Thursday, May 10, 2012

South African Crank of the week: Michael Tellinger

I'm calling this "Crank of the Week" because it's something I'd like to write every week. It's an ambitious goal, given my dearth of blogging recently, but I'm determined (at least I am today) to make this a regular thing.

In this series, I'm going to be doing little summaries of the pseudo-science of a number of notable South African cranks - people advancing dodgy, and often demonstrably false, factual claims about the world, who have made a bit of a name for themselves in the media.

I chose Michael Tellinger for my inaugural edition because he was one of the very first cranks I blogged about, back in the day. And, interestingly, that post is still the most popular one on my blog. (The fact that I didn't write it myself is a perpetual thorn in my ego, but what can you do?)

Okay, let's get started.

Michael Who?

Look! A Rock! Aliens!
(image from
used without permission)
Tellinger's been around. His only formal qualification is as a pharmacist (the height of that career seems to have been appearing in a Sentrum ad a decade or so ago as the designated pharmacist - even though he wasn't practicing at the time). His CV also includes having been a rapper in the 1980's. Word.

But we don't care about that. The interesting parts start in 2005 when he published Slave Species of God.

What's He On About?

Slave Species is essentially a plagiarism retelling of the ideas of Zecharia Sitchin. The idea goes like this:

There is another large planet in our solar system, unknown to science, named Nibiru. It spends most of its time in the outer solar system, but its highly elliptical orbit brings into the inner solar system once every 3600 years or so. When that happens, it has weird gravitational interactions with Earth, causing all manner of catastrophes including, but not limited to, geographic pole shifts.

Nibiru is also inhabited by a super-intelligent race of aliens called the Annunaki. From time to time, they've visited Earth and its inhabitants, meddling with, creating and enslaving the local apes - essentially founding the Human race, as well as laying the foundations for all our technology and our entire civilisation.

If the terms "Nibiru" and "Annunaki" sound familiar to you, you'll recognise that they are names that arise from Sumerian mythology. Sitchin and Tellinger use a creative silly wrong set of translations of ancient Sumerian texts and symbols to "prove" that just about all ancient mythology should be taken as literal, historical fact - just replace terms like "gods", "angels" and so on with "aliens", and you're all set.

Built by aliens, obviously!
(image from
used without permission)
Tellinger has taken this notion a step further, applying it to the South African context. In Slave Species and his subsequent two books, he's gone touring around South Africa, looking for interesting and old archaeological sites (as well as uninteresting rocks) and making up stories about how they were built by aliens as landing pads for their spacecrafts or whatever.

Why Is He A Crank?

Well, because his ideas are demonstrably false, and yet he continues to promote them. Zecharia Sitchin promotes obviously wrong interpretations of Sumerian and Akkadian artwork (mistaking depictions of regular stars for depictions of the planets of our solar system, for instance) and claiming that these, and other, ancient people had knowledge they lacked (as well as lacking knowledge they had).

Most of what Tellinger and Sitchin say sounds reasonable and even plausible to the uninformed lay-person, but doing just the slightest bit of real research reveals it all to be nonsense.

But it doesn't stop there. Tellinger is also actively involved in the local UFO community, having organised a UFO conference late last year. In addition, he's currently trying to get out of paying his bond on a property in Midrand by suing the banks for being, um, banks. Oh, and he's just started his own political party based on a platform of communism (that he has transparently rebranded "contributionism"). How he intends to buy his way onto the ballot with his currency-free-society platform remains unanswered.

Although I haven't actually met the man, he and I do have a number of acquaintances in common. Based on what I've heard of him, seen in his videos and read in his books, my assessment of the man is that he's clearly very bright, and even a rational person. I have a hard time accepting that he seriously believes the stuff he publishes, although I can't be certain of that. He's clearly a charismatic character, and has surrounded himself with a dedicated (dare I say 'cult-like') following of truth-seekers who buy every word he says.

As a sceptical community, I think Tellinger bears watching. His influence is hardly diminishing, and his nonsense shouldn't go unchallenged.


  1. He is getting an Avaaz petition going for his bank action.

    1. Feel free to sign it. Share it with your friends. ! ! ! In the long run it is for YOUR benefit.

    2. What is the petition actually for? What is its purpose? All I can make out is "We need to do something about the banks". Bit vague, that. And if it's vague, it's pointless.

      And before The Faithful accuse me of being a "sheeple"† and claiming that I'm advocating that no-one should do anything at all, let me make my position clear: If you want to change anything, you first need to have specific goals in mind. Otherwise you're just venting to make yourself feel better.

      I suppose I could read his 1100 page Constitutional Court submission. But it would have been more considerate (and more honest‡) if he'd included some specifics in his petition.

      †) It's ironic, innit? Everyone who accuses others of being "sheeple" was himself taught that word by someone else at some time.

      ‡) Why dishonest? Because it allows him to go in to the court claiming that x number of people support the specifics of his claim when all they really did was say "We hate banks".

  2. We all have a right to believe what we want to believe. However, the author is being extremely stupid about making remarks about Mike Tellinger "not wanting to pay his bond on his property". If he was a tiny bit of a journalist, he would have done a little research before making a statement about it. Michael Tellinger is the only person with the guts to take on the Financial System for a totally illegal and immoral system which is almost solely responsible for the mess the Worlds finances are in at the moment. Before you knock him, do a little research Sir. You should be supporting him if you feel anything for the average South African.

    1. Um, Tellinger refuses to repay his bond, that's a legally binding contract that he agreed to. What about that makes him a hero instead of a credit defaulter?

    2. Um...and if the contract was fraudulent to begin with???

    3. Well then he probably shouldn't have agreed to it.

      But I'm not a lawyer.

    4. Perhaps...but that's supposing he knew it was fraudulent at the time of contracting.

      Good thinking though.

    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. Clearly you do not like the man (which of course is your prerogative) however I would like to vote you "crank of the week" for your next issue...

