Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Lloyd,
Had another look at the article and my opinion hasn't changed.
"So far the team has published only a handful of peer-reviewed papers. With excavations stopped, pending more funding, they’re writing up publications now". I missed that last night but my initial impression of the article was that it was just some academics trying to big up their find.

Most of it is pure speculation verging on nonsense. They don't know anything about things military for a start, e.g. logistics, command and control. Much of the rest is stating the blindingly obvious wrapped up in scientific hoodoo-voodoo, e.g. the forensic evidence that these men suffered stab wounds. Given that both sides were armed with piercing weapons, a five-year old could have told them that.

I agree with you that the timing is interesting.

[Lloyd]

Grey Cloud at http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 89#p113289 denied catastrophism and said "Many, if not most, of the myths relating to stars etc are conveying information about navigation rather than catastrophe". I'm not familiar with star myths, but most myths were about the planets, Saturn, Venus and Mars, I believe, and they were often about catastrophes. Here's some background.

Catastrophism and Anthropology
[SIS C&C Review] 5 Mar 2003
http://www.catastrophism.com/intro/sear ... m_cat[]=-1
From: SIS Chronology& Catastrophism Review (1994) "Proceedings of the 1993 Cambridge Conference" Issue Contents Catastrophism and Anthropology - The Influence of Neo-Catastrophism on the Interpretation of Flood Rituals and Ceremonies Benny Josef Peiser School of Human Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University

Introduction
Only 150 years ago, most of Europe's leading scholars were convinced that the ancient flood traditions and festivals originated from natural catastrophes that had occurred during man's early history. Both historians and anthropologists were able to point to a rich variety of catastrophe legends found throughout the world. For more than 2500 years these ancient traditions were generally viewed as historical. Not only did all the famous scholars of antiquity write about these natural disasters but, moreover, during the 18th and 19th century the newly established science of geology gave rise to findings and strata which clearly seemed to testify to major natural upheavals. As a consequence, scientists of Europe's enlightenment (among others Vico, Boulanger, Whiston, Cuvier) related the origins of ancient customs and rituals to these past cataclysms. Vico and Boulanger accepted the ancient belief that the Earth had undergone many natural disasters and that from these global upheavals all institutions and religious ceremonies were derived.

Yet, with the emergence of 19th century evolutionary gradualism, all fields of science banned catastrophe theories completely from universities, research and scientific journals. Over and over again, historians and anthropologists rejected any historical reading of the ancient catastrophe legends and rituals by reference to the works of Darwin and Lyell [1. When Frazer published his comprehensive study on the worldwide story of the great flood, he stressed the paradigmatic importance of Darwin's theory of evolution, consequently rejecting every possibility that the tradition originated from historical events [2. According to Frazer's biographer, the implicit purpose of this rejection was 'to undermine the Bible and religion by insisting on its folkloric stratum, thereby associating it with savagery' [3. Since then, 20th century anthropology has tended to view the ancient flood traditions as mere reflections of 'mythical' thinking, whereas catastrophe rituals and festivals are almost totally ignored [4. As a result, anthropological studies which have focused on the relationship between religious ceremonies and catastrophe rituals and traditions of natural disasters are very rare. Despite the fact that research in the field of rituals has quickened its pace over the course of this century, ceremonies which re-enacted or commemorated natural catastrophes have been paid relatively little attention [5. In the light of new astronomical discoveries and the emergence of scientific neo-catastrophism, it is necessary to re-evaluate the historicity and the possible effects of the ancient flood catastrophes. Since astronomy, geology and biology have finally accepted the catastrophic history of planet Earth and its inhabitants, it is time for anthropologists to recognise the findings of natural science and to adopt them in their research.

