Ancient Harbor Complex Confirmed at Bimini, Bahamas—Hoax Revealed

[Desiree]

 
Greg Little
Member
Member # 2829

Member Rated:
   posted 11-14-2005 11:29 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I really didn't want to discuss the new Bimini info on an Atlantis board, because what we propose about Bimini, based on recent evidence, isn't related to Atlantis. But so many inaccurate claims have been stated here as fact, that I have to correct them.

I was completely uninvolved and unknown in the ARE until late 1999, only 5 years ago. We then began writing a series of books with John Van Auken. In 2002, we were the first Editors of an ARE newsletter, Ancient Mysteries, which we handed over to John about a year ago. I've read in this thread that in 1998 the ARE supposedly referred someone to me for Atlantis research assistance, but that's impossible. It could have been from 2003 on, yes. But not in 1998. In 1998-2000, I traveled widely doing work in prisons.

The very first involvement we had in the ARE's Atlantis Project was in 2003. I made my first ever trip to Bimini then--2003. The suggestion we were doing anything related to Atlantis research before then, in the 1970s??, is ludicrous and untrue. I was in graduate school then, quite poor, and then started working in prisons, publishing a lot of research in criminal justice. From 1976 to 2000, just about everything I did related to criminal justice, except for 3 books on mounds and phenomena. As to the idea I was somehow searching for Atlantis in the Bahamas/Bimini in the 1970s, or making any sort of recommendations to the ARE in 1998, I hope I'm being confused with many others who were active then, perhaps Bill Donato or Doug Richards. But it wasn't me.

In 2003 we started a series of expeditions mainly to Andros, but it included Bimini, Isla Cerritos, and Piedras Negras, Guatemala. While we (my wife an I) were offered financial
support from the ARE, we refused it as well as from others. That's all easily verifiable and proveable. The Director of the ARE noted that fact in the Preface of our late 2003 book. The May 2005 expedition to Bimini was done jointly with Bill Donato's organization, but we used no money at all except our own. All research equipment we've used, all boats, planes, everything, was paid by us personally.

The ARE does have donors to the foundation, and since 2003 I've been asked for an opinion about various research proposals that are received. The "wealthy widow" assertion is bizarre as it relates to this, but it's stated as a fact--and it's false. The decision to self-fund the expeditions was made before we started in 2003, because I knew it was likely such a claim would be made.

In truth, there are a lot of wealthy people in the ARE. Many people have contributed sums to the Cayce foundation in past years. But since our 2003 involvement, the ARE hasn't spent anything on Atlantis research. The foundation supports medical research, while some funds hopefully accumulate for later research projects in archaeology--conducted by someone else--not us.

All the trips and expeditions we made are costly, but we have done them because we wanted to and could. Simple as that.

The underwater stone circles we just reported on are not the same circles we investigated in 2003. The ARE sponsored an IKONOS satellite imaging project in 2002 that detected several circular formations in shallow water on the NE side of South Bimini. They were either natural or dumping grounds. There were also underwater circular formations at Andros we investigated in 2003--those reported by pilots, Valentine, Rebikoff, and Berlitz in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. We found and visited all of those--they were natural.

After a 2004 visit to the Bimini Road, I looked at 5 hours of video we took, and found some things that seemed out of place. I also read all of Donato's massive reports, which had many intriguing finds. Then I read an obscure report coauthored by one of the skeptical geologists, which stated that another line of stones was about a mile from the so-called "Bimini Road." The report said that there were stone circles there at regular spaced intervals. But it was never mentioned again or investigated. The Road and the line with the stone circles are off North Bimini.

In May a group of us, including Donato, went to Bimini. We started by flying over the unresearched line of stones at 500 ft. The stone circles were visible and great aerial digital footage of it was obtained. Diving at the site, we found five large stone circles and several partial ones. At least 8 stone anchors were found.

Turning our attention to the Bimini Road, we spent more time diving there than anyone has at one time, obtaining over 24 hours of video, mostly underwater. We found numerous multiple tiers of stone blocks, excavated over 24 marble pieces from under a block, and discovered cut, rectangular slabs of smooth stone underneath many blocks. These were amazing. In many cases, these slabs were stacked, leveling the huge top blocks that are seen from the surface. We also found two stone anchors there, including one that was identical to unusual ancient Greek anchors found at Thera. There was more, but that's what is in the report I issued in a pdf file.

