Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 23:45:34 -0500 (CDT) From: jno; Subject: NPA review - part 1 See http://saturniancosmology.org/npa_talks.htm for a list of presenters, with links to their photos, personal data, and pdf papers. Attended the NPA 2011 conference with Kees; frequently accompanied also by Alex K. Impressions below of the NPA presentations of the Electric Universe. Three areas of note: nothing new, scientificism, no direction. (1) nothing new ... I got the impression that the whole Thunderbolts group has not advanced one iota since 2001. The evidence for not advancing is mostly from inuendos and avoidances. What wasn't said spoke the most. Of course all mention of "myth" and "Saturn" were avoided, except when the audience twice introduced the word "Saturn." This is not different from the past: the "polar configuration" of Saturn was first developed in the mid seventies, and promoted with a book "The Saturn Myth" by Talbott in 1980. Except for the addition of plasma to the mechanics of this, no advances were made in 35 years. =-=-= Well, explaining the mechanics is a big thing in itself. To me, most convincing of the lack of inovation =-=-= innovation. Don't you have a spell checker? was Cardona's emphatic insistance that Velikovsky's Venus event of 1500 BC, and the later Mars events of 800-700 BC never happened. Van der Sluijs, sitting next to Cardona during the panel, was shaking his head in agreement. Cardona had already reached this conviction when he was writing for Aeon and Kronos in the 70s and 80s. And nothing new elsewhere: Cochrane and Cardona's presentation were first seen in print 15 or 20 years ago. Cochrane even complained of defending the same thesis for 30 years. Cardona presented that the arctic polar region was the location of the genesis of life -- because it was warmer, or received more UV. That sounded convincing dacades ago, when we knew less of what transpired in the more recent history of the Earth. But all of it could as easily be attributed to the frequent warm periods in the early history of the Earth. I saw NPA regulars (the people who can read differential equations) perform their expected knee-jerk reaction at the mention of an overhead planet, and then start making phew-phew spitting noises at the mention of mythology. =-=-= But was the planet idea supported with evidence besides speculation on mythology? Cardona's suggestion is that all of the biological muck at the north polar regions (the sea) is related to the growth of plants and animals in the arctic (and despite his suggestion of a high-standing tide and a scouring planet-size tornado). My suggestion is that all of that muck was deposited during the flood of 3147 BC, and the source was the tropical and temperate zones further south. I saw no indication that there might be anything new which remained hidden. This was significant, for normally you simply cannot have a secret within a group of people, and not expect something to slip out inadvertantly. What may give a hint of a deliberate cover-up is that fact that =-=-= the fact that both Cardona and Cochrane seemed to have been under instructions to "stick to old tried-and-true topics." That mandate would keep them safely away from accidentally disclosing anything discovered more recently -- if there was such. =-=-= according to that, they might then have something to hide. (2) science ... I got the sense that the effort of the group was to establish themselves as scientifically based and present themselves as scientists. This was demonstrated with the singular "space plasma" talk topics of Talbott and Thornhill, and with the addition of six new people. The talks by Cardona and Cochrane sort of undercut this scientific front, for these concerned mythological material. But Talbott and Thornhill did their part. Talbott had a role for Mars in "exploring the mysteries of electricity in space" -- which sounds like a made for TV science program. =-=-= what's the role? Talbott's last talk which recapped his earlier presentation and added some electrical scarring of Mars. =-=-= take out the "which". Talbott mainly embedded the slides of Mars with exclamations of "wow" and "isn't that astounding." It was a guided tour of Mars. Thornhill more convincingly talked about plasma at the Sun and stars. But nothing new. I walked out after five minutes of the hour-long talk, Kees followed suit a half hour later. Alex stayed longer. =-=-= but it was new to the NPA people. The "Group" was trying to impress them, not you. Although they could have done both. What was apparent as efforts =-=-= What were apparent efforts... at induced scientificism were two items: (1) talks by six people not traditionally associated with the Thunderbolts group, and (2) efforts at establishing overviews of plasma, including a manual and a history. The effort at writing a "manual of plasma" (still in edit) is by Jim Johnson, after having been started by Bob Johnson. Gmirkin also presented a rundown of the same topic (more accurately). As did Findlay. =-=-= accurately), as did Findlay. People were surprised that Findlay picked up on the whole breadth of plasma theory, by his admission, since February -- 5 months. =-=-= only since... I was not surprised: he is an engineer. Additionally Van der Sluijs talked of the history of plasma theory. =-=-= talked about... And the Rev. Sykes made a plug for electric universe education. I should note of seeing =-=-= I should note that I saw in them... some young-earth tendencies, something I have always suspected them of. But I can't find my source, except for Michael Steinbacher's paper, and some Genesis hints by Sykes and his suggestion that before Saturn there was no time at all. =-=-= what does THAT mean?? Another mild aggravation was the constant mentions of "circuit in space", "currents from the Sun", and "twisted Birkland currents" -- as if there is nothing else. =-=-= such as? I object to the analogical association of what happens at intragalactic dimensions and the operation of the Solar System. Everyone of the speakers seems content to see a connection. I don't see a connection. =-=-= why? I think it is as unworkable an analogy as it is to suggest that the Sun and its planets are a model for the atom. =-=-= that's not a good analogy? Findlay, who lectured entirely in the passive voice, as if to cast a spell of objectiveness, came up with the following smorgesboard of plasma-scientific terms: "Account would have to be taken of the existence of the 'Double Layer' barriers created between these areas [galactic and stellar regions], together with the likelyhood =-=-= likelihood of Z-pinch events occuring in filaments that result in catastrophic electrical breakdown events." Say what? Quoted here in the span of one sentence is scenery which drifts from the galactic realm to the solar system. My main objection, however, is the stringing together of what looks