Collective reactions to natural catastrophes
Natural catastrophes do not necessarily lead to collective responses in form of catastrophe games or rituals. In many cases, the scope of the disaster is limited and the disaster agent is clearly identified. However, if a natural catastrophe results in extreme devastation and destruction, or if the agent of destruction is unknown, the disaster can prove to be a traumatic experience which triggers post-disaster collective reactions. These activities stem from the desire of communities struck by catastrophe to influence and pacify the agents of destruction. Furthermore, expressive (and in most cases violent) responses are triggered by collective anger and tension following traumatic catastrophes. To avoid internal violence and civil strife, the growing aggression within a community of survivors has to be acted out in a structured, organised and generally accepted (i.e. ritualised) form. It was particularly conspicuous in antiquity that many catastrophe games and festivals took place either to commemorate foregone catastrophes or to avoid future disasters. Although there is considerable overlap, these games and festivals can be classified into three different categories: i) festivals, which were held in commemoration of a foregone disaster; ii) playful rituals, with an apotropaic function of hindering future natural catastrophes; iii) games, which dramatised and re-enacted a natural catastrophe. Most of these ceremonies were held in the form of combats, blood sacrifices and religious rituals or, alternatively, through mimetic dramatisation of the catastrophe. Right from the very start they had the supposed function of pacifying natural forces and of hindering an apocalyptic end of the world.

[Grey Cloud]

Lloyd,
I did not deny catastrophes. Where in the quote you posted do I deny anything. If, by your own admission, you are unfamiliar with star myths, how can you be so sure they are about catastrophes? Could you give examples of myths that are about Saturn, Venus or Mars?

You have not countered anything, briefly or otherwise. What you have done is regurgitate a passage from 20-odd years ago which does not give one example of a myth to back up your assertions.

Did you check the links I provided?

[Lloyd]

GC, you deny that planets have anything to do with ancient catastrophes. Isn't that true? No, I didn't check your links. I assume they're about star myths or something. I don't know if star myths are about catastrophes or not. I'm mainly interested in planet myths, which I think are far more numerous, and are about catastrophes mainly.

It doesn't matter how old a writing is, if it contains useful info. I didn't vomit anything. And I only copied the first few paragraphs from the paper. I may copy more later.

[Grey Cloud]

For the umpteenth time, I do not deny that planets have anything to do with catastrophes. Show where I have done this. I seem to recall that a few months ago we had a discussion about Mars, Venus and Homer and what Homer was saying vis-a-vis catastrophe.

No, I didn't check your links.

No, because you might see something which takes you out of your comfort zone. You will not learn anything by only looking at one side of the story.

I'm mainly interested in planet myths, which I think are far more numerous, and are about catastrophes mainly.

Again I ask for some examples.

Regurgitate:
repeat (information) without analysing or comprehending it.
synonyms: repeat, say again, restate, recapitulate, iterate, reiterate, recite, rehearse, parrot. Informal: trot out
"I knew how to regurgitate facts for examinations"

If you are going to copy more later, try to include some evidence rather than just assertions and empty statements.

[Lloyd]

For the umpteenth time, I do not deny that planets have anything to do with catastrophes. Show where I have done this. I seem to recall that a few months ago we had a discussion about Mars, Venus and Homer and what Homer was saying vis-a-vis catastrophe.

That's good to know. The TB team considers Homer to be a late source, which is a mixture of myths from various sources, and they consider older sources to be much clearer for identifying planets etc. So I don't think I wasn't involved much with discussing Homer.

No, [you didn't check my links] because you might see something which takes you out of your comfort zone. You will not learn anything by only looking at one side of the story.

Says you. What stops you from quoting passages that impress you? Do you think I wouldn't read them here?

Regurgitate: repeat (information) without analysing or comprehending it. ... If you are going to copy more later, try to include some evidence rather than just assertions and empty statements.

You try not to make insults. You're implying that I don't understand what I quote. But you don't know what I do and don't understand.

[Grey Cloud]

The TB team considers Homer to be a late source, which is a mixture of myths from various sources, and they consider older sources to be much clearer for identifying planets etc. So I don't think I wasn't involved much with discussing Homer.

Late compared with what source? As for Homer, see the top of p15 of this thread. I couldn't find the post where you asked me to give you a place in Homer which specifically mentioned catastrophe but you did.

What stops you from quoting passages that impress you? Do you think I wouldn't read them here?

I posted a link so you could read it straight from the horses mouth - one mouse click away but you didn't bother. Posting links rather than lengthy passages is encouraged by the forum rules.

You're implying that I don't understand what I quote. But you don't know what I do and don't understand.

I am implying that you do not understand the subject you are quoting about. You cannot understand it if you only ever read one aspect of it. I also know that you understand nothing of source criticism or discernment.

[tholden]

If you view Velikovskian catastrophism, Saturn theory, the EU, and the new Mars Images as a sort of a single big-picture nexus, then I believe the following things stand out as the kinds of giant proofs which P.T. Barnum would approve of; minimally:

Velikovsky's prediction of the conditions which would be found on Venus and the conditions actually found there.

The question of gravity in prehistoric times.  You cannot start with Einstein's description of gravity as some sort of a 4-dimensional differential geometry thing and believe that it could have undergone a 3-1 or greater change on our own planet in recent times.  But it is an easy demonstration that it has. If you can rule out the possibility that the huge change in gravity over recent times is due to any sort of expansion of the mass of the planet, then this becomes a proof that something like Ralph Sansbury's description of gravity as a polarized electrostatic effect is actually needed. 

The Valles Marinaris.  There have been discussions on FaceBook groups recently as to whether the damage seen on Mars might indicate a nuclear war in past ages.  But there isn't any sort of a weapon which could create the Valles Marinaris.  The EU description of the Valles Marinaris as an electrical scar created by an interplanetary arc discharge is pretty much the only plausible explanation.

The general condition of Mars as seen in MSL gigapan images.  There are electrical scars on Mars and no shortage of desert areas and rocks.  But Most of Mars looks as if the entire planet had been simply picked up and shaken the way a dog might shake a rat, remains of rock plates and structures lying around catawumpus all over the place.  That also is beyond the power of a nuclear war to explain and amounts to a proof of major cosmic disaster within fairly recent times...

The roughly 26-degree axis tilts of Neptune, Saturn, Earth, and Mars. Having four of the nine planets have roughly the same axis tilt which is substantially different from the predicted mean value of zero is anomalous and standard theories provide no explanation for it. The theory of solar system origin described in Cosmos in Collision offers a perfectly rational explanation for this, i.e. that the Southern bodies basically flew into the plane of the sun's system at something like a 26-degree angle from the South and that as the individual bodies spun out and began to orbit as they do now, they kept the rough 26-degree angle of approach inthe form of axis tilts due to ordinary gyroscopic force.

[Lloyd]

Thanks, Ted. The evidence you mention sounds good, except that Vallis Marineris appears more likely to be a rift. See discussion at http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 05#p102386.

[Lloyd]

Planet Orbit Circulation via Gas Clouds
Several members doubt the Saturn Theory because they doubt that Venus or any other planets could have had their orbits circularized in a short period of time, such as a few decades or centuries. The following excerpt from a Kronos magazine article seems to answer the problem well. The article has detailed calculations too, but based on an early model of the Saturn Theory, rather than on the present model. Nonetheless, the calculations seem largely applicable to the present model anyway.

