Thunderbolts Forum For discussion of Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology Skip to content * Board index < New Insights and Mad Ideas * Change font size * FAQ * Register * Login Ev on Catastrophism, Mythology, Chronology etc Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light? Moderators: MGmirkin, arc-us Forum rules Post a reply First unread post o 33 posts o Page 1 of 3 o 1, 2, 3 Ev on Catastrophism, Mythology, Chronology etc Unread post by Lloyd » Tue Sep 20, 2011 5:25 pm Introducing Ev Cochrane * Ev Cochrane, one of the Thunderbolts team members, has kindly agreed to an interview to tell us of his work on the team. If you have any questions for him, post them below and I'll probably forward them to Ev. Ev: I am a graduate of Iowa State University (Masters of Science, 1981) and the author of four books and dozens of articles on ancient myth and science. You are welcome to refer readers to my website for more information: http://www.maverickscience.com. Lloyd: What do you do for a living? Does writing pay enough to live on? Do you do other writing, or other research, besides in mythology and catastrophism? I write some, but have never been paid to do it. Ev: I am recently retired. I spend most of my time reading and writing. I am also actively involved in youth sports, and teach both basketball and tennis. Lloyd: How did you get interested in catastrophism? Was Dave Talbott's book, The Saturn Myth, the first catastrophist literature you read? Were you already a student of mythology before that? What first got you interested in mythology? Ev: I originally became interested in Velikovsky's work while writing a book on evolutionary theory in the mid-1970's. I found the general catastrophic thesis defended in Earth in Upheaval very novel and compelling. Upon reading Worlds in Collision, I became interested in the origins of ancient myth and religion. I subsequently met Dave Talbott in 1981 and have been fully committed to researching issues pertaining to planetary catastrophism ever since. I first met Dwardu Cardona in the same year. Lloyd: Some, including me, regard you as a careful researcher. How did you learn to do research? Did you have much college training it it, such as by doing a thesis, or lots of term papers? I think I only did 2 term papers in college and I quit college after 3 years. Ev: My Master's thesis runs to some 400 pages and touches on various topics relating to Velikovsky and planetary catastrophism even though the primary subject was biological evolutionary theory (I was studying genetics at the time). The thesis took two years to complete. My basic approach to research is to read everything that can be found on a particular issue, subject it to critical analysis, and attempt to offer some insight into the subject matter in question. Lloyd: What, briefly, do you think was Velikovsky's contribution to mythology? Do you think he was a careful researcher, or not so careful? Which main planetary identifications did he get correct and which incorrect? Someone said if he had been reviewed by mythologists, instead of by astronomers, he would have been found to be in error and probably dismissed by nearly everyone. So I guess it's good that the incompetent astronomers took him on instead. Was he right or wrong about Oedipus and Akhenaten? If he wasn't a very good researcher, why did so many scientists become interested in his claims? I guess one way to judge how good research someone does is by checking their references. Is that how you judge people's research? Briefly, what mistakes did you or someone else find from Velikovsky's references? Ev: You have asked a number of questions here and it would be necessary to write at great length in order to answer them thoroughly or convincingly. Yet in order not to dodge your question entirely, I would offer the following comments: (1) Velikovsky's primary contribution to the study of ancient myth is the seminal insight that the primary subject matter is extraordinary planetary catastrophes; (2) I would not be inclined to regard Velikovsky as a careful researcher, either in ancient myth or in ancient chronology; (3) Velikovsky's thesis in Oedipus and Akhnaton is at once wrong and completely wrong-headed. Virtually everything he said in that book is demonstrably inaccurate and contradicts the central insight of Worlds in Collision--namely, that the central themes of ancient myth commemorate extraordinary planetary events. Simply put: Oedipus was not a human being. Lloyd: I know that you mythologists on the Thunderbolts team consider his main theses in Worlds in Collision to be wrong, at least with respect to dating, i.e. that neither Venus nor Mars had close encounters with Earth during the Exodus and during the 7th or 8th centuries BC. Was he at least right that either or both of them did encounter Earth and cause cataclysms here? And did that happen some centuries before