Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

[Norman]

@Seasmith,
As you can see, I am Norman.

@Grey Cloud,
Yes I am a Norseman.

Do you have any comments to my posts?

[Norman]

@Lloyd,
Once again:

Ship of Heaven
If the Milky Way was what the ancients saw as a ship traveling the oceans of heaven, why would they have confused it with the Moon and Saturn and with the cause of the Deluge and other cataclysms? Has anyone else theorized that the Milky Way was the ancient Sun god or the ship of heaven? Saturn was said to have devoured his own children. Could the ancients have imagined that the Milky Way devoured falling stars or other objects that were imagined to have come from the Milky Way? Also, the image you linked to of the stars in the sky map doesn't show the Milky Way.

The mytheme of "a heavenly ship" is supposedly connected to the Sun, right? And this is really what you read all over the place when googling "solar barque", which again is connected to a prime god of creation.

But: How can anyone imagine the Sun to sail in a ship? The Sun moves as a shining dot in the day Sky and there is nothing else to give other impressions but light and warmth!? One have to had some celestial observable shapes in order to imaging a heavenly ship - and the very same goes for imaging a human shaped heavenly god or goddess. Here are the planets in the same impossible position: No one can logically depict human shapes or genders by watching the planets, no matter how close they once must have been located to Earth.

It´s quite another matter when watching the star constellations and the contours of the Milky Way. Here, lots of possibilities occurs in order to imagine all kinds of shapes and name these after human known images. Of course our ancestors watched the day and night Sky and they also noticed the very spot around which all stars are moving. This celestial pole spot is marked by a wheel (or a central Star) in many cultures, but this symbol is later scholarly confused to be a "Solar Wheel marking the seasons".

Regarding the crescent figure which can make a ship shape, we have two possibilities, the Moon and the crescent figure of the Milky Way. But the mythical imagery of the heavenly ship also have to include a male looking figure which constitutes a "god in the Sky", so the Moon is out of the equation, leaving star constellations and the looks of the Milky Way figure in the northern sky as the only possibilities.

You asked if anyone else have hypothezised this Milky Way theory. Well, the ancient people in Egypt did exactly that with their goddess Hathor - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hathor#Re ... nd_symbols -(I really don´t know why this fails to show up anywhere in the ThunderboltsProject regie!?)

Hathor, along with the goddess Nut, was associated with the Milky Way during the third millennium B.C. when, during the fall and spring equinoxes, it aligned over and touched the earth where the sun rose and fell. The four legs of the celestial cow represented Nut or Hathor could, in one account, be seen as the pillars on which the sky was supported with the stars on their bellies constituting the Milky Way on which the solar barque of Ra, representing the sun, sailed.

Also here the wikipedia states Ra to sail in his "solar barque", but as Hathor. the Milky Way goddess, "have a complexe relationsship with Ra", he most likely is a Milky Way deity as well and he certainly is logically not sailing in a "Sun-ship".

It seems that scholars and authors are sitting with their noses in all to many books just repeating what other authors didn´t observed for themselves in the real day and night time.

Besides this: The Egyptian goddess Hathor is equal to the Greek goddess Aphrodite and the Roman goddess Venus. That is: The mytho-cosmical use of goddess Venus has to be connected to the Milky Way and not to any planet. That is again: The Venus participation in the "polar configuration" is mythologically out of order since the prime goddess resides on the southern hemisphere, in the mythical and astronomical "Under-World".

My conclusion is:
The celestial ship (and it´s connected god and goddess) is formed out of the crescent Milky Way contours and the Polar Wheel symbol is scholarly confused to represent the Sun. This explains the heavenly ship and its moored connection to the Earth axis and celestial pole very logically IMO.

The claim of a prime male deity connection to the Sun (or planets) is illogical and this should instead be a connection to the Milky Way contours - and perhaps to some star constellations as well.

A book recommendation:
My favorite author of mythological and cosmological topics and as such, a brilliant Comparative Mythologist and multi-linguist, is John O´Neill, author of “Nights of the Gods”, Part 1-2. Published first time in 1893.

Part 1 can be read online or downloaded ad PDF files here: http://www.archive.org/stream/nightgods ... 6/mode/2up

Part 2 can be bought here:
http://www.amazon.com/Night-Gods-Part-J ... 076615159X

[Lloyd]

Norman, you seem to be oblivious to the prior discussion in this thread. Numerous mythologists concluded that the original Sun-god was Saturn, even though it made no sense to them. But it makes sense to the Saturn theorists, because Venus, Mars & Earth, as discovered by comparative mythology (comparing myths worldwide for common themes instead of individually) appear to have been near to Saturn a few thousand years ago, so they didn't look like pinpoints of light like they do now. Instead, they looked bigger than the Moon does now. Thus, as the Sun shined on Saturn and made a bright crescent form on its limb, the crescent resembled the crescent Moon that we see in our time. As the Earth rotated on its axis, the bright crescent appeared to revolve around Mars, Venus and Saturn. The crescent was the ship of heaven.

A visible column of dust or plasma between the planets had the appearance of a tree trunk, or pole, or mountain, or pyramid etc. The triangular mountain shape also looked like a skirt and the crescent looked like upraised arms. The head of the god was Saturn, while Venus was the eye and Mars the pupil of the eye. So it looked like a humanoid figure wearing a long skirt or robe. This is why Venus was called the Eye goddess. When the configuration became unstable, the 8 rays of Venus, often seen as a crown, became partly obscured, leaving 5 rays, which looked like a hand. This is where the Eye in the Hand symbol came from. Venus also went through a phase in which it looked like a comet, a hairy or feathered dragon or snake and so on. It then became the Ouroboros for a time.

Earth's atmosphere was likely thicker before the Great Flood cataclysm, so that the stars were not visible. Only the nearby planets and the Sun were visible. Earth had no visible Moon initially. Here's Talbott's early model:
http://www.velikovsky.info/David_Talbott

Here's one of Talbott's videos explaining the planetary configuration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7EAlTcZFwY.
Here are a bunch of them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALfHeZQ ... 71V8QSg1Is

[Norman]

@Lloyd,
Thank you for the links. I´m very familiar with all contents in the SoaAS and I have my own copy of David Talbott´s "The Saturn Myth", so I´m not oblivious to the contents.

As a comparative mythologist myself, I just wonder how somebody can use the numerous cultural Stories of Creation and boil these down to deal with planetary matters only and ascribing all creative forces and attributes and genders to these wandering white dots in the Sky.

I replied earlier:

It seems that scholars and authors are sitting with their noses in all to many books just repeating what other authors didn´t observed for themselves in the real day and night time.

When did you last look at the night Sky and watched the revolving star constellations and the Milky Way contours? Have you done this frequently throughout the year and see how it changes according to the seasons? Don´t you think such a rutine is important when dealing with theories about whether the Sky is familiar or not?

Numerous mythologists concluded that the original Sun-god was Saturn, even though it made no sense to them.

I bet you that neither Immanuel Velikovsky nor most of his later followers have had such a thoroughly investigating rutine regarding a comparison of myths and their cosmological and astronomical implications. They just accepted the interpretations of "numerous mythologists (who) concluded that the original Sun-god was Saturn, even though it made no sense to them" without going out there and see for themselves if there could be a natural and logical explanation without including all kind of speculative planetary upheavals and havocs. Unfortunately, this lack of natural observations have lead humans in historic and modern times to be alienated with the looks of the Sky and its imagery.

And unfortunately, the Roman naming and indirectly deification of planets have lead lots of scholars and authors far astray in their mytho-cosmological understanding, suggesting all kinds of illogical ideas.

This leads me to your:

Earth's atmosphere was likely thicker before the Great Flood cataclysm, so that the stars were not visible. Only the nearby planets and the Sun were visible. Earth had no visible Moon initially.

What Great Flood cataclysm? This is an interpretation of a global myth for which no one can find any evidences, apropos the title of this topic. Such an interpretation would have looked otherwise if this myth was interpreted in the correct context, namely the Story of Creation which foremostly doesn´t deal with planets at all. It deals with the pre-conditions of and the actual formation of the Milky Way, hence the Egyptian goddess Hathor´s connection to the Milky Way as described earlier.

In order to decipher the myths about the creation, this then logically includes knowledge of the Milky Way Mythology. Many cultures named the Milky Way contours as "the heavenly River which runs above and all around the Earth". If having no clues of the Milky Way myths at all, scholars and authors of course are forced to conclude other interpretations where the heavenly river runs ON the Earth as a "divine revenge", instead of the divine Milky Way River running up in the still familiar Sky.

The very same is the case regarding ascribing myths of creation to planetary matters. When knowing nothing or little of the Milky Way Mythology, scholars and authors are forced to conclude otherwise. Everything which have to do with the Milky Way myths and the Creation is ascribed to planets, thus distorting both astronomical conditions and the logical mytho-cosmological explanations and subsequently constructing planetary disasters which never took place.

In order to fit it in all together anyway, all kinds of speculative ideas and astronomical constructions are launched and assumed as evidence, such as "Earth's atmosphere was likely thicker before the Great Flood cataclysm, so that the stars were not visible". No the atmosphere wasn´t likely thicker, because the Great Heavenly River was observed by humans as running in the Sky and all around the Earth. This is what the myth states and it makes perfectly sence when connecting it to the correct cosmological object. And the very same is the case for the primeval deities of the creation as Saturnus and Venus, which have nothing to do with planets at all.

The real disaster in this SoaAS-business is the lack of natural observations which otherwise could have lead to the correct mytho-cosmological conclusions - which again could have been a support for the Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology instead of being a speculative laughing matter which of course never can be proved.

[Norman]

@Lloyd,
You didn´t give me much response on my former reply, especially this:

You asked if anyone else have hypothezised this Milky Way theory. Well, the ancient people in Egypt did exactly that with their goddess Hathor - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hathor#Re ... nd_symbols -(I really don´t know why this fails to show up anywhere in the ThunderboltsProject regie!?)

Hathor, along with the goddess Nut, was associated with the Milky Way during the third millennium B.C. when, during the fall and spring equinoxes, it aligned over and touched the earth where the sun rose and fell. The four legs of the celestial cow represented Nut or Hathor could, in one account, be seen as the pillars on which the sky was supported with the stars on their bellies constituting the Milky Way on which the solar barque of Ra, representing the sun, sailed.

Also here the wikipedia states Ra to sail in his "solar barque", but as Hathor. the Milky Way goddess, "have a complexe relationsship with Ra", he most likely is a Milky Way deity as well and he certainly is logically not sailing in a "Sun-ship".

Why is it that the Egyptian goddess Hathor connection to the Milky Way is overlooked/ignored in the SoaAS hypothesis? This must be very important since this goddess is equal to the Greek goddess Aphrodite and the Roman goddess Venus!?

[Lloyd]

Norman, you should start a new thread on whatever topic you want, such as regarding the Milky Way in ancient myths. You're obviously not very familiar with the Saturn Theory and not with the earlier contents of this thread.

[webolife]

Oh hey, Lloyd, if comparative mythology is to be the basis for your understanding of ancient catastrophes, Norman's question about the Egyptian Hathor is an appropriate topic of discussion here. Observations of the heavenly bodies are at the core of evaluating the Saturn theory, as much so as modern observations of Saturn by Cassini, et. al. If Saturn's interaction with Sol and the Earth, etc. are to be considered key events in earth's geologic and cultural past on the basis of mythology, then all evidences must be considered, and not selectively dismissed if they don't play in to a pet hypothesis. All the more so considering the Mayan calendar and symbology have Egyptian connections, and have been suggested to involve positioning of the solar system relative to the galactic disk. I would think Hathor's connection to past planetary turmoil could be significant... or not... just as controversial references to mythological Saturn may... or not.

[Norman]

@Webolife,
You replied:

I would think Hathor's connection to past planetary turmoil could be significant... or not... just as controversial references to mythological Saturn may... or not.

I would say this is very significant. As the Egyptian Milky Way goddess Hathor is equal to the Roman goddess Venus, then the mythical text of goddess Venus and her attributes logically cannot participate in the description and construction of the planetary Polar Configuration and it´s hypothesized ancient global cataclysm.

What did you exactly mean with:

... just as controversial references to mythological Saturn may...

[Lloyd]

I gave my reasoning a few posts back on why I considered Norman's theory irrelevant, but he ignored that, so I suggested that he start a new thread if he only wants to discuss his theory.

[Norman]

@Lloyd,

I gave my reasoning a few posts back on why I considered Norman's theory irrelevant, but he ignored that, so I suggested that he start a new thread if he only wants to discuss his theory.

I´m not discussing "my theory" but the theory of an Ancient Global Cataclysm and when finding any inconsistencies, as with the Milky Way goddess Venus interpreted in the hypothesis as planet Venus in The Polar Configuration and it´s hypothesized cataclysm, the normal procedure is to question the theory in all its implications, wouldn´t you agree?

My question is still:
Why is it that the text of the Venus goddess participates in the Polar Configuration and it´s cataclysmic implications, when the goddess is equal to the Milky Way goddess Hathor?

[webolife]

I've voiced my doubts about the Saturn hypothesis on numerous posts, Norman; but you are a newcomer, so I simply am saying the Saturn hypothesis is not a given in my book, despite its general acceptance around EU headquarters.

[Norman]

More on the Polar Configuration and the hypothesized ancient cataclysm.

David Talbott (DT) about challenging theories – Quote from http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =245#p5516

DT: “It seems that the primordial age, as chronicled in accounts around the world, stands in radical contrast to our own era”.

My comment:
Yes, from a certain perspective it seems so. But perspectives derives from interpretations and conclusions.

DT: “One can no more explain Saturn's ancient connection with the pole by reference to the present arrangements of the planets than one could explain, within conventional frameworks, Saturn's image as the Universal Monarch, or founder of the Golden Age, or primeval sun”.

My comment:
Well, can anyone explain mytho-cosmologically how the mythical descriptions and attributes of the Saturn God fits to planet Saturn? Quote from - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_%28mythology%29

“Saturn (Latin: Saturnus Latin pronunciation: [saˈtʊr.nʊs]) is a god in ancient Roman religion, and a character in myth. Saturn is a complex figure because of his multiple associations and long history. He was the first god of the Capitol, known since the most ancient times as Saturnius Mons, and was seen as a god of generation, dissolution, plenty, wealth, agriculture, periodic renewal and liberation. In later developments he came to be also a god of time. His reign was depicted as a Golden Age of plenty and peace”.

Question: If this collective memory of the Roman culture describes the Saturn deity with all these positive qualities, why would any later scholar or author includes these positive qualities in a theory of planetary cataclysm?

DT: “Together the themes constitute an integral memory. Yet each component blatantly contradicts direct observation today, and the contradiction exists irrespective as to whether the observer is a modern scientist or a primitive living in "scientific ignorance."

My comment:
I don´t agree that “each component blatantly contradicts direct observation today”. It simply depends on the concepts of interpretation of the myths and of observing the night Sky thoroughly and include other celestial objects than planets, which still is visible.

DT: “Under popular assumptions, the global memory is simply impossible. Popular assumptions must therefore be challenged. We must ask whether the sky we observe today is the same sky experienced by the first stargazers”.

My comment:
I agree in this. Popular assumptions which blatantly contradicts direct observations today and even contradicts the mythical contexts as with goddess Venus and the inconsistency of ascribing cataclysmic events to the very benign and prosperous Saturnus god, should indeed be questioned and challenged.

I claim that "the sky we observe today is the same sky experienced by the first stargazers" and that no cataclysm has taken place because of shift of the planetary orbits since the formation of our Solar System.

[Lloyd]

Norman, you continue to ignore my reasoning against your theory in my post that included Talbott's image of the Saturn Configuration. You say: I claim that "the sky we observe today is the same sky experienced by the first stargazers" and that no cataclysm has taken place because of shift of the planetary orbits since the formation of our Solar System.

Do you believe there have been any global cataclysms in the past 5 to 20 thousand years? If so, what were the nature of the cataclysms, and what do you base your conclusions on?

[Norman]

Lloyd,

# 1. Norman, you continue to ignore my reasoning against your theory in my post that included Talbott's image of the Saturn Configuration. You say: I claim that "the sky we observe today is the same sky experienced by the first stargazers" and that no cataclysm has taken place because of shift of the planetary orbits since the formation of our Solar System.
# 2. Do you believe there have been any global cataclysms in the past 5 to 20 thousand years? If so, what were the nature of the cataclysms, and what do you base your conclusions on?

# 1. Again: IT IS NOT "MY THEORY" - and I am very familiar with the arguments and reasoning in your provided links, otherwise it would be pure guessworks of me to argue against anything.

# 2. Natural disasters of different kinds have of course always occurred on Earth, even via some few larger and minor meteors. But other "cataclysmic events" as the assumed havocs of the "Polar Configuration" are human inventions and speculations caused by misinterpreted myths and lack of astronomical observations.

An example of the lack of astronomical understanding and misinterpreation of myths:

Quotes from “THE MYTH OF THE CENTRAL SUN”, By David Talbott. Link: (Your own)
http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/8709.html

# 1: “Nothing misrepresents original meanings more profoundly than the common translations of Egyptian texts relative to the daily cycle of the sun god. In the language of the Egyptians themselves, the god does not rise and set, but grows bright and dims. He shines brightly, then his light recedes”.

# 2. “What, then, of the famous Assyrian and Babylonian god Shamash, the sun god whom we now recognize as Saturn? A remarkable fact is that Shamash "comes forth" (shines) and "goes in" (declines, diminishes) at one spot, the "firm," "stable" or motionless station of supreme "rest".

AD #1-2. This is not a misrepresenting of the original meaning. This is a plain misinterpretation and lack of astronomical observation routines by the author himself. Several issues are wrong:

1. It is not a myth of "the central sun" since it deals with the central celestial pole.
2. It is logically not a "sun-god", because the mythical figure does not rise and set as the Sun.
3. It is not planet Saturn assumingly hoovering over the celestial pole, since the myths speaks specifically of a male gendered god figure in itself, which periodically appears and disappears.
4. It doesn´t deal with the "daily cycle of the Sun", but with the annual cycle of the Earth´s orbit around the Sun.
5. It deals with a male looking gendered figure which is mowing around a stationary celestial location where it grows lighter and dimmer.
6. It deals with a still familiar Sky imagery which anyone can observe at the right seasonal period with natural eye sight powers.

The Mythological and Astronomical explanation is:

As the Earth orbits the Sun, the celestial imagery of the night changes throughout the seasons because of the changing altitude of the Sun. All stars but the brightest ones, grows dimmer and disappears as the Sun ascends, and for some 3-4 months in the summer season, the stars, the constellations and the contours of the Milky Way disappears until the Sun descends later in the season.

This astronomical fact is embedded in the cosmological myths and it gives origin to the global mytheme of "The Departure and Return of the Celestial Deities". This explanation fits logically with the mythical description in the qoutes above. Just by taking the mythical context of the Saturnus God for granted, anyone who goes out in the night and watch the celestial imagery at a favorable season, can conclude which celestial figure we are talking about:

The crescent Milky Way figure which is revolving around the celestial pole, growing dimmer and lighter as the Sun ascends and descends throughout the year.

Star Atlas. The God Saturnus/Shamash etc. etc. revolving at his celestial station growing lighter and dimmer as the Sun ascends and descends in the annual cycle.

Northern Hemisphere.10.Komp.jpg (21.96 KiB) Viewed 6030 times

This is the essence of "my theory". I´m just holding onto the mythological and cosmological heritage and factual contexts of the ancient myths, which I´m quite sure is not the case in the "catastrophic planetary interpretation".

When thinking of the excellent universal cosmological context of the scientific part of the EU, it is very restrictive for this theory to have a mytho-cosmological interpretation which deals only with planetary matters, especially when the interpretations are inconsistent and misunderstood, as shown here.

A revision of the mythical ideas in the TBP is clearly needed, but I don´t know if the TBP-"Society" is openminded for this? Unfortunately it seems that the Mythical Topic is defunct in the TBP-Forum. Otherwise a re-opening of this Forum topic would of course be the right place to have such a discussion.

[Norman]

PS: The mentioned global mytheme of the “Departure and Return of the celestial deities", also partly concerns another global mytheme, “The Dying and Rising deity” as discussed here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying-and-rising_god

As the celestial imagery seemingly revolves around the Earth celestial pole, the human imagined figures are seen: 1 Standing, 2. Flying = Ascended to heaven. 3. Diving = Descending toward the Underworld. 4. Lying dead. 5. Standing up again – and so on. These positions are also described with different suitable attributes in the global myths.

- From the Wiki-discussions, one can see which huge difficulties scholars have interpreting the mytheme because of lacking astronomical observation routines and lacking skills of connecting the Myths of Creation to the correct celestial objects and their motions.