I've actually read this. Here is the basic problem that seems to seed the whole thing:
"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
There are many other issues, but the vast majority and most important of them center around the concept that upon discovery of the Bimini road, the
analysis and tests that were done to confirm or deny authenticity were either botched, or in the opinion of this author, purposefully "hoaxed".
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.
This is some of the information being provided that is meant to "prove" that the original assumptions by the field geologists were wrong. Images
are available if you wish to see them, but I was unable to get a url source for either. If you do not wish to hunt them down yourself, both images
show stone with what appears to be man made grooves, cut alongside the bottom edges of the pieces presented. The edges have been smoothed, and lock
together nicely, which does
seem to eliminate the "random limestone collapse" theory. However, I am trying to remain unbiased in this quick
summation. Much of the original hypothesis on this being a natural formation was the "fact" that these stones rested on the sand. When the
researcher that authored this paper dug a little beneath the stones, he found rectangular blocks beneath almost the entire area of the road that serve
as leveling stones. The research goes on and on. The results are fairly conclusive, IMO, but then, I suppose you would have to read the entire
document and make your own decisions. Here is the source of their argument, however, that a hoax was made by the original documentors, namely Shinn.
In 1978, he published his findings in Sea Frontiers
, findings that claimed the Bimini road could not be man made and why he thought so. His
research, however, seemed to point in the opposite direction. This was not the entire problem. In 1980, he published an entirely
hypothesis on the same subject. This is pretty much the focal point of this entire 29 page paper. IMO it is definately worth the download for the
info. They do a pretty accurate job of describing what they believe was not a road at Bimini, but once a harbor, farther back than 5000 B.C. There
is even an artists rendition along with links to sites offering comparisons to other ancient Mediterranean ports. I had trouble finding these two
supposedly contradicting magazine articles, but then the author of this paper claims that he had similar trouble for a long while, as the titles were
pretty obscure even for the time. Anyway, that is basically what the paper consists of. There does seem to be incontroversial "proof" upon
examination of their evidence and case that the structure was man made. However, the concept of a port is still a matter of imagination. The paper
also demonstrates the inaccuracy of Shinn's dating module, and how the stones are actually impossible
to properly assess as far as a timeline.
They do know, however, that the limestone on which the stones sit are no more than 15,000 years old, and that the core samples taken from the stones
show a consistency of something like an ancient form of concrete, and not the substance formerly believed. Hope this helps.