally stored in wooden

barrels and dumped overboard in recent times at the harbor entrance.” They didn’t mention that

marble columns were also found and reported by Harrison, and the assertion that they were dumped

overboard in recent times is totally speculative. In McKusick’s 1984 article discussing Bimini, all

he wrote about the cylinders was, “temple pillars are merely hardened cement in discarded barrels.”

In Shinn’s 2004 article, he wrote, “(Harrison) showed that so-called columns on a site about two

miles from the stones were made of Portland cement.”

Nowhere in Harrison’s 1971 article does he state the cement was determined to be Portland

cement, nor was it even suggested. Shinn has either badly and sloppily misread Harrison’s report or

did something worse. In addition, none of the three articles after 1978 mention the fact that Harrison

reported that two marble cylinders— or pillars—with fluting, were also found with the cement

ones. The omission of the marble cylinders in these articles has apparently led to acceptance by the

archaeological community—as fact—that all of the cylinders were cement. Proof of this is found in

Feder’s (2006) archaeology textbook. Feder writes: “Analysis of the so-called columns shows that

they are simply hardened concrete of a variety manufactured after A.D. 1800.” Strangely, Feder

references only Harrison’s article for this false and misleading assertion. There are several possible

explanations for this, but only Feder knows how he came to that conclusion.

Shinn’s Carbon Dates From Bimini. Another area of interest was the carbon dating Shinn

and McKusick reported from several stone blocks allegedly cored on the Road. All of Shinn’s

articles cite carbon dates ranging from about 2000 to 3000 years ago. Thus, Shinn asserts that the

stones could not have possibly been related to Plato’s Atlantis, whether it’s the 9000 year old Atlantis

26

Plato actually discussed or the non-existent 7000-year old Plato story Shinn references. I mentioned

to Shinn that I was not asserting the site was related to Atlantis nor did I know its age. I then wrote

to Shinn stating I’d read a recent Marine Geology article about Florida beachrock, which stated that

carbon dating of beachrock using what’s called a bulk dating method was unreliable because of

contamination from recent carbonate material. Shinn wanted to know who wrote the article and

where it was published.

Strangely, when I first found this article I was befuddled by one of the authors’ names. It

was Eugene Shinnu. Shinnu had the same snail mail USGS address and title as Eugene Shinn. The

article had direct implications on the reliability of the Bimini carbon dating Shinn performed, but

Bimini wasn’t mentioned in it. The article clearly reported that utilizing the bulk carbon dating

method on beachrock tended to result in dates that are often too recent. The method was described

as “unreliable” in the article. This is due to the constant contamination created by carbonate in the

seawater. It was obvious that Shinn was one of the authors, but how or why his last name had a

different spelling is unclear (Spurgeon, Davis, & Shinnu, 2003).

I sent Shinn the reply just stating that he was one of the authors of it. He explained how the

study took place and even mentioned that he’s found that natural beachrock sometimes actually

tilts toward land. He admitted, “you are right, dating of beachrock is not very precise especially if

it is a bulk sample. The dates listed in the nature article were bulk dates done at a later date by a

student learning the carbon 14 method.”

Not one of Shinn’s articles on the Bimini Road cites any limitations on the reliability of his

bulk carbon dating, and the fact that a student learning the method did the carbon dating is certainly

important. In truth, it appears none of the carbon dates he took at Bimini appear to be reliable.

Shinn’s Final Explanation Attempt. In an attempt to explain the major discrepancies and

inaccurate statements in his professional articles, Shinn wrote: “You must realize that because of all

the craziness surrounding the Bimini site and the unusual people, it was hard to take the exercise

with the same seriousness we would have employed with our regular research. We did it for fun.

There was not the peer review usually associated with our real jobs. The details you have pointed

out are evidence of minimal peer review. I got a little carried away to make a good story ...”

So there is Shinn’s explanation. Shinn says his peers and the journals Nature and the Skeptical

Inquirer are responsible for all the mistakes and errors he made as well as whatever you wish to call

the alteration of his results. He got carried away, but no one called him on it. Nor have any

archaeologists apparently ever questioned Marshall McKusick’s role in this. It is hard to believe

that other scientists have not noted this discrepancy before.

All in all, it was an amazing exchange with Eugene Shinn in his official capacity with the

USGS. In essence, what Shinn actually found in his cores found is simple. In his 17 cores, Shinn

found perhaps four ( 23.5 percent) that dipped toward deep water. The remaining 76.5 percent of

his cores showed no dipping at all.

There are three possible outcomes in the internal strata of the cores: 1) a dip to deep water;

2) a dip toward land; 3) no dipping present or visible. Thus, by chance alone, one would expect to

find about 33.3 percent that dipped to the deep water. Shinn’s reported outcome was actually less

than what would be expected by chance. Those of you with a statistical background should understand

the implications of this. And in the 1978 and 1980 articles, the decision between the two explanative

alternatives for the Bimini Road—natural versus manmade—was stated to be determined by the

outcome of the dip shown in the cores. As related previously, Shinn wrote in 1978 that “The

purpose of this (the coring) was to determine if the bedding in all the blocks dips uniformly to

the sea (to the west of Bimini).” Shinn’s core results showed that the vast majority of the stones

did not dip toward the sea. This fact actually argues for the artifactual nature of the formation.

27

Shinn presents one additional “finding” that he believes supports his conclusions, and while

it was previously discussed, merits mention again. He asserts that he could trace small and large

pebbles in the stones from one to another, but the descriptions he presented are not adequate and are

at variance with his core results. His conclusion from the pebbles—that the stones were formed in

roughly the same areas—has nothing to do with the primary issue about the dipping of the Bimini

Road stones or the hoax. They also rely upon his actual expertise in 1976-7 and the degree to which

others are willing to trust his assertions. In essence, it is concluded that Shinn’s research on the

cores and the pebbles he allegedly took from 17 beachrock stones demonstrated that 17 of the

stones comprising the Bimini formation are actually beachrock stones. His findings also indicated,

based on the criteria he specified, that the site was artifactual—not natural.

Conclusion

Normally, such details and minute examination of other’s work would not be offered in a

report on an expedition. But as skeptics are quick to say, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary

proof.” That, in essence, is why the unpleasant details are provided herein. The Bimini Road has

been one of the most controversial issues to ever be addressed by archaeologists attempting to

counter what they have described as “fantastic claims.” If the skeptics’ claims were not directly

examined, no matter what was uncovered at Bimini, mainstream archaeologists would assert that

“McKusick and Shinn proved the formation was a single piece of natural beachrock.” But what has

been asserted about the Bimini formation in this article is not fantastic at all. It is certainly unusual

and it goes against what mainstream archaeology believes and wants to believe. There certainly

have been fantastic claims made about the site, and those can probably be blamed for the site

becoming a pariah. But those who carefully consider the evidence presented herein, and who also

discern the truth about the claims made by skeptics, will probably come to the conclusion that the

most fantastic thing about this entire affair is how the archaeological and geological community

have let a hoax continue for so long—seemingly even actively supporting it.

According to Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (1996), a hoax (verb) is: “to trick into believing

or accepting as genuine something false.” The Dictionary defines the noun hoax as: “an act intended

to trick or dupe; something accepted or established by fraud or fabrication.” According to the National

Academies of Science (1995) definition of falsification established in a section titled, “Misconduct

in Science,” it is the “changing or misreporting of data or results.” Since the reports by McKusick

and Shinn contained completely inaccurate summaries of what Shinn actually found, and science

accepts their conclusion based on the inaccurate summaries as fact, the conclusion should be obvious.

