Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

by Lloyd » Thu May 30, 2024 12:23 am

260291

TURQUOISE SUN/SATURN

Ev Cochrane made a couple videos on this topic so far. I made the following transcript of the prequel. I posted the transcript along with some of the images at https://cataclysmicearthhistory.substac ... unsaturn-1. Ev also had an article, maybe on his website https://www.maverickscience.com/ about Mars having been green before it became red. Cardona showed evidence that Saturn was initially purple, so I think that was before the nova stage during the Age of Darkness. I think in God Star Cardona said Saturn was also red during the Age of Darkness. So maybe it went from purple to red, then went nova, very bright, then turquoise and green, then Mars became red. Maybe I or someone will sort all that out some day. It seems pretty certain that Cardona concluded that Saturn went nova at the Younger Dryas event, i.e. Saturn's nova caused the YD event.

Ev Cochrane: Turquoise Sun – Chronicle of Creation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1jc4lOCtK4

Ev Cochrane: Turquoise Sun – Prequel to Discovery
https://youtube.com/watch?v=_mD-GUNRo7U&t=22s

COCHRANE MET TALBOTT. Given the feedback I've received since posting the first video on the Turquoise Sun series, it occurs to me that a brief review of the historical reconstruction defended by David Talbot and myself might be helpful in order to clarify various matters and set the stage for the discussion to follow. In the early 1970s, Dave began theorizing about a polar configuration of planets in the northern circumpolar heavens. So far as I know, this idea was original with him and had never occurred to anyone previously. In The Saturn Myth, published in 1980, Dave presented a wealth of evidence in favor of this hypothesis, arguing that Saturn and its unique configuration dominated the sky and the relatively recent prehistoric past. In that book, Dave did not speculate about the role of other planets in the configuration in question. But it was evident from his writings and network that he ascribed Jupiter and Mars prominent roles as well. He believes Mars is involved in the formation of the World Mountain, for example. I first learned about Dave's theory in 1981 and began corresponding with him shortly thereafter. Very early on, I had arrived at the idea that in order to be conceptualized at the eye of Horus, Venus must have appeared behind Mars but in front of Saturn. Although Dave had Venus and Jupiter hidden behind Saturn in his original scenario, he eventually saw the logic of my contribution and our collaboration was born.

VENUS, EYE OF MARS? In a series of articles published in the journal Kronos in the mid 80s, Dave and I presented evidence that Venus's comet-like history traced to the period of its involvement in the polar configuration, i.e. in prehistoric times well before the series of events discussed by Velikovsky and Worlds in Collision circa 1500 BCE. We identified Venus with the eye of Horus. The latter described as rampaging about the sky in serpentine form and threatening the world with destruction. In the Saturn myth, Dave relied heavily on a careful reading of the Egyptian Pyramid Texts to make his case. In addition to being the oldest corpus of religious texts found anywhere on Earth, the Pyramid Texts have the additional advantage that the hieroglyphic language employed often encodes the celestial imagery in strikingly concrete terms. Consider the name of the Egyptian goddess Hathor, which literally means House of Horus. As the eye of Horus, Hathor is to be identified with the planet Venus. Horus, in turn, was identified with the planet Mars by Egyptian skywatchers as early as the second Millennium BCE. Encoded in Hathor's name is the astronomical information that Venus was conceptualized as housing or containing Horus/Mars. The Egyptian texts have the additional advantage that they are endlessly redundant, describing the same celestial relationships from numerous different vantage points. Thus it is that Horus/Ra is repeatedly described as residing within the womb of Hathor. Here too, Horus/Mars was clearly conceptualized as a place within Hathor/Venus.

EARLY SATURN, VENUS, MARS CONFIGURATION. Central to our argument from day one was the proposition that the unique relationship between Mars and Venus provides the key to understanding the message encoded in ancient myth and religion. The ancient sources speak with one voice that Mars was located between Earth and Venus, seemingly fixated in front of the larger body for a prolonged period of time. Hence we would understand the classic depictions of Horus at the breast of Hathor accounts, describing him as the pupil of her eye. Inasmuch as this particular configuration of planets is quite impossible, and the present arrangement of the solar system where Mars can never appear in front of Venus, much less for a prolonged period, it constitutes a decisive claim of our reconstruction. With this scenario in mind, we hired a world class computer animation company to simulate what 3 spheres the size of Saturn, Venus and Mars would look like. While in conjunction they came up with the following image. Here Saturn is the large yellow orb, Venus is the green orb, and Mars is the innermost red orb. While it would take numerous videos to summarize the evidence pointing to this particular arrangement of planets, the short answer is because the ancient testimony demanded it.

RAGING EYE IN ANCIENT ART. It will be seen at once, moreover, that this image closely approximates the classic sun image recorded in rock art the world over. A core principle of our research methodology holds that the primary mythological motifs must be reflected in ancient artworks. A classic example in this regard is the oldest pictograph of the planet Venus; it's Inanna, the so-called mu sign. Given the known fact that the earliest Sumerian script, like the Egyptian script, was pictographic in nature, how is it possible to explain this image by reference to Venus? The answer is that it depicts a comet-like Venus during one particular phase in the polar configuration's history. Hence, it comes as no surprise to find that the destructive history of Inanna/Venus, as recounted in the Sumerian sources, is virtually indistinguishable from the Egyptian accounts of the raging eye of Horus.

VENUS ROSETTE/LOTUS. Another early symbol associated with Venus was the rosette. An example taken from Inanna's Temple at Uruk is illustrated here. What are we to make of the fact that the innermost core of the rosette was red in color? According to our historical reconstruction, this red orb must be Mars, the deduction supported by the fact that analogous images will be found around the globe. Which brings us back to a core thesis of the case of the Turquoise Son. The planet Mars as Horus was specifically described as a star on a Lotus flower at the time of creation. Thus it is that the passage from the Coffin Texts recounts the God's inaugural appearance during the tumultuous natural events attending the primeval separation of heaven and earth, a pivotal juncture in cosmogonic myths around the globe. Quote "The earth opens its mouth. Geb throws open his jaws on my account. And I will raise up as Horus preeminent on his Lotus flowers." End of quote. The Star god's epical appearance atop the Lotus is celebrated again and again in Egyptian texts, albeit always in elusive terms. A hymn from the post Amarna period invokes the Horus child as follows. Quote "Greetings, boy from the womb child who ascends in the Lotus flower. Beautiful youth who comes from the land of light and illuminates the 2 lands with his light." End of quote. The Horus child atop a Lotus flower represents a popular theme in Egyptian religious iconography as well. According to Eric Horning, the Dean of Egyptologists, quote "The sun god on a Lotus blossom was an image of the first emergence of shapes at the creation." End of quote. James Allen offered a very similar assessment of the archaic traditions attached to the Lotus. Quote "One of the images is of the first place in which the sun rose." End of quote.

FOUR-PETALED SUN/SATURN. You know why an infant child sitting atop a Lotus should be an archetypal symbol of creation? It's rarely addressed by Egyptologists and has never received a satisfactory answer. At no point is the elephant in the room addressed, namely, where in all of heaven is a Lotus-like structure to be found in the immediate vicinity of the sun? Yet if we take our cue from ancient artworks, and obvious answer presents itself. The Lotus likely has reference to the petaloid forms associated with the sun and iconic images around the globe, many of which occur in prehistoric context. Consider the Syrian seal depicted here, which shows what appears to be a four-pedaled sun. Our hypothesis receives a significant measure of corroboration from the fact that analogous conceptions are evident in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica. The most common name for sun in the Mayan language was Ken, the hieroglyph for which depicts a four-petal flower. Such imagery is perfectly familiar to all Mayans. Quote "In Mayan iconography, the sun was conventionally represented as a four-petaled flower." End of quote. Considered in isolation, the Mayan traditions with respect to a four-petaled Sun can only appear as incongruous and alien in nature, divorced as they are from our own experience, where flower like forms are nowhere to be found in the immediate vicinity of the sun. Yet, when viewed in light of the cylinder seals from the ancient Near East depicting a four-petaled Sun, they suddenly take on a profound significance. Can anyone doubt that were such a constellation to present itself in the sky, traditions of a four-pedaled sun would be certain to follow? It's, as far as I'm aware, not a single Mayanist, Egyptologist, or Sumerologist has ever entertained the possibility that the artworks in hieroglyphs in question might faithfully reflect the sun's visual appearance at some point during the distant past.

ASTRONOMICAL CHALLENGE. Looking back on those early years of my collaboration with Dave, it is simply impossible to convey the thrill of discovery as we developed our ideas and saw one deduction after another confirmed in distant cultures in Mesoamerica, India and China. I often compared our working relationship to that of Watson and Crick, or Lennon and McCartney. Our partnership was at once complementary and synergistic in nature with one of us pushing the other to ever greater insights again and again. But there was one colossal problem. We had no idea how to explain the images we were reconstructing from an astronomical standpoint. How was it possible to explain those petaloid forms depicted in the Rosetta Venus?

THORNHILL’S ANSWER: ELECTRIC DISCHARGE. As Dave described at great length in an article in Aeon, it was Wal Thornhill who provided the answer during a prolonged visit to Portland in 1996. Quote, "What Wal presented to me involved, among other things, the principle of plasma discharge, and he provided a dramatic illustration as the manner in which such a discharge will account for the unique descriptions of the radiant Venus, with streamers radiating in all directions. Wal proposed that Venus was the focus of such discharge due to the electrical interactions with other bodies in the hypothesized polar configuration. This would mean that what I have called the radiance of Venus was not due so much to illumination of material from the Sun, but to the luminosity of the discharge itself." End of quote.

AXIAL JET & SPIRAL. Equally revolutionary was the implication of the optics of the respective planetary forms. In order to be seen as a radiant rosette-like form in the sky, Venus and Mars would have to be aligned on a common axis with the Earth. They've discussed this aspect of the theory at some length in the same article. Quote, "In order for the observer on Earth to see the predicted image, only one vantage point will work. The Earth itself must be on the axis, precisely the position claimed in the historical argument. Again, to fully appreciate the significance of this, one must be willing to apply both common sense and elementary principles of probability. One highly unusual point of correspondence will be impressive enough, but when multiple highly unusual correspondences converge in one reconstruction, the improbability of the accidental explanation quickly grows exponentially to astronomical proportions. With that principle in mind, a further correspondence must be considered. In both the laboratory version and in the galactic scale plasma model, there is, in addition to the organization of spiraling gases out from the axis, the potential for a jetting of material along the axis, a phenomenon mocking Newtonian models of the universe. This streaming of gas is along the axis of rotation. This has, for 25 years, been part of the bedrock of the Saturn theory. That is the meaning of the polar column, or world mountain, remembered by all ancient peoples." End of quote.

CLOSING. Those were the days, my friends. Days of breathtaking discovery and camaraderie rarely seen in the history of science. Alas, time marches on and remains undefeated. And yet, the intellectual revolution sparked by the Saturn myth remains ongoing now and forever, so long as inquiring minds take serious heed to what the ancient skywatchers have to tell us. The truth will out.

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

by Lloyd » Sat May 25, 2024 6:00 pm

258262

CARDONA RE VELIKOVSKY
Nick, you said: He [Cardona] did not suggest that V was discredited, it was a specific assertion....here is my interpretation of what he meant....Velikovsky was a discredited scholar, and I don't want my work rejected by mainstream by that association.
I don't know how you can think that, unless you've read very little of Cardona. I don't see any evidence that Cardona tried to cozy up to the mainstream at all. What's there about Cardona's Saturn Theory that the mainstream is going to accept any time soon? I believe my interpretation of Cardona's statement about V being discredited makes way more sense. Cardona, Talbott and Cochrane have done excellent jobs IMO figuring out mythology and determining which ancient gods referred to which planets and other ancient scenes and events. Velikovsky was more of a generalist and was not as expert in mythology. The Saturnists corrected a lot of V's mythology mistakes. They're even more radical than V in claiming that Earth, Venus and Mars trailed Saturn in a line from outside the solar system, instead of initially orbiting Saturn within the solar system. So Cardona merely stated that V was wrong about some of his mythological identifications and thus about dating the Venus and Mars cataclysms. Cardona favored Peter James' chronology, which was close to that of David Rohl. I favor Rohl so far. James and Rohl shorten Egyptian chronology by about 3 centuries. That's not mainstream. So far I don't see a smoking gun that Cardona was guilty of hating Velikovsky.

I may have less access to the internet soon, since I'm trying to get a job, but I hope it won't interfere much with my contributions here.

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

by Lloyd » Fri May 24, 2024 9:20 pm

258215

I totally disagree that Cardona considered Velikovsky discredited, Nick. Some of his ideas were pretty much disproven, but many were not.

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

by nick c » Wed May 22, 2024 10:28 pm

Lloyd wrote:There's no way that I would say Cardona was suggesting there that Velikovsky was discredited.
He did not suggest that V was discredited, it was a specific assertion....here is my interpretation of what he meant....Velikovsky was a discredited scholar, and I don't want my work rejected by mainstream by that association.

Cardona was critical of Worlds In Collision yet he makes no mention of some of the less interpretive aspects of that book and especially in Earth In Upheaval
No comment on a city in the Andes with remains of farm terraces that are far above the timberline. No mention of sundials that are unusable because the gnomons are inclined at the incorrect angle which implies that the latitude of the city changed or of Babylonian observations of Venus that simply cannot be reconciled with the planet's movements today. Again there are numerous examples cited by V of anomalies that defy explanation that Cardona ignored. The magnetic dip of Etruscan and Greek vases from the 8th C BC are another example. All of these, and many more too numerous to mention here, need explanations in terms of Cardona's timescale of catastrophe.

Why is Cardona so against the revised chronology? could it be that to back it he would have to acknowledge that Velikovsky be credited? I can give one instance (or many) where the mainstream chronology is falsified in one specific archaeological column. Tell Munbaqa. I expect to do a post on this soon. And as a preemptive retort, the assertion that the civilization that created the superseding layer, in the process of building completely obliterated all traces of the intervening aeolian layer is simply untenable. That is not the way the archaeological layers are formed.

Note: the short version of the revised chronology has no bearing whatsoever on Saturn Theory, except that it may or may not warrant a reconsideration of the time frame.

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

by Lloyd » Wed May 22, 2024 12:26 am

257959

LOW CHRONOLOGY DEBATE/DISCUSSION

Hi Nick. The anachronistic items you mentioned above are interesting. I can't say they're smoking guns yet. Maybe I'll have time to read more of the blog posts I linked to last time soon, which seem to have quite a bit of discussion of Heinsohn & Co.

CARDONA

Your quote of Cardona doesn't at all persuade me that he disliked Velikovsky. He didn't accept some of Velikovsky's conclusions, but I think he admired a lot of Velikovsky's accomplishments. Velikovsky was a maverick and had original ideas with a lot of good evidence to back them up, but he wasn't a mythologist and he seems to have come to a number of wrong conclusions, despite his major accomplishments.

Cardona wrote in God Star more fully:
Immanuel Velikovsky - and I hope no one will accuse me of relying on a scholar who has been discredited137 - had his own explanation concerning the appearance of the witch on her broom on both sides of the Atlantic. As he noted: " ... if there exists a fantastic image that is projected against the sky and that repeats itself all around the world, it is most probably an image that was seen on the screen of the sky by many peoples at the same time. On one occasion a cornet took the striking form of a woman riding on a broom, and the celestial picture was so clearly defined that the same impression was imposed on all the peoples of the world."138
137 My various criticisms of Velikovsky's works have appeared in various publications, and these should be enough to dispel any notions the reader may have concerning my reliance on his expositions, despite my debt to him. Credit, on the other hand, should always be given where it is due.
There's no way that I would say Cardona was suggesting there that Velikovsky was discredited. I read that as "Don't accuse me of relying on someone who's been discredited, because Velikovsky wasn't discredited." He ends up acknowledging his debt to Velikovsky and says Velikovsky deserves credit, even though he has criticized some of Velikovsky's ideas. Bob Forrest wrote several books criticizing Velikovsky's sources and Cardona criticized Forrest for going way overboard. Here's a quote from The Road To Saturn at https://www.aeonjournal.com/articles/ro ... aturn.html .
In his monumental series, which stretched into seven mini-volumes over a period of three years, {Bob} Forrest did Velikovskian scholars a service by exhuming their mentor's original sources and presenting them in their proper context. Unfortunately, since he chose to dissect Worlds in Collision source by source rather than subject by subject, he managed to scatter Velikovsky's evidence on any one topic across some five hundred odd pages, thus robbing the work of its concentrated strength. His unfamiliarity with mythology showed transparently through as so did his misunderstanding of Velikovsky's method. Worst of all, casting Velikovsky in the mold of Erich von Däniken, he treated him rather unkindly while peppering his remarks with sarcastic barbs. This shabby treatment was not only uncalled for, it proved detrimental to the serious consideration his work might have received by Velikovskian scholars. Granted that Forrest proved shrewd enough to finger many of the sore spots contained in Worlds in Collision, he also managed to commit a few blunders of his own. In his relentless discarding of the evidence, he ended up throwing the baby out with the bathwater. As I have stated elsewhere, Velikovsky's Sources could have been a great work had it not suffered too much from lack of objectivity. No matter what good may be said of it, it is not the work to refer to if a truly unbiased evaluation of Velikovsky's work is what is being sought.

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

by nick c » Tue May 21, 2024 2:42 am

Emmet Sweeney, on P57 of The Pyramid Age (2007) cites a list of anachronistic connections between the Old Kingdom and Greece. Among them are....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-an inscribed cup with the name of the Sun temple of Userkaf from the 5th Dynasty turned up in an excavation on the island of Cythera off the coast of the Peloponnese in Greece...the great Egyptologist W. C. Hayes declared, "how this small object could have traveled this far poses a problem."

footnote 92: W. Stevenson Smith, "The Old Kingdom of Egypt and the Beginning of the First Intermediate Period", in CAH Vol I part 2 (3rd ed.W) P180
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-a scarab of Cheops (4th dynasty) was excavated in a Greek Geometric (9th-8th C BC) site at Camirus, Rhodes.

footnote 93: Revue Archeologique (1863) Vol. 8 p2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-in a 5th dynasty tomb from the time of Niuserre, Mycenaean vases were discovered.

footnote: 94: C R Lepsius "Saqqarah"....(Leipzig, 1897) pt 2 plates 60=64...The Greek connection is of great importance. The Mycenaean Age was contemporary with the Geometric, which explains why Old Kingdom material is found associated with both periods. Both periods of ancient Greece are more than a thousand years disconnected from the Old Kingdom
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Even more disturbing, Pyramid Age remains were found along with Greek remains of the 7th C BC.

footnote 95: Petrie, "A History of Ancient Egypt" (1894) Vol. I pp 62-63
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emmet Sweeney wrote:In later times the term Haunebut (or Hanebu) was used by the Egyptians when referring to peoples of the Aegean - and was particularly applied - (as for example in Ptolemaic texts) to the Greeks We can imagine the scholars astonishment when they found the word in the Pyramid Texts and upon inscriptions of Cheops and Sahura.

footnote 96: W. Stevenson Smith, "The Old Kingdom in Egypt and the Beginning of the First Intermediate Period" in CAH Vol i part 2 (3rd ed) p181
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Short revised Chronology the Old Kingdom would have been contemporary with Mycenaean Greece. The Mycenaean Greeks fought the Trojan War. The Exodus took place in the 1st Intermediate Period which was contemporary and the same event as the Hyksos invasion and the 2nd Intermediate Period and the Assyrian invasion. Whether or not the Trojan War and the Exodus were contemporary Martian events I don't know, although I think they were both Martian events, there was probably several. Anyway their time periods were probably within decades of each other.

Cardona despised, almost to the point of irrationality, Velikovsky. While it is in his books (see the quote below) it was even more obvious in his articles in the journals Kronos and Aeon. There are several TB associated people who will remain nameless that agreed with me on that. One such person said, "He {Cardona} would have nothing to write about if it were not for Velikovsky."

In short, my opinion is that Cardona's attacks on Velikovsky amount to nothing more than "throwing the baby out with the bath water."

In God Star p.40:
Cardona wrote:Immanuel Velikovsky - and I hope no one will accuse me of relying on a scholar who has been discredited...
Now, that being said, I do value Cardona's work. but I find the obvious animosity to the man who created the raison d'etre for Dwardu's life work to be indicative of some deep seeded personal animus.

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

by Lloyd » Tue May 21, 2024 12:04 am

257907

ANCIENT CHRONOLOGY DEBATE/DISCUSSION

Thanks for the replies, Nick.

HANNEBUT. I asked A.I. about the Hannebut people. It replied: The term "Hannebut people" does not correspond to a known historical group or culture. It's possible there may be a spelling error or a misunderstanding in the term. Do you have any comment?

MARS. What evidence is there that Mars was involved in the Exodus events or even in the Trojan War etc? Do you think both events occurred about the same time?

SARGON. Heinsohn claimed that Sargon and Sargon II were the same person, but Ev Cochrane had an article showing that they were entirely different. He also claimed to be a friend of Heinsohn. He also found an eclipse or something that coincided with conventional dating of one of the Persian kings or someone like that.

CARDONA. I haven't noticed any dislike of Velikovsky by Cardona, nor any evidence that he wanted to be accepted by mainstream science at all. What statements of his gave you those impressions? I'm sure Talbott and Cardona both failed to find support for Velikovsky's conclusions that Venus and Mars were involved in cataclysms after 2,000 BC, i.e. during the Exodus and the Trojan War etc. Talbott and Cardona said they wanted to let mythology decide what happened in ancient times, instead of letting astronomical "knowledge" decide, so they were willing to risk sounding foolish by sticking with the mythology. So they accepted that Saturn was above Earth's north pole even though science didn't consider that possible, at least until the SL9 comet fragmented and the pieces followed each other in a line. So Velikovsky and Lynn Rose and others considered the Saturn Configuration absurd and I guess unscientific before 1992-4.

STRATIGRAPHY. Do you know where to find the stratigraphy of Tell Munbaqa and Tell El Daba? I found a blog that discusses Heinsohn's & co's chronologies at https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3A ... g+heinsohn .

AMERICAS. Ancient civilizations in the Americas don't seem to date much before 1,000 BC, so it's plausible that the Eastern Hemisphere could be misdated, judging by the Americas. But I'd like to find smoking guns to settle the issue one way or the other. Tree-ring dating might be the most reliable, though I could be naive about that.

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

by nick c » Mon May 20, 2024 3:36 am

Lloyd" wrote:1. Which of these authors' views do you favor? a. Immanuel Velikovsky, b. Lynn Rose, c. Emmett(?) Sweeney, d. Charles Ginenthal, e. Gunnar Heinsohn, f. Gary Gilligan, g. John Ackerman?
Velikovsky effectively dismantled conventional ancient history in the Supplement to "People's of the Sea", his adherence to biblical chronology prevented him from reaching the logical conclusion of his chronological work. It is important to remember that most of Velikovsky's reconstruction is still valid in the short chronology. V maintained that 2nd M BC history contained a duplication of the 1st M BC history. Heinsohn went a step further and resolved the dilemma that stumped V, and showed that not only was history duplicated but it was actually triplicated.

Rose, Ginenthal, Sweeney, and Heinsohn have some minor differences, but they are more alike than they are different. I have spent many hours reading Ginenthal's "Pillars of the Past" series of 4 volumes, and would strongly recommend that anyone interested in this subject obtain Vol. I and give it a look. It is loaded with anomalies and historical anachronisms that are resolved by the short chronology. It is the best place to get the short chronology all in one place, actually 3 volumes. As a caveat you will need some familiarity with the mainstream historical edifice. (The 4th volume has to do with Stonehenge and other megalithic circles in Great Britain and Europe.)

The key point of the short chronology is that it is based upon stratigraphy and literary references are considered secondary sources. Furthermore there is a falsifiability that becomes readily apparent, in that Heinsohn et. al. can easily be shown to be wrong if certain stratigraphic conditions are found. And in fact, the conventionally taught ancient history is actually falsified by stratigraphy and the revised shortened chronology is supported. There are several stunning examples, which I can get into.

I am not familiar with the chronologies of Gilligan and Acherman.
2. Isn't Heinsohn's chronology even lower than Velikovsky's? Didn't Velikovsky lower Egyptian chronology by c. 500 years? And doesn't Heinsohn lower it c. 1,000 years?
Yes, Heinsohn has history (writing) beginning all around the world (Egypt, Mesopotamia, China, Indus Valley, and Mesoamerica) at roughly the same time, after 1500 BC, probably closer to 1200 BC. That was the time when humans recovered from a series of immense planetary catastrophes, which no doubt included the Deluge and following effects. The solar system was still not in the present order, but the threat of world destruction had mostly passed.
Velikovsky has the Old Kingdom of Egypt and Sumeria of Mesopotamia being 3rd M BC civilizations. But these supposed 3rd M BC civilizations (according to Heinsohn, Sweeney, Rose, and Ginenthal) came much later and were 1st M BC societies.

Before 1500 BC humans lived in tribal villages with little or no ability to write. But most of that time was repeated destructions that came from the sky and survival and ritual human sacrifice to appease the planet gods was the preoccupation of humans.
3. Do you believe Venus was a comet in c. 1450 BC and made a close encounter with Earth then during the Exodus and c. 1400 BC at the time of Joshua, as Velikovsky concluded?
The disastrous encounters between the Earth and Venus (which appeared as a world threatening comet) were an ongoing process, The worst encounter took place before civilization was invented by humans, but there were one or more encounters as Venus became an inner planet. The period between 1500 and 1100 BC probably had periods of tumult.
4. Do you believe Mars came close to Earth and the Moon several times c. 700 BC, as Velikovsky also concluded?
Yes. between 900 and 700 BC.
5. Do you believe Venus, Mars & Earth were satellites of Saturn following Saturn in a line from the outer solar system and that Saturn flared up as a nova, causing the Great Flood on Earth, some time before the Exodus?
Yes, and Venus was probably fissioned from Saturn/Kronos, although i don't discount the possibility that it came from an encounter between Saturn/Kronos and Jupiter/Zeus, causing some confusion over which gave birth to Venus. Also, it has been pointed out to me by Ted Holden, Venus is in the Jupiter group ( Venus, Mercury, and our Moon) of planets, in that its axis of rotation is close to being perpendicular to the ecliptic. While Mars, Neptune, and Earth at around 24 degrees are in the Saturn group. Uranus is on its side and must have been involved in some way in the theomachy, although it would be quite the coincidence if the planet we know as "Uranus" was actually the Uranus/Ouranos of myth. Anyway, those were events that took place in prehistory.
The Exodus event was probably in the 8th or 9th C BC during one of the Mars encounters.
6. Do you believe Abraham lived before the Exodus and witnessed the cataclysm that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah by the Dead Sea?
Abraham would have to have lived multiple generations before the Exodus. I don't know if he witnessed the destruction of S and G although that is the story. It is difficult to tell when in the OT myth turns into history. I don't doubt that Abraham may represent someone of great importance during the beginning of Near East civilization. He seems to be developed as a character which may indicate he was a real person. Sometimes in tales hoary with age, a single person can represent an entire group of people. But I have no argument there, either way.

There is no doubt that Abraham must have engaged in that seemingly reprehensible practice of blood sacrifice as Egyptian (and Israelite) civilization was one of the first to eliminate this traumatically induced practice, Keep in mind that human sacrifice remained in parts of the world until recent times (because history is not that old). Some North and South American tribes continued the practice well into the time of European contact.
7. Do you believe that Venus erupted from Jupiter's Great Red Spot, as John Ackerman figures?
I don't know. But the GRS is certainly some sort of enormous scar, is it not? Actually it was Velikovsky who wrote (in WIC) that the GRS was where Venus erupted from Jupiter.
8. Did you know that both Cardona and Talbott independently (before they got acquainted, I think) looked for evidence that Venus came close to Earth at the time of the Exodus, but didn't find any?
I did not know that. But as I stated above, I think that Venus was more or less tamed by the time the Exodus took place, and the planetary agent was Mars.
I talked with Talbott on the phone concerning a forum matter around 2009 (?) and after that matter was taken care of, I asked him about catastrophes in historical times and he seemed to be non committal to either side, preferring to not get involved in the chronology debate. I respect that.
Cardona found evidence that a great comet came close to Earth at that time, but he said it wasn't Venus. I think they also looked for and failed to find evidence of encounters with Mars c. 700 BC, but I don't recall where they may have said so. I think they both concluded that Earth's encounters with Venus and Mars occurred quite a few centuries before the Exodus. I think Cardona thought those occurred about 5,000 years ago when the Saturn Configuration broke up.
As far as Cardona is concerned there is no doubt in my mind that he had a personal animus against Velikovsky, and an hard to understand desire for acceptance by mainstream science and history.
In Ginenthal's Pillars he deals extensively and ably handles Cardona's criticisms. In one instance, Cardona took the position that the Egyptians could have obtained iron from meteorites, yet meteoric iron is not conducive to making tools, and furthermore iron and steel objects can be determined to be of meteoric origin by the nickel content. There is no evidence of the use of meteoric iron for anything other than jewelry (beads) or sacred objects.
9. What are the main evidences you know of for the low chronology of Heinsohn?
Where do I begin? The evidence is overwhelming. It is the parallel of Black Holes and Dark Matter. It does not matter how much evidence is presented, the PTB will not accept it and it is only going to happen as the old guard dies out and new people took over. There are a thousand little things. Like Old Kingdom (3rd M BC) texts mentioning the Hannebut people. Now the hieroglyph expression for Hannebut in latter Egypt is translated as "Greece." Yet that is impossible for the Old Kingdom by over a 1000 years. So when Egyptologists encounter an Old Kingdom reference to the Hannebut people they translate it as some unknown people, but when they encounter this name in a mid 1st M Egyptian text it is translated as "Greek."
I am planning, time permitting, to make a post on the NIAMI board concerning the attempt by several German academic colleagues of Professor Heinsohn to falsify his chronology by examining the stratigraphy of a Syrian ruins named Tell Munbaqa. And after the stratigraphy was examined by a neutral geologist with no horse in the race, those colleagues wrote a formal letter to Heinsohn admitting that the stratigraphy of Tell Munbaqa supported Heinsohn's chronology and was contrary to what was expected by accepted chronology. This case alone is a falsification of conventional chronology! Similar results were obtained for Tell el daba (aka Avaris, the Hyksos city in Egypt).

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

by Lloyd » Sat May 18, 2024 5:00 pm

257830

SOME CHRONOLOGY DEBATE SPECIFICS

Nick, will you tell us some of the main low chronology claims or ideas that you accept? Will you answer these questions?

1. Which of these authors' views do you favor? a. Immanuel Velikovsky, b. Lynn Rose, c. Emmett(?) Sweeney, d. Charles Ginenthal, e. Gunnar Heinsohn, f. Gary Gilligan, g. John Ackerman?
2. Isn't Heinsohn's chronology even lower than Velikovsky's? Didn't Velikovsky lower Egyptian chronology by c. 500 years? And doesn't Heinsohn lower it c. 1,000 years?
3. Do you believe Venus was a comet in c. 1450 BC and made a close encounter with Earth then during the Exodus and c. 1400 BC at the time of Joshua, as Velikovsky concluded?
4. Do you believe Mars came close to Earth and the Moon several times c. 700 BC, as Velikovsky also concluded?
5. Do you believe Venus, Mars & Earth were satellites of Saturn following Saturn in a line from the outer solar system and that Saturn flared up as a nova, causing the Great Flood on Earth, some time before the Exodus?
6. Do you believe Abraham lived before the Exodus and witnessed the cataclysm that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah by the Dead Sea?
7. Do you believe that Venus erupted from Jupiter's Great Red Spot, as John Ackerman figures?
8. Did you know that both Cardona and Talbott independently (before they got acquainted, I think) looked for evidence that Venus came close to Earth at the time of the Exodus, but didn't find any? Cardona found evidence that a great comet came close to Earth at that time, but he said it wasn't Venus. I think they also looked for and failed to find evidence of encounters with Mars c. 700 BC, but I don't recall where they may have said so. I think they both concluded that Earth's encounters with Venus and Mars occurred quite a few centuries before the Exodus. I think Cardona thought those occurred about 5,000 years ago when the Saturn Configuration broke up.
9. What are the main evidences you know of for the low chronology of Heinsohn?

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

by Lloyd » Fri May 17, 2024 9:52 pm

257816

SPIRAL OF CREATION
I just posted excerpts from Cardona's last 2 books about the spiral of creation that formed shortly after Saturn flared up as a nova at https://cataclysmicearthhistory.substac ... f-creation . Most cultures have had creation stories that turn out to discuss basically the same sky patterns of a spiral that circled Saturn 7 times. These turnings or windings were seen as a serpent or sea-serpent, rivers, seas, oceans, intestines, a labyrinth, a dragon, and even 7 heavens. In the Bible the 7 seas were later translated as 7 days of creation, since they had the same world for sea and day.

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

by Lloyd » Thu May 16, 2024 7:57 pm

257752

PYRAMID ELECTRICITY

Thanks for the info, Nick. I was mainly just curious about Dunn's video regarding whether any kind of electrical power generation could have been a main purpose for some of the pyramids. I agree that it seems unlikely, i.e. as an electrical power station, but I'd like to find a smoking gun that would disprove the possibility of advanced knowledge and tech in ancient times. I think your reasoning is good. The Ark of the Covenant seems to have been possibly a capacitor that was able to discharge electricity, so I imagine some of the pyramids may have been able to do that too, i.e. store and discharge electricity. It wouldn't necessarily indicate very advanced knowledge. It seems very plausible that the electrical discharge features of such ancient objects, if real, might have been designed to mimic or remind people of the atmospheric electrical activity during cataclysms. Here's a video that comments on Dunn's book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-46nSt2acRo . I've only seen part of this one so far.

You said pyramids were meant to resemble an ancient mound or something. That seems reasonable too. I think Talbott considered pyramids and maybe obelisks etc to have been designed to resemble the polar column. Cardona has stated that there was apparently also an Earthly bulge or something, which the polar column seemed to set upon. So that could have been what the pyramids were modeled on, if not the polar column. The Mexican pyramid is said to have a sometimes visible beam of light directly above its top. I think I've seen a photo of that, but I wouldn't know if it's real or fake. Here's the image: https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.aYVL ... =300&h=300 and I guess it does look fake, but I'm not an expert. Here are a couple videos with more images: https://youtu.be/6GMK3NK3qSQ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GMK3NK ... IGJlYW0%3D . I haven't looked through these yet. They may be duplicates.

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

by nick c » Thu May 16, 2024 1:54 am

At 5:38 the narrator says that what convinced him was the shafts and interior chambers...but what about the chambers in the other pyramids?
There are pyramids at Giza, Dashur, Saqqara, Meidum and other locations in Egypt many of which are completely or partially destroyed. See:
List of Egyptian Pyramids

But the arrangement of chambers are different in each of those pyramids, for example Khafre's Pyramid, which is next to the Great Pyramid at Giza, has several chambers carved into the bedrock beneath the pyramid, and there are no chambers within the actual pyramid's structure. In fact, every pyramid is different in regard to the arrangement or lack thereof, of chambers. Many, like Khafre's do not have any chambers or shafts within the structure, but have a chamber(s) at or below ground level.

===========================================================================================
The Purpose of Pyramids

It is clear that the purpose of the pyramid was to recreate the primeval mound, which rose out of the abyss (nun). This can be shown by the hieroglyphs for pyramid (myr = high place) and for the primeval mound (benben) and other pyramid related names, which all use the same sign (O24):
pyramid - primeval mound.JPG
=========================================================================================

Did the Mayan and Aztec pyramids have an electrical purpose? How about the Babylonian ziggaruts? or the numerous mounds built around the world?

In Egypt there is an evolution from mastaba, to step pyramid, to smooth sided pyramid. All of these structures from around the world were connected with the practice of blood sacrifice to appease the planet gods. The smooth sided pyramid marks the era (in Egypt) of the end of that practice. And what was the primeval mound? I think that it was the reappearance of the land after the deluge, which was the creation of a new age.

Now there is always the possibility that the electrical state of the Earth was, during the pyramid age, very different than today. It is possible that the gold plated pyramidion cap on the pyramid may have been conducive to the formation of St. Elmo's fire, but I don't think that any electrical effect was used for anything other than religious awe.

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

by Lloyd » Wed May 15, 2024 11:41 pm

257680

Did NASA Physicists PROVE the Great Pyramid's ACTUAL Purpose? | Christopher Dunn {Electric Power Station}
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brNRGJ7rFB4

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

by Lloyd » Mon May 13, 2024 1:25 pm

257566

@OpenMind, I share much of David Rohl's ideas that Egyptian chronology is about 3 centuries too old, whereas Nick thinks they're a thousand years or so too old. So I'm open to about any dating for the Barabar Caves and I think conventional dating of ancient sites is only off by a few centuries off.

I'm interested in whatever evidence you have for any dating and for any level of technology, as well as of cataclysms. The apparent vitrification of some ancient structures is suggestive of possible cataclysmic effects. Any links you can provide, or relevant quotes, would be appreciated.

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

by Open Mind » Mon May 13, 2024 12:11 pm

nick c wrote: Sat May 11, 2024 4:13 pm
lloyd wrote:I think you have the wrong impression about Nick's intent. He wants to show, IMO, that the precision tech was only possible after the Iron Age began. So he thinks that tech needs to be redated to much later than conventionally dated.
That is correct.
I see, sorry for the misunderstanding. So would you say then that if the vase is from the Djoser collection, that you suggest that the most likely scenario, is that those precision pieces must have been placed in the pyramid of Djoser some time after the start of the Iron age, 1200 bc? And is it also consistent with your idea's that the Barabar caves, are more likely to date earlier than 300 bc, (when they were attributed by the king of that time)?

I skimmed some of your more recent posts on this thread and see that you recognize evidence of the use of steel on work that is dated prior to the iron age. Have you looked into the curious polish on various works that appear to have been cut, including even polished sections of what appear to be non functional 'over cuts', which don't seem worthy of that detail work? Chris Dunn mentions that 'polish' is even evident on the Petrie Core #7, which he believes is a very mysterious aspect of that piece that is discussed far less than it should be worthy of, (on his recent JRE appearance). Some have even gone as far as suggesting this polished surface effect seems similar to vitrification. To me, this is the most challenging part of the idea that these particular pieces were cut by steel saws, and perhaps demonstrate some unknown approach. That is, unless we make the assumption that a polished appearance is something that can occur from long periods of weathering? What do you make of that?

Sorry if this is a digression from the purpose of this post.

Top