Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

[Lloyd]

58743

First, see my previous post answering JP:
NO BIAS; WHY EARLY PLANETARY SYSTEMS ARE LIKELY LINEAR
& THE CRITICS' MAIN PROBLEM: POLAR CONFIGURATION? [Hint: EU SOLUTION]
at https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/ph ... =495#p5069

ILIAD & ODYSSEY: ODYSSEUS, MAN OR GOD?

When Velikovsky and the Saturnists first found catastrophism evidence in Homer's Iliad, it was widely believed that the events in the Iliad occurred around 1200 BC. But the findings around 1990 that the Iliad and Odyssey fit much better in a bronze-age northern culture led to the idea growing in popularity that the events occurred around 2,000 BC. That means, like the literature on priestess Enheduanna of Sumer (who said of her goddess Inana: Like a dragon you have spewed venom on foreign lands that know you not! http://www.thehypertexts.com/Enheduanna ... na%20.htm/), the original Iliad may have been memorized immediately after the catastrophic event/s. The heroes of the Iliad appear to be gods, so it may be hard to figure out what parts of the story were accomplished by humans on Earth and which by gods in the sky. Off hand, my impression is that the entire Iliad and Odyssey may have occurred in the sky, but if the original location of the events can be traced to locations around the Baltic Sea and north Atlantic Ocean, then something was also happening on Earth. Maybe analysis can determine what humans actually did in these stories. I don't know if any of the characters in the stories were human. I only have a vague familiarity with them. Here are some excerpts from Catastrophism.com on Odysseus and Mars. It appears that he was actually the planet, Mars. I suppose the Trojan Horse was also an apparition in the sky. What about the city of Troy and its gate and walls etc, and the surrounding battle ground and seas?

>>>
Thundergods and Thunderbolts [Aeon]
_parallel to the Martian hero's drilling of fire that, in turn, offers a precise parallel to Mars' cavorting with Venus. Each of these mythical interpretations, in our view, has reference to Mars' behavior while in conjunction with Venus. Indeed, the Martian hero's drilling or boring is an endlessly recurring motif, the Homeric account of Odysseus' boring out of the Cyclops' eye being perhaps the most famous example. That Odysseus' eye-drilling has often been compared to the drilling of fire ought to surprise no one familiar with the lore surrounding the warrior-hero. [99]

>>>
Thoth Vol II, No. 17: Oct 31, 1998
https://www.saturniancosmology.org/file ... 998.17.txt
_the ugly hero who suddenly becomes transformed into a beautiful being (Batraz, Odysseus). Each of these widespread themes has clear celestial precedents, all involving the planet Mars and its escapades in relation to the other planets participating in the polar configuration.

>>>
On Mars and Pestilence [Aeon]
_The motive of the miraculously transformed and hence unrecognizable hero forms a prominent feature in some of the most famous passages in world literature. A classic example occurs in the Odyssey. There, it will be remembered, Athena magically transforms Odysseus so that the wandering hero might return incognito to his native Ithaca.

>>>
The Female Star [Aeon]
_a dozen "boring or goring" motifs associated with the Martian warrior-hero (Odysseus' boring of the Cyclops' eye being a classic example). [106] But how are we to understand the fire drill itself? Those familiar with the Saturn theory will know that Mars is everywhere intimately associated with the axis mundi or World Pillar, the latter of which is conceived as a visible column of meteoritic debris stretched out between the red planet and Earth (the bed of flint associated with the Skidi Mars). It was the axis mundi, together with the planet Mars itself, which served as the fire drill associated with Creation. [107]

MARS & VENUS SIZES IN CONFIGURATION

Mars' diameter is 4200+ miles; Venus' is 7500+ miles, almost twice that of Mars. So if they were side-by-side, Mars would look a little over half the size of Venus. If Mars were a few thousand miles in front of Venus, it would obscure much more of Venus, so all that would be visible would be a band of Venus around Mars. If Venus or Mars were larger in the past, the relative sizes would vary. Maybe Venus had an even larger atmosphere than it has now, since Saturn novas should have blown off some of it, like it did to Earth's atmosphere.

[moses]

To measure the size of Mars relative to Venus one needs to measure the magnetosphere of each as the edges of the magnetospheres were in glow mode and this was what was observed by the ancients.

Mo

[evcochrane]

A couple of points here pending your reply to this question: What on Earth makes you think the solar system or Saturn is of recent origin? This is quite impossible for countless reasons so I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Secondly, one of my great frustrations on Fora such as this--and I know this is true for Dave Talbott as well--is that folks seem to get all worked up over the exotic elements of the EU theory such as Saturn/Earth wandering in from who knows where aeons ago rather than focusing on the unequivocal evidence right before our eyes, namely on the Martian surface, on Earth, or in the Pyramid Texts. Understand this Saturn-capture hypothesis was original with Ralph Juergens many years ago and taken on board by Wal Thornhill and Dwardu Cardona. Dave and I have never endorsed this scenario and it is totally secondary and/or alien to the polar configuration hypothesis. It is an exciting idea, certainly, but it's hardly the first debate we want to have with our critics at this point (I can see JP salivating at this prospect already).

[evcochrane]

A slight correction to Lloyd’s post: The Saturnists never “found catastrophism evidence in Homer’s Iliad.” That was Velikovsky’s central claim and he was sorely mistaken. The so-called Saturnists, Dave and myself, have always sought out the oldest sources for evidence of planetary catastrophism—hence Dave’s emphasis upon the Pyramid Texts and my own use of the earliest Sumerian and Vedic texts. Trust me: The Iliad is not a work of literal history and it cannot be traced back to the Baltic area. This is a wild goose chase if ever there was one (believe it or not, it was our journal Aeon that first published Vinci’s wild theory, over my objections I might add). Note: You are on much firmer ground quoting the fellow who wrote On Thundergods and Thunderbolts.

[Lloyd]

59020

WAS SATURN SYSTEM ON AN ELLIPTICAL ORBIT?

Ev, thanks much for your clarifications. Even if you and Dave have not endorsed the idea that the Saturn system originated outside the solar system, do you agree that the system seems to have been on a long elliptical or spiraling orbit moving toward the Sun prior to the system's breakup? Offhand, it seems to make sense that Saturn and Jupiter would move back out to their present orbits after reaching perihelion, rather than having been on an orbit near Venus' or Earth's present orbit and then moving out to their present orbits from "here". I quoted Dave recently here as saying (probably about 20 years ago) that he thought it was most likely that the Saturn system broke up when it was at around the orbit of Venus. So it sounded to me like he meant the system was then at perihelion.

HOMER

And regarding Homer in the Baltic, I see in the Aeon index that it was published in the vol. 6, nr. 2 Aeon, Dec 2001. But I don't see anything after that in the way of commentary or a reply. Was there a reply in Aeon at all? Or do you know of any good critiques?

[JP Michael]

folks seem to get all worked up over the exotic elements of the EU theory such as Saturn/Earth wandering in from who knows where aeons ago rather than focusing on the unequivocal evidence right before our eyes, namely on the Martian surface, on Earth, or in the Pyramid Texts.

Thanks for the input, Ev. Although I might snipe that the evidence is hardly unequivocal of a polar configuration. Catastrophism, absolutely. In recent times? Sure enough. That it specifically involved Mars, Venus & Earth? This requires more work. As you know Rens points out in criticism of polar config. theory (On The Origins of Myth in Catastrophic Experience, 1:220-271, esp. pp.246-251), you can have pillars and 'gods', 'suns' etc. atop pillars (or mountains, etc) as auroral manifestations alone without a planet, comet or other object being present.

Polar config theory needs to take Rens' strong criticism on board: has an ancient source applied different/unique cosmological events to the same mythical character? Have they invented new mythical characters for new events? Have they employed a combination of both, that is, carrying over a past mythical character's attribution to new events involving similar (or possibly identical) bodies, as well as inventing new mythical characters? And what kinds of criteria do we need for each source tradition to discern these kinds of things, that is, what are the habitual tendiencies of an individual source tradition (it is wrong, in my view, to generalise for one tradition, and then apply it to another one)?

[evcochrane]

59020

WAS SATURN SYSTEM ON AN ELLIPTICAL ORBIT?

Ev, thanks much for your clarifications. Even if you and Dave have not endorsed the idea that the Saturn system originated outside the solar system, do you agree that the system seems to have been on a long elliptical or spiraling orbit moving toward the Sun prior to the system's breakup? Offhand, it seems to make sense that Saturn and Jupiter would move back out to their present orbits after reaching perihelion, rather than having been on an orbit near Venus' or Earth's present orbit and then moving out to their present orbits from "here". I quoted Dave recently here as saying (probably about 20 years ago) that he thought it was most likely that the Saturn system broke up when it was at around the orbit of Venus. So it sounded to me like he meant the system was then at perihelion.

HOMER

And regarding Homer in the Baltic, I see in the Aeon index that it was published in the vol. 6, nr. 2 Aeon, Dec 2001. But I don't see anything after that in the way of commentary or a reply. Was there a reply in Aeon at all? Or do you know of any good critiques?

As sad as it is to admit it, Lloyd, 2001 seems like another lifetime right now. If I remember correctly, this Baltic idea has been discussed in SIS. Perhaps you can check there (they have a searchable site online, courtesy of Ian Tresman). To answer your question: I certainly don't agree that Saturn or the system was on a spiraling orbit prior to the breakup or at any point in time, for that matter. I mean, upon what evidence could we know that? So far as I'm aware, the mythological record says absolutely nothing about such a possibility. Short of the Martians videotaping the entire event it is difficult for me to figure out how we are to be certain of such matters. I was not aware that Dave had discussed this possibility vis a vis emigrating from Venus's orbit. Could you please direct me to your source and/or his statement? Thanks much in advance.

[evcochrane]

JP, is there any way I can talk you into posting that Chinese image I sent you earlier this week? I have no idea how to include illustrations in this program. I intend to refer to it in my response to you later today. Thanks much in advance. In the meantime, I'll send you the image by private email as well.

Ev

[evcochrane]

JP and I can agree on one thing: Polar configuration theory definitely needs to take Rens’ criticism seriously and address it as the opportunity arises. Understand I am happy to debate the subject until the cows come home, but I am not certain that an email forum is the best place to carry on a serious debate. Ideally, those involved would have read most if not all of the books of Dave, Rens, and myself, but of course that is never going to happen. I dare say that JP is the only human on the planet to have all the books of Rens and myself but I suspect he has yet to fully process or research all of the respective arguments. When JP is rich and famous, perhaps he can organize a world conference and invite Dave, Rens, and myself to debate and publish the proceedings. I, for one, would relish that opportunity. In the meantime, it would appear that this Forum is the only place interested in such a discussion. I will offer a few thoughts later today and see what materializes.

[evcochrane]

With reference to JP’s claim above: While Rens claims that you can have “suns” atop pillars as auroral manifestations alone this is more than a little far-fetched itself and, in any case, will never explain the voluminous evidence Dave and I have provided for a polar configuration of planets. Consider, for example, the unique conjunction we have documented between Mars and Venus, which requires the smaller red planet to be positioned in front of the larger Venus in order to be seen as a babe at Venus’s breast (Horus/Isis; Dumuzi/Inanna; Heracles/Hera; the king and Ishtar; etc.). As Dave and I have shown, this particular relationship is evident in countless different myths and symbols, all preserving the same relationship of diminutive male and larger female. How, exactly, is it possible to explain this particular relationship between Venus and Mars--not to mention their manifold interactions--by reference to an amorphous aurora configuration? It will be noted, moreover, that the conjunction between Mars and Venus not only requires a polar configuration in order to be visible at all, it is quite impossible in the present solar system, where Venus is an inferior planet and Mars is a superior planet (i.e., Mars can never appear in front of Venus).

Earlier this week, I sent JP a Chinese pictograph from 3500 BCE showing a sun-like object in conjunction with a recumbent crescent set atop a mountain-like structure, noting that this pictograph offers a very good illustration of how the polar configuration might have looked during one particularly prominent phase (Talbott and I have enumerated a number of distinct phases in the configuration’s history). Perhaps JP and/or Rens would care to tell us how they are going to explain the appearance of the crescent in this image? In the present solar system a lunar crescent cannot assume this position, and yet ancient artworks repeatedly show a crescent in conjunction with the primal “sun.”


At the risk of going too deep into the weeds, as it were, there is compelling evidence supporting the polar configuration that Rens has yet to address (he is in good company here as no other living scholar has managed to explain the evidence either). In a landmark paper published in Aeon some 30 years ago, Dave showed how the crescent associated with the polar column appeared to circle around the polar column with the daily cycle as the Earth revolved on its axis (see Ship of Heaven). Here, too, a polar alignment of the participating celestial bodies is required in order to produce a crescent circling about the sky. I’ll leave it to Rens and JP to tell us how this image can be produced from an intense auroral discharge display.

Note: I have reposted this reply to the Polar Configuration thread, which appears to be the better place to discuss the subject

[Lloyd]

59230

WHERE DAVE SAID THE SATURN SYSTEM WAS POSSIBLY NEAR THE ORBIT OF VENUS
THE SATURN THESIS - An In-Depth Interview With David Talbott
https://www.aeonjournal.com/articles/ta ... lbott.html
_"In visualizing an earlier planetary arrangement, one that will hopefully account for the full range of data (both historical and physical), I've made the tentative assumption that the former planetary system occupied the present region of Earth's or Venus' orbit, perhaps closer to Venus' orbit, so that Venus experienced the least orbital shift following the collapse of the system. That would, perhaps, account for Venus presently possessing the most circular of orbits."

Ev, last week I wrote an open letter to Saturnists. Did you see it? I asked Nick to alert you to it. I assumed that's why you joined the discussion here. The open letter is here:
OPEN LETTER TO DAVE TALBOTT & OTHER SATURNISTS
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/ph ... =495#p5050

SATURN SYSTEM BREAKUP 2200 BC?
I mainly wanted to see what you all might think of my idea that the breakup of the Saturn System occurred around 2200-2300 BC, which I consider to be the time of the Younger Dryas event, including the last Saturn nova or flareup. This is based on the realization that individual types of sedimentary rock could not have been deposited over millennia or very long periods, but must have been deposited along with other rock types during a Great Flood, which preceded the Younger Dryas event by some centuries. The strata do not show significant erosion between them. A large asteroid must have caused rapid continental drift during the Great Flood, which caused the formation of most of the world's mountain ranges. The tidal waves of the Flood would not have had to be very high, since Pangaea was initially flat and only became mountainous later in the Flood, maybe around the K/T event. The Moon or other body may have been on an elliptical orbit around the Earth for a few months at least, which caused tidal waves during perigee.

LIVE DISCUSSION?
I know more about Cardona's model than I do about yours and Dave's. I hope we can have helpful discussion. Would you like to have live discussion with some of us on a free etherpad online? There doesn't seem to be any registration requirements for one etherpad I've found, but I don't know how well it will work. If you're open to live discussion, when would be good times? I can post the link to the etherpad on this thread, unless you prefer limiting discussion to just a few people. From past experience, only a few people would likely join the discussion anyway, even if the link is public on here.

[evcochrane]

Lloyd, Nick was kind enough to alert me to your previous post which is one of several reasons I joined this Forum. I am always willing to discuss this and any other catastrophic scenario in any forum you choose, but I have no idea what you are talking about with this new etherpad technology. To answer your question: I would consider it highly unlikely--virtually impossible, in fact--that the Saturn system dissolved as late as 2200 BCE. As I noted earlier in this thread (?) the polar configuration was already old news in the Pyramid Texts, which themselves were inscribed in stone in 2300 BCE. I fear your desire to place the Flood and/or Dryas event during the relatively recent past is fraught with problems.

[moses]

"It will be noted, moreover, that the conjunction between Mars and Venus not only requires a polar configuration in order to be visible at all,..." Ev

Well some planetary configuration other than the present one. From your videos about Mars, which I think are quite brilliant, one must conclude that Mars was between Venus and Earth at some stage. Clearly a polar configuration is not required for this. Also conjunctions of these planets would be extremely significant events and depictions of such in no way suggest that these conjunctions were in any way permanent.

"Earlier this week, I sent JP a Chinese pictograph from 3500 BCE showing a sun-like object in conjunction with a recumbent crescent set atop a mountain-like structure,..." Ev

Although Mars came close to Earth at some stage or stages, the visuals of all planets would have been dominated by their magnetospheres being lit up in glow mode. Especially during conjunctions. Along with this is the strong likelihood of much dust being produced and causing a gradient of this dust across the edges of the magnetospheres. Then clearly this dust at the edge would reflect light (from the Sun) and thus produce the crescent shape.

This is a simpler explanation than a Saturn System polar configuration. I have considered and developed this theory over my 15 or so years on this forum mostly in "The History Of The Earth" topic.

Mo

[Lloyd]

59340

PRACTICE LIVE DISCUSSION

Ev and anyone interested, you may go to this link, https://pad.riseup.net/p/B9plRuQSBTyY971HESpe and try to start writing something there. If there's already someone there writing something, you can go to a line further down and see if you can write there. If it seems to work okay, we can discuss a time to try to have some live discussion there.

[Lloyd]

Mo, I guess you don't like the linear polar configuration Saturn model. Is that correct? Did you read what I said lately on that? I'll repeat it here.

THE CRITICS' MAIN PROBLEM: POLAR CONFIGURATION?

I think the critics mainly just have trouble imagining that planets could line up in a polar or linear arrangement the way the Saturn theory describes. But a linear arrangement is how planets form in the first place, like beads on a string, as EU proponents say and as Charles Chandler may explain best (See http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6031 ). If the solar system and/or Saturn system is/was young, it or they could have only recently formed from a galactic filament. If stars and planets formed at points on the filament and the filament was contracting or imploding kind of like a stretched rubber band snaps together, many of the stars and planets would have been moving linearly during the whole process of their forming, all toward each other. Charles figured out that filaments are natural formations within galaxies because they're plasma with positive and negative charges separated and interspersed like +-+-+- (pos., neg., pos., net., etc.). These charges will tend to remain linear because, only in a straight line are the like charges hidden from each other by opposite charges. If a charge moves away from the linear position, it becomes less hidden and starts to be repelled by the closest like charges, which push it back to its hidden position between adjacent opposite charges. When the Saturn filament got close enough to the Sun, due to momentum, there wasn't enough opposite charge between the planets and the Sun to keep them moving linearly, so they were forced into orbits, typical of slower moving systems, and the orbiting bodies continue to repel each other, which explains the Titius-Bode law of orbiting bodies (See Charles' paper at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=15369 ).

So, Mo, do you have any comments on that? Don't you think the EU model is correct on linear star/planet formation (from linear galactic filaments)? And doesn't it make sense that when a linear formation of planets get too close to a star, they would be shuffled into circular or elliptical orbits around the star?