Recovering the Lost World --Jno Cook
Other Cosmologies.
$Revision: 21.15 $
Contents of this file:
[Speculative Cosmologies]
[Sitchin]
[Planet X]
[Ancient Astronauts]
[Bible Aliens]
[God's Math]
[Supernova]
[Orion's Belt]
[Mayan Cycle]
[Mars Wars]
[Hologram]
[Binary Star]
[Firmament]
[God King Scenario]
[Clube and Napier]
Speculative Cosmologies
Following are some alternative cosmologies which do not explain or do not hold together, even though many are well researched. I have added my comments only as needed. Most are not so much complete cosmologies as they are explications of catastrophic events in the era from 10,000 BC to the 7th century BC. Most take for granted the current state of the Solar System and the handed-down narratives of its genesis. That will do, although, as described on these pages, it is seldom correct. But first a note from Phil Burns, who has commented on some of these:
"My personal feeling is that any historical content that might underlie myths of cosmic catastrophes is difficult to extract and remains subject to multiple interpretations. Interpreting such myths literally is likely to lead to untenable hypotheses involving large scale disruptions of the Earth and solar system that cannot be sustained from physical evidence."
I agree, but I think, first, that "large scale disruptions of the Earth and solar system" can be sustained, certainly and unquestionably, from physical evidence. Burns should get off his couch and fly across the Western United States in a Piper Cub. Burns goes on..
"Myths tell us how the ancients perceived the universe, not necessarily how the universe really worked. Trying to rewrite physics and astronomy based upon mythological interpretation is a fundamentally incorrect procedure."
-- [http://www.pibburns.com/catastro/myths.htm]
There are, at any rate, also broad concepts among the various catastrophic cosmologies which are inured to the details of different retellings. As remarked by Kurt Godël, "Concepts indifferent to the details of their formulation are absolute." One of these, or some of these, or various parts of some of these cosmologies are absolute, and will represent the true history of the past. But I should add to these the works by Immanuel Velikovsky, David Talbott, Wallace Thornhill, Tom Van Flandern, and any number of others. See the [books] and [links] pages for more.
And who would rewrite physics and astronomy? I think the real question is, Why are we afraid to enter the imagination of the ancients? Certainly we should be able to make sense of what lies behind "how the ancients perceived the universe." Could we not excercize our imagination to find possibilities without rewriting physics?
The following is a sampling of the work of others who believe this to be true, ranging from bizarre to sublime. I started to understand 'fringe' as a border of loose threads, rather than 'outer edge,' although I respect the work that went into these. Some are followed by comments. Others require none.
If I have misrepresented anyone, it is an oversight. I will gladly correct the capsule descriptions below, although my evaluations will (probably) remain the same.
-=-= Sitchin =-=-
From an article in Atlantis Rising Magazine describing the work of Zecharia Sitchin, "The 12th Planet" (1976) and additional books, "The Stairway to Heaven" (1980), "The Wars of Gods and Men" (1985), "The Lost Realms" (1990), "When Time Began" (1993). The official website is at [http://www.sitchin.com/] but less lucid.
"... According to Sitchin, mankind owes most of its ancient legacy to visiting extraterrestrials. The Russian-born Israeli resident and ancient language expert has indeed come up with some very intriguing, if not compelling, data. Indeed, few can match Sitchin's scholarly credentials. One of a handful of linguists who can read Sumerian cuneiform text, he is also a recognized authority in ancient Hebrew as well as Egyptian hieroglyphics."
"Not a little controversy, though, surrounds his unusual method of interpreting the ancient texts. Sitchin insists they should be read, not as myths, but quite literally, essentially as journalism."
A single mention of "extraterrestrials" is enough to turn me away entirely. Such insanity can only be sustained by someone who has not the slighest concept of the dimensions of space and who lacks an appreciation of the span of time it has taken for life to achieve the complexity we experience. (See [Chapter 2], "The solar system and an alternative cosmology," for a scale model of near space.)
[Sitchin has presented..] "extensive 6,000-year-old evidence that there is one more planet in the solar system, from which astronauts, the biblical giants (nephilim), came to Earth in antiquity. Laid out in the series is an elaborate tale of space travelers from the theoretical 10th planet (12th if the Sun and Moon are included) in the solar system, called Nibiru, or Marduk in Babylonian.""This planet, claims Sitchin, has a very eccentric orbit traveling from far beyond Pluto, cutting across the orbits of the rest of the planets, and then half-circling the Sun between Mars and Jupiter, taking 3,600 Earth years in the process."
"On its closest orbital approach, about 450,000 years ago, a band of Nibiruans known as the Anunnaki, landed on Earth in southern Mesopotamia and proceeded to mine gold, evidently needed for their planet's survival. Early efforts in the Persian Gulf proved inadequate, so underground mining in South Africa was begun."