On the Circularization of the Orbit of Venus
From: Kronos Vol. VII No. 2 (Winter 1982)
Issue Contents On the Circularization of the Orbit of Venus [by] Ragnar Forshufvud
ABSTRACT After the Saturn nova outburst that caused the Deluge, a flat cloud of hydrogen gas would have been rotating around the Sun. The aerodynamic drag caused by the hydrogen gas may have changed the orbit of Venus substantially in a period of a few hundred years. This is demonstrated by numerical calculations, using a theoretical model for the gas cloud. The effects of the gas on electric and magnetic fields in space are also discussed. Velikovsky's reconstruction of ancient astronomical events requires that the orbit of Venus, originally elliptic like that of a comet of the Jovian family, became circular in a period of a few thousand years. Most astronomers refuse to believe that such a thing is possible. For a bibliography of works dealing with the problem (1977 and older), see Ref. 1. A more recent contribution to the discussion was written by Sherrerd.(2) The problem of orbit circularization does not concern catastrophist astronomy only. According to some theorists, several satellites of the large planets are in fact captured asteroids which succeeded, after being captured, in achieving approximately circular orbits. The Moon may also be a captured body -- no really satisfactory theory has been found for the existence of a satellite to the Earth, the difficulty with the capture theory being the circularization problem. The extra difficulty which meets the catastrophist is that the time scale is so short. Some of the oldest traditions refer to a time when there was no Moon.(3) This indicates that the Moon was captured comparatively recently. Furthermore, Velikovsky has suggested that the Earth was once a satellite of Saturn. This seems to be the only way to explain certain parts of the oldest myths, but it leaves us with another circularization problem: how did the Earth get its circular orbit, after it had left the gravitational field of Saturn? In most of the circularization literature, the problem is discussed in general terms without quantitative analysis. An exception is the comprehensive treatment done by Rose and Vaughan.(4) ... This article was not written in order to rule out the possibility that the orbit of Venus was circularized by electromagnetic forces. Its purpose is to demonstrate that, even without such forces, the circularization of the orbit of Venus can be fully explained on the basis of a simple gas-cloud model. Although no such gas cloud is observed today, neither its creation nor its dissipation is inherently implausible. As we shall see, electromagnetic forces were probably responsible for the scattering of the cloud.

[Norman]

ABSTRACT After the Saturn nova outburst that caused the Deluge . . .

Oh, so this is a fact? Based on what scientific evidences?

[webolife]

Watch it, Norman, you can see that the statement is propositional by the use of the word "would" in the second part of the sentence. Not that I agree with the Saturn hypothesis myself.

[Norman]

@webolife,

Watch it, Norman, you can see that the statement is propositional by the use of the word "would" in the second part of the sentence. Not that I agree with the Saturn hypothesis myself.

Yes I noticed the "would have" and "may have" - but it starts off with a claim of fact.

This is just like in modern cosmology where an unproven/unproveable hypothesis is thought to be the very truth when it is repeated often enough.

[Lloyd]

Main Point
The important point is whether a largely hydrogen gas cloud in the inner solar system some few thousands of years ago could or would have caused orbits of planets (and moons) to circularize in short periods of time. If so, then the theory that some of the planets originated outside the solar system and one of them later went nova in the inner solar system where the group separated would be proven possible. The article uses detailed calculations to show that this theory appears to be possible. I'll post highlights of the article now.

Saturn Theory
Note that the article was based on Velikovsky's theory, rather than on the EU team's Saturn Theory. So the parameters would be a little different. The Saturn system may have arrived on a highly elliptical orbit at the present orbit of the main asteroid belt, between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter about 2.7 AU from the Sun. Saturn may have flared as a nova at that point and the Ceres planet blew up, forming the belt. If Venus, Mars and Earth left Saturn at that distance, their orbits could have circularized much quicker than the 556 years calculated from this article. Saturn would have taken much longer, but it may have been influenced by Jupiter too, as well as by the flare, so those combined influences seem capable of circularizing its orbit in a few thousand years, I think.

