Lost City of Atlantis found

Edgar Cayce in his predicted that Atlantis would be found. In 1968, off the coast of Bahamas, the Bimini Road was discovered as well as other structures, under water. Although some scientific exploration has taken place, none have been exhaustive yet. The Bimini Road itself is controversial, with geologists unable to agree if it is natural or man made. Yet many more structures have been documented under water but no exploration has been made of these yet.

Is this post a question or a statement?

Hasn't this been covered in like 200 other threads?

Is the proof a self proclaimed pyschic?

Originally posted by Sport Kensington

Is the proof a self proclaimed pyschic?

Can ridicule be healthy in moderation?
no offense, but the bimini road would not have been sought out nor found if the people looking for it had not been informed of a self proclaimed pyschic's predictions.

At any rate, the case for the Bimini road being man made is not absolute, it does have flaws that have been argued by geoligists that have a strong arguement that they may be natural rock formations from a long lost coastal line.

This is not to say that it is a natural formation, the jury is still out.

There was also a discovery of a city like complex discovered in the Gulf of Mexico by an oil company that was assessing potential off shore drilling sites.

This city like formation is consistent with the layouts of ancient cities in Mexico and especially the Yucatan Pennensula. However the depth of the site is nearly 8 times deeper than any questionable rock formations or ancient buldings discovered under water like portions of Alexandria, and the enigma found off the shore of Japan a few years back.

Just food for thought, you may want to look into it, to help quench your own curiousities. Have fun with it.

Do a search on 'Yonaguni' which is in Japan. Here is an article from Expedition Magazine.

Read this and this and this from the BBC. Here is one from the Taipei Times.

If you're not familiar with the name Paulina Zelitsky, do a search on her, as well.

They've been discovering these things for some time, now. But we don't get the headlines in the US like those on the BBC and other countries...

I have no doubt that the things Edgar Cayce predicted, while in trance, were not of his own imaginings. I'm not sure on this, but I'm thinking that, since certain recent discoveries and geological events/findings, that the only thing he truly got 'wrong' was in relation to the Lindbergh baby--and considering that the inquiry was not made by the parents, but by people seeking reward money--that it was a clouded issue beyond the scope of the purpose of the communications which he channeled.

He predicted the discovery of the dead sea scrolls and the Nag Hammadi, as well as the fact that at one time the Nile ran the opposite direction as it does now. They actually confirmed it in recent years!

The publicity and bad press that has been proliferated, by many who do not understand the significance of what his readings contained, really do shed an injust light upon his life and the nature of his work. This, as well as the world population's 6000 year long conditioning/brain washing to scoff at all things not given authorized explanation and permission, has caused many to dismiss him as some kind of new-age kook who was nothing more than a psychic charlatan. Yet people like Sylvia Browne are given esteem and regard.

He was not a self-proclaimed psychic--he never proclaimed himself to be anything. He read the bible through every year of his life--before and after the trances began. He cured countless people of all sorts of illnesses, by way of what might be called alternative medicine--certainly the physicians of his day did not regard him as legitimate--but those who were relieved of their problems would no doubt disagree. He never asked for anything to advance his personal situation in exchange for his readings, and in fact, he died as a result of doing too many readings a day. It was a drain on his physical body, and he did 2 a day for most of the duration. But at the end, there were so many requests for help that he began to do 8 a day, and not long afterwards, he died. He had been advised, in his own readings, not to increase them beyond 2, but he didn't heed the warning.

Actually, Atlantis was in Mesopotamia...
This is part of the history of Atlantis as recounted in part 3 of the Urantia Papers, The History of Urantia (Dalamatia is Atlantis in Urantia):

Source
3. Dalamatia — The City of the Prince

(743.2) 66:3.1 The headquarters of the Planetary Prince was situated in the Persian Gulf region of those days, in the district corresponding to later Mesopotamia.

(743.3) 66:3.2 The climate and landscape in the Mesopotamia of those times were in every way favorable to the undertakings of the Prince’s staff and their assistants, very different from conditions which have sometimes since prevailed. It was necessary to have such a favoring climate as a part of the natural environment designed to induce primitive Urantians to make certain initial advances in culture and civilization. The one great task of those ages was to transform man from a hunter to a herder, with the hope that later on he would evolve into a peace-loving, home-abiding farmer.

(743.4) 66:3.3 The headquarters of the Planetary Prince on Urantia was typical of such stations on a young and developing sphere. The nucleus of the Prince’s settlement was a very simple but beautiful city, enclosed within a wall forty feet high. This world center of culture was named Dalamatia in honor of Daligastia.

(743.5) 66:3.4 The city was laid out in ten subdivisions with the headquarters mansions of the ten councils of the corporeal staff situated at the centers of these subdivisions. Centermost in the city was the temple of the unseen Father. The administrative headquarters of the Prince and his associates was arranged in twelve chambers immediately grouped about the temple itself.

(743.6) 66:3.5 The buildings of Dalamatia were all one story except the council headquarters, which were two stories, and the central temple of the Father of all, which was small but three stories in height.

(743.7) 66:3.6 The city represented the best practices of those early days in building material — brick. Very little stone or wood was used. Home building and village architecture among the surrounding peoples were greatly improved by the Dalamatian example.

(743.8) 66:3.7 Near the Prince’s headquarters there dwelt all colors and strata of human beings. And it was from these near-by tribes that the first students of the Prince’s schools were recruited. Although these early schools of Dalamatia were crude, they provided all that could be done for the men and women of that primitive age.

