The Marble Columns at Bimini: Why Do “Scientists” Lie?
By Dr. Greg Little
In the 2003 book, The ARE’s Search for Atlantis, the background story of Edgar Cayce’s Atlantis was summarized along with the efforts made by many people to discover the remnants of Atlantis that Cayce related could be found in the Bahamas. Our own actual involvement in this search began in January 2003 when my wife Lora and I decided to try to find and identify a curious, multi-ringed, perfectly circular formation initially photographed in shallow water off southwest Andros back in 1969 by pilot Robert Brush. The formation was said to be a massive stone circle, similar perhaps to Avebury or other stone circles in Europe. Another goal was to find and identify the nature of a strange “e” shaped formation located underwater off northwest Andros, and also photographed from the air back in 1969. This formation was supposedly the ruins of a building. These sites were our only intended goals and we never intended to go further.
Over the decades that followed there were bungled efforts made by some people to re-find and identify these structures, but curiously no one had been able to do so. This seemed odd to us and a review of all the things that had been written about them indicated that a substantial amount of rubbish had been published. For example, we were told that Dr. J. Manson Valentine had supposedly walked to the huge stone circle. In truth, Valentine only passed out many copies of the aerial photograph taken by Brush to many people and “somehow” people came to the conclusion that Valentine had found it, went to it, and verified it was a massive stone circle. None of that is true though.
In addition, we found that there had been several very expensive efforts made to find the formation from aerial surveys made in the locations where writers had written that the formation was located. These locations seem to have come from Valentine and were in the middle of Andros and on the southeast side.
But the actual story of the initial photograph is rather simple and was readily available in many publications. The photo of the circular formation was taken by Robert Brush in 1969 from about 500 feet with copilot Trigg Adams at the wheel. In 2003, when we started our investigations, we discovered Brush had died some years earlier, but Trigg Adams was alive and well in Miami. We easily contacted Adams and performed a filmed interview with him. Portions of his interview are on our 2004 documentary, The ARE’s Search for Atlantis, and also in the newly released 2011 version of The Search for Edgar Cayce’s Atlantis.
We were speechless when Adams told us that no one had ever asked him the location of the circle. We found this amazing and were stunned that so much money had been spent looking everywhere around Andros except in the one place where the circle actually existed! Adams pulled out a map of Andros and showed us the location—extreme southwest Andros. A week later we flew over the location—and there it was, easily found from the air. We also found the “e” formation from the air and soon managed to visit both of these on a boat. As detailed in the book, neither formation (the alleged stone circle and building ruins shaped like an “e”) was what it was purported to be. The huge circle was a sponge formation and the “e” was a partial circle of turtle grass. Both formations are completely natural.
Nothing Is What It Appears To Be
In a way, the events that followed our initial 2003 investigations were bizarre. Nothing seemed to be what it was said to be. Smoke and mirrors came to mind. Before initiating our own investigations we had carefully read everything written about the Bahamas search including that written by both the proponents and the alleged scientists who were mainly “skeptical.” In 2003 we stayed away from Bimini deliberately, because at that time I totally trusted what the skeptics had written. That too turned out to be smoke and mirrors. A lot of these findings are detailed in our documentaries and books, but one recent development will show how the supposed skeptical “scientists” involved in some of the Bimini controversy are deceptive. Before these facts are presented, I’ll loosely paraphrase something Carl Jung once wrote: “I have no doubt that what I detail here will have no appreciable effect on the skeptics.”
The Marble Columns At Bimini
Not long after J. Manson Valentine “danced into the limelight” to announce that a portion of Atlantis had probably been found off Bimini, (as Ferro & Grumley, 1980, described it) a large grouping of column-like cylinders were found near the inlet between north and south Bimini. These columns were photographed and sensationalized. There were several articles that appeared in popular magazines that alleged the columns were once part of a temple complex.
In a 1971 letter to Nature, geologist Wymann Harrison reported on about 30 columns or partial columns that had been found in the inlet—the source of the sensational claims. In the article Harrison noted 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 including the President of the Portland Cement association. He speculated that the cement might have been in barrels that fell overboard and hardened. When the wood rotted away what remained were cement cylinders.
In a 1980 Nature article, archaeologist Marshall McKusick and “geologist” Eugene Shinn (who held only a bachelor’s degree in biology) dismissed all of the columns at Bimini by writing: “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 later 1984 article discussing Bimini, all he wrote about the cylinders was, “temple pillars are merely hardened cement in discarded barrels.” In Shinn’s error-riddled 2004 Skeptical Inquirer article, he wrote, “(Harrison) showed that so-called columns on a site about two miles from the stones were made of Portland cement.” But nowhere in Harrison’s 1971 article does he state the cement was Portland cement, nor was it even suggested. This assertion is an outright lie. These assertions can be seen here and here.
Even more interesting is the description of the columns in the archaeology textbook Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries (1996) by archaeologist Kenneth Feder. Feder wrote: “Analysis of the so-called columns shows that they are simply hardened concrete of a variety manufactured after A.D. 1800.” He cites Harrison as the source. So there you have it. The “scientists” say that all the so-called columns off Bimini were all cement, or Portland Cement, and they cite Harrison, who discussed 2 fluted marble columns and never wrote anything about them being Portland Cement. Of course, this claim will continue to be made despite it being an outright lie.
Harrison Now Comments
In a 2009 internet posting
Specifically regarding the fluted marble columns at Bimini, Harrison posted his original Nature article drawing of the columns’ locations along with previously unreported information. Of course there were fluted marble columns at the site. Oddly, it is now also reported that some marble could also have been found at Paradise Point, near the Bimini Road. Two previously unpublished 1978 letters from the University of California at San Diego Isotope Lab were included in this recent article. In these, the marble is described as similar to some New England marbles but the only other marbles isotopically similar to the Bimini marble is from Switzerland or Italy.
In summary, the entire Bimini affair can be seen as a disgusting example of scientific fraud, deception, pseudoscience, and deliberate attempts to mislead the public. But why? Why do so-called “scientists” have to lie?