EDGAR CAYCE's Story of Atlantis - By Edgar Evans Cayce (Son)

[Qoais]

Hi Greg,

Q: You begin by saying "I don't have any motives" and then proceed to list some motives.

No I haven't listed any motives.  - I was just trying to explain to you why I posted the article. 

I'm still not getting it I guess.  I had no more motive than a gopher does, who goes and gets something and brings it back.  I'm trying to say, that I have no feelings about it one way or another.  I've always liked reading Cayce.  It's as simple as that.  I have no axe to grind, no book to write, no theory to defend, nothing.  I merely posted the article.  It's like putting information about a subject, into a folder.  I put the article in the folder.  Seems you think I put it in the wrong folder, but that's all it is.  If you think I had an ulterior motive, please tell me what you think it might be. 

I'm sure you're aware that when a person puts forward a theory, they have to have ALL the information to substantiate it, not just the good stuff.  If you're not aware of everything - as in knowing both sides - you're going to get trampled and look totally ridiculous. So whether the information is good, bad, or indifferent, it just gets put on file.  There's no hidden meaning, no ulterior motive, no secret agenda or whatever.   

I don't see things just in black and white, and I don't know if that's a debating ploy or not.  It would be a boring debate if that's the case.  The UM forum demands honesty.  Truth in other words.  Which is only fair.  Why would they, or anyone else accept anything less?  Do the people in this forum willfully accept untruths?  Why should the people at UM be called down for demanding the truth?  You yourself have just been upset about that article, because you claim it isn't the truth.  If it isn't, then it's a good thing I posted it, so you could refute it and inform us of the truth of the matter.  I did think people might give an opinion about the article, but no one has bothered. 

As to whether or not people believe in Edgar Cayce, I think that is a personal choice.  There is only so much that can be said about his files and one just has to do the math, and make up their own mind as to whether or not they accept what he said or not.  Mathematically, one would just have to add up how many times he was right, compared to how many times he was wrong, and that's it.  Personally, I think he helped a lot of people and I think it's sad that even though he had this ability, it wore him out.  I don't know why it is that when someone works so hard to help others, they themselves suffer.  That's never made any sense to me.



 

[Nicole Jimmelson]

Hi Greg,

Don't pay any attention to Qoais.  She has decided that Atlantis doesn't exist, and so, everything anyone has ever said on it has no merit.

Say, a long time ago, you mentioned that you were going to take a trip out to the Canary Islands and look at the underwater ruins there with Andrew Collins.  Did that ever happen, and if so, what did you find?  Thanks.

Nicole

[Greg Little]

Q: I don't respond to personal messages, please stop sending emails. Kenneth Feder summed up "your theory" in 3 word elegance in 1990. 0f course, he borrowed it from many others before him. He wrote, "Atlantis never existed."  And I actually like Feder, we share a common interest and some common principles. He doesn't want to spread lies and deliberate falsehoods and justify it by saying "it's good I put this out because if it's wrong 'they' can refute it--but it's up to everyone to decide for themselves." He still doesn't believe in Atlantis, but I know he's interested in what people might accidently find. But Feder is pretty appropriate in supporting his theory. On the other hand, hundreds of copy & pastes made on a forum thread about "something that didn't even exist" seems like overkill--or maybe something else. I don't really care what any of the skeptards think about Cayce. But they dragged my wife (if that's who they were trying to mention) and me into it. I didn't respond to the article you posted for you to respond, it was for all the others who are here or might be here.

As to motives, there is no good reason for me to explain. But I'm sure many others understand. If you actually think a gopher doesn't have motivated behavior or is "mindless," or a fly isn't motivated, then there is nothing I could say or should try to say. Many, many people are loathe to ever question their own motives. Motives justify everything we do.

U-M demands truth, huh? It's useless, but I'll cite just one thing out of many possibilities. In a thread you were very active in, an anonymous "personage" from Memphis, where I [coincidentally] also live, related authoritatively to you and others in a posting that I have a Ph.D. in "Family Therapy" from the University of Memphis. The U of M has no such degree, never has. I have never taken a course in family therapy, family counseling, or anything with the word "family" in it. The social work department (undergraduate) may have a course in it, but I never took a single social work class. After that stupid "fact" was posted, all of you on the thread just accepted it. U-M like many other forums has a lot of bitter, jealous, and personal failures active as members. Sorry, but it's true. Not all, but many. Within those descriptive adjectives are motives.

