A Message From Dr. Greg Little
Some recent posts on The Mega Blog have cited the writings of Eugene Shinn and others (the skeptics) who published an article in 2004 designed to discredit those conducting real, on-site research in the Bahamas, especially at the "Bimini Road" location. I'm familiar with the report and I've also read Dr. Greg Little's comments about the report, but I thought our members would appreciate hearing from Dr. Little directly, so I asked him if he would respond. Below is his reply, word-for-word.
<quote>
The Skeptical Inquirer article authored by Eugene Shinn is so filled with lies, inaccuracies, and distortions that it is beyond absurd. These are all easily provable as wrong, but skeptics who are gullible "true believers"
will continue to cite Shinn's Skeptical Inquirer article as some sort of proof for their false belief system.
Shinn says the columns at Bimini were proven to be Portland cement and cites "Harrison" as his reference. Harrison's article related that the columns (that were not actually fluted marble) were an old form of lime kiln cement.
Shinn simply "made up" or "fabricated" the Portland Cement assertion because it makes it sound absurd. Shinn---and several notable skeptics---simply ignore the huge fluted marble columns found next to the "cement" ones--but they were detailed by Harrison.
Shinn and the skeptics will gladly send you an e-copy of everything but Shinn's actual research article that detailed the genuine results of the cores. (Ask Shinn for the actual "Sea Frontiers" article and see what
happens.) In that actual article he related that less than a quarter of the "bedding planes" in his cores were consistent in that they dipped toward deep water. But none of the skeptics will actually read what Shinn actually reported in his reported results. Instead, skeptics report the altered, fabricated, and hoaxed results--the hoax--that relates the cores were all consistent and dipped from one stone to the next.
As to the cut support stones and rectangular wedge stones being easily removed from under the big blocks, who said they were easily removed??? I personally removed about 8-9 of these, but this wasn't exactly easy and there were many, many others that couldn't be budged or dug out.
As to the carbon dates Shinn reports: they were done by students using "bulk dating." Shinn has admitted that bulk dating is unreliable. But we have not asserted that the Bimini Road is older than 7,000 years.
Shinn also cites the following "facts" in his article:
> Plato said that the Atlantis story was "7000-years old." Huh?? What Plato ever said that?
> The Bimini Road was discovered in the early 1960s. Huh?? How did Shinn make this up?
> He dismisses a "Demitri Ribicoff" a "new ager" -- who is really Dimitri Rebikoff, PhD from the Sorbonne.
> He cites an "Edward Zink" who was actually David Zink.
> He cites a "Lester Hemmingway" who was actually Leicester Hemmingway, a newspaper editor.
There are so many more errors in Shinn's article...and I admitted that I am embarassed by how terribly inaccurate an article in The Skeptical Inquirer could be because my own research has been cited by that ... ah ...
pseudoscientific claptrap ... as notable.
Here is a fact about Shinn: he received a bachelors degree in biology.
That's it... Just before he retired he got an honorary doctorate... Believe what you will--and skeptics can claim that Shinn was the greatest geologist of all time.
My bottom analytical line in this is psychological. I have met almost no one who is interested in the truth about this. People cite "things" --- factual or contrived -- that support their currently held viewpoint. Facts do not seem to matter to any "true believers" whether they believe that Atlantis never existed or Atlantis is here or there.
I do not know if Atlantis existed or not. I have written about what various people "said" about Atlantis and various research projects seeking to find Atlantis. All I know is that there are a lot of interesting underwater artifacts in the Bahamas that show there was a maritime culture present there in a time period before historians accept. Armchair skeptics as well as armchair believers can be equally gullible. But it takes actual work to find out the truth and that's a bit more than most want to do.
Dr. Greg Little
<end quote>
Dr. Little has far more important things to do than debate this issue on a blog, so I appreciate his reply to my email and his permission to post that reply here. Just in case there's still any doubt, I'm firmly on the Greg Little side of this debate and this blog is written from that stand-point. I've seen the photos and read the published work. I also recommend the 73-minute documentary video titled "The Ancient Bimini Harbor: Uncovering the Great Bimini Hoax" produced by Dr. Little.
One final thought: this Web site exists to report on the discoveries in MegaAmerica that I believe will one day lead to the undeniable conclusion that an as yet unknown ancient maritime culture once inhabited the area. I do NOT feel obligated to grant equal time to opposing views, but I made an exception in the case of the Shinn writings because I think it furthers the work in the Bahamas if people realize that some of the so-called "scientific" reports aren't supported by the work actually being done in the water. As usual, your comments are welcome.