Since all of these finds contradicted what the skeptical geologists had written (all 4 of them, that's right, only 4), I obtained a hard-to-find copy of Eugene Shinn's 1978 article in Sea Frontiers. If you have it and have any interest in this, pull it out and read it. That article contains the actual finds Shinn made at Bimini, results from 17 cores. It is the entire basis of the "natural beachrock" hypothesis. Here is what Shinn reported: The study was done "to determine if all the cores dipped toward deep water," if they did, it would show the formation was a natural beachrock formation that fractured in place. Shinn's actual results were divided into 2 groups of cores. One group of 8 cores showed no bedding planes that dipped to deep water. His discussion on the other 9
cores stated no numbers, only relating that "many" of the cores were horizontal (flat) and the remainder dipped to the deep water. You are left to ponder why no actual numbers were cited in how many of these 9 cores were flat or dipping. The only clue given is that "many" of the 9 cores were horizontal with no tilt or dip.

In 1980, 1984, and 2004, Shinn and/or archaeologist Marshall McKusick summarized Shinn's findings from the cores essentially as "all the cores dipped toward the deep water." But his actual results in the obscure Sea Frontiers article, cited in the later articles, showed that less than 25% really dipped toward deep water. That finding was less than by chance alone. Shinn also asserted in 2004 that 30 columns (or cylinders) found at Bimini and reported by Harrison in 1971 were "Portland cement." McKussic simply wrote that all the columns were cement. What Harrison actually reported was two of the columns were fluted marble that was not from the Bahamas and was very unlikely from the US. He also reported that the identical cement columns were made from a fire lime kiln process. He never said or implied they were "Portland" cement. I engaged in a long series of contacts with Shinn regarding all of this, and that's in the report.

There is substantially more detail than this, that's why the 29-page report was issued, along with 70 photos of evidence. I'm not asking that anyone here read it, just asking that when attacks are made, try to stick to opinions and facts. Nonfactual allegations stating they are fact, are problematic.

Shinn & McKusick's assertions about what Shinn reported in 1978 are a scientific hoax, and I provide a discussion of scientific fraud from the National Academies of Science and
other sources to detail it. I have also written that those who claim to have actually read Shinn's original report and the later ones (and who say that all the cores dipped to deep water) were either duped, didn't actually read the 1978 report (relying on later summaries as I initially did--believing they were honest reports), or became supporters of the hoax because they liked the assertion. The last part of that statement explains why scientific fraud is tolerated.

What we assert is that the Bimini formations were a harbor works. They are identical in size, shape, and construction to many ancient harbors found in the Mediterranean. Nowhere do we assert it is from Atlantis. That is why I prefer not to discuss it on an Atlantis board.

In the report I also relate the precise reactions that skeptics would have as well as why. In brief, the results will be too disturbing and defense mechanisms come into play saying,
"this can't be true, therefore it isn't."

While that was the instantaneous reaction from many, I have been pleasantly surprised. I've had contact from many people, almost all who were highly skeptical and ridiculing. After the initial anger and shock and ridicule, many skeptics actually read the report and then read the articles it references to prove to themselves that what is asserted about the hoax is true. That's what I asked them to do. Many of them continued to keep talking about Atlantis, but that's understandable after a 25-year long hoax that's fooled everyone. But most of those I have been in contact with are then convinced that there is a harbor work there.

I have no problem at all with skepticism or anyone who want to dismiss the claims with a single word or two. But allegations that are definitely untrue and damaging are another thing. I suspect most people will agree that's reasonable.

I'll end by emphasizing a key idea that I've already mentioned. The new evidence at Bimini doesn't relate to Atlantis. It's important from an archaeological perspective, but it's not Atlantis.

Best wishes to all.
Greg Little
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 102 | From: MemphisTN | Registered: Nov 2005
 

[Desiree]

Rich

Member
Member # 2265

Member Rated:
   posted 11-14-2005 11:41 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Shinn & McKusick's assertions about what Shinn reported in 1978 are a scientific hoax"

Ok... They did some research, and then lied about what they found? the hoax is Shinn & McKusick mis-represented their own findings?