Article Highlights
On the Circularization of the Orbit of Venus
From: Kronos Vol. VII No. 2 (Winter 1982) See Abstract in my previous post.
GRADUAL ENERGY LOSS - Rose and Vaughan(18) worked out three possible sequences of events, all starting with the stage when Venus was still behaving like a comet of the Jovian family and ending up with the present situation. One of these sequences, specified in Table 3 of the cited work, is especially interesting because it is based upon the assumption that energy was lost gradually by the planets, rather than only at those times when near-collisions were in progress. This is exactly what would happen if aerodynamic drag was at work. However, it must be pointed out that Rose and Vaughan assumed that the angular momentum of each planet remained constant between encounters, while aerodynamic drag will generally not leave angular momentum unaffected. This parameter may either increase, decrease, or remain essentially the same, depending on the diameter of the cloud and the mass distribution within it. Table 1 in this work is a reproduction of the first part of Table 3 in the article by Rose and Vaughan. Only the orbit of Venus is changing between stage 1a and stage 1b. The decrease of the semimajor axis from 3.0 to 2.1 A.U. is accompanied by a decrease of eccentricity from 0.794 to 0.687, which is exactly what is required to keep angular momentum constant. If we allow a decrease in angular momentum, the eccentricity will change less; if we allow an increase, it will change more. Still, both the 1a and the 1b orbits can be considered as typical examples of possible Venus orbits during the first phase of the circularization process, and both will be used here for testing the hypothesis of circularization by aerodynamic drag.

Table 1: The first phase of the circularization of the orbit of Venus. Geobasic units are used; one geobasic unit equals 1.343 x 10^32 joules. This table is an extract from Table 3 of Ref. 4.
a) Semi-major Axis; b) Eccentricity; c) Mass; d) Sidereal period; e) Mean Synodic Period;* f) Perihelion; g) Aphelion; h) Minimum velocity; i) Maximum velocity; j) Energy; k) Angular Momentum.
Stage 1a
Earth a).706 .070 1.012 d).593 --- .656 g).755 6.972 8.022 j)-28.307 5.330
Mars a).574 .080 .107 d).435 2.748 .528 g).620 7.655 8.986 j)-3.680 .508
Venus a)3.000 .794 .870 d)5.196 1.129 .618 g)5.382 1.229 10.705 j)-5.724 5.756
.................................................................... j) [total] -37.712 11.594
Stage 1b
Earth a).706 .070 1.012 d).593 --- .656 g).755 6.972 8.022 j)-28.307 5.330
Mars a).574 .080 .107 d).435 2.748 .528 g).620 7.655 8.986 j)-3.680 .508
Venus a)2.100 .687 .870 d)3.043 1.242 .657 g)3.543 1.867 10.067 j)-8.178 5.756
.................................................................... j) [total] -40.165 11.594
*The mean synodic periods are expressed in terms of the "year" that obtained at that time; all other variables are expressed [in] geobasic units.

The energy lost by Venus between stage 1a and stage 1b is 2.454 geobasic energy units, which corresponds to 3.3 x 10^32 joules. We shall now investigate whether aerodynamic drag could be responsible for this loss of energy. A cloud model is presented in Figure 1. The Sun is surrounded by a flattened cloud of circulating gas. The cloud has the shape of an ellipsoid with one ["vertical"] minor axis of 0.2 A.U. and two ["horizontal"] major axes of 4.0 A.U. each. For simplicity we assume the gas density to be constant within the cloud. At each point, the gas velocity equals that of a body in a circular orbit at the same distance from the Sun, which means that the velocity of the gas is inversely proportional to the square root of the distance from the Sun. For simplicity, the plane of the major axes is assumed to coincide with the plane of the orbit of Venus. A deviation of one degree would shorten Venus' path through the cloud by about 2 percent. (The present orbital planes of the planets do in fact deviate slightly from one another. For instance, the angle between the orbit plane of Venus and the orbit plane of Saturn is 2.1 degrees.) Figure 2 shows the initial orbit of Venus. The period of revolution was 5.196 years, and it took Venus 0.690 year to pass through the cloud. The orbital velocity of Venus reached a maximum each time Venus passed through the perihelion point, which is the the point in the orbit closest to the Sun. But to calculate aerodynamic drag we must know the velocity relative to the surrounding gas. At perihelion, Venus and the gas moved in the same direction, which means that the velocity of the gas should be subtracted from the velocity of Venus. This relative velocity had a minimum, not a maximum, at perihelion, as shown in Figure 3. All the time, the relative velocity was well above that of sound. The velocity of sound in hydrogen is about 1300 m/s at 300°K and 1500 m/s at 400°K. Aerodynamic drag at supersonic speed can be calculated from the expression 0.5 ρ V^2 A, where ρ is the density of the gas, V is the velocity relative to the gas and A is the effective cross section area.

