Need feedback on Cayce claims

[ExMinister]

First, I am not saying that Cayce was not incontrovertibly wrong at times, but I don't know if that is the case regarding his historical narrative. Second, I think you're jumping to a questionable conclusion when you assert: "Cayce states that pellagra was contagious and infectious." You are likely referring to Reading 304-29, which was given for an 80-year-old man with multiple conditions, including asthma, bronchitis, eczema sores, and pellagra. Early in the reading, Cayce stated that "pellagra is not cured in a day", and he later responded affirmatively to this question: "Is this condition in any way infectious or contagious?"

It is unclear whether "this condition" referred to pellagra or the man's overall condition, which may well have been both contagious and infectious. Cayce gave several pellagra readings, including -- according to Dr. Wesley Ketchum -- an early one where he correctly diagnosed that condition after several cases of pellagra had baffled the Kentucky medical community. I can find no reading where Cayce clearly stated that pellagra was either contagious or infectious.

Hi Rodney, I did go back and re-read through that reading, and my impression is still that Cayce is talking about pellagra throughout. However, I will grant that there is a small chance that he had changed topics and was talking about the bronchitis.

At any rate, this may not be a strong example, and I was just attempting to get at what would constitute incontrovertible fact.

As I said earlier, I am mostly interested in whether or not the facts I mentioned in regard to Cayce's Atlantis narrative are solid.

 

[Trent Wray]

"What is actually known" keeps changing. If you can show that Cayce's historical narrative is inconsistent with the incontrovertible facts, that would be impressive; on the other hand, if you can show only that Cayce's narrative is inconsistent with the current conventional wisdom, not so much.

Okay Rodney ... I remember the talk about "animated ash" and all that, but I want to ask you about Cayce and his Hall of Records.

Do you believe that these Hall of Records exist? IIRC, there is one in the Yucatan, as well as one under the paw of the Sphinx. Correct me if I'm wrong .... but what I remember is that Cayce claimed there was proof of civilization over 10,000 years old sealed in this HofR under the Sphinx, and it would be opened in 1988 by some kind of sound or something, yes?

Regardless ...... do you believe this hall exists, with the proof? And can you state explictly what Cayce claimed about the Hall? It was my understanding that a team actually did search under the Sphinx for chambers, etc but found nothing of what Cayce claimed existed there. If that's true, do you think they "were looking in the wrong place?"

And if I'm misquoting or misunderstanding something about what Cayce claimed, etc .... please correct me. But please be detailed about what Cayce claimed and whether or not you think his claim was legitimate and also why we have not found supporting evidence of his HofR claim.

 

[Rodney]

Okay Rodney ... I remember the talk about "animated ash" and all that, but I want to ask you about Cayce and his Hall of Records.

Do you believe that these Hall of Records exist? IIRC, there is one in the Yucatan, as well as one under the paw of the Sphinx. Correct me if I'm wrong .... but what I remember is that Cayce claimed there was proof of civilization over 10,000 years old sealed in this HofR under the Sphinx, and it would be opened in 1988 by some kind of sound or something, yes?

Regardless ...... do you believe this hall exists, with the proof? And can you state explictly what Cayce claimed about the Hall? It was my understanding that a team actually did search under the Sphinx for chambers, etc but found nothing of what Cayce claimed existed there. If that's true, do you think they "were looking in the wrong place?"

And if I'm misquoting or misunderstanding something about what Cayce claimed, etc .... please correct me. But please be detailed about what Cayce claimed and whether or not you think his claim was legitimate and also why we have not found supporting evidence of his HofR claim.

Cayce was clear that there is a hall of records. In Reading 2012-1, he stated:

"It would be well if this entity were to seek either of the three phases of the ways and means in which those records of the activities of individuals were preserved, - the one in the Atlantean land, that sank, which will rise and is rising again; another in the place of the records that leadeth from the Sphinx to the hall of records, in the Egyptian land; and another in the Aryan or Yucatan land, where the temple there is overshadowing same."

Further, in Reading 5750-1, he stated that "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."

However, he did not state when the hall of records would be opened. There have been some A.R.E. efforts to locate the hall of records, but Zahi Hawass and company have not given them free reign. Hawass, by the way, is scheduled to speak at the A.R.E in October at their annual Ancient Mysteries conference.

I think there may well be a hall of records, but it's also possible that Cayce's paranormal ability could have veered off-base in that record.

 

[Rodney]

So?
Did we already established that Ketchum didn't seem well educated in the hottest disease and wildest disease being researched during that time and that this "claim" was written down decades after it occured?

Ketchum states that he told the Director of the Western Kentucky Asylum, Dr. Milton Board, about Cayce's diagnosis of pellagra, and that Board later read a paper to the Kentucky Medical Society about pellagra, but he never mentioned Cayce's role in diagnosing it. Board's biography can be found at http://books.google.com/books?id=CH...nepage&q=dr. Milton board of kentucky&f=false

As far as writing down this claim decades later, The Discovery of Edgar Cayce was based on Ketchum's notes, as well as his recollections. What's interesting is that Cayce and Ketchum had a falling out in 1911 and never spoke again, and so it might have been supposed that Ketchum would not have been shy about criticizing Cayce in his booklet. However, his assessment of Cayce was almost entirely positive.

 

[Mojo]

He never said in any reading that psoriasis can be spread from person to person.

He said it was infectious. That is what infectious means.

 

[paximperium]

Ketchum states that he told the Director of the Western Kentucky Asylum, Dr. Milton Board, about Cayce's diagnosis of pellagra, and that Board later read a paper to the Kentucky Medical Society about pellagra, but he never mentioned Cayce's role in diagnosing it. Board's biography can be found at http://books.google.com/books?id=CH...nepage&q=dr. Milton board of kentucky&f=false

So Ketchum claims that Board made a diagnosis on what he claimed Cayce told him but there is zero evidence of Cayce's actual involvement?
Is that what you're saying?

As far as writing down this claim decades later, The Discovery of Edgar Cayce was based on Ketchum's notes, as well as his recollections.

So it was written down decades later. Thanks for the clarification.

What's interesting is that Cayce and Ketchum had a falling out in 1911 and never spoke again, and so it might have been supposed that Ketchum would not have been shy about criticizing Cayce in his booklet. However, his assessment of Cayce was almost entirely positive.

So? Was this suppose to be an actual point?

 

[Rodney]

So Ketchum claims that Board made a diagnosis on what he claimed Cayce told him but there is zero evidence of Cayce's actual involvement?
Is that what you're saying?

Are you suggesting that Ketchum invented Cayce's involvement? If so, what was Ketchum's motivation?

So it was written down decades later. Thanks for the clarification.

Improper inference -- it may have been written down at the time of Cayce's involvement.

So? Was this suppose to be an actual point?

Yes, and an important one. If Ketchum even suspected Cayce was a fraud, why didn't Ketchum voice that suspicion -- rather than heap praise on Cayce -- after he and Cayce went their separate ways?

 

[paximperium]

Are you suggesting that Ketchum invented Cayce's involvement? If so, what was Ketchum's motivation?

No no no my Cayce zombie. You claimed that Ketchum told Board something that has zero documentation of. Why don't you tell me what was Ketchum's motivation?

Improper inference -- it may have been written down at the time of Cayce's involvement.

"May have been"? That all ya got?

Yes, and an important one. If Ketchum even suspected Cayce was a fraud, why didn't Ketchum voice that suspicion -- rather than heap praise on Cayce -- after he and Cayce went their separate ways?

Really? Do expand on this point. Did Ketchum and Cayce really part ways? Who documented this little spat?

 

[Rodney]

No no no my Cayce zombie. You claimed that Ketchum told Board something that has zero documentation of. Why don't you tell me what was Ketchum's motivation?

Telling it like it was.

"May have been"? That all ya got?

Yes, but suppose Ketchum's account of Cayce's diagnosis of this case was from recollection only. Do you think it's likely that Ketchum's recollection was so wildly off-base that it was actually someone other than Cayce who made the pellagra diagnosis?

Really? Do expand on this point. Did Ketchum and Cayce really part ways? Who documented this little spat?

Several people. For example, at p. 172 of An American Prophet, Sidney Kirkpatrick states that, in December 1911, "Ketchum admitted to taking readings on the horse races and other forms of gambling. He referred to this as 'getting a few tips.' As far as Edgar was concerned, the partnership was finished. Ketchum himself must have realized it, for he left town before the partnership was officially disbanded. Edgar never saw him again."

 

[paximperium]

Telling it like it was.

Telling what? That Ketchum claimed Cayce did something but there is no documentation of this ever happening?

Yes, but suppose Ketchum's account of Cayce's diagnosis of this case was from recollection only. Do you think it's likely that Ketchum's recollection was so wildly off-base that it was actually someone other than Cayce who made the pellagra diagnosis?

Was it a Pellagra diagnosis? Did it even happen like it was claimed?

Several people. For example, at p. 172 of An American Prophet, Sidney Kirkpatrick states that, in December 1911, "Ketchum admitted to taking readings on the horse races and other forms of gambling. He referred to this as 'getting a few tips.' As far as Edgar was concerned, the partnership was finished. Ketchum himself must have realized it, for he left town before the partnership was officially disbanded. Edgar never saw him again."

So Ketchum was the one who ruined the relationship and not Cayce.
Why did Ketchum have to say anything bad about Cayce again?
So let's assume that Ketchum and Cayce had a falling out because Ketchum was a dick...so?

 

[Rodney]

Telling what? That Ketchum claimed Cayce did something but there is no documentation of this ever happening?

What kind of documentation are you looking for?

Was it a Pellagra diagnosis? Did it even happen like it was claimed?

Ketchum is clear that it did. But what's your alternative explanation -- that Ketchum misremembered, or that he made up the entire story?

So Ketchum was the one who ruined the relationship and not Cayce.
Why did Ketchum have to say anything bad about Cayce again?
So let's assume that Ketchum and Cayce had a falling out because Ketchum was a dick...so?

So, why didn't Ketchum set the record straight about Cayce if he was a fraud? When Cayce and Ketchum were partners, you could argue that Ketchum was using Cayce as a gimmick to attract business. You could also argue that, until he retired from the practice of medicine, Ketchum did not want to admit that he had used gimmickry early in his medical career. However, by the time Ketchum published his booklet in 1964, he had retired (he was 85 at that time). What do you suppose Ketchum was hoping to gain by reiterating what he told the New York Times more than 50 years earlier when he was Cayce's partner; i.e., that Cayce was the real deal?

 

[paximperium]

What kind of documentation are you looking for?

What do you have?

Ketchum is clear that it did. But what's your alternative explanation -- that Ketchum misremembered, or that he made up the entire story?

Don't know. You tell me what some fella who was not educated enough to diagnose a pop disease recalled something that supposedly happened decades ago.

So, why didn't Ketchum set the record straight about Cayce if he was a fraud? When Cayce and Ketchum were partners, you could argue that Ketchum was using Cayce as a gimmick to attract business. You could also argue that, until he retired from the practice of medicine, Ketchum did not want to admit that he had used gimmickry early in his medical career. However, by the time Ketchum published his booklet in 1964, he had retired (he was 85 at that time). What do you suppose Ketchum was hoping to gain by reiterating what he told the New York Times more than 50 years earlier when he was Cayce's partner; i.e., that Cayce was the real deal?

Ketchum? Why do you believe he wasn't a deluded idiot like all the rest of the Cayce cult?

 

[Mojo]

However, by the time Ketchum published his booklet in 1964, he had retired (he was 85 at that time). What do you suppose Ketchum was hoping to gain by reiterating what he told the New York Times more than 50 years earlier when he was Cayce's partner; i.e., that Cayce was the real deal?

I may be going out on a bit of a limb here, but perhaps he was hoping to sell copies of his booklet.

 

[paximperium]

I may be going out on a bit of a limb here, but perhaps he was hoping to sell copies of his booklet.

Ketchum who? Oh yes, the guy who is now well known for being linked to the world famous father of stupid based medicine and magic based thinking, Mr, Cayce,

 

[Rodney]

What do you have?

For example, Ketchum prepared a paper about Cayce for the September 1910 meeting of the American Society of Clinical Research in Boston. The paper was presented by Henry Harrower, M.D., a contributor to the Journal of the American Medical Association. Following this, in December 1911 Hugo Munsterberg, dean of psychology at Harvard visited Cayce to investigate him. According to An American Prophet, at p. 171: "At the end of his visit, Munsterberg admitted to Edgar that he had no explanation for what he had seen and heard, but he had to conclude that Edgar was the real thing." However, Munsterberg did not write a case study for a medical journal about Cayce. Later, Dr. William McDougal of Harvard also investigated Cayce, but also did not write a case study.

Now, from your perspective, the lack of cases studies may appear damning, but try looking at the situation objectively: Surely, if Munsterberg, McDougal, and many others (including Harry Houdini) who investigated Cayce had been able to expose him as a fraud, they would have done so. At the same time, they had a lot to lose if they publicly expressed support for Cayce. So, they likely chose to play it safe and not go public with their opinions.

Don't know. You tell me what some fella who was not educated enough to diagnose a pop disease recalled something that supposedly happened decades ago.

What evidence do you have that in 1905-06 the average doctor was able to diagnose pellagra? According to The Discovery of Edgar Cayce at p. 13, Dr. Board, the director of the Western Kentucky Asylum, told Ketchum after seeing Ketchum's patient (Jenkins): "Let's go on out to the hospital. We've got four cases out there exactly the same as this! My boys have been wrestling with them for a year and they haven't diagnosed them yet!"

Ketchum? Why do you believe he wasn't a deluded idiot like all the rest of the Cayce cult?

That statement indicates your lack of knowledge about Cayce.

 

[Rodney]

I may be going out on a bit of a limb here, but perhaps he was hoping to sell copies of his booklet.

If that was his hope, it wasn't realized. This booklet is one of the more obscure publications about Cayce. I stumbled upon it a few years ago in the A.R.E. Library and photocopied it. And why, pray tell, did Ketchum wait until 1964 to publish it? The first book about Cayce, There Is A River, was published in 1943, when Ketchum was 64. Did Ketchum not need the money then? And, if Cayce were a fraud, Ketchum might have made more money by writing a book called, say, There Isn't A River: Exposing Edgar Cayce.

 

[paximperium]

For example, Ketchum prepared a paper about Cayce for the September 1910 meeting of the American Society of Clinical Research in Boston. The paper was presented by Henry Harrower, M.D., a contributor to the Journal of the American Medical Association. Following this, in December 1911 Hugo Munsterberg, dean of psychology at Harvard visited Cayce to investigate him. According to An American Prophet, at p. 171: "At the end of his visit, Munsterberg admitted to Edgar that he had no explanation for what he had seen and heard, but he had to conclude that Edgar was the real thing." However, Munsterberg did not write a case study for a medical journal about Cayce. Later, Dr. William McDougal of Harvard also investigated Cayce, but also did not write a case study.

So that's a no, on the documentation part.

Now, from your perspective, the lack of cases studies may appear damning, but try looking at the situation objectively: Surely, if Munsterberg, McDougal, and many others (including Harry Houdini) who investigated Cayce had been able to expose him as a fraud, they would have done so. At the same time, they had a lot to lose if they publicly expressed support for Cayce. So, they likely chose to play it safe and not go public with their opinions.

So the lack of evidence is evidence itself. Brilliant!!!

What evidence do you have that in 1905-06 the average doctor was able to diagnose pellagra? According to The Discovery of Edgar Cayce at p. 13, Dr. Board, the director of the Western Kentucky Asylum, told Ketchum after seeing Ketchum's patient (Jenkins): "Let's go on out to the hospital. We've got four cases out there exactly the same as this! My boys have been wrestling with them for a year and they haven't diagnosed them yet!"

Amazing. Did this even happen? Documentation? Any?

That statement indicates your lack of knowledge about Cayce.

In what way does this statement refute anything about Ketchum's motive? Are you now claiming that Ketchum was not a deluded true believer?

What about Cayce again? What about the guy who has left nothing to society except stupidity?

 

[paximperium]

If that was his hope, it wasn't realized. This booklet is one of the more obscure publications about Cayce. I stumbled upon it a few years ago in the A.R.E. Library and photocopied it. And why, pray tell, did Ketchum wait until 1964 to publish it? The first book about Cayce, There Is A River, was published in 1943, when Ketchum was 64. Did Ketchum not need the money then?

Wow, isn't it amazing how Cayce cultist fawn over Ketchum.

Ketchum selling of himself is a real success. What a legacy for a man to leave behind in his end years and no one to dispute his claims.

And, if Cayce were a fraud, Ketchum might have made more money by writing a book called, say, There Isn't A River: Exposing Edgar Cayce.

Because Ketchum was a deluded Cayce cultist who actually fell for Cayce's nonsense?

 

[Mojo]

If that was his hope, it wasn't realized. This booklet is one of the more obscure publications about Cayce. I stumbled upon it a few years ago in the A.R.E. Library and photocopied it. And why, pray tell, did Ketchum wait until 1964 to publish it? The first book about Cayce, There Is A River, was published in 1943, when Ketchum was 64. Did Ketchum not need the money then? And, if Cayce were a fraud, Ketchum might have made more money by writing a book called, say, There Isn't A River: Exposing Edgar Cayce.

So he published a booklet that he didn't want to sell? The more you tell us about this guy, the more of a complete moron he sounds.

 

[Mojo]

If that was his hope, it wasn't realized. This booklet is one of the more obscure publications about Cayce. I stumbled upon it a few years ago in the A.R.E. Library and photocopied it. And why, pray tell, did Ketchum wait until 1964 to publish it?

Who knows? Perhaps he hadn't got around to writing it until then.

The first book about Cayce, There Is A River, was published in 1943, when Ketchum was 64. Did Ketchum not need the money then?

I don't know. Do you have copies of his bank statements for 1943?

And, if Cayce were a fraud, Ketchum might have made more money by writing a book called, say, There Isn't A River: Exposing Edgar Cayce.

Well, he might have, but a quick look around the shelves of my local bookshop suggests that there is more money to be made by promoting ridiculous ideas than by debunking them.