Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Re: cayce on the inka

Expand Messages
  • mike white
    hi steve, all we do not limit our study to psychic sources on this list, preferring hard evidence. it seems there is a shortage of certain proofs, and often
    Message 1 of 10 , Mar 11, 2008
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
       
      hi steve, all
       
         we do not limit our study to psychic sources on this list, preferring hard evidence.  it seems there is a shortage of certain proofs, and often the expert theories do not hold up to careful enquiry.  the cayce readings have been a tremendous help to me, and as time goes by more and more of it is confirmed by science. 
         its hard to pin down where on, og, and mu were.   i believe they existed before the last ice-age, and their size and location changed from earth-changes, and the vagaries of empire.  most consider mu a short name for lemuria, but im unsure if this is totally correct.  the best answer seems to be, in their last appearance, mu was southern california, on and og were in western south america.  the greater og empire may have encompassed most of the americas.  peru and ecuador had several great civilizations thru the ages
       
       
      mike
       
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: bigalemc2
      Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:27 AM
      Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Re: cayce on the inka

      Hey, Mike -

      Thanks for this Cayce link.  I see that the main page has an index to Cayce's readings.

      Whether through serendipity, resonance, good karma, or whatever, in the last few days I have been wondering where I might find just such an index.

      I guess it is the Universal Mind working its thing.

      ...I'd been reading on Cayce and his accuracy on peopling the Americas, vs the archaeologists, how his history has become more and more correct over the decades, while pretty much every archaeological paradigm extant in his day that differed from his has been had to be rewritten. 

      The "record in the rocks" that Cayce talked about can be misunderstood, but only for so long.  The Clovis barrier is down, the genetic record is strongly leaning in Cayce's direction, the field of archaeology in the Americas is in tatters (but for the better), and especially haplotype X is showing Cayce was right. 

      Maybe one of these days an arkie will come along who can see the handwriting on the wall and admit that maybe there was an Atlantis.

      I think I'll start holding my breath now.

      NOT.


      Steve


      No virus found in this incoming message.
      Checked by AVG.
      Version: 7.5.518 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1322 - Release Date: 3/9/2008 12:17 PM
    • Tom Hebert
      Hi Steve, On was an ancient city in Egypt. It is generally identified with Heliopolis. Could that be what you are thinking of? However, Cayce s On was
      Message 2 of 10 , Mar 11, 2008
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Steve,
         
        "On" was an ancient city in Egypt.  It is generally identified with Heliopolis.  Could that be what you are thinking of?
         
        However, Cayce's "On" was located in the New World.  He does not say specifically where it was located, but he does give us some hints, as you can see from Mike's website.
         
        Tom
         
         
         
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: bigalemc2
        Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:29 AM
        Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Re: cayce on the inka

        Tom -

        I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that On was Egypt.  It's been maybe 25+ years since I read any of that, but that is my distinct memory.

        Steve

        --- In Precolumbian_ Inscriptions@ yahoogroups. com, "Tom Hebert" <thebert2@...> wrote:
        >
        > My understanding from the readings is that Inca were a later
        > civilization. Their precursors were the Ohms (Ohlms, Ohum, Ohms, Uhum,
        > Ohm, Ohlm). I also believe that this civilization has something to do
        > with the land of On, often referred in the readings as "On and Og."
        >
        > Tom

      • Tom Hebert
        Hi Steve, What is your interpretation of the record in the rocks. Tom ... From: bigalemc2 To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March
        Message 3 of 10 , Mar 12, 2008
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Steve,
           
          What is your interpretation of the "record in the rocks."
           
          Tom
           
           
           
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: bigalemc2
          Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:27 AM
          Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Re: cayce on the inka

          Hey, Mike -

          Thanks for this Cayce link.  I see that the main page has an index to Cayce's readings.

          Whether through serendipity, resonance, good karma, or whatever, in the last few days I have been wondering where I might find just such an index.

          I guess it is the Universal Mind working its thing.

          ...I'd been reading on Cayce and his accuracy on peopling the Americas, vs the archaeologists, how his history has become more and more correct over the decades, while pretty much every archaeological paradigm extant in his day that differed from his has been had to be rewritten. 

          The "record in the rocks" that Cayce talked about can be misunderstood, but only for so long.  The Clovis barrier is down, the genetic record is strongly leaning in Cayce's direction, the field of archaeology in the Americas is in tatters (but for the better), and especially haplotype X is showing Cayce was right. 

          Maybe one of these days an arkie will come along who can see the handwriting on the wall and admit that maybe there was an Atlantis.

          I think I'll start holding my breath now.

          NOT.


          Steve

        • Phil Whitley
          They re still harping on that Beringia Land Bridge theory, but interesting studies nonetheless... Indian DNA links to 6 founding mothers
          Message 4 of 10 , Mar 13, 2008
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            They're still harping on that Beringia Land Bridge theory, but interesting studies nonetheless...
            Indian DNA links to 6 'founding mothers
            'and :
            Americas Settled 15,000 Years Ago, Study Says

            And a new Inca discovery...

            Peru archeologists find Inca temple in Andes

            I am no scientist, but every time I hear "Bering Land Bridge" my conspiracy alarms go off. I'm not saying that some early settlers came that way - I just think they found their new home already occupied by some very intelligent, advanced cultures!

            Brew




          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.