the Exodus? I think Cardona said several planets besides Saturn rained detritus on Earth, which was catastrophic to living things. Do you agree? Ev: Velikovsky was certainly right to suggest that certain planets such as Venus and Mars moved in close proximity to Earth in recent times and caused major cataclysms. He erred in attempting to date such events to the middle of the second and first millennia BCE. Lloyd: Do you know much of what Velikovsky's Saturn Theory was? I think Cardona said Worlds in Collision originally began with his Saturn Theory, but the publishers decided to leave it out. Do you know if his Saturn Theory was much better than his Venus and Mars theories? Ev: I have read Velikovsky's writings on Saturn. They are now readily available online (see Jan Sammer's website devoted to Velikovsky's unpublished work: http://varchive.org/). It is my opinion that the editors at Macmillan were right in convincing Velikovsky to leave the Saturn-material out of Worlds in Collision as it was too preliminary and sketchy in nature to be compelling. That said, Velikovsky's writings on Saturn contain a number of important insights that helped inspire the researches of David Talbott and Dwardu Cardona, in particular. Re: Ev on Catastrophism, Mythology, Chronology etc Unread post by tayga » Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:16 am Welcome, Ev, and thanks for your work. (And by the way, if that photo of you is recent, you're looking good for a retiree) I'm a working research scientist, with a *PhD an' all and alternative mythology, like Electric Universe theory, is pretty new to me. Both appeal to the amateur scientist in me (i.e. the true scientist) because proponents of the two subjects generally share an old-fashioned desire for the truth that has been eroded by Big Science where most of a scientist's working life is overshadowed with the concern for getting funding next year. Being over 50 myself and only recently aware that there is something other than consensus science suggests to me that the spread of these ideas must be accelerating pretty sharply at the moment. As someone who's been immersed in the area for 30+ years, what's your perception of the growth of the alternative mythologies and EU? Do you think these areas are set to break through into a much wider sphere of awareness any time soon? Re: Ev on Catastrophism, Mythology, Chronology etc Unread post by Lloyd » Sat Sep 24, 2011 10:23 am * Tayga, I'll ask Ev your question shortly. First, I'll post his next set of interview answers. Re: Ev on Catastrophism, Mythology, Chronology etc Unread post by Lloyd » Sat Sep 24, 2011 10:52 am Lloyd: You said you have been vigorously [?] researching issues pertaining to planetary catastrophism ever since you met Dave Talbott in 1981. Do you and Dave collaborate very much in researching catastrophism? Do you and he have any significant disagreements on the subject? If so, would you like to mention any? Ev: In fact, Dave and I have been actively collaborating since shortly after meeting in 1981. We produced a series of articles for Kronos in the early 80's, for example. We worked together producing and publishing Aeon as well. Since that time we have each been working on countless different projects but we have always managed to compare notes and share new insights along the way. I have benefited greatly from my personal friendship with Dave Talbott. Lloyd: Did you consider the Saturn Theory as plausible, when it first included the idea that Saturn had been an extra-solar planet, or brown dwarf star? Did you initially have faith that the polar configuration with Saturn, Venus and Mars would ever make sense physically, when there was yet no physical evidence? Ev: The research of Talbott and myself is primarily a historical reconstruction. If we are right, as I naturally believe, it follows that there must be some physical explanation for the hypothetical polar configuration. Not being a physicist myself, I have generally tended to leave speculation as to the specific physical details to other experts in the field such as Anthony Peratt and CJ Ransom. I have no idea if Saturn was formerly an extra-solar planet or not, as per Wal Thornhill's claim, but I continue to follow the debate along those lines with great interest. Lloyd: Have you read Dwardu Cardona's books about his Saturn Theory? If so, do you have any significant disagreements with or doubts about his version? And, if so, will you tell us what they are? Ev: I have read everything Dwardu Cardona has ever written, including his most recent series of books. I think he has done a great service in calling attention to a large number of physical and geological anomalies that are best explained by the polar configuration hypothesis. Dwardu has his own areas of emphasis and expertise, and I have mine, but I think it is fair to say that we remain very supportive of each other's researches even if