Cardona Interview on Saturn Theory

[Lloyd]

Questions for Webo
* I tried to explain last night on Gary's Ice Ages thread my current understanding of what the series of catastrophic events probably was that humans witnessed. [That's the same as what I posted above.]
* I'd like to know what you think about how much rock strata was deposited in one or more of the more recent events, 5 to 10 thousand years ago or so.
* The Hydroplate theory seems to make a very good case that the sedimentary rock strata in the area of the Grand Canyon were all laid down at the same time in a matter of weeks or months a few centuries after the Great Flood. I guess it contends that much of that rock came from a layer of water chambers about ten miles below the surface, whereas Cardona thinks it came from successive Saturn flares.
* If all of the Grand Canyon sedimentary strata were deposited just before the Great Flood within the past 10,000 years or so, does that mean all of the other continental sedimentary strata were probably deposited at that time as well? It seems that way, because I think there's granite and or schist under the Grand Canyon deposits and I think that also underlies the rest of the continental sedimentary deposits too, doesn't it? And I think I read that the continental sedimentary strata average about 2 miles deep.
* It appears that the continental strata were deposited before seafloor spreading occurred and that they were deposited mostly on one side of the Earth. Do you have any thoughts on that, whether in agreement or not?
* Since fossils are found only in sedimentary rock (I think), that would suggest that all of the fossils were laid down fresh during the Great Flood as well, which would mean that the fauna considered ancient are actually just as recent as most of the others, which is a bit hard for me to swallow offhand, although the evidence that humans and dinosaurs co-existed seems persuasive. I guess what's harder to swallow is that dinosaurs did not precede mammals or birds and didn't live for millions of years.
* If all of the sedimentary rock strata are young, then the rock strata existing before that would have been the granite, basalt, schist etc, I guess. Is that right? That would be the metamorphic and igneous. Do you agree with Juergens that granite seems to be formerly sedimentary rock that suffered electrical breakdown? If so, would that have been earlier sedimentary rock strata, maybe from earlier Saturn flares?
* In order for this all to be correct, there must not have been much ocean water previously, because submarine canyons on continental shelves, which go down one or two miles below present sea level (such as those off Monterey Calif., the Hudson River delta, the Nile delta etc), could not have formed under water. Cardona said the water was tied up in glaciation, but the only evidence of glaciation is on the continental surfaces, which apparently weren't there before the last deposition. So it seems that much of the ocean water came with the last rock strata deposition.
* I'd sure like to hear your thoughts on these points. [Other folks' thoughts are welcome too, but Webo seems to be our best expert around here.]
* I'm copying my previous message below.

Superwave Theory
* On the "Questioning the Ice Ages" thread, Gary said:

If the geological and archaeological dates are to be believed at all, then it would seem that there have been catastrophes at around 13,000 year intervals. La V[io]lette's Superwave theory is probably the best known proposal. I'd also consider the event may be from something happening to our Sun without the galactic centre event. And I do believe we should heed the ancient Greek philosophers tales of many past and future catastrophes.

* Here's my reply.
Saturn Theory
* The Saturn Theory seems to have a lot more going for it, since it conforms to both the mythological record and to the geological record. As Cardona, Talbott and others have shown extensively via comparative mythology, our Sun wasn't our Sun until the Saturn System first entered the Solar System about 10,000 years ago. So it wasn't the Sun that caused any series of catastrophes. And the Greeks were less knowledgeable about catastrophes than the ancient Egyptians and Sumerians, so their idea of future cataclysms is likely based more on imagination. I don't know that I've heard of the Superwave theory, but these facts:
1. Thornhill's finding about Saturn having been previously a brown dwarf star and
2. Cardona's finding that brown dwarfs are known to flare, apparently more spectacularly than the Sun normally does, and
3. that in a fluctuating electrical environment through which Saturn seems to have moved somewhat in a comet-like fashion, it would have flared periodically, probably every few thousand years,
-- show that periodic catastrophes would have been caused by flares from Saturn itself, with no need for help from the galactic center, the Sun, or other influences (though there are likely to have been occasionally a few other influences).
Rock Strata Deposition before Continental Breakup and Seafloor Spreading
* Something I'd like to understand is how many rock strata were likely laid down during each Saturn flare. Seafloor spreading must have occurred mainly after most of the strata were deposited, so it must have been somewhat recent, though Cardona said in his interview that he thought seafloor spreading (continental drift) occurred during more than one of the Saturn flare events (due to the flare's electrical forces putting the brakes on Earth's core or mantle spin, which caused the crust to slide over the mantle at the Moho layer, I think). He seems to think that seafloor spreading started during one flare event, then continued during later flare events. But, if that were true, the ocean floors would be thinnest in the latest spreading zones (around ocean ridges) and thickest in the earliest zones near continental margins, whereas the seafloors seem to have about the same thickness all the way across [I think it's mainly about 3 mile-deep basalt in 3 layers.
Seafloor Spreading at 10,000 BP or 5,000 BP?
* After thinking this over now, this is what seems most plausible:
From the 10,000 BP Event (the Saturn System entering the Solar System):
1) - first, Saturn's plasmasphere encountered and bounced off of the heliosphere several times
2) <causing> Saturn flares
3) <which caused> rock strata deposition on Earth etc
4) - then, the Saturn System finally penetrated the heliosphere
5) <which caused> Earth's core and mantle to brake (stop rotating normally) <which caused> continental sliding [i.e. the continents broke off of the former supercontinent and some of the continents slid apart over the slippery Moho layer]
6) - then, the Saturn System continued on an elliptical [or spiraling] orbit toward the Sun, which brought Earth into the Golden Age
7) - then, the Saturn System broke up near Jupiter
8) and the Saturn System planets continued toward their present orbits
9) <causing> Earth's ice age
* Cardona said (2) Saturn flares caused (5) mantle braking and continental sliding, but sliding had to occur after the youngest sedimentary rock strata were deposited. That's why I modified the order of events a little.
* It's also possible that (5) may have occurred at (7), which might even be a better fit and it might mean that Jupiter caused Earth's mantle braking, which caused the continental sliding.
* There are a lot of facts that need to be incorporated properly into a comprehensive theory, and I don't have them properly ordered yet myself. It'll be fun to see them all come to order.

[Lloyd]

* Here are my questions to Web and his replies, which he said I may quote.

Continental Crust Deposited Recently?
LK: I'd like to know what you think about how much rock strata was deposited in one or more of the more recent events, 5 to 10 thousand years ago or so.
* The Hydroplate theory seems to make a very good case that the sedimentary rock strata in the area of the Grand Canyon were all laid down at the same time in a matter of weeks or months [during] the Great Flood.
I guess it contends that much of that rock came from a layer of water chambers about ten miles below the surface [via eruptions at ocean ridges, which eruptions I consider highly improbable], whereas Cardona thinks it came from successive Saturn flares [which I consider much more plausible].
* If all of the Grand Canyon sedimentary strata were deposited [during] the Great Flood within the past 10,000 years or so, does that mean all of the other continental sedimentary strata were probably deposited at that time as well? It seems that way, because I think there's granite and or schist under the Grand Canyon deposits and I think that also underlies the rest of the continental sedimentary deposits too, doesn't it? And I think I read that the continental sedimentary strata average about 2 miles deep.

W: I'm inclined to believe that all the rock strata from Cambrian up are due to the worldwide flood event. Water sloshed around everywhere, sorting out by particle size and solubility a la Berthault's flume models. This left similar formations around the globe, but in a significant jumble, ie not necessarily in the order of the theoretical Geologic Column. However, the observation that the flooding was mostly in the same short span of time does give us the ability to [pigeon] hole and name a number of common strata across the globe. I agree with the formation of the Grand Canyon being in a short span event or series of events, several layers at the same time and formations being in the order of the particle sizes modeled well by the flume experiments, with or without hydroplating. The prevalence of continental masses to one side of the earth is an interesting piece for any modeler. What is clear to nearly everyone is that the continents were joined into a single mass at some point, and by whatever mechanism one chooses (seafloor spreading and continental drift work for me), they were pushed apart. Now this motion is overcome by friction which is the primary cause of seismicity in the world today.

Continental Crust Deposit Preceded Continental "Drift"?
LK: It appears that the continental strata were deposited before seafloor spreading occurred and that they were deposited mostly on one side of the Earth. Do you have any thoughts on that, whether in agreement or not?
* Since fossils are found only in sedimentary rock (I think), that would suggest that all of the fossils were laid down fresh during the Great Flood as well, which would mean that the fauna considered ancient are actually just as recent as most of the others, which is a bit hard for me to swallow offhand, although the evidence that humans and dinosaurs co-existed seems persuasive. I guess what's harder to swallow is that dinosaurs did not precede mammals or birds and didn't live for millions of years.

W: If there were a viable physical mechanism for it [I haven't read one yet], I might be a proponent of an expanding earth, but for now I think the accumulation of sediments on the crust is most likely the result of:
1. an eruptive phase in the crust -- maybe associated with huge impact/electrical events; undoubtedly accompanied by violent volcanics; causing or associated with the splitting of the earth and continental drift, accompanied by...
2. water sloshing over low terrain landforms, stirring up...
3. slurries of sediment and conglomerations of animal and plant remains picked up by these floodwaters deposited into low-lying basins ("shallow seas" perhaps)
4. movement of continents pushing some of these basins upward into (plate) boundary mountain ranges and highlands that we see today, resulting in compaction/heating and cementing of much of the formations, not entirely accomplished before...
5. further erosion/runoff of these highlands, subsequent to the main flooding, carving out major channels and canyons on and at the edge (shelves) of continents...
6. rapid formation of glaciation in high latitudes due to the atmospheric disruptions caused by dust and debris tossed up by #1 left a veneer of deposits atop other flood alluvium.

Prior Surface Crust?
LK: If all of the sedimentary rock strata are young, then the rock strata existing before [the sedimentary] would have been the granite, basalt, schist etc, I guess. Is that right? That would be the metamorphic and igneous. Do you agree with Juergens that granite seems to be formerly sedimentary rock that suffered electrical breakdown? If so, would that have been earlier sedimentary rock strata, maybe from earlier Saturn flares?

W: Granites do speak to me of original crustal formation, ie. foundational crust. I'm pretty sure that some of Steinbacher's so-called "granites" are weathered basalts and other extrusive igneous formations, but many are likely some gradation of gneiss, which is metamorphosed [pressurized/reheated/recrystalized] sediment-originated material. So no, I'm not in agreement with Juergens on this unless he is wanting to define gneiss as granite. [Geologists have a joke: "It may be gneiss, but don't take it for granite."]

Former Sea Level?
LK: In order for this all to be correct, there must not have been much ocean water previously, because submarine canyons on continental shelves, which go down one or two miles below present sea level (such as those off Monterey Calif., the Hudson River delta, the Nile delta etc), could not have formed under water. Cardona said the water was tied up in glaciation, but the only evidence of glaciation is on the continental surfaces, which apparently weren't there before the last deposition. So it seems that much of the ocean water came with the last rock strata deposition.

W: It has been noted that the amount of water/steam that accompanies volcanic eruptions when multiplied by all the volcanoes found (active, dormant or extinct) on the earth, is sufficient to account for all present ocean water. I wouldn't go so far as this, but it's an interesting proposition. My take on water origination is that much water may have come from subterranean sources (hydroplate or not), but that the lion's share of it was preexistent on the earth, and even preceded the formation of original continents. The ocean basins I believe were deepened relative to "sea level" just as continents gained average altitude, due to the spreading of the continents. This is referred to as "isostasy" in standard geology. Prior to the global flooding, the continents were [in] a state of relative equilibrium and low topography, evidenced by the relatively flat-lying nature of most sedimentary formations. On the other hand, simultaneous deposition of multiple layers occurs readily on a sloped base, as shown by the flume experiments. So the continental shelf submarine canyons may have been formed at a time when the basins were deepening [as sedimentary strata were being deposited? - LK] and runoff was still flowing into them at a catastrophic rate.
[Here's a submarine canyon http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/pacmaps/image ... persp4.jpg from http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov]

[Lloyd]

* Here are some questions I asked Dwardu recently and his answers.

Books
LK: How many books do you still plan to write?

DC: I'm now in the midst of putting Volume Five together, with a proposed four more volumes to follow.

Support for Saturn Theory
LK: I suppose you're familiar with Brown's Hydroplate theory, which tries to account for the Great Flood and contintental drift, based on the Biblical "fountains of the great deep", which Brown mistakes for subterranean waters. I've read parts of his online book about it and found that a lot of the material seems to support your Saturn Theory.

DC: Not as far as the Great Flood is concerned. As already indicated in past volumes of my work, the Biblical "deep" is not to be understood, as so [many] others have, as a subterranean source of the water. But more on that in my proposed Volume Eight.

Frozen Mammoths
LK: He mentioned the evidence that at least some of the frozen mammoths that were found must have been frozen quickly below -175 degrees F. One mammoth in upright, stretched-out position had its right foreleg broken into many pieces with bleeding, but little damage to the leg, which means a heavy solid object must have fallen on its leg after frozen muck or ice had collected under the leg, which prevented the bone from breaking in half. The bleeding means the mammoth was still alive when that happened.

DC: Correct.

LK: The lungs were full of debris and the mammoth appeared to have died of suffocation. Two other mammoths and two rhinos were also found to have suffocated from the dust. Would you say it was loess dust that suffocated them?

DC: No. It was cosmic dust plus a temporary loss of air.

Polar Column Source of Rock Dust and Ice
LK: I read that muck is largely organic debris, while loess is inorganic angular rock powder. Rock ice, which is like sleet, is also found in areas of muck in the Arctic. But muck and loess seem to be the most abundant. I figure the muck, loess, and rock ice must have come from the upper atmosphere in order to freeze large mammoths so quickly and to have such a low temperature. And, I think you had suggested before that the muck and loess was formed by tornadic action at the base of the plasma column around the north pole, which gathered up rock, soil, plants, animals and water, froze and ground them into powder and deposited some of it periodically.

DC: Yes.

LK: Would you say the muck, loess and rock ice that buried the mammoths and other animals did so immediately after the plasma column was removed during the Saturn System breakup?

DC: Yes.

South-facing Petroglyphs
LK: Peratt found that the petroglyphs that showed the plasma column generally faced south. Does that mean that Saturn and the plasma column had moved all the way toward the south pole by then from Earth's perspective?

DC: There ARE indications that that was the case—and this came to light before Peratt entered the scene. Both Talbott and I knew about it right from the start [about 40 years ago?]. However, having accumulated much more material since that time, I might have to rethink this particular series of events. So all I am willing to say at the moment is, let's wait and see.

Timing of the Great Flood
LK: Did the Great Flood likely occur shortly after the plasma column was removed from the north pole and had moved beyond the Arctic circle?

DC: In view of what I said above, it's too early to tell—at least for me.

LK: That is, did it occur after the mammoths and other life were buried under the muck and loess?

DC: It's probably all part and parcel of the same series of events.

LK: When the plasma column was removed, did it leave a low pressure area behind that was filled briefly with the dirty polar air in the upper atmosphere?

DC: Good question, but I have to be honest and I do not really know. Nor will I know until I reach that point in my chronological reconstruction and exhume all the notes I have accumulated through the years on the subject.

LK: Did the movement of the plasma column southward likely leave a trail that might be still partly detectable?

DC: See above.

LK: Did the flood waters come from the plasma column?

DC: Mostly, yes.

LK: Did the flood likely occur soon after the south-facing plasma column petroglyphs were made?

DC: I will tackle the so-called south-facing petroglyphs when I come to that point.

Encounter with Jupiter?
LK: Did Saturn's encounter with Jupiter lead to the breakup?

DC: No. Jupiter had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Source of Ouroboros
LK: Did Venus form the Ouroboros around Saturn as the Saturn System was starting to break up?

DC: The Ouroboros was formed by Saturn itself and it had nothing to do with the "breakup." More on that in the volume I am presently putting together.
- Much thanks for your interest in my work.

[Andrew]

So many questions, so few definitive answers. We are still groping around in the dark. Have you read Cardona's Metamorphic Star, his fourth book recently out? It's all about Saturn.

[Lloyd]

How about telling us about some of the highlights of Metamorphic Star? I ordered several of his books lately, but my mail was returned.

[Sparky]

Why wasn't Mars, Venus, or Earth captured by Saturn?

[GaryN]

Why wasn't Mars, Venus, or Earth captured by Saturn?

The odds against gravitational capture are phenomenal, even once. Multiple captures are a rediculous idea, by gravity anyway. If you want to view gravity as an EM force, then through magnetic or inductive coupling, perhaps. And that would perhaps explain why the orbits seem to have settled down so quickly, as for with Uranus for example. All those moons in such precise, almost perfectly circular orbits, not perturbing each other. Doesn't work with a conventional gravity model, especially having all those retrograde moons too. If they were all gravitationally captured, I'll eat my hat.
I still believe all the planets and moons are pretty well orbiting where they were formed, though my model would have them all closer in, but in the same order, when formed, and then the orbits would have relaxed after the formation event.
As for the ancient accounts of what was observed in the heavens, it has to be kept in mind that the electrical state of the Solar system may have made planets or moons look very different than they do now, mainly looking much, much larger, or closer, when in fact this is all to do with the state of their, and Earths, ionospheres during a change in the Suns EM condition.

[Sparky]

Thanks, Gary....I guess I was thinking, since the planets were already in that polar orbit thing, they might be more easily captured....

[justcurious]

Lately I have been reading about the giant invisible ring around Saturn.
I wonder if this ring could have become visible in the past due to changing electrical conditions, and explain the wheel and spokes archetypes which would have been big enough to make out in the sky (compared to just the planet Saturn on its own).


Image was taken from this article: http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/scitech/rel ... cleID=1988

By the way I bought the book God Star, fascinating work seemingly very well researched and goes into more details than you can find just googling Saturn theories.

Lloyd, I really like this thread. The Q&A with Cardona is a very nice addition. Thanks.

[Xuxalina Rihhia]

Cardona said:

Cardona shows in his book, God Star, that in ancient times plants grew very tall without modern forms of leaves, apparently competing for meager light from Saturn.

Any painting/drawing of that available so we can see? The 'meager' light had to have been brighter than the purplish/pink LED grow lamps used to grow plants.

Thanks.

Xuxalina Rihhia

[justcurious]

Cardona said:

Cardona shows in his book, God Star, that in ancient times plants grew very tall without modern forms of leaves, apparently competing for meager light from Saturn.

Any painting/drawing of that available so we can see? The 'meager' light had to have been brighter than the purplish/pink LED grow lamps used to grow plants.

Thanks.

Xuxalina Rihhia

On page 296 of God Star there are drawings of Lycopod trees 90 feet tall (30 meters).
Google has lots of results. They were around supposedly around 300 million years ago.

Here is a picture from the University of Michigan:


source: http://taggart.glg.msu.edu/bot335/clycopod.htm

Seems like giant plants rather than trees.

[Sparky]

curious:

Seems like giant plants rather than trees.

Sam, Trees are plants.. ......

Competing for sunlight might include large leaves near the ground that are hostile toward other plants....

[justcurious]

Sam, Trees are plants.. ......

Are you causing trouble again Sparky?

[Sparky]

justcurious:

Are you causing trouble again Sparky?

Somebody has to do it.....

I asked the question somewhere, " As Saturn and Earth traveled through space, what electrical connection was available for Saturn to behave as a sun?

[Spektralscavenger]

Well, well, the Saggitarius galaxy really changes things even if has nothing to do with Earth, means that the Milky Way has been shaky not very long ago. Earth from other galaxy? Mamma mia!


This time Velikovsky was close-minded. It´s understandable, however, after all we have discovered many orbital planets and no "polar planet" yet. Hence it´s safe to say that orbits are the rule and polar configurations an anomaly. In a circumpolar orbit (around 80º or 90º latitude) the Sun-Saturn (or maybe Venus, Mars or other on eventual close encounters) would follow a horizon-zenith-horizon path in the sky, possibly aperiodic and irregular.