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

[Qoais]

Hi Des
I appreciate your information.  However, I do not appreciate being called a liar.  I had no quarrel with Greg Little or Nicole, until they both intimated that I was not telling the truth.  I made an effort at giving an explanation for why I posted the article, and Greg again suggested I had some "motive" other than what I explained.  I tried again to explain my actions, and still it was not accepted.  So yes, I'm offended.  Why should I be more civil and polite to someone who treats me like that?  Someone who tries to demean me, tries to make it look like I have little education, and then says in the end, that it's all irrelevant and what I think doesn't matter?  Does the fact that he can dive in the ocean make it ok for him to talk down to me like that? Because he has letters behind his name, does that make it ok for him to talk down to me like that?  What makes it ok for him to talk down to me like that?   My questions may sound brusque, but they did not denote or intimate any personal insult.  If the man doesn't want to state on what grounds he holds his belief in the existence of Atlantis, all he has to do is say so.  The man has written books, he's in the public eye, and I'm sure he can field questions without being demeaning and belittling to other people. 

You say there are no degrees in Atlantis.  I'm aware of that.  That's why I feel we are supposed to all be on equal footing with that subject. So why am I being talked down to, because I've asked some hard questions?   I too, have read extensively about Atlantis. I've read Edgerton Sykes, I've read Edgar Cayce and pretty much everything that's been published about him, I've read Ignatius Donnelly, I've read the more modern authors as well.    I too can think for myself.  While they are all interesting reads, they do not change the facts.  The facts are there to be researched.  Archaeology is most definitely an education in itself.  That's not the point.  The point I was trying to make, with facts given by scientists who have done the research, is that Plato's Atlantis did not exist.  It's like saying you're out looking for Never, Never Land.  It's like looking for Peter Pan's shadow because he lost it.  The story can be talked about by a million people over and over, but it will not change the fact that it is only a story. 

I asked Greg for a link or a reference to articles that explain about older civilizations in the Americas, but did not get a response.  I asked for his explanation as to what civilizations or cultures existed in the times Plato references, that could have the technology necessary for the feats Plato describes and he did not answer.  If he has answered these questions in other threads, would it not have been "a little more civil and polite" to just reference me to those threads?  I'm aware that the internet doesn't give the best information.  That's why I access jstor from the Library. 

If you have links or references to earlier civilizations in the Americas Des, I'd appreciate having them.  I do like to TRY to stay informed   Is there evidence that this older civilization had ocean going ships to cross the Atlantic and challenge all the Med?

In my most polite and civil manner, I am asking for information that will confirm the facts as evidence for the existence of Atlantis.  I know people don't like to be disagreed with when it's about a favorite subject and they get their backs up, but there is no need to talk down to anyone or cast aspersions on their character or intelligence because they disagree. 

If someone can direct me to information regarding any known civilization or culture that had the technology to perform the feats Plato describes, in the time line he gives, then please advise. I'm not arguing against Atlantis because of any ulterior motive.  I'm not writing a book, I'm not making any money from my opinion, it's just that I see the facts.  It's like saying liquid water is wet.  It's just a fact. 
There is nothing in any research in any field of science, that validates Plato's Atlantis.  So why would I go diving for a place that never existed?  I wouldn't.  I 'd dive to find what does exist and then publish my findings.  Which is what Greg Little is doing.  There's nothing wrong with that.  Never said there was. I commend him for it. 

What constitutes being an "authority" on Atlantis?  Being able to deep sea dive, or understanding what Plato wrote?





 

[Nicole Jimmelson]

I had no quarrel with Greg Little or Nicole, until they both intimated that I was not telling the truth. 

Well, I don't remember ever calling you a liar, but I will say this (for what it is worth): the reason why people are, most likely getting tired of debating you is that you really aren't honest when it comes to the material we are studying here. You asked both Greg and myself for "evidence." Why should he or myself ever present any evidence to convince you of anything? You're not out to learn anything, and you don't have an open mind about the material.  You are a "debunker," and the only reason you want to see any evidence is to say it either doesn't exist, or doesn't matter. Doesn't matter what it is, you have just decided that Plato's story doesn't exist, so you have to sort of look around for ways to support your negativity.

