Then I suggest cracking open a copy of Ages in Chaos and having a read! Yet for the sake of charity, I will simply quote two (lengthy) portions from Mr. V himself, the first from the beginning of the book and the latter from the end. Please persevere in reading them. I also strongly welcome any comments by veteran members of this board who may be familiar with specific criticisms of Velikovsky's Egyptian chronology revision as presented in Ages in Chaos and by later scholarship. As I remarked earlier in this thread, I've only been at this topic for 4 months. Some of you fine folks here have been going at this for more than 50 years, surely!
Immanuel Velikovsky wrote:Many wondrous things happen when historical perspective is distorted. In order to understand the scope of the displacements in the history of the ancient world, one must try to conceive of the chaos which would result if a survey of Europe and America were written in which the history of the British Isles were some six hundred years out of line, so that in Europe and America the year would be 1941 while in Britain it would be 1341.
As Columbus discovered America in 1492, the Churchill of 1341 could not have visited this country, but must have visited some other land the scholars would be divided in their opinion as to the whereabouts of that land and met its chief. Another chief, not Franklin Delano Roosevelt of Washington, would live in history as cosigner of a charter with Churchill of Britain in 1341.
But as American records would speak of Churchill who crossed the ocean in the early forties of the twentieth century, British history would also have a Churchill II, six hundred years after the first one. Cromwell would also be doubled by the same process. He would have to live three hundred years before Churchill I and also three hundred years after him, or three hundred years before Churchill II.
The First World War would be fought twice, as would the Second. The First World War, in its second variant, would follow the Second World War, in its first variant, by five and three quarter centuries.
By the same token, the development of the Constitution, the cultural life, the progress of technology and the arts, would appear in chaotic distortion.
Newton in England would become an early forerunner of Copernicus instead of following him. Joan of Arc would revive the old traditions of the suffragettes of the post-Victorian days; she would be burned twice with an interval of six hundred years between; or, with the growing confusion of history, she would have to return to the stake a few centuries from today to suffer her death again.
In the case presented, not only the history of the British Isles would be doubled and distorted, but also the history of the entire world. Difficulties would, of course, arise, but they would be swept away as oddities. Complicated theories would be proposed and discussed, and if accepted, they would establish themselves as new, strong obstacles to a correct perception of past history.
Ancient history is distorted in this very manner. Because of the disruption of synchronism, many figures on the historical scene are "ghosts" or "halves" and "doubles." Events are often duplicates; many battles are shadows; many speeches are echoes; many treaties are copies; even some empires are phantoms.
The primary error can be found in Egyptian history; because of retardation, the history of Egypt was taken out of real contact with the histories of other peoples. Events in which the people of Egypt and the people of Assyria or Babylonia or Media were involved were recorded in the histories of these peoples from the Egyptian annals; the same events were then described for the second time in the history of Egypt, the annals of these other peoples, participants in the events, being the source.
-----Immanuel Velikovsky wrote:If one is determined to keep to the traditional construction of history and insist that the letters of el-Amarna were written to and from archaic Canaanite princes, he is also bound to maintain that in Canaan events occurred which recurred half a millennium later in the time of Jehoshaphat and Ahab. This makes it necessary to hold that there already was a city of Sumur, of which not a relic remained; that this city, with a royal palace and fortified walls, was repeatedly besieged by a king of Damascus, who had a prolonged dispute and recurrent wars with the king of Sumur over a number of cities, in a conflict that endured for a number of decades; that on one occasion the king of Sumur captured the king of Damascus but released him; that on the occasion of a siege of Sumur by the king of Damascus the guard attached to the governors succeeded in driving away the Syrian host from the walls of Sumur; that on the occasion of another siege of Sumur the Syrian host, hearing rumors of the arrival of the Egyptian archers, left their camp and fled, every detail an exact image of what happened again half a millennium later at the walls of Samaria.
The traditional construction of history implies also that the king of Damascus, who was at the head of a coalition of many Arabian chieftains, succeeded in formenting a revolt by a Trans-Jordan king named Mesh against the king of Sumur, whose vassal he was, and this rebellious vassal king captured cities of the king of Sumur and humiliated his people, as in the days of Mesha's rebellion against the king of Samaria. That Rimuta was the place in dispute between the king of Damascus and the king of Sumur, as Ramoth was in the second epoch; that the king of Sumur had a second residence where a deity was worshiped whose name, Baalith, was the same as that of the deity introduced by Jezebel, and the king of Sumur planted groves in his second residence, like Ahab in the field of Naboth; that the king of Damascus organized a number of ambuscades against the king of Sumur, and the king of Sumur each time managed to escape death, like the king of Samaria of the second period; that the king of Damascus became gravely ill, yet did not die from the illness but was put to a violent death on his sickbed, like the king of Damascus of the second period.
This hypothetical scholar would also be bound to admit that all these coincidences happened at a time when the land of Sumur was visited by a drought, and the springs dried up and a severe famine followed; that the drought lasted several years and caused starvation of the people and epidemics among the domestic animals; and that the inhabitants departed from the realm of the two residences everything just as it happened in the second period.
He would have to maintain that the two periods do not differ in any respect whatsoever, and that each event of one period has its twin in the other. The land of Edom was ruled by a deputy of the king of Jerusalem in both cases. Tribes from as far away as Mount Seir invaded Trans-Jordan in both cases. In the first period as in the second, the invaders threatened Jerusalem and caused the population of the kingdom to flee from their homes. The king of Jerusalem, like Jehoshaphat centuries later, was afraid of being driven with his people from their inheritance and expressed his fear in similar terms, but everything turned out well when the tribes of Mount Seir and Trans-Jordan rose up one against the other, as they did five to six hundred years later.
This scholar would also have to admit that the military chiefs of the Canaanite king of Jerusalem signed their letters with the same names as the military chiefs of Jehoshaphat, king of Jerusalem, and that the names were as peculiar and unusual as, for example, lahzibada (Jehozabad) and "son of Zuchru" ("son of Zichri"), or Addaia (Adaia), or Adadanu (Adadani, Adna), who was again the first among the chiefs; that the governor of Sumur had the same name as the governor of Samaria of the later period (Amon), and that the keeper of the palace in Sumur was named Arzaia like the chief steward, Arza, of the king of Israel. Again, in the city of Shunem (Shunama) lived a "great lady/' and already in the first period some miracle had happened to her so that she was called Baalat-Nese. And again, the king of Damascus had a military governor (Naaman, lanhama), by whose hand "deliverance was given to Syria," and who at first was feared by the king of Sumur but later on became the latter's friend, like his reincarnation six hundred years later.
Further, the successor of the murdered king of Damascus, by the name of Aziru or Azaru, acted like Hazael of the second period: he oppressed the land of Sumur; he conquered almost all the land of the realm; he burned with fire the strongholds and villages of the king of Sumur; he even spoke with the same peculiar expressions as Hazael did later on.
This scholar would also be faced with the fact that in the second period the city of Irqata again lost her king, and that King Matinu- Bali and King Adunu-Bali, under the leadership of Biridri, defied the mighty invader from the north, just as happened in the first period when a Biridia (Biridi) assumed the task of leading the kingless city of Irqata and King Mut-Balu and King Aduna against the invader from the north. In both cases this invader was the king of Assyria and the lord of Hatti. In both cases he was victorious over the coalition of Syrian and Palestinian princes helped by Egyptian battalions. In both cases he received placating presents from Musri (Egypt) in the form of rare animals or figures of such animals. Again, the long of Damascus, Hazael, battled with him between Lebanon and Hermon as did Azaru of the first period. Again, the kings of Tyre and Sidon, harassed by this invader, left 'their cities and departed in ships, as they did six hundred years earlier.
