| Time Rivers | Book | The Nile Decoded | Etemenanki

The Nile Denial

A Guide to Objective Evaluation

by Goro Adachi

Copyright © 2003 Goro Adachi
All rights reserved.

August 9, 2003

Regardless of merit, a radical new theory that wildly contradicts the mainstream model of reality will not be welcomed by academics. Depending on the theory’s strength and clarity, however, the general public may respond positively. And if the buzz becomes loud enough, even the mainstream media may decide to pay attention.

This is when certain elements of academia become alarmed. They feel their territory has been infringed upon – perceiving the theory as some alien virus contaminating the holy ground of ‘science’. Instinctively, they will attack the ‘virus’ until it is dead.

One way or another, therefore, most ‘heretical’ theories are forced to fade into oblivion. Often this fate is justifiable, but certainly not always. The process is obviously prone to throwing out the baby with the bath water – as there are always exceptions.

The Time River Theory, I contend, is the ‘baby’ that should not be automatically thrown out. A brief guide to logical thinking is provided below to help implement a fair evaluation process that will hopefully bear this out.

Intellectual Vaccination

One effective way to ‘vaccinate’ the mind against flawed reasoning/criticism is to cite examples. Another is to provide preemptive answers to anticipated questions and objections.

So let us first take a look at what are known as ‘informal fallacies’, which are various types of illogical arguments (in this case against the Time River Theory):

Straw Man 

Example: “The idea that our ancestors dug out the paths of the major rivers with shovels, or that little green men from Orion came here to construct the rivers is extremely implausible.” 

This statement is distorting what the Time River Theory claims. The theory does not argue that ancient people created the rivers with primitive tools, nor does it argue that space aliens produced the Time Rivers. (These are mere speculative possibilities). A valid argument has to argue against the true form of the theory, not a conveniently corrupted form.

Appeal of Force 

Example: “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 integrity.”

This 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.

Appeal of Authority 

Example: “The whole Time River thing is surely utter nonsense because according to Dr. [X], a respected expert on geology, it is absolutely laughable to think that the Nile, the Tigris-Euphrates, etc. have been intelligently designed to transmit some strange information across time.” 

Citing expert opinions does not translate to a valid argument, as being an expert does not make one infallible. Since the Time River Theory covers a lot of ground, one should be particularly careful about ‘expert opinions’.

False Alternative 

Example: “Because it is clear that the ancients did not have the technological capability to construct major river systems, the Time Rivers simply cannot be real.”

This is a flawed argument because it fails to take into account other possibilities. For example, perhaps it was a covert group of highly advanced beings from elsewhere (spatial and/or temporal) that created the Time River system, leaving behind no clear evidence of their existence. Or perhaps it was some unknown non-physical ‘force’ that gave rise to the Time Rivers – not unlike the ‘force’ of evolution that has managed to produce incredibly complex life forms on this planet.

Ad Hominem (Personal Attack)

Example: “Since Goro Adachi is not a member of academia, there is no reason to take his ideas seriously.”

My credentials (or character) have nothing to do with the validity of the Time River Theory itself. For example, if it were a convicted murderer who came up with the theory of Relativity, would this alone cause the theory to become invalid? No. It would still be just as valid.

Appeal to the Masses 

Example: “Everyone I have talked to has told me that the Time River Theory is just a product of an overactive imagination, so obviously it must be just that.”

At one time, almost everyone would have told you that the earth was the center of the universe. Enough said.

Begging the Question

Example: “The Time River Theory is clearly fallacious because it claims that the Nile River carries an intelligent message, which it does not.”

This is a circular argument because the premise and the conclusion are stating essentially the same thing. This is like saying: ‘Einstein must have been insane, because it is clear that he was crazy’.

Appeal to Pity 

Example: “The existence of the Time River system will upset many nice religious people. So, please, I beg everyone to reject the theory!”

Truth does not care whether it hurts anyone or anything. A valid idea does not stop being valid just because it is considered undesirable on an emotional level.


