Fun With Debunkers
By Goro Adachi
As anticipated, certain
'debunkers' at the notoriously CSICOP-driven
Maat message board (of the In the Hall of Maat
website) were quick to take aim at the Time River Theory (TRT) as
soon as The
Nile Decoded - an introductory web presentation - was made
available on my website. The quick response, I am
quite certain, was largely due to the fact that the TRT involves and
Bauval's Orion Correlation Theory, which happens to be at the top of
those serial debunkers' 'hit list'. (The conservative academic types
hate the OCT, largely because Bauval is an independent
researcher whose popular theory, in their minds, has overshadowed
their ideas and existence).
While there were numerous
messages posted there expressing their predictable 'skepticism', only one
poster attempted to actually discuss and attack specific points
(well, kind of). To illustrate the 'Nile
Denial' in action, and just for fun/amusement, I wanted to
do a quick analysis of the debunking attempt here.
The message we are going to
dissect below was posted by one 'Anthony', who, by the way, has already
compared me to the Nazis and told me via email: 'you make me sick'. (Hehehe...) Okay, so, let's
see what he wrote. His comments are in in gray (slightly cleaned up)
and mine are in black:
Date: Aug-18-03 10:55
Okay... I took a deep breath and dove into the icy cold waters of
Let's start with his core thesis... the Nile.
says 'core thesis' here but what he lists below are actually what The
Nile Decoded presented as 'initial hints'. That's a big
The Nile is distinctively
vertical (longitudinal), and it is the only notable river on this
planet to flow directly northward.
The Nile begins at the equator and disintegrates precisely at 30°N
latitude, marked by Egypt’s capital Cairo and Giza, the home of
the great pyramids and the Sphinx.
The generally straight Nile makes a dramatic turn southward near
the halfway point. The northern peak of this remarkable bend –
sometimes referred to as the ‘Great Bend’ – pinpoints
The significance of #3 comes from the fact that 19.5° is
considered a ‘tetrahedral constant’, deriving from the
geometric configuration of a circumscribed tetrahedron shown
(snip blah blah blah)
Okay...that's enough to start.
Remember... his central claim is: "that our planet’s
major rivers have been intelligently designed."
The fact that the longitude pinpointed by the same Bend’s peak
is 33.0°E intensifies our curiosity as ‘33’ too happens to be
a key number detected by Hoagland’s team (The Enterprise
using a 'Straw Man' tactic here (a fallacy). He is trying to make
the 'initial hints' look like the TRT's central findings. These are
just initial clues, and my conclusion - that the Nile is an intelligently designed
river - does not depend on them.
Well.... it's a damned good thing that our ancient benefactors ALSO
happened to use a 360o circle measuring from the equator
like we do, and also just HAPPENED to start the measurement of
latitudinal lines in the completely random location of Greenwich,
England... otherwise all of this would just be complete and utter
Which, of course, it is.
First of all, Anthony is
confusing 'latitude' with 'longitude' here (the latter is the
meridional/vertical grid lines). Second of all, he is still falsely treating
'hints' as essential pieces of evidence upon which the entire theory
relies. Part of what Anthony is saying above pertains to my
discussion on the numerical significance of longitude 33°E that
runs through the apex of the Nile Great Bend. What I wrote was that
the combination of the numbers 19.5 and 33 - the Bend's peak is at
19.5°N 33°E - was very interesting because other researchers had
considered these very two numbers significant as well.
I am of course aware that,
unlike latitude, the longitude system is quite arbitrary in that the
Prime Meridian at Greenwich is a man-made 'longitude zero'. But is
it enough to entirely deny the possibility that the numerical
'coincidence' is meaningful? The answer is no - because the idea
that the selection of Greenwich was 'completely random' actually
involves a lot of assumptions. For example, it could be that
there was a covert group, versed in esoteric matters, who subtly
guided the decisions of the committee set up to select the Prime
Meridian. Possibilities like this are not ready to be ruled
out. And so it would not be
necessarily factual to claim that the longitude system is
But the biggest point I have
to make here is this: the numerical 'coincidence' (involving '33')
is, again, just a HINT. In other words, the validity of the TRT's
core claim does
not depend on it!
As for the applicability of
system... well, this point was challenged even inside the Maat forum.
Here is a an example:
Date: Aug-19-03 05:39
I'm not getting into the issue of whether this Nile theory is
correct or not I just want to say that the 30 degrees angle has
significant properties which are independent of the angle measure
(degrees, rads, grads or any other measure). This corresponds to the
half-angle of an isosceles triangle.
myself addressed this issue in the endnote (#4) section of The Nile
Decoded, which said:
Since the practice of
dividing up the circle into 360 degrees was already in use at the
time of the Sumerians (the first known high civilization in
history), comparing latitudinal measurements, such as 30°, to
other measurements such as 30 years and 30 days should not be any
more arbitrary than comparing 30 years to 30 days. Incidentally,
30 days is the length of the ‘reign of Saturn’ (Robert Graves,
The White Goddess,
us move on.
