Re: Q: Did the lost continent of Mu really exist?

Judith Stroud (
Thu, 02 Jan 1997 22:04:10 -0500

Vladimir Vooss wrote:
> I hope you don't get flamed by this post. You should know that any
> references to Mu, Atlantis and such are usually greeted here with grand
> invective. Since you can't, and I couldn't bring any scientific citation
> to this topic, consider it a red cape/flag to an already enraged bull.
> I am, myself, very interested in this subject, and had studied it to the
> point of coming to the following conclusions:
> The Earth is far older than we think, and with that the age of the
> human race.
> The Creation Story in the Bible is as mythological as is the theory of
> evolution.
> We didn't just experience other civilizations whose temples and trash
> heaps we can scientifically study and argue over. There have been
> millenia of other human
> experience, but so far buried and even recycled by Earth that there
> is no hope
> for sites and citations.
> All the above conclusions have been reached by methods of thought not
> currently
> blessed by contemporary science and education.
> Which of course leads to the conclusion that the above couldn't be
> explained in
> any way that's satisfactory.
> It's such a pity that these two divergent schools of thought couldn't
> meet together. Unfortunately Mu and Atlantis issue just has to remain
> New Age drivel in the eyes of science types whose "window upon the
> world" is in my view, far too short and their science too immature to
> warrant such closed-mindedness. On the other hand, New Ageies I have
> known are so enamored of Mu and Atlantis the Paradise far superior to
> our current civilization, that talking to today's scientists is really
> beneath their contempt. Both are in broad concept correct, but
> intractable as to how to meet. See the Middle East conflict as a
> crucible for the same dilemma, but of only slightly different
> ingredients. My own view is that Mu and Atlantis did exist, and their
> full story will never be known. Little peeks can be had, however. If you
> understand and accept the engine of reincarnation, then Atlantis becomes
> a verb for an action we have partial descriptives for: Type-A
> individual, Racism, and others. Mu is also something of a verb, though
> it started as a noun - Genome comes to mind.
> As to Churchward, those tablets of his are about as believable and
> verifiable as the tablets that begat the Book of Mormon. Othewise -
> duck!
> Vladimir

before we get into another flame of the bible, consider that Genesis
does contain two very separate accounts of creation. Students of
Literature assert this is evidence for different priestly input--of
course, whichever priest-group gained superiority would immediately have
exised the other account, but we'll let that pass for now--Historians
could consider the possibility of a reference to cultures which predate
the Noah culture (shem, ham, japeth, you know the rest)--

Bear with me here. Adam and Eve are listed as the progenitors of the
current race of man. But if a human culture existed which completely
extinguished itself (Mu, Lemuria, Atlantis, etc) and had no progenitors
by the time of the familiar Adam and Eve story (easily read as a
CULTURAL, rather than physical creation), the Bible's detail of such a
race would be exactly this brief...

--possibly smoking the cosmic pipe on this one, but what do you think?