    With your logic, you are no better than Tellinger because You make claims that YOU can not verify...

    You use words like "Sitchin promotes obviously wrong interpretations of Sumerian and Akkadian artwork", how exactly are they "obviously wrong" oh wise one? Where is your book debunking them? Or are you too lazy to take the time doing your own honest research? Or just clever enough to debunk something with 20 seconds thought where the hypothesis took years of scholarly research to come up with?

    This is a joke and an unsubstantiated claim: "mistaking depictions of regular stars for depictions of the planets of our solar system, for instance". How long did it take you to form that noble opinion?

    You write that Tellinger is actively involved in the UFO circle but do not elaborate on this. Are you suggesting that he is a crank because he is interested in unidentified objects? Hundreds of thousands of people can verify them, as someone who has spent a substantial amount of time in airplanes I personally have witnessed such objects in our skies AND even filmed them. You are the crank if your mind is so narrow that the light of day can not escape from it.

    In terms of Michael challenging the banks… Do you have any idea how large the community is that is backing Michael? With your logic, lawyers, accountants, financial controllers, ex CEO's, banking professionals, and even politicians that write up the very legislation that enslaves the people, are ALL CRANKS…

    Open your eyes and take a look around you...

    AND for the record, all over the world communities are forming a hybrid of some kind of communal system working without money or with public domain credit systems. Our personal exchange has over 300 exchanges around the world and for the last 10 years. Why? Because the banking systems as they stand are destroying our communities. And these are not just the words of a crank. No, try asking some world renown economists or are they cranks too because your 20 seconds opinion can not fathom how the banking systems have scammed the people?

    How much research have YOU put behind this article? Or are you just taking a cheap punch at a man who is brave enough to stand head and shoulders above the rest of the cowards on this land?

    Sadly, if more people in South Africa share your Crank Opinions, we are in a lot of trouble.

    I support Michael Teinger and his action against the banks 100%, do I think he is a crank? Not on your life.

    1. Well PUT Horsespotter! The Americans would call the author a "sheeple". Unfortunately, the financial system is RELYING on people like him.

    2. Tellinger's mad ravings about Nibiru, the Anunaki and the laughably false interpretations of Sumarian writings that he uses to back up hi views on the matter are wrong.

      Most of Tellinger's ideas on the matter come straight from Zecharia Sitchin and he has inspired years of research and debunking because he is so clearly wrong and his claims are NOT based in reality.

      This link should provide you with more than enough reading matter to substantiate these statements:

    3. Excellent rebuttal. I am not a fan of everything MT puts out. Some of his beliefs are wrong. On some subjects I am more knowledgeable and know he is wrong. Talking about space and the universe. But, that does not mean he is wrong about other things.

      The author should do a better job of proving MT wrong instead of just putting forth the statement that he is wrong.

      I came here looking for facts to debunk and found none!

  5. You are entitled in your opinions
    Regardless of how wrong they are.
    I can NOT possibly see any “crank” been allowed to open a Constitutional Court Case against the Banks, Minister of Finance AND the South African Reserve Bank.
    Michael Tellinger has just done it.
    Long live the “cranks” of this world.
    They open new frontiers for all.

    1. Anybody can file a law suit, all it takes is time and money.

      As Owen has pointed out, however, he's not calling Tellinger a crank because of his strange ideas of economics, but because he thinks stones are proof of alien visitation.

      He's a nutter.

  6. Take the time and read this article.
    P.S. Wake up ! ! !

  7. Um...who are you exactly and what are you trying to do to make a difference other than mock those who try?????

    1. I'm Owen (see top right of the page).

      Mockery is just a flavouring that I put on sceptical activism to make it a bit more fun.

      My serious attempt to "make a difference" is in exposing potentially dangerous frauds and/or cranks whose influence outstrips their merit.

      I do this so that real scientists don't have to - they can spend their time doing real research and making our lives better. Someone has to do the pest-control though, and it's up to me, and people like me, to do that.

  8. I'd like to welcome representatives of the "cult-like following" I referred to. Your clicks are always welcome.

    Incidentally I don't really care about Tellinger's financial case - it's basically just an amusing aside for me. Economics isn't my area of focus.

    Call me a "sheeple" if you like, but you're doing so based on no information. After having read the above article, you will have exactly zero information on what my real opinions are regarding the economic system. But I encourage you to look around the blog - you may find bits and pieces of it elsewhere.

    I am more interested in Tellinger's nonsense about aliens and whatnot. It's in that arena that his most egregious cranking happens, and where his claims can be more easily shown to be complete fiction.

    1. May I suggest not mocking the banking action, Michael is speaking on behalf of millions of effected people and this action deserves respect. Too many people on this land have been hurt as a result of banking to mock what is being said.

      In addition, may I suggest you attempt to use a more mature approach in the way in which you disagree with someones views. Mocking someone is akin to a school yard bully. Would you be a proud of your kids if they behaved in the way you do?

      Maybe you like to hide behind the safety of your blog however I am sure that you would choose your words more carefully in the company of people who have spent a lifetime attempting to shed some light on the status quo. If Sitchin walked into the room, would you honestly call him a quack to his face and mock him? Or would you find yourself fascinated at the depth of his knowledge?

      Anyway, you say you are interested in his "nonsense" abut "aliens". Who is this hurting? Who is being bankrupted as a result of this view? Who is being murdered or maimed or brainwashed?

      Why not write about the nonsense about God? I would say that is a far worthier cause and just as much nonsense according to your logic...

      Or are you a God fearing man?

    2. It's partly because of the fact that the banking system has been implicated in harms to individuals that I'd prefer someone sane, not Tellinger, to address those issues. And yes, I for one would gladly tell Sitchin he was a quack if given the opportunity to do so. Or perhaps I'd borrow Westcott's line, and say "Sitchin’s linguistics seems at least as amateurish as his anthropology, biology, and astronomy". Brief fascination would of course be possible, as it always is when encountering creative types.

      And his, Tellinger & others nonsense do harm. First, because irrationality is a bad thing, leading us into making sub-optimal choices which can waste (at least) time and money and (at worst) lives. It's caused all of these wastes, regularly and demonstrably. Most recently, significant financial harm was caused by Camping's doomsday-ism, and you're probably aware that Sitchin has inspired some of the Mayan 2012 nonsense.

      As for God, what is there to fear from a fairytale? I seems far better to fear the strange minds of people who would believe in such things - who knows what they're capable of.

    3. Well here is the problem. The so called sane and the educated and those in positions of responsibility, know that the banks have caused harm, know that the banking system is a scam, and have known for a very very long time.

      The problem is, they WILL NOT speak up. These are people in government, "responsible" people and why wont they speak up? Because they will lose their jobs if they do or be seen as "insane". Their only hope is that the people will stand up and say something (bless the uneducated masses if they ever work out that they have been conned out of their land). Perhaps you have someone in mind other than Michael who should be putting their neck out (I dare say King Owen?)... who would you recommend? And why have they not done anything already? And have I made my point yet?

      Michael is backed by thousands and thousands. He was the one brave enough to put his neck out so that we can get to the bottom of this mess (and he is not the only one doing it)... Most people with a dollop of sanity, would never do such a thing, self preservation is too strong. So what good is the sane to the freedom of mankind when it was the insane that created this mess while the "sane" stood by and let it happen...

      In terms of claims that people make.

      1. We will never know for sure about God, until he/her/it presents its self. Any claim will be shot down easily.
      2. We will never know for sure about Aliens, until they or it, present themselves. And again any claim will be shot down although to be honest, there is more proof that they exist than God does.
      3. We DO KNOW for sure about the banking scam, it is in black and white. If you read legislation and presume nothing it stands out like a 2 penny hooker.

      So what do we have? Well the Christians have "faith" and I can assure you none have "seen" God. Yet billions belong to that "cult" and it is seen as being perfectly acceptable. Even to governments and "educated" people alike. It is even written into legislation... wow! The man in the sky is actually mentioned in legislation. And you lot have the cheek to call Michael insane...

      Do me a favour.

    4. "The man in the sky is actually mentioned in legislation." Is that an argument? Do me a favour (and I can complete sentences like these - something you seem reluctant to do), and read something like the Traditional Courts Bill. Or the Protection of State Information Bill. And you'll see that in an odd way, they make just as much sense as the man in the sky.

  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

  10. Please let's take a sebatical on Michael's work on aliens and STAND WITH US just long enough to focus on our common enemy: the banking system. Hatered / annoyance / criticism of his work can resume after we have won the battle. The legal documents are all located on If you can rebut the legal argument, then THAT would be something worth blogging about.

    1. No thanks.

      This dude is either a liar or seriously deluded. Either way, not someone whose cause I'd be interested in taking up.

  11. "Interested in nonsense"... now who's the crank? Besides you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny. Michael gets the girls in droves mate... bottom line! Obsessed and fascinated by nonsense, sounds pretty nonsensical to me. Try talking about something that reflects who you are as a person... oh... you already are! Nothing to see here girls, he looks like one of those guys from Jeppe High... grilmydood.

  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

  13. Understanding that I might cause a universe-ending recursive link, I mentioned Tellinger and his crackpottery in a newspaper here in Botswana a couple of years ago when he graced us with a visit.
    You can see the letter I wrote here.
    As you can see I credited almost all of the research to this blog.

  14. Sorry Owen, but you have just talked yourself into a corner. Your tone about EVERYTHING about Mike Tellinger is one of total disdain and condescension but you defend yourself by saying that we know ' nothing about your economic views. You also refer to his "cult-like" followers, once again a brainless statement to make because you have just done exactly the same thing to several thousand other "cult members" who have spent a little time checking the facts before opening our mouths to change feet. If you are going to comment on anything, for Gods sake at least TRY to get some info first.
    Cult member

  15. Owen...I felt the same way when I first heard this stuff about banks not really lending money and it not being backed by anything. Do some independent research'll probably shock you how deep the rabbit hole actually goes.

    I'm not sure if you have a vested interest in any of the Banks, have a personal axe to grind with him or are merely using Michael's recent media exposure to promote your blog through the key word association...or not.

    The timing just seems a bit suspect though... might actually be right and all this is some wacky delusion and those structures without openings really are cattle kraal of little significance.

    Time will tell...until then, keep researching!

    1. Sounds like you're up to speed then and have researched things fully...

    2. Dude. I don't mean to be a grammar nazi here, but I'm having a hard time understanding what you're saying.

      Perhaps do a little reading about sentence structure and punctuation and we can try this again. Mmmkay?

    3. Mmmkay!

      Which parts were you specifically struggling with?

    4. Alright, let's start with this one:

      "The timing just seems a bit suspect though..."

      Where's the rest of that sentence? The ellipsis implies an unfinished thought, but the content of that thought isn't present.

    5. The content appears in the paragraph just above it - i.e. "I'm not sure if you have a vested interest in any of the Banks, have a personal axe to grind with him or are merely using Michael's recent media exposure to promote your blog through the key word association...or not"

      I was trying to type 'conversationally'.

      Is there anything else that you were having trouble understanding?

  16. HEY GIRLS... go to my new blog "The most undesirable man on the planet - pick of the week" Guess WHO this week's pick is? Something that starts with an "O" (or is that "A"). No rush he'll be there next week, and the next, and the next...

  17. Oooops... TYPO... forgot the "r". Never mind Owen you put it where it fits best!

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  18. Seriously sounds like this dude is a Ron Hubbard wanna be. Wonder if he uses his pharmacist qualification to concoct substances to assist him with arriving at his rather batshit crazy conclusions!

  19. If you have some interest, here is a 12 year old Canadian girl who explains the worlds financial situation in 6 minutes. Canada, USA,UK, Ireland, Australia,South Africa, all the same system Guys! This little 12 year old explains it beautifully and anyone older than 12 SHOULD be able to understand it. I am not going to get involved arguing or debating theories, I prefer to work on cold hard facts. If anyone else had the "nuts" to take on the banks, I`m sure there are many people who might be able to do it better than Mike Tellinger. Tell that to the family of the Greek guy who shot himself in public because he refused to"scratch in the trash" for food. Hope you can understand the clip!

    1. Wow, really? A 12-year-old girl can explain it in 6 minutes? Nice one.

      Relax guys. We can fire all the economists... this 12 year old girl's got it covered.

  20. I am a little disappointed. I thought that this blog would maybe have some open-minded people on it. It might be your style to assume that you are the only one who knows what is going on with everything, but it really sucks. You don`t even have the decency to listen to her first and THEN pass comment. Think you might have a problem understanding? You immediately assume that she does not know what she is talking about. Hope you have some people with intelligent enquiring minds that read your blog.

    1. Oops. Now it's the "I'm so disappointed that the people here aren't open minded" gambit.

      Nope, never heard that one before. Nosiree...

  21. Donder! Daars nog een van hulle! You Guys aren`t the sharpest arrows in the quiver, are you? You have totally missed the irony. You`re too scared to listen to the clip because you KNOW you won`t understand!

  22. It's interesting how many of his supporters here have latched onto the bank thing, when that was just a half-line reference in an article that's mainly about demonstrably false astronomy and UFO claims.

    It's almost as if they don't want to go too deeply into the really nutty stuff and instead want to keep everyone focused on the more mundane financial issue. Is this because people desperately want financial salvation? Is it because they're embarrassed by the UFO thing? Is it simply that they have nothing to add to the UFO thing, no relevant evidence to contribute, but that everyone uses money and has related opinions and anecdotes?

    I'm not judging. I genuinely want an answer. Why the obsession with the banking part, when that has so little bearing on the point of the article.

    1. I'm also specifically interested to know who's followed and read all the links in Owen's article.

    2. Judging by the quality of the comments down here, I'm guessing most of these clowns haven't even read my post, let alone the links.

      Oh well.

  23. I'M BACK. Now listen up.

    Those on here defending Michael are not just some dudes that have heard of Michael, or browsed through one of his books. We are HIS MATES, as in personal close friends, GOT IT?!! So when someone slates your mate, it pisses you off, right?

    Now these mates of Michael have been pretty lenient on you Owen, till now. I was out the door... hell no! It's time to break some furniture. Only a crack-pot would spend SO much time slating one person when there are thousands out there to pick on, who have similar views.

    Why not pick on Erich von bloody Daniken? After all he probably started it all. nooo... it's got to be Michael Tellinger. So who built the pyramids then, a bunch of slaves with ropes and camels? Yeah right. Have you had a good look at the stone blocks at Baalbek?

    There is ONLY ONE PROBLEM HERE: The Author of this blog absolutely can not get his head around even the most remote possibility that there could be, or could ever have been, a higher civilization than the one self-epitomized in Owen Swart, on Earth or in the whole freakin' Universe.

    There is a word for this by the way: "EGOMANIAC".

    Sorry to ruin your little mudslinging party here Owen, but Michael's mates have unfortunately for you, pitched up! No doubt more are on their way.

    How's that for an ALIEN INVASION!!

    1. Hi Doris, welcome back.

      The reason I didn't pick on Erich von Däniken is that's he's not South African. Otherwise I would. I might write about him sometime anyway, thanks for the tip!

      Please, bring all your friends. The more the merrier. While you're at it, please feel free to click on some of the ads.

  24. PS: That's for calling me DORIS

  25. Spatula, I agree with you. This argument is actually not for this blog and should never have been.Owen can make as many cynical remarks as wishes about what he considers his field of expertise. He has irritated people by making remarks about something of which he obviously has absolutely NO knowledge. Within a few months the extent of this worldwide banking scam will be common knowledge and people will not believe that it was possible to keep it under wraps for so long.The blind acceptance of the stutus quo and "head in the sand" attitude of the likes of Owen are the reason for this. I will not attack him anymore, it isn`t worth it! The irritating thing is that it appears that the bulk of the people on this blog will blindly listen to what he says without any knowledge or proof whilst accusing Michael`s friends of doing the same with all the proof in the world. To be quite honest, I think the priorities are wrong. Who the hell cares where we came from when we should be worrying about where we are going!(that is my personal opinion and I am in no way saying that anyone who doesn`t believe that is an a-hole) When we get to the stage where we cannot accept other peoples point of view without personally attacking them, WE are the problem.

    1. I think you do not agree with me.

      Tellinger makes a living, money, cash, from teaching people demonstrably false crap. As an educator, that means he makes my job harder, because now I don't just have to explain why the good claims are good, but I have to first go out of my way to explain why the crap claims are crap.

      He is making a profit by making people less well informed. He is making a profit by lying. If there's a good reason for bringing his banking issue into this, it's to point out the irony of someone who happily takes money for made up bullshit, suddenly pretending he cares about people getting ripped off. Even if his accusation against the banks is valid, he is still making his money off of bullshit.

      And to answer your question, "Who the hell cares where we came from," I think you betray a remarkable small-mindedness there. On the one hand, you accuse Owen of having "absolutely NO knowledge," and yet in the same paragraph you're happy to admit you don't think knowledge is worth caring about. All knowledge is important and the past and future are intrinsically linked; you can't understand the future without understanding where you came from. I don't think you get to throw around accusations of "blind acceptance of the stutus quo and 'head in the sand' attitude" when you yourself are not willing to open your mind, learn new things and consider the possibility that you might be wrong.