In both periods the art of ivory work flourished, and identical patterns were produced: designs and execution, characteristic of the earlier period, were repeated in the second period, and have been found to be so similar that they have been taken for copies of the art objects of the first period.
In both periods the same architecture and stone workmanship (Megiddo, Samaria) found expression.
In both periods the same idiomatic Hebrew was spoken.
Can one accept such a series of coincidences? And if it is accepted, is it only to have the old difficulties present themselves again? If the Habiru were the Israelites, why, then, in the Book of Joshua, which records the conquest of Canaan, and in the letters of el-Amarna are no common name and no common event preserved?
At the beginning of this work I placed before the reader the unsolved problem of the correlation of Israelite and Egyptian histories. Of these two ancient nations, one professes to have had close ties with the other; actually the biblical story moves in the light and shadow of the great kingdom on the Nile. Egyptian history, on the other hand, in all its numerous inscriptions, on stone and on papyrus, denies any real contact with the neighboring kingdom on the Jordan. Even the glorious age of King Solomon, so exalted in the Old Testament, appears to have passed entirely unnoticed by the Egyptian kings and their scribes. And more than that, the great events of the Israelite past their long bondage in Egypt
and their departure from that land under unusual circumstances appear to have been entirely unknown to the conventional history of Egypt. For that reason the time of the Exodus is debated and placed at almost every conceivable time point of the Egyptian past, from the beginning of the New Kingdom presumably in -1580 down many centuries. The uncertainty as to the time of the sojourn in Egypt and the departure is the direct result of the absence of references to the children of Israel in Egypt and to their leaving the country, and of the sterility of information concerning the relations as neighbors of these two peoples during the period covered by the Scriptures.
We have attempted to solve the problem of the synchronization of the histories of these two peoples of antiquity, both of whom occupy major places in the history of the ancient world. We made this attempt after we recognized that the biblical story of the Exodus contains frequently repeated references to some natural catastrophes. Logic thus required us to look in extant Egyptian sources for references to some disturbance in nature.
The search proved not to be fruitless. The Leiden Papyrus Ipuwer is a record of some natural catastrophe followed by a social upheaval; in the description of the catastrophe we recognized many details of the disturbances that accompanied the Exodus as narrated in the Scriptures. The inscription on the shrine from el-Arish contains another version of the cataclysm accompanied by a hurricane and nine days* darkness; and there we found also a description of the march of the pharaoh and his army toward the eastern frontier of his kingdom, where he was engulfed in a whirlpool. The name of the pharaoh is given in a royal cartouche which proves that the text was not regarded by its writer as mythical.
If we have in these documents the same story as found in the Book of Exodus, then a synchronical point between the histories of these two ancient nations is established. But here, where we expected to reach the solution of the problem of the date of the Exodus in Egyptian history, we were confronted with a problem that made the question of the date of the Exodus shrink into insignificance. Whatever theories have been offered concerning the time of the Exodus, not once has the thought occurred that the Israelites left Egypt on the eve of the arrival of the Hyksos. Consequently we found ourselves faced with a problem of very different magnitude. Either Egyptian history is much too long or 'biblical history is much too short. Must Egyptian history be shortened by some "ghost" centuries, or biblical history lengthened by the same number of lost" centuries?
We could not know the answer to this problem until we traveled a long distance through the centuries of ancient history. We noticed a path on which to start this journey. If the Israelites left Egypt on the eve of its invasion by the Hyksos, who arrived from Asia, we might, perchance, find in the Scriptures a reference to a meeting outside the borders of Egypt of the children of Israel and the invaders. Actually, even before they reached Mount Sinai, the Israelites encountered the hordes of Amalekites. We turned to the old Arabian writers and found that the tradition of the Amalekites as the dominant tribe among the Arabs, who invaded Egypt and ruled it for four or five hundred years, is alive in the Arabian literary heritage from their early past.
As we compared point after point in the Egyptian hieroglyphic, Hebrew biblical and post-biblical sources, and Arab autochthonous traditions found in their medieval writings, we were forced to conclude that the time of the Hyksos domination of Egypt was the time of the Judges in scriptural history. The equation of Hyksos and Amalekites gave additional support to the synchronization of the fall of the Middle Kingdom and the Exodus. We then had to examine the historical moment of the collapse of Hyksos rule in Egypt and the end of Amalekite domination in the Near East. In the siege of Auaris, the Hyksos fortress, by Ahrnose, some foreign troops played a decisive role. From parallels in the Book of Samuel it could be determined that it was King Saul, the first Jewish king, who was victorious over the Amalekites at el-Arish; and with the help of many proofs we could establish that el-Arish occupies the position of the ancient Auaris.
David was a contemporary of Ahmose, founder of the Eighteenth Dynasty, and of Amenhotep I; Solomon was a contemporary of Thutmose I and Hatshepsut. And we found that the celebrated journey to God's Land and Punt was the voyage to Palestine and Phoenicia described in the Scriptures as the visit of the Queen of Sheba.
We compared many details and always found that they coincided. But this drove us to the next station on the road. Five years after Solomon's death the Temple of Jerusalem and its palace were sacked by a pharaoh. Thutmose III succeeded Hatshepsut. If we were traveling on the right road, again we had to find a correspondence here: Thutmose III must have sacked Jerusalem of the treasures of its palace and Temple. This he actually did, and the pictures of his booty correspond very closely, in shape and number, with the description of the loot taken by a pharaoh in the fifth year after Solomon's death.
Under the next pharaoh Palestine was invaded again, according to scriptural and Egyptian sources. This time, however, the expedition was far from being victorious.
For three generations biblical scholars proved to the full satisfaction of all that many parts of the Scriptures were products of much later centuries than the Scriptures would indicate. Then, during the 1930s, with the discovery of the Has Shamra texts, the estimate was revised in the diametrically opposite direction: the same biblical texts were now regarded as a heritage of Canaanite culture, six centuries older than the biblical texts. However, the collation of material from Hebrew literary sources, from Ras Shamra, and from Egypt convinced us that not only the earlier reduction of the age of biblical prose and verse but also its present increase is erroneous. In saying this we are actually ahead of what we may legitimately assert: we still do not know which of the two histories, Egyptian or Israelite, must be readjusted. At the same time we observed how the histories of other ancient countries and peoples accord with either the Israelite or the Egyptian chronology; and how the histories of Cyprus, Mycenae, and Crete, in correlating with one side or the other, create confusion in archaeology and chronology.
In three consecutive chapters we collated the historical evidence of three successive generations in Egypt (Hatshepsut, Thutmose III, Amenhotep II) and in Palestine (Solomon, Rehoboam, Asa), and found unfailing correspondence. It is possible that by sheer accident one age in Egypt bears a close resemblance to another age, and thus offers ground for a spurious coevality; but it is quite impossible that three consecutive generations in Egypt and in the neighboring Palestine of two different ages could produce consistent correspondence in so many details. What is even more striking, these three consecutive generations in Egypt as well as in Palestine were not selected at random, but were forced upon us by the deliberations and parallels of the earlier chapters, in which we scrutinized the time of the Exodus and the following centuries until Saul, and in Egypt the last days of the Middle Kingdom and the following centuries of Hyksos rule until the rise of lie New Kingdom.
It would be a miracle, indeed, if all these coincidences were purely accidental. Anyone familiar with the theory of probabilities knows that with every additional coincidence the chances for another grow smaller, not in arithmetical or in geometric progression, but in a progression of a higher order; therefore the chance would be a trillion or quadrillion against one that all the parallels offered on previous pages are merely coincidences.