You support, blindly, in most cases, the mainstream archaeological opinion about things, even though they have proven wrong about the past, time and again. Case in point:  the Pre-Clovis culture is still thought of as the first culture to be in America by mainstrream archaeologists even though there are now boatload of evidence that that no longer is the case. Have they changed their opinion?  Nope!  But I'm sure since your friends at UM keep quoting that, you are, most likely, in total agreement with that outmoded, not up to date hypothesis.

So, to sum up:

1. You don't have an open mind about any of the material we are studying here.

2.  You have become, for the most part, a debunker.

3.  You don't even look into the things presented to you as "evidence" because your mind is already made up.

Is it any wonder that those of us who are believers tend to get frustrated with debating you? 

[Tom Hebert]

Greg Little has graciously decided to take the high road in this rather silly debate.  Now, it would behoove the rest of us to drop the issue and refocus our energies on serious research into the existence of the lost continent of Atlantis.  How about it?

Tom

[Qoais]

Do you know what a contradiction is Nicole?

Well, I don't remember ever calling you a liar, but I will say this (for what it is worth): the reason why people are, most likely getting tired of debating you is that you really aren't honest when it comes to the material we are studying here.

No, don't answer.  It doesn't matter.

You can call me a debunker if you like, but I've been posting the results of my research and my thoughts on those results for 3 years, and I've not really "debated" anyone.  I simply post the information.  Even if I was a "debunker", so what?  Everyone is entitled to their opinion. 

Debunker
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A debunker is an individual who discredits and exposes claims as being false, exaggerated or pretentious.[1] The term is closely associated with skeptical investigation of topics such as U.F.O.s, claimed paranormal phenomena, conspiracy theories, alternative medicine, religion, or pseudoscientific research.

 I've shown the facts for how I came to my conclusion.  Those facts to date, have not been proven wrong.  If there are finds made in the future that verify otherwise, all well and good.  I do have an open mind, and can accept new information whether you think otherwise or not.  I have studied all the material here, and in other places as well.  One does not have to study authors who write about Atlantis after the fact, though, to learn about Atlantis.  All that was originally written about Atlantis was written by two people, Plato and Edgar Cayce.  Anyone else who has written about Atlantis is no more an authority on the subject than you or I, because it is their opinion.  MY conclusion as I've said, comes from the facts as we know them today.  With all our modern technology, there has so far not been found, any evidence that a culture or civilization existed as Plato describes it. (Nor as Cayce describes it for that matter - otherwise we wouldn't still be looking would we?)

The other authors that need to be studied are the scientists who keep plugging away, working out what we know of our world.  Something you need to do to get up to speed regarding the Clovis culture.  Who do you think is doing the study on the Clovis culture if not scientists Nicole?

[Greg Little]

Our newest finds around Bimini are here:
http://mysterious-america.net/atlantis2010.html

[Desiree]

Hi Greg,

Can you elaborate on this if you can?

All three have stone anchors and show clear evidence of being used by a maritime culture—unrecognized and unacknowledged by mainstream archaeology.

Do you know anything about this maritime culture?  What can you tell us about it?

[Greg Little]

Des:
The three docking areas (breakwaters) vary in depth--Bimini Road (20 ft or so); Proctors Rd (15-10 ft); Paradise Pt. Pier (10-8 ft). It implies that they were built and used successively as the sea levels rose. Maybe 4000 BC to AD 1000 or so. The anchors are at all three places. There are large and sophisticated anchors as well as small and primitive ones. The only maritime cultures accepted by mainstream archaeology that were in this area was the Maya and perhaps Olmec. They probably were active about 500 BC or so. Otherwise it's up for grabs.

[Horus]

But did Edgar Cayce say that? No. Search the Cayce readings---show the proof that Cayce predicted a magnetic pole shift in 2000. That is an unmitigated lie. And with that, I'll end the factual issues.

I generally agree with your sentiments and other points and truly he never stated "magnetic poleshifts" anywhere but he did say:

Question - What great change or the beginning of what change, if any, is to take place in the Earth in the year 2000 to 2001 A.D?