Example: “In his book, Goro Adachi gets the date for [event X] wrong and he also confuses [event Y] with [event Z]. If he is inaccurate about these things, we can safely assume that the entire content of his book is pure rubbish.” 

If this argument were valid, it would also be valid to state that the United States is a stupid nation because there are some dumb Americans. 

Converse Accident 

Example: “Since many theories put forward by researchers in the ‘alternative history’ field have already been debunked, the Time River Theory must be flawed as well.”

Racial profiling is based on the same thinking process. Even if there are patterns and trends, with room for exceptions, individual cases must be judged separately.

Preemptive Responses

 The following are ‘preemptive’ responses to anticipated objections to the Time River Theory:

Criticism: Since we have no physical or historical evidence suggesting that any of our rivers are artificial, the theory must be considered a baseless speculation.

Response: In terms of geology, it is true that the rivers in question are not considered anomalous (as far as I know). The Time River Theory, however, does not claim anything tangible regarding the process responsible for the rivers’ intricate designs. So the apparent naturalness of the rivers’ geology does not invalidate the theory.

How the rivers attained their seemingly intelligent arrangements is still an ‘X factor’ – a mystery. If the Time River Theory was weak, then this missing piece could cast more doubt on its validity. But because the theory is actually very strong without the missing piece, a more reasonable approach would be to put effort into figuring out what the mechanism ‘X’ may be, instead of lazily viewing it as evidence against the theory.

Criticism: The Time River theory necessitates the existence of an astoundingly advanced group of people in the distant past, and yet we have no evidence for that.

Response: This is not quite true. We have the Giza monuments from the dawn of history, for instance, which still boggle the mind of modern man. Indeed, even with today’s technology it would still be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to replicate them. And while the ancient Egyptian culture in general may not have been very advanced by today’s standard, we do detect a curious disconnect between the intellectual sophistication expressed by the Giza monuments and what we are taught about the ancient Egyptians. It is almost as if there was a small but truly advanced elite group that guided the building of the monuments from behind the scenes.

This is an important clue suggesting that our view of history may be quite superficial. And it would certainly be naïve for us to assume that the intelligence responsible for the Time River system would have left their cultural ‘footprints’ behind. If the intelligence was powerful and sophisticated enough to have produced the Time Rivers, then it surely must have been very much aware of the importance of leaving, or not leaving, evidence of its existence behind. Or, to put it another way, it is quite feasible that we are today seeing what the intelligence in question had intended us to see. Thus, absence of evidence certainly does not represent evidence of absence here. 

Criticism: Since rivers’ paths change with time, they cannot possibly carry coded messages for a long period. Consequently, whatever their layouts may indicate today must be of no significance.

Response: This is seemingly a good point. But it is presumptuous. In view of the level of intelligence required, it’s actually more reasonable to hypothesize that the creators of the Time Rivers were well aware of the inevitable future geological changes. The more coherent the encoded message is today, the more probable it is that the changing river courses do not represent corruption but pre-arranged evolution.

Criticism: The angle/latitude 19.5° is central to the Time River scheme, and yet its significance originally derives from the questionable geometric interpretation of the Cydonia structures on Mars. Similarly, 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.

Response: The significance of 19.5° does not rely on the Martian ‘monuments’. The angle is very much meaningful in terms of pure geometry, as it’s considered a ‘tetrahedral constant’ (t). So, regardless of the legitimacy of the Cydonia research, the importance of 19.5° is a geometric fact.

As for the Orion Correlation Theory (developed by Robert Bauval), it is true that some academics are not fond of it. 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.

Criticism: A scientific theory must be falsifiable.

Response: Falsifiability – the capability to be falsified – is a key scientific principle and it is clearly met by the Time River theory. Although the theory has many components with varying levels of certainty, what is at the core are numerically and geometrically precise findings that are tangible and falsifiable.

Stay tuned for more objections and responses.

[Back to Time Rivers Main Page]

Copyright © 2003 Goro Adachi
All rights reserved.
This material may not be reproduced
without the permission of the author.

Welcome | Time Rivers | Book | The Nile Decoded | Etemenanki