Thursday, 30 July 2009

RE: 'Critique of Acharya's Sun Thesis' Part II

It’s been a while since I have posted a video on YouTube. I apologize, for I have been travelling, and researching slightly digressional materials that wouldn’t hold much of a place on my channel. However, I thought I’d announce my return with another refutation of Keithtruth’s ‘critique of Acharya’s sun thesis’. I am well aware that Keith has produced a refutation of my previous part; however I shan’t dwell on such things until the series is completed. If I were to go back and forth with Keith on one section, I doubt any progress would be made.

As I’m sure my audience is aware, Keith has recently requested donations in an attempt to create a new film. I have no problem with someone acquiring financial support for something that is to be beneficial to others. The problem arises when one is asking for financial support to, in essence, amplify the feelings of denial in a chosen religious sect, in order to create a false sense of comfort, security, and purpose. I bid all to investigate Keith’s claims intrinsically, as I would be very apprehensive in donating to someone who has, undoubtedly, shown themselves to be a pathological liar, as will be demonstrated further in this video.

Before we get started, I ask all to assume that Keith is merely ignorant on the subject, as opposed to a deceiver; from there you can ascertain your own conclusions. Please prevent the problem of bias from clouding your vision.

Keith remarks in his article:

‘In Zeitgeist's transcript the earliest sources they cite, in support of this astrological death/resurrection of the sun claim, are Gerald Massey (1828-1907), James Frazer (1854-1941), James Bonwick (1817-1906), and Manly P. Hall’

He continues:

‘Gerald Massey was an Egypotoligist who didn't cite his sources regarding these issues properly. I read the citation and was not impressed. To use him as an "early" source for objective information is not conducive to the viewer.’

Unfortunately, Keith appears to be ignorant of the works of Massey. Massey has been demonstrated to have cited his sources correctly, using primary source data such as the Book of the Dead (which was then called the Ritual) and the Pyramid Texts. He is also known to have studied the works of the most prominent Egyptologists of his day, such as Wallis Budge, Champollion, Sir Renouf among others. His work was also peer reviewed by those of extreme competence, as he relates in his book ‘Natural Genesis’:

‘The German Egyptologist, Herr Pietschmann…reviewed the "Book of the Beginnings"... The writer has taken the precaution all through of getting his fundamental facts in Egyptology verified by one of the foremost of living authorities, Dr. Samuel Birch, to whom he returns his heartiest acknowledgements’(1)

Dr. Samuel Birch was more than impressive in this field of his day, an archaeologist, Egyptologist and keeper of the department of Oriental antiquities at the British Museum, it was he who compiled the first alphabetically ordered Hieroglyphic dictionary.

As well as pulling information from Egyptian texts (which he was able to read competently) he also found much of importance in the writings of early church fathers, Jewish and Gnostic writers as well as the Hindu Puranas among others. Indeed, some have criticized Massey’s ability to translate the Egyptian texts accurately, however those who make such contentions are wholly-ignorant of his works. Massey relates in stating:

‘…although I am able to read the hieroglyphics, nothing offered to you is based on my translation. I work too warily for that! The transcription and literal renderings of the hieroglyphic texts herein employed are by scholars of indisputable authority. There is no loophole of escape that way.’(2)

Keith continues in relating Massey to Blavatsky, some have even inferred that he was a Theosophist himself. Such inferences are fanciful, and slightly humorous indeed whence we read Massey stating:

‘I am opposed to all man-made mystery, and all kinds of false belief’(3)

And for those that need more proof of this assertion, Massey stated explicitly:

"I cannot join in the new masquerade and simulation of ancient mysteries manufactured in our time by Theosophists, Hermeneutists, pseudo-Esoterics, and Occultists of various orders, howsoever profound their pretensions. The very essence of all such mysteries as are got up from the refuse leavings of the past is pretence, imposition, and imposture. The only interest I take in the ancient mysteries is in ascertaining how they originated, in verifying their alleged phenomena, in knowing what they meant, on purpose to publish the knowledge as soon and as widely as possible."(4)

There we have it. Massey was certainly not a Theosophist. In fact, it was history that moulded such groups with these contentions, not such groups that moulded history. Although some Theosophist literature is speculative, and… somewhat bizarre at best, the information relayed regarding astrotheology is indeed, verifiable.

Keith continues in stating that the sun, in reality, does not halt movement for three days, and the whole prospect of this is theosophistic at heart. He uses Dr. Howard L. Cohen, Professor in the Department of Astronomy at the University of Florida to verify this contention. Dr. Cohen states:

‘…technically speaking, the solstice does not always occur on Dec. 21 (on the Gregorian Civil Calendar). For example, it often occurs on Dec. 22. Also, technically the Sun does not stop moving southerly for three day but reaches a southernmost position and immediately begins its journey north. However, I suppose it may appear to stop for several days if accurate measurements are not made (but why three?)’

Unfortunately, Dr. Cohen is ignorant when it comes to the solar mythos of various ancient religious sects, who understood the sun to die for three days at the solstice, only to be born again – or simply… born. This is verifiable, however, and is not simply a ‘made up theory to support a theosophist driven agenda’. In an article entitled ‘Forget Stonehenge: 5 questions put science back in summer solstice’ on ‘’, Mary Spiro states:
‘Does the sun “rest” for three days during the solstice? Astronomers and mystics have been asking this question since ancient times. If you observe the sun near the solstices, it certainly appears to set in the same spot every day. This article (which I will place a link to in the footnotes, and sidebar) by Asger Mollerup describes the use of sundials and specifically the gnomon (the part that stands up) to track the sun during a solstice, as well as during other astronomical events. Mollerup has posted some fascinating photos that show the summer sun setting on the horizon and appearing to rest in the exact location for three days straight. He also has photos and descriptions of astroarchaelogical sites throughout Southeast Asia (Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia); just in case you thought the Mayans and the Druids had the market cornered on sun worship.’(5)

Please bare in mind, that the sun may not necessarily ‘rest’ for three days, however, it certainly appears to do so, as attested to by Prond Robertson of the Meterologisk institute of Northern Norway;

‘According to my tables for this year (2004) at the 67 degrees latitude, the sun is not visible for three days from Dec 21st to Dec 25th…’(6)

Thus the sun is attested to ‘rest’ for three days at the Summer and Winter solstices.

Keith then attempts to refute the argument that the word Christ comes from the Egyptian word KRST. Unfortunately, Keith fails to understand the argument, and unfortunately, sets up a very easy straw man to knock down. I shall create a video on the Christ-KRST connection in the near future.

There is much more to be covered here, and no doubt Keith will sneer and jeer at the pieces I have missed out. I shall be assessing them shortly. However, I feel no need to rush such things, as soon as I have this series completed, I shall rebuke Keith’s counter arguments, which are indeed, extremely simplistic to do.

(1) Massey, NG, pviii
(2) Massey, GML, p1
(3) Massey, GML, p248
(4) vide Massey's response to the Blavatsky letter, Agnostic Journal, 1891
(5) (
(6) Pharmacratic Inquisition, 19:06