    2. Noooo Spatula. I am not small minded and listen with tremendous interest to everything I hear about our universe and origins.I read Chariots of the Gods and Return to the Stars many years ago and loved Carl Sagans programs on the universe. Like everything, there are 3 outcomes, my ideas, your ideas and the truth. I do however have a huge problem with the fact that the banks have caused unbelievable disruption to my life and friends of mine`s lives illegally. 95% of the houses being repossessed in SA (more than a 1000 per month)are being taken illegally leaving people with their life`s savings destroyed. I am too busy battling for survival to have time to get more involved in the arguments of our origins at the moment. It should also be a priority in our lives to help others where we can. As far as MT`s work, I have not have time to read it up. I am positive that there would be things that I would disagree with. There may even be things which I think are crazy. But, just as you believe you are right, so does he. Unlike Owen, I would never attack him personally because he does no agree with his ideas, I would find out exactly where the differences are and address them. But,on this subject, I cannot argue or even differ with you because I don`t have enough knowledge about your different viewpoints. I didn`t accuse Owen of having no knowledge, I accused him of attacking a viewpoint when he had no knowledge of it.BIG difference! Owen admitted making money out of people on this blog all the time.I`m sure there are a lot of people who think that this blog is also drivel.What is the difference between the two?

    3. >"I am too busy battling for survival to have time to get more involved in the arguments of our origins at the moment."

      Then this clearly isn't a blog post of interest to you.

      >"But,on this subject, I cannot argue or even differ with you because I don`t have enough knowledge about your different viewpoints. I didn`t accuse Owen of having no knowledge, I accused him of attacking a viewpoint when he had no knowledge of it."

      How do you know he has no knowledge of this subject when you admit you don't have enough knowledge yourself? That's like accusing someone else of being a terrible driver when you have no idea how a car even works.

      >"Owen admitted making money out of people on this blog all the time"

      I suspect Owen was being flippant. Owen, exactly how much have you made from all this traffic? Is it over R10 yet?

    4. I am even more worried about our education system if you are an educator! Can you not understand the point I am trying to make? God help the poor kid who has you marking his exam paper. This blog isn`t of interest to me. I would do this for enjoyment, not having a spiteful child-like response to every idea, comment or remark I make. If you look back earlier in the day, Owen admitted that he doesn`t have any interest in the banking situation so why knock it? He insulted about 5000 people by saying "cult-like" following, insinuating that we follow MT blindly without doing our homework and checking out the facts. It would appear that all of you are absolutely incapable of accepting any variance to your ideas without making personal,rude and uncouth comments about it. You can`t even take criticism as Owen shows signs of irritated reaction to the fact that we are defending ourselves on his blog. He sounds like a very "tense" person. You, personally, are so insensitive that you have not worked out that very few people will keep quiet when insulted. So when one of your students does not agree with your point of view, you belittle him and make out he is a moron? Poor kids!

    5. Spatula: I was being half flippant. Since I started this blog 8 years ago,, I've made R256.00 off it. I need to hit R1000 before Google will pay me out though, so tell your friends!

      Dennis: If those people really have checked their facts, they wouldn't be followers of Tellinger - he's not selling facts, he peddles fiction and calls it fact. (Unless, of course, you and I are using very different definitions of the word "fact").

    6. Aha! It IS possible to have an adult conversation with you Owen! PLEASE remember, I am not passing comment on MT`s theories and works. I`ll say it again, I have not researched it at all and it is highly possible that I wouldn`t agree with a lot or even most of it. I am merely defending myself again against your insulting blanket comments about the banking issue.I am totally in support of MT with the banking situation because it is hard fact which I have checked and experienced personally.It is not a theory,opinion or idea.I really feel that you, as a person, should at least respect that and rather leave it out of your attack on MT. Also,by getting personal with your remarks you invite a violent personal rebuttal and defence and then you have an absolutely childish, mud-slinging match which is detrimental to your blog and what it may stand for.You cannot put all of us in one basket.Some of your bloggers have acknowledged that they are aware of the problems with the financial system but feel that they don`t trust MT to handle it. Well, that might be the case but no one else is standing up to fight it! MT cannot go to court with theories! He is going to court with hard irrefutable facts. Whatever you think about his other ideas,you should at least respect that.You might be in a position where the world financial crisis is not going to effect you, but hundreds-of-millions-of-people are not. I hope I have made my point and I apologise for any personal remarks I have made to you or your bloggers. That is not my style and hopefully never will be.

    7. Dude, please. Paragraphs. Look into it.

      Um, what blanket comments about the banking issue? I made one comment - that Tellinger is suing them for operating the same way that all banks operate. It's logically equivalent to suing a bird for flapping its wings. That says nothing about whether or not his case has any merit.

      I'm not qualified to make any judgements about the case, which is why I've not made a single one.

      I don't know how much experience you have with our, or any oher, legal system, but people go to court with "theories" all the time. Lawyers don't have the empirical rigour used by scientists or critical thinkers, and what qualifies as a "fact" in court is only that which can be convincingly argued, not what is objectively verifiable.

      Based on the level of credibility Tellinger has failed to obtain (at least in the eyes of those who value evidence as the basis for proving things), I wouldn't trust his "facts" as far as I could throw them. I certainly wouldn't back a person like him in something as potentially important as changing the way capitalism works.

      Signing on with Tellinger is equivalent to signing on with people like Andrew Wakefield, Uri Geller or Manto Tshabalala Msimang. These people are known fraudsters and/or delusional. Although they might be right about things from time to time, they shouldn't be trusted. Even a broken watch is right twice a day.

      If anyone decides to follow his cause, without doing the due diligence of checking out his resume, hasn't done themselves or their cause a favour. If he's shown himself to be either a fraud or a fool before (I'm not qualified to determine which, but it must be one of those), how can you know he's not doing the same thing now?

  26. Oh come on guys! Lets forgive Owen.. Wherever there are star personalities, Owens pop up to piggy back on the successful. Just like the critics in Hollywood who sponge a living off the famous..

    Nothing personal! Owen's lack of researched knowledge on all the topics he slates is proof of this! And his followers will believe any crap he puts out cos they're similar personality types.