[ 11-14-2005, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: Rich ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2166 | From: Parts Unknown, USA | Registered: Dec 2004   

[Desiree]

Chronos

Member
Member # 2051

Member Rated:
   posted 11-14-2005 12:26 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Greg,

Welcome to the forum, and glad you cleared up some of that misinformation for us. If you stick around, maybe you'd care to clear up a little more:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll end by emphasizing a key idea that I've already mentioned. The new evidence at Bimini doesn't relate to Atlantis. It's important from an archaeological perspective, but it's not Atlantis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've seen you speak of this on any number of documentaries and the position you state, both here and there, is consistent. The question remains, if it isn't Atlantis, what is it? I've read the report, maybe I need to read it again as some of this wasn't clear to me.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The underwater stone circles we just reported on are not the same circles we investigated in 2003. The ARE sponsored an IKONOS satellite imaging project in 2002 that detected several circular formations in shallow water on the NE side of South Bimini. They were either natural or dumping grounds. There were also underwater circular formations at Andros we investigated in 2003--those reported by pilots, Valentine, Rebikoff, and Berlitz in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. We found and visited all of those--they were natural'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you now saying that the "Andros Platform," is a natural formation while the Bimini Road is artificial?

--------------------
The one true academic search for Atlantis begins at Atlantis Online:

http://atlantisonline.smfforfree2.com/index.php

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1008 | From: various | Registered: Jul 2004   

[Desiree]

Greg Little
Member
Member # 2829

Member Rated:
   posted 11-14-2005 12:31 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fact 1: Shinn published the only research on the 17 cores in 1978 in an obscure journal.

Fact 2: In 1980, Shinn and McKusick summarized Shinn's 1978 results from the cores in the widely disseminated journal Nature ( the reference skeptics almost always cite). McKusick summarized the 1978 results again in 1984 in the journal Archaeology. In 2004 Shinn summarized the 1978 results in the Skeptical Inquirer.

Fact 3: What is reported in the 1980, 1984, and 2004 articles is a hoax. The assertions about the 1978 results are totally inaccurate--falsified.

The trouble you have in understanding it, is not at all unusual, and is precisely why the hoax has persisted. The hoax supported the mainstream view and is what the mainstream wanted to believe. Don't take my word for it. Verify the details for yourself...assuming you really want to know the truth about it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 102 | From: MemphisTN | Registered: Nov 2005   

[Desiree]

 
Greg Little
Member
Member # 2829

Member Rated:
   posted 11-14-2005 12:36 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronos:

The Andros Platform wasn't addressed in the report we just issued. But, of course, we went there during a phase of the Bimini expedition.

The bottom line to the new data:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 102 | From: MemphisTN | Registered: Nov 2005   
 

[Desiree]

Greg Little
Member
Member # 2829

Member Rated:
   posted 11-14-2005 12:44 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronos:

Sorry, wrong key was hit. Stupid finger.

Bottom line:
Bimini was a harbor waystation, probably used sometime between 5000 BC-perhaps 2000 BC.

The Andros Platform, about 105 miles from Bimini, was probably a harbor related to Bimini. We don't have definitive evidence of this yet, thus the word "probably."

There is another, third formation, about 160 miles from the Andros Platform that appears, at face value, to be the same. This third formation is the focus of our next expedition. Though I've never been to it, I have seen the photos of it others have supplied from making brief stops at this remote site. I find the photos of it far more impressive than the Bimini Road or the Andros Platform. Our intention is to stay there until we determine whether or not it has any evidence of a human hand. It too is underwater at the same depth as the Andros Platform and the Bimini Road.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 102 | From: MemphisTN | Registered: Nov 2005   

[Desiree]

Chronos

Member
Member # 2051

Member Rated:
   posted 11-14-2005 12:48 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg,

I'll read the report again tonight. As I understand it, the summarized data in later reports was based off of a misreading of the original findings, either intentionally or unintentionally. But the new report still doesn't go so far as to say that the Bimini Road is artificial, does it? Simply that the original data was presented wrongly?

Also, the last word I saw from you on the Andros Platform was that it was covered in sand. Has anyone been out there since the hurricane season ended to take another look to see if it had been uncovered again? Thanks.

