Psychic Evidence for Atlantis and Lemuria

[Harte]

17 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

In that thread, beyond Blavatsky and Cayce, I got into Lee Carrol (Kryon), Neale Walsch (Conversations with God) and James Tyberonn (Metatron) and I could gave come up with more channeling sources all giving similar accounts about Atlantis and Lemuria. Obviously non-believers in channeling would say they must be copy-cats or there should be little to no similarities. The information I have read from these gets detailed. Cayce was not a sophisticated or well read man beyond his Bible and as was uncomfortable with things like reincarnation and Atlantis but these subjects came through in his mysterious trance state. Why?

Are you actually suggesting that these channellers had no knowledge of what previous hucksters had claimed regarding Atlantis, Lemuria et al.?

Harte

[Hanslune]

3 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

An advanced civilization that was not world wide.

...I thought you believed in Lemuria and Mu too?

[papageorge1]

Just now, Harte said:

Are you actually suggesting that these channellers had no knowledge of what previous hucksters had claimed regarding Atlantis, Lemuria et al.?

Harte

The average people on the street have probably heard of these things. Psychics (or hucksters if you prefer) like Cayce and Neale Walsch had no particular interest in the subject and the subject constitutes only about 1% of what they are about.

[papageorge1]

2 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

...I thought you believed in Lemuria and Mu too?

Not world wide either

[Hanslune]

Okay a non world-wide culture then. How boring.

[Harte]

3 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Does the A.R.E. (Cayce Study Society) claim Cayce was ever influenced by Blavatsky? I would have to check but I tend to doubt it after reading other versions from them about his background.

Of course not. They are devotees.

If they made such a statement, sales of access to their Cayce records would dip.

Harte

[papageorge1]

Just now, Harte said:

Of course not. They are devotees.

If they made such a statement, sales of access to their Cayce records would dip.

Harte

Again, my sources are always biased or worthless, right? And yours?

[Harte]

My source for that statement is my own attempt to access the records at A.R.E. years ago.

I was investigating claims related to his supposed miraculous diagnostic powers, not his claims about Atlantis, which are mostly readily available from other (read "free") sources.

You ever tried? You'll have to pay for the privilege.

Or, do you have another source in mind? Have I made a claim you think I can't legitimately source?

Harte

[Hanslune]

38 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Again, my sources are always biased or worthless, right? And yours?

In some cases that IS the case. Much fringe evidence is based on bad and biased stuff.

Would you say that all the sources supporting a flat or hollow earth are trust worthy and contain valid information or would you characterize it as biased and worthless?

or  a mix?

[papageorge1]

2 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

In some cases that IS the case. Much fringe evidence is based on bad and biased stuff.

Would you say that all the sources supporting a flat or hollow earth are trust worthy and contain valid information or would you characterize it as biased and worthless?

or  a mix?

We have to consider all and use our judgment. I believe in a spheroidal and solid earth myself using those methods.

[back to earth]

20 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

This thread is already going off topic. Go back and read the last couple pages of the thread in question to understand where the discussion being continued left off.

It has gone off topic by you yourself not answering the early questions put to you .  Its your thread , you want to OT it and divert it yourself - go right ahead ! 

[back to earth]

20 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

The key issue was that multiple unrelated and disparate psychic sources are saying similar things. Why is that? And I was challenging the copy-cat con-men theory with Cayce as an example.

Because they copied each other ... they are contemporary .... its still going on today with 'channellers '  . Do you know what the term 'no walk-ins allowed ' ?  Its a sign that many psychics put outside their psychic performances that they charge money for (if they cant afford  security ) .  Apparently you can be 'taken over' at any moment ,   just for a moment . 

Court cases over channelled information   rights  ( usually associated with big book sales $$$$$$  pot  )  are most amusing and legally interesting (  ie complex  issues )  .  Most claim the info is actually their own, otherwise they would not win the 'infringement '    and 'intellectual property'   clauses in the  cases .

Of course, when it comes to the fans and the potential money to be made, their claims shift ;   Oh no, I merely channelled these words from a  higher divine source, they are not mine at all .

"Oh ... great, then I should be able to channel it too ? " 

' NO !  " 

"Why ?"

'  NO walk ins  allowed  !   Besides, if it comes out anything like my book - I'll  sue you ! " 

Peeps probably dont realise the $$$$$ involved with this ! 

Eg    $ 55.6 Mill  in box office for 'The Secret'  /  'New Thought Movement '  /  'Law of Attraction'  fiasco .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_(2006_film)#Legal_controversies

Edited May 5, 2017 by back to earth

[back to earth]

19 hours ago, Hanslune said:

This 'source' speaks to the question about Blav and Cayce.

http://atlantipedia.ie/samples/cayce-edgar-2/

http://atlantipedia.ie/samples/blavatsky-madame-helena-petrovna/

A good book on this subject - it looks at all Cayce's thoughts on Atlantis

 

 

The Steiner School near my place still teaches the kids about  Donnelly Atlantis as fact ... then they grow thinking its part of real history!       

[back to earth]

18 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

In that thread, beyond Blavatsky and Cayce, I got into Lee Carrol (Kryon), Neale Walsch (Conversations with God) and James Tyberonn (Metatron) and I could gave come up with more channeling sources all giving similar accounts about Atlantis and Lemuria. Obviously non-believers in channeling would say they must be copy-cats or there should be little to no similarities. The information I have read from these gets detailed. Cayce was not a sophisticated or well read man beyond his Bible and as was uncomfortable with things like reincarnation and Atlantis but these subjects came through in his mysterious trance state. Why?

You didnt show the dates ... which is the whole point of this discussion ! 

As to your 'why ? '     Many uncomfortable things can arise in our minds  from our unconscious ... what, never had a nightmare ? 

You are going to have to do a LOT better than this .  

[back to earth]

8 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

 

I have no ability in reality to perform the above experiment. I can judge based only on what information I do have. Some sources I would believe are more in-tune than others and are looking at the past for different reasons.

The look out the window at the info you threw out there   (as it didnt match your prejudices)

[back to earth]

8 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Don't believe everything or nothing you hear. Analyze logically and objectively and form your beliefs.   

With you , it's more like ,   form your beliefs then get them to mould your analysis of logic and 'objectivity'  ... this is   really a   huge ,  obvious dynamic with you . Many of us have noticed this . 

[back to earth]

8 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

What you skipped over is that my beliefs were not just picked by throwing darts at a dartboard. My beliefs are a result of my objective analysis of all evidence and argumentation from all sides. I believe this is a mind-blowing universe and that there are actually loving non-physical entities on our side.

Maybe then you should have started this discussion in a religious topic  forum ? 

[stereologist]

4 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Again, my sources are always biased or worthless, right? And yours?

Your sources do not rely on evidence. The evidence is very clear. There was never a place called Lemuria. It was an 1800s invention which as I pointed out was based on the geological knowledge of the time. By the 1920s there were explanations for the fossil distribution which avoided the need for a land bridge called Lemuria.

Your sources disregard the simple fact that there are no land bridges in the Indian Ocean. Instead these sources make up stories that only the foolish would bother listening to.

For whatever bizarre reason you stated

Quote

What ever you are getting at doesn't mean there wasn't a Lemuria (or whatever name) 20,000 years ago 

There have not been land bridges in the Indian Ocean - ever. Not today, or 20,000 years ago or a million years ago. The geological structure Carnivorfox  mentioned was 80 Mya and by tens of millions of years predates any form of man. It too was NOT a land bridge.

There has never been a Lemuria no matter how often the frauds you refer to make up fiction. The evidence is clear - there has never been a Lemuria.

[papageorge1]

20 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Your sources do not rely on evidence. The evidence is very clear. There was never a place called Lemuria. It was an 1800s invention which as I pointed out was based on the geological knowledge of the time. By the 1920s there were explanations for the fossil distribution which avoided the need for a land bridge called Lemuria.

Your sources disregard the simple fact that there are no land bridges in the Indian Ocean. Instead these sources make up stories that only the foolish would bother listening to.

For whatever bizarre reason you stated

There have not been land bridges in the Indian Ocean - ever. Not today, or 20,000 years ago or a million years ago. The geological structure Carnivorfox  mentioned was 80 Mya and by tens of millions of years predates any form of man. It too was NOT a land bridge.

There has never been a Lemuria no matter how often the frauds you refer to make up fiction. The evidence is clear - there has never been a Lemuria.

I think the sources I mentioned see more than you with their psychic/channeled insight. I am sure your 10 generations ago past ancestors would have called a round earth a crazy idea. Time will tell again who is right.

[back to earth]

Then you would be sure to be wrong    as you made a wild stab in the dark at who his ancestors were .  Many peoples through the past have known the earth was  'round'  . 

