Atlantis Online
September 22, 2021, 10:07:13 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Has the Location of the Center City of Atlantis Been Identified?
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

ATLANTIS & the Atlantic Ocean 1 (ORIGINAL)

Pages: 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 36 37 ... 64   Go Down
Author Topic: ATLANTIS & the Atlantic Ocean 1 (ORIGINAL)  (Read 12615 times)
Superhero Member
Posts: 41646

« Reply #450 on: December 29, 2007, 11:55:01 am »


Member # 2991

Member Rated:
   posted 04-10-2006 11:44 PM                       
I want to post Greg Little's response to someone about his scientific method here today because I thought it gave some valuable information in it and I know not everyone goes to both forums:

Originally posted by Greg Little:
1. I have my own side-scan equipment, underwater remote cam equipment, and virtually everything else we need and use except for boats and planes we charter. But the scheduled high-tech work at Bimini that is about to be done won't be done by me nor do I plan on being there during it. I have no idea how anyone can make a "profit" from such research. It is a never-ending money pit that an individual does because he or she is devoted to it and can afford it. I don't know anyone who makes any money from such research with the exception of Graham Hancock, at least when his TV doc series came out.

2. The ARE already has the funds set aside for the sub-bottom profiling and side-scan that will be done this summer. It is a special project decided on during the Feb-March 2006 excursion there based on the results we found. That work is all being done by one of the elite oceanic research organizations on their fully equipped research ship and the interpretations will all be theirs. The ECF, a branch of ARE, is funding that work.

3. The question Des asked about J-shaped harbors is really interesting. Yes, there are several virtually identical ancient harbors in the Mediterranean--same total size, made from cut beachrock slabs, have the same J-shape, the block layers are identical, etc. If you want to peruse these, go to:

Click on "English" and be ready to spend some amazing time. It's a massive website with hundreds of photos and illustrations and compilations of research. Look at "Harbors" or "Countries" in the menu and follow all the links. You'll notice the term "kurkar" in the text from time-to-time. The word "kurkar" means "carbonate beachrock" that forms in the Mediterranean. There it is sandstone, in the Atlantic, beachrock is limestone. Eugene Shinn's bachelors degree was in "biology" not geology. He was totally unaware of the existance of ANY ancient harbors in the world when we interacted in late 2005. He said they were probably all natural, like the Bimini formation. Shinn's actual research results, shoddy as they were, actually showed the Bimini formation was not in its natural place. He and archaeologist Marshall McKusick perpetrated a hoax in altering the results in their 1980 article and again in 1984 and 2004. I've dubbed it the "Shinn-McKusic Hoax" and yes, it is being evaluated by some of the influential people in archaeology. I doubt they like the result but I have no idea what their conclusions will be. It depends on their honesty.

4. There is an update on the "update" at:

Since that press release, I've had more information emerge. The cut stone we removed from an underwater tier of stone blocks at Cay Sal was moved from a land source showing that it had to be physically placed where it was recovered. The large anchor removed at Bimini was very old, not at all like the more recent smaller one we pulled from the bottom.

5. The Bimini area is strewn with lots of stone anchors. The formation area itself has many, many cut rectangular slabs of stone there under the massive blocks see from the surface. The huge blocks are the "beachrock" as they are so-often termed, the most important evidence is UNDER the huge blocks. Because they knew nothing whatsoever about harbors, anchors, and were careless and shoddy, the main skeptics never thought to look under the big blocks. It is destined to become a textbook example of "Bad Science" and will gradually be recognized as such and used to show how preconceived bias and reactions to "unpopular speculations" can lead to scientific misconduct and incompetence. I'm patient and persistent and busy, so precisely when this happens doesn't matter. What matters is the truth and usually, eventually, the truth emerges. As to employing accepted scientific standards, I can say that we did more than the prior researchers. We basically started with a careful "surface examination" that included looking under everythig we could and looking at the whole area. That led to several discoveries including the many anchors and cut slabs of stone. The collection of samples was done under constant filming and all lab tests were run by independent labs. Archaeologist Bill Donato, who has a valid archaeological permit for the Bahamas, supervised the work. When others don't like our findings, they attack the credentials of Donato or question other things. Donato has a masters degree in archaeology from Cal State-Fullerton. He has the credentials. As to the rest, the cards will all fall in place over time.

6. We do not speculate at all that the Bimini site has anything to do with Atlantis. The media will continue to do so, the skeptics will do it because it serves their purpose, and a lot of the public will jump on the Atlantis bandwagon. Based on the dates of Atlantis, as given by Plato, the Bimini formation that is the point of contention is not Atlantis. Given the controversy and the link Cayce made between Bimini and part of Atlantis being found there in 1968 and 1969, I do not expect the linking of Bimini to Atlantis to dissipate, but ... as the saying goes ... it is what it is.

7. The entire controvery is intriguing from a psychological perspective and that quite honestly, is one of my driving motivations in persuing it. The fabrication of evidence is considered very serious in most scientific research, especially so in medical research. Archaeology is an area that has had its share of fabrications and coverups, including many by mainstreamers. But it is generally tolerated unless it goes against what the mainstream believes. Despite what anybody may assert or believe, this paragraph represents my major motivation.

8. If you want to hear from "the other side" of the argument, listen to Eugene Shinn's 2005 talk. It can be found here:

Click on the "listen" link. There is a software download that probably has to occur befor you can listen. To the skeptics among you, please listen to your hero, for that is who is speaking.

Greg Little 
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Pages: 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 36 37 ... 64   Go Up
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy