Monday, June 5, 2017

Back to Malay One Last Time – Part II

-->Continujing from the previous post, regarding the fallacy of the Malay Theory of where Lehi landed.    2. All arrows you have drawn on the map are accurate for half of the year. Of course, it is a six month cycle—they are northeast winds (blow out of the northeast toward the southwest) for six months, and “southwest” winds (blow out of the southwest toward the northeast) for the other six months (this is not east to west)

These are just two of the many such maps with arrows showing the monsoon winds in the Indian Ocean and mainland. Both show the reversal from winter to summer monsoons, or northeast to southwest monsoons, and well labeled. None show only one direction

The map this reader submitted from the website he recommended, showing the same southwest summer monsoon wind direction as the map we have made and use, as shown above in the first two images. In all cases, the Summerr Monsoon blows out of the southwrest across the Indian Ocean and toward the northeast and onto the mainland
The following is taken from Yachtico (boat rental and yacht charter in Malay), it states: Sailing around Malaysia-enjoy boating in Malaysian Waters: Malaysia is a tropical destination. The climate is characterized by the monsoon and is hot and humid all year round. Temperatures are between 31 and 33 °C during the day, and between 24 and 25 °C at night…In the waters around Langkawi it is best to sail in-between November and April as this is a sunny and dry period, and the wind blows at 2 to 5 Bft from the northeast. From May to October it blows a little stronger due to the Southwest wind. Most rain falls between April and November, but compared to the east coast of Malaysia there is not a classic rainy season...The wind is up to 5 Bft from the southeast and it is often necessary to sail close to the wind when it blows parallel to the coastline. This should be considered when planning a cruise.” Note they do not list an east to west or west to east direction of wind at any time during the year.
    3. Tim Severin did it so we know it is possible. Tim Severin was under sail as a very accomplished seaman with a lot of experience, money behind him, and plenty of support systems, knowledge, vessels, etc. On the other hand…

Thor Heyerdahl in his raft, Kon-Tiki, which moved mostly by sea current, but also sail. Of course, winds drive currents so the two are interconnected

Thor Heyerdahl accomplished a drift voyage in 1947 as an inexperienced individual with a six-man crew, sailed from Peru to the Polynesian islands in the Pacific. Tim Severin in the Brendan Voyage had a crew of 20. In fact, when we talk about “Tim Severin could do it so we know it is possible” let’s put this in perspective: Babe Ruth hit 714 homeruns with 10,623 plate appearances in 22 seasons, beginning at the age of 19—7 of those years or about 1/3 of his time was in the “dead ball” era when homeruns were far more scarce (in the dead ball era, “home run Baker” the home run king, hit his highest two years of 12 and 11 homeruns in a single season and 10 homeruns three times for 96 in a 13 year career of 6,667 plate appearances); Hank Aaron hit 755 home runs with 12,364 plate appearances in 23 seasons, all in the “live ball era;” Barry Bonds hit 762 home runs with 12,606 plate appearances in 22 seasons. Only six players in the more than 142 year history of the game have hit 600 homeruns or more in a career. Only three have hit over 700. Yes, they proved it could be done, but that is a huge difference from the compared to the 15,213 players who have played the game of major league baseball. Stated differently, you cannot compare Tim Severin and his experienced mariner crew with Lehi and his family.
    Tim Severin, it might be understood, retraced Marco Polo’s journey while an 21-year-old undergrad in college; followed the routes of travelers on the Mississippi while navigating the length of the river by canoe and launch; built a leather boat and retraced the 800 A.D. 4,500 mile voyage of St. Brendan the Abbot from Ireland to New Foundland; sailed the Sinbad voyage, an 8-month, 6,000 mile voyage with a crew of 25 from the Arabian Sea to India; and sailed the Jason (Argonauts fame) Voyage; and ther Ulysses Voyage, from Troy to Ithaca in the Ionian islands; sailed the 5,500 China Voyage across the Pacific; and followed the course of the Moby Dick in the Pacific. The point is, he was a very accomplished and experienced seaman, navigator, pilot and boat designer with some 20,000 to 25,000 miles of sailing experience—a man to whome Lehi was hardly comparable.
Tim Severin on his many voyages had tools Lehi did not: sea maps, radio, sextant, drag security boats, compujters, charts, and very experienced crews—where is the comparison?

4. Boats have been blown ashore in Malay Peninsula for at least two millennia. Based on records available, in the first 100 years (1601 to 1700), of the 213 listed shipwrecks in that century, only two shipwrecks have been registered to have occurred on the Malay Peninsula (the Middelburg and the Nassau, both Dutch ships in 1606).  BTW, out of the 146 shipwrecks in the 1500s, there was a ship out of Malay (Santiago) that was shipwrecked in the Azores in 1587. As for general boats being washed ashore, this is highly misunderstood, since El Nino, tsynamis, and “laboon,” have hit the area time and again for the centuries, beinging havoc of wreckage and debris washing up on shore as long as people been there to see it. The legends of the Moken (Mawken or Morgan) people of Burma and Thailand along the upper Peninsula, who learn to swim before they walk, date back thousands of years and today part of the so-called “sea nomads” or “people of the sea” of Malay, Sumatra and Indonesia who have recorded and speak of severe weather conditions that result in such damage. As for “washing ashore,” this is not unique to the Malay Peninsula, but common throughout these 25,000 islands in this small area from the Andaman Sea to the South China Sea and southward toward Australia.
Drift wreckage, flotsam, debris, etc, moves where the currents take it—it has no ability to go elsewhere; therefore, the currents shown above would drive such wreckage into the Bay of Bengal if in the eastern area and into India if in the western area as the white arrows show

We should also keep in mind that both the west and east shores of the Bay of Bengal (and Andaman Sea) are extremely likely areas where something will wash ashore, just like the West Coast of America is and numerous other places. However, there is no recorded drift voyage washing ashore of boats on the Malay Peninsula from Arabia, since the vast majority of these would not bypass the India subcontinent in any eastward or northeastward movement of currents.
    5. I am not aware of any evidence that boats were blown from the Arabian Peninsula to Chile. Ever, in all of history. Can you provide one example? This is a ridiculous question. No one would know where a ship blown ashore along the Chilean coast would have come from—the Pacific is thousands of miles across. As for winds and currents blowing ashore, the Humboldt/Peruvian Current blows north and south along then west South American coast. The point where they blow ashore is Pint Elena just above the Gulf of Guayaquil in Ecuador and the flotsam that comes ashore along this peninsula is legendary and is assumed to be where the Jaredite barges landed.
    It should also be noted that while boats wash ashore along the Alaskan and West Canadian shores and northern America, that shipping in the North Pacifric is as major industry and there have always been people and boats there to be shipwrecked, damaged, or washed ashore. The waters along South America move northward from the Antarctic and the amount of shipping there is so minimal and the coastal shores so unpopulated that to have records would be extremely unusual.
(See the next post, “Back to Malay – Part III,” for more on this fallacious Malay Theory)


  1. If Lehi and his family (and the Mulekites) weren't skilled enough to sail 4000 miles to the Malay Peninsula, then how did they sail the 14,000 miles to Chile?

    Its like saying the Wright Brothers didn't have the technology to fly to Los Angeles, so they must have gone to Tokyo instead.

  2. This is pretty basic Jay and you keep ignoring the FACTS. The facts are they would have to know how to tack to sail to Malaysia which they did not do nor is it mentioned in the record. Winds and current flow to Chile and therefore there was no need to do anything but steer the ship. Stick to the facts Jay. Malaysia is complete fantasy.

    1. The facts are that ships from near the Gulf of Oman arrived on the Malay Peninsula between the 6th and 5th century BC. I've posted sourced to verify this elsewhere.

      The facts don't support a voyage from near the Gulf of Oman to Chile. So I am sticking to the facts. If you want to have faith that the Lehites sailed to Chile, that is perfectly fine. But its rather difficult to accuse me of ignoring facts.

    2. I think this is very basic. You aren't sticking to the facts. You and I could have made that journey if we knew how to stir the ship. You and I could not sail however to Malaysia without knowing how to tack into the wind. It's that simple. Distance is not a factor here. Only the wind and current direction which you absolutely refuse to accept. That is why your model cannot be defended and had to be rejected from the beginning.

    3. Ira, please look at this link:,-3.98,633/loc=53.621,13.213

      Now look at this one:,-3.98,633/loc=91.138,0.240

      With both the wind and the currents flowing directly to the Malay Archipelago, please explain how a boat can get to Chile without tacking into the wind?

      Look at the links and explain it please, don't just say you already know it because Del said so.

  3. "In the waters around Langkawi it is best to sail in-between November and April as this is a sunny and dry period...note they do not list an east to west or west to east direction of wind at any time during the year."

