stephan huller

Once again, there is a difference between remotely possible and likely. It is possible that I am the smartest man that has ever lived. It is highly unlikely (if not impossible). But - as in the case of this theory - if someone puts before my eyes clear evidence that I am wrong not just about one thing but many things and I ignore it, I am guilty of a more serious charge than delusion - dishonesty.

So it is when the apologists for this theory (including the author herself) continue to put forward this nonsense without acknowledging at least some of the short-comings that have been brought to light this does raise a problem with intellectual integrity.

As I have said before, I don't have a problem with someone making up nonsense. Everyone does this. I tell my son silly fables and erroneous explanations for things because I happen to think its funny. I do it with a wink and a smile. I don't think that anyone who doesn't believe in the Bible needs to take it seriously. So let the author make up whatever explanations she wants as long as its done with a wink and a smile.

But when these apologists start coming around pretending that she has received some 'perfect revelation' from heaven about this semi-Manichaean convergence theory where Jesus is Osiris is George Clooney is Big Bird and then the rest of us are supposed to take any of this seriously - that's where we have to draw the line.

Like I said, I am not in favor of tearing down people's delusions. I don't stand in front of churches and wish to dispel those delusions any more than these. But when someone gets in front of my eyes and tries to convince me that this stuff is 'the truth' - that's when it becomes too much to bear.

Dave31

Tanya, give this thread a going over to realize what Zwaarddijk said about Acharya making that claim about homo sapiens was not even her claim:

Turns out, it's just another sloppy error by Zwaarddijk. Acharya didn't say it Churchward did and she even mentioned him by name twice, plus, she also gave the source citation:

* Bold emphasis mine

That's just one example of many.

Zwaarddijk's dishonesty has been exposed in this thread

stephan huller

But this seems to be quibbling. I don't understand why someone has decided to take on (your) her theory so seriously. I can't account for the motivation of other people. But the theory is stupid. That doesn't mean that it isn't fun to think about while hitting a bong and listening to Tangerine Dream. Not everything has to be 'absolutely true' in order to be fun to think about. But what you cite here is a misdemeanor compared with the perpetuation of some of the felonies of Acharya.

I need someone to show me why Acharya and her brood aren't entitled to promote their nonsense at some new age site somewhere. It's no worse than some of the other stuff out there. It is bullshit though. Complete and utter bullshit. But no worse than some of the other bullshit out there.

aa5874

Your statements are extremely odd when your theories in your own book have been given a ONE STAR rating by multiple reviewers.

Come on, Stephan please cut the rhetoric.

stephan huller

Perfect example. Here's my public confession which should in my mind be followed by all who write speculative books. It was an idea which I found interesting and for which I was contracted and paid to write a book, a contract I did my best to fulfill. But it is not the truth, it is not absolutely true. So there, let's see if other people can admit as much about their pet theories.

spin

When you talk of a "tedious mass of detail" you need to be sure that you aren't involved in a glass house situation.

How else would you label a work whose many inappropriate sources include New Age awe-and-wonder schlock? The bibliography, as I've indicated in a brief list, is not a reflection of scholarship, but the contrary.

To answer the question: certainly not. Have you heard about the Hittite and the Luwian languages? They are earlier Indo-European languages than the Indo-Aryan group of languages. The Anatolian languages are separated geographically from Indo-Aryan by the Iranian group, yet Indo-Aryan and Iranian share isolates not found in any other language group. Not only did the Indo-European family not emerge in India, it belonged to a larger family along with the Iranian family before it can be related to the Anatolian languages.

You don't appear to be aware of the evidence, Robert Tulip. There is a lot of recent scholarly work on Indo-European, work that is inaccessible to people without sufficient acquaintance with linguistics because of its relative obscurity.

This just sounds like sound and fury on your part.

And someone reported that Nasca may have been a space landing strip. Popular sources are rarely useful. Infotainment creates an interest base, sells publications, enriches the pocket. What are people more interested in, uninteresting facts or stimulating speculation.

If you are interested in the relations between peoples around the world, a rather productive field of research is historical genetics (or, less clearly, genetic history), the field that gave us Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam. The approach has strange similarities with diachronic linguistics in its use of the structural approach known as cladistics. Markers that all share reflect the oldest traits in the sample, while usually the fewest sharers represent newest traits. There was an ancestor to Indigenous Australians who lived in north eastern Africa approximately 60,000 years ago, extremely close in time to when the first people arrived in Australia. People had spread through that continent and had left traces at Lake Mungo that are 40,000 years old. Historical genetics works well with palaeoanthropology. (You can tell what I've been reading recently.)

aa5874

What!!! You were contracted to write what you know is not the truth and you did your best to fulfill the contract!!!

This is most disturbing. How long have you been doing that??

spin

I'm sorry, this last claim is not a good reflection of your analytical capabilities. All that can be seen in the thread after the last post by Seirios are know-nothing reactions full of ignorant bile. I can understand that dealing with people as vacuous as ftl22 whose evidential content is zero can lead one to levels of exasperation, but your inability to sift through rhetoric to find content is what I get from your last sentence above.

lpetrich

It's James Churchward who proposed Mu, an Atlantis-like former continent in the Pacific Ocean, complete with human inhabitants. Like Atlantis, it sank, and he claimed that that continent's mountain peaks survive as Pacific islands.

Needless to say, that "geology" is a big load of kûkae pua'a (Hawaiian for pigshit).


I thought of going into detail about how one discovers sound correspondences, but Comparative method gives a good introduction.

Abraham - "high father of many" in Hebrew -- ab "father" + ram "high" + hamon "many, multitude"

Sarai - "my princess" or "my lady" in Hebrew -- sara "princess" + -i "my"

Sarasvati - from the Sarasvati River, a river mentioned in the Vedas. It's not clear which present-day river was the Sarasvati River; there could have been more than one. Its name likely meant something like "marshy" or "with lots of pools".

spin

Just coming back to this link, I really am shocked that anyone would try to present the conflict there as worthy of reading. The last comment, regarding Zwaarddijk, was "It just gives readers another example of what a mentally deranged psychopath you really are. Your comments here and elsewhere across the net are just way, WAY over the top with utter dishonesty and insanity." The poster is a moderator.