... As shown in Appendix I, the minimum value of the [Roche] lobe radius was approximately 5.8 x 10^8 m or 580,000 km in stage 1a, which is about 1.5 times the present Earth-Moon distance. ... It should be noted that the [Venus] atmosphere's center of gravity was situated well behind the body, so the body attracted the atmosphere and the atmosphere attracted the body. Aerodynamic drag, primarily acting upon the atmosphere, was transferred to the body by gravitation. This description of the atmosphere of Venus is not necessarily correct in all details. Its sole purpose is to serve as a basis for an estimate of the effective cross-section area of the atmosphere. ... Using data from nova observations, astronomers have tried to estimate disc masses. Warner(22) reports that disc masses can be expected to be of the order of 10^-4 solar masses for all cataclysmic variables (these include classical novae, recurrent novae, and dwarf novae). Provided that we have chosen a reasonable value for the volume of the cloud, we can get a rough idea of the density of the cloud simply by dividing mass by volume. The result is 3.6 x 10^-8 kg/m^3. ... Based upon the [article's discussed] considerations, the density 10^-7 kg/m^3 was selected for the model. For comparison, the density of the terrestrial atmosphere at sea level is approximately 1.2 kg/m^3, while at 110 km altitude it is only about 10^-7 kg/m^3. ... The energy lost by Venus between stages 1a and 1b was 3.30 x 10^32 joules (J). Using the computer program of Appendix II, one can calculate the energy loss per revolution as Venus moved through the gas cloud, and from this the average loss per year, as shown in Table III. The result is an average loss of 5.94 x 10^29 J per year, which means that the time required for Venus to lose 3.30 x 10^32 J of energy in our gas cloud model is approximately 556 years [the time for the orbit to circularize].
... [W]e need 2 x 10^42 ergs to get rid of the cloud! ... t would stay for millions of years, unless there were some more efficient scattering mechanism than thermal diffusion and radiation pressure. Such a mechanism exists. We may call it "the magnetic centrifuge". If the central body has a magnetic field and is rotating, the magnetic field will also be rotating. This rotating magnetic field will interact electromagnetically with the gas, provided that the gas contains ions, which it normally does. The circular motion of the cloud will be accelerated and the gas will migrate outwards. Possibly, this is a normal process after a nova outburst. From modern nova observations, Warner draws the interesting conclusion that "evidence exists for a stream of material leaving the disc".(44) ... Fortunately, we have seen indications that only 2000 years ago the interplanetary magnetic field was much larger than it is now. The former existence and sudden dissipation 25 centuries ago of a strong magnetic field in space has been suggested before by Sherrerd.(45) ... [This] would be sufficient ... for scattering the gas cloud in a few thousand years, mainly because of the low density and large area of the cloud. As shown in Appendix III, a field of the order of 1 gauss should be enough.

[Lloyd]

