Unidentified Aerial Phenomena & James Churchward

I recently received yet another email about the connection between my great-grandfather, James Churchward, and Unidentified Aerial Phenomena or Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs.)
I have covered the subject previously:

The email mentions Chan P. Thomas, author of the Adam and Eve Story, which was discussed in a blog post in 2019.

A new point in the email was the inclusion of Morris K. Jessup‘s mention of James’ works in the 1957 book, “The Expanding Case For The UFO.” The email included images of two pages (53-54.) Jessup also wrote “The Case for the UFO” (1955,) “UFO and the Bible” (1956,) and “The UFO Annual” (1956.) His only mention of James Churchward’s vimana is in his last book and the passage quoted from James he says is from 1925, however the text is from the 1931 “Children of Mu.” He is faithful in copying some of James’ text as written, but he only includes that portion supporting his argument for extraterrestrial flight. For instance, Jessup starts the paragraph in the middle of page 53 as follows:

All records relating to these airships distinctly state that they were self-propelling; in other words, they generated their own power as they flew, and were independent of all fuel.

From page 189 of “Children of Mu”

All records relating to these airships distinctly state that they were self-moving, they propelled themselves; in other words, they generated their own power as they flew along. They were independent of all fuel. It seems to me, in the face of this, and with all our boasting, we are about 15,000 to 20,000 years behind the times. Dropping bombs from airships is a new sport with us, less than twenty years old; yet here we see that it was done 15,000 to 20,000 years ago. Rawan was shot down with a circular gun that spit fire and made thunder which is uncommonly like some of our machine guns today. Yet the world is flattering itself today that never before during the history of man has there ever been such a brainy lot of scientists as are with us at the present time. Pure egotism crowned with ignorance. I feel like the sage of old who said: “There is nothing new under the sun.” There are many Chinese records of about the same date regarding these ancient flying machines.

It would be fun to have flying cars and maybe one day we will develop the technology to make it affordable (and work out the potential air traffic challenges.)
I have yet to see, in person, an example of a flying vimana as described by James Churchward. Even though there are written plans for vimanas and videos about how they are real, the claims miss one important proof – a flying example.

Have a great day.

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 my-mu.com 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…

Comments on “The Sumerian Epic (Part 6) ~ The Legend of Mu”

Recently an esteemed colleague pointed out a video entitled the “The Sumerian Epic (Part Six) ~ The Legend of Mu.”

This version of the “Legend of Mu” does actually include information on and a cartoon of my great grandfather James Churchward. On the other hand, his theories are sandwiched into some Anunnaki timeline thereby invalidating James original premise.

In the original 1926 Lost Continent of Mu Motherland of Men and throughout the other books James wrote – his lost continent of Mu was the original birthplace of mankind. He wrote the people of Mu spent thousands of years developing an advanced civilization until they ventured out to the remainder of the world and established colonies. This video presents a version of the legend of Mu that adds elements to make the original unrecognizable. The creator in the original is the divine intelligence giving each person a spark of the divine. The creator in the video are aliens from outer space who create humans as the slave race. James wrote about his ancient continent with its idyllic civilization as a place where humankind can return. During the Great Depression when it was first written his theory was hope; escapist literature to fend off the worries and sorrows of a bitter existence. How does that fit into the scheme where space aliens are out there and might come back to enslave us all?

Another point creating negative vibes was the attack on established science as though years of study training and experience made people stupid. It is a tool James used as well – anyone with a different opinion was just uninformed, because he was the real expert. This tactic should immediately raise alarms as to whether they are leaving out some important details. To provide a balanced presentation, do they discuss other interpretations of Ashurbanipal’s tablets? Show physical evidence not otherwise explained of the facilities used by the space aliens? (Certainly, if they could fly here from planet Marduk something would remain.)

In addition to leaving out information to make their theories sound credible, the video also introduces deceptions – such as using cartoons figures to gloss over important details and a Mayan pyramid is shown ‘underwater’ supposedly standing in for the Yonaguni, Okinawa feature.

I could go on and on pointing out all the nonsense in the video but is it worth the time? I could show how the translation of the Sumerian tablets they use is not generally accepted and that James referenced the generally accepted translation. I could point out the deviations in James’ theories they use to make the content easier to digest, but will it change anyone’s mind?

I am for free speech and these folks profiting from posting fraudulent videos about my great-grandfather James is none of my concern. My commentary should be none of their concern either.

J. Churchward