Nothing, of course, has ever been sighted of a 10th planet. Notice that Sitchin lacks the imagination to extend the wonders of the past beyond the objects, desires, and thinking of his own milieu. I was also going to note, "Well, damn, what would you expect to find in the Persian Gulf, except mud?"
-=-= Planet X =-=-
Planet X, or alternately 'Nemeses', or 'Nibiru' after Sitchin, or some such interloper, is the topic at Andy Lloyd's website, to be followed by a book titled "The Dark Star." Following is a brief quote from the opening page of the website.
".. the potential for a small brown dwarf to be found orbiting the Sun is not only scientifically plausible, but would enable us to tie up a great number of loose ends in ancient religion and mythology."
"The recent discovery of the minor planet Sedna lends credence to this claim on a number of levels. I have now updated this theory substantially, moving closer to Zecharia Sitchin's own previous work but also incorporating a swath of new scientific findings into an elegant new hypothesis."
As I have pointed out, the small brown dwarf was Saturn. Sedna is a very small rock which will hardly answer to the requirements. A more likely 'companion' to the Sun is the star Sirius, but way too far away to have any effect.
-=-= Ancient Astronauts =-=-
Erich von Däniken's book "Chariots of the Gods" is alive at this site, where the Archaeology, Astronautics & SETI Research Association publishes the quarterly "Legendary Times" on the web. To quote from their opening page:
"The A.A.S.R.A. is determined to prove whether or not Extraterrestrials visited Earth in the remote past. In his ground breaking book "Chariots of the Gods," Erich von Däniken brought forth a revolutionary theory: Extraterrestrials visited Earth thousands of years ago."
"They left clues behind in the form of mysterious, enigmatic monuments, curious artifacts, misunderstood technologies, and especially stunning descriptions of flying machines and other curiosities in ancient texts, holy scriptures and tales of mythology. What really happened in the past...?"
What really did happen in the past? Conceive of humans being as clever and industrious as we are today, and no extraterrestrials are needed.
"Questions pertaining to humanity's origins and our uniqueness concern each and everyone of us over and over again. Secrets of this world hold the answers. The world is full of mysteries: the the pyramids at Giza, Egypt, Stonehenge in England, or the lines of Nazca, Peru."
"... these mysteries become some of the greatest uninvestigated areas which remain unsolved for our youth and coming generations."
I do not buy any of this, and fail to see the "message behind those mysteries." The "mysteries" are all the same stuff anyway. Writers: Erich von Däniken, David Childress, Peter Fiebag, Robert Bauval, Ulrich Dopatka, Luc Bürgin, Giorgio Tsoukalos.
-=-= Bible Aliens =-=-
Add "Bible Aliens" and "UFOs," to the above, and perhaps add "Crop Circles" and "Cryptozoology." What is "Cryptozoology," anyway? [http://www.alienpress.com]
-=-= God's Math =-=-
To just quote from the website:
The author feels that this condition is a message from God. The formula, by the way, a version of Kepler's Law, is (( pi exp( (9/4p)) * ln(30)) - F) exp ((2p/3)) = 20p"The mathematics demonstrates that the major (planetary) orbits of the Solar System are precisely ordered, and conform to an artificial mathematical equation to within 0.2%. I refer to the equation as The Creation Equation."
"The mathematics proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the scientific account of the origin of the Solar System is not correct."
-=-= Supernova =-=-
D. S. Allan and J. B. Delair "Cataclysm : Compelling Evidence of a Cosmic Catastrophe in 9500 BC" (1997). Quotes from the website follow.
[The book is about] "... how this Golden Age of peaceful conditions and equable climates ended traumatically in a tremendous catastrophe about 11,500 years ago. This was part of a cataclysm which disturbed the whole solar system, destroyed at least one sizable planet and its satellite, and also severely devastated Mars and Earth."
It was all too cold 11,500 years ago (9500 BC) for an "equable climate." Earth warmed up after 9000 BC. No planets were destroyed. The asteroid belt dates from long before humans. But there is more..
"Among the fundamental geophysical effects experienced by Earth were a massive fracturing of the crust, a realignment of Earth's axis, elevation of new mountains, and widespread rearrangement of land and sea."
"These changes were accompanied by an appalling global conflagration, a gigantic flood, and what has been described as 'collapsed sky' conditions. A bombardment by debris from the disintegrated satellite of the destroyed planet added to the worldwide chaos."
"Much of Earth's animal and plant life was annihilated by these frightful events. Some havens and refuges did exist, offering shelter to various faunal and floral species from flood or fire -- then to have to endure the appalling conditions which followed. [...]"
"The possible origins of this terrible calamity are considered in some detail, the authors concluding that, after dismissing comets, asteroids and giant meteors, the most likely candidate is a supernova explosion which, on the astronomical scale of things, occurred uncomfortably close to our solar system relatively recently."
