What is the Universe? Our Genetic Structure. My theory of the universe derives from the observation that every human being is a PART of the universe. We are neither "outside" looking "in" nor "inside" looking "out". We are inside looking inside. Our structure - whatever it is - must be the same as the rest of the universe

Author:Nikoshicage Dugal
Country:Solomon Islands
Language:English (Spanish)
Published (Last):5 October 2012
PDF File Size:13.73 Mb
ePub File Size:16.78 Mb
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

By Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews. A week ago, I received an email from somebody known as Nazani who had written a review on Amazon.

Interestingly, the author reviews the book himself and gives it a five-star rating. This is a worrying development. Of course, people can post negative reviews. You sometimes allegedly review 2 or 3 books per day, obviously never reading any of them.

The question is — for what amount of money should you be sued for these offensive materials and what can you afford? A good jury might take you for every penny you have. Here is the reputation being libelled — it looks to us like a legal action against you will be a VERY expensive proposition for you. There is a lot more to the comment, but I have quoted only the threatening parts. Be sure to read his threatening reply to my review.

True enough, I only skimmed through this book, but why would I want to read the work of a guy who spends so much time bad-mouthing credentialed scientists? A scientist would not threaten people who merely quoted a few of his controversial ideas. His scholarship has been criticized by Eric C. Read his bio, his own academic background is in law, not linguistics or archaeology. Who is Andis Kaulins , apart from a lawyer who is ready to threaten somebody with legal action over a review of a book, something that strikes me as a bit of an over-reaction?

He is clearly a very intelligent and well educated man. But as Nazani points out, his intellectual milieu is the law, not archaeology. Does this evidence support the historical judgments that have been made by the mainstream? Now, these are approaches we see in the works of several Bad Archaeologists. This is the reverse of the way real archaeologists work: we try to deal with possible objections to our hypotheses, using evidence that at first sight appears to contradict our ideas and showing why it does not.

Kaulins has a tendency to prejudge matters. Where there is no historical or archaeological evidence for the existence of a biblical character, he simply identifies them with somebody else. No trace of Moses in the archaeological record?

Where the chronology worked out by ancient historians and archaeologists appears to contradict the fables of the Bible, then a new chronology must be constructed around the biblical system. Turning to the specific book that Nazani criticised, the basic thesis is outlined on Megaliths. According to the Amazon.

Looking through the book, we can see that he accepts untenable ideas about the past, such as the existence of ley lines , a fantasy dreamed up in the s by Alfred Watkins. He finds cup-and-ring marks on stones that depict constellations in the southern hemisphere such as Musca that were not defined until the sixteenth century: remember that constellations have no objective reality in the sky, that they are arbitrary groupings of unrelated stars and that different cultures make different groupings.

His mangling of linguistics allows him to state that the name of Merlin — who is identified as a genius behind megalithic carvings that no-one else has yet recognised!

There is little point in trying to do a detailed, point-by-point rebuttal. The evidence simply does not stack up. While Andis Kaulins is evidently an accomplished lawyer and translator, I find nothing in his excursions into archaeology, ancient history and biblical exegesis that is really worth spending time on. Of course, this post is not in any sense libellous. A simple click on the About Bad Archaeology tab will tell the reader a little bit more about the writer.

Remember, constellations have no real existence and are defined by human convention; they vary from culture to cultura and Musca is a modern European invention. End of story! The criticism that I am using nothing more than a folk etymology for the origin of the name Merlin is backed up by a statement in Wikipedia for which there is no citation. No alternative is given in Wikipedia, but the statement seems to come from an entry in Celtnet , which seeks to explain how the name of a poet at seems originally to have been Latinised as Lailoken, representing a Welsh Llallawg, was transformed into Myrddin.

I leave it to others better qualified in Egyptology to point out that these ideas are just plain wrong. I was born and brought up in Letchworth Garden City, so I have a life-long connection with the area.

View all posts by Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews. The bullies are not, as you have alleged, those who post under their true identities to the Internet and who then try to defend their reputations against unseen foes. I do not discuss ley lines at all in my book. My book discusses megalithic sites and alleges that many of these are land survey markers sited by ancient astronomy. That hypothesis is actually quite simple. In reply, the truth is: You are imputing that I do not know the history of Musca, which is unfortunate, given what I have actually written in my book.

As I wrote at page 88 of my book, Stars Stones and Scholars:. Hinckley writes:. We have no reason to conclude that the ancient tales of Southern constellations are necessarily wrong.

Hence, the megalith makers as seafarers may very well have known such constellations — or even created them. Hence, at p. The stars at the position of the Southern Musca — there also used to be a Northern Musca — have a definite shape which lent itself to being seen as a bee or a fly in the modern era of navigation.

I even suggested it might be a chicken at Malta, full well realizing that these stars — which also existed prior to the modern era — may have had another identity to stellar observers millennia ago. Conclusion: your second criticism of my book is simply false on the facts. I am aware of the history of the stellar constellations — and I know them far better than most, thank you.

Conclusion: your third and last criticism of my book is simply false on the facts. Obviously, the etymological origin of the name for Merlin will always remain speculative since there is no agreement even about his actual identity, or his actual time of existence, much less about the origin of his name.

It may be — as you write — that the U of Chicago now has people who have criticized some of my work, but when I applied to law school there years ago, that university offered me a full scholarship — tuition plus room and board, which is rather rare. I do not think they were wrong…. Chicago is a great university — not everyone there is going to agree with me, nor should they. That is what academic dialogue is all about. Like Like. Wonderful post! The thing that I find a unifying concept behind a lot of crank theorists is their insistence that everything you know about history is wrong.

Though my concentration is in the hard sciences and not archeology, I always thought that there was something screwy about the pseudohistorians trying to create a new chronology, based on grounds of how the process of reason and science work: the burden of proof is on the person trying to prove everything we know is wrong. Non-sequitur much? So because they offered you money to go there for an education in law they much think you are a good archaeologist and thus you are correct?

There is none. If you want to be taken seriously as a scholar, you need to be able to evaluate sources. Wikipedia is fine as a general reference, but if you need to prove a point or need specific facts, it is unacceptable as a source. Try publishing a paper to a peer-reviewed journal with Wikipedia as a source and see what happens.

Uh…yeah, the University of Chicago respected your work in law…not archaeology — the fact that you were offered a full scholarship in law in now way indicates your abilities in archaeology…which are clearly lacking.

Ah… good memories. Perhaps it is unfair. They are such a mix of different counter-cultural, occult and UFO ideas that they are just about impossible to read. Its normal when people like him, who are true geniuses , come along every so often and shake things up. The average academic who just sits on their ass and teach classes and collect their paycheck, never doing anything amazing.

So it makes them feel stupid and they have to attack him. They are afraid their books will be obsolete and ignored so they lash out in envy and jealousy. Rohl deserves your respect.

I know all about his work and him he has never done anything to cut corners or be unethical in any way. You are commenting using your WordPress.

You are commenting using your Google account. You are commenting using your Twitter account. You are commenting using your Facebook account. Notify me of new comments via email. Notify me of new posts via email. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Skip to content. Like this: Like Loading Published by Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews. Leave a Reply Cancel reply Enter your comment here Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:. Email required Address never made public. Name required. Post to Cancel. Post was not sent - check your email addresses!


When pseudoscientists turn nasty

About Andis Kaulins. Subscribe to: Posts Atom. Most Popular Posts of All Time. Die Himmelsscheibe von Nebra. This is the German version - with some minor changes - of my article on the Nebra Sky Disk which first appeared in Efodon-Synesis.


By Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews. A week ago, I received an email from somebody known as Nazani who had written a review on Amazon. Interestingly, the author reviews the book himself and gives it a five-star rating. This is a worrying development.

Related Articles