Testing the Velikovski Heritage

[SpaceTravellor]

A NEW INSIGHT - BUT NOT A MAD IDEA . . .

- As an alternative mythologist and cosmologist, I´m convinced that our Solar System was born directly out from the centre of our Milky Way, which all creation stories confirmingly describes with the "expelsion of the Eden". Se my explanations here: http://www.cosmology-unified.net/Cosmology.Holistic.htm

Of course there must have been some collisions in this early stage, the pre-Solar System leaving the galaxy centre, but the Solar System have had a very long time to find the actual relative balance without any events that have made some significant changes, as for instants assumed with the theory and myth of Saturn.

Therefore I reject the idea of "resently" major collisions in our Solar System as assumed by Velikovski. And therefore I also reject the very idea of "The Saurn Myth". And not just because of this.

This "Saturn Myth" is in my opinion, really a big confusion, started of by the very secular Roman planetary "mythology" that forgot the real Saturnus Myth which really belongs to the Milky Way myths. This confusion takes place because the scholars confuses the deity qualities of light; bright and the white color. Also Velikovski fell in to this trap - as his later followers. Further explanations here: http://www.native-science.net/Mythology ... _Right.htm

By this major mistake, the total impossible construction of Saturn as a "BRIGHT LIGHT" hoovering over the Earth was started of, in stead of the real myth of the WHITE Saturnus/Kronos deity, constructed by the whitish northern contours of the Milky Way - a big figure that revolves around the north pole centre. This big WHITE figure that rise when the "Sun God" LIGHT goes down. A sentence that gives the followers of the Saturn Myth big logical troubles to explain. Further explanations and illustrations here: http://www.native-science.net/MilkyWay.GreatestGod.htm

NB: I´ve been in contact with both Wal Thornhill and Dave Talbott in order to get a discussion on this matter. At one point Dave promised to contact me, but he never did.

- Maybe he will now, reading this honest response which really is an attempt to free the EU and Plasma Cosmology from the load of confused myths which publically redicules an otherwise refreshing Cosmology.

[SpaceTravellor]

Hello everybody,

- As an brief introduction to the subject of Milky Way Myths, take a look here:

http://www.native-science.net/MilkyWay. ... y.Keys.htm

By using the imaginative powers and informations here, and comparing the informations to the otherwise brilliant intellectual works of Dave Talbott, it should be fairly possible to discover the Saturn Myth confusion.

Sincerely Ivar Nielsen

[nick c]

hi Ivar,

I don't have time to get into a protracted debate about Saturn theory or planetary catastrophism in general. This has been done many times before, and I find the arguments and evidence in favor to be convincing, and you apparently do not. Fine, so be it, nothing is ever for certain. I understand that there is, to some degree, a language issue here and there is the possibility that there could be some misinterpretation on one side or the other. Keeping that in mind, I would like to address a few points that you made in your post.

This "Saturn Myth" is in my opinion, really a big confusion, started of by the very secular Roman planetary "mythology" that forgot the real Saturnus Myth which really belongs to the Milky Way myths.

Actually, the opposite is true. The Roman mythology is but a small part and certainly not the starting point. The basic premise of the analysis is to synchronize and relate common points (as much as is possible) to a variety of mythologies from all cultures. The method is also not limited to mythology but encompasses any field of study that has relevance, from geology and astronomy to ancient history and archeology to plasma physics and yes...the Electric Universe. Velikovskian and post-Velikovskian catastrophic literature is characterized by this "[url2=http://digital.library.okstate.edu/oas/ ... 85_188.pdf]interdisciplinary synthesis[/url2]."

I´m convinced that our Solar System was born directly out from the centre of our Milky Way, which all creation stories confirmingly describes with the "expelsion of the Eden".

This is somewhat confusing to me. It seems as though you are saying that the mytho-folklore motif of "creation stories" (so named by modern mythologists) is the story of the creation of the solar system in the center of the galaxy, correct?

A simple back of the envelope calculation (I think my math is reasonably correct):
the [url2=http://astrophys-assist.com/educate/dis ... nce_gc.htm]solar system distance from the galactic center [/url2]is approximately...

25,000 light years, or 2.365x1017 km

the [url2=http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/as ... AST012.HTM]Suns galactic velocity [/url2]is...

150 miles/sec, converted to km= 240 km/sec....which equals:

7.568x109 km/year

then, dividing:

2.365x1017 km by 7.568x109 km/year

we get: 3.12x107 years for the solar system to have traveled from the galactic center to the present position in the [url2=http://cass.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/MW.html]Orion Cygnus arm of the Milky Way Galaxy[/url2].
That is assuming that the Sun has traveled in a straight line from the galactic center, actually the path would probably be more circuitous or spiraling, and therefore the 31.2 million year figure is probably an underestimation. The galactic velocity may not have been the same as presently observed, however any reasonable estimate of past galactic velocities is going to still come up with a figure of millions of years.

Questions:
-So how could an event that supposedly took place 31 million years ago be recounted in human myth?
-how old is the human race?
-What is the source of the knowledge of this "creation" event?
-Were humans around at the time or did someone tell them?
-If you don't agree with the time scale I have come up with, what do you propose for the time frame to get from the birth point at the center of the galaxy to the present galactic position of the solar system?
-Also, what evidence is there that stars cannot be formed in places other than the center of the galaxy and therefore why should we assume that the solar system originated there?

nick c

[MattEU]

Always interested in new ideas These questions might seem "negative" but they are not meant to be. This is a plasma cosmology forum so questions will be related to that.

http://www.cosmology-unified.net/Cosmology.Holistic.htm

Most of our Universe is a freezing coldness because of the Hydrogen (and Helium9 that fills 99,9 % of the Universe).

1 - Isn't this plasma and it is energised even if it is cold?

"GRAVITY" = COSMIC PRESSURE AND SWIRLING EFFECTS

2 - Can you explain this further as I have not understood it. The pressure part of it, are you saying that the solar wind itself creates the pressure or produces the pressure on the Magnetosphere and therefore creates gravity?
3 - How would your ideas explain gravity anomolies on the planets, especially on the rims of craters?

- And, when rejecting all the bad scientific hypothesis and Equations, I of course have to rise a new relevant Equation for a new and combined Holistic Cosmology, and here it is: (No hypothesis is needed)

FYI In Mozilla Firefox the part below it is covered over by a black and white image, can you update the page

4 - Galaxies expanding, doesn't that depend on if you believe in Red Shift? Halton Arp http://www.haltonarp.com/articles

THE MILKY WAY GALAXY
Just like the original swirling creation of our Solar System, the Milky Way Galaxy also is a swirl of gas and dust creation, which once was started of by a major explosion from the surroundings of the molecular cloud, that later on became the Milky Way Galaxy.

5 - Big Bang like or each one has its own local Big Bang or is it explained by the next question?

http://www.cosmology-unified.net/Gravit ... malies.htm

SOLAR SYSTEM CREATION

6 - The image you have used, where did you get it and can you explain the theory behind it.

http://www.native-science.net/
WOW, going to take some time to go through all of that

7 - I just had a look though at the "The World Tree" also including squatter man and petroglyphs, and no mention of Anthony Peratts (http://plasmascience.net/tpu/TheUniverse.html) or Marinus van der Sluijs (http://www.mythopedia.info/field.html) work on the subject. What are your thoughts on the idea that it was a plasma episode witnessed in the old world?

Mythology - Can you explain simply a few more ideas from mythology that you believe back up your ideas. As we don't have a mythology forum it would be good to discuss it somewhere

[SpaceTravellor]

Hello Nick C,
Thanks for replying - for a moment I thought that the subject was tabu on Thunderbolt since no one replied.
OK. Before I reply to your issues, I want to ask you this question: Did you have a closer look at my links and my website? If not, we´ll just have a one way conversation which will do no good for either of us.
Nick, you wrote:

I understand that there is, to some degree, a language issue here and there is the possibility that there could be some misinterpretation on one side or the other.

Except from me, being Danish and having a somewhat restricted English vocabulary, I dont think it´s a question of a language issue, but more likely a question of setting the mythological stories and symbols in the right cosmological context.
- I´m fairly convinced that the Saturn Myth is misinterpreted, but I want you to study my links before I`ll go into further explanations.
Well, if you can come back to me and convince me of having looked at my links in question, I´ll try to answer your questions and give replies to your comments in this conversation.

[nick c]

NB: I´ve been in contact with both Wal Thornhill and Dave Talbott in order to get a discussion on this matter. At one point Dave promised to contact me, but he never did.

I can only respond to this with my own speculation.
Many planetary catastrophists have learned from Velikovsky's errors. I am not refering to differences with scenarios, time frames, or interpretations of myth; there are those too, but rather with how he handled criticisms from the public and the scientific community. Velikovsky spent most of his time in the 1960's and 70's until his death in 1979 answering and responding to critics. Not that this should not be done, but it was a strategy that had the costs of not allowing him the time to further his research, after all time is the ultimate limited resource. When we choose to do something, the cost of that choice is the benefit we would have received from doing the next best alternative.
So my speculation to the quote above, is that I think that many modern catastrophists have decided that most of the responses to criticisms already exists within the body of their own writing or other catastrophic literature, and they do not want to spend time that could be devoted to further research on answering questions that could be answered by reading what was already written.
As I have stated in my previous post, the core of the problem is one of acceptance of the validity of the method for analysis. Nobody can convince another to accept the conclusions derived from the type of comparative analysis and interdisciplinary sythesis of planetary catastrophists if they don't accept the methods to begin with. We each have to make judgements that are true to ourselves.
To me, the body of evidence is extremely impressive and has become more so with the test of time and new discoveries, that is my opinion.

nick c

[SpaceTravellor]

Hello MattEU,
I´ll take any question and replies very positively - if they are posted in a kind and openminded manner.
First: I will understress that I´m not a specialist in the EU and Plasma Cosmology so bear over with me if failing to answer sufficiently.

Most of our Universe is a freezing coldness because of the Hydrogen (and Helium9 that fills 99,9 % of the Universe).

1 - Isn't this plasma and it is energised even if it is cold?

- I´ll say that this freezing dark coldness have the possibility to become visible plasma when energized. I even think it is energized on one point or another, otherwise, I guess, it cant interreact with other energies.

2 - Can you explain this further as I have not understood it. The pressure part of it, are you saying that the solar wind itself creates the pressure or produces the pressure on the Magnetosphere and therefore creates gravity?

It is a question of 2 pressuring forces really: The Solar Wind that creates a pressure on the Earth magnetosphere and the bowschock of the Earth orbiting the Sun.

3 - How would your ideas explain gravity anomolies on the planets, especially on the rims of craters?

Planetary gravity variations is a matter of of looking at the outgoing force from the galaxy on the one hand; the outgoing force from the Sun on the other hand - AND the relations betveen the actual orbiting positions of the planets in question. That is: Planets can "shade" each another in the interaction betveen these 2 forces and thereby create more or less pressure = "gravity".

I´m not sure what you mean regarding the rims of craters?

Thanks for your FYI regarding the picture. I´ll have a look at it. The symbol is the eternity "laying 8 number".

4 - Galaxies expanding, doesn't that depend on if you believe in Red Shift? Halton Arp http://www.haltonarp.com/articles

I dont know what to think of the redshift/blueshift issue. I know there is some arguing going on in this matter.
- It´s my firm believe that the single galaxies undergoes a formation with both an essembling movement (young galaxy,smooth center) and a distribution movement (mature galaxy/barred). In the case of our own galaxy, it is in a stage of an outgoing movement from the center pressure.

5 - Big Bang like or each one has its own local Big Bang or is it explained by the next question?

I dont believe in the concept of Big Bang at all. It´s my opinion that we have 1 Universe in which the creativce forces throughout eternity assembles and distributes light and matter and that each galaxy is just an exsample of such a creation.

6 - The image you have used, where did you get it and can you explain the theory behind it.

Ups! Can you give me the precise position of this picture? (Embarrishing)

http://www.native-science.net/
WOW, going to take some time to go through all of that

It´s accumulated throughout some 30 years . . .

7 - I just had a look though at the "The World Tree" also including squatter man and petroglyphs, and no mention of Anthony Peratts (http://plasmascience.net/tpu/TheUniverse.html) or Marinus van der Sluijs (http://www.mythopedia.info/field.html) work on the subject. What are your thoughts on the idea that it was a plasma episode witnessed in the old world?

MattEU, as mentioned above, I´m not a specialist regarding the EU and Plasma Cosmology.

My speciality is Mythology. Of course one can find some mythological symbols that fits in the theory of EU and PC, but I´m convinced that they take the mytological symbols and tellings much too much to account for the EU and PC that really can hold water.

That´s why I´m rising the statement of "The confused Saturn Myth".

Yes! We need a mythological forum topic, not placed in the "New insight and mad ideas", but on the "nice department". I have been in contact with Dave Smith in this matter and he promised to get back. He told me that there have been such a forum, so maybe we can have one again soon.

MattEU, I also would be pleased to answer to some more mythological issues and I suggest you to ask one or more questions, either of your own or from the study of my mythological site.

Thanks for your reply - All the Best from Ivar

[SpaceTravellor]

@ Nick C.
I appreciate very much your explanations regarding the Velikovsky period and the following difficulties and discussions.

So my speculation to the quote above, is that I think that many modern catastrophists have decided that most of the responses to criticisms already exists within the body of their own writing or other catastrophic literature, and they do not want to spend time that could be devoted to further research on answering questions that could be answered by reading what was already written.

I´m sure you´r quite right on this because that´s just what I have discovered. It´s VERY frustating for me, coming up with some alternative mythological ideas that I´m sure no one have come up with before - anyway I cant find someone that has. I´m sure that the "Velikovski society" not have met such arguments that I come up with, but I´m closed of by all the former arguments.

The initial cause of my membership on Thunderbolt, was reading Wall Thornhills statement on his website, that he would to any time defend and welcome those who comes up with som new ideas or theories. I hope this statement also goes for the whole Tunderbolt society too, welcoming an meeting new ideas with an open mind.

Nobody can convince another to accept the conclusions derived from the type of comparative analysis and interdisciplinary sythesis of planetary catastrophists if they don't accept the methods to begin with. We each have to make judgements that are true to ourselves.

Nick C, we can´t convince each another if we dont look into each others issues according to our intellectual capabilities. In my case it´s not a matter of methode, just a matter of looking at some issues with your own eyes and judge for your self.

I have some fairly easy mythological issues on my website http://www.native.science.net that also fairly easily can be confirmed by astronomical illustrations, amongs other matter, also rise the question of the Saturn Planetary Myth which, in my opinion, is confused for the Milky Way Saturnus myth.

It´s just a matter of looking at my illustrations with an open mind.

Thanks and all the Best from Ivar

[SpaceTravellor]

HELLO ALL,

THANKS FOR YOUR INTEREST!

- AS MENTIONED BEFORE, I´M NOT A SPECIALIST ON THE EU AND PC.

SO EXCUSE ME FOR CONCENTRATING MOSTLY ON MYTHOLOGICAL ISSUES IN THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION.

I SUGGEST YOU TO HAVE A LOOK AT MY http://WWW.NATIVE.SCIENCE.NET AND FOCUS ON THE SUBJECT ON THE PLANETARY DEITIES FROM THE BOOK, "SATURN MYTH" AND COMPARE THIS MYTH TO MYTHS OF THE MILKY WAY DEITIES, REVOLVING ON THE NIGHT SKY.

THIS IS MY KEY ARGUMENT FOR THE TITLE "THE CONFUSED SATURN MYTH".

NB: I´m having trouble with the image inserting - can anyone advise me how this works?

All the Best from Ivar

[SpaceTravellor]

Hello All,

MattEU asked for some examples of my statement “The confused Saturn Myth”. And I´ll try to do so via Dave Talbott´s excellent intellectual works on assembling the mythological issues.

Of course, assuming from the beginning and stating that the Saturn Myth deals with a planet, he goes of track from the very beginning.

I´m fully aware of the mythological Velikovski heritage and it´s influence on his followers, but such an influence should not be taken for granted without analyzing the logics before bringing the heritage "to market".

FROM DAVE TALBOTT: ON TESTING THE POLAR CONFIGURATION

Our argument on behalf of the polar configuration must concentrate initially on the model and the way it interprets ancient myth. If a new theory can unify and explain its subject, the quickest way to deal with the communications problem is to be sure that the model itself is understood.
Central Sun

(Ivar) “The central sun” is the Milky Way center)

The model presents the planet Saturn as a giant orb stationed motionless at the celestial Pole.
(Ivar) Check http://www.native-science.net/MilkyWay.Contours.htm
In relationship to other components of the configuration, the Saturnian orb: rests squarely in the center of a wheel-like band; is situated at the juncture of four radiating streams of light; occupies the summit of a celestial column.

The first and most obvious implication of such a model, if valid, is that familiar ancient images of the "sun" (such as the enclosed sun and sun-cross) actually originated not at as distorted or unusual perceptions of the solar orb, but as accurate drawings of the polar Saturn and its
habitat. The model thus predicts—

(Ivar) This light is mythological called “The First Light”, or “The Golden Light” - often misinterpreted by mythological scholars as “The Sun” when it´s really dealing with the Milky Way center.

(Ivar)This Golden Light also refers to the mythical concept of the “The Golden Age” which is not an age as such, but a mythological telling, belonging to the Story of Creation, telling of the very beginning in our Galaxy. Concepts as “Golden Hill”, “Golden Mount”, “Primeval Hill” etc. all belongs to the mythical story of the Milky Way center.

1.The ancient sun god was the planet Saturn.
(Ivar) Saturn was/is originally a Milky Way deity)

The Sumerian Ningirsu, the planet Saturn,"comes forth in terrifying splendor. In the land it becomes day." Ningirsu is thus "the god who changes darkness into light," the god "whose splendor is heroic."4 That such statements would be made of the now-distant Saturn seems unthinkable. Rather, this is the very language one would expect in descriptions of the
"sun" in ancient hymns.5

The Babylonian sun god is Shamash, and Babylonian astronomical texts say in unequivocal terms: "The planet Saturn is Shamash."6 Thus the Greek historian Diodorus reports that Babylonian astronomers knew the planet Saturn as the star of the "sun" (Helios).7

Though early Egyptian sources do not offer a formal astronomy to directly connect their gods with planets,8 a later Egyptian ostrakon cited by Franz Boll identifies the sun god Ra as the Greek Kronos, the planet Saturn.9

In the Epinomis of Plato, the names of the five planets are given. In the earliest copies of the text, the name for the planet Saturn is Helios, the "sun." For many years scholars considered this a mistake and the reading was usually "corrected" to Kronos, the accepted Greek name of the planet Saturn. But the identity of the sun and Saturn occurs in other Greek texts as well:
Originally, Saturn was "the sun."10

The Latin poet Hyginus, in his enumeration of astronomical and planetary myths, identifies the planet Saturn as "the star of Sol."11 Other Latin sources repeat the identity.12

The Hindus knew the planet Saturn as arka, meaning "of the sun."13 Certain wise men of India also asserted that Brahma, called the "true sun," was none other than Saturn.14

The alchemists, preservers of the ancient mysteries, remember the planet Saturn as "the best sun."15

From this predicted identity of Saturn as the ancient sun god, it follows that ancient imagery of the "sun" will contradict virtually every reasonable description of the solar orb, and that the earlier the date of the imagery, the more "flagrant" should be these contradictions. While the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West, this will not be the character of the original sun god in the myths, according to the model.16

(Ivar) Here we have a very typical mythological confusion interpreting a “light god” for the Sun god, and even changing a Sun god to a planetary sun god of Saturn, all speculative constructions in order to support the confused story.

(Ivar)There is NO contradictions at all when changing the planetary Saturn deity to the Milky Way deity Saturnus/Kronos, revolving around the celestial polar center. All qualities and specifics mentioned above then become very obvious and easy for everyone to grasp. http://www.native-science.net/MilkyWay.GreatestGod.htm

More specifically (and against all natural experience today) we should find repeated, conventionally inexplicable references to the "fixed," "stationary" or "resting" character of the god--

2. The ancient sun god occupied the motionless center, the celestial Pole.
(Ivar) The ancient Milky Way god occupied (still) the (area of the) motionless center, the celestial pole)

The Egyptian sun god Atum is "fixed in the middle of the sky,"17 and the "Firm Heart of the Sky,"18 while the sun god Ra "rests on his high place."19 Rather than soar across the sky, Ra is the axis or pivot, with the lesser lights revolving around him. These are the "stars who surround Ra."20 "These gods shall revolve round about him."21 "The satellites of Ra make their round."22

Shamash, the universally acknowledged sun god of the Babylonians, is "suspended from the midst of heaven,"23 occupying "the summit house" and "the house of rest."24 The sun god Ninurta is "the steady star" and the god of "lofty repose."25

The Hindu Brahma, called "the true sun," does not rise and set, but "remains alone in the center."26 The acknowledged sun god Surya "stands firmly on this safe resting place" and is celebrated as "the immovable center of his system."27

In an old mythical tradition kept alive by Greek and Roman symbolists, the sun god occupies the central, axial position while the other planets or stars
revolve around him.28

Quetzalcoatl, the former sun god of the Aztecs, occupies the "fifth direction, " identified as the stationary cosmic center.29 The old god Xiuhteuctli, known as "the central fire," is the pivot of the turning heavens, identified by the chroniclers with the celestial Pole.30

Among the Ashanti of Ghana the old sun god is "the dynamic center of the Universe, from which lines of force radiate to all quarter of the heaven." He is "the center around which everything revolves."31

If Saturn was the ancient sun god, and the sun god stood at the celestial Pole, one should expect to find many of these former associations reflected in the age of early astronomy and astral mysticism--

(Ivar)(Again) There is NO contradictions at all when changing the planetary Saturn deity to the Milky Way deity Saturnus/Kronos, revolving around the celestial polar center. All qualities and specifics mentioned above then become very obvious and easy for everyone to grasp. http://www.native-science.net/MilkyWay.Contours.htm

(Ivar) - of course I can give many examples of this Saturn Myth confusion because the confusion goes through the whole Velikovski idea and the heritage of his followers.

NB: MY MOTIFS ARE OF COURSE STILL TO GET A MYTH RIGHT IN THE FIRST HAND AND SECONDLY TO FREE THE EU AND PLASMA COSMOLOGY FROM THE REDICULING CONNECTION WITH THE CONFUSED SATURN PLANETARY MYTH.

All the Best from Ivar

[SpaceTravellor]

@Nick C.,

Just in order not to have some unanswered questions going on, I`ll take the time to reply. (But I´ll concentrate on the mythological part further on.

I´m convinced that our Solar System was born directly out from the centre of our Milky Way, which all creation stories confirmingly describes with the "expelsion of the Eden".

This is somewhat confusing to me. It seems as though you are saying that the mytho-folklore motif of "creation stories" (so named by modern mythologists) is the story of the creation of the solar system in the center of the galaxy, correct?

Almost so, yes. But not just that. Most stories of creation even tells of the very basical elements of creations, describing Hydrogen as "water" and Helium as "fire".

Regarding your time-calculation for the Solar System:
I´m not a mathematician, but i aggree that a supposed movent from a spinning center of our galaxy cannot be that of a straight line.

Your questions:

-So how could an event that supposedly took place 31 million years ago be recounted in human myth? -how old is the human race?

Nick C, it´s really not a question of time recounting the Human Myth. It´s a question of sensing the creation via all your senses, included your spiritual sences. A good illustrative example of spiritual sensing could be a comparison to the Hubble Telescope looking back on the creation just with the difference that the spiritual senses feels the creation and senses beyond the mecanical borders. In this way "time" is non existant and the creation is always there for humans to discover.

-how old is the human race?

I don´t know . . .

-What is the source of the knowledge of this "creation" event?

Read answer 1 again.

Were humans around at the time or did someone tell them?

It depends on how old Humans are, right? I don´t know. But it does`nt matter regarding the knowledge. Read answer 1 again.

-If you don't agree with the time scale I have come up with, what do you propose for the time frame to get from the birth point at the center of the galaxy to the present galactic position of the solar system?

As mentioned above, I can follow the logics in your calculations, but m not sure if they are correct.

-Also, what evidence is there that stars cannot be formed in places other than the center of the galaxy and therefore why should we assume that the solar system originated there?

Stars CAN be formed in other places in our galaxy, but it is my opinion that ALL gas and matter once was spewed out from the center of our galaxy as bigger spheres of melted gas and matter, forming the basical shapes of Stars, Planets and Moons. As the galaxy is spinning, further minor swirls is created out in the spiral arms, as findings of minor spiralling galaxies in the Milky Way galaxy have shown.