I'm glad to see someone dismissing "comets, asteroids and giant meteors." The problem here as with most other theories is that it assumed that all the geological upheavals happened over a short time period. The authors thus select another ephemeral cause. A supernova in current parlance is a bombardment by high energy protons. It is not going to split the Earth's crust and raise mountains. I also find the geological information at odds both with accepted dogma and with common sense. But there is much more and the collected information is interesting. They start the 'Ice Age' in 9,500 BC and end in 5,500 BC. The Ice Ages extended much further into the past, and were probably the result of a larger orbit than we currently experience.
-=-= Orion's belt =-=-
Robert Bauval and Adrian Gilbert "The Orion Mystery; Unlocking the Secrets of the Pyramids" (1994).
"Since 1979 when he first became interested in the Star Religion of the Egyptians, Robert Bauval has been researching the secrets of the pyramids. Almost by accident he stumbled upon the central mystery of the Egyptian religion, their preoccupation with the constellation of Orion as their hoped-for afterlife destiny."
"At first tentatively and then with growing conviction he presented his findings to a mostly hostile establishment that the major pyramids of the IVth Dynasty were built to represent the stars of this afterworld."
"This, at first sight bizarre, theory he was able to back up with ancient texts, ceiling paintings, star-maps and other data that when taken together makes up an extraordinarily convincing case. The question then becomes not whether what he had discovered is true but rather why had no one noticed these things before?"
The following is additional comment from Adrian Gilbert's site:
"The important role of the Great Pyramid of Khufu in this stellar religion of the pharaohs was more than hinted at by the discovery in 1966 by the astronomer Virginia Trimble that a shaft from the "Kings Chamber" was angled in such a way that it aligned perfectly with the culmination, that is to say the point exactly on the north-south meridian that, at the time the pyramids were built was daily crossed by the Belt of Orion."
"As it was already known that a similar shaft on the northern side of the Kings Chamber aligned with the then North Star: Thuban in Draco, such alignments seemed to be a deliberate piece of astro-architectural engineering."
I have already commented on how the confusion of Osiris and Orion continues to be widely accepted, even though it has no basis. The book additionally misidentifies Sothis with the star Sirius when it is as likely to represent Venus, that is, Isis. The Greek text of the Canopus Decree of 239 BC makes this very clear. The Canopus Decree is discussed in the [file] "The Canopus Decree." Other comments contra the "Orion" book are found in an endnote to [Chapter 8], "The Old Kingdom and the fall of the Absu."
To base a whole book on the alignment of a single ventilation shaft is insane speculation. These 'alignments' are not correct, since the sky has changed since 2600 BC. As I have pointed out, any retrocalculation before 685 BC will be incorrect. But more importantly, the Egyptians had almost no interest at all in the stars (the circumpolar stars excepted), as others have noted. And the stars in the belt of Orion do not match the plan-view of the Giza pyramids.
-=-= Mayan cycle =-=-
Adrian Gilbert and Maurice Cotterell "The Mayan Prophecies" (1995).
"In this book the authors demonstrate how the Mayan Super Number 1,366,560 days, recorded in the Dresden Codex, indicates ancient knowledge of sunspot cycles and their effect on the human race. They explore the popular myth of Quetzalcoatl and its origins in Mayan ideas concerning the sun cycle."
"They also show the links between the pre-Columbian civilizations of Central America and the Old World, in particular Egypt. Examining the archaeological record, they find further evidence for linking the origins of Mayan civilization with the mythical lost continent of Atlantis, which according to Plato was destroyed in a series of catastrophes."
"The book reaches its climax when they reveal that the Mayan calendar prophesies the end of our own "Age of the Jaguar", the fifth and final "sun" in 2012 AD. This, according to Cotterell's sun-spot theories, could be brought about by a sudden reversal in the earth's magnetic field."
Atlantis, Egypt, sunspots, and the Mayan capacity for prediction. The Maya could not even predict their own demise. There are closer parallels to the Shang dynasty.
-=-= Mars Wars =-=-
Donald W. Patten and Samuel R. Windsor "The Mars-Earth Wars" (1996). The authors are physical scientist and engineers, making the theories a little more solid. The authors are sincerely enamored of the 'dirty snow-ball' theory of comets.
"The surface of Mars and its two satellites provides ample evidence supporting recent catastrophism in the Solar System. For example, the energy and momentum exchanges for the transition of the orbit of Mars from the catastrophic era to the modern era are provided in this volume. Back tracking the orbits of Venus, the Moon and Mars to the catastrophic year 701 B.C.E. all calculate well, which is a confirmation of this model of catastrophism."
"This new model of cosmology accepts the evidence of planetary catastrophes surrounding us. It is a model of recent orbit changes among Venus, the Earth and Mars. While not an "original thought", the claim is that a reorganization occurred within the cultural memory of numerous groups of the Earth's inhabitants, who recorded their experiences."
-- [http://www.creationism.org/patten/PattenMarsEarthWars/index.htm]
Don't let the domain name scare you, this is a reasonