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…

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

The Egyptian Book of the Dead and James Churchward (part 2)

The previous post examined James Churchward’s discussion of the Egyptian Book of the Dead or the Book of Coming Forth by Day and ended with:

James then proceeds to elaborate and provide further interpretations on the next several pages. Before we go down that rabbit hole, let’s examine his previous statements in the next post.

In the chapter’s second paragraph, James says the Book of the Dead “contains many records that prove that the motherland of man was the original habitat of the race of men.”

The Egyptian Book of the Dead or the Book of Coming Forth by Day is really an Egyptian funerary text consisting of magic spells to aid deceased ancient Egyptians to overcome the pitfalls of the journey through the underworld. The illustration shown above from a well-known version of the Book of the Dead is described as follows:

A Section of Plate 3 from the Papyrus of Ani.
The Papyrus of Ani is a version of the Book of the Dead for the Scribe Ani.
Plate 3 contains half of the first (and longer) instance of Chapter 30B in Ani’s Book of the Dead.
The title of Chapter 30B is: Chapter For Not Letting Ani’s Heart Create Opposition Against Him, in the Gods’ Domain.

According to Wikipedia, this collection of spells was mostly written on papyrus scrolls and followed the tradition of previous writings such as the Pyramid Texts and Coffin Texts. Some of these earlier Texts reach back to the 3rd millennium BCE and similar versions are contained in the Book of the Dead. The first funerary texts, the Pyramid Texts, were engraved on the walls and sarcophagi of the Pharaoh alone. The Coffin Texts allowed common people the opportunity to access the spells which would lead them through the underworld to the afterlife. The later Coming Forth by Day became popular during the New Kingdom (1570 – 1069 BCE.) Apparently, each copy was tailored to the deceased as there was no standardized version until the eighth century BCE.

Pyramid Texts from Pyramid of Teti I in Saqqara (reigned from 2323 to 2291 BCE)

The Book of the Dead is recognized as a collection of spells. There are no separate interpretations of the hieroglyphs and illustrations accepted by Egyptologists today. It does not contain “many records that prove that the Motherland of Man, the submerged continent of Mu, was, indeed, the original habitat of the race of men” nor is it a “a sacred commemorative memorial to the 64,000,000 people who lost their lives at the destruction of Mu.”
If the Book of the Dead was a commemoration, why did it wait ten thousand years to be drafted? (According to James the continent of Mu sunk 12-14,000 years ago.) Why didn’t James’ reference the Pyramid Texts, the earliest form of funerary texts, instead of something a thousand or so years later?

James’ subsequent interpretations of images in the chapter are meaningless because they both are predicted on his assertion and are evidence of the importance of the document as a commemoration of the sinking of Mu or as a collection of long-forgotten records, of which it is neither. His only claim to have the authority to properly “decipher and translate” the vignettes is because he ‘knows’ the true meaning of the name of the book and the experts do not. I should underscore the fact the images in the translated Papyrus of Ani actually agree with the translated hieroglyphs.
Additionally, the chapter doesn’t maintain focus on the Book of Coming Forth by Day but jumps to discuss symbols found in Canada, New Zealand, and Central America and then onto the Great Uighur Empire of 17,000 years ago as final proofs of Mu being the motherland of men.

I think the Uighur records will be all that is necessary to convince the most skeptical mind that it is clearly proven by symbols alone that Mu was the motherland of man; but, as an old Hindu saying goes:
“It is easier to snatch a pearl from the teeth of a crocodile, or to twist an angry, venomous serpent around one’s head like a garland of flowers, without incurring danger, than to make an ignorant or an obstinate person change his mind.”
Lost Continent of Mu Motherland of Men, page 106