Following the three consecutive generations in Egypt and Palestine, there were Amenhotep III and Akhnaton in Egypt and Jehoshaphat in Judea and Ahab in Israel. It could not be by mere chance that the fourth generation again presented a picture in which the details fit together like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. The histories of two lands and the vicissitudes in the lives of their rulers and their peoples could not be in complete correspondence were there not exact synchronism. And so it happened that in this fourth generation the rulers and prominent personages in one country actually wrote letters to the rulers and prominent personages in the other country and received written answers from them. To what extent details and events correspond during those years of famine, sieges, invasion from Trans-Jordan, and military pressure from the north has been recounted at length. And this sequence of invariable correlation and conformity gives us a feeling of security that we are not on the wrong path.
And the Scriptures say Moses was (emphatic past tense) a pharaonic official until his self-imposed exile for murdering an Egyptian taskmaster (Exodus 2:11-15). He was never re-appointed to his post. New Testament commentary even goes so far as to suggest that Moses willingly chose to be mistreated as a fellow Hebrew (descent, not association) rather than partake of a rich and lavish lifestyle as an Egyptian high official (Hebrews 11:24-25). Again, Moses identification with the Hebrew-Israelite race is reaffirmed in New Testament commentary: "When he was forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brothers, the children of Israel" (Acts 7:23). It is unquestioned, at least in the Scriptures, that the children of Israel are the biological descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Israel (Acts 7:8), and that Moses is unequivocally one of them. Chandler ignores all the internal evidence to simply state:Lloyd wrote:Charles says Moses was an official under Akhenaten. Akhenaten started something like monotheism, but Moses took it a bit further. It's conceivable to me that there were some people during the time of the Golden Age, or the Saturnian age, who understood that the planets were not gods, and those people were either atheists or believed in a God of universal consciousness etc, and Moses may have come from that tradition. The ancient myths would have been conceived by the many people who thought the planets actually were gods.
That is to say that Moses is not at all interested in his biological relatives. The Hebrews (or is it Israelites?) in Egypt aren't even related to him; Chandler's Moses is 100% Egyptian and his 'brother' Aaron is the royal son of Queen Tiy. The possibility that Moses' heart actually yearns in compassion for his blood-relatives is dismissed with the simple perjorative handwave, 'followers'.Charles Chandler wrote:"When the plight of his followers in Egypt became desperate, Moses returned to negotiate on their behalf." 
Of course, another contradiction that Chandler is wont to ignore is the fact that Moses had no followers, at least according to that excellent exposition on Moses' history in the Book of Acts:
"This Moses, whom they rejected, saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and a judge?’—this man God sent as both ruler and redeemer by the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the bush. This man led them out, performing wonders and signs in Egypt and at the Red Sea and in the wilderness for forty years." (Acts 7:35-36)
And just so no exegetical worming takes place here, the 'they' in the quote above refers to his Hebrew brothers, the same ones who were groaning because of their affliction in slavery, the same ones Moses had visited 40 years prior from his high and haughty residence in Pharaoh's palace and at which time they rejected him as their potential deliverer and judge. Moses recoiled at the thought of returning to them just as much as he recoiled at the thought of returning to Pharaoh (Exodus 3:11; 4:1). I find it rather peculiar that even a Jewish commentator like Stephen would announce to his own blood-race that the first time Moses attempted to act on behalf of his people, the Hebrew-Israelites, they rejected him. Of course, Stephen is arguing for the present Jewish rejection of Jesus as Messiah being synonymous to Moses' generation's initial rejection of the deliverer of their time, but the point remains. According to the Scriptures, Moses spent 40 sorry years in Midian with 0 followers of his new monotheist religion waiting for him back in Egypt. I wonder why?
Forty years later (Acts 7:30), Moses was no longer serving in Egypt under any official capacity until he suddenly burst onto the scene with his brother Aaron, both direct biological descendants of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Levi, Kohath and Amram (Exodus 6:16-20); Hebrews, not Egyptians, contra Chandler. And his mission?