we do not always agree on the specific details of the mytho-historical reconstruction. Lloyd: Dwardu seems to date the breakup of the Saturn System within the Solar System to between 4 and 5 thousand years ago. Do you agree with that? And do you know what may be the best indicators of when the breakup occurred? Ev: I don't believe this is an accurate summary of Dwardu's position. I suspect the breakup of the polar configuration occurred well before this time--certainly before the origins of advanced civilization in 3000 BCE. Lloyd: Have you read Gary Gilligan's website? I mention him, because the TPODs sometimes cover some of his findings, such as evidence that there was a lot of dust in the inner solar system down to about 2 millennia ago. Ev: I have glanced at Gary's website, but I do not find his general thesis to be credible. Sorry. Lloyd: I think Gary says ancient battles occurred in the sky, rather than on Earth, down to the time of Alexander the Great, because there are no remains from such battles on Earth. Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, can you tell us where to find information about remains from ancient battles? Ev: I find this thesis to be wholly incredible, in fact. The best evidence for the ancient battles fought by the likes of Alexander the Great and Ramses II, I should think, are the numerous eye-witness records we have of such battles. Lloyd: Could he be right that Alexander the Great was a celestial phenomenon (if I recall correctly from his site)? If not, where is evidence of Alexander and his battles, or a source on that? Ev: I suspect that if anyone has to ask this question, it would be futile for me to direct him or her to the voluminous evidence bearing on the subject. Lloyd: Gary seems to accept John Ackerman's ideas about Venus being from the Great Red Spot area of Jupiter and Mercury being the ejected core from Mars via Valles Marineris. Do you consider either of those plausible? If so, or if not, do you know where we can read definitive information about that? Ev: I don't consider anything from either Gary Gilligan or John Ackerman to be credible or worthy of serious consideration. Lloyd: Gary, like a number of those associated with Thunderbolts, accepts at least some of Gunnar Heinsohn's reductions in ancient chronology, thus equating the Sumerians with the Babylonians or something like that, so there would have been no ancient civilizations much before 1,000 BC or so. Heinsohn is said to base his conclusions on actual stratigraphy, i.e. records of what was actually found in what layers of each site. Since (I think) you very largely disagree with Heinsohn, have you read what he says on stratigraphy? What sorts of errors do you think he makes regarding stratigraphy? Ev: I am very familiar with Gunnar Heinsohn's writings. Frankly, I do not find his historical reconstruction to be credible--far from it, in fact. My ideas on the subject have been spelled out in a number of lengthy essays (see http://www.maverickscience.com/history.htm) for further details.) Lloyd: Is there any revised chronology that you tend to agree with? What about David Rohl? I think on chronology Dwardu favors a book called Through the Centuries, but I'm not sure if I recall the title correctly. Which, if any, major ancient people or events need to be redated? Ev: Frankly, I do not find any of the revised chronologies to be credible. As I have pointed out on a number of occasions, most of these revised chronologies were initiated by people enthralled by the historical reconstruction offered by Immanuel Velikovsky in his Ages in Chaos series. That series is seriously flawed from start to finish and thus serves as a very poor guide to ancient history. Personally, I would recommend the Cambridge Ancient History series of volumes to anyone interested in reconstructing ancient history. It may not be correct in all details, but it is certainly a serious work of scholarship and provides a good overall understanding of the ancient world. The Ground Doesn't Lie Unread post by The Aten » Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:52 am Hi Ev, Welcome to the TBF Lloyd wrote:Lloyd: I think Gary says ancient battles occurred in the sky, rather than on Earth, down to the time of Alexander the Great, because there are no remains from such battles on Earth. Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, can you tell us where to find information about remains from ancient battles? Ev: I find this thesis to be wholly incredible, in fact. The best evidence for the ancient battles fought by the likes of Alexander the Great and Ramses II, I should think, are the numerous eye-witness records we have of such battles. There exists no 'numerous eye-witness records' for Alexander the Great, everything we know about this super human 'son of Amun' (aurora) was written some 400 years after his death. We have historians such as the Greek Arrian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrian apparently quoting eye witness sources but no actual direct accounts. Putting this into some kind of context, we have hundreds of thousands of soldiers, men, women and children across the ancient world involved in or effected by Alexander's escapades but unlike Egyptian sources (real time 'sacred' text recoding of battles on temple walls) no actual credible eye witness accounts. Does this sound wholly credible? On Alexander the citations on the following page can be checked or a simple web search will reveal much. http://www.preventingtruthdecay.org/20jp.shtml The ground doesn't lie! Unlike Alexander's escapades Egyptian sources do provide us with eye-witness records of many hundreds of battles, however.... FACT: Despite the many hundreds of military expeditions carried out by the pharaohs over a 3,000 period archaeologists have been unable to verify ANY of the events recounted in Egyptian records. Taken from http://www.gks.uk.com/egyptian-battles-smiting/ Megiddo, Megiddo, Megiddo (Armageddon). http://megiddo.tau.ac.il/ http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/bmerr/2000/deLucMegidAug.html Megiddo is one of the most fabled and fought over pieces of real estates in the ancient world; at least 34 battles are known to have taken place here, the majority involving the Egyptians. If we accept the 'eye witness records' then collectively hundreds of thousands of soldiers fought here. Eighteen consecutive campaigns attributed to Tuthmosis III (Egypt's Napoleon) alone (his army consisted of 20,000 plus soldiers) and yet no corroboratory archaeological evidence exists. We have an abundance of written documentation but - NO CRIME SCENE! No battle artefacts (bows, arrows, broken swords, battle axes, etc.), no skeletal remains showing signs of battle, axe abrasions, etc., etc. No sign of severed limbs, hands (the Egyptians apparently cut of the hands of the enemy to count them), fingers, decapitated heads, body parts in general. No dead horses with arrows embedded in them, no chariot parts or bits. Moreover, there aren't any mass burials to honour the fallen - no graves or cenotaphs with... "here lies... " nothing (this would include back home in Egypt). Were they so different to us as to not even honour their brave comrades who paid the ultimate price? All this exists despite the fact that archaeologists have been digging at Megiddo for over a century and excavations are still ongoing. The scale of work carried out in and around Megiddo can be gleaned from this link. http://megiddo.tau.ac.il/projects_countryside.html This is for those of you who perhaps doubt the professionalism of the excavating team. It's also worth bearing in mind the extra funding that would be made available if they did find something. Point being, it's in their interest to find something! It was even found that Megiddo wasn't even fortified! How can this be when the pharaoh Tuthmosis III (Moon) was supposed to have laid siege to the city for 7 months? This has proved a bit of a embarrassing problem for historians who with glazed eyes have taken 'eye-witness records' at face value. "but shows the difficulty in comprehending the text describing the siege of Megiddo" http://megiddo.tau.ac.il/publications_newsletter3.html Ancient battles. Ancient battle sites are been found, many by accident and the disinterred items are exactly what you would expect. Transcript from a TV documentary - Julius Caesar and the Druids (aired September 2008). "In Ribemont-sur-Ancre north east France an extraordinary excavation has uncovered hundreds of human skeletons, revealing a startling picture of a Celtic cult death." "We are inside an enclosure from the 3rd century BC. Over there north of the enclosure we found a construction made of human bones, bits of arms and leg from about 200/250 people. And then beyond the enclosure there was another large deposition of human remains, this time completely jumbled up, with their weapons, swords and shields." From the same documentary, battle implements also found at Anglesey (UK). "In 1943 during the Second World War a lake on Anglesey Llyn Cerrig Bach was dredged for the building of an Air Force base. Buried in the mud workers uncovered something unexpected - one of the riches ever collections of objects from the Celtic Iron Age. They included parts of chariots, shield buckles, weapons deliberately broken or bent out of shape - slave chains and the bones of sacrificial animals." Dinosaur remains and the Clovis people. There isn't a year that goes by without news of random dinosaur bone finds - these are said to be millions of years old - similarly Clovis people artefacts (arrows heads) dated to around 15-30,000 years plus are also randomly disinterred, and yet, we excavate at the known location of some of ancient history's most well known and recorded battles and find a big fat zero! I politely ask, why are you so prepared to accept 'eye-witness records' even though the archaeological evidence clearly doesn't support it? Gg http://www.gks.uk.com/egyptian-battles-smiting/ Re: Ev on Catastrophism, Mythology, Chronology etc Unread post by Lloyd » Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:28 pm * Gary, I don't know why ancient battle sites are important to your theory, but, if your claim is right that few ancient battlefield cemeteries or battle evidence is found, I can imagine some other reasons for that. People may have preferred to clean up after battles. Bodies may have been cremated. Valuable weapons and ammo may have been recycled. * Megiddo was about a 15 acre city on a hilltop. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/Early+History+-+Archaeology/Megiddo+ -+The+Solomonic+Chariot+City.htm * Ancient Geman battlefield: http://www.germany.info/Vertretung/usa/en/__pr/GIC/2011/05/23__Bronze_ _Age__PR.html * Ancient Syrian battlefield: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2005-12-16/news/0512160357_1_archaeol ogist-warfare-discovery * List of ancient battles for reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_warfare#Important_ancient_battles * I just posted at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4904&p=5699 1#p56991 about Heinsohn Refuted, quoting excerpts from Ev's best webpage on that subject. Lloyd Re: Ev on Catastrophism, Mythology, Chronology etc Unread post by The Aten » Tue Sep 27, 2011 4:12 am Lloyd wrote:* Gary, I don't know why ancient battle sites are important to your theory.... Because ancient battles shaped the ancient world and indeed ancient history as we know it today, and if it can be shown that these were 'sky battles' and have little if anything (apart from humans venerating such battles) to do with events on earth, then surely you don't need me to explain to you the implications of such a proposal. It changes everything we know about ancient history and supports my stance that cosmic catastrophe is actually staring us in the face. Lloyd wrote:I can imagine some other reasons for that. People may have preferred to clean up after battles. Bodies may have been cremated. Valuable weapons and ammo may have been recycled. My first reaction was "what!" So let's get this straight; we have some 20,000 plus soldiers (including charioteers) marching some 600 miles north (who guarded the 'back door' while they were away?) across the deadly scorching hot desert (I wonder how many died on the way) through the Sinai corridor to engage the enemy (in Syria Palestine). A major bloody battle ensues with the pharaoh leading from the front (absurd military tactic considering the belief the whole world would fall into chaos without the king). The Egyptians (under the authority of many gods) vanquish the 'evil' enemy (they never lost a battle). Thousands are slaughtered (some records say 'none were left standing'). After the mayhem, the Egyptians then proceed to chop off the right hands and penis' of the 'evil vile' enemy (battles were a fight between good and evil, it was the kings role to maintain 'divine order' [ma'at] in the cosmos). Now, you are suggesting that instead of marching home they then proceeded to scour the area picking up thousands of rotting corpses (including dead horses), severed limbs, body parts, unrepairable battle implements and broken chariot parts, bits of amour, and totally cleared the site by recycling everything and cremating the enemy - leaving behind nothing to ever suggest a major battle took place. Considering some battles occurred at times, year in, year out and collectively involved hundreds of thousands of rank and file men at the same location (Megiddo) and for over millennia - to my mind, to leave the scene spotless would be impossible. Besides, if the enemy were cremated (NOT the Egyptians, they had to be mummified to stand any chance of an afterlife), where is this written down in any of the 'eye-witness accounts?' Perhaps it was the enemy that did what you suggest (Not much of a defeat then). If there were a few left standing, I don't doubt that 'valuable weapons and ammo may have been recycled' but again would it have been really possible to clear such a bloody crime scene to the extent of spotless? It begs the simple question, why? For what reason? What's the point? Why bother? What a waste of time! Surely there are more impending matters like burying the dead, that I can understand. But again where's the archaeological evidence? Where's the mass graves (mummified Egyptian soldiers), cenotaphs, memorials or otherwise (back home or on site). Further, where's the 'record' of the annual remembrance by the nation in honour of the fallen. Again, were they so different to us? Gg Ancient Battles Unread post by The Aten » Wed Sep 28, 2011 6:16 am Lloyd, Just to clarify if I may. Ancient wars DID take place for it stands to reason you cannot depict intricate battle scenes unless actually having been involved in warfare (on my web). However, the sacred iconic smiting scenes (below) are indicative of wars in the heavens not on earth. Image The Moon in the guise of Tuthmosis III ('Born of the Lunar God Thoth') in the iconic pose of smiting an enemy i.e. vacuuming up countless tons of asteroids and comets. Pharaoh shown larger than the enemy because as a planetary body he was! Thank you for the links, many of which I have, but what we're looking for is hard evidence to verify pharaonic battles. If it is stated many battles took place at a certain location and we send in a team of excavators and they find nothing then it has to be questioned whether or not the battle took place, this is, after all common sense. Gg Re: Ev on Catastrophism, Mythology, Chronology etc Unread post by ztifbob » Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:10 am the GKS of G. Gilligan is IMO brilliant. That someone who has studied catastrophism for decades has a different take is not surprising. To argue for other theories is to be expected. To completely dismiss the entire body of G.G 's work without addressing its postulates or deductions specifially is to do to the a fellow C. therorist what university/big science does to catastrophists no? new here but have recently absorbed the GKS and find it a break through even if many aspects need rearanging. i'm now intrested in the Saturn based therories & want to see what work has been done from that angle. if i post more over time i'll present thoughts of my own on these matters. i always like to think of the fact that capernicus's sun centered model was initially a worse pedictor of planetary cycles than the cosmic machine gear ideas in vogue at the time. and the sun wasn't the center of the universe, but what a contribution he made despite these caviots. thanks to all of you for pursuing this work. rf ztifbob Re: The Ground Doesn't Lie Unread post by The Aten » Thu Oct 20, 2011 8:06 am Gary Gilligan (me) asked Ev Cochrane above. I politely ask, why are you so prepared to accept 'eye-witness records' even though the archaeological evidence clearly doesn't support it? Is Ev Cochrane away? The breakup of the Saturn System, I'm a little confused, somebody please clarify. Dwardu has the breakup of the Saturn System between 4 and 5 thousand years ago, whereas Ev doesn't believe (see above) this is an accurate summary of Dwardu's position and believes the breakup of the polar configuration occurred well before this time certainly before the origins of advanced civilization in 3000 BCE. There is absolutely no doubt that the proposed separation of Earth from Saturn would have caused MASSIVE upheavals and the archaeological evidence should really be unequivocal (not to mention the termoil caused during the times of a stationary planet(s) above). Firstly, where is it? Secondly, why when pinning down Saturnists for a separation date we seem to enter a very grey woolly area? Given the scope of the absolute devastation caused, dating (relative or otherwise) the breakup should be the easy part. Did it occur in historical times as Dwardu's alludes to or prehistory as Cochrane suggests? Where does Talbott stand on this? How can they not be aware of each other's 'grey' dates on such a crucial fundamental point? Gg Re: The Ground Doesn't Lie Unread post by tholden » Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:52 am The Aten wrote:Gary Gilligan (me) asked Ev Cochrane above. I politely ask, why are you so prepared to accept 'eye-witness records' even though the archaeological evidence clearly doesn't support it? Is Ev Cochrane away? The breakup of the Saturn System, I'm a little confused, somebody please clarify. Gg This might help a bit: http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophi ... system.htm Ev and Dwardu do a marvelous job of being wrong in some areas, particularly chronology, history of language, and the question of parts of our system other than our own planet being inhabited prior to the capture of the Saturn system by our present sun but people as bright as these two would have to work terribly hard at being wrong on everything and they're totally correct in their reconstructions of the major events leading up to the flood. In fact Ev's reconstruction of the yoyo effect which Mars' orbit in the Saturn system produced is the best explanation of the flood water origins which presently exists. You want hard evidence of the Saturn system's capture by our sun? The thing about the axis tilts of the system should suffice for that. Again: http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophi ... system.htm Questions about chronologies are better left to real experts in that area such as Charles Ginenthal and Gunnar Heinsohn. The basic gist of their findings is that the events in question are substantially more recent than you may have read. tholden Re: Ev on Catastrophism, Mythology, Chronology etc Unread post by nick c » Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:51 am Hi Gary, Is Ev Cochrane away? The breakup of the Saturn System, I'm a little confused, somebody please clarify. Although Ev has posted here in the past, he generally does not participate in this forum. Perhaps Lloyd can get some answers to your questions? While I cannot speak for Cochrane or Cardona, I have read much of their written material over the years, and like Ted Holden, I do not subscribe to their views on chronology. However, the Saturn theory (or better 'hypothesis') seems to me to be sound and supported by a wealth of interdisciplinary evidence. There are numerous articles in journals such as Aeon, Kronos, etc and also several books by the above mentioned authors, as well as other catastrophists. Of course, we all would be interested in some observation or test (archaeological or otherwise) that would falsify the proposition. If you have something (that has not already been answered in some publication) I am sure that Lloyd can get one or both of them to respond. By my way of thinking the best way to falsify the theory is to show that it is in one way or another a physical impossibility. Indeed that is the mainstream view, but the Electric Universe says otherwise. It is my understanding that the main Saturn proponents are describing events that took place before written history, ie prehistorical, which have been passed on to us through the framework of world myth as a description of events. The details this framework are being filled in through a forensic approach involving whatever scientific disciplines to which the investigations lead. Nick Re: The Ground Doesn't Lie Unread post by The Aten » Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:23 pm Hi Tholden, Many of the points raised in the link you provide are in my view are open to interpretation, especially the axial tilt of the planets which could easily be applied to almost any catastrophist model, including mine. I was disturbed by some of the sweeping statements in the essay, for example. "Nonetheless the two chieftain gods of all ancient religions were Jupiter and Saturn, and not the sun and moon..." (and similar statements). Having lived breathed and studied the ancient Egyptians for many years I can say with absolute confidence this is rubbish. Although the Moon (primarily as Thoth) remained an enigma until later times, the Sun god Ra was, and has always been the Sun. I mention this because I've read quite a bit on the ST and have attended many lectures by Saturn theorists including Talbott, and most believe (Talbott) that Saturn was originally Ra and then after the breakup Ra magically transfers to our sol. What!? (the same would apply with the Babylonian sun god Shamesh) This clearly implies that Talbot and co believe the `breakup' occurred during historical times (i.e. during the last 5,000 years, the time of Ra!) and NOT prehistory. This I find totally absurd, where is this 'written' down? Were ancient cultures really so daft as to believe a once stationary polar god/star was the same as (or became) a body (Sun) rising in the east and setting in the west? If anywhere near correct the evidence should be unequivocal. What of Egypt's other gods after the separation - did their physical identifications also transfer to other bodies or phenomena, or was it just Ra? To my mind, the whole thing makes no sense whatsoever. Gg Re: The Ground Doesn't Lie Unread post by tholden » Thu Oct 20, 2011 5:03 pm The Aten wrote: Having lived breathed and studied the ancient Egyptians for many years I can say with absolute confidence this is rubbish. Although the Moon (primarily as Thoth) remained an enigma until later times, the Sun god Ra was, and has always been the Sun. That turns out to be wrong but it's a very long story. The people who do the best job of telling it are the main players of the Thunderbolts organization, David Talbott, Ev Cochrane, Dwardu Cardona. tholden Re: The Ground Doesn't Lie Unread post by The Aten » Fri Oct 21, 2011 12:32 am tholden wrote:That turns out to be wrong but it's a very long story. Thepeople who do the best job of telling it are the main players of the Thunderbolts organization, David Talbott, Ev Cochrane, Dwardu Cardona They why aren't the very basic questions raised by myself easily answered by all who support the ST. There should be no grey areas as to when Re's (the Sun) identity changed, for simple logic deems it must have occurred following some MASSIVE upheavals. The two should be easily synchronised. Need I remind you, the ST derives first and foremost from the myths and imagery created during 3,000 plus years of historical times. The apparent 'supporting' petroglyphs came later and as I have stated before these could have been created anytime. Just because they're carved on rock doesn't make them more ancient than the written word. Gg k