More Comments Answered Part VI

Continuing with more comments on our website along with our responses:

Comment #28: “Until I'm sitting at the table eating a Curlom I'm not buying it. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice and call me a Mormon.”

Response: Since the Curelom was either alpaca or llama, they are pretty good eating, but you have to go to Peru to get the best—especially alpaca, it is the most tender. As for fooling you, come see me in the next life and we’ll compare notes and see who was fooled and who was not.

Comment #29: “Egyptians were not Asians, they were Mediterranean Caucasians which also means the old church story about how they could not receive the priesthood because they were descendants of Cain is also BS.”

Response: According to Edouard Naville, in his The Origin of Egyptian Civilisation, and consistent with the typical historian, Egyptians, from the 4th or 3rd millennium, all the way to the early 19th century were believed to have been the lineal descendants of Ham, through his son Mizraim—a theory that became known as the "Asiatic Race Theory." The native Egyptians, then, by a literal interpretation of Biblical chronology, were believed to have arrived in Egypt from South-West Asia, usually at least by 2400 B.C. after the flood and dispersal of man at the Tower of Babel. The descendants of Ham were traditionally considered to be the darkest skinned branch of Humanity, either because of their geographic allotment to Africa or because of the Curse of Ham. However, by the 18^th century, the idea that Mizraim’s descendants, the Egyptians, were Negroid or in contrast a dark skinned Caucasian race, became hotly disputed. Studies of over 50 mummies by Georges Cuvier in 1811 showed that not one was negroid, though anthropologist James Cowles Prichard claimed they were connected to the Negroid more than the Caucasian race. The Italian anthropologist Giuseppe Sergi in 1901 believed that ancient Egyptians were the African (Hamitic) branch of the Mediterranean race, which he called "Eurafrican. Others, rejecting the biblical implications, like Brinton’s Races and Peoples, stated that The Hamitic (not biblical) hypothesis developed directly from the Asiatic Race Theory, which asserted the descendants of Ham through Mizraim were Caucasian. In addition, Seligman argued in his 1930 Races of Africa that the ancient Egyptians were Caucasian "Nilo-Hamites" who had arrived in Egypt during early prehistory, while Junker argued that they were Bushmen Capoids) and not Negroids, an accepted theory into the 1970s. Then there are scholars like DuBois, Williams, Jackson, Sertima, Bernal and Diop who were among those that supported the theory that the Ancient Egyptian society was mostly Black as stated in the General History of Africa (1990), and the Journal of African Civilizations has continually advocated that Egypt should be viewed as a Black civilization.

Scholars, such as Diop, have claimed that Tutankhamun was black, and have protested that attempted reconstructions of Tutankhamun's facial features (as depicted on the cover of National Geographic Magazine) have represented the king as "too white." Evidence led Chancellor Williams to believe that King Tut, his parents, and grandparents were Black. In ancient times, the Classical Greek historians, including Strabo, Siculus, and Herodotus, referred to Egyptians as “melanchroes,” which can be translated as “black,” though some say “dark.”

Consequently, according to the “experts,” they were Asian, they were Mediterranean, and they were negroid—so take your pick.

Images and paintings from Egyptian tombs, all showing black or very dark skin

The point is, whom to believe? Anthropologists, scholars, historians, and writers can be lined up on any argument: Mediterranean, Asian, or Black. Personally, I accept the writings found in the Book of Abraham and the Bible. What was written before “Politically Correct” became the basis of much writing seems for more worthwhile to accept than what is discussed today.

Comment #30: “I read this on the internet the other day and wondered about your take on it. “The wet-shirt, conventional scientists say that the etchings were made by the Nazca Indians who flourished in the region from 600-200 BC, but the more imaginative observers question why such intricate, large designs were made in such a way that they couldn't even see them? It seems obvious to some that the icons were drawn to be observed from the sky, there must have been observers in the sky to enjoy them. Somehow this logic leaps to the observers being UFOs of alien origin. A stretch? Maybe. The interesting part is that there is no point where a person can stand and see the designs; they are only visible from the air.” What do you think? Aliens in Peru?”

Response: The Nazca lines have amazed and mystified people ever since they were first discovered. However, you can see the lines from the mountains around the area. As for their purpose? Who knows. Perhaps an early people drew the images to be seen by their gods in the sky as some type of ritual or for some appeasing purpose. In my youth I read the Marine naval aviator Major Donald Edward Keyhoe’s books about Project Blue Book and the U.S. Air Force knowing flying saucers existed. I found the work he did on ufology very interesting as I did the Condon Committee, and Keyhoe’s Operation Lure; however, though I love science fiction, you would be hard-pressed to convince me these Nazca drawings were merely billboards along the interplantary-highway offramp, or were made by, or for, aliens in UFOs or any other space alien idea. It makes far more sense that they were made as some ritual to be observed by their gods.