"You and the elders of Israel shall go to the king of Egypt and say to him, ‘The LORD, the God of the Hebrews, has met with us; and now, please let us go a three days' journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God.’" (Exodus 3:18; see also 5:1-3 which has the name 'Israel' [six times in the whole chapter] and 'Hebrews' in the same encounter with Pharoah, indicating the two are unequivocally understood as the same enslaved people group).
Question: what are the Israelites doing in Egypt with the Hebrews? Why are both groups ('us') supposed to go into the wilderness to worship YHWH?
Of course, it probably never could occur to Chandler that the God of the Hebrews is the same as the God of the Israelites who is the same as the God of their fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as the Scriptures repetitively assert. It is simply not possible that Moses was called to serve "God of your [biological] fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" (Exodus 3:6; compare Acts 7:31-32), or that his monotheism has roots far deeper and far older than Atenism and might, like Abraham, have actually originated with a supernatural divine call from the God who speaks, promises, intervenes in human affairs, fulfills his word and can never lie or fail to perform what he has spoken.
Nope, Chandler's Moses is Egyptian! He has to be, there is simply no other believable option. He was born in Egypt, named in Egypt, educated in Egypt, married in Egypt, a military general in Egypt, old Ramose even carried a 100% Egyptian acacia wood staff, just like the ones you see in the old Egyptian commercials engraved on the wall! Talk about a true patriot! And since the only available Egyptian monotheist was Akhnaton, the only possibility is that Moses amalgamated their religion into his own cult, created a following, earned the ire of a newer, returned-to-polytheism Pharaoh and had to leg it with his horde of faithful, obedient disciples. Apparently.
Yet the Scriptures I read show no end of grumbling, complaining and even outright apostasy against Moses and his leadership, so much so that Moses asks YHWH why he was ever chosen for the task at all and wished to die (Numbers 11:11-15). Of a people who, so disenchanted with Moses, decide to return to Egypt in rebellion (Numbers 14:4). This YHWH displays his most discomforting aspect during the wilderness wanderings: fiery wrath against the disobedient disciples of Moses. Why is all this recorded, and at such length? Why does it matter so much to the author of the Torah that the disobedience of the people, their sinful cravings, their unbelief? Why this long and laborious narrative about some religious failure whose people all died in the wilderness? Hardly the best way to encourage converts for a new theological revolution, don't you think? Our God, the God of our fathers, will kill you all if you make him angry! Now obey! Rargh! Or is it?
I wonder who is the Scriptural God of Moses' fathers, according to Chandler's theory? Ah, yes, I forgot. The Egyptian records are 'older' and therefore 'superior'. I must keep reminding myself that the whole Hebrew scriptures thing is just King Josiah's recombinatorial finesse, a fine patchwork of whatever the Elohist, Yahwist and Priestly scribes before him had managed to invent along the way. Add Josiah's magnum opus, Deuteronomy, with a splash of Redakteur and wallah! Let's conveniently ignore how Josiah managed to forge an entire 15th Century BCE suzerain-vassal treaty, complete with very detailed laws, rules and regulations for the vassal and threatenings from the suzerain, YHWH, slapped Moses' name on it and passed it off as credible and authentic, employed the elegant Redakteur to edit out all references in the rest to Egyptian Atenism (don't forget every time we recite YHWH in our secret language we remember our true faith! Secret! Shh!), fabricated an entire Hebrew (or is it Israelite?) genealogy of mythical dudes starting with ol' Adam and, unfortunately, the Christians keep perpetuating the same sorry mistake when this guy Christ came along saying he's the fulfillment of the promises made by ol' Aten, I mean YHWH, to Mr. Abe ben Terach. Sorry about that, Christians! Luke was wrong because Josiah made it all up, and the rest, like Stephen's 1st century AD exposition, is outdated by older, more reliable Egyptian sources! Oops!