(743.9) 66:3.8 The Prince’s corporeal staff continuously gathered about them the superior individuals of the surrounding tribes and, after training and inspiring these students, sent them back as teachers and leaders of their respective peoples.
4. Early Days of the One Hundred
(...)

a reply to: hellfire3

The Bimini Road itself is controversial, with geologists unable to agree if it is natural or man made.

Square blocks are not natural. I don't know how anyone could think they are natural. I saw the pictures.
There are some interesting phenomena, like hexagonal vertical shapes (The Giant's Staircase), and spheres (magnesium spheres on the sea floor) but I know of no known natural square blocks of stone. Certain crystals, yes, not stone.

a reply to: bulrush

The "Bimini road" is not composed of squares.
img.gawkerassets.com...
bizlifes.net...
www.bahamasgeotourism.com...
imgc.allpostersimages.com... -bahamas.jpg

Neither are these:
Yosemite
Joshua Tree

originally posted by: hellfire3
with geologists unable to agree if it is natural or man made.

Which geologists that have studied it claim it is man made?

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: hellfire3
with geologists unable to agree if it is natural or man made.

Which geologists that have studied it claim it is man made?

Ooh, ooh, I know!

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: hellfire3
with geologists unable to agree if it is natural or man made.

Which geologists that have studied it claim it is man made?

None of them.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: hellfire3
with geologists unable to agree if it is natural or man made.

Which geologists that have studied it claim it is man made?

None of them.

Harte

That means nothing. It would be professional suicide if they did have the honesty to recognise the Bimini road as not natural. But some people are so naive that they think that scientists, geologists, etc care only about the truth. Instead, they care more about their careers. So they are highly motivated to reject any evidence that does not fit the scientific paradigm.

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: hellfire3
with geologists unable to agree if it is natural or man made.

Which geologists that have studied it claim it is man made?

None of them.

Harte

That means nothing. It would be professional suicide if they did have the honesty to recognise the Bimini road as not natural. But some people are so naive that they think that scientists, geologists, etc care only about the truth. Instead, they care more about their careers. So they are highly motivated to reject any evidence that does not fit the scientific paradigm.

So, aren't you going to start explaining Robert Schoch's position at Boston University, held now for over 30 years?

We're waiting.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte
So, aren't you going to start explaining Robert Schoch's position at Boston University, held now for over 30 years?

We're waiting.

Harte

The wet Sphinx guy, right?

originally posted by: micpsi

That means nothing. It would be professional suicide if they did have the honesty to recognise the Bimini road as not natural. But some people are so naive that they think that scientists, geologists, etc care only about the truth. Instead, they care more about their careers. So they are highly motivated to reject any evidence that does not fit the scientific paradigm.

Sure thing, because we all know how discovering something new and publishing in a peer reviewed journal is professional suicide. Leads to book deals, tenure and all kinds of other unsavoury circumstances.

originally posted by: obscurepanda

originally posted by: Harte
So, aren't you going to start explaining Robert Schoch's position at Boston University, held now for over 30 years?

We're waiting.

Harte

The wet Sphinx guy, right?

The extremely ancient sphinx guy.

Harte

originally posted by: micpsi
It would be professional suicide if they did have the honesty to recognise the Bimini road as not natural.

Yeah, because no scientist wants to make a provable, paradigm shifting discovery.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: micpsi

That means nothing. It would be professional suicide if they did have the honesty to recognise the Bimini road as not natural. But some people are so naive that they think that scientists, geologists, etc care only about the truth. Instead, they care more about their careers. So they are highly motivated to reject any evidence that does not fit the scientific paradigm.

Sure thing, because we all know how discovering something new and publishing in a peer reviewed journal is professional suicide. Leads to book deals, tenure and all kinds of other unsavoury circumstances.

Your sarcasm was ineffective because you misrepresented my point. It is not "discovering something new and publishing in a peer reviewed journal" that is professional suicide. Of course not. Rather, it is discovering something that so contradicts the current paradigm that it would discredit generations of scientists' work in that field if it was accepted as a genuine fact. That's why such a discovery will be filtered out by a journal's referees and never even get into a journal.
I speak from experience.....

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: hellfire3
with geologists unable to agree if it is natural or man made.

Which geologists that have studied it claim it is man made?

None of them.

Harte

That means nothing. It would be professional suicide if they did have the honesty to recognise the Bimini road as not natural. But some people are so naive that they think that scientists, geologists, etc care only about the truth. Instead, they care more about their careers. So they are highly motivated to reject any evidence that does not fit the scientific paradigm.

So, aren't you going to start explaining Robert Schoch's position at Boston University, held now for over 30 years?

We're waiting.

Harte

For every Schoch, there are dozens of researchers who damaged their academic careers through studying and advocating non-conventional theories that contradicted the prevailing paradigm in their field. It is the exception like Schoch that proves the rule. So try an argument next time that does not blow up in your face.

We're waiting.

a reply to: Phage

The "Bimini road" is not composed of squares.

Yes it is. A square is technically a special type of rectangle. The same applies for 3d objects: cube vs rectangular prism or cuboid. List of names for 3d solids.

originally posted by: micpsi
Your sarcasm was ineffective because you misrepresented my point. It is not "discovering something new and publishing in a peer reviewed journal" that is professional suicide. Of course not. Rather, it is discovering something that so contradicts the current paradigm that it would discredit generations of scientists' work in that field if it was accepted as a genuine fact. That's why such a discovery will be filtered out by a journal's referees and never even get into a journal.
I speak from experience.....

Does that experience include the Norse or other issues regarding the peopling of the Americas, like Monte Verde? Yes, I have seen the forces you cite at work but controversial issues are still being hotly debated...and change with new evidence.