I am , although, 'very interested' in  your idea that  .... given time ....   this Lemurian Land bridge will suddenly appear in the geological record . 

Unless you are postulating some geoillogical movement of Lemuria to some other place ? 

[kmt_sesh]

5 hours ago, Harte said:

Of course not. They are devotees.

If they made such a statement, sales of access to their Cayce records would dip.

Harte

My, if ARE were to admit that sort of thing, I would immediately stop expanding my prodigious Cayce bobble-head collection.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

23 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

In that thread, beyond Blavatsky and Cayce, I got into Lee Carrol (Kryon), Neale Walsch (Conversations with God) and James Tyberonn (Metatron) and I could gave come up with more channeling sources all giving similar accounts about Atlantis and Lemuria. Obviously non-believers in channeling would say they must be copy-cats or there should be little to no similarities. The information I have read from these gets detailed. Cayce was not a sophisticated or well read man beyond his Bible and as was uncomfortable with things like reincarnation and Atlantis but these subjects came through in his mysterious trance state. Why?

Because it adds a layer of realism to the whole performance. 

[kmt_sesh]

12 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

What you skipped over is that my beliefs were not just picked by throwing darts at a dartboard. My beliefs are a result of my objective analysis of all evidence and argumentation from all sides. I believe this is a mind-blowing universe and that there are actually loving non-physical entities on our side.

This is fine, but from my experience with you in several threads, your default mode is the paranormal. I don't recall ever seeing you agree with a scientific premise or approach. You automatically jump to paranormal. That is certainly your right, but such an approach cannot logically be regarded as objective. By its very essence the paranormal is almost entirely subjective. Very little of it has ever been based on empirical, observable evidence. Therefore, it simply cannot be objective.

I might be one of the rare skeptics here by believing that some psychics might be credible. I've done my own share of reading on the subject. But this is definitively the minority of such folks. Cayce never struck me as credible.

[stereologist]

6 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I think the sources I mentioned see more than you with their psychic/channeled insight. I am sure your 10 generations ago past ancestors would have called a round earth a crazy idea. Time will tell again who is right.

I guess you still don't understand the issue.

Your sources have nothing to support their stories. Nothing at all. They are telling stories to people that are extremely and foolishly gullible that cannot think for themselves.

When Lemuria was proposed it was done so as a means of explaining the distribution of Lemur fossils. Since then a tremendous amount of evidence was accumulated. That evidence was what lies under the ocean surface. The geology under the oceans was unknown at the time Lemuria was propose. About 70% of the Earth's surface was unknown at the time Lemuria was proposed.

About 10 generations ago past ancestors were well aware that the Earth was a ball. You need t learn that. In fact, the astrolabe was invented over 2000 years ago to solve problems on a spherical Earth.

It's always those with a failed position that call for time to tell who is right. The time was here a half century ago when the world's oceans were being mapped. That effort showed no land bridges in the Indian Ocean. It provided support for the new theory of plate tectonics.

Your sources continue to be nothing more than dimwitted frauds unaware or uncaring that the evidence is against them. Then again they are raking in the money as the foolishly gullible believe in their every word.

[stereologist]

5 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

This is fine, but from my experience with you in several threads, your default mode is the paranormal. I don't recall ever seeing you agree with a scientific premise or approach. You automatically jump to paranormal. That is certainly your right, but such an approach cannot logically be regarded as objective. By its very essence the paranormal is almost entirely subjective. Very little of it has ever been based on empirical, observable evidence. Therefore, it simply cannot be objective.

I might be one of the rare skeptics here by believing that some psychics might be credible. I've done my own share of reading on the subject. But this is definitively the minority of such folks. Cayce never struck me as credible.

kmt_sesh, the evidence against Lemuria is overwhelming. Bathymetric maps of the oceans  were based on soundings until WWII. These were rough maps that did not show the geology, but just a general and rough idea of the depths of the oceans. Even today people make all sorts of mistakes examining things like Google Earth. Back in the 1800s the Indian Ocean was effectively an unknown. Today more is known and maps are being produced with increasing accuracy.

http://www.gebco.net/about_us/project_history/

What we do know is that psychics that talk to lemuria do or did so to a place that never existed. The idea of Lemuria may not have been far fetched 150 years ago, but today we know it is not possible. Maybe 500 years ago a city made of gold in the Americas was plausible, but today we know it is not. The evidence is clear on these issues.

If some psychics are credible then it is not the ones that claim to communicate with a place that never existed.