However, he didn't stop there, so neither
Throughout history much has
been said about ancient monuments - such as those at Giza (the
pyramids and Sphinx) - bearing very advanced knowledge surpassing
all that came afterward.
I guess we'll just forget about those 40-ton blocks of granite
raised 20 meters straight up to make the roof of Karnak Temple...or
the 300-ton stone in Menkaure's pyramid... or that teeny statue of
Ramesses II in Thebes...
Yup... piling up a couple million stones FAR surpasses those
Anthony is simply misinterpreting what I wrote. I wasn't at all
asserting that those monuments bear 'knowledge surpassing all
that came afterward'. No, I was simply saying that that's what many
people had thought! I was simply relaying an opinion there.
It is of course a controversial
view that many find uncomfortable.
Yes, especially those
espousing that absurd view, when they get confronted with the
evidence. When you show them the facts, they start to squirm
noticeably, and begin to insult people and threaten lawsuits. Very
But it pales in comparison to
the much crazier possibility emerging here... that the world’s
longest river, clearly visible from space, may be a gigantic
Okay... HE used the word
"crazy", not I. Can I appear to be polite and "a good
sport" if I choose to agree with him on this point?
hope this showed Anthony that I do have a skeptical side and am very
much aware how 'crazy' the theory sounds. The difference is, I don't
let that kind of sentiment stop me from pursuing the truth, purely
based on objective reasoning and observations (including reading
patterns). Adjectives, like 'crazy' and 'extraordinary', are a
non-factor in real science.
Not only does Plutarch reveal
here that Cronus/time arises in the south and ends in the north
just like the Nile, he even goes on to draw a direct parallel
between Cronus/time and the Nile! This is almost an open and
direct acknowledgement that the Nile may indeed represent the flow
Yes, well... when you start with
the conclusion, it's easy to cherry-pick your evidence. Remember,
people are really bananas because they both have skins.
is just reciting his standard line that is simply not applicable
here. It's laughable!
funny because he is attacking portions of The Nile Decoded
that are meant to lay the foundation for the hypothesis of
the Nile potentially being a literal 'river of time'. The purpose of
these portions is to show how the hypothesis naturally arises from
the many clues and how it is not something I had subjectively
decided was the truth. So describing these parts as 'starting with
the conclusion' is just so... well, 'off'. It doesn't make any
sense. I guess Anthony was a little startled by the 'Plutarch' clue,
which is actually quite striking.
To all intents and purposes,
Osiris is the Egyptian version of Cronus-Saturn, the god of time.
Really? I've not seen that... can
anyone please point me to a real reference that says that? Anywhere?
I got the whole resurrectioin/rebirth thing down pretty well... and
his dominance.... but this guy seems to think that Osiris was there
from the beginning as a major player in the Egyptian Ennead of Gods.
actually no secret that both Osiris and Saturn are closely
associated with death, time, and 'resurrection'. That's undeniable.
Is Anthony disputing this? Perhaps he needs to study mythology a
little more. (Just to be sure, I'm not saying that Osiris and Saturn are
'identical'; but it is clear that there are large overlapping
Sorry, Charlie. He's a late-comer to the game. You're gonna have to
find yourself another god to play patsy for your pseudoscience.
For this, we turn to the Giza
monuments, evidently an integral part of the Nile scheme (marking
the river’s northern edge). Giza, through its astronomical
alignments, manages to give us just what we need to turn the
ancient river into a tangible map of time.
As died the OCT, so to die all
ideas based on it. This entire section is a non-starter.
The key here is Robert Bauval’s popular ‘Orion Correlation
Theory’ (or more broadly the ‘Star Correlation Theory’)
which traces the Giza layout back to the stars.
In Anthony's mind, Bauval's
Orion Correlation Theory has bee, wholly debunked, of course. I
addressed this issue in The Nile Denial:
[...] The Orion
Correlation Theory, a major part of the Time River design, is still
a controversial theory. This means that the Time River theory is
built on a very shaky foundation.
[...] It is true that some academics are not fond of [the Orion
Correlation Theory]. But as mentioned in Chapter 3 [of the book The
Time Rivers], those critics’ arguments are quite lame. In
almost every case, they are infected with the fallacy of
‘composition’ (where some little inconsistency is somehow
treated as a proof of the illegitimacy of the whole
theory). And it is also important to point out that the Time River
Theory does not depend on the validity of the Orion Correlation
Theory. The rivers’ overlay/transposition schemes alone are solid
enough to make the theory compelling.