18970
THOTH CLUES TO THE GREAT FLOOD Part 1

http://saturniancosmology.org/files/tho ... 998.08.txt
A BRIEF ORIENTATION David Talbott
... WHY SHOULD WE CARE ABOUT MYTH?
... Myth is, I believe, a window to early human history, a more intense period of history than we've realized. The myths have their roots in a time of celestial catastrophe, and more often than not the appearance of confusion results from viewing myth as something other than what it is. In the course of cultural evolution and scientific advance, we left behind the fabled "long ago," whose images seemed wholly out of touch with our own world. Yet my personal conviction is that ancient myth, when seen as a symbolic record of earth-shaking events in the sky, will permanently change man's view of his celestial environment.
- BUT YOUR CONCLUSIONS ARE NOT THOSE OF OTHERS WHO DEVOTED LIFETIMES TO THE STUDY OF MYTH.
... Many common themes run through the folklore of diverse cultures. From ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia to the Americas, from India to China, Scandinavia, Africa, and the Pacific Islands, one finds surprisingly similar accounts: celestial temples and cities, a lost paradise or "Garden of Eden," a cosmic mountain, a flaming serpent or dragon in the sky -- and surprisingly similar stories of global calamity ranging from wars of the gods, to a great flood or a devastating rain of fire and gravel. If we'll look at these collective memories carefully, it will change our understanding of the past. Many of the myths concern planets, but the accounts make no sense to us in terms of the movement of these remote bodies today. Why did the planets, these little pinpricks of light, play such a powerful role in the mythical "age of the gods"? Along with others working in this field, I've come to interpret the myths and drawings and ritual practices from a new vantage point. Here is the conclusion in a nutshell: A few thousand years ago, the sky did not look anything like it appears today! Planets hung as gigantic, sometimes terrifying bodies above the ancient stargazers. In periods of stability this involved incredible beauty, but there were also periods of mind-altering catastrophe -- the most traumatic experiences in human history.
- WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE FOR THIS?
The primary evidence comes from ancient pictures and chronicles, submitted to extensive cross-referencing. By comparing accounts from around the world, one can begin to reconstruct the way the sky looked in ancient times. Is it possible that the myths and pictographs recorded, in a language unique to the starworshippers, large-scale events we've forgotten? By keeping that possibility firmly in mind, the researcher will begin to identify crucial themes of myth -- themes found on every continent, but pointing to an alien sky. As one begins to see the past differently, recent space age discoveries will take on a new significance. Our probes of other planets, such as the Mariner explorations of Mars, the Voyager missions to Jupiter and Saturn, and more recently the Magellan mapping of Venus, the Galileo probe of Jupiter, and the Mars Surveyor have produced many stunning images of the planets and their moons, together with undeniable evidence of large-scale catastrophe within the planetary system. Taken as a whole, these stark profiles of our neighbors challenge traditional theories claiming slow and uneventful planetary evolution. Moreover, a new possibility arises from a reconsideration of the historical material: the possibility that at least some of the horrendous scars on our planetary neighbors resulted from events witnessed by man not all that long ago.
- WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THE STATEMENT THAT THE PLANETS APPEARED AS "GIGANTIC BODIES IN THE SKY"? At the core of the argument is the idea that several planets were once joined in a spectacular gathering of planets, together with gases and dust, smaller moons and cosmic debris. For prehistoric man -- who witnessed all of this -- the effect was a massive celestial display in the northern sky. I've called this celestial assembly "the polar configuration" because in its stable phases it was centered on the north celestial pole. In the beginning, the primary form was the planet Saturn, stationary but immense in the sky. Numerous lines of evidence suggest that Saturn once towered over man and inspired the most dramatic leaps in human imagination the world has ever known. Our work puts a new emphasis on the unusual celestial events reflected in the myths. When you first dive into world mythology, all of your prior training will tell you to dismiss the myth-makers as fabricators or victims of hallucination. But there's another way to see the myths. Ancient man experienced extraordinary events, then strove to remember and to reenact them in every way possible. The result was not only a global mythology, but entirely new forms of human expression. And the whole range of expressions -- sacrifices to the gods, wars of conquest, monumental construction, pictographic representations, and endless celebrations of the lost age of the gods -- left us a massive reservoir of evidence. These highly novel expressions are, in fact, the distinguishing characteristics of the first civilizations.
- BUT WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE THE SKY HAS CHANGED SO DRASTICALLY?
The best I can ask for is a willingness to consider an argument. I could show you, for example, that certain celestial images preoccupied ancient man to the point of an obsession. A great cosmic wheel in the sky. The pyramid of the sun. The eye of heaven. Also the ship of heaven, a spiraling serpent, the raging goddess, and four luminous "winds" of the sky. The problem for conventional perspectives is that these images are far, far removed from anything we see in the heavens today. But that is only the beginning of the theoretical challenge. As soon as you realize that far-flung cultures, though employing different symbols, tell a unified story, all of the previous "explanations" of myth collapse. Of course the point will not be proven in a few sentences, and not in a few pages. But the more you learn on this subject, the more compelling the collective memory becomes.
- SO YOU ARE CHALLENGING THE IDEA THAT THINGS HAVE NOT REALLY CHANGED THAT MUCH WITHIN THE SOLAR SYSTEM.
Yes, we are challenging an intellectual system as a whole. What is at stake here are the pillars of the modern world view. How could it be that the sky has completely changed in a few thousand years? Our textbooks do not talk about such a thing. When instructing us on the history of the solar system, the evolution of our planet, the birth of man, the origins of civilization, no one speaks of an unstable solar system, of interplanetary upheaval, or of wholesale changes in the celestial order. When the popular astronomer Carl Sagan presented his impressive exposition on the nature of things, called Cosmos, he didn't ask if we may have misunderstood our past. Rather, Sagan's expressed view -- the official view of science for many years -- fits comfortably within the textbooks on astronomy, geology, biology, anthropology, and ancient history. When we launched the U.S. Space program in the late 50s, then devoted billions of dollars to exploring neighboring planets, no one thought to ask if the planets might have followed different courses in earlier times, whether recent disturbances of the planetary system might have left their tell-tale marks on these remote bodies. So when our cameras and measuring devices reached the planets Mars and Venus, and the Voyager probes provided spectacular glimpses of Jupiter and Saturn -- well, we were left with a hundred enigmas and unanswered questions. And yes, there's a certain irony to this. The prevailing view of myth proclaims that, through science, man escaped the bonds of superstition and make believe. But now, in the twentieth century -- the age of science and reason -- it is myth and symbol that will provide the lost key to the past, the key to a new understanding of the solar system and of human origins. At the heart of this claim is a bedrock principle: the myth-making age arose from the human urge to REMEMBER [for future generations, because the sky had changed]; hence, the patterns of myth are the patterns of human memory. And if it can be rigorously demonstrated from cross-cultural comparison that numerous DIFFERENT words and symbols and mythical themes actually point to the SAME HIGHLY UNUSUAL EVENTS, then the patterns of memory will carry more weight than science has ever considered.
- HOW DO YOU DISTINGUISH THESE IDEAS ABOUT "PLANETARY" MYTH FROM THE IDEAS OF OTHER RESEARCHERS SUCH AS JOSEPH CAMPBELL, CARL JUNG AND MIRCEA ELIADE?
Each of these impressive scholars came to discern certain unified layers of myth, layers our traditional cynicism about myth never anticipated. Perhaps the greatest contribution of these pioneers is their acknowledgment that the common view -- seeing myth as random absurdity -- will not suffice to explain the subject. I think the late Joseph Campbell has done the most to awaken popular interest in myth, and he is one of my own favorites too. Following a comparative approach, Campbell brought to light quite a number of global themes. He noted, for example, the myths of the central sun, the world mountain, the flowering of creation through sacrifice, the birth of the hero, the terrible goddess, and so on. Any one of these themes, when explored in its full context, could open the door to incredible discovery. But Campbell, like so many others, stopped short of asking the most important question of all: if the celestial references of the myths are absent today, is it possible that they were present in a former time?
- WHAT IS THE REAL MESSAGE OF MYTH, IN YOUR VIEW?
The mythmakers are telling us we've forgotten the very thing they regarded as most vital -- in fact, the source of all meaning to the first starworshippers. We've forgotten the age of the gods. We've assumed that as long as man has journeyed on our planet the world looked and behaved almost exactly as it does today. And that is the fundamental error of modern perception. The answer to that error is to re-envision the past. With the help of the ancient chroniclers, its time to bring the forgotten dramas -- both the beauty, and the nightmare scenarios -- into the light of day.