Answer - "When there is a shifting of the poles. Or a new cycle begins." ( 826-8 )

Whether axial or magnetic or something else, I know there are many interpretations of this reading fragment but I look at it in the context of the other earth changes and pole shift readings as failed predictions. No that it matters one whit (maybe he had indigestion that day compromising his channel of the creative forces) as 80% of his other readings were right which is more than I can say for other less accurate and far less prolific psychics.

[Skinwalker]

The only maritime cultures accepted by mainstream archaeology that were in this area was the Maya and perhaps Olmec. They probably were active about 500 BC or so.

Did the Olmecs and Mayans have a sea-faring culture?

I would think that the anchors probably came from a Med-based culture sailing out to the new world.

[Greg Little]

The Maya had a huge maritime trading network. It extended from Yucatan to all of the bahamas, Cuba and other Caribbean islands, to Florida. They had many ports but Isla Cerritos was the central one. And certainly the "visitors" who built the breakwaters at Bimini could have come from Europe. I hope that was the case and lean toward that explanation. But the same ports would have been used by later cultures like the Maya. The wooden ship we just found at Bimini may be a clue, but there is a bit of testing results that have to come back before we know anything definite.

[Desiree]

Hi Greg, thanks for responding.  Did this culture come from the Americas then?

Also, in one of your past columns, you said you were contacted by the people that came up with the satellite photos purporting to show an underwater city in the Caribbean.  Did anything come of that yet?

[Greg Little]

Des: I don't know where the maritime culture that built the things at Bimini came from. If the rectangles turn out to be buildings we can assume it was Atlantis. The building we just reported is in shallow water, 20-ft or so, and that would be somewhere from 4000 BC-1000 BC. Same with the granite slabs and structures south of Bimini. That area, because it's on a ridge, would have been a "hill top" when the sea levels were lower. They do look like buildings yes. The winds were terrible while we were there, but we got great film and photos. The best of these have not been pubvlished but will be in an article that will be put out by a magazine in a few months.

With respect to the 2nd question, yes, I was give the precise location. Almost all of the speculation on the internet and people who posted coordinates of the location were totally wrong--none were even close. But it is located in a place where currently there is no access that can be done legally. Perhaps one day, but I have already looked at the area's satellite inages and I tend to think, as does the only person who guessed the location right (Andrew Collins), that it was a imaging artifact--pixelation. Wish it wasn't so. In any event it can't be visited by us and now I'm sure it would be a complete waste of time and resources.

The good news is that we have the first true confirmaTION of an underwater stone building ruin in the Bahamas. It certainly is a building and the other spot, south of Bimini, looks even more promising. There actually has been a lot of work done at the rectangles site (100-ft of depth) and in an adjacent area (up to 350-ft deep) but what they have come up with is a slew of interesting photos of the rectangles and what are called terraces. Anything deeper than 100-ft or so is just too deep, at least as I see it. The rectangles area remains the one site linked to 10,000 BC but definitive evidence from there may soon come out. Meanwhile we can ponder where heck these other buildings came from. Amazingly, there is a lot more stuff in that area that no one has looked at.

[Greg Little]

Des: sorry about the typos and other spelling problems. I'm using a small laptop and on an unfamiliar browser... we came back from Bimini in 10-12 ft seas and winds of 25-30 mph. It was x-tremely dangerours. When we got home we had 3 blown tvs, our cable was out, dsl line fried, outside surveillance video cams and monitor blown, and more. There had been a fire next door and it cause a lot of problems. It stil hasn't all been worked out. The return...was just too much.

[Desiree]

Hi Greg, wow, that sounds really inconvenient, not to mention expensive to get repaired again.  Hope that you have insurance on all your household stuff.  Did you find out what happened yet?

[Desiree]

Same with the granite slabs and structures south of Bimini. That area, because it's on a ridge, would have been a "hill top" when the sea levels were lower. They do look like buildings yes. The winds were terrible while we were there, but we got great film and photos. The best of these have not been pubvlished but will be in an article that will be put out by a magazine in a few months.

That sounds excellent.  Is there documentary footage shot on it?  Would this be part of a sunken port or a breakwater?  Personally, I think that even the 4000 to 1000 bc findings could be Atlantis.  I don't believe the 10000 bc date is a firm one, and don't know how Plato could have come up with that date.