If this method is not wanton ignorance of anything actually related to the genuine narrative of Scripture rather than the flat imposition of Chandler's Egyptian a-priori narrative upon Scripture, please tell me what it really is because this is all I am seeing. I realise you want to defend your friend, Lloyd, but should you do so at the expense of critical thinking and thorough analysis of all the available evidence? Chandler's presentation is unfortunately severely lop-sided, superficial, and a sorry reliance on Source Criticism, in spite of those theories being debunked for some 20 years, sweeps all objections away in one fell swoop. Anything that cannot be swept away, like the sabbu-aten compound, is simply explained away with an unprovable sub-hypothesis. Until he addresses these significant methological deficiencies, I feel no need to interact further with it.
Since I do not have The Electric Universe in my possession, I have to rely on Cardona's disagreement with Thornill's proposal of Saturn's magnetosheath and Earth's orbit in it. Referring to the hypothesis of heat/light reflection from the inner plasmaspheric boundary of proto-Saturn, Cardona writes:Lloyd wrote:Let's have quotes, please. I think you misunderstood the material.
And again:Dwardu Cardona wrote:It is this reflection that has failed to meet total acceptance by some of our supporters. Wallace Thornill, for one, has made it clear that he does 'not subscribe' to this idea. And yet he is still of the opinion that it was proto-Saturn's magnetosphere that was responsible for Earth's past encircling warmth. It was, according to him, this 'glowing shell' tat radiated heat and light to its sattelite. Any cosmic body within that shell, he maintains, would 'receive the same energy per square meter over its entire surface, regardless of its rotation rate, axial tilt and orbit eccentricity.'
I welcome you to grab your own copy of The Electric Universe and discern for yourself if Cardona is reporting Thornill correctly, unless one of the other forum members wishes to dig this up (p.84) and put a quote or two below.Dwardu Cardona wrote:One major problem with Thornill's model is that a planet immersed in a brown dwarf's glowing sphere does not merely make for a world without ice caps, as he reported, it would also make for one that could not have experienced an ice age at all, let alone an entire series of such ages with all that they tend to bring with them... One other problem is that Thornill's model depicts the exemplary world, or satellite, within a brown dwarf's red anode glow as orbiting around the dwarf, with such a world having no latitudinal temperature differences. As he had earlier written: 'Another interesting consequence is that all objects orbiting [in such a region] would receive the same energy per unit area of their surface.' Geological, glaciological, and paleontological evidence, however, contests this by indicating that Earth's northern region had always been warmer than more southerly latitudes. And this is understandable when one considers that, contrary to Thornill's model, primordial Earth was not in orbit around proto-Saturn but lay suspended directly beneath its southern pole while sharing the same axis of rotation.
 I. Velikovsky, Ages in Chaos (Doubleday, 1955) pp. xxi-xxii.
 Velikovsky, pp. 332-339. If you want the details, read the book.
 C. Chandler, Akhenaten, Moses and Atenism.
 C. Chandler, Akhenaten, Moses and Atenism Of Aaron it is claimed, "At the other end of his lifespan, he couldn't have been born much before 1385 bce, if he was in fact the oldest son of Queen Tiye, who is believed to have been born in 1398 bce — thus she gave birth to Thutmose-Aaron at the age of 17, at the very beginning of her limits." Of Moses it is claimed, "We know very little from the secular records about Ramose the vizier. We know that he was the son of Nebi, the mayor of Memphis. His wife Merit-Ptah was the daughter of May, the commander of the chariotry. And Ramose was the distant relative of a very prominent Amun priest in Thebes."
 D. Cardona, Newborn Star (Telwell, 2019) p. 43, citing W. Thornill and D. Talbott, The Electric Universe (Mikamar, 2007) p.84.
 Cardona, p. 45. Emphasis and brackets in original. The citation of Thornill in this quote comes from W. Thornill, "Stars in an Electric Universe," AEON V:5 (Jan, 2000) p.48.