    I was in Langkawi last year, and took a boat to the mainland. As you near Penang there is a massive peak called Mount Jerai (used to be called Mount Seraya). For many centuries a fire was kept aflame on the top of that mountain at all times to serve as a beacon for traders arriving from India and the Arabian Sea. The oldest civilization in Southeast Asia is located at the foot of that mountain, and it dates back to the 6th century BC. If Lehi passed this way, as many scholars suggest he did, he would have seen this mountain.

    Now I understand you believe that Lehi went south and did not pass this way, and I find that to be an solid argument for New World models. But I find it extremely difficult to believe that anybody in 600 BC, regardless of what path they took, could have sailed from Oman to Chile.

  4. Why? The currents and wind flow to Chile. Not to Malaysia. I can certainly see how this is possible to sail to Chile but I can't see how it is possible to sail to Malaysia. That is why I can't accept your model. That is only one of the meriad on problems. Quite simply your model is nonsense.

    1. If you can look at this website and honestly say that the wind and currents flow from Oman to Chile, and not Malaysia, then I have no argument that can change your mind.,5.97,633/loc=75.240,-8.241

      You seem to be very set in your opinion, but I don't know of anybody else that would agree that the currents and wind flow/blow from Oman to Chile.

    2. Please take a look at this animation of the currents in the Indian Ocean exactly one year ago:,-3.98,633/loc=53.621,13.213

      How can you look at that and say the currents do not lead to the Malay Peninsula?

  5. Because the Current/winds don't go there - Del has proved it conclusively that the winds and currents to not blow to Malaysia. I'm convinced that you cannot launch a ship into the Ocean at Oman and sail without tacking to Malaysia. It can't be done. And then if you did make there are many many other problems that discount the place as well. And that is where the Chinese come into play. The people descend from the Chinese. They aren't Lamanites anywhere on the continent. Malaysia isn't an island. Other people had access to it and would have contaminated the Lords people. Nothing at all matches the scriptural record. It's nonsense and you are correct -my mind is made up because you haven't proven your case. I have to reject it because it isn't even remotely possible for it to be the right place. Even if you could levitate Nephi there then the rest of it makes no sense.

    D&C 54:8 tells you where the Lamanites are found. They aren't found in CHINA!!!!! They are found in America. None of them migrated to CHINA!!!!! It's nonsense to even think that Malaysia is the land of the Lamanites.

    Lets be honest - the real reason you and others accept this is because you can't accept that they earth is young, there was a Noah's flood, South America came up out of the ocean at the time of Christ. That's the real reason you can't accept this is because you don't believe that God can bring up a continent out of the ocean. That is why BYU push the Meso-American' idea because they can't accept the power of God. Same here with Malaysia. It was never an island and there is no evidence that anything happened there 2,000 years ago. So that is why the BYU bunch had to look somewhere else because the alternative explanation is unthinkable. Ira

    1. "Because the Current/winds don't go there - Del has proved it conclusively that the winds and currents to not blow to Malaysia."

      Have you looked at the link?,-3.98,633/loc=53.621,13.213

      I don't see how you can look at the hard evidence there and claim that the wind/currents go from Oman to Chile.

      I don't mean this as an offense, but do you also believe the world is flat?

  6. No I believe the world is round but I also believe that God created the earth in a short period of time. I believe there was a world wide flood and in a dispersion from a Tower of Babel. I also believe the God can cause the Amazon to come up out of the ocean 2,000 years ago. If all this makes me someone who you think believes the earth is flat then I see your point. It's absolutely absurd according to our learned professors to think that the earth is young and a continent could come up out of the ocean in 3 hours. I'm guilty! I believe it and there is plenty of proof that shows this is the case.

    I looked at Del's information about the ocean currents and that is conclusive to me. As I said even if you could levitate Nephi there you then have many other problems such as D&C 54 to deal with. Something that you completely ignore.

    1. I have no problem with you believing what you believe, but please give others the same opportunity. I am not "ignoring" D&C 54 or any other scriptures. My interpretation is different.

      I don't know how the Chile/Peru model gets around the verse in D&C 54. In this model you propose, were the Lamanites in Missouri?

    2. I have no problem with you believing in Malaysia if you want. As far as I'm concerned you can even believe the BOM lands are on Mars. But the fact is you need to provide some convincing evidence of that fact and you haven't been able to do it.

