For discussion of Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology. The ideas and opinions expressed on this forum do not necessarily reflect those of T-Bolts Group Inc or The Thunderbolts Project™
Skip to content
by Lloyd » Sun Jun 09, 2024 2:37 am
by Lloyd » Sat Jun 08, 2024 7:13 pm
by Lloyd » Sun Jun 02, 2024 8:46 pm
by Lloyd » Thu May 30, 2024 12:23 am
by Lloyd » Sat May 25, 2024 6:00 pm
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.
by Lloyd » Fri May 24, 2024 9:20 pm
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.
by Lloyd » Wed May 22, 2024 12:26 am
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.
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.
by nick c » Tue May 21, 2024 2:42 am
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
Cardona wrote:Immanuel Velikovsky - and I hope no one will accuse me of relying on a scholar who has been discredited...
by Lloyd » Tue May 21, 2024 12:04 am
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?
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?
by Lloyd » Sat May 18, 2024 5:00 pm
by Lloyd » Fri May 17, 2024 9:52 pm
by Lloyd » Thu May 16, 2024 7:57 pm
by nick c » Thu May 16, 2024 1:54 am
Top