--------------------
The one true academic search for Atlantis begins at Atlantis Online:

http://atlantisonline.smfforfree2.com/index.php

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1008 | From: various | Registered: Jul 2004   

[Desiree]

Chronos

Member
Member # 2051

Member Rated:
   posted 11-14-2005 01:03 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg,

Sounds interesting, do you think it has anything to do with the Cuban site? Where will you be posting the updates on these findings?

Erick isn't here so I'll ask this question for him:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where are the accompanying structures/signs of civilization at Bimini? Why does absolutely NOTHING else exist in that area that would support the suggestion of an advanced civilization at Bimini?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He would also suggest why you haven't theorized that American Indians were the ones responsible as opposed to this advanced civilization.

--------------------
The one true academic search for Atlantis begins at Atlantis Online:

http://atlantisonline.smfforfree2.com/index.php

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1008 | From: various | Registered: Jul 2004   

[Desiree]

docyabut
Member
Member # 117

Rate Member   posted 11-14-2005 04:37 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg,

A hoax was perpetrated at Bimini by the skeptics, but you have to examine a 1978 report to understand it. Academic archaeologists and geologists don’t read that report. They cite later summaries, which are based on falsified data. The hoax is a disgrace, but it’s been actively supported by key people."

I see you have the same problem as Gerogous Diaz had of which you wrote of and so badly denounced. Just beacuse you are both are amateurs does`nt mean the discoveries that are found are not real, however you need the Academic archaeologists and geologists to back you up. I believe the true Plato`s Atlantis was Tartesso, however I have no dought that there could have been Indian civlizations around the Americas that are under water.The stone cicles you found remind of the Miami stone cicles that were found.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 7985 | From: toledo .ohio | Registered: Mar 2000

[Desiree]

docyabut
Member
Member # 117

Rate Member   posted 11-14-2005 04:43 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW there is a 2004 Atlantis documentry on NG tonight at 9.   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 7985 | From: toledo .ohio | Registered: Mar 2000

[Desiree]

Greg Little
Member
Member # 2829

Member Rated:
   posted 11-14-2005 07:40 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronos: What we assert is that the formation called the Bimini Road and the associated line of stone circles is manmade--a harbor works similar to many in the Mediterranean.

In late 2004, can't recall the precise months right now, we went to Andros after Bimini. About half of what we had seen before was covered in sand, but other areas were uncovered.

I put a 16-minute Quicktime movie on the ARE website with film from Bimini/Andros. The Bimini film was what made me wnt to go back and look much closer and with extended time. The Andros film on it was taken while we were accompanied by a British film crew with NatG. They went through hell with the network and had to re-edit several times. The official position of NatG is that Thera was Atlantis. But that's another story...things turn. The 16-minute film is accessed about halfway down the ARE/am home page (right hand side). There are also clips from the 2003 Andros expeditions there:

http://www.edgarcayce.org/am

This past May 2005, we found that the hurricanes of the 2004-05 season (ending Jan 05) had filled the deep Andros harbor with sand and uncovered a lot of other areas. But two areas we really wanted to investigate had deep layers of sand there. It was frustrating. It shifts constantly, that's why we are moving on.

docyabut: I don't see Diaz's problem that he is an amateur.

But everyone who has actually done work at Bimini is an amateur archaeologist except one: Bill Donato. McKusick was not there. The geologists were...geologists. Like Shinn related to me in May, he didn't take much care with the research. But that's all in the report. Be that as it may, we credit all prior researchers for whatever they did. The idea we are proposing was first set forth by Dr. Dimitri Rebikoff in 1969, who was a marine engineer. He stated the site was identical to several Mediterranean harbors he had recently surveyed and photographed. Badly criticized by the geologists, Rebikoff was right. He disagreed with Valentine, but was a quiet, gentle man, well-liked, immensely respected.

Nevertheless, we have joined forces with Donato, and critics/skeptics can criticize whatever they will. Donato is an archaeologist. We'll move on and just keep doing what we are doing. We had a valid Bahamas archaeological permit--very difficult to get.

This particular report did not have Donato's name on it because the hoax needs to be dealt with by someone other than him. That is step 1 in the series of press releases. The hoax can be understood like this: Imagine you took a multiple choice test with 17 questions and only A, B, C as choices on each. You got 4 correct. That's 23.5%. The chance level--by random selection-- is 33.33%. I imediately ask you how you did on the test and you say, well, I didn't answer the first 8. But on the second 9, I got some right, and "many" were wrong. Two years later, you start telling everyone you got all 17 right. You got 100%. That, in essence is the main hoax of the skeptics. But there is also the amazing disappearing marble columns.

Chronos: I'll answer your other questions.
"Do you think it has anything to do with the Cuban site?"

I have no guess whatsoever on that one. I think we have to know what is really there--off Cuba. We do have a plan to go to Cuba immediately...when the political situation changes. Andrew Collins will go too, but there is a specific area there I really want to investigate.

Q: "Where will you be posting the updates on these findings?"
There are more press releases coming. The information we have sent out will be in some magazines, but mags are produced 1-3 months before they come out. Donato will have an article on the latest Bimini findings in the next issue of Ancient American. My own websites too. The press releases get wide exposure. As the press releases hit, and our assertions are absorbed, it will get attention from places other than websites. There will be more documentaries. It gets more exposure than the mainstream archaeologists do with their work. In truth, that's a shame.

"Erick's Q in absentia--Where are the accompanying structures/signs of civilization at Bimini? Why does absolutely NOTHING else exist in that area that would support the suggestion of an advanced civilization at Bimini?"

1. We are not suggesting an advanced culture was there. Quite the opposite. It was a maritime culture, but probably not what is implied by the word advanced. The land structures would be described as "perishable structures," a term used by Maya archaeologists

2. It was a waystation, a small stopover and trading port.

3. British archaeologists have asked the same question, and they accept the explanation, even many of the most hardened skeptics now do. First, the island Bimini has not had a single archaeological excavation done on it. If anyone want to dispute that, I'd like the reference--it would be useful. Peat was taken from a core by geologists to get a sample to carbon date, but that's not an archaeological excavation. I have, I think, a copy of every archaeological report from the Bahamas, or a summary of each. Bimini has bee a pariah since the 1968-80 events took place.

4. But the all caps assertion that "NOTHING" has ever been found on the island that's artifactual, isn't true. Lots of artifactual items have been found on Bimini land, and reported--every discovery has been discounted by US mainstream archaeology. The reasons why have to do with loss of context and the fact that a local or visitor stumbled onto something. (Plus the pariah aspect.) It's true that, with one exception, archaeologists have never found a single "ancient" artifact on Bimini. But they have never looked.

5. If one takes the time to investigate, it's actually easy to find lots of interesting things that have been excavated on land there. Here's why: the entire western side of Bimini has had, and currently has ongoing, heavy construction. Bulldozers and monster backhoes are working constantly moving sand and stone down to the bedrock. In their huge piles, they find building blocks and cut slabs quite frequently along with rubbish. What happens? They take the stones and use them for construction: seawalls, buildings, paved areas, etc. The rest of the "stuff" is piled in heaps to be reused for something--including making concrete.

6. We have definitive proof , in archaeological terms, that manmade artifacts are underwater there--anchors, cut slabs under massive blocks, marble, etc. Donato's presence and the documentation we made is sufficient. The most grudging British skeptics concede that the anchors, especially one or two of them, are definitely anchors. They aren't particularly nice about it, but I didn't expect them to be. We don't assert any date for it. The British are important in this for reasons that may or may not be obvious. American mainstream archaeologists will have to cope with the hoax before they will really address the evidence of the harbor. There's one other major problem there--massive hurricanes every year. In shallow water, lots of things shift around and move, get buried, exposed, etc. Small items can get swept away tens of miles. But the harbor area has a deep layer of sand that has never been excavated.

Q: "He would also suggest why you haven't theorized that American Indians were the ones responsible as opposed to this advanced civilization. "
Because I don't have any evidence whatsoever on which to base such a thoery. We know the Maya built a 1000-ft long breakwater on a small island, Isla Cerritos. It was extensively excavated in 1984-5 and dated to 400 BC. 29 buildings were on the 600-ft in diameter island, which had a seawall built around the entire island. A lot of the seawall is still there, because looters couldn't pull the beachrock slabs out of the bottom'--they are deeply embedded vertically. Trade artifacts from the Bahamas, Cuba, Belize, Guatemalan highlands, Florida, and other places in Central America were recovered. The 1000-ft long breakwater still exists and was made from beachrock in a really unusual way. We filmed the entire breakwater underwater in 2004. Most of the huge slabs on the top, above the waterline, were looted and used to build local docks/inlets. As far as I know, only one other ancient harbor work in the world was made the same way--it's an unusual Phoenician harbor in the Mediterranean. It was made from an enclosure formed from two parallel lines of beachrock slabs embedded into the bottom. The enclosure was filled with rubble and then massive beachrock slabs were placed on the top forming a sealed breakwater and upper platform.

I don't know that any other information will be useful here. Like I said, we aren't asserting Atlantis. I'm not saying that we still don't have an interest in that, but this isn't it.

I have thoroughly explained elsewhere and in the report why skeptics will make the immediate response that they don't have to read and don't want to read what we put out. That was expected. Time will erode recalcitrant skeptics and the hoax supporters. In the report, in a section on scientific misconduct, I posed a question that was in Stephen Williams debunking book:
"So what and whom do you believe, and why?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 102 | From: MemphisTN | Registered: Nov 2005   

[Desiree]

Absonite

Member
Member # 1766

  posted 11-14-2005 10:15 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Greg,
saw you on TV
a bit off topic here but do you know anyone who might be interested in 2 books I have which I purchased from a rare book dealer stamped
Edgar Cayce Readings
Search for God- Book 1 and Book 2

these are typewritten and begin with the following:

this psychic reading given by Edgar Cayce at his home on Artic Crescent, VA. Beach, VA this 30th day of July 1933, in accordance with request by those present: 4:10 to 4:30 p.m.
Edgar Cayce; Gertrude Cayce, conductor; Gladys Davis, steno. Esther Wynne, Florence & Edith Edmonds, Frances Y. Morrow, Mildred Davis, L. B. Cayce and visitors- Misses Barclay & Wisman

anyways there appears to be hundreds of personal readings by Mr. Cayce from the early 30's onward.

I can be contacted at Absonite@aol.com
or by private message here

thanks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2197 | Registered: Dec 2003   

[Desiree]

Greg Little
Member
Member # 2829

Member Rated:
   posted 11-15-2005 06:39 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abs: I know what they are. The date of the particular edition of them would determine their worth. They are still sold by ARE Press & others. My wife collects Cayce books, we have many. I collect the old Bureau of Ethnology books, among others.

You could probably sell them on eBay easily. Unless they are the first issues, they don't have a high value. The Cayce items that would have the most value are these: Letters from Cayce to people who had health readings. The most valuable would be people like Edison, Pres. Wilson, Lindbergh, maybe a dozen other celebrities. But those would be hard to find. Letters to Cayce are already at the ARE. There is one item with value, that even I have stumbled across...I found one for $6 in a small Oklahoma town in 1997. It is the game "Pit." Cayce made it and Parker Bros. put it out. It can still be bought "new" today. The older the version, the better the condition, the more it's worth. Since I found that set in '97, I've found more. The prison work has taken me to lots of obscure small towns, that's where the stuff is likely to be found.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 102 | From: MemphisTN | Registered: Nov 2005   

[Desiree]

docyabut
Member
Member # 117

Rate Member   posted 11-15-2005 06:52 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
absonite I have a book to:)only mine is titled

Individual Reference File
Extracts From the Edgar Cayce Records.
Published exclusively for members of assoc. for research & enightenment ,Inc,
property of and gives my dad`s name.

Is has a black binding and it is all typewritten.

My Dad was one of the very frist members.I would not part with it. 


Greg I do wish you luck on your quest, I do admire anyone out there that is trying to find our true history. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 7985 | From: toledo .ohio | Registered: Mar 2000   

[Desiree]

docyabut
Member
Member # 117

Rate Member   posted 11-15-2005 07:06 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg, my Mom and Dad ( Dad`s now passed on) knew a women that had a personal reading by Cayce on her son. When I was little we`d vist her. My Dad collected many writings from the eariler foundation.Unfortuntely my Mom clean out the room and threw everything in the basement and of course there was the old flood :)We could only salvage a few items.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 7985 | From: toledo .ohio | Registered: Mar 2000