like important terms -- as if their contiguity make them mean anything. I have had this same problem with Dennis Cox -- his use of a barrage of plasma terminology, at his site "dragonstrormproject," without any recognition that many of the terms are unrelated in the context of presentation. =-=-= of his presentation. It starts to sound like a grade school adventure essay. I had that problem also in email with one of Talbott's lieutenants, a writer who could write poetry and sensible prose, except when it came to expounding on the glories of plasma. Then I got the feeling that he was trying to sound smart by using plasma-speak words, but didn't know what he was talking about. The only new and facinating item was Michael Steinbacher's "Mountain Formation." I talked to him afterward, and he thought he might have blown the talk, but I think his enthusiasm carried it. He must not have gotten any help from the core Thunderers, for he had (I feel) way too much in generalized plasma-speak words. There was also too much hemming and hawing on dating, making it sound like a young-earth thesis. In his presentation he suggested dates of 5,000 or 10,000 years ago (the current Thunderbolt position on when the prior "Age of the Gods" started), and that an aurora at the equator might have been responsible for the burning and vitrivication of south-facing valeys =-=-= valleys? And what about the mountain formation? in the southwestern USA lanscape. His data parallels what was found by Dennis Cox in northern Mexico and southwestern USA. I said to Michael, No, the melting was due to Mars in the seventh century BC. When Michael next appeared as part of the panel, he used the single date the 7th century BC, unlike his totally unknown dates given earlier. The core Thunder people would not have advised him on that date. It would have validated Velikovsky. (3)no direction ... Velikovsky is dead as far as the Thunderbolts people are concerned. =-=-= I thought that he IS dead! ; ) Better to say "irrelevant". They simply do not want to be associated with the reaction of instant disgust and dismissal that the name of Velikovsky provokes among "scientists". They feel it hurts their standing as serious researchers. But I think it is a giant loss of connections to many other catastrophists and many other resources. When the Thunderbolts people presented their ideas in 2001, they came off convincingly as researchers of mythology -- with sudden help from plasma concepts to bolster the mechanics. At that point I was convinced also, and started to develop a tight narrative around the facts of mythology and electrical interactions. I added a chronology of early antiquity, and started to illucidate events throughout the period from 3200 BC to 650 BC. These reconstituted Velikovsky's events, added the "flood of Noah," and located the legend of Phaethon. I added many dates and details. But that is not the direction the Thunderbolt people are willing to go. I cannot help but feel that they have absolutely no idea of the importance of their findings. Kees observed, "For people discussing overthrowing current physics and cosmological origins, the thunderbolts folks sure lack any sense of perspective." I felt the same lack of prospect in 2001. The Saturnians had great difficulty identifying what was so important about the whole of the Saturnian theory. It has remained thus. Perhaps what is so important is that all of it contradicts any religious precepts they may have held. The Saturn Theory could have been presented as science fiction; it would have been equally inconsequential. Participation at the Natural Philosophy Alliance seemed like a step directed to some important consequence. There was a lot of talk, in fact, during the first of two Electric Universe panels, about funding for experiments which would prove their plasma concepts. My feeling is that this is a complete displacement of priorities and a waste of time. Who cares what is proven through technical experiments? You do not need the truth. The opposition owns a complete culture of the Big Bang, black holes, and absolute uniformitarianism. None of it is real, yet all of it is accepted as Gospel thruth. =-=-= truth. What the Electric Universe people need is marketing by professionals -- not some self-generated precepts of decisive proof of the theories. =-=-= experimental proof is also good. Alex K noted: "..then the second panel started after a question by announcer David: is the panel more focused on science or myth? David Talbott said both were important, and that eventually the biological aspects, as well as the mythology, were going to offer a chance for reconciliation among people or various religions." This is as close as it came to the mark of a purposeful progression. The promise of explaining biology, however, has been listed on the Thunderbolts website for a dozen years (it is still there), without a single indication that anything has ever been accomplished. =-=-= has anything? Alex continued: "Then things got a little more sour. I noticed Steve Smith was sitting there with either a very serious or partially aggressive look towards us in the audience, he was staring at me or us or in our direction and didn't looked pleased or positive at all." Steve Smith then announced, "There is not a single person on the planet who knows more about the mythology than this panel (group?) right here."  I thought, Oh yeah? Alex: "I'm going to analyze and go ahead and guess that he obviously meant to put down you and your work by such a statement. So he may have been indirectly referring to you at that moment, or perhaps us as he was giving me bad looks so maybe he thought I was a threat?" Maybe. I should observe that during the conference I was always sitting next to Kees who was constantly engaged with his laptop as if we were taking stenographic notes on the conference. Actually he was busy negotiating the inclusion of an Easter Egg for Ubuntu. But it must have looked weird. Although if anyone was stationed behind us to peak at his screen, they would have been totally confounded, because he operates at tiny fonts and with the screen mostly dimmed. Kees remarks: "I don't get the impression that any of those people are threatened by Jno. I think Talbott is disappointed he hasn't been able to make Jno another soldier in his progressless army, and that all of them are far too egotistical/arrogant to think anyone else could have good ideas." But Talbott jknows about Jno, and must appreciate some of your stuff! It is ten years later, and we still do not know what the point is of the website, the forum, the books, the videos. =-=-= don't they say what the point is there somewhere? There simply seems to be no direction. Is this a still-born religion? Are they embattled by their own forum and have become paralyzed? Kees suggested to me that apparently the purpose of maintaining the organization is to sell videos. (end)