But wait, I guess each person must realize that there's "2 sides to this argument, just as there is to everything?" Gee maybe I do have a Ph.D. in family therapy but don't realize it. Maybe that poster knows ALL there is to know about me and is being totally honest and I don't have all the facts. So perhaps I don't really know what my 3 degrees from Memphis State University (now the U of M) are in? Gee, I guess we'll never know.

The rest of the things you state are nonsense, but this one stands out. "When someone puts out a theory they have to have ALL the information to substantiate?" Huh? Where is that in science method textbooks? Who says?

These are all rhetorical questions. I don't want, need, or hope for an answer. I came here to correct the lies, falsehoods, distortions, and nonsense, some of which involved me and my wife, posted in a thread. I already know what you believe about Atlantis.

[Qoais]

I see.  I guess it's ok for you to accuse me of having "motives" but you don't have to explain what you meant by that.  Sounds to me like you're in a pissy mood and decided to take it out on me.  As for sending you "e-mails", I sent one, to ask you if I'd offended you somehow, but nevermind, I can see you're bound and determined to take the mickey out on me and deliberately misinterpret what I've said.  I stuck up for you over at UM, but what does that count for?  Diddley squat to you obviously.    You're the only one that matters, right?  I'm really sorry someone spelled your wife's name wrong, but I can hardly be held accountable for that.  Yes, someone did make the correction at UM regarding your education.  Didn't you want them to?  The last time I chatted with you, which you seem to forget, you told me what your education was and that you were finishing a book on the Mound Builders. 

Your arrogance is showing.  You  make a post, insinuating things about me, and then come right out and say you don't expect ME to respond.  Why is that?  I guess there is only one side to an issue.  Yours.  I am not in the habit of telling lies.  I tried to explain to you that there was no ulterior motive in me posting that article, other than to show what others were saying regarding Cayce.  Period.  You are trying to make more if it than was ever intended and refuse to believe me when I give you the explanation.  If I put it in the wrong thread, I apologize. 

In scientific theory, you have to know what is right and what is wrong in order to prove your theory is right.  If someone can poke holes in your theory, what good is your theory?  You should have tried to poke holes in it yourself before you ever present it.   Everyone is looking for Atlantis.  Everyone can't be right, can they?  So who is?  Is it in the Canary Islands?  There are about 5 points that match Plato's description in favor of the Canary Islands,  So is Atlantis in the Canary Islands?  Is Atlantis in Bolivia?  Jim Allen has a beautiful web site with information he's cut and pasted, so perhaps Atlantis IS in Bolivia after all.  Or is it in Bimini or off the coast of Cuba? 

My thread is no different from other threads in this forum.  People find information and post it here so it's all in one place if anyone is looking for information.  My thread was just my musings and findings as I wandered around looking for information and researching subjects, to try to make Plato's story work.   It doesn't work, and that line from Timaeus is the head's up:

 

As touching your citizens of nine thousand years ago,

According to the sciences - there were no civilizations "nine thousand years ago".  Not in Greece nor anywhere else.  There were people who were hunter/gatherers.  Some ventured out upon the ocean in hollowed out logs. But there were no developed civilizations such as Plato described, in the time line he gives.  There were no peoples with the technology to build ocean going vessels, there was no civilization that had so much control of the Western end of the Med. as Plato says, and certainly not a civilization so powerful it could take Greece, Egypt and Asia "at a blow".  The scientists are trained in their fields, and it is they who tell us of the findings and it's from them we learn and improve our education.    If you have evidence proving otherwise, then share it.

I don't know who Feder is, but he sounds like he's got his head on straight if what you say is true.  I'm interested in new finds as well, but I'm not going to label them "from Atlantis".  And as far as I can remember, you've not put that label on anything either.

There are no doubt, fascinating finds to be discovered under the ocean.  Wonderful finds that will probably change some of the history books.  But they won't be "Atlantis".

