The Saturn Myth & Polar Configuration Analysis & Critique

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.


User avatar
spark
Posts: 240
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 2:36 pm

Re: The Saturn Myth & Polar Configuration Analysis & Critique

Unread post by spark » Wed Apr 14, 2021 6:55 am

Golden Age of Red Dwarf Star Uranus, Earths original Sun before the capture of Earth by invading Brown Dwarf Star Saturn, which was broken up by Gas Giant Jupiter, dislodging Earth from Saturn...Earth escaped Jupiter and finally achieved stable orbit around our Current Sun around 2000 years ago.

Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tnbcls940sc

Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4IZwGCzE6Y

There was no Polar Configuration according to Tess Clark.

Venus, Mars, Mercury, Earth, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, etc. were all in the process of getting captured by our current Sun like a comet.

Earl Sinclair
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2020 9:52 pm

Re: The Saturn Myth & Polar Configuration Analysis & Critique

Unread post by Earl Sinclair » Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:00 pm

I watched both, and she does make quite a few salient points, and one has to wonder about why no revisions to some of Thornhill's and Talbots earlier postulates.

That said, I think they agree on more than they disagree. They're all catastrophists, and they all agree about plasma and electrical interactions, and so-on. They only disagree on which planets were where and when.

As a layman, I have no informed opinion on where or when Venus did what, or when the Moon showed-up, or didn't. Or whether Aphrodite and Venus are one-and-the-same.

I'm more concerned about the SCIENCE of current cosmology and the deficiencies of the Standard Model, of which there are many.

Having "special" math required to make things "understandable" at certain speeds, or at certain sized ( relativistic and atomic respectively ) really smacks of hacks. Gravitation works like X until it gets to > Y, then THIS math is required.

There are contradictory "strong" and "weak" nuclear forces - because, well, that makes the math work out.

The entire universe is understandable and cause-and-effect work just fine - except at THIS scale, when it's all random and requires a sentient observer to make the functions play out.

Totally ridiculous.


Earl

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 478
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:19 am

Re: The Saturn Myth & Polar Configuration Analysis & Critique

Unread post by JP Michael » Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:59 pm

I've actually been in communication with Marinus van der Sluijs of late. It is far from certain that Saturn was the ancient sun, especially when the motif is not a global one.

LunarSabbathTruth
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 1:47 am

Re: The Saturn Myth & Polar Configuration Analysis & Critique

Unread post by LunarSabbathTruth » Mon Apr 26, 2021 3:17 am

Are we sure that "north" in reference to Saturn means above the Earth's North Pole?

Sometimes we use the word "north" to simply mean "above", as in, "He makes north of $100000 per year".

Maybe Saturn was simply "above" the observer?

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 478
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:19 am

Re: The Saturn Myth & Polar Configuration Analysis & Critique

Unread post by JP Michael » Mon Apr 26, 2021 12:21 pm

LunarSabbathTruth wrote:
Mon Apr 26, 2021 3:17 am
Are we sure that "north" in reference to Saturn means above the Earth's North Pole?

Sometimes we use the word "north" to simply mean "above", as in, "He makes north of $100000 per year".

Maybe Saturn was simply "above" the observer?
You would need to demonstrate with linguistic evidence from primary documents that "north" can have such a general connotation. Evidence-free conjecture is not enough here. For example, in Hebrew "north" is inexplicably associated with the cosmic mountain of YHWH's abode "up there". But it is not associated with the planet Saturn (although I am yet to comb Rabbinic tradition on this point also).

Then you will need to explain how "Saturn" can be "north", "east" and "west" in multiple mythic traditions as van der Sluijs points out elsewhere.

User avatar
Rick
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2020 7:42 pm
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: The Saturn Myth & Polar Configuration Analysis & Critique

Unread post by Rick » Mon Apr 26, 2021 3:32 pm

In a recent communication with Ev Cochrane he said that he has attempted to respond to J. P. Michael's April 24th comments about the Polar Configuration but was unable to log on to the forum. Additionally, he tried to communicate with the Forum administrator but received no response.
Ev requests that I submit his response to Michael's post as follows:
"Reading JP Michael’s obituary of the polar configuration hypothesis I am reminded of Mark Twain’s famous quip: 'The report of my death was an exaggeration.' Mr. Michael concluded his critique as follows: ''It is time to put the Polar Configuration theory to bed…The current state of mythic evidence for it [the polar configuration] is neither primary, global, nor ancient.' This is wrong on all three counts: The evidence, in fact, is at once primary, global, and ancient. Believe me, the demise of the polar configuration is nowhere in sight."

"Where to begin? Talbott’s original hypothesis of the polar configuration was largely derived from ancient Egyptian sources, especially the Pyramid and Coffin Texts. Inasmuch as these are among the oldest primary sources in the world, it is very difficult to square this fact with JP’s statement. My own researches have bolstered Talbott’s findings by incorporating complementary testimony from ancient Mesopotamia and Vedic India. The Sumerian mythological texts date from roughly 2000 BCE and the Rig Veda from 1500-1000. Together, these are the oldest written texts in the world and as “primary” and “ancient” as it gets. As Talbott and I have documented in dozens of books and hundreds of articles, the polar configuration is prominently attested in all of these archaic texts."

"How, then, could JP be so wrong? It would appear that JP based his conclusion largely, if not solely, on a five-page letter-to-the-editor published by Rens van der Sluijs in 2013. It will be noted, moreover, that Rens’s note was directed at Dwardu Cardona and that the names Talbott and Cochrane are nowhere to be found. I would submit that denying a carefully argued and richly-sourced historical reconstruction solely upon basis of the objections from one short paper is hardly good form or persuasive. That said, I readily concede that Rens’ views deserve serious consideration and warrant a direct response although I have my doubts whether this is the right forum for that particular discussion."

User avatar
nick c
Posts: 2635
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:12 am

Re: The Saturn Myth & Polar Configuration Analysis & Critique

Unread post by nick c » Mon Apr 26, 2021 3:50 pm

Hi Rick,
In a recent communication with Ev Cochrane he said that he has attempted to respond to J. P. Michael's April 24th comments about the Polar Configuration but was unable to log on to the forum.

i had an email address from another forum. I sent Ev a request for info so we could solve his sign in problems.

Nick

EDIT: I think that the sign in problem has been solved.

evcochrane
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 2:25 pm

Re: The Saturn Myth & Polar Configuration Analysis & Critique

Unread post by evcochrane » Tue Apr 27, 2021 7:26 pm

Earlier on this thread I saw the name Tess Clark invoked as some kind of authority. Believe me, her manner of argument is more akin to free association than serious science. Recently I was alerted to a video online in which she discussed the views of Talbott and myself. She had no clue what she was talking about and attributed ideas to each of us that we would never hold in our wildest dreams. I listened for about 30 minutes and found virtually everything she claimed laughably wrong. Such is the danger of relying on Youtube for your information.

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 478
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:19 am

Re: The Saturn Myth & Polar Configuration Analysis & Critique

Unread post by JP Michael » Wed Apr 28, 2021 9:47 am

Rick wrote:
Mon Apr 26, 2021 3:32 pm
In a recent communication with Ev Cochrane he said that he has attempted to respond to J. P. Michael's April 24th comments about the Polar Configuration but was unable to log on to the forum. Additionally, he tried to communicate with the Forum administrator but received no response.
I do appreciate you posting this here, Rick. I see it as a solid opportunity for some back-and-forth, especially when Rens levels some rather poignant critiques of the Saturnian Configuration theory.

And thank you, evcococrhane, for taking the time to write.

___________________________________


Ev's response proceeded on three grounds: attacking van der Sluijs' suggestion that the Saturnian configuration is not based on primary, ancient or global themes.
evcochrane wrote: Talbott’s original hypothesis of the polar configuration was largely derived from ancient Egyptian sources, especially the Pyramid and Coffin Texts. Inasmuch as these are among the oldest primary sources in the world, it is very difficult to square this fact with JP’s statement.
Ev - please cite your references, even if to "my book blah blah, chapter 4" or whatever. Helps me jump straight to the place - I already own all of them! I realise you're not a regular here but I prefer to treat the forum as a place of informal debate, with the expectation that claims are supported by sources and evidence.

Have you demonstrated where in the Egyptian Pyramid and Coffin texts 1. the Egyptian god is specifically and explicitly identified as the planet Saturn; 2. the god is also specifically and explicitly identified as the ancient sun? In any case, I highlighted the word "Egyptian" to emphasise one of the key tenets of van der Sluijs' objection, which I shall deal with further below.
evcochrane wrote:My own researches have bolstered Talbott’s findings by incorporating complementary testimony from ancient Mesopotamia and Vedic India. The Sumerian mythological texts date from roughly 2000 BCE and the Rig Veda from 1500-1000. Together, these are the oldest written texts in the world and as “primary” and “ancient” as it gets. As Talbott and I have documented in dozens of books and hundreds of articles, the polar configuration is prominently attested in all of these archaic texts."
Again, if you could be more specific on the question of sources and articles so I can actually take the time to go and read them carefully and thoughtfully?

In any case, we're noting exactly the theme in the source materials that van der Sluijs did: the source materials mentioned here do not venture far from the ANE (Egypt, Mesopotamia, India). Thus, Thunderbolts still has not proven that the theme is a global one.
evcochrane wrote:"It would appear that JP based his conclusion largely, if not solely, on a five-page letter-to-the-editor published by Rens van der Sluijs in 2013.
This is not entirely correct either. I also cited elsewhere the 2013 paper by van der Sluijs and James, as published in Aula Orientalis. This latter paper was actually far more extensive in its scope refuting, specifically, the idea that Saturn was the ancient sun, and positing a plausible alternative. It is this paper you also need to deal with. If you have done so elsewhere, please let me know where so I can critique it.
evcochrane wrote:It will be noted, moreover, that Rens’s note was directed at Dwardu Cardona and that the names Talbott and Cochrane are nowhere to be found...
Correct, but the reason I cited Rens' letter to Cardona is because his seven questions listed on p.55 remain unanswered by Thunderbolts scholarship, as least as far as I have read or discerned (esp. in private correspondence with Rens dated this month where he affirmed as much). These questions are of critical importance to the debate, because it is here that the global and primary aspects of the Saturn theory stand or fall. At the moment, according to Rens' treatment of it at least, there does not seem to be global mythic evidence of the theme that Saturn = primal sun. Rens also deals with Thunderbolts treatment of source materials in that paper.
evcochrane wrote:That said, I readily concede that Rens’ views deserve serious consideration and warrant a direct response although I have my doubts whether this is the right forum for that particular discussion."
Thank you. I will look out for that, be it as a Thunderbolts video segment or some future paper. If Rens' specific objections have been addressed elsewhere, it would be nice to know where so I can track it down and critique appropriately.

I only post here as a hobbyist of the EU, which I still affirm as a subsidiary and unavoidable component of PU cosmology. Also, just because I have significant doubts about the Saturnian aspect of Thunderbolt's past reconstruction, it does not mean I dismiss all aspects of that reconstruction. I am far more open to the possibility that Venus and Mars had a very active and catastrophic past with relation to the Earth, but ancient roles of Saturn (and Jupiter) seem far from certain. As you already read in the other thread, I am interested in exploring the mechanics of what could hold planets in the "celestial shishkabob", as reconstructed by Thunderbolts, even if some of them might have their roles in it usurped by critical enquiry.

Thanks once again and I look forward to furthering this cordial debate at a future occasion.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest