Mathis & Saturn Theory

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?
Lloyd
Posts: 4973
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Mathis & Saturn Theory

Unread post by Lloyd » Mon Jul 19, 2021 3:17 am

I hadn't read this addendum by Mathis till today. I plan to post the entire addendum in 3 separate posts. So this is the first part. You can read the whole addendum at the link, if you like, but I want to give readers a chance to comment after each part. So I plan to wait a bit after each post before proceeding to the next. This hasn't been commented on before, has it? If it has, can anyone give me a link? The numbers in brackets are references for my comments at the bottom in blue.

The Holy Grail
http://mileswmathis.com/sangreal.pdf

Addendum April 20: I am back to distance myself from David Talbott and The Saturn Myth. Also Velikovsky. Many sites are already spinning me, trying to make it look like I am confirming them, but I am definitely not. I have previously outed (http://milesmathis.com/thunder.pdf) both Talbott and Velikovsky as controlled opposition spooks.[1] This is what Talbott was working on back in 1980[2], before he got involved in the Electrical Universe thing[3]. We know it is all another project just by looking at those involved, especially Alfred de Grazia, commanding officer of the psychological warfare propaganda team for the CIA. De Grazia and his CIA buddies were also pushing the Saturn Myth, so we know it must be false.[4] The idea is that the Earth used to orbit Saturn in historical times, when Saturn was a star.[5] Saturn collapsed, ejecting the Earth into its present orbit.[6] All patently absurd. There is absolutely no physical evidence for it, and lots of physical evidence against it, which is why Talbott and these other frauds had to rely on squishy reports from mythology, trying to build a case from a few gathered comments about Saturn in old texts.[7] If you don't believe me, read The Saturn Myth for yourself. It is complete garbage. Ancient texts might be used as supporting evidence for a well presented physical theory, but Talbott and the rest reverse that, using nebulous descriptions as a starting point, and only after the fact trying to cobble together some physics to support it. This they utterly fail to do, and we must assume their failure is due to the fact they never thought of succeeding.[8.] The project was a blackwash from the start, as you will see in a moment.

That said, the mainstream criticisms of The Saturn Myth are no better than the myth itself, as you can see here
(http://defendgaia.org/bobk/velidelu.html). There, Leroy Ellenberger, whom I assume is also a spook playing the other side, quotes mainstream theory to the effect that "Velikovsky's allusion to magnetic fields powerful enough to cushion planets during a near-collision, thereby avoiding 'an actual crushing collision of the lithospheres' (Worlds in Collision, p. 382, and Velikovsky & Establishment Science, p. 30) is ludicrous because planetary magnetic fields are simply too feeble. Everyday experience with the effect of 100 gauss horseshoe magnets on iron filings is no reliable guide for what happens between planets with comparatively miniscule magnetic fields."[9]

But we now know that is wrong due to Trojans and horseshoe orbits (http://milesmathis.com/aster.pdf), among other things, in which magnetic fields (or more precisely the charge fields that cause them) do in fact “cushion” celestial bodies and prevent collisions. In approach, these fields do increase in their power of repulsion, due to increasing densities of those meeting fields, and they are easily able to turn bodies in certain configurations, like the Trojans.[10] So the critics of Talbott and Velikovsky are actually using outdated and disproved mainstream ideas. They weren't disproved by Velikovsky or Talbott[11], but by me. Only I have done the actual math and field theory. Velikovsky only made the suggestion.

1. I think people can be supported by the mainstream or Intel without being spooks. I think Velikovsky and Talbott really believed their own theories and really did research to develop them. I doubt if they were agents knowingly.
2. Talbott told me in 2007 that he first read Velikovsky in 1968 (a year before I first read him). He published Pensee' magazine from 1972-1975, which was devoted to discussing Velikovsky's theories. He wasn't able to confirm Velikovsky's claims about Venus and Mars having close encounters with Earth in the second and first millennia BC respectively, but he was surprised to find that ancient myths seemed to confirm that Earth had been close to Saturn, as Velikovsky said in passing. The Saturn Myth was only Talbott's first effort to discuss his findings. I think he figured that the physical evidence would come later, if his theory was correct. I don't think he considered it to be infallible.
3. I think Talbott met Wal Thornhill at a 1994 conference in Portland, OR, and Thornhill was the Electric Universe expert. Velikovsky had discussed in Worlds in Collision that electrical forces seemed to be involved in the near collisions of planets with Earch, according to ancient myths.
4. I haven't seen where de Grazia pushed the Saturn Theory. I know he supported Velikovsky's theory to some extent. He published a book called the Velikovsky Affair c. 1967 in which he included several articles in support of Velikovsky's theory and critical of his critics. I hadn't heard that he was head of psychological operations in the military or whatever. I wouldn't be surprised if Intel is covertly involved in the Thunderbolts project, but I doubt if Talbott is or was aware of such involvement, although it's possible he does or did know of it, if it's real. A few years ago Charles Chandler made an interesting critique of the Safire project, which was initiated by Thunderbolts.
5. The theory was that Earth, Mars and Venus followed Saturn in a line, not orbits, like the SL9 comet pieces that hit Jupiter in single file in 1994. And Saturn was only a brown dwarf star, not a full-size star.
6. Saturn didn't collapse, it had a nova-like flare-up. The lineup of planets was near the orbit of Venus when it became unstable. Saturn, perhaps on an elliptical orbit around the Sun, left the lineup first, then the others also went to their present orbits. Charles Chandler figured out how stars likely devolve into brown dwarfs and explained his findings at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=18943 (independent of Thunderbolts EU theory).
7. As I said above, the Saturn Myth was just the introduction of the theory.
8. The introductory work may not have been impressive, but a lot more work has been done since then and it's much better than garbage.
9. Ellenberger argued against Velikovsky's theory. I don't think he argued against Saturn theory publicly.
10. How much force does it take to repel the Trojan asteroids?
11. I think they did make good arguments against Ellenberger et al.

Lloyd
Posts: 4973
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Mathis & Saturn Theory

Unread post by Lloyd » Tue Jul 20, 2021 3:11 pm

121

MATHIS' SATURN THEORY

Here's the second part of Miles Mathis' Addendum to his paper on The Holy Grail at http://mileswmathis.com/sangreal.pdf with my reference numbers in brackets and comments at the bottom.

At any rate, though Talbott and Velikovsky were generally right about that [magnetic fields etc helping prevent planets from colliding], it doesn't even come close to saving the Saturn myth. As perhaps the biggest clue this was another huge conjob, just notice what Talbott chose to name his book: The Saturn Myth. If you had written the book, would you have chosen that title? I wouldn't. You would call it the Saturn Theory, or the Saturn Hypothesis, or at worst the Saturn Revolution. Calling it the Saturn Myth is to admit it is still no better than a myth: that is, not true.[12] Our next clue is found in Talbott's chapter and subchapter list for the book, which you can see here. You would expect him to lead with some historical evidence, then proceed to at least an outline of the physics. But he never does, and you can see that just from his chapter headings. In his conclusion, he is still repeating the same broad generalities of his preface: he had made no progress in his argument in 306 pages.[13]

For instance, to convince any real scientist that his theory had any merit at all, he would need to pretty quickly explain how a star could devolve into Saturn so quickly, where the extra mass went, where the heat went, why Saturn's other moons weren't affected, how the asteroid belt fits into this or how the Earth traversed it, how Jupiter fits in, and so on. You would have expected Jupiter to be the second sun in this system, not Saturn, so where was Jupiter in the previous configuration? Which sun was he circling? A planet that size caught between two suns would be very conflicted, to say the least. And since Saturn is so much like Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune in current composition, those three must also have been stars recently. Or if not, why not? If Saturn was recently a star, why does he have so much unfused hydrogen and helium? Why did he stop fusing and why does he not fit the profile of a dwarf? A burnt-out star should be neutron rich, but we have no evidence Saturn fits that profile.[14]

