Quetzal, while I can not and will not vouch for every claim Menzies makes, we have to bear in mind this guy is retired navigator, a pensioner writing a vanity book about a puzzle he found personally intriguing. It is not, and is not claimed to be, up to academic standards. I suspect Menzies just isn't interested to that degree; noe of his claims cause a major reqriting of history, nor imply special or ocuult knowledge, nor form the basis of any cult.
In the first place, I never stated anything about Menzies being a member of a "cult" or starting any such nonsense. OTOH, he IS attempting to re-write history, at least as far as the early colonization of North America goes, anyway. I have no problem accepting that Chinese sailors landed early on in N. America. However, if even a cursory examination of the "evidence" he uses as support for his idea is shown to be utterly false, it says one of two things: either he is deliberately misleading his readership through intellectual dishonesty, or his claims are bogus. Alternatively, he is simply a pitifully bad researcher.
Its not von Daniken, does not read like von Daniken. It might still be wrong, of course, I'll happily allow that; but I seriously ddo NOT think this is remotely in the same category as cryptozoology. In fact I find the suggestion wquite distasteful, as if nothing written by an amateur can ever be other than an effort to defraud the public.
I really don't give a rat's ass if you consider the suggestion distasteful. Based on his website, I absolutely DO consider him to be on the same level as Von Daniken - a pseudohistorian cherry-picking random unrelated bits of data, and then twisting them to fit his pet theory. Amateurs can certainly write excellent, factual books. All it takes is a willingness to do the research. If you don't like the comparison to Von Daniken, Velikovsky
et al, then consider him the pseudohistory equivalent of Ron Wyatt.
Defraud the public? Possibly, possibly not. I never made any of the claims you attribute to me, so I see no need to defend anything. If you have specific arguments against the three supports I examined, feel free to show where I am wrong. Otherwise, if Menzies had written a work of fiction, and so labeled it, I wouldn't even have quibbled. However, he presents himself as a legitimate historian with a legitimate theory, then goes on to use spurious and outright erroneous evidence in support. The point is, even if he's right on his basic premise, his use of bogus sources and evidence destroys his credibility right there - and consequently any reason to take his theory seriously, your apologetics notwithstanding. Too bad, it was an interesting idea.
China had very large boats from the 4th century AD, mostly on rivers. Trans-oceanic shipping a thousand years later is not remotely the same as hypothesising the Egyptians crossed the atlantic on reed boats with no navigation, because that implies *magic*. Marco Polo described ocean-going ships with 4 masts, 300 crew and watertight bulkheads.
Yeah, so? I never compared Menzies ideas on the Chinese to the ludicrous idea that Egyptians crossed the Atlantic. I said that Menzies use of spurious supports for his claim is equivalent to the spurious support for Von Daniken's claims. I stand by that comparison. The Chinese COULD very well have crossed the Pacific. Menzies doesn't provide any real support for the hypothesis, however, and the support he does provide is bogus. Where do you think that leaves him and his idea?
While it does change our view of what was going on in the middle of the last millenium, it is not a conspiracy theory.
Who the hell said anything about conspiracy theories?
™ Version 4.2