      The Chile/Peru model fits perfectly with D&C 54. You ever heard of Hagoth? The pattern of migration has been from South to North in the Americas. D&C 54 fits completely with that model. Many Indian tribes tell us they migrated from the South.

      But how does Malaysia fit? I don't know of a single Malaysian that had migrated to the Midwestern plains of America in 1830's. That does not fit and I'm sure you have an explanation for it. But is it reasonable or believable is the question. And I don't think you'll be able to make a convincing case. Why not say the BOM lands are on Mars. That would be more believable than Malaysia to me.

    3. "But the fact is you need to provide some convincing evidence of that fact and you haven't been able to do it."

      The evidence is in the fact that three distinct civilizations with claims to western origins arise in SE Asia at precisely the same time that the three Book of Mormon civilizations arise. The evidence is also in the fact that the Malay Peninsula fits the geography of the Book of Mormon narrative 100%. The evidence lies in the oral histories of the tribes that live in the area that claim that they came from the west and that they once had a golden book that was taken west and will be returned to them. Many of these tribes claim to be descendants of Manasseh. The evidence lies in the presence of all material objects described in the Book of Mormon dating to the right time period. Some of these things, such as elephants and silk, can only be found in Southeast Asia at that time period. There were no domesticated elephants in Chile in 2500 BC. There is also no silk.

      These things are also not found on Mars. So I don't think I'll ever go that far out.

    4. "But how does Malaysia fit? I don't know of a single Malaysian that had migrated to the Midwestern plains of America in 1830's. That does not fit and I'm sure you have an explanation for it."

      Yes, I do. In Joseph Smith's time, the most popular theory about the origins of the Native Americans of New York and the Plains was that they came from Malaysia. Dr. Samuel Mitchill, who was shown the inscribed characters of the Book of Mormon by Martin Harris said this:

      “Think what a memorable spot is our Onondaga, where men of the Malay race from the southwest, and of the Tartar blood from the northwest, and of the Gothick stock from the northeast, have successively contended for supremacy and rule; and which may be considered as having been possessed by each before the French, the Dutch, and the English visited the tract, or indeed knew anything whatever about it.” - Full text of "Letter from Dr. Samuel L. Mitchill of New York to Samuel M. Burnside"

      So in the decade before the Book of Mormon was published, America's leading scholar said that the darker skinned Indians in the south came from somewhere around the Isthmus of Darien, and that they were Malay. The most popular theory in the 1820s was that the Native Americans were Malay. That's how Malaysia fits.

    5. "All these considerations lead to the belief that colonies of Australasians, or Malays, landed in North America, and penetrated across the continent in process of time to the region lying between the great lakes and the gulf of Mexico. There they resided, and constructed the fortifications, mounds and other ancient structures…The greater part of the present American natives are of the Tartar stock, the descendants of the hardy warriors who destroyed the weaker Malays that preceded them…the exterminated race, in the savage intercourse between the nations of North America, in ancient days, appears clearly to have been that of Malays." - Samuel Mitchill, American Antiquities and Discoveries in the West

    6. Well it took me a while to stop laughing at what you proposed. So let me get this straight. The Chinese of Malaysia migrated to the Americas at some point. So let's think about this. There are no Indians in Malaysia today. They are all Chinese. So that would mean all of the Malaysians came to America. But wait, they aren't Oriental as the chinese/Malaysians are. So at the time of 400ad the Lamanites all crawled into boats - some 1 million of them and sailed to America. Then they somehow changed their physical features so that they no longer look like the Malaysians that are in Malaysia today.

      You go from one absurdity to another to prove your point. This is insanity to believe in this model. The Meso and North Am folks have a far better argument then this one and even theirs can be shown to be wrong. But yours is beyond absurd.

    7. Good grief Ira, Malaysians aren't Chinese.

      I am not claiming that the Chinese migrated to the Americas at some point, I am claiming that Asians migrated to America at some point. This is supported by heaps and heaps of evidence and you won't find a single scientist in the field of archaeology or population genetics that believes otherwise. And yes, Australasians (or Malay as Mithchill called them) also migrated to the Americas at some point. There is genetic evidence to support this:

      You keep saying I am absurd or misinformed, but you always fail to address the evidence. Please read the article above before you tell me the idea of Australasians in the Islands and the Americas is absurd.

    8. What I'm saying is there is an enormous difference between the Malaysians and the Indians of North and South America. The Malaysians look oriental they have the same customs as the orientals etc. The Indians do not in anyway​ resemble these people. If what you say is true that they are Lamanites then you would find not just cultural but other physical features and there aren't any. The Malaysians descend from the Chinese from Japheth and that is that. There was only 1400 years difference between the end of the Nephites and the 1800's. The people are as dissimilar as any two races of people on different sides of the globe as there can be. You still haven't nor can you make a meaningful case for a bunch of Chinese morphing into American Indians. It's complete and utter nonsense.

    9. All the data suggests that the Native Americans are related to East Asians, West Eurasians and Austral-melanesians. I can post literally thousands and thousands of sources supporting this fact. Here is just one example of hundreds of thousands:

      Please look at that image. Now, is it complete nonsense to say that Native Americans and Asians are related?

      If you can demonstrate that Native Americans aren't 100% Eurasian/Asian maternal haplogroups A,B,C and D and 100% Eurasian/Asian paternal haplogroups Q and C, then please do.

    10. Jay - use a little bit of common sense. There are millions of Indians in North and South America. They didn't descend from a few Malaysians at 400ad. It couldn't be done - Not in 1,400 years. This is nonsense. The place that the Indians landed based on their population is here in America and not in some remote peninsula. It makes no sense at all. Again the people of Malaysia are Chinese. They have the features of the Chinese. The Indians do not have those features. They aren't related and you can't prove they are related in any way. The entire idea is fantasy.

      The Lamanites do descend from Middle-eastern people however. These are not Orientals. These are the people of Iraq/Assyria where they were taken at 721BC. Yes They are descended from these people because Manasseh and Ephraim were taken NORTH, but not the Chinese that you are trying to make the claim. It simply doesn't work and your data is nonsense on the face of it. DNA doesn't prove anything. Yes I know the Lamanites descend from the middleeastern people because that is where they went in 721bc for a 150 years. They married into the Assyrian race and that is what the DNA of the Indians show. This isn't too hard but they aren't Chinese which the Malaysians are. They simply didn't come from the FAR East as you are trying to make the case.

    11. "Jay - use a little bit of common sense."

      Ira, I have lived in Southeast Asia for almost 15 years. I have been to Malaysia dozens of times. I have been to China dozens of times. You are wrong. Ethnic Malay are not Chinese. They are Austronesian, which is very similar to Polynesian. Their language is closely related to the Polynesian languages.

      Are you now going to tell me that Polynesians are "Oriental Chinese" descended from Japheth?

      Last I heard, nearly every leader in the LDS Church since the 1840s has taught that Polynesians are Lamanites.

      Malay = Polynesian
      Polynesian = Lamanite

      Before you respond back with another post saying that I am wrong and the Malay people are Chinese. Please read this over a few times:

      "The Malayo-Polynesian languages are spoken by the Austronesian people of the island nations of Southeast Asia and the Pacific Ocean, with a smaller number in continental Asia. Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam serve as the northwest geographic outlier, going well into the Malay peninsula. On the northernmost geographical outlier does not pass beyond the north of Pattani, which is located in southern Thailand."

      And please look at this map showing the distribution of the Austronesian/Polynesian/Malay people:

      Notice how it doesn't touch China? If you aren't going to bother looking at the links and acknowledging well established facts, we'll never resolve this.

      - Jay

    12. No I'm not going to look at your links because they are irrelevant. You seem to be unable to grasp the fact that there is revelation that tells us where the present day Lamanites are located. They live in North and South America Period!!! They don't come from the far East. The Nephites were destroyed at 400ad. Today there are millions of Lamanites in America. You don't transport an entire civilization by the millions from one end of the world to the other. Your model is crap. I don't care that you lived among them. I worked for 30 plus years with the Indians of the western US. So what. That tells me nothing about their origins. Using a little bit of come sense coupled with the Revelations should tell you that your model is impossible.

    13. Do you believe that Polynesians are also part of the Lamanite remnant?

    14. I don't know. The only relavant thing here is are the Lamanites in America or not. They certainly cannot be descendant from the Chinese in Malaysia.

    15. "I should like to address my remarks to you, our kinsmen of the isles of the sea and the Americas. Millions of you have blood relatively unmixed with gentile nations. Columbus called you `Indians,’ thinking he had reached the East Indies. Millions of you are descendants of Spaniards and Indians, and are termed mestizos, and are called after your countries, for instance: Mexicans in Mexico; Guatemalans in Guatemala; Chilianos in Chile. You Polynesians of the Pacific are called Samoan or Maori, Tahitian or Hawaiian, according to your islands. There are probably sixty million of you on the two continents and on the Pacific Islands, all related by blood ties. The Lord calls you Lamanites." - Spencer Kimball

      So yes, you can take millions of Lamanites and transport them from one end of the world to the other.