    Some ppl just cannot handle the success of others! The first thing he mentions is MT's qualifications. Owen is angry cos in his opinion, MT shouldn't have the extensive media attention he gets!

    Lets not throw pearls to swines. In time all will be revealed... I'd like to hear Owen's remarks in a year from now...

    1. Hi Mr T,

      Your Logical Fallacy Is: Tu Quoque!. Congratulations!

  27. Thank you MT for doing what most ppl do not have the GUTS to do! Most take the apathetic, cynical path much like the Owens of the world... They prefer to swallow anything the establishment throws at them like school kids without question.

    No wonder the world is in the predicament that it is in...

    It takes ppl with balls to undo the mess. Way to go!!!

    1. Sure. Takes a lot of guts to publish book after book filled with nonsense and pretend it's fact.

      Also takes lots of guts to hide behind an anonymous username and cause kak on someone else's comment board.

  28. By the way Spatula. Your little paragraph basically proves my point.

    Where MT's money comes from has absolutely nothing to do with u or Owen. Sounds like jealousy to me... If ppl see value in MT's research and if they pay him - good for him!

    Go find something you're good at so ppl will pay you!!!

    Leave the successful and worry about you becoming more successful! Maybe then u will leave the stars alone!!!

    1. "Go find something you're good at so ppl will pay you!!!"

      Um, you already are, just by being here. My Google AdWords pay me every time one of you guys visits this page. Thanks!

  29. Oooh did I touch a nerve...

    Also takes a lot of guts to slate ppl without any backbone (knowledge, research)...

    Your article is based on kak... Kak attracts kak.

    Get a life man!

    1. LOL!! Talk about "struck a nerve" Sheesh!

    2. And so say all of us!! And so say all of us!! Every great being who stands tall needs an Owen #wart to balance things out... Even Jesus had his share of your kind. Have a beautiful day!

    3. WE dont mind paying you a few cents... MT doesnt need the money as bad as u do Friend.. Thx to MT's followers, you should be able to buy a banana or two...

  30. This comment has been removed by the author.

  31. This comment has been removed by the author.

  32. Noooo Spatula. I am not small minded and listen with tremendous interest to everything I hear about our universe and origins.I read Chariots of the Gods and Return to the Stars many years ago and loved Carl Sagans programs on the universe. Like everything, there are 3 outcomes, my ideas, your ideas and the truth. I do however have a huge problem with the fact that the banks have caused unbelievable disruption to my life and friends of mine`s lives illegally. 95% of the houses being repossessed in SA (more than a 1000 per month)are being taken illegally leaving people with their life`s savings destroyed. I am too busy battling for survival to have time to get more involved in the arguments of our origins at the moment. It should also be a priority in our lives to help others where we can. As far as MT`s work, I have not have time to read it up. I am positive that there would be things that I would disagree with. There may even be things which I think are crazy. But, just as you believe you are right, so does he. Unlike Owen, I would never attack him personally because he does no agree with his ideas, I would find out exactly where the differences are and address them. But,on this subject, I cannot argue or even differ with you because I don`t have enough knowledge about your different viewpoints. I didn`t accuse Owen of having no knowledge, I accused him of attacking a viewpoint when he had no knowledge of it.BIG difference! Owen admitted making money out of people on this blog all the time.I`m sure there are a lot of people who think that this blog is also drivel.What is the difference between the two?


  33. Dennis... HERE'S THE THING:-

    By not addressing "THE ONE PROBLEM HERE", is either to admit to the possibility that there is or has been at any time, a higher civilization on earth or in the whole universe, which would be in effect admitting to the unfounded basis of this blog, thus leaving this blog as a mere attack on someone's character and, in this case, an attack on a particular country, which non-psychopaths would have no interest in supporting, but of particular interest to psychopaths, considering their general nature and modus operandi; or,

    to deny the possibility of there being or that there has been a higher civilization on earth or in the whole universe, which would thus lead to assuming the egomaniacal position.

    This predicament is one which I would describe as finding oneself sitting firmly between a rock and a hard place.

    All the chatter and arguments going back and forth, is merely a diversion of the above core issue, which is the fact of the matter at hand.

  34. Here is a link for those not psychopathic enough to assume the egomaniacal position and who are pondering the Big Question and interested in investigating the possibility: Are we, or have we been alone on Earth or in the Universe?

    1. Thanks for the link, Doris. You're giving me so much material today! And here I was worried that I might run out of things to write about.

      Stay tuned!

    2. Sorry I took a while Douris. I will definitely check out that site when I have a chance.

      I joined this blog to defend myself against being called a "clown" and "a cult-like" follower. I am only hoping that enough people that engage it are clever enough to realize that the massive civil upheaval around the world is as a direct result of what the banks have done, and have been getting away with, and will at least check it out.

      Todays facts can very easily become tomorrows disproved ones.
      Cholestrol does not cause heart attacks, sugar does!
      There has been a 85% effective "cure" for cancer for 40 years
      Chemotherapy is less than 3% effective!
      Cancer does not kill you, Cachexia does.
      The list of lies that the human race has been fed by the energy/oil companies,Pharmaceutical industry, Medical profession and of course, politicians is endless. The Banks/financial establishment controls all of this!
      If we cannot unite to rectify this scourge then we are truly destined to a life of servitude.

      New paragraph for Owen.
      If I was slipping off a cliff and Julius Malema was holding out his hand to help, would I refuse it? The best way to get a point across is to quietly state your facts and your reasons let the people digest and make a decision. You only degrade yourself by going down to the level of personal attack.

      We certainly livened up THIS blog for a while!!

    3. Thing is Dennis, at the end of the day things are what they are. There either has been or is, on earth or out there higher civilizations than our present own, or there is not (which of course to any person with more than one brain cell, agrees this is most unlikely). But it's not about whether this is so or not, it's about our attitude toward such a possibility. By adamantly mocking and slating the idea, only proves one thing: the level of your own civilization.

      As far as the attitude of those mocking and slating those taking the banks to task, only again proves another: absolute confirmation of the lack of knowledge.

      We are talking about an extremely narrow minded bunch of people here, who have never taken the time to ask a single question about anything, let alone do any research. Imagine if everyone had this attitude? The human race still wouldn't know that they had a left foot.

      It's a waste of time arguing with people like this and best to just leave them to die out. It's called evolution.

      Let them believe in the banking industry, the corporate control over governments, vaccinations and the evening news; and let them support big Pharma and GM Foods; let them rush home after work to their favorite TV program ("program" they are too programed to even notice that one!) because the more they believe the more they will swallow and the more they swallow the quicker they will die out.

      These people serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever in the positive growth and evolution of mankind.

    4. Okay Doris, you've revealed your hand. You're clearly willing to accept anything that goes against the establishment (whatever that might be).

      There's nothing wrong with that - you go ahead and refuse modern medicine and don't vaccinate your children. You'll only be removing yourself, and them, from the gene pool and making the future nicer for the rest of us.

      Evolution indeed.

    5. Dennis, I think you're still missing the whole notion of what a fact is. Facts are not disproved, hypotheses and theories are.

      A fact is a fact. It can be shown to be erroneous (like, if someone made an incorrect measurement or lied about it), but facts require no proof. You use facts (also known as observations, data or evidence) to produce a theory or to test a hypothesis.

      Those ideas you listed are not facts. At best they're hypotheses, but some are so poorly formulated as to not qualify as that - they are "not even wrong".

      This is where Tellinger and his ilk mess up too. They come up with an idea (usually through rampant speculation). Then, without testing the idea, they start calling it a "theory". And without adding any evidentiary support to it (or perhaps by cherry-picking data - the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy), a few pages later it's suddenly a "fact".

      That's not how science, or any intellectually honest pursuit, is done. At best it's cargo cult science. At worst it's just a lie.

    6. Ag nee Owen, for as far back as I can remember, when you got cancer, the doctor immediately told you that your only chance was to go onto Chemotherapy. That wasn`t a theory my friend, as far as that doctor was concerned,that was a fact.

      You are definitely not keeping abreast of what is happening around the world. You have no idea how much BS you have been fed and you don`t have to believe me, I really don`t care. However, you will eventually find out and you will be angry.Greed is a terrible human trait.

    7. No Dennis, you're conflating two facts here.

      Fact 1: Doctors will usually tell you that when Chemotherapy is your best option for dealing with inoperable cancer.

      Fact 2: Chemotherapy is the best possible treatment for cancer.

      Fact 1 is true. When a close family member of mine was diagnosed with terminal cancer, that's what we were told, as is the case for most other cancer sufferers. This is often also recommended in conjunction with surgery and radiotherapy, the combination of which represents the standard of care for most kinds of cancer.

      Fact 2 is not true, and no intellectually honest person (doctor, scientist or otherwise) could ever claim it was. Chemotherapy might be the best available option today (in some cases, but certainly not all), but nobody can claim that it's the best possible treatment ever. Right now doctors and scientists in laboratories all over the world are working on a wide range of possible interventions that could treat or even eradicate certain types of cancer in the future.

      So, a better formulation of that statement that would be true would be something like "Given the best available technology and evidence currently at our disposal, most oncologists recommend chemotherapy as part of a comprehensive treatment for many serious cases of a variety of cancers."

      I'd suggest not relying on mainstream media for your science news. They usually get it wrong Rather go to dedicated science-related media outlets (like Scientific American, New Scientist, LiveScience or Consilience: an African Science Podcast), because although they're not perfect, they tend to be more reliable and accurate in their reporting.

      And also learn a bit about how science works: hypothesis testing, peer review and replication in particular. That knowledge will help you parse the available literature, and assess the probabilities in any given news item about this or that new discovery.

    8. Owen, I admire your obvious intellect and command of the English Language but your obvious belief that no-one else is capable of investigating issues revolving around our day-to-day lives is irritating.

      I do rely on the mainstream media to supply me with all the BS
      I then go to a group of dedicated medical people(mostly from the States)who publish articles regarding the natural cures for health conditions and uncover the lies and fabrications perpetuated by big Pharma.

      Unfortunately,everything goes back to money and profit. I can state categorically that in the next 6 months you will be shocked by the information which is coming out,information which has cost hundreds of millions of lives and should result in the perpetrators being incarcerated for crimes against humanity.

      You will also eventually find out what the banks(and the handful of people that control them) have been doing to us for 100 years. Over 450 TOP people in banks around the world have resigned within the last 4 months. Rats bailing ship?

      I unfortunately do not have any more time.

  35. A bunch of slaves, some rope, camels and bronze tools.

  36. I posted another piece you guys might be interested in: Why Michael Tellinger Is Wrong - Part 1 of N.


  37. Owen used to hang out at Michael Tellingers house as he was after his girlfriend and this must be where the disliking came for MT as Michael is the least jealous and possesive person. (Maybe because he knows WHO HE IS!!)

    This man (Owen) has NOT REALLY "made" anything of his life so far. (surviving off his current girlfriend by being unemployed)

    I think that he has it in for Tellinger because of a jealousy factor regarding his girlfriend brushing him off. Show us what YOU are made of Mr. "Ruiter" in De Swart"?

    As in TRUE Owen "style" this will either NOT be posted or be deleted.....

    In letting the truth stand.

    How come you slant a person but then retain the right to delete comments that DOES NOT SERVE THE SLANTOR??

    SICK PUPPY SYNDROME I would say!

  38. Comfort kills! - If your goal in life is to be comfortable, I guarantee two things. First, you will never be rich. Second, you will never be happy. Happiness doesn’t come from living a lukewarm life, always wondering what could have been. Happiness comes as a result of being in our natural state of growth and living up to our fullest potential. ~ T. Harv Eker

    1. Hi 'Eva' (lol, really?)

      It's hard to follow what you're saying because you appear to be barely literate. In fact your self-expression is a fairly good emulation of the Timecube Guy.