And the part that's most galling is that you're an educated man Dr. Greg Little.  You know that what I'm saying is correct.  Atlantis could not exist as Plato described it.  Did Edgar Cayce's Atlantis exist?  Not according to science, but that's not going to stop people from trying to prove he was right, is it?

[Qoais]

Are you listening to yourself Nicole?

Don't pay any attention to Qoais.  She has decided that Atlantis doesn't exist, and so, everything anyone has ever said on it has no merit.

That's exactly why people like Jim Allen, and Greg Little do get upset.  Because they ARE educated and they can see as easily as I can, that Atlantis could not have existed as Plato gives the story, but to have someone point that out, when they are making money on the subject, is really a bummer isn't it?

You said that I was going on about the ships.  You said Plato meant boats.  You cannot change what Plato said, or twist it to make it fit what YOU want to believe.  When I challenged you before, you withdrew.  I'm asking now.

What civilization existed 9000 years before Solon, that would be anything like what Plato described?
What civilization had the technology to build ships and trade with other countries?  What other countries was she trading with? According to Plato goods were brought from all other countries to Atlantis.  What other countries had ships that they could sail to Atlantis to trade with her?
What civilization was sailing the ocean and trading with the countries inside the Med.? 
What civilization was so powerful it could take Greece, Asia and Egypt at a blow?

And I ask again, if Atlantis was in the Americas, how is it that an Army of Athenians was sunk along with her?  An army that didn't exist yet?

Even if Dr. Little found a temple under the water Nicole, he could not state it was an Atlantean temple. 

[Desiree]

Hi all,

Just to clarify things here, Greg has never actually said that he has found Atlantis.  His discoveries relate to an ancient maritime culture that existed in the Bahamas, circa 5000 BC, or later.

I told him that it could BE Atlantis, because I don't hold as firm to Plato's dates as some people, but he has never been in agreement.

I haven't read the thread over at UM, but I can imagine how pissy and cynical it probably is.

From Greg:

U-M like many other forums has a lot of bitter, jealous, and personal failures active as members.

Isn't that the truth.  It is also the truth that it has always been a lot easier to tear something down than to build something up.

From Qoais:

In scientific theory, you have to know what is right and what is wrong in order to prove your theory is right.  If someone can poke holes in your theory, what good is your theory?  You should have tried to poke holes in it yourself before you ever present it.

I totally disagree with that.  First off, science is an ongoing investigation.  Greg has been diving the Atlantic for over ten years now.  What is he supposed to do, not report on any of his findings?  It is an ongoing effort.  And he HAS poked holes in his theories.  I have threads here where will come out and say that his findings don't relate to Atlantis.

You have to have patience when you are studying this stuff. Underwater archaeology (where I believe the answers will be found) takes a long time, and we have only scratched the surface. Partly, that is because of technology, the other part is because very few people have the money to do it properly.

[Daedalus]

Of course, he's pissed off at you, Qoais, you are casting doubt on his motives and ridiculing his research.  What do you expect him to do?

Let me ask you this, just how much underwater work have you done in your search for Atlantis?  How much archaeological work?  How about reading the ancient historians to glean the truth of the account?

I am guessing that the answer to that would be "none," and that you have become just yet another lemming eager to follow the skeptics over at UM, Hall of Ma'at or whatever other lame forum of likewise pissy people that you like to hang out with. 

Point is, Greg has probably forgotten more about Atlantis than you will ever know, so keep that in mind when you join in on the bashing with your cynic friends.

[Qoais]

Hi Desiree 
I know that Greg has never said he found Atlantis.  He is most professional in that regard. I have even pointed out that he himself has never said that anything he has found is from Atlantis.   I realize more discoveries are being made every day, and I find that fascinating.  BUT they are not Atlantis.  I'm not saying that to be mean and nasty, and break someone's bubble.  I have quite simply stated what is known.  If people want to ignore what we DO know, I guess that is their prerogative.

You said:

I haven't read the thread over at UM, but I can imagine how pissy and cynical it probably is.

From Greg:

Quote
U-M like many other forums has a lot of bitter, jealous, and personal failures active as members.

Isn't that the truth.  It is also the truth that it has always been a lot easier to tear something down than to build something up.

How do you know this is the truth Desiree?  You have admitted that you haven't read the thread at UM, and yet you are agreeing with something you know nothing about first hand.  HOWEVER, it probably can be said about ANY forum as Greg made sure to say "U-M like many other forums" - that there are people in those forums who are bitter, or jealous or are personal failures. We have those here as well.   Does that make them wrong on the subject matter?  We are not here to do character assassinations of the posters.  We are supposedly discussing factual information.  When someone posts something that is wrong, there are people at UM who make a point of showing that it's wrong.  They might be very nasty in their tone when they do it, but the point is, they do show where the original information was wrong.  Is that a bad thing?  Do people not want to have the facts straight?  You said it's easier to tear something down than build it.   Something cannot be torn down that never existed in the first place. 

Daedalus - who I "hang out" with has no bearing on anything.  I am constantly taking a shatkicking at UM for posting without checking my facts first.  It has taught me to check things out on my own.  I am not against Greg Little and his explorations.  I think it's wonderful that he and his wife can be a team and do their searching together and I think it would be awesome if they could find proof of the existence of a culture or civilization in the area, from 5000 BC. 

I do not understand why you are coming at me with this antagonistic attitude.  I have simply looked at the situation, and found that the story of Atlantis is not true.  Prove it is.  Answer the questions I put forth at least. Why don't you answer the questions instead of just coming on with attitude?

 I haven't done any underwater searching for Atlantis, because it would be a waste of time.  I would do underwater searching for the benefit of finding something submerged that had never been discovered before, but you can't find something that didn't exist in the first place.  I have not ridiculed Greg's research at all.   The point is, he does belong to the A.R.E. which upholds Cayce's Atlantis, which I've always said, was a complete different story from Plato's Atlantis.  Similarities are there, but Plato's story is the one I find does not pan out.  The only problem I had, was Greg saying I had an ulterior motive or something for pasting the article about Cayce  here after I explained that I didn't.  I didn't write the article in question.  I pasted it here so people in this forum could see what was being said about  Cayce in other places.  I obviously did not notice at the time, that I had misplaced it in the wrong thread. 

   I can read just fine.  Can you?  Why don't you answer the questions I've put forth if you feel you are correct?  How many historians would I have to read to be able to understand  that there was no "civilization" 9000 years before Solon with the technological expertise Plato is talking about? 

There is only so much one can "know" about Atlantis, and it comes from Plato.  Instead of telling me I hang out with pissy people, why don't you tell me how the Athenian Army (that didn't exist yet) got to the Americas in order to be submerged with Atlantis?

I have said it over and over, there are probably submerged cities in different places of the world and hopefully we'll discover them someday, there were wars fought in many countries, civilizations did emerge and those civilizations developed technologies.  But not in the place and time frame that Plato gives.  Scientists ARE making new discoveries all the time.  Even if Greg Little finds that a culture did exist 5000BC in the areas he's doing his dives, it won't be Plato's Atlantis.  How could it be?  It's not old enough by 4000 years.  You either believe it like Plato told it or you can change what he said to fit what you want to believe.  But then, it's still not Atlantis.

[Greg Little]

Let me clarify a few items.

I believe that Plato was telling a story that he completely believed was true.

I suspect that his story was largely based on fact: Dating, island size, maritime culture, center city, and so on.

I am certain that Plato's story could have been true. We really know very little about anything that happened more than 5000 years ago.

There were maritime civilizations in some places well over 12,000 years ago and there is sufficient accepted mainstream archaeological evidence of it. Central America is one such place.

A lot of things Edgar Cayce said during his readings was accurate. Some but fewer things were not. Other things he said cannot possible be evaluated. People don't like to read what he actually said. So they just quote was someone else said. The more the skeptics attack, the bigger Cayce gets. It's an interesting phenomenon. Many of the detractors have made Cayce the center of their life.

If Edgar Cayce had never existed the Bahamas would still be a logical place that fits Plato's description. So would Cuba.

We have found nothing in the Yucatan or Bahamas that is definitive that points to Atlantis.

We have proven to the satisfaction level required by some archaeologists that there was a maritime culture in the Bahamas...the dating is unclear--1000 BC--4000 BC? The date is completely up in the air, but older than anything previously known.

We have solved some plane "disappearances" in the Bermuda Triangle--in that we found some of the planes.

We have done preliminary work on one area, in 110-feet, at the 10,000 BC shoreline about 7 miles off Bimini that looks like buildings along the ancient shoreline. Bill Donato first found the site.

There has been a lot, and I mean a lot, more that has transpired, but virtually nothing else has publically released. I agreed to that. The past year has seen the Giza work initiated by Andrew Collins get the main public focus--as it should have. But there have been many more Bimini expeditions conducted by major league professionals.

My "Encyclopedia of Native American Mounds & Earthworks" was done and released 15 months ago. It was my focal point as it was being done. Since then I have written a psychology textbook, released in March (2010) and a treatment book, to be released next month. I have also conducted, analyzed and subsequently published two large research articles, including a 20-year followup of 1400 criminals. When I am working on a project it is my primary focus at that time.

Right now Andrew Collins and I are jointly working on a book and documentary--it's not about Atlantis. When that's done it'll be on to the next project.

We are still involved at Bimini and "elsewhere" and some of our results will be announced, perhaps with the June 1 issue of our website. I simply can't say more about it.

The ARE does not fund us at all (it never has--but it has asked to do so), we take no donations or support funds, and we make virtually nothing from books and whatever else is associated with Atlantis. We do what we do because we want to and we can. We have not always had the means to do it. We have received $0.00 for appearing in the dozen or so documentaries we participated in.

Science proceeds by testing hypotheses. Sometimes they are from prior results, sometimes from hunches, sometimes it comes from a theory, and sometimes it's a wild guess--and even wishful thinking. You construct and conduct a study to test a hypothesis and then you look at the results. That leads to the next one...and so on. That's how theories are constructed. Theories always lead to more hypotheses.

My main hypothesis relating to this is that a maritime culture was in the Bahamas in 10,000 BC and probably well before that. Determining if it is Atlantis would be another set of hypotheses. To start to test it means, but only in part and as a starting point, that you have to conduct an exhaustive search. That basically means to look everywhere. And to look in the right way. That takes time and is complicated by a lot of really dangerous possibilities. Just take a relatively small boat 50 miles into the ocean and decide you need to search the bottom of perhaps 80,000 square miles. Plus there are laws that have to be followed and should be followed. Figure out what it costs when boats' "mileage" is in gallons per mile, not miles per gallon. The really interesting problem is looking for something that was destroyed, is underwater, with continual unstable weather. But you can't reject the hypothesis until all the possibilities are tested. And science never--ever--forms a negative hypothesis. For example, saying "my hypothesis is that Atlantis never existed" is a negative. Many people confuse a "null" hypothesis with a negative one. Not the same thing. You cannot test a negative hypothesis.

I don't mind detractors saying we are a bit crazy for doing all of this, that could be true. But it's just something we wanted to do, it's an adventure. The other deliberate false statements and deceptions are something else entirely. And getting names wrong of the people being criticized is one fact that points out how "accurate" the article is.

And no, I don't have to explain my motives at all, although they are here. And we don't have to prove anything to anyone. In science you look for evidence and you test hypotheses. That's what we are doing. I know that there are people who hope that nothing is ever found. And they discourage others from looking for evidence in any way they can.

[Qoais]

I suspect that his story was largely based on fact: Dating, island size, maritime culture, center city, and so on.

What you suspect is your opinion.  What facts do you have to base your suspicions on?

I am certain that Plato's story could have been true. We really know very little about anything that happened more than 5000 years ago.

A contradiction or two in that sentence.  You are either certain it's true, or it could have been true.  Then, how can you be certain it's true if we know so little about anything that happened more than 5000 years ago?  

There were maritime civilizations in some places well over 12,000 years ago and there is sufficient accepted mainstream archaeological evidence of it. Central America is one such place.

Can you link to information on these places?  Here is what I found in my search for the oldest civilizations of the Americas.  Do you have newer information?

