 I literally have never come across anything that really did not have a clear, coherent response or answer or at least a way to approach a question. I've had the experience of having to, as an academic, consider those questions and then search for answers. And there are a number of ways you could approach this that make good sense. The problem, of course, is a lot of that discussion, a lot of that research never filters down to the church, to the average person. They get caricatures of the question or they get caricatures of the answer or they get no response at all. And they're misled into thinking. It's all strawman stuff. They get misled into thinking that, oh wow, my buddy over here from work has found the key to undermining the Bible and it's like that just couldn't be further from the reality. People are cut off from really, really good information or we live in the information age. The good stuff is so crowded out by the noise. You lose the signal for the noise because there's just so much that's thrown at you like in a Google search or something. And people don't realize that there's a whole world of information, academic information, that transcends Google. It's the academics that get that stuff and it's not publicly accessible. You don't run into it unless you talk to an academic or you sit in somebody's class and they force you to use something like journals. So it's a little bit frustrating for me to consider how people are misled either intentionally or unintentionally and they're cut off from information, but in my own experience there really is nothing new under the sun. There's nobody's going to come up with something that hasn't received really deep consideration, really thoughtful consideration from all perspectives. A lot of these things that trip people up or propel them away from truth or away from the faith, really a lot of it's about how the question is framed and whether you incorporate all the data or not, the data bias and that sort of thing. I feel quite good, I'll use the word satisfied even though there's a lot of questions I have about a lot of things, but I haven't come across anything that would shake me from core ideas like theism and Christianity and Christology and whatnot. I don't want to be too unkind to him. Now, Jordan Maxwell is not his real name. I know people who know who Jordan Maxwell really is. They don't think a whole lot of him is a person, but I'm going to stick to the research here. What Maxwell and others do is they mistake, they commit a number of fundamental mistakes and you have to decide whether they're deliberate, is it malice or is it incompetence. I don't really know, but they'll confuse correlation for causation. That's a fundamental problem in all I guess what we'll just make a sweeping generalization here and call it alternative research. These two things look the same, so one caused the other. Really? How would we know that? In a lot of these cause and effect arguments that are made by Maxwell and others, there are no data to establish a cause and effect relationship. The analogies are only as good as the contrarian data points that they weed out. Isis and Osiris stuff, you get this with the Dionysus stuff, you get this with the Mithras stuff. If you take away all the places where the analogy breaks down, oh, they look wonderful. They look compelling. And they know that you're not a content expert. Their audience is not a content expert. And so how many people are really going to check? How many people are really going to call them on the carpet? Well, the answer is very few. And even the people who could, they don't waste their time on Jordan Maxwell. They're looking for people who do peer reviewed research. If Jordan Maxwell is not submitting his work to peer review, that tells you either he has something to hide or he's afraid it'll get destroyed. That's what peer review is about. You submit your work to field experts to see if you've missed something or if you've handled the data well and correctly. And guys like Maxwell never do this. They want to portray themselves as the misunderstood genius. Oh, I would do that, but the reviewers will just, they won't appreciate my brilliance. Or they're part of a big conspiracy. They won't accept what I say because they disagree. Look, I got news from Mr. Maxwell. Journals regularly publish stuff that their reviewers disagree with the view that's presented. The issue isn't agreement. There are hundreds of journals. Let's say you run into one where the reviewer says, I don't like this guy. We're not doing it. Great, submit it somewhere else because you're going to have dozens and dozens of opportunities to put your work before a panel of peer review experts. And if it's good research, someone's going to publish it. And they often publish things they don't agree with. Sometimes so much that the lead editor of a journal will append a note saying, hey, we thought this was good research. Nobody really agreed with the conclusion. But there are the data that's up for you to decide. They do stuff like that all the time. So people who won't submit their research to the review of experts, like I said, either have something to hide or they sense that it's going to be destroyed. And honestly, why should they do that? They can put it out on the internet and say basically whatever they want and get a big audience and become popular. And that's what Maxwell's doing. They all confuse correlation with causation. They all use data selectively. And in Maxwell's case, when he tries to make linguistic arguments, he's just hopelessly incompetent. People can go to drmsh.com and put his name and put Maxwell. I have a little response to his ISIS raw L argument. Anyone who knows the languages knows in a few sentences that Maxwell has no idea what he's doing. He is a language amateur and even that's kind of generous. I don't think he spent even more than a couple of days even looking at languages. He probably doesn't even know the alphabet for half of the stuff that he's doing. So, you know, and this is what they do. They will quote each other. They'll build a little cadre of people who mutually agree with the direction of this or that point of research. And they mutually reinforce each other. And they sort of build their own little quote unquote academic community. But none of these people ever submit their experts to field experts. Although quote to field experts when they need to, when they want to bring in an expert into the discussion to make it appear that the expert is on their side. Or if the expert were in the room with me, he'd say, yes, Jordan, you have a point here. That's what they do. Okay, it is sophistry. It is selective use of data. It's incompetence in some respects. And it's a fear of analysis. And personally, I would say the same thing if he were in the room right here with me. You know, I challenge the quality of his work because it's not difficult to challenge. Zechariah is such a, he's deceased now, he's passed away. I mean, it's real simple with such a, give me one line of one Kenea form tablet that tells me that the Anunnaki are associated with Nibiru. Or that Nibiru cycles through our solar system every 3,600 years. Give me one line of one tablet. How easy would it be for to make Mike go away if that were true? I only put it that way because I know it's not true. And I try to get people, you know, I made a video on my, mystitchiniswrong.com website showing people how to, to tap into the Sumerian stuff. Again, you don't have to be a specialist. It exists in databases. I told people how to type in the search for Anunnaki. It's going to search all of the, all the, all the tablets where Anunnaki show up. There are a number of, of epics and, you know, little smaller fragments here and there. Try to remember what the, what the total, I think it's like 187 hits or something like that. You can, you can look at them all up in English. There is literally not a line in any tablet that makes the fundamental claims that Stitchin makes. But it's not about me disagreeing with his translations. You can't translate what doesn't exist. When, when Maxwell dips into the research of somebody like Stitchin. And, you know, Maxwell, let me, let's just be honest, he's not going to look. He's not going to do research to see if Stitchin is correct. He already buys into the, the, the Stitchin worldview and he finds certain points of what Stitchin says convenient to some other thing he wants to say. So he's just going to go with it. But, you know, again, when, when you do that and you, you go back to Stitchin like, like I've done and say, look, he's literally just making stuff up. I mean, it literally doesn't exist. Then you've got a real problem. But again, who's going to do that? You know, they, they, these people understand that they can say certain things and make a pretty good living, you know, at, at what they're saying and become important. You'll be, be big fish in a very small pond and that's, it's better than a day job. You know, that, that, that's just what they're going to do. They know people aren't going to check them. They're not going to have the skills to check them. And if anybody ever does, then you become part of the conspiracy. You know, well, I'm sorry, but I didn't take the tablets out of the database for the Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature. I didn't remove anything. You have no connection to the project and the whole idea is very stupid. It, these databases exist. You can tap into them. I don't like when primary sources are abused and I don't like when people are, are, are deceived. I get these conversations from time to time, but I just think, look, it's just, it's just easier than this. That there's no accountability. They're going to say what they want. They're going to, they're going to make money. They're going to become popular. You know, they're going to want, have people ask for their autographs. It really doesn't have to be much more complicated than that. It sure beats selling insurance. They're interested in what they talk about. I don't know that any of them are really like twisted people who want to deceive as many people as possible. I guess that's possible too. I tend to gravitate toward the, the simplest explanation that nobody's going to call me to, to, on the carpet here. And I've got a safe answer if they do. You're just part of the conspiracy. You, you misunderstand my brilliance too. You know, I'll use myself as an example here. So, you know, I'm nowadays, you know, what's getting attention that what I do is the book Unseen Realm. Well, I talk about it in the introduction. Unseen Realm used to exist as a draft that was free on the Internet, you know, called The Myth That Is True. And it's really the result of 15 years of work. It was a putter project. I didn't, frankly, I thought a lot of evangelical publishers or Christian publishers wouldn't have the courage to publish it because it, it was uncomfortable, you know, and I was a little naive there, there would have been certainly some that would have, I mean, lexum winds up publishing it. And that, that's all well and good. But the point is it took 15 years to do that in the midst of those 15 years. Here's why I'm bringing it up. I was submitting articles on the core ideas of the book to Peer Review. So people can go to drmsh.com and click on about and get my CV. I have my full CV there. I try to keep it up to date. And there's a whole section of it, Peer Reviewed Articles. You know, I've got a number of articles on Peer Review because I knew that's the first thing people are going to say when they disagree. Oh, you know, who's this? It's just, you know, it's just hyzer. He has these weird idiosyncratic ideas. It's him alone against the world. No, it actually isn't. What I've actually done is I've submitted my work to Peer Review and it's past muster. Other scholars recognize the quality of this. So if you don't like it, well, that's too bad, but you can't use this dumb argument. You can't hide behind this argument. That it's just hyzer and nobody else thinks this way. I use only Peer Reviewed Sources and I submit my work to Peer Review for that reason. I want scholars to catch me on it like, did I miss something? Am I just messing up this point? Because honestly, even as a scholar, you can't be an expert in everything. It's very hard to keep up with anything in your field. There are thousands of pages in journals produced really every quarter of the year. You've got to land somewhere. You've got to drill down. You've got to develop some expertise. And again, even there, you submit your ideas to field experts because if you did miss something that, well, you know, and they'll just write back to you. You know, this is the way the process works. You'll get your manuscript back from a reviewer. And I've had things turned down that I had to resubmit. You know, it's like, well, you missed this or this article just came out and it's not in your footnotes. You need to go back and read that and interact with it. That's a good process. You know, it helps you. It helps you to do the best job that you can. And if you're just headed off into some area that, you know, somebody just spots a really significant problem here, it actually saves you from the embarrassment of having something published and overlooking something important. That's what peer review is about. It's actually designed, yeah, it'll weed, you know, nonsense out, but at this level, when you're submitting work to a peer review journal, there are very few nutbags, you know, that are just doing this or people just going out and being lone wolves. So they don't have to do a whole lot of that. But it's really designed to help you do the best job you can and then not be sort of caught on the other end like you missed something. So it's a very positive process, even though it sort of looked at like a winnowing agent. I mean, it does do that. But on the other side, it's very helpful because you just can't be an expert in everything.