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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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):
“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.”
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
“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.”
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.
“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
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
“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.”
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
Ad Hominem (Personal Attack)
“Since Goro Adachi is not a member of academia, there is no reason to
take his ideas seriously.”
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
“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
one time, almost everyone would have told you that the earth was the
center of the universe. Enough said.
“The Time River Theory is clearly fallacious because it claims that
the Nile River carries an intelligent message, which it does not.”
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
“The existence of the Time River system will upset many nice religious
people. So, please, I beg everyone to reject the theory!”
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
“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
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.
“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.”
profiling is based on the same thinking process. Even if there are
patterns and trends, with room for exceptions, individual cases must be
The following are ‘preemptive’ responses to
anticipated objections to the Time River Theory:
Since we have no physical or historical evidence suggesting that any of
our rivers are artificial, the theory must be considered a baseless
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
A scientific theory must be falsifiable.
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.
tuned for more objections and responses.