    16. You keep insisting that Malay are Chinese, but they are not. They are of the same genetic stock as the Polynesians. Spencer Kimball said Polynesians are Lamanites. So the Malay certainly can be related to the Lamanites.

      But this is going nowhere since you refuse to read sources and refuse to accept that Malay aren't Chinese. You are making up your own facts, so this will be my last comment on the subject.

    17. Again, so what. You are ignoring the fact that the people in America are Lamanites and they do not descend from the Chinese in Malaysia.

    18. Yep, I'm going to go right ahead and ignore that "fact"

      Maybe see you in the comment section of Del's next post on the Malay model. We can do this all over again :)

    19. I bet we can. Now this is getting even richer - the Polynesians now settled America and are the ancestors of the Indians. This is all so absurd that it's hard to understand your thinking. The thing I find interesting to is where are the legends that speak of coming from China? Del posted a snippet a few weeks ago about the legends of their first settlement and no mention of them coming from Malaysia after the war at 400ad. That alone is just another nail (if more were needed) in this bogus theory.

      Again - the real reason you can't accept the South American idea is because you don't accept the power of God in raising up a continent. Even in the face of direct revelation you still deny what the scriptures say. Even the pronouncement of SWK was NOT revelation. It was his opinion but that won't deter you. Oh No - when it comes to revelation like D&C 54 you have to ignore it. You have to ignore Helaman 14 where it says that mountains were created at the time of Christ. Noah's flood is not reality and we can't have that either. Thats the real reason you won't accept any of this and why you have to push a preposterous theory that can't even stand even the slightest criticism without falling apart. Del's proved it as far as I'm concerned that the Malaysian model is complete garbage.

  7. You write: "I have no problem with you believing what you believe, but please give others the same opportunity."
    We write here what is in the scriptural record along with all the evidence we have shown in 8 years. If you don't want to accept or agree with any of it, that is your choice and right. But to say "give others the same opportunity" my word, create a blog and write what you wish, but do not try to write here something you cannot prove or show the type of evidence we have been showing for 8 years. Your welcome to come here and read what we write. You can ether disagree, which you have done sufficiently, but to ignore what we answer, which is full of all sorts of evidence from some of the best experts in the fields, is simply fallacious and has met with no success, but you keep hammering away? Why? What is your purpose? You've had your say. It doesn't hold water and is mostly filled with opinions, speculation and personal views--not factual data that is supported by anything more than other people's opinions. You claim to read everything here, but I have yet to see hardly any answers regarding what we write, just more and more of the same argument that has time and again been shown to be without merit.

    1. "do not try to write here something you cannot prove or show the type of evidence we have been showing for 8 years."

      This article is about the Malay theory, and it makes a claim that is incorrect. Namely, that it is not possible to ride the winds and the currents from Oman to the Malay Archipelago. I have provided sources to show how this is wrong. It is possible to ride the wind and currents from Oman to the Malay Archipelago. But for some reason, you and Ira insist it is impossible. I keep hammering away because you keep repeating this untruth. I do read what you write, but that doesn't mean I must agree with it. If you continue to say that the winds and currents lead from Oman to Chile and do not lead to the Malay Peninsula, I will continue to correct your error by posting these two links:,-3.98,633/loc=53.621,13.213,-3.98,633/loc=91.138,0.240

      Look at those links and tell me if my argument that the winds and currents lead to the Malay Archipelago is without merit, or if your argument that the winds and currents lead to Chile is without merit.

  8. PS, I never made this comment you attributed to me: "Boats have been blown ashore in Malay Peninsula for at least two millennia."

    I said nothing about shipwrecks or debris. I did however say that boats have been blown to Malay for at least two millennia. And this is supported by the archaeological research I have cited showing material from the Near East (including Iran) in the north part of the Malay Peninsula.

    If you are saying that boats could not have made this voyage in the 6th century BC, then how do you explain the presence of Near Eastern artifacts on the Malay Peninsula dating back to this period?

    I've provided evidence to demonstrate how your claim that boats could not make this voyage, if you don't accept the evidence, tell me why. Drawing arrows that point the way you want the currents to go is not enough to explain away the evidence of a Near Eastern material culture on the Malay Peninsula in the 6th to 5th century BC.