Light & Shadows of Chalandor

Important Announcement

The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More

A REVIEW OF �?I>EDGAR CAYCE’S ATLANTIS�?/I>

A 2006 A. R. E. Press Book By
Gregory L. Little, Lora Little, And John Van Auken

by
William Hutton, Jonathan Eagle, And Others

INTRODUCTION

To anyone conversant with Edgar Cayce’s psychic readings on lost continents, Edgar Cayce’s Atlantis is an agonizing read. The book contains contradictory or highly implausible interpretations of several of Cayce’s readings that deal with the legendary Atlantean continent. Indeed, two major theses of the book are deeply flawed: the claim that the Bahamas is the location of the last island of Atlantis (Poseidia), and the chronology that the authors have devised for the three destructions of Atlantis.

The authors�?chronology of destructions is flawed because the reading containing the date for the first destruction of Atlantis was for some unknown reason omitted from their book. This monumental error results in a confusing and completely useless chronology of major geophysical events that affected the Atlantean civilization, and it negates the authors�?conclusions about the timing of migrations of Atlanteans to safer lands prior to, or during, each destruction.

To compound the uselessness of this book there is a chapter that is devoted to Lilith, a personality interpreted to have been the Atlantean-age feminine Logos whose spirit is returning today. Another chapter, dealing with Atlantean technology for flight, attempts to link all kinds of incidental examples of early, post-Atlantean flying machines developed in various countries to those devices mentioned in the more esoteric Cayce readings on the subject. Finally, the book’s lead author inserts two long chapters that deal mostly with a search for Atlantis at Bimini, even though the activities described and conclusions reached have almost nothing to do with the continent of Atlantis.

Top off all of these deficiencies with several displays of journalistic trickery by the lead author and one is left with a sinking feeling as to how the A.R.E. Press could have published such an abomination. Indeed, why was the book published? To capitalize on a perceived “market opportunity�?to develop profits for the A.R.E. Press seems to be the only plausible answer.

The title of this book implies that Edgar Cayce, the man, thought up the entire story of Atlantis that is found in Cayce’s readings. He didn’t, of course, because Edgar Cayce actually channeled information from a variety of sources. And due to the nature of the channeling process, information given by Cayce in a reading could often, but not always, be “wavered�?to some degree.

This “wavering�?factor is explained in a few readings from the 1920's that deal with the subject of where Cayce got his information. The subject is covered in some detail in Chapter 45 of �?/FONT>Earth’s Catastrophic Past and Future �?A Scientific Analysis of Information Channeled By Edgar Cayce." This book is by William Hutton and Jonathan Eagle, with contributions by editor John C. Munday, Jr. (2004, Universal Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 596 pp.) It will be referred to hereinafter as “the reviewers�?book.�?/FONT>

Note that the reviewers�?book contains 125 pages on Atlantis, Lemuria, Latinia, and Bimini in Part 4, “Recovering History.�?Thus, we feel qualified to review the Littles and Van Auken book. We reviewers have placed our initials in parentheses after each of the headings for chapters that we reviewed. (WH for William Hutton, or Wyman Harrison; JCE for Jonathan C. Eagle; and AO for And Others, or individuals that provided information too minor to require their listing as review authors.)

REVIEWER COMMENTS ON “EDGAR CAYCE’S ATLANTIS�?/H3>

The Book’s Title And Cover (WH)

The title of this book is a somewhat deceptive. By a page count alone, and leaving out two chapters on the Bimini Road because they have no relevance whatsoever to Atlantis, one finds that slightly less than one-half of the book’s 255 main-text pages deal with “Cayce’s�?Atlantis.

As for the words on the front cover, readers will wonder why the editor placed a sentence there which proclaims, “This is the most comprehensive work on ancient Atlantis.�?

“Comprehensive�?according to what standard, or relative to which other of the many hundreds of books on Atlantis? There are certainly far more Cayce readings quoted in Edgar Evans Cayce’s book on Atlantis (�?I>Edgar Cayce on Atlantis,�?1968, Paperback Library, New York, 170 pages).

A further observation is that the title is misleadingly spare. As just mentioned, Edgar Cayce channeled information from a variety of sources. Thus, the information in the readings was communicated to the world by Cayce, but it wasn’t his. He never knew what he had said after awakening from giving a reading. A far more accurate title would have been, “Atlantis according to the Edgar Cayce readings.�?/P>

Chapter 3 (WH, JCE)

The opening sentences of this chapter once again attribute Cayce’s channeled information to Cayce the man. Here are the first phrases of interest.

Cayce’s story of Atlantis has entranced countless people�? and �?B>Cayce was quite specific about one area: where a portion of Atlantis would be found and even when it would be found—the Bahamas in 1968 or 1969.

Well, it wasn’t Cayce who was quite specific, it was his source for the reading mentioned. And the authors�?assertion as to where and when “a portion of Atlantis would be found�?is clearly wrong. (See the reviewers�?book, pp. 526-527.) Indeed, for the authors of “Cayce’s Atlantis�?to say in a follow-up sentence, “As we shall see in a later chapter, that prediction may well have been realized,�?is pure hype.

On p. 43 of Little, And Others book the reader is treated to an “Overview of Atlantis,�?full of statements without any readings for backup. This overview contains both assertions and omissions, a characteristic found in various other portions of the book. Here’s a typical error:

For unclear reasons, the crystals were accidentally tuned too high, causing a violent destruction. Most people accept 28,000 B.C. as the date for this event. {The presumed eruptions that left Atlantis with three large islands and several smaller ones}.

Who are the “most people�?that accept this? We know of none. Also, consider that only one reading (470-22) even mentions 28,000 B.C. And that reading says,

As indicated from that just given, the entity was in Atlantis when there was the second period of disturbance - which would be some twenty-two thousand, five hundred (22,500) before the periods of the Egyptian activity covered by the Exodus; or it was some twenty-eight thousand (28,000) before Christ, see?

Then we had a period where the activities in the Atlantean land became more in provinces, or there were small channels through many of the lands.

Playing one card for another, the authors substitute the words, “violent destruction�?for the reading’s word “disturbance.�?They term this disturbance the second destruction. In the reviewers�?book, we wrote that the second of the destructions occurred between the first destruction of Atlantis, at 17,400 B.C., and the third and last destruction, at 9,900 B.C. These two bracketing dates are backed up by two of Cayce’s readings (one reading for each date).

On page 47 of their book on Atlantis the authors write,

The priesthood of Atlantis subsequently made three identical sets of records and sent out groups to establish these identical “Halls of Records�?at three locations.

Aside from the fact that a set of records cannot be a Hall of Records, that is not what happened. The following reading is one of seven in the Cayce readings that indicates that the Hall of Records is in Egypt near the Sphinx.

(Q) In which pyramid or temple are the records mentioned in the readings given through this channel on Atlantis, in April, 1932?

(A) As given, that temple {in Yucatan. See 364-9} was destroyed at the time there was the last destruction in Atlantis.

Yet, as time draws nigh when changes are to come about, there may be the opening of those three places where the records are one, to those that are the initiates in the knowledge of the One God:

The temple by Iltar will then rise again. Also there will be the opening of the temple or hall of records in Egypt, and those records that were put into the heart of the Atlantean land may also be found there - that have been kept, for those that are of that group.

The RECORDS are ONE.

We are through for the present.

(5750-1)

Now the authors then go on to fabricate the biggest distortion of all, one that dooms most of their later interpretations of the chronology of the destructions of Atlantis.

They write,

One of these {Hall of Records} was placed in the Bahamas, another at Giza near the Sphinx, and the third in the Yucatan Peninsula.

They say this because they have erred by assuming that Poseidia, the last large island of Atlantis, was in the Bahamas. But the Bahama Islands are not �?I>the heart of the Atlantean land,�?/I> as indicated in 5750-1 just above; indeed, the Bahamas are indicated specifically in reading 364-3 as being among �?I>the protruding portions …that must have been at one time or another�?of this great continent.�?/I> Just as Alaska is part of the United States, it is not in the “heart�?of the contiguous states, but is a protruding portion of the North American continent.

Before ending this brief review of chapter 3 of “Edgar Cayce’s Atlantis,�?we note that the authors state that “as to the source of the destructive act {that ended Atlantis} Cayce quoted scripture…�?But readings 288-1 and 288-29 below, given for Gladys Davis, Cayce’s stenographer, tell a more informative story:

In the one {incarnation} before this we find in that fair country of Alta or Poseidia proper, when this entity was in that force that brought the highest civilization and knowledge that has been known to the earth's plane, and this entity was one of those who lent much assistance to the developing of those forces that made the common peoples that they became the assistance in the knowledge as obtained. Again we find the entity in that sex as given, and was in the household of the ruler of that country. This body (not physically) will be present when the earth is changed again, see? [See 288-29, below, expanding on "when the earth is changed again."] This we find nearly ten thousand years before the Prince of Peace came, and this entity then found the destructive forces to life in the misapprehension of those who were attempting to be of assistance, and not by their fault was the catastrophe brought; yet not until the entrance into the land of the unknown did this entity come to the realization of this as truth, and in the affliction as brought to the physical were the personalities and manifestations of same brought through to the sphere at present.

(Q) How long after I lived in Atlantis did the destruction come?

(A) Depends upon which destruction! There was the BEGINNING of the destruction in the latter portion of the entity's physical sojourn there.

(288-1)

(Q) What is meant by "This body, not physically, will be present when the earth is changed again"? [288-1, above]

(A) This that the entity INNATELY, or thoughtly, through thought, will be - IS - in the position of knowing that the change comes, yet not physically present - as then - at the period of the greater portion of the PHYSICAL change. As then. Knowledge of, and acquainted with that, that bringing - and brought about - the destruction of the first portion in Atlantis. In the earth, then, physical knowledge of, through thought, through the mental abilities, through the psychic sources, as has been described for self, in the knowledge of, but not a physical portion of, the whole change. Rather that that BRINGS it about, than BRINGING - or being IN - that BROUGHT about.

(288-29)

These two readings seem to be saying that the soul, Gladys Davis (288) in her earlier discussed past lives, was present at, or perhaps even involved with, both the first and the last destructions of Atlantis.

But the authors of “Edgar Cayce’s Atlantis�?say only the following, and give no reading numbers to back up their conjecture.

Edgar Cayce quoted scripture: “They that turn their face far from me, I will blot them out.�?In so doing, Cayce may have given us a clue about the source of the final catastrophe—it may well have been caused by a heavenly body striking the earth, the same cause implied by Plato.

But the following reading says nothing about a heavenly body hitting Earth, although it is not specific as to which “destruction to the [Poseidian] land�?is meant.

In the one before this in that of Poseidia, and in that Atlantean rule this entity then was in the household of the peasant that gave the information regarding the upheaval in the mountains that brought the destruction to the land.

(4353-4)

This “land�?of Poseidia, certainly doesn’t sound like the mountain-free Bahamas, does it? That’s because the Bahamas never was Poseidia.

The final point that we make before ending this review of chapter 3 is that the authors of Edgar Cayce’s Atlantis have committed a serious sin of omission. They have omitted the date for the first destruction of Atlantis.

Here is the relevant reading fragment.

(Q) What was the date of the first destruction {of Atlantis}, estimating in our present day system of counting time in years B.C.?

(A) Seven thousand five hundred (7,500) years before the final destruction, which came as has been given.

(364-11)

Because the final destruction was close to 9,900 B.C., the first destruction had to be 17,400 B.C., or around 19,330 years before the present (B.P.), counting from 1932, the year that the reading was given. Why was this date left out of Edgar Cayce’s Atlantis?

In 1957 Hugh Lynn Cayce sent me for study a copy of reading 364-11, in the Atlantis Series of readings. WH published the 17,400 B.C. date from that reading in 1961, in �?I>Earth Changes: Past �?Present �?Future�?(p. 19), and again in 1996 in �?I>Coming Earth Changes�?/I> (p. 151), and lastly in the reviewers�?book in 2004 (p. 254). This monumental omission renders the entire next chapter, as well as any other parts of the book that deal with the chronology of Atlantis’s destructions, works of misinformation. It is especially misleading to read the conclusion to Edgar Cayce’s Atlantis, wherein this erroneous chronology is repeated over and over again as the authors attempt to relate their dates for the first two destructions of Atlantis to times of their conjectured migrations of Atlanteans to safer lands.

Chapter 4 (WH)

The authors repeat the mantra that Cayce was tapping the Akashic Records as his source for the Atlantis readings. This is correct when Cayce was giving life readings for persons who incarnated there. One must remember, however, that there were plenty of other available sources for Cayce, the sleeping channeler, especially when he was giving the Atlantis series of readings (the number 364-xx group of readings).

In spite of reading 364-11, cited five paragraphs above, the authors, in a flight of imagination, assert that the first destruction of Atlantis was in 50,722 B.C. Then, once stuck on that baseless interpretation of the date of the first destruction, they have to assert that the second destruction occurred in 28,000 B.C., a date that the readings show was indeed not a destruction at all, but only a disturbance of the Atlantean continent.

Instead of trying to force-fit various interpretations made by those that require near-instantaneous human and geophysical events all occurring around the time of the meeting of world leaders in 52,722 B.C. (reading 5249-1) �?they might wish to consider that a slow shift of the poles of Earth’s rotational axis only began around that date. The north pole could have moved gradually to northern Greenland until the northern hemisphere ice sheets reached their greatest extent around 17,400 B.C.

Then, as the pole began a slow return trip to roughly its present position, climate warming and accelerated melting of the ice sheets brought a significant change to the habitats of the enormous animals, wiping them out by 9,000 B.C. (Reading 2157-1 indicates that the large animals that were being so destructive to the lands were still a concern during the second destruction, around 17,000 B.C., or perhaps a little later.) The readings and the scientific basis for this slow pole-shift scenario are given in Hutton’s book, Coming Earth Changes (A.R.E. Press, 1996, pp. 31-38).

We reviewers note that the authors of Edgar Cayce’s Atlantis have studiously avoided any mention of Hutton’s books, even though his books cite Cayce’s readings extensively and provide a scientific interpretative framework for understanding the geophysical aspects of those readings. Such an approach is unhelpful both to A.R.E. members and to the public at large. Furthermore, it is the mark of a cult -- one that seeks to advance the writings of only a few of the managers and/or favored members of the organization in question.

The authors of Edgar Cayce’s Atlantis continue on to write that the biblical flood of Noah occurred in 22,006 B.C. But Gladys Davis reported that the reading in question (#364-6), the one used by the authors, was equivocal about the dates given.

(Q) In relation to the history of Atlantis as presented, at what period did the flood as recorded in the Bible in which Noah took part, occur?

(A) In the second of the eruptions, or - as is seen - two THOUSAND - two-two thousand and six [22,006?] - before the Prince of Peace, as time is counted now, or light years - day and night years.

As Hutton wrote in 1961, some 45 years ago when Gladys Davis was alive, in Earth Changes: Past �?Present �?Future (A.R.E. Press, p. 46):

Ms. Davis, who transcribed this reading in 1932, indicated (verbal communication) to the author {The Geologist, or now, William Hutton} that Mr. Cayce hesitated when attempting to give the date for the second of the eruptions. Just how this date should be read is indeterminable.

Getting back to the approximate time given for the second destruction of Atlantis, consider the following reading.

Before that the entity was in the Atlantean land, during those periods when the second destruction had brought so many of the islands, and when the Poseidian land was the greater in power; when there were the meetings called for those of many lands, to determine means or manners in which there would be the control or handling of the animals that were destructive to many of the lands.

(2157-1)

This reading indicates that the second destruction occurred within a few to several hundred years after the first destruction, which occurred about 17,400 B.C. Thus, the second of the destructions could have occurred between, say, 17,100 and 16,600 years ago, and note that the Atlanteans were still having trouble with the animals and calling meetings to deal with them. Here’s one of the readings that helps define the approximate time of the second of the destructions.

In the one before this we find the entity was in the Atlantean period, during those greater upheavals in the land, from the first and the beginning of the second destruction of the greater body of the continent.

(268-3)

We close our critique of chapter 4 of Edgar Cayce’s Atlantis, giving it a grade of D. At least the authors got the date correct for the last destruction of Atlantis. Otherwise, a grade of F would have been richly deserved

Chapter 6 (WH, AO)

This chapter is titled, “Atlantis and the Legend of Lilith,�?and the first sentence reads, “As mentioned in the previous chapters, Lilith was a key person in Cayce’s story of Atlantis.�?/P>
Well, we will turn now to earlier chapter 4, p. 56, the subsection titled “Amilius and Lilith.�?Here JVA has written,

Around 106,000 B.C., a new physical body was created on Atlantis. This body would help souls better incarnate in matter and three-dimensions. It was actually two bodies, one male and one female. Cayce called it the “third root race body.�?/P>

Leaving the one-body-two-body physical body for the reader to ponder, we want to mention that the CD-ROM for the 14,000-odd Cayce readings does not indicate that there is any reading that refers to a “third root race body.�?In fact there is only one root-race reading that has a number attached to it. It is reading 5748-6, in which there is given information that guards left at the Hall of Records �?I>...may not be passed until after a period of their regeneration in the Mount, or a fifth root race begins. �?/I>Again, no Cayce reading says anything about a “third root race body.�?

Continuing onward on pp. 56 and 57 of Edgar Cayce’s Atlantis, JVA writes,

Yes, Cayce’s reading of the Akashic Records identifies the legendary Lilith as the first true incarnate female. She was the first Eve, as classical Hebrew writings have always held.

This is utter nonsense, in terms of what the readings say, as we point out later on below.

First, it should be noted that in all of the thousands of readings there are only two Cayce readings that contain the word “Lilith.�?

(Q) Upon what planets other than the earth does human life exist?

(A) None as human life in the earth. This has just been given.

(Q) Is there a planet anciently known as Lilith or Vulcan?

(A) Pluto and Vulcan are one and the same. No Lilith. Lilith is a personality.

(826-8)

(Q) How is the legend of Lilith connected with the period of Amilius?

(A) In the beginning, as was outlined, there was presented that that became as the Sons of God, in that male and female were as one, with those abilities for those changes as were able or capable of being brought about. In the changes that came from those THINGS, as were of the projections of the abilities of those entities to project, this as a being came as the companion; and when there was that turning to the within, through the sources of creation, as to make for the helpmeet of that as created by the first cause, or of the Creative Forces that brought into being that as was made, THEN - from out of self - was brought that as was to be the helpmeet, NOT just companion of the body. Hence the legend of the associations of the body during that period before there was brought into being the last of the creations, which was not of that that was NOT made, but the first of that that WAS made, and a helpmeet to the body, that there might be no change in the relationship of the SONS of God WITH those relationships of the sons and daughters of men.

(364-7)

How does John Van Auken (JVA) interpret this reading? He begins chapter 4 with a little over four pages on what others have written about the legend of Lilith; that is, not about what the above reading (364-7) implies about the Lilith's role in Atlantis. He cites, for example, The Alphabet of Ben Sira, about which, JVA writes,

Lilith refused to lie under Adam during sex. She insisted that if anyone was going under someone it was to be him. But Adam wanted her to be subservient to him.

This interpretation, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Cayce readings, may possibly be the springboard to JVA's conjecture at the end of the chapter:

When the first Eden in Poseidia sank, the second Eden between the Tigris and Euphrates began. Amilius and Lilith gave way to Adam and Eve. Masculine energy rose to power while feminine subsided. But, today, the goddess energy is rising once more and a new energy is about to begin...We are coming full circle. Lilith's spirit returns.

Unfortunately, there are no readings that comport with this charming, forward-looking conjecture. We prefer a simpler explanation of Lilith, the personality (not soul), like the one advanced by Thomas Sugrue in his dinner address to the 10th Annual Congress of the A.R.E., Inc., on June 21, 1941, some 65 years ago. The part of this address that is relevant to reading 364-7 above is as follows:

Sex already existed in the animal kingdom, but the souls, in their thought forms, were androgynous. Therefore, to experience sex, they created thought forms for companions, isolating the negative force in a new thought form, retaining the positive in themselves. This objectification is what man calls Lilith, the first woman.

This entanglement of souls in what man calls matter was a probability from the beginning, but God did not know it would happen, or when, until the souls, of their own choice, had caused it to happen. Then a way of escape from the predicament was created.

A form was chosen to be a proper vehicle of the soul on earth and the way was paved for souls to enter earth and experience it as a part of their cycle. The form already existing which most approached the needs of the souls was what man would call one of the anthropoid apes. Souls descended on these bodies - hovering above and about them rather than inhabiting them - and influence them to move toward a different goal than the simple one they had been pursuing. They came down out of the trees, built fires, made tools, lived in communities, and began to communicate with each other. Swiftly, even as man measures time, they lost their animal look, shed bodily hair, and took on refinements of manner and habit.

All this was done by the souls working through the glands, until, at last, there was a new inhabitant of the earth: man.

He appeared as a consciousness within an animal. Soon he was that which his pattern demanded of objectification in the earth; he was a little higher than the beasts, a little lower than the angels.

The appearance of man - of his consciousness in this world - was in five different places, as the five different races, at the same time. The white race appeared in the Carpathian basin, the yellow in Tibet, the red in Atlantis, the brown in Lemuria, the black in Africa. The difference in color represented an adherence to laws already set in motion for the earth. The world of the earth was to be cognized by five senses - five methods of awareness. Thus the earth had to be experienced, and perfection had to be reached, in these five methods of awareness. The races represent these five.

There were males and females in these new, pure races; and both had complete souls. Eve replaced Lilith, and became the complement to Adam, the perfect helpmeet, the ideal companion for the three-fold life of earth: physical, mental, and spiritual.

(Report of reading 294-202)

JVA's interpretation of Lilith is found in a paragraph on p. 90, as follows.

In Cayce's reading of the Akasha there was not an evil, dark tale of Lilith, simply one of equality and feminine power. In fact, Cayce reads the Akashic Record, the feminine and masculine portions of the incarnate Logos returned to earth in several incarnations -- at least 30. Cayce lists among the many incarnations these significant ones: Amilius and Lilith, Adam and Eve, Hermes and Maat, and Jesus and Mary. Each was an incarnation of the Logos, the Word, the messiah: feminine and masculine aspects of the Divine Presence among us.

But what is left out in this paragraph is the role of God, as interpreted by Sugrue above, presumably from reading 262-115:

Then as we become more and more aware within ourselves of the answering of the experiences, we become aware of what He gave to those that were the first of GOD'S projection - not man's but God's projection - into the earth; Adam and Eve.

Here we find a strong implication that Lilith was not a soul...but a projection from Amilius. Or as stated also in 364-7.

(Q) Were the thought forms that were able to push themselves out of themselves inhabited by souls, or were they of the animal kingdom?

(A) That as created by that CREATED, of the animal kingdom. That created as by the Creator, with the soul.

Thus, Lilith had a role in Atlantis only until Adam and Eve were created by the Creator. Lilith certainly had no role after Eve was created and she has none today; that is, Lilith's spirit is not returning to humanity today, as conjectured by Van Auken.

Cap this off by a ludicrous statement (p. 91) that has, once again, no basis in Edgar Cayce's readings, even though JVA asserts that it does.

Mary, according to Cayce's readings, was the return of Lilith. Jesus was the return of Amilius.

This chapter is a bunch of confusing bunkum. Too bad that JVA seems incapable of listening to those who let him know their opinions about what they believe to be faulty interpretations of the readings on, or presumably about, Lilith. These concerned members of the A.R.E. have been complaining about JVA's propensity to resist change in his interpretations of the Lilith legend over the last 15 years or so.

Thoughts About John Van Auken’s Long-Term, Unchanging
Interpretations of the Lilith and other Readings (WH, AO)

Just why does J. Van Auken return often to his ideas that are so much at variance with the readings? Why does he attract and promote authors to the A.R.E. Press that are so obviously ill-equipped to handle the treasured readings with decency and honesty?

In his letter announcing the A.R.E.'s celebration of 75 years of service and giving his comments on key prophecies, J. Van Auken (JVA) wrote,

"The Cayce readings �?connect the coming New Age with a time when the planet's poles will begin to shift. In 2004, Nova, the wonderful PBS series, presented an amazing show titled 'Magnetic Storm,' in which scientists announced that the earth's poles are beginning to shift. Thus, from Cayce's perspective, the New Age is beginning."

This is the same unenlightened blather that JVA tried to foist onto the A.R.E. membership in his 2003 article, "New research supports Cayce on pole shift." Note that JVA had Henry Reed put his wrong ideas into Reed's PSI Research column in Venture Inward for March/April 2003. Hutton answered that JVA note with one of his own in a letter to the editor of Venture Inward for May/June of 2003:

THOSE SHIFTY POLES

The lead "PSI Research" item of the Mar./Apr., 2003 issue of Venture Inward says that "new findings in geophysics lend support to Edgar Cayce's vision and timing of a pole shift." But since Cayce was channeling archangel Halaliel, for most or all of the reading in question (3976-15), it was hardly Cayce's vision. Furthermore, the NASA-sponsored research mentioned had nothing to do with something "moving the magnetic poles [of Earth] together"; rather, it dealt with a change in Earth's oblateness (its pumpkin shape) by the movement of mass (water, atmosphere, or solid) toward the equator that began to be observed in 1998. This was explained fully on the Hutton Commentaries web site www.huttoncommentaries.com in the article, "Possible Pole-Shift Precursor Found!" of 8/13/02 (updated 1/1/03).

It is also incorrect to say, "In 1933 Edgar Cayce prophesied that a shift in the earth's polarity...would initiate upheavals in the planet. A Cayce prediction regarding earth changes involved the interacting effects of wind, water currents, and the earth's magnetic field." The Halaliel reading's predictions were given in 3976-15, in January of 1934. Nothing was mentioned in that reading, or in any other, about interacting effects of wind, ocean currents, and Earth's magnetic field......

It is the geographic poles that must have been meant in 3976-15. This is so because, while the magnetic poles have always been moving about at various speeds without causing any discernible shifts in climatic zones, 3976-15 predicts that when "there will be a shifting of the poles, [then] where there has been those of a frigid or the semi-tropical will become the more tropical, and moss and fern will grow."

Only a shift of the poles of our planet's rotational axis can produce such changes to Earth's climate belts.

William Hutton

What is clear to us at least is that JVA was seeding his letter to A.R.E. members with a deliberate deception, one that was designed to push recipients of his anniversary invitation into making a donation. His was a deception because JVA had been told by Jonathan Eagle well before the 2004 Nova program that The Hutton Commentaries was tracking the motion of the Earth's north pole monthly on its web site, and that the pole had shown only the slightest of movement over the last several years. Thus, by a bit of trickery JVA sought to throttle the truth.

No matter how many times members might tell JVA that this or that interpretation of his is wrong, he almost never makes a correction, returning instead to his original positions. Chapter 6, by JVA on Lilith, is just another example of the situation.

Reading 275-40 comes to mind. One hopes that JVA can learn how to observe himself and take the advice implied in the reading below.

For, as He gave, he that returns as the sow to the wallow or the dog to his vomit becomes possessed rather with the many, many influences from without - and the last estate is indeed worse than the first.

(275-40)

Chapter 12 (WH)

This chapter is titled, “The Search for Atlantis in the Bahamas Leads to a Stalemate.�?Just what this means is anybody’s guess; that is, how can a search lead to a stalemate? Stalemate with what, or with whom?

The first sentence begins, “One of the most controversial and bitterly debated aspects of the Cayce readings on Atlantis was the link between the Bahama’s island of Bimini and Atlantis.�?

Using words like “bitterly debated�?is a journalist’s way of emotionally setting up readers to be alert to the writer’s mind-set, one about to be revealed dramatically by the author. Such words have no place in rational discourse and are largely in the minds of G. Little and JVA. A true debate would involve a point-by-point consideration of the assertions and fabrications of GL and JVA versus the readings�?based interpretations in the reviewers�?book by WH and JCE. Were the authors of “Edgar Cayce’s Atlantis�?too time-constrained to be bothered with the demands of serious discourse with other Atlantis researchers that follow the Cayce readings?

This chapter includes clear misinterpretations of the readings. The authors live by assertions, not by the words of the readings. Consider these three assertions, or fabrications, given in the first paragraph of the chapter. Notice first that no readings are quoted to back up any of them.

The Cayce readings are very clear on three aspects regarding Bimini’s relationship to Atlantis. First, the island {Bimini} was once a portion of Atlantis, specifically part of the island of Poseidia. Second, a temple of the Atlanteans, which Cayce stated was one of the three Halls of Records, was placed near Bimini -- But Cayce related that it now lies underwater. Third, Cayce predicted in 1940 that a portion of Atlantis –part of the island of Poseidia- would rise in 1968 and 1969.

Fabrication 1: [Bimini] “was once a portion of Atlantis, specifically part of the island of Poseidia.�?The first part is correct. The second part, that says that Bimini was “specifically part of the island of Poseidia,�?is not correct.

Reproduced below is what the reviewers said in their book (p. 271) about the location of Poseidia, the last island of Atlantis.

After the original continent of Atlantis split into five islands around 17,400 B.C., when much of Atlantis near the Sargasso Sea “went into the depths,�?the largest and most important of the remaining islands was Poseidia. The location of Poseidia has occasioned much speculation.

Reading 440-5 (December 20, 1933) presents some of the available detail about the records of Atlantis, and in so doing provides some clues to the location of Poseidia. The reading was for a gentleman who in a former incarnation on Atlantis had been involved with the use of the firestone, or great crystal. We will leave the quotation of parts of reading 440-5 to chapter 33 where we focus on the locations of the records of Atlantis, but we make a few remarks here in order to bring out the information relevant to the location of Poseidia.

The reading has to be “parsed�?carefully because the original punctuation can easily be misinterpreted to make no sense when compared to reading 2012-1 (September 25, 1939). Reading 2012-1 states unequivocally that the records of Atlantis are in three places �?in the Atlantean land that sank and which is rising again, in the Egyptian land, and in the Yucatan.

Some writers have said that Poseidia was at Bimini, after what apparently was a quick reading of reading 440-5. However, this claim is erroneous. The Bimini area does not comprise sunken portions of Atlantis, or of Poseidia, which portions the readings say are now rising, because the Bimini area most emphatically is not rising. Instead, a region of the sea bottom south of the Azores may have been the location of the important central part of Poseidia. That region may be “rising again�?(2012-1).

In chapter 33 we show rather convincingly, we believe, that the first location for Atlantean records mentioned in reading 440-5 is south of the present Azores area, if indeed Cayce’s readings and Prof. Zhirov’s treatise have any validity at all. We thus reject F. Joseph’s assertion that ancient Poseidia was in the region of the Bahamas. It’s easy to understand, however, how Joseph made his interpretation, because reading 440-5 is difficult to understand unless it is interpreted in relation to other relevant readings. Also, Joseph may have been confused by reading 996-12, which says:

Q) Is this [the Bimini area] the continent known as Alta or Poseidia?

A) A temple of the Poseidians was in a portion of this land.

(996-12; March 2, 1927)

Now, just as we say the Mormons have their headquarters in Salt Lake City, they also have a temple in Hawaii. Could not something similar have been the case for a Poseidian temple in the Bahamas, far to the west of the island of Poseidia in the area of the Azores? (The Mormon and the Poseidian outlying temples would each be roughly 3,000 miles away from their corresponding “home bases.�?

Fabrication 2: “…a temple of the Atlanteans, which Cayce stated was one of the three Halls of Records, was placed near Bimini �?but Cayce related that it now lies underwater.�?

This assertion is wrong. The only reading about a temple near Bimini is the one given just above (996-12). No Cayce reading said anything at all about that temple being one of the three Halls of Records; as we have explained above, there is only one Hall of Records, according to the readings.

Furthermore, the temple in a portion of the land near Bimini is considered to be only a repository for information for the construction of the firestone, or great crystal of Atlantis. We also infer that because the Bahamas are not rising, and because reading 2012-1 states unequivocally that the records of Atlantis are in three places �?in the Atlantean land that sank and which is rising again, in the Egyptian land, and in the Yucatan �?the temple repository near Bimini houses crystal-construction information only.

Reading 440-5 tells the story. It was given for a man who in a former incarnation on Atlantis had been involved with the use of the firestone. This device was for energy-concentration and energy-transmission. It was known as �?I>the terrible crystal�?in those times, when it was employed for destructive purposes. [Note: numbers in brackets have been added to help readers separate the phrases that describe the three different prime locations of the crystal-construction information.]

About the firestone that was in the experience did the activities of the entity then make those applications that dealt with both the constructive and destructive forces in the period �?.

As indicated, the records of the manners of construction of same are in three places in the earth, as it stands today: [1] In the sunken portions of Atlantis, or Poseidia, where a portion of the temples may yet be discovered, under the slime of ages of sea water �?[2] near what is known as Bimini, off the coast of Florida, and [3] in the temple records that were in Egypt, where the entity later acted in cooperation with others in preserving the records that came from the land where these had been kept. Also the records that were carried [by Iltar?] to what is now Yucatan in America, where these stones (that they know so little about) are now �?during the last few months �?BEING uncovered.

(440-5; December 19, 1933)

The numbers in brackets are used to break the sentences of this reading extract into three prime locations for the storage of records about the manner of construction of the great crystal. A fourth, perhaps less important place that contains crystal construction records, is indicated in the last sentence that begins with the word “also.�?

Some may object to the difference in punctuation that we have used compared to that of Gladys Davis, stenographer for the reading. But consider the obvious. If one starts with an unpunctuated series of shorthand symbols for a paragraph of 120-odd words, such as the one above, it is perforce a matter of interpretation to reduce the symbols to words and cast them into meaningful sentences punctuated properly to produce a final, accurate transcript. Ms. Davis chose one interpretation; we have chosen a different one. But you can read yet another, final interpretation below.

It is very doubtful that any Poseidian temples (plural in reading 440-5) lie under the slime of ages of seawater in the Gulf Stream near Bimini. Constantly moving bottom water there does not facilitate the buildup of slime. And only a single Poseidian temple is mentioned to have been in the Bimini area in 996-12. Thus we have chosen to insert a number 2 just before �?I>near what is known as Bimini, off the coast of Florida,�?where Ms. Davis had only inserted a dash.

At this point, I would like to note that I also was originally confused about the location and types of records in the Poseidian temple near Bimini, as shown in my earlier book, Coming Earth Changes (A.R.E. Press, 1996, p. 182). Later, in 2001, I corrected my mistake by writing as follows.

I now wish to correct the following passage in my book, Coming Earth Changes. In the chapter on Lost Continents I write, on page 182:

"Records of the construction of an Atlantean power station may be found in the sunken portion of Poseidia where a portion of the [Atlantean] temples may yet be discovered, under the slime of ages of sea-water - near what is known as Bimini, off the coast of Florida�?

That this is an incorrect melding of two different readings is clear from my evaluation of reading 2012-1 and from my re-analysis of reading 440-5…The error in my previous interpretation of 440-5 led me (p. 184) to speculate about how and where to search for "the Atlantean temple of records," near Bimini, "under the slime of ages of sea water," and not �?I>in the Atlantic near the Sargasso Sea." As we all know, one error can lead to at least one more. I firmly believe that the proper interpretation of these two important readings (2012-1 and 440-5) is presented in this present article.

The above is from The Hutton Commentaries web-article: �?A target=_top href="http://www.huttoncommentaries.com/Special/AtlanRec_Firestone/handfastinginfo.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=1981&LastModified=4675688079112982916">Locations of the Records of the Atlantean Civilization and Its Firestone,�?posted 12/20/2001.

There is perhaps a more acceptable alternative to the foregoing interpretation. It is one that preserves the required spatial separation of, and readings-based distinction between, the Poseidia and Bimini areas. Poseidia was the island south and west of the Azores, most of which sank to oceanic depths some 12,700 to 11,900 years ago. It was destroyed by

the WASTING away in the mountains, then into the valleys, then into the sea itself, and the fast disintegration of the lands, as well as of the peoples �?save those that had escaped into those distant lands

(364-4).

The Bimini area is a remaining part of Atlantis that sank hardly at all.

A questioner in 996-12 asks about Bimini, “Is this the continent known as Alta or Poseidia?�?The indirect answer was simply, �?I>A temple of the Poseidians was in a portion of this land.�?{Note that the reading is speaking about only one temple, whereas in sunken Posiedia, "a portion of the temples (plural) may yet be discovered."}

Our final, and most favored, interpretation is as follows. The �?I>three places in the earth�?mentioned in 440-5 to be the locations of the records that describe the manner of construction of the great crystal are:

ATLANTIS, consisting of

a temple in an area of sunken temples of Poseidia south of the Azores and
a temple of the Poseidians in a portion of the land near Bimini;

EGYPT, in the Hall of Records; and
YUCATAN, in Iltar’s temple.

Reading 440-5 is the only one that indicates that any kinds of records are stored in a temple near Bimini. And these records are said to be specific to the methods of construction of the great crystal, or firestone. Thus, they are not the records of the civilization of Atlantis, as assumed by some writers and by the authors of “Edgar Cayce’s Atlantis.�?/P>

Fabrication 3: “…Cayce predicted in 1940 that a portion of Atlantis �?part of the island of Poseidia �?would rise in 1968 and 1969.�?On page 195, the authors of Edgar Cayce’s Atlantis then go on to say,

…the area of Atlantis Cayce stated would ‘rise again,�?was a portion of Poseidia. Since Bimini was linked to Poseidia in several readings, it has been assumed that the Bimini area would be where the prediction was to be fulfilled.

These assertions are more bunkum. It is true that reading 958-3 states:

And Poseidia will be among the first portions of Atlantis to rise again. Expect it in sixty-eight and sixty-nine (�?8 and �?9); not so far away!

(958-3; June 28, 1940)

But note that the Poseidia that we suggest could not have existed in the Bahamas.

The Bahamas had no mountains and did not sink 12,000 years ago. The Bahamas did not begin to rise in 1968-1969. And the Bahamas are not rising now. There is no evidence that the Bahamas, if indeed they did constitute the last large island of Atlantis, met their demise in the way described in reading 364-4; e.g., by

�?WASTING away in the mountains, then into the valleys, then into the sea itself �?/I>

(364-4; February 16, 1932).

No, sunken Poseidia must have been south and west of the Azores, where there are large sunken mountains, numerous sea mounts, and submarine valleys that have the appearance of once being river valleys above sea level.

Thus, it seems probable that the February 1968, M7.6 earthquake on the east side of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (MAR) south of the Azores -- one of the largest historical earthquakes ever recorded on the MAR -- could have been heralding the beginning of the slow rise of Atlantis (here the Poseidian portion).

Below is a relief map of what might be the sunken area of Poseidia (after N. Zhirov, author of “Atlantis,�?1970, Moscow, Progress Publishers.) Note that the extreme southwestern corner of this map is near to, or in, the Sargasso Sea, location of the first destruction that broke and sank the Atlantean continent.

Fig. 1. Physiographic Reconstruction of Poseidia (called here Poseidonis), after N. Zhirov (1970, Progress Pub., Moscow, p. 362.) Note the location of the major (M7.6) earthquake of 1968. (Recall too this reading fragment, "And Poseidia will be among the first portions of Atlantis to rise again. Expect it [to begin clearly to rise?] in sixty-eight and sixty-nine�?" We assume, following Rene Malaise, in N. Zhirov, 1970, p. 363) that the area in blue is the area in which the plateau of Poseidia, with its canals and temples, was located.

And think too about this fragment of reading 3611-1, which refers to the disappearance of the isles of Poseidia. The isles of the Bahamas did not disappear 10,000 years ago; and so, Bimini and the Bahamas were not Poseidia, the last large island of Atlantis.

Before that the entity was in the Atlantean land when there were those periods of the last of the upheavals, or the disappearance of the isles of Poseidia.

Chapter 13 (WH)

In this chapter lead author Gregory Little goes on a ramble about the so-called Bimini Road, a name applied to slabs of beachrock lying offshore of North Bimini. (Which slabs unfortunately, have nothing to do with Edgar Cayce’s Atlantis.)

Little speaks about Wyman Harrison, also known earlier as "The Geologist" to the A.R.E., and then in post-1995 days as William Hutton. Mr. Little titles the fifth section of his Chapter 12, “The Skeptical Geologists.�?But he doesn’t give his readers a clue as to what they were skeptical about. That is, he just hangs a label of “skeptic�?around my neck, and the necks of two other geologists, and then proceeds to distort what I wrote and to take pot shots at all three of us.

Here are my replies to his shoddy journalism. Indeed, Little's is little more than yellow journalism, dressed up by the A.R.E. Press with a classy, self-congratulatory book cover.

About my April 2, 1971 Nature article, “Atlantis Undiscovered,�?Little says, Harrison did this or Harrison did not do that. But Harrison was part of a three-man team of practicing marine scientists. (Two marine geologists and one marine biologist, as mentioned specifically in my Nature article.) We were paid to do a three-day field examination of the Bimini Road and the so-called “pillar fragments�?in the area of the Bimini Inlet. North American Rockwell Corporation, a U. S. Defense contractor owned most of northern North Bimini at the time. (The Bimini Road lay offshore north of Rockwell's Paradise Point).

The reason that Rockwell wanted us to make an examination of the Bimini Road was that there had been a number of reports stating that various people had discovered unmistakable traces of an ancient civilization there. Some people had said that these traces had been found exactly where and when Edgar Cayce prophesied the re-emergence of Atlantis.

I knew from my research on global sea-level rise that any hypothesized “pavement stones�?of the Bimini “Road,�?at a reported water depth of only 22 ft off Bimini could in no way be 10,000 years old, and therefore, they would be too shallow to be related to Atlantis. Mr. Merritt Winsby, an executive in Rockwell’s real estate department, wanted a written scientific report that explained what scientists thought of the origin of the submerged rocks off of their property. Mr. Winsby also wanted a scientific analysis of the “columns�?just offshore of the south point of North Bimini, at the inlet.

When I sent Winsby my report, he also gave me permission to send a shorter version of it to Nature magazine. Nature published my report after having it reviewed.

So what is the big deal about all this? My team made some brief observations, took a few samples, and I wrote a report after having several experts comment on the samples we took. Now, 35 years later, G. Little decides to question the observations put forth in my Nature paper, manages to get his evaluations of my observations wrong, and in general tries to make me look bad. Here are some examples.

Little says that Harrison “examined 30 cylinder-like columns�?near the Bimini inlet entrance. But I did not write �?B>columns.�?I wrote �?B>cylinders�?only, saying that they consist “of what is most probably an early, now-solidified natural cement.�?Little then says that I wrote that these were the ones found by Mr. Pino Turrola.

Fig. 2. Pina Turolla (white hat) and Carl Holm, then Assistant to the Vice President, Ocean Systems Operations, North American Rockwell Corporation, at the site of the cylinders just offshore on the southernmost tip of North Bimini.

True enough, but Little then goes on to write, “Turolla, however, reported he found 44 pillars, much larger than the ones that Harrison investigated, “in 15-ft of water west of the Bimini Road.�?Typical of Little, he cites no reference to Turolla’s “report.�?Frankly, I wouldn’t believe any such hypothetical report even if Little could produce one.

Turolla was always telling Carl Holm and Winsby little stories, like that of the offshore columns, to keep himself in the pay of Winsby’s corporate overhead account. That’s mainly why my team was hired by Rockwell -- to check out Turolla’s various stories.

Holm made all of the arrangements for my team’s field work, and was at Bimini to hear my daily reports of what our team was learning. Torolla, an inventor of sorts, had made the housing for an advanced underwater camera system. He went out in the boat with us and loaded and unloaded the film we used to document the sizes and shapes of the stones of the “road.�?

Little then says that I asserted that the cylinders were composed of material that is not indigenous to the Bahamas, when I in truth had merely related the expert opinions of credible specialists in the fields of carbonate petrology and cement petrography. “Asserted�?implies that one does not have back-up for his statements or conjectures. The proper words are not Harrison “asserted that,�?but Harrison “related that.�?

Little then says that I “made no attempt to compare the columns to similar artifacts that had been discovered at ancient harbors in the Mediterranean or to ancient cements.�?Of course I didn’t, because they weren’t columns. The cylinders that I measured were the hardened remains of powdered cement that had most likely been transported by ship in wooden barrels, fallen overboard, and then become soaked in seawater. Sloshing around in the near-shore zone for decades destroyed the wooden barrels, leaving behind hardened, barrel-shaped cement cylinders. Would Mr. Little have us believe that this sort of happening was commonplace at ancient Mediterranean harbors?

On p. 219 of “Edgar Cayce’s Atlantis,�?G. Little writes that at an ancient harbor at Cosa, Italy, there are mooring circles outside the main harbor, constructed by forming circles of piled stone. He also writes:

“Dozens of columns are scattered on the breakwater. They are virtually identical in appearance to those at the Bimini harbor entrance�?they are fluted marble or cement �?precisely the same kind as at Bimini that were described by Harrison in 1971.�?

But I wasn’t describing fluted cement columns at Bimini, I was describing barrel-shaped, hardened cement cylinders. And for Little to say “they are precisely the same kind�?B> is mere trickery, because no precise measurements were taken of the set of cylinders in the Mediterranean for comparison to those at Bimini in the Bahamas. Only appearances of the two sets were compared, in the mind of G. Little. So much for Little’s dishonest reporting about the “columns�?that I investigated.


Fig. 3a & b. A whole, barrel-shaped, hardened cement cylinder (on left) prior to being cracked open. The broken-open barrel shows curving internal fracture surfaces resulting from irregular expansion of the set cement during progressive hydration. Where one such surface intersected the outer edge of a large piece, broken off of the cracked-open cylinder, a tiny scrap of newspaper was seen sticking out of it a few millimeters. But the flake of newspaper was destroyed in the process of removal. It did indicate the youthful age of the cement cylinders, however.

Little goes on to write,

The assertions of Harrison and Ball and Gifford (that no prop stones are present and not one example of a multiple tier of stones is there) were easily discredited.

Well, it’s a clever distortion to say that I ever asserted that prop stones were not present. And it’s also a distortion for Little to say that I could not find one example of a multiple tier of stones. What I wrote was, simply, “At no place are blocks found to rest on a similar set beneath.�?It should be clear to any rational reader of my short 1971 Nature paper that this observation applied only to the limited area where our team photographed and measured the submerged blocks of beach rock. And so, to use the word “discredit�?smacks of yellow journalism, not rational and fair-minded discourse.

Incidentally, anyone interested in the genesis of beachrock would do well to read the following recent article to see what a morphodynamic approach to the matter of beachrock formation can do for one’s understanding. Pay special attention to Figure 5 of the paper.

Rey, D., And Others, 2004, Formation, exposure, and evolution of a high-latitude beachrock in the intertidal zone of the Corrubedo complex Ria de Arousa, Galicia, NW Spain, Sedimentary Geology 169 (2004) 93�?05.

Now on p. 225 of “Edgar Cayce’s Atlantis,�?G. Little writes about black stones that he said he had found beneath a block of the Bimini Road. He says that some geology students from an Ohio college “agreed the stones were probably granite.�?Going on, he writes:

…the stones were sent to two independent geology labs. An SEM with elemental X-ray analysis revealed that the stones lacked one element to actually be granite. The stones were identified as “contact metamorphic stones�?(fossilized limestone and clay combined under heat and pressure). In essence they are a type of gray marble. Interestingly, Harrison had identified the marble columns he examined in 1971 as “contact metamorphic stones.�?According to the geology labs�?analysis, this particular stone is indigenous to the Bahamas, but not to Bimini.

Aside from this hilarious outcome of an excursion of a psychologist’s mind (G. Little’s) into the realm of geologic science (too long to explain here), I must point out that I did not identify the marble column fragments that I examined in Bimini as “contact metamorphic stones.�?

What I actually wrote on page 288 of my 1971 Nature article was this:

Thin section examination of one of the marble samples indicates that it consists of calcite (90%) and quartz (8%) together with muscovite, pyrite and sphene. It is the metamorphosed equivalent of a calcite-rich limestone containing a small amount of clay.

I resent G. Little twisting my words to conform to his ideas about marble and cement columns at Bimini. But one expects little else from a man who has no shame about lying.

In 2005, G. Little wrote the following about me in an article published in a magazine called Atlantis Rising.

Harrison's initial Nature article on the Road was designed to keep others away...at least that is what I have been told by two individuals who remain close to him.

When I read that along with other libelous statements he made about me in the article, I wrote to him demanding that he retract them, and have his retraction published in the next issue of the magazine. His retraction was published in a Reader Forum, as follows.