By looking at the very shape of our galaxy with it´s barred structure and the form of the galaxy arms in connection with the bars, this tells me that there is an outgoing spiralling movent taking place. Furthermore, new stars are still born in the center which should not be possible if the movement was going inwards and towards the center. That is: There is NO black hole in the center of our galaxy and the movement is going outwards - just like many global myths are telling with the theme of expulsion of Eden.

All the Best from Ivar

[SpaceTravellor]

- In his book “The Saturn Myth” (SM), David Talbott (DT) refers 7 times to John O’Neill, the author of “The Night of the Gods”, an inquiry into Cosmic and Cosmogonic Mythology and Symbolism, published in 1893.

On page 229 in the SM, regarding the sign and meaning of “the enclosed sun” (a dot and a circle) DT writes:

“When O’Neill claimed that the sign symbolized the celestial pole, he took the sign as a kind of metaphor – an ancient means of representing the revolution of the circumpolar stars around a fixed center” end of quote.

- I have now read “The Night of the Gods” and I really don’t know how DT succeeds to envoy the massive amount of evidence for quite another story than DT is writing about in the SM.

“The Night of the Gods”, with 588 pages of genuine Etymological and Mythological knowledge of which the entire O’Neill book only deals with 2 issues:

1. The issue of the “Night Gods and Goddesses” revolving on the night Sky around the celestial pole – as I also claims for the part of Saturnus, the Milky Way deity - but the only thing DT gets out of it, is “a kind of a metaphor”?
2. The issues of the Story of Creation and the “first creators” - which I connect to the Milky Way Galaxy northern and southern hemisphere contours and its former “deities”.
http://www.native-science.net/MilkyWay. ... y.Keys.htm

Again and again: The Velikovski and his followers have indeed confused the planetary Saturn “deity” for the Saturnus Milky Way deity revolving on the night Sky, and thereby created a pure speculative “mythology”-hybrid that only makes Scientifically and Mythological societies laugh at this pseudo-myth. Talking about “metaphors”!

- Unfortunately this “Saturn Myth-metaphor-laughing-stock” is ridiculing the entire part of the Electric Universe and the Plasma Cosmology, which is best off not being connected to this purely speculative Saturn Myth-metaphor, which has nothing to do with genuine Mythology at all, because the premises are plain wrong.

Read the book yourself here:
http://www.archive.org/stream/nightgods ... 7/mode/1up

Compare the contents of the book with my site:
http://www.native-science.net
With text and illustrations that fully back up the contents of the John O’Neill book – and visa versa.

- I really hope you’ll get a little bit more out of reading the book and studying my website than just “a David Talbott metaphor”.

NB: Several times I’ve stated that I give Dave Talbott the full credit for his practical and intellectual skills in order to research and gain information to his book – but I can’t give him much credit for understanding the Mythological issues. Sorry!

[SpaceTravellor]

Without commenting the actual issue above about the planetary constellation, I`ll just state this:

The whole Velikovski and Saturn Myth business is just a totally misconception of an astronomer reading the Myths as the Devil reads the Bible.

Follow this link for more discussions about the Velikovski misconceptions:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =10&t=1998

Regarding the "cresent Saturn" idea (indicated on the picture above) , look here:
http://www.saturn-myth-delusion.net/Ship_of_Heaven.htm

For the real mythological understanding, read this:
http://www.native-science.net - my site, and:
http://www.archive.org/stream/nightgods ... 6/mode/1up
John O`Neill book "The Night of the Gods", part 1 can be read online.
Part 2 can be bought online here:
http://www.amazon.com/Night-Gods-Part-J ... 076615159X

All the Best from Ivar

[David Talbott]

Without commenting the actual issue above about the planetary constellation, I`ll just state this:

The whole Velikovski and Saturn Myth business is just a totally misconception of an astronomer reading the Myths as the Devil reads the Bible.

Ivar, this is not the way to carry on an intelligent conversation. And you're dead wrong to boot.

Dave

[SpaceTravellor]

@Dave,
Thanks for the reply.

Well, Dave. Then read and study the links I´ve posted carefully and with an open mind and get back to me in order to get an intelligent discussion.

There´s a lot of intelligent issues on my http://www.native-science.net - pick any issue and let´s get an openminded discussion going!

All the Best from Ivar