Kenneth Feder, for example, has accepted the inaccurate statements, and the idea that all the cores

at Bimini had the same tilt to deep water has been accepted by the scientific community—to the

extent that it is incorporated in textbooks and formal archaeological training. So too is the idea that

all the cylinders, pillars, or columns at Bimini are cement.

Clearly, false reporting of previously published data has taken place in the Bimini affair.

And by definition, a hoax has taken place, because certain untrue statements have been accepted as

factual based on the false reports.

In truth, I was initially somewhat understanding of what Shinn and McKusick could have

reasoned when they wrote their inaccurate 1980 report. It is certain that both Shinn and McKusick

fully believed that the Bimini Road was natural, although McKusick apparently never went there to

look. Shinn’s 1978 results did not support the conclusion that was asserted and that should now be

obvious to all readers. I won’t speculate on how and why the results were falsified.

The same idea can be said for the omission about the marble pillars in the articles. The

presence of the marble pillars was a complication, especially since Harrison asserted that they did

not come from the Bahamas nor probably even from the United States. Mentioning that marble

pillars from some unknown location were also there would make the results less than unequivocal.

So after Shinn’s 1978 report, the marble columns were simply dropped from all discussions and

the false and misleading assertion that the cylinders were cement—strangely Portland cement—

were made and accepted.

Of course, making their assertions more unequivocal required entering a realm of scientific

inquiry known as pseudoscience. Stephen Williams archaeology textbook, Fantastic Archaeology

(1991), defined a person who engages in pseudoscience as a “crank.” He adapts the definition from

Martin Gardner’s definition of a man persisting “in advancing views that are contradicted by all

available evidence.” But it is also likely (see below) that those who engage in pseudoscience, and

those who support its conclusions, really don’t see anything wrong with it. And the most important

thing is that it has worked in this case. Archaeology students are still formally taught that McKusick

and Shinn demonstrated that the Bimini site was just the result of natural erosion processes shown

by the totally consistent coring results. Archaeology students are also taught that all the pillars

found at Bimini were cement. They are also taught that the cement cylinders were manufactured

after 1800, but that’s a mere speculation presented as a textbook related fact. Contradictory claims

are typically ridiculed as pseudoscience, cult archaeology, psychic archaeology, and baseless fantastic

claims.

In an article entitled, “Scientific fraud and the power structure of science” (Martin, 1992),

it is related that, “Probe a bit more deeply into scientific activities, and you will find that fraud is

neither clear-cut nor rare.” Martin asserts that “the social definition of fraud is one which is convenient

to most of the power groups associated with science.” Martin defines fraud as deceit, trickery, or

the perversion of truth. He sadly adds that “for the most part they are tolerated or treated as standard

practice.” The reaction to fraud depends upon who is damaged or attacked by the conclusions.

Those who speak out about against dominant interests “come under severe attack.” Thus, the

prevailing view of a given issue within a particular scientific discipline, and the perceived importance

of the issue, determines the response. Whistle-blowers he asserts, are often subjected to severe

damage even when what they have asserted is true. On the other hand, scientific fraud that supports

the established view is often tolerated.

I invite those who have an interest to verify the facts detailed herein. I realize that

archaeologists and geologists may not appreciate or like the truth. While Williams textbook (1991)

contains factual errors, he does have several important issues he raises. One of the most important

is this. He asks, “So what and whom do you believe, and why?”

As I perceive the state of ethics of American archaeologists and the support in scientific

disciplines for their own , it is not expected that much will change in this. The sad part of it doesn’t

relate in any way to Edgar Cayce, Atlantis, or any fantastic claims. Such claims will undoubtedly

continue to be made whether archaeologists like it or not. What has been discovered about the

ancient past in the Americas since 1997 has almost completely altered the history that had been

accepted since the 1930s. The discoveries from 1997 to the present have created turmoil within

archaeology. Clovis-first has crumbled. Mitochondrial DNA results have made shambles out of

cherished beliefs held for over 70 years. South American discoveries have pushed civilization back

in time in the Americas. But given what is now known, it is not at all unreasonable to hypothesize

that a maritime culture was in the Bahamas five or six thousand years ago. An 11,000-year old

maritime culture has been verified on the coast of Ecuador and South America certainly had some

sort of maritime movements on its coasts in truly ancient times. The idea that the Bahamas had a

28

now-forgotten maritime culture using its shores isn’t farfetched. Of course, it can be said that,

perhaps up until now, there is no evidence of it. And that’s the real point here. The truth is that

largely because of the Bimini hoax affair, no one with “adequate” credentials has looked. I admit

I’m not an archaeologist, but I am a social scientist. But William Donato does have archaeological

credentials and so did Dr. Dimitri Rebikoff.

There is no indication that the Bahamas maritime culture built huge advanced cities anywhere

and such an idea isn’t proposed here. But there is highly suggestive evidence—which some educated

people will accept as definitive—pointing to a maritime culture present at Bimini in ancient times.

That evidence has been presented here, and the coordinates of all the underwater features, film and

photo documentation, are available.

Note: A 73-minute DVD documentary of the Bimini expedition, including the interactions and investigations

of Shinn, has been produced. The documentary contains video footage of the discovery of Proctor’s Road, the stone

circles, the anchors, the anchors on the Bimini Road, the multiple tiers, prop stones, various artifacts, and the discovery

of the gray marble under a large block. It also contains footage from Isla Cerritos and Andros. The documentary is

titled, The Ancient Bimini Harbor: Uncovering the Great Bimini Hoax and is available from Amazon and AUP (815-

253-6390).

References

DONATO, W. 2004. TOA News December: 18-30.

FAUGHT, M. & CARTER, B. 1998. Early human occupation and environmental change in northwestern Florida. QuaternaryInternational 49/50: 167-176.

FEDER, K. L. 2006. Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and pseudoscience in archaeology (Fifth Edition). McGraw-Hill:NY.

GIFFORD, J. & BALL, M. 1980. Investigation of submerged beachrock deposits off Bimini, Bahamas. National GeographicSociety Research Reports 12: 21-38.

HARRISON, W. 1971. Atlantis undiscovered—Bimini, Bahamas. Nature 230: 287-9.

LITTLE, G. June 2005. Personal communications with E. Shinn.

LITTLE, G. & LITTLE, L. 2003. The ARE’s Search for Atlantis. Eagle Wing Books, Inc.: Memphis, TN.

MARTIN, B. 1992. Scientific fraud and the power structure of science. Prometheus 10 (1): 83-98.

McKEE, A. 1969. History under the sea. Dutton: NY.

McKUSICK, M. 1984. Psychic archaeology from Atlantis to Oz. Archaeology Sept./Oct: 48-52.

McKUSICK, M. & SHINN, E. 1980. Bahamian Atlantis reconsidered. Nature 287: 11-2.

REBIKOFF, D. 1979. Underwater archaeology: photogrammetry of artifacts near Bimini. Explorers Journal Sept.: 122-5.

RICHARDS, D. 1988. Archaeological anomalies in the Bahamas. Journal of Scientific Exploration 2: 181-201.

SHINN, E. 1978. Atlantis: Bimini Hoax. Sea Frontiers 24: 131-140.

SHINN, E. 2004. A Geologist’s Adventures with Bimini Beachrock and Atlantis True Believers. Skeptical Inquirer 28 (1): 38-44.

SPURGEON, D., DAVIS, R. A., SHINNU, E. A. 2003. Formation of “beach rock” at Siesta Key, Florida and its influence onbarrier island development. Marine Geology 200: 19-29.

WILLIAMS, S. (1991) Fantastic Archaeology. Univ. of Penn. Press: Philadelphia.

ZINK, D. 1991. Poseidea Expeditions. The Explorers Journal. Winter: 123-5.

29