Category Archives: Rants

Response to Michael Jaye, PhD

Dear Sir,
Thank you for your recent email(link to original email removed.)
Since 2011, I have provided the opportunity for individuals to elucidate their thoughts and ideas on my great grandfather’s theories. The offer remains open as long as it remains family-friendly and within the framework of his theories. In 2015, an early version of your worldwide flood theory was posted to the guest blog. An updated version is provided on your website.

I felt it necessary to respond with a blog post due to your comments at the end of your email:

“The reason I mention all this to you: your posts do not seem to recognize all that James Churchward had right. I encourage you to adopt the correct perspective that Lemuria existed where he said it was (beneath what is now the Pacific Ocean), and that it was lost 12,800 ybp, as he depicted, by the Flood.”

  1. In the Lost Continent of Mu Motherland of Men (1926) James states:

    “However, both Atlantis and the land of Mu were destroyed by volcanic eruptions and submerged. Science has proved that beyond the shadow of a doubt.”

    Your theory of a water comet impact is incongruous with James’ theory. Your theory does not lend credence to his theory; it is an alternate theory.

  2. Collapse of the Archeon Gas Belts due to volcanic activity
    (animated gif)

  3. James never used the term Lemuria in any of his books.
  4. Asking me to “adopt the correct perspective” is frankly insulting. While I don’t have a PhD in mathematics as yourself, I have a strong physics and math mathematics background while earning my BSEE and working as an electrical design engineer for the past 30 years. My original perspective when I started my research in 2009 was to “prepare and present factual information, … rigorously defend the defensible and quickly denounce the absurd in the exploration of advanced civilizations and the lost continent of Mu.

My question to you is, “What should the correct perspective be?” while I read Graham Hancock approves of your theory, I also found rebuttals providing solid evidence disputing your findings by Carl Feagans (The Pseudoarchaeology of Michael Jaye’s Worldwide Flood) and Rebecca Bradley (Michael Jaye’s Just-So Story). These authors cite compelling evidence of the correct interpretation of your ‘evidence’ and point out the fallacies in your reasoning.

Again, what is the correct perspective? Should I blindly follow your pronouncements and ignore solid scientific reasoning and evidence?

Too many people find themselves in confined thought silos where everyone agrees and whoever doesn’t is the enemy. Your comment about “correct perspective” is indicative of this phenomena and I reject it out of hand. I don’t see you as “the other” and I know that you worked hard and long; however, I have to go with these scientific logic and reasoning on this one.

btw, the Lost Continent of Mu Motherland of Men was written as fiction.

Latest Comments Below
  1. “The claim of crystal skulls being pre-Columbian Mesoamerican artifacts is a known falsehood. Scientific examination of the surface on those…

  2. As the results haven’t exactly energized the archeological world I find them dubious,, Feagans pointed out native sources for all…

In Defense Of…

James Churchward (1851-1936)

During my research into the life in theories of my great grandfather James Churchward, I have had the opportunity to interact with many different people with wide ranging views. For some, his theories are blasphemy to their beliefs, deserving of vitriolic screeds and condemnation. For others, his words require the solemnity of scripture when referenced and then there are all the folks in between the two extremes.

Originally, my predilection was to believe his theories were bunk; however, since I had yet to read or research what he wrote, I was just parroting what someone else said. I looked into his sources and found the proof I needed; but it didn’t answer the question, “Why after 90 years or so were his theories still being discussed and his books sold?” This part of the quest took longer and maybe a definite answer will arise eventually, but I have some thoughts.

Some of the naysayers would respond the reason is racism. The author’s late 19th century mindset and approach is the evidence. I addressed this some years ago. If the reader weighed 90 years old works against today’s enlightened mindset, of course you can find something to complain about. James isn’t alive today to modify his theories according to the latest evidence or defend himself. His writings are water under the bridge. The few passages where the critics attack his works actually point out the weakness of their argument (and James.) The critics attack his supposition that the white “Maya” colonized the planet and brought civilization to the rest of the world’s people. James really wrote that all people were from the lost continent of Mu. They all enjoyed a high level of civilization and were educated, fed and clothed in a peaceful society. Where did the people not on the continent of Mu come from? If everyone came from Mu, who did the white “Maya” conquer and “civilize”? Likewise, when James asserts the Mongols wiped out the white “Maya” in Central America – “Where did the Mongols come from?” I really don’t believe it is racism maintaining the continued promulgation of James Churchward works. I’ve met James followers of all colors and creeds and none of them discussed an opinion where his works were abhorrent or overtly racist

On the other hand, looking at it in context, James was in his early 70s when he started speaking on WNYC in 1924. Along with his other speaking engagements and written articles, James began to gain a following. In 1926, his first book was published as fiction, according to his biographer. The next printing of his books coincided with the Great Depression and flew off the shelves. Income from book sales would have been helpful for the aged retiree. The underlying message in James books is humanity had a common origin. Together, they built a great civilization with no strife. People lived in peace and harmony. AND together as humans, we can accomplish it again. For many people, even today, that is an exciting possibility and provides hope for a brighter future. I can’t find fault with someone looking for a brighter future.

So, the bottom line is there is a myriad of opinions of my great grandfathers works. As far as I’m concerned, neither extreme should be counted as anathema and people should not be judged according to their reading list. The over-the-top rhetoric attempting to silence alternate viewpoints drives people apart and is in direct opposition to James’ ideal. Such harsh pronouncements deter open and honest discussions where minds can be changed, and common ground established.

This is not a defense of James writings; it is a defense of everyone’s right to think for themselves according to their conscience. James Churchward was right on one point; human beings are all one big family. I’m all for a greater understanding of this concept.

Suspect Research website

As mentioned before, I occasionally receive emails with proof of my great-grandfather’s theories.
The link contained in a recent email appeared odd.
As shown below, the title of “Bullfinch Mythology” just doesn’t mix with the subtitle, “Stories of a Great Flood in Polynesia and Micronesia.”

Bullfinch’s Mythology is a 19th century classic, but I didn’t remember reading a chapter about flood myths. Given the benefit of the doubt, I’ll accept that it is probably an error.

The next lower title on the webpage is the title of chapter 13 of volume number 1 of “Folk-Lore In The Old Testament: Studies In Comparative Religion Legend And Law.” The three volumes by Scottish folklorist James George Frazer published in 1918 and not as well known as “The Golden Bough” which was first published in 1890.
One wonders why part of the title is missing?
Where are the notes contained in the original?

Further investigation was hampered when I attempted to navigate to another page for more data. My browser found a redirect command there and stopped the visit.
As far as I am concerned, that was strike three. I know where the original text is located and there is zero risk involved in accessing that text.
I do not know what games they are playing and I do not have to join.
Therefore, I will not provide a direct link to the website, proceed at your own risk.

I’ll put an examination of Frazer’s flood myths on my to-do list…