I regret that I wrote the message, sent it in an email, and that it was printed. Nothing in it has a basis in fact. Hutton has my open apology in the above and my best wishes for his continuing research.

Note that this retraction was published in the September/October, 2005 issue of Atlantis Rising, four months before publication of Edgar Cayce's Atlantis.

Finally, note that I have no problem with the Littles, John Van Auken, William Donato, or anyone else making a case for an ancient harbor at the site of the Bimini road. But I do have a serious problem with anyone that implies that such harbor construction has anything to do with a lost continent referred to as "Edgar Cayce’s Atlantis".

Thus, I am in fundamental disagreement with the authors of “Edgar Cayce’s Atlantis�?when they write (p. 235) as follows. “Cayce stated that a portion of Atlantis would rise in 1968 and 1969 near Bimini.�?

This assertion is based on a false interpretation of the Cayce readings on Atlantis, Poseidia, and Bimini, as has been explained above.

Chapter 14 (WH)

This last chapter is titled, “Assessing Cayce’s Most Important Atlantis Statements �?Conclusion.�?

Early in this chapter we read of G. Little’s studies that relate the projections of five races spoken of in Cayce’s readings to research done on mitrochondrial DNA (mtDNA) samples taken from human remains. Little also mentions the comprehensive 2003 research article by 43 geneticists that details the dispersion of haplogroup X throughout the world, but he does not give the journal reference.

Little has attempted to correlate the migrations of Atlanteans attempting to escape from the destructions of that continent to mtDNA characteristics of groups found throughout the world. He is especially interested in attempting to correlate haplogroup X types of migrants who could have been members of the red race that migrated from Atlantis to the Americas, Egypt, the Pyrenees Mountains, and portions of Mexico, and Peru. All of these locations are mentioned in Cayce’s readings as places to which Atlanteans fled during the three destructions of their homeland.

What is confusing about Little’s presentation of the haplogroup X peoples�?migrations is his use of what he calls “center-point�?dates. This term is not defined in Edgar Cayce’s Atlantis, nor was I able to find it used in the research study he mentions in which �?3 geneticists provide the most up-to-date information on the dispersion of haplogroup X throughout the world.�?

Little writes (p. 245),

The largest migration of haplogroup X into America occurred around the center point date of 10,400 B.C. Astonishingly, that is almost the precise date Cayce gave for the preparations to preserve the Atlantean records and when a migration from Atlantis occurred.

But Little’s “center-point date of 10,400 B.C.�?does not correlate that well with the geneticists�?“coalescence time�?(Maere Reidla, And Others, 2003, Origin and Diffusion of mtDNA Haplogroup X, Am. J. Hum. Genet. 73:1178�?190), who write on p. 1188 of their paper:

These findings leave unanswered the question of the geographic source of Native American X2a in the Old World, although our analysis provides new clues about the time of the arrival of haplogroup X in the Americas. Indeed, if we assume that the two complete Native American X sequences (from one Navajo and one Ojibwa) began to diverge while their common ancestor was already in the Americas, we obtain a coalescence time of 18,000 ± 6,800 YBP, implying an arrival time not later than 11,000 YBP.

That is, the geneticists�?“coalescence time�?of 18,000 ± 6,800 years before the present (YBP) seems not to agree with G. Little’s “center point date�?for his largest migration of 12,400 YBP (10,400 B.C.), although it falls within the statistical limits ±6,800 years.

{Coalescence describes the idea that any sample of genetic sequences from any number of living things can be traced back to a common ancestor in the past. Due to random elimination of ancient genetic lineages, with constant population size of the taxons considered, the most recent common ancestor remains at a constant time distance from the present. Wikipedia}

It would have been helpful to his conjecture if Little would have explained how he determined his center-point dates, found throughout this section of chapter 14. Finally, Reidla, And Others, conclude as follows:

The results of this study point to the following conclusions. First, haplogroup X variation is completely captured by two ancient clades that display distinctive phylogeographic patterns—X1 is largely restricted to North and East Africa, whereas X2 is spread widely throughout West Eurasia. Second, it is apparent that the Native American haplogroup X mtDNAs derive from X2 by a unique combination of five mutations.

This scientific finding (in bold font) should be addressed by G. Little to explain why he seems to have dismissed it out of hand. {Note that a clade is a group of organisms derived from a common ancestor.}

As indicted at the beginning of this review, there is something tragic/comic about the Littles�?work on migrations of Atlanteans, as based upon their interpretations of haplogroup research for times earlier than 12,400 YBC. It is that they have based their overall thesis upon a faulty chronology of destructions of Atlantis; they developed their chronology by misinterpreting or omitting certain of the relevant Cayce readings on the subject. To omit reading 364-11’s date for the first destruction of Atlantis was a monumental error. It is an error that calls into question all of the authors�?interpretations of the migrations of peoples from Atlantis around the Cayce-readings-specified times of the first and second of the three destructions.

The last part of chapter 14 has a section titled, “Evidence for the final destruction �?The Carolina Bays Event.�?G. Little makes mention of a possible link to a comet impact, described in Andrew Collins book, Gateway to Atlantis, that caused the final destruction of Atlantis. Little also writes that German scientist Otto Muck believed that the catastrophe that finally destroyed Atlantis was due to a six-mile wide asteroid that came into the Earth’s atmosphere from the northwest and broke into two major pieces and millions of smaller fragments. Little writes:

The two larger fragments struck the Atlantic Ocean, creating the Puerto Rican Trench. The smaller fragments struck the eastern half of America, creating what we know today to be over a half million craters �?the Carolina Bays. According to Muck, the impact caused volcanoes to erupt on a large island that is now the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. The island literally split apart and sank.

G. Little goes on to discuss other theories for the final destruction, but how do these match up with what the Cayce’s readings on Atlantis say?

We have already given two reading fragments for Gladys Davis above, one of which addresses somewhat her experience of the final destruction. The cause of the final destruction seems best expressed in the following extract, which hints at a societal/metaphysical situation that produced a geophysical effect -- the final destruction of Poseidia.

Before that the entity was in the Atlantean land, during those periods when there was the breaking up of the land, owing to the attempts of the sons of Belial to use the activities of the sons of the Law of One for self-indulgence, self-aggrandizing, - because of the desires for activities in which the baser metals, the baser activities might be turned into use for pleasures of the sons of Belial.

(2147-1)

CONCLUSION

Edgar Cayce’s Atlantis is a book with negative merit. We reviewed roughly half of the 14 chapters. But each chapter subtracts from the sum of human understanding in the way that a broken pipe drains the community water supply.

The authors write regularly and voluminously about their searches for Atlantis or about secrets of the ancient world. But critical thinking must be painful to them; they show little evidence of it. Instead they just write down whatever bunkum appeals to them at the moment, as unquestioningly as mules go for water. What function does this sort of writing satisfy?

"The world wants to be deceived," said Sebastian Brant in The Ship of Fools.

The Littles and Van Auken seem determined to try to deceive the world with their scribblings. But their deception will succeed only with those who love to be charmed, rather than enlightened.

Important Announcement The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
Light & Shadows of Chalandor	[email protected]