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 are closed.