      I'm guessing the first part is an attempt at an Argumentum ad Hominem which shows that you're not only bad at writing, you're bad at thinking too.

      Even if your cleverly crafted fictions ("cleverly", so I assume they weren't crafted by you) were true, that would have no bearing on the validity of my argument. I'm making no appeals to authority, and no attempt to convince you to take anything on the strength of my character.

      I'm merely presenting the facts, albeit with my own particular, literary finesse. I could be the Biggest Douche in the Universe and my argument would still stand, because it's not contingent on who I am.

      Your second point (and I use that term generously) seemed to be an allegation that I delete comments on my blog. As a matter of fact I don't. The deleted comments in the thread above were deleted by the comments' own respective authors, not me.

      The only time I delete comments is when they're clearly spam. That happens from time to time... this is the Internet after all. Beyond that I don't even have a comment approval system in place. All comments are posted immediately, and I only see them myself when I get the email alert.

      That being said, this is my blog. Mine. If I choose to delete comments, I will. And there's nothing you or anybody else can do about it. If you don't like it, you can GTFO. Not a single fuck will be given.

  39. As for me, I never believe anyone who says that something is "demonstrably false" without demonstrating (or producing their credentials for identifying) said falsity. Snark can only carry an argument so far, which is why I'm stopping now.

  40. Owen. LOL. Youre such a dick. You belittle everything everyone says even if they are agreeing with you. Your condescending attitude does not even overshadow your maladjusted out burst to anyone that deviates from your line of thought. Lol. Keep it up!

    1. You know, that's funny... Your mom said something similar last night. At least I think that's what she was saying, her mouth was full at the time.

  41. What a waste of my time reading this b.s. People blog like this just to talk garbage because they feel their way of thinking is threatened. You know this is a form of bigotry? Perhaps the author can only accept different ideas once main stream media and the "powers that be" give their blessings. Good Job Dick Head.

    1. "Powers that be" huh? Hey, I enjoyed Buffy the Vampire Slayer as much as the next guy. You know what else I enjoyed? Stargate. Good show.

      If you want to keep basing your knowledge of the world on fiction instead of empirical observation go right ahead. That being the case, this isn't the blog for you.

      There's the door.

      Dick Head.

    2. Top of the morning Dickhead!

      Since when does theories of unexplained artifacts bother you? Because they are only theories not accepted fact. Obviously pieces of the puzzle are missing but more importantly its the right to question that you have an issue with? Or are you after your own glory in making yourself look smart by putting down others? Sure tell everyone to get back in line with the rest of the sheep is this your motto smart guy? hahaha!

      Like I said, you need these theories presented as fact on CNN before you can accept it so your just a prick by standing back and saying its all bullshit unless you have "proof" to make yourself feel more intelligent because again they are just theories NOT FACTS. Now if some his theories ever become FACT and CNN is spoon feeding down your throat and history "shifts" which will be a huge uproar for the self serving in these fields (which is why it would never happen without going through GREAT resistance), you'll just pull a bitch move and yank this blog down. Hahahaha

      Some put their faith in religion. Other put their faith in science. I think the worst thing you can do is close your mind off from any possibilities especially since there have been significant archeological discoveries the past few years some which establish cities that we thought were just "myth". Don't be scared to accept that we don't know everything. That maybe were not in control.

      Your right this blog isn't for me

  42. Tellinger has called for ANY scientists/archaeologists to come and help with research. To help with having claims backed by real university science....which is happening. All history changing archeological has been combated with close minded shit heads like author of this article. Tellinger is out there doing everything possible to change the world for the better. Theory- then science to back. Like someone previously said- if you did ANY sort of research to debunk maybe I would atleast give your article a consideration. But while Micheal is out getting his hands dirty in the mud having degreed scientists come to confirm his sit behind your computer telling everyone you know what's right cause you read a debunk article of Stitchen from an author that's was doing the same ignorant research(or lack there of). Neeext

  43. however, Sitchins claim that the Sumerian god Enlil, the half-brother of Enki, is the biblical god Yahweh has been a huge blunder.

    Since Sitchin presented his theory almost five decades ago, many authors of the same topic have followed suit claiming that Enlil is identical to Yahweh without any willingness to question the theological conclusions of the Sitchinian perspective. One could say that Sitchin's paradigm has now become some kind of dogma in the Ancient Astronauts genre. Despite the fact that the king of the Sumerian pantheon Anu, the god of the throne of heaven, has all the same traits as the biblical god and their deeds are identical, most popular authors don't even begin to consider the possibility that Anu may be the original precursor of Yahweh and just keep repeating the same lie that Enlil is the secret identity of the god of Israel. Oddly many of the famous researchers completely ignore the role of Anu in Mesopotamian mythology as if he were an absent god who had already withdrawn from the earth and left the power with his sons. In the end, the Sitchinites erroneously conclude that Enlil is Yahweh and misinterpret the great cosmic conflict as a fraternal rivalry between Enki and Enlil.

    Sitchin could have had his prejudices and hidden motives just like any other author. Let's remember that Sitchin was Jewish, educated in a Jewish school in Palestine, and even claimed in one of his books that Yahweh was his god. Here we see the alliances of Sitchin very clearly. Sitchin was a member of the people of Anu and acknowledged Judaism, the original Anuist cult, as his own religion. In the end, Sitchin worked for Anu.

    I don't want to judge whether Sitchin worked for Anu knowingly or whether he was under a deception, but what is certain is that he twisted the truth about the identity of Yahweh, presented a very erroneous vision of the cosmic conflict and blamed Enlil for all the evil deeds of his father Anu (the real Yahweh). If Sitchin lies then how is Tellinger credible if what he believes is made to mis-lead large numbers of people?