Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

[Lloyd]

256858

ADVANCED ANCIENT TECH

Nick's last post is at viewtopic.php?t=13&start=810#p10366 .
OpenMind's post is after Nick's at viewtopic.php?t=13&start=810#p10372 .

Thanks for your comments, OpenMind.

Apparently, Nick's view is that all of the advanced ancient tech was doable starting in the Iron Age, which I guess was supposed to have started about 1,000 BC, although I mentioned above that central Africans may have been in the Iron Age much earlier, maybe at the same time that the pyramids were built, or earlier.

My GF has been sick and I'm trying to get a new job, so I haven't been able to get to this thread as often as I prefer.

Anyway, OpenMind, can you provide links to the studies of advanced ancient tech that you mentioned? And I agree with your idea that the advances could have been rapid and maybe short-lived. On the other hand, it's also possible that there are simple methods that could have accomplished what advanced tech can now accomplish (or can it?). Nick mentioned marble above, but I think it may be easier to carve marble using acids, like vinegar, since marble is metamorphized limestone. Can granite or diorite be carved using acids? A.I. says no, but it says adding heat along with acid can etch them. I was wondering if electricity could have been used. The ancients knew a little about electricity, but maybe not enough.

A.I. also said this.
Ancient Egyptian craftsmen primarily used bronze tools for working hard stones. These tools had cutting points harder than quartz (which they operated on). The exact composition of these cutting points remains undetermined, but possibilities include beryl, topaz, and chrysoberyl.

It said Granite is primarily composed of quartz, feldspar, and mica crystals. Diorite is a coarse-grained rock composed mainly of plagioclase feldspar and amphibole minerals.

Also, quartz, mica & feldspar are silicates. The hardness of quartz is 7; feldspar is 6-6.5; and mica is 2.5-4; Diorite's hardness is 6-7; amphibole is 5-6. The hardness of beryl, topaz, and chrysoberyl is 8-8.5.

Earth's gravity, atmosphere, electrical environment etc may have been different enough to have had an effect too.

CARDONA'S SATURN FINDINGS

I just wrote a post on this at https://cataclysmicearthhistory.substac ... n-findings and I added it to my book at https://zzzzzzz.substack.com/p/ancient- ... ry-history .

[nick c]

From a post made on April 26, 2024 earlier on this thread:

an iron plate was found in between some stones in the Great Pyramid by Vyse, it is believed to be left behind during construction.

My reason for making this post is that the iron plate is to this day, often alleged to be a fake, planted by Vyse or a member of his team.

I have found an article In Thoth Vol. I #2, Feb. 5, 1997, Gizeh Pyramid Iron Plate by Clark Whelton.
From the article we find that the plate was found by Vyse's team as they blasted into the Great Pyramid, which revealed the plate beneath the outer stones of the Great Pyramid. The obvious conclusion was that the plate had to have been left behind during construction,

The plate was sent to the British Museum, where the feeling was the iron plate could not have been contemporary as iron was supposedly unknown in the Pyramid Age. However, two series of examinations (done in
1881 and 1989) clearly disprove that view:

In 1881 the plate was analyzed by Sir Flinders Petrie, probably the world's leading authority on Egyptology. Petrie concluded:

"Though some doubt has been thrown on the piece, merely from its rarity, yet the vouchers for it are very precise; and it has a cast of a nummulite (fossilized marine protozoa) on the rust of it, proving it
to have been buried for ages beside a block of nummulitic limestone, and therefore to be certainly ancient. No reasonable doubt can
therefore exist about its being a realy (sic) genuine piece."

The plate was again tested in 1989:

In 1989 examination was done by Dr. Jones (Senior Tutor in the Mineral
Resources Engineering Department at Imperial College, London) and Dr.
Gayer (lecturer in the Faculty of Petroleum and Mining at Egypt's
Suez University). They, through checking on the nickel content of the
plate, were able to exclude the possibility that the plate had been
manufactured from meteoritic iron. Their tests also showed that it
was most probably gold-plated. They concluded, "It is concluded, on
the basis of the present investigation, that the iron plate is very
ancient. Furthermore, the metallurgical evidence supports the
archaeological evidence which suggests that the plate was
incorporated within the Pyramid at the time that structure was
built."

So the plate is genuine. It is not made from meteoric iron, but was smelted from ore. which indicates a level of metal technology which even today is an anachronism for the Old Kingdom of Egypt. Furthermore the plate was gold plated, but its purpose is unclear.

[Open Mind]

Lloyd: “Anyway, OpenMind, can you provide links to the studies of advanced ancient tech that you mentioned?”

A general synopsis of the Egyptian vase scanning can be followed by this youtuber who is following the analysis of the stl file generated from that scanning:
https://youtu.be/QzFMDS6dkWU?si=lLG-hUR0auHHvNMV

Also there is a new documentary about the Barabar Caves that were scanned and analyzed and its very interesting:
https://youtu.be/iF6qv1CC5_4?si=Fn8O7BTxUMschGLm

Lloyd: “On the other hand, it's also possible that there are simple methods that could have accomplished what advanced tech can now accomplish (or can it?).”

Nick is focusing on establishing the existence of Iron prior to when we believed the Iron age began, and I can get behind all of that. I’m open either way to that idea. But the work examined here demonstrates some metrological advancement that requires a development stage to achieve, and an impressively high level accomplished.

The ‘muddy waters’ I refer to in my original post is referring to an idea that is a common proposition by what appears to be some without actual metrological experience, that there exists a ‘formula’ being that in the absence of actual high precision metrological technology, the work can STILL be accomplished with simple ‘will and patience’ of ancient experts in their fields. I suggest it’s a ‘formula’ because it serves the purpose of removing any complication of any degree of precision found, by merely adding to the ‘time necessary’ to accomplish it, if only armed by will and patience. That way, you could formulate a timeline for how long it would take to lap the Hubble lens. But in reality, will and patience does not scale to limitless levels of ability with the one variable of time. Ask anyone in the field, and particularly experts who have a solid foundation in the history of Metrology, and they’ll confirm exactly why this is not at all the case.

HISTORY OF METROLOGY
The history of Metrology is hypothetically a series of stories about each tiny incremental step forward in precision, instigated by one ‘grapple gromet’ that wobbled, or one ‘doohicky’ that overheated, etc.. Each of those demonstrates a need for higher precision to achieve higher performance, and how it was accomplished. In these thousands of stories are exactly every kind of challenge one can imagine including every possible limitation that held back thousands of people who tried and failed to accomplish it with ‘will and patience’. It’s a documented expose literally on the failed attempts of our most inventive, focused, and ingenious people’s attempts to bypass the need for genuine high precision tools, followed by an explanation of the solution to that problem by their invention. In the light of this knowledge, I can’t see how anyone intimately aware of this tedious slow plodding development of metrology can pretend to ignore it and replace it all with a magic people who simply had orders of magnitude better focus and a steadier hand than the absolute best people we’ve produced in the last few hundred years during this rapid progress of the field.

(Having re read that, it sounds like I'm standing with my fist in the air. Tone not intended, lol)

[Lloyd]

257480

BARABAR CAVES

@ OpenMind, the Barabar Caves video is very interesting, but it's not really relevant to our debate, unless it's argued to be pre-IronAge, i.e. before about 1,000 BC. I listened for several minutes and heard dates around 300 BC. It's impressive that India had tech that was able to carve large rooms out of solid rock and smooth the walls, floors and ceilings so precisely, but it was the Iron Age and iron tools may have been used.

I had already seen Uncharted X's video on the precisely carved ancient Egyptian vases. It might be more relevant, if the vases can be truly dated to before the Iron Age.

CHRONOLOGY DEBATE

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.

[nick c]

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.

[Open Mind]

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.

[Lloyd]

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.

[Lloyd]

257680

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

[nick c]

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.

[Lloyd]

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.

[Lloyd]

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.

[Lloyd]

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?

[nick c]

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).

[Lloyd]

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.

[nick c]

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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:

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.