In terms of the Nile timeline,
however, it is indeed the OCT that helps us unlock the 'code'. At
least one of the two 'anchor dates', 10,600 BC, does derive from the
OCT, although it's not required. Orion is Osiris/time. And the
constellation's southern culmination (or the lowest meridian
transit), due south and very close to the horizon (thus guiding our
attention to the Nile's source Lake Victoria lying due south),
pinpoints 10,600 BC. (Here is a pertinent illustration from The
In other words, the
positioning of Orion alone - without involving the Giza monuments -
is quite enough to arrive eventually at the anchor date that
would be assigned to the equator at Lake Victoria.
That said, I must state here
that the Orion
Correlation Theory is very much alive, and there is no need to take
it out of the equation. In fact, I will soon write a little article
that will support this position.
However... to point out another glaring problem in his establishment
of chronological "anchor points"...
We can refine the date by
taking a closer look at Point #1, i.e. Orion’s lowest transit
point (‘southern culmination’). It occurred more exactly c.
10,600 BC. This, then, is our first ‘anchor date’.
Ummm.... I wonder where he got
that date? Hasn't Tony Fairall already demolished the 10,500 (or
there-abouts) timeframe? If we adjust the date, in fact... then
doesn't the rest of this idea need to be adjusted? And if so, then
don't the rest of his "proofs" crumble if we simply stick
to exactly the same calculational methodology he has employed to
pseudoscientifically reach his preconceived conclusion?
just explained, the 10,600 BC date is based on the lowest transit of
Orion at the meridian (the lowest point in its long precessional
cycle). Therefore that it's a significant date associated with Orion
is a fact.
said, let me address the argument of the debunkers who claim the c.
10,500 BC date is not pinpointed by the Giza monuments because the
angles made by the pyramids and Orion's belt stars do not exactly
match at that date. It is actually true that the angles don't match
precisely, but it is certainly close enough to make the point -
all the other accompanying alignments/positions. In The Nile Decode
I wrote: [Orion is] 'closely mimicking the configuration of
the Giza pyramids'. So I was quite careful and accurate in how I
presented the correlation.
Why weren't the pyramids
designed to align with the 10,600-BC Orion more precisely? Well, it
turns out that the little misalignment itself is an encoded clue
that will lead to further discoveries. This will be discussed in my
article I plan to write soon.
Same problem as a certain numerologist I recall... when you find out
the numbers with which you begin your calculations are incorrect, it
should serve as PROOF that your conclusion is absolutely wrong. How
much you wanna bet he changes the way he randomly calculates things
when he discovers this mistake?
is just mistakenly assuming that my numbers/dates are wrong. They
are still very much valid.
The year 4004 BC is the
standard Christian date for Adam, the first man, based on the
scriptural calculation done by Archbishop James Ussher in the
Oh, now THERE'S a reliable source
to be quoting for world chronology....
Well, it's true that this is
not really solid supportive evidence. I really didn't have to
mention it. But I did anyway as it's at least an amusing
coincidence that may yield further clues, etc. The bottom
line is, I can take this part out and the theory will not suffer at
Okay.... I'm reaching that point where I can't continue...
because this is exactly where the most compelling part of the Time
River Theory begins! (Page 3 of The Nile Decoded.) Instead of
facing it, Anthony decides to run away! Oh my... :)
If anybody else feels the need or desire for self-abuse and wishes
to pick up from here, they can do so. I just hope that what I've
provided is enough to dissuade any sentient being from giving this
guy ANY benefit of ANY doubt. He's proven one thing, and one thing
only... he has absolutely no intellectual integrity when it comes to
historical research, and ANY work he puts forth needs to be
scrutinized far more closely than a known reliable source.
It's like loaning money to somebody with bad credit and a criminal
record... it's just not wise to trust 'em.
Ah yes, this pathetic concluding statement makes me look like a prophet, as I
predicted just such a fallacious argument! Here is what I wrote in
the Nile Denial appendix (discussing an anticipated reaction
from a hypothetical 'skeptic' and my pre-emptive response):
“The organization CSICOP believes that the Time River Theory is
one big joke, and it believes that any scholars who take the
theory seriously should be investigated for their intellectual
statement is essentially a threat
and has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the Time River
Theory. Many academics often succumb to this type of peer
pressure, and their intellectual integrity does go out the window.
So in any case, I've now
responded to each and every point made by Anthony, and I think it
should be very clear to the reader at this point that Anthony
utterly failed to 'debunk' the Time River Theory. He didn't even
So, until next time... Maybe a
little more competent critic will come along...
Email Goro: firstname.lastname@example.org
| Time Rivers
| Book |
Nile Decoded | Etemenanki