Norte Chico civilization
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Norte Chico" redirects here. For other uses, see Norte Chico (disambiguation).
History of Peru


The Norte Chico civilization (also Caral or Caral-Supe civilization[1]) was a complex Pre-Columbian society that included as many as 30 major population centers in what is now the Norte Chico region of north-central coastal Peru. It is the oldest known civilization in the Americas and one of the six sites where civilization separately originated in the ancient world. It flourished between the 30th century BC and the 18th century BC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norte_Chico_civilization

30th century BC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The 30th century BC is a century which lasted from the year 3000 BC to 2901 BC

The Olmecs


The earliest civilization in Central America—and possibly the earliest civilization in the Americas—(my note: the Norte Chico may have been older, but was not in Central America)  was the Olmec civilization which arose sometime between 1200 and 1000 BC. They originally lived in the Gulf Coast region of southern Mexico, but soon expanded into Guatemala. Olmec society was very simple. It was essentially divided into two groups: the elite group lived in the small urban centers (towns, really) and the common people lived in the rural areas. The Olmecs were overwhelmingly an agricultural people. The elite lived off of the agriculture of the common people, but they probably didn't rule over the agricultural populations. Instead, they carried out religious ceremonies centered in the towns and carried out commercial trade in luxury and artistic items.
The most dramatic achievement of the Olmecs were the building of massive stone heads. We aren't sure who is represented by these heads, but archaeologists believe that they may be Olmec kings. Around 300 BC, the Olmec vanished for reasons that vanished with them. We do know, however, that much of their culture and social structure was absorbed by other peoples. The Olmecs, as far as we can tell, are the first chain in the development of Mesoamerican culture.

If Edgar Cayce had never existed the Bahamas would still be a logical place that fits Plato's description. So would Cuba.

Lets pretend we never heard of Edgar Cayce.  Lets read what Plato says.  

To his twin brother, who was born after him, and obtained as his lot the extremity of the island towards the Pillars of Heracles, facing the country which is now called the region of Gades in that part of the world, he gave the name which in the Hellenic language is Eumelus, in the language of the country which is named after him, Gadeirus.

Is it logical to say that the Bahamas or Cuba faces Gades?  That is - I suppose we should establish firstly, whether or not you agree that Gades is in modern day Spain??  So you really think when Plato says "faces" he meant from four thousand miles away?

My main hypothesis relating to this is that a maritime culture was in the Bahamas in 10,000 BC and probably well before that.

What is your definition of a "maritime culture"?  This usually implies a "fleet of ships" or regular ocean travel doesn't it?  Or do you just mean that they lived by the water and harvested foodstuffs from there?

[Qoais]

According to most scholars, the last ice age ended around 10,000 years ago.  I don't suppose it was a sudden event, taking only a few years, but I think it's acceptable to say that most of the earth was covered in ice during the ice age.  From what I've read, the ice reached as far down as central USA and there were no "tropics" then, but milder climate where the tropics are now. 

Solon lived 638-558BC  so lets round it off to 600 BC

So 9000 years before Solon would be 11,600 years ago.  The ice age wouldn't end for another 1600 years. 

What civilization then, in that time period had the technology to build ocean going vessels - especially ones that could be used as ice-breakers - that could cross the ocean and take over the lands inside the Med?

Now I admit, that I don't always agree with the dates and time lines scientists have given on some things - but surely to God they can't all be wrong.  Scientists agree on when the ice age ended.  Artifacts and folklore and cave drawings etc., verify when man first started inventing his technologies, whatever they might be.  So even though I disagree with some of the time lines, I cannot state that every scientist who has ever studied these things is wrong.  They are the ones who are supposed to be teaching us what it was all about.  So there has to be an accepted "range" for when things were discovered, invented, improved upon etc.  But I really think it's pushing credulity to the extreme, to say that there was a culture present in the Americas during the ice age, that could sail across the ocean, take over the Western Med. and then attack Greece, Asia and Egypt all at once. 



 

[Greg Little]

Q: "What I suspect is my opinion!!??"

Ah, well, so what? Sort of stating the obvious as if that was some sort of put down. If all opinions were equal you could go to a janitor for cancer as opposed to an oncologist. Some opinions are better than others. Oncology has major areas in treatment where they aren't very successful, but with any type of cancer I'd trust the opinion of an oncologist more than that of a janitor, plumber, or clerk. Your "argument" is the kind an elementary school kid blurts out. And the reasoning behind the statement I made about Plato has been in our books and articles. I've already supplied what you asked. You just haven't read any of it. I won't rewrite all of my books and articles here.

"I am certain the story of Atlantis could have been true." No contradictions anywhere. And if there actually was a contradiction, which there isn't, so what? The universe is filled with contradictions--at least as we perceive them initially. I'm OK with that. You aren't. Who cares? What I write is essentially worded to mean what I intend--not as a fast impulsive reaction. The criticism you have comes from your insistence that everything has 2 sides, but I don't know if you are aware of that or not. It's sort of a high-schoolish belief system, or less. Another example of this is when you ask about "my" definition of a maritime culture. You immediately list 2 (two) choices. But "I" don't have a definition of it, and neither of your 2 choices fits the definition I use. (That's an example of something carefully worded, but I doubt you'll get it.) You can continue to function with the "2-opinion-sides" as an apparently unconscious driving force, but no one else has to buy into it. In more common terms, you can dance however you like, but whether or not others will dance with you, using your rules, is their choice. And there are more than 2 choices in that for others.

The most authoritative information isn't posted on the internet, or it's not free--lots of the top journals require subscriptions. You ask for links. The link is to go inside a large university library and go to the journals section. Spend a LOT of time there---weeks, months, years. Caral is far from the "oldest civilization" in America. For a brief time it was hyped as such, but you don't seem aware of why they chose that terminology about a decade ago. I have spoken to South American archaeologists about Caral and other places, have you? I wrote about it when it was first hyped and came into development as a potential tourist site. Obviously what you have read about it comes from internet sources that recycle "old" news and internet writers who rewrite the old news over and over as if it's somehow new. You are out of date and influenced by hype and wiki.  You ask, "do you have newer information?" Yes. Newer than your internet sources. And as more and more information sites are requiring paid subscriptions, and as the internet changes as it's gradually doing now, less and less credible information is going to be available for free. It is what it is.

Like I related, we are testing a hypothesis. You can criticize continually and ask irrelevant questions about Plato as if they mattered, but we have already answered all of those questions in our books and elsewhere. Some people are interested in the results of the many smaller tests it takes to fully test the hypothesis. I'll share what the results are as they are done. You are saying there is "no reason to do it" by tossing out more irrational arguments and quibbling about irrelevant matters somehow twisted into 2 possibilities.

Imagine if you were in a kitchen with a kid and you said, "I'm thinking about traveling to England." The kid then said, "I don't believe England really exists. Prove it to me right now."

I suppose it would matter to me who the kid was and my relationship with him or her, but generally I'd probably say something like, "That's OK, you can believe whatever you want."

[Qoais]

Q: "What I suspect is my opinion!!??"

Ah, well, so what? Sort of stating the obvious as if that was some sort of put down.

It wasn't meant as a put down and I certainly didn't think you were so easily "wounded".  I'm looking at what you say from the perspective of young people looking up to you for information - in that regard, I'm expecting an explanation as to why you "suspect" what you do, and asking if you have any basis for your suspicions.  You want people to read your books but you don't want to talk about what gives your suspicions credulity over anyone else's suspicions.  I understand that whatever you find, has to be released according to a schedule, but I thought you might give some detail as to why you held the belief that Atlantis was real.  Excuse me if I didn't word my statements and questions in a more delicate, non abrasive manner.   

It seems to me that it is you doing the dance.  Dancing around giving any real information about anything.  You say we don't really know much of anything before 5000 years ago but in the same breath you say YOU are certain about Atlantis. That's not a contradiction?  I guess that does make you special.  Must be that degree in Family Health or whatever that makes you so cognizant of the past

I have said there are two sides to everything, and if you think that's a childish attitude to take, then it's because you think there is only one side - yours.  I'm sure there are more than just two explanations for any number of things, but we're talking specifically about what Plato said about Atlantis.  There's no "buying into" anything, except that Atlantis was real.  People "buy into" it, because they haven't done any research on it and want to believe the fairy tale.  I only posted two of the items that I found regarding old civilizations in the Americas.  I saw no need to post any more than that.  If people don't believe what I post, they have the option to do the research themselves.  I asked you for a link but if you'd rather give the title to a paper I can look up, fine, let's have it.

I am aware that the most authoritative information is not on the internet.  That's why I use the the library to access Jstor. 

You can continue to talk down to me and try to paint me as uneducated and inept which is a ploy to direct attention away from the fact, that you have nothing to back your belief, any more than anyone else does.    I have readily admitted that I have no letters behind my name, but what does that say for you?  Why do you find it necessary to put other people down, in order to discuss facts?  What you've said says loud and clear, that you don't believe in Atlantis although you pretend to.  You say I ask irrelevant questions about Plato as if they mattered. What the heck else DOES matter in regards to Atlantis?  He wrote the story.   You obviously don't think it matters what Plato said, yet you pretend to believe in Atlantis.  Who has the ulterior motive? 

I did not say there was no reason to search for things that are submerged.  I said there was no reason to look for something that never existed.  I've shown why Atlantis didn't exist as Plato explained it. Prove me wrong.  If you can show your finds to be Atlantis, I look forward to the time when you share that information.  You too, can believe whatever you want.   As you say, the universe is full of contradictions.  You seem to be one of them.

One of the greatest results from the story of Atlantis, is how many people were influenced by it, to actually study something.  I know I learned a lot when I was searching for verification of the facts.  I notice you didn't bother to acknowledge any of my questions about what civilization or culture had the technology during the ice age to sail the ocean and conquer the Med.  Guess that's a little too complicated for you.  You use certain terminology, and then try to pretend  it means something more than it really does.  Whatever definition you use for "maritime culture" is still a mystery to the public since you refuse to enlighten us.  More bafflegab it seems. 

Imagine if you were in a kitchen with a kid and you said, "I'm thinking about traveling to England." The kid then said, "I don't believe England really exists. Prove it to me right now."

I suppose it would matter to me who the kid was and my relationship with him or her, but generally I'd probably say something like, "That's OK, you can believe whatever you want."

Poor analogy.  The kid is lacking in the education to know better. Through education, he will learn the truth.   You are basically just saying "trust me, I know England exists and I'm telling you so".  Or you're saying to us "I suspect Atlantis existed, so believe me when I tell you so".  But SOME of us ARE old enough to check the facts for ourselves and are not baffled by the bullship. 

 

You can criticize continually and ask irrelevant questions about Plato as if they mattered, but we have already answered all of those questions in our books and elsewhere.

Tell me in which book of yours you have answered the questions I've posted, and I will actually go spend the money to buy it rather than borrowing from the Library

[Greg Little]

I'm not at all saying "trust me, England exists," I'm saying "it's irrelevant to me what you believe about it. It'd be a waste of my time to explain more or try to prove anything to the kid."

My purpose in entering this was to respond to the garbage article you posted and clarify specific points related to what others say I think. It was not to answer questions about Plato or Caral or Cayce. You dance to yours..I'll to mine. But I won't waste any more time.

[Desiree]

Uh, Qoais, maybe a little bit more civility and politeness is in order on your part?  Point of fact (and you may not like it), Greg IS an authority on Atlantis and has already gone over a lot of these questions in his past responses here, in other threads.  Point is, he is the ONLY Atlantologist doing any actual field work in the Atlantic Ocean, where Plato sets the story. He has also been to the ARE library, where they have an immense collection of Atlantis research (from Edgar Sykes). He also probably knows more about Atlantis than either you or I do combined.

So what if he doesn't want to come out with a full-fledged theory for people to poke holes in about his own personal theory about Atlantis for your satisfaction?  A true scientist is always gathering clues, and he goes where the clues lead him. It's not about showboating, it's about finding the truth.

As for his degree, it doesn't make any difference what it is in. There are no degrees in Atlantis, or even in archaeology in most schools around the country. I'd say twenty years of archaeological research is an education in itself. It is certainly a lot more than debunkers like Ken Feder has done, who has never even gotten wet outside the shower, or any of those cynics at UM.

Also, he is right about Caral NOT being the oldest civilization in South America. People have been in South America for thousands of years earlier. And wikipedia is a pretty poor source for information, it's notup to date, and tends to be edited conservatively.