A change I made was in the approach to the whole thesis:

I had an inspiration. Playing around with concepts of cosmologies, it
occurred to me that I ought to change the basis of the "Saturn at the
pole" thing, from considerations of physics to considerations of myth. My
second mention of Saturn on the first page (of "Recovering the Lost
World"), a quote by Cardona, does that -- it points to world-wide myths. I
also soon bring up "Hamlet's Mill".

So, my proposal: 

     -- The essence of the "Saturnian" cosmology should encompass
postulates on the evidential nature of myths and legends. Nothing more.
These are not arguable, for they are the postulates of the cosmology. No
postulates of any cosmology are arguable. They are always "givens". Only
corollaries can be weighed against evidence.

The advantage of this is that we would no longer be depending on the
opinions of conservative scientists and academics. We could put our case
to mythologists. The opinions of astronomers mean nothing when it comes to
mythology. 

     -- How to derive corollaries from the "myths as facts" position is an
interesting feat, and (I recommend) not something scientists or chemical
engineers should undertake, since this is entirely outside of their
training and fields of education.

"Saturn at the pole" would be a primary corollary of this. In fact, not
even a corollary (which need proof) but a certifyable fact. Now you can
bring in physics, but the fact that Saturn stood at the pole is inarguable
-- if the myths cannot be dismissed. We can, in fact, at this point jump
into a physics of the remote past as an excuse to derive prior conditions
-- working backwards.

In the past the proposition of "Saturn at the pole" has been used as a
postulate of a cosmology (rather than a corollary) by the SAturnians, but
no-one has ever argued that if this constituted an element of a cosmology,
then it would not be a "theory to be proven" or "disproven". But it was
probably unreasonable not to expect the "science" types to immediately
grab after the physics of "Saturn at the pole".

Starting with the absoluteness of myth, then myth also is not evidence to
prove Saturn at the pole, but a given condition, from which we derive the
"fact" that Saturn stood at the pole -- no questions asked. Santillana and
von Dechend almost did that with "Hamlet's Mill", but then backed off.

At the surface this looks to be the same as the current narrative, but
there are some significant differences. Now, to deny that Saturn stood at
the pole, is to deny all of mythology. There is more mythology than there
is written history.  

I need to start a few subtle rewrites. I no longer need to argue about
Saturn at the pole, I need only claim the validity of myth.  If myth is
held to be valid, then Saturn inarguable stood at the pole.

The opening of the first file (index.php) will be changed to: 

              "... a large planet stood above the North Pole
                           for a very long time."

     That is what all the mythology throughout the world uniformly
     states -- mythology from every nation, region, tribe, and period,
     in thousands of languages, in hundreds of forms, from every
     continent -- they all resound, "a large planet stood above the
     North Pole for a very long time." Every country, that is, except
     those more than 10 degrees below the equator.

     The mythology of regions as far removed as Siberia, North Africa,
     and Guatemala all agree. If the mythology is true (and what other
     conclusion could be drawn), then the fact that a large planet stood
     at the northern horizon is true. How this could be, is a matter
     which this text will attemp to address.

     I will suggest that this planet was Saturn. From other sources we
     can estimate that the planet Saturn moved on a wildly elliptical
     path around the Sun in the remote past, ........ etc

I'll need to make a few notes on what myth is not -- the Wiki page on
mythology supplies all of the data for that. Of course a dictionary
definition of "myth" gives a completely dismissive sense.

After the Bauer quote:

     This is, however, exactly what I will attempt to do with this text:
     I will try to tell the actual history of the world and humanity --
     in the face of knee-jerk reactions and spitting noises by those who
     know better. This is not my story, but the efforts of a great many
     other people, and based on evidence in plain view.

     My starting point is the postulate that myths throughout the world
     should be taken at face value. For the recurring worldwide
     mythology this is almost completely obvious.

     Any attempts to apply local cultural conditions and limited
     attitudes to mythology as a general theory, meets with failure,
     because of a lack of appreciation of the enormous scope of
     mythology throughout the world, and the constant refrain of
     identical themes by peoples who have remained completely foreign to
     each other -- who have never had cultural contact. Any theory of
     mythology based on limited and local aspects will fail to translate
     to the hundreds of additional instances across the world.

     This holds for notions of ritual, of model behaviour, of allegories
     of nature, of personifications of the weather, and any other
     metaphorical meanings. All these myopic attemps fail utterly in the
     face of the wide diversity of meaning among languages and grammars,
     and not least also in the enormous cultural differences between
     peoples. All explanations of the origins of myths are doomed to
     failure when based on a limited scope of myth.

     This leaves only the historiocity of mythology. It has an
     evidential character which is absolute. If myth tells us that that
     a large planet stood above the northern horizon, then we are stuck
     with this as fact. It cannot be negated or waived aside. It only
     remains to investigate how this could have been so.

     Of course it is not always as astoundingly clear as in this
     instance. Frequently we are met with wording which is no longer
     understood, and frequently it will be easier for us to elicit
     metaphor from our culture and our language in an attempt to explain
     the inexplicable. This is probably the most frequently made mistake
     in investigating mythology.

     Mythology represents a history stretching into the depths of time.
     On the other hand, the accepted mainstream history is a 2000-year
     ....... etc

I need to rewrite a few sentences elsewhere. 

The Saturnians never noticed that my original take (which followed their
physical Saturn) was inarguable. But the change to myth as a basis gets
the "scientists" and everyone else who thinks they know something of the
physical nature of the world off my back. The Saturnians also never
noticed that they were presenting the same coloration of arguments as
presented here, and never took advantage of it.

What do you think? /jno