Also, the move from one star to another and from one orbiting position to another would actually be far more traumatic than what the Earth is known to have experienced in the recent past. We can see that just from things like the ice core samples, which proceed like clockwork for millions of years. We see no evidence of a total overhaul of the mechanisms there. And that is just one example of thousands.[15]

Occam's razor tells us that the myths and stories Talbott and Velikovsky quote are much more likely to be explained by comets, asteroids, or volcanic eruptions, so why would they rush to hypothesize such outlandish things, upon so little evidence?[16] As far as the main contention of the Saturn myth, a firsttime reader thinks up much better explanations without much effort: if there was indeed a bright object at the pole assigned to the primary god of ancient peoples, it was probably a supernova or similar object, not Saturn. After the object faded, it somehow got conflated with the planet Saturn.[17] But Talbott never considers other possibilities: because these people called something at the pole a name we now associate with Saturn, he tells us the current planet must have been there. We have never seen a faster or less logical rush to a conclusion.[18]

Another theory Talbott ignores is this interesting one, which I haven't seen anywhere: What if these ancient stories are actually retellings of stories from when our ancestors lived on Titan? Maybe that is the golden age. If you lived on Titan, Saturn would look more than eleven times larger than the Moon looks to us now. And since Titan is in tidal lock, like our own Moon, if you lived on the Saturn side of Titan, Saturn would never set. He would seem to hang in the sky, motionless. From that near, the brightness of Saturn would be incredible, making him seem like a second star even though he wasn't. This would explain Talbott's data, without moving Saturn at all. Neither Saturn nor the Earth moved. . . WE DID.
- It would also explain other ancient stories, like the ones concerning night. Night would be very different depending on which side of Titan you lived on. If you lived on the far side, away from Saturn, your night would be dependent on the Sun, and so would last about eight days. If you lived on the near side, your night would be dependent on reflection from Saturn, so night would come only when the Sun was behind you and Saturn was in a new phase. Since that is impossible, there would be no night on the near side.[19]

We have even more data in favor of this hypothesis. The mainstream now admits that Titan has liquid water oceans, though it thinks they are very cold. Cassini confirmed liquid oceans with the reflection of ELFs. According to the latest theories, this liquid ocean is supposed to be supercooled down to -97C by being mixed with ammonia, but they actually have no evidence for that. That theory was created only to explain the cold they assume is there, based on old gravity-only models. Those are the same models that can't explain the burning atmosphere of Uranus or the ice on the poles of Mercury. But given a unified field, charge, and magnetic reconnection, we can explain much higher temperatures at the distance of Titan. So the temperature of the liquid ocean on Titan could be anything, including being warmer than the Earth's oceans. In fact, I have shown the mechanism for that in my paper on the Moon (http://milesmathis.com/moon.html), where I showed that the Moon has a denser charge field than the Earth, simply because it is smaller. The charge field gets more compressed by moving through a smaller body. Unlike Talbott or Velikovsky, I do the math there. Since Titan is smaller than the Earth, there is a straightforward mechanism for charge compression, and therefore for heat generation. Plus, Titan is recycling charge from both the Sun and and a very near Saturn, while the Earth is only recycling charge from the Sun (and very distant planets). Raising Titan's charge profile again. And since Titan is also known to have a heavy atmosphere of 1.5 bars, 50% higher than on the Earth, we have a mechanism for heat trapping. This indicates the mainstream theory of a thick layer of ice on the surface of Titan is probably wrong. In fact, composite pictures of Titan in infrared from NASA do not confirm it.
- A layer of surface ice 62 miles thick would look nothing like that, in false color or not. I would say the choice to use white as their main false color is suspicious, since it automatically pushes you to seeing snow or ice there. But they had no physical reason to choose white or orange, and could have just as easily used blue and brown like the earth. Why didn't they? That would be bit revelatory, wouldn't it?
- Cassini also found significant shifting of those surface features, indicating the continents on Titan are moving. In other words, they are floating freely in the oceans, unconnected to the mantle. That would explain other curious comments in the ancient stories.
- NASA also admits mountains and volcanoes exist on Titan. What? On a surface of miles-thick ice? Also a few impact craters? Impact craters on a shifting surface of ice? We seem to have a lot of contradictions there. Like the CIA, NASA needs to hire a continuity editor. Or, to deal with me, maybe a large team of continuity editors.
- And at Wikipedia, we actually find this astonishing admission, taken straight from NASA: The climate — including wind and rain — creates surface features similar to those of Earth, such as dunes, rivers, lakes, seas (probably of liquid methane and ethane), and deltas, and is dominated by seasonal weather patterns as on Earth. With its liquids (both surface and subsurface) and robust nitrogen atmosphere, Titan's methane cycle bears a striking similarity to Earth's water cycle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle).
- Again, surface features including dunes, rivers, seas, and deltas, on a surface of ice? If the seas are liquid methane, what are the dunes made of? What are the continents made of? And if the atmosphere is robustly nitrogen, like here on Earth, with huge amounts of oxygen (in the form of water) present, why do they go out of their way to hide any oxygen in the atmosphere? I think you know.
- A reader also pointed out that there is a hexagon on Titan, though not at the pole. But he was wrong: there are actually two. Blow that last image up and you will see a larger one in the inset at 4 o'clock, and another smaller one in the inset at 6'clock.
- But, I will be told, if Titan's atmosphere is so thick, inhabitants couldn't have seen out at all. Saturn itself would have been invisible. Yes, assuming that atmosphere was there thousands of years ago. But if we assume the atmosphere was created by environmental degradation of the sort currently happening on the Earth, that too is answered. That atmosphere is precisely why our ancestors had to leave. Not coincidentally, Titan's orange smog is hydrocarbons, just like you see in Los Angeles. We are told it is caused by methane being broken up by sunlight, but that is ridiculous. It is much more likely that it was created in the way it is created here, by pollution from industry. That pollution then somehow destroyed the oxygen content of the atmosphere, making the place uninhabitable for us.
- The atmosphere of Titan provides many clues of this, including the presence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, created by the burning of coal or oil deposits. Even the high levels of methane on Titan are a clue, since if the hydrocarbons were created by decomposing methane, sunlight would have long since decomposed all the methane. Indicating the methane is also residual from just a few thousand years ago. Meaning it too was released by the inhabitants somehow. We may assume it wasn't from farting cows, so again it was probably from burning fossil fuels. On the Earth, human industry creates far more methane (https://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse- ... -emissions) than cows, termites, wetlands, and the oceans put together.
- We are told that high winds exist on Titan, with the atmosphere moving much faster than here. Except that Cassini also contradicted that, getting specular reflections from lakes. This indicates calm waters.[20]

12. A lot of people were okay with the title, Saturn Myth, since the theory is based on ancient eye-witness reports handed down in myths.
13. It's okay for an introductory work like The Saturn Myth not to have the answers yet.
14. Talbott figured that Jupiter was behind (from Earth's perspective) or in front of Saturn (from the Sun's perspective) in the lineup of planets. There have been many published discussions of the Saturn theory and some of them have considered questions like those.
15. The ice core dating method has gotten lots of good criticism from Catastrophists and Creationists.
16. Myths name Saturn, Venus and Mars as the primary players in the skies in ancient times and seldom mention comets etc, besides Comet Venus.
17. If stars and planets form from imploding galactic filaments, which are linear, it's very possible that they would move linearly at first, thus polarly aligned.
18. They/we only go where the evidence leads, IMO.
19. Many Thunderbolts readers would be open to your theory. If the evidence leads there, we'll follow.
20. Good theory, but so far myths don't support it, as far as I know.

Lloyd
Posts: 4973
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Mathis & Saturn Theory

Unread post by Lloyd » Fri Jul 23, 2021 4:48 pm

272

MATHIS' SATURN THEORY

Here's the 3rd and last part of Miles Mathis' Addendum to his paper on The Holy Grail at http://mileswmathis.com/sangreal.pdf with my reference numbers in brackets and comments at the bottom.

If you read all the theories of Titan at a place like Wikipedia or NASA, you soon get the impression of a cover-up. Nothing makes any sense and most of it reads like misdirection. It contradicts itself and mainstream physics in a thousand places. Even now that the data has been sitting around for a while, nothing sensible is ever said about. The scientists seem to go out of their way to misread it or push it.

I trust you see what all this means: my theory isn't a theory of aliens.[21] There are no aliens in this Saturn theory. WE ARE THE ALIENS. It doesn't get any weirder than . . . us. We are the outsiders, and it looks like we are doing the same thing to the Earth that we did to Titan. So the big question is, why didn't we learn our lesson? In the time it took us to reinvent industry, did we really forget our old mistakes? Or are we just incapable of anything better?

So why did these guys like Velikovsky and Talbott rush to such idiotic conclusions? I have already told you in that previous paper: they did it in order to blackwash any non-mainstream theories. They purposely made their non-mainstream theories as ridiculous as possible, in order to bolster the mainstream.[22] It is just one more in a line of controlling the opposition. They saw people like me coming and they didn't want to have to address me directly. So they manufactured these people like Velikovsky, Talbott, Icke, and many others, so that they could lump me in with them and dismiss me by kind. NASA does the same thing with its creation of Flat Earth and other projects. It wants to lump all critics in with Flat Earth, dismissing them as a group. This prevents any and all discussion of real theory.[23]

Anyone can see I have almost nothing in common with these people. My output alone should tell you that. I have published over 10,000 pages on my science site alone. That's 33 volumes of groundbreaking research. And my papers are dense with math and page-by-page, line-by-line critiques of mainstream theories and equations. I show specific cheats and mistakes in math by Feynman, Einstein, Gell-Mann, Weinberg, Maxwell, Bohr, Newton, Keppler, Landau, and dozens of current and living physicists. This is something Talbott, Velikovsky, Icke, and all the rest have never done.[24]

My critics dismiss me as they dismiss Velikovsky: neither of us have the right degrees, the right framed papers on our walls. So they don't have to respond to my line-by-line mathematical destructions of Landau, Feynman, or anyone else. These destructions PROVE I am a better mathematician than these famous mathematicians, but my critics are paid to say that because I don't have a PhD in math or physics, I can't possibly be either a mathematician or a physicist. Argument by misdirection. Notice that they dodge me far more fully than they dodge Velikovsky. Lots of people have responded directly to his arguments, but no one has ever responded to mine. Yes, they respond, but only by ad hominem or other misdirection. I have never once seen a sensible response to my mathematical critiques of Bohr, Feynman, Landau, Maxwell, or anyone else. Just total radio silence. This while my papers are ranking on the front page of the search engines, sometimes above Wikipedia.[25]

And, like the Grail Myth, the Saturn Myth misdirects by taking you close to the truth but then dodging you back out into the bushes. As I said, I do think there is something going on with Saturn. The ancients were telling us something about Saturn, but nothing like what Talbott, Icke, or Velikovsky would have you believe. I don't know exactly what that something is yet, but it is much more likely to be a colonizing or a genetic experiment than Worlds in Collision.[26] Assuming we can already send probes to Saturn, it wouldn't take much of a technological advance to transport live beings back and forth. It doesn't take near-light speeds or time-dilation or hibernation — a la Planet of the Apes or Alien — to imagine travel from here to there. It would only be a matter of months. Plus, travelling toward the Sun should be much easier than travelling away from it, since we can use its gravity to move toward it. Everything not in orbit will move directly at the Sun, and accelerate while doing it. So travel from Titan to the Earth would have been a lot easier than travel from the Earth to Titan.
- And, as I said above, the high temperatures we are discovering on planets far from the Sun make this all the easier to propose. Life on the moons of Saturn was pretty hard to sell a few years ago, when we thought it was necessarily bitter cold out there. But now that we know more about how heat can be generated by planets and moons, via my charge field (http://milesmathis.com/encel2.pdf), the possibility of life goes way way up.[20]

One more thing, on the way out. Anyone claiming I have jumped the shark or outed myself with this paper is immediately suspect, in my opinion. My enemies have been champing at the bit for any new reason to dismiss me, and we see them pissing themselves in elation over this one. But I have bad news for them: the attempts to blackwash me will fail like all the ones before. At this point, I couldn't jump a shark if I tried. What's done is done, and my work up to now is unassailable. Even if I lost my mind tomorrow and began publishing absolute gibberish, it wouldn't matter. People do get old and they often do lose their minds (especially these days, in the time of fluoride, aluminum, and glyphosate), but that doesn't justify jettisoning their life's work. My papers up to now can be answered only by cogent critique, not by any broadbrush dismissals. Which is to say I am not too worried.[27]

And as for outing myself, there is nothing to out. I am exactly what I claim to be, so there is nothing for anyone to “catch” me at. The only thing anyone has ever caught me at was a misspelling or a typo or a bad hair day, which I can live with. Which is precisely why I feel free to say anything about Saturn or anything else I like. Besides, those who wish to blackwash me for saying things they don'tlike hardly need any new ammunition. My comments about the Phoenicians, Hitler, serial killers, trannies, or a thousand other things are far more controversial than Saturn or aliens. If I were worried about saving my physical theories from knee-jerk dismissal, I would have kept quiet about any number of things. But that isn't my way. In the future, it will be appreciated how all my revolutions hang together, but for now that is hard to see, I know.

As this has unfolded, we have seen something droll. My peanut gallery and opposition really should have kept their mouths shut here. That was their only hope. Every little peep from them only made me look at this longer and harder, which was the last thing they wanted. We have seen that same progression play out over and over, so I don't know why they can't learn that lesson.[28]

21. The Saturn theory isn't about aliens either. Velikovsky did think, though, that the Nephelim mentioned in the Bible as giants may have come to Earth from Mars, where they would have grown taller due to weaker gravity. That could apply to Titan as well.
22. Velikovsky rushed to his wrong conclusions because it's a complex subject to analyze as a maverick. I believe Talbott did better research and I don't think his conclusion was wrong so far.
23. Intel may have supported Velikovsky and even Thunderbolts, with or without their knowledge, but who knows if Intel wants to suppress or expose the truth? If Intel has opposing parties within it, then one party may want to expose at least some truth.
24. Talbott, Velikovsky and colleagues have helped expose many instances of mainstream irrationality and Thunderbolts even supported your friend, Steve Crothers, in arguments against black hole theory etc.
25. You and Crothers seem to have a thorough grasp of math and few of the rest of your readers are able to comprehend your findings well. Some can, but most, like me, probably cannot, at least not readily.
26. The Saturn theory does not much support Velikovsky's theory from Worlds in Collision. They agree on close encounters with Mars and Venus, but over a millennium earlier than Velikovsky thought. And he got a lot of details wrong. As for colonization of Earth, Velikovsky did consider the possibility of something like that, as I said above. Sitchin promoted the genetic experiment theory of human origin, but Sitchin was greatly misreading the Sumerian tablets, possibly intentionally to oppose the Saturn theory.
27. Many folks appreciate your findings. That includes me.
28. I think many of us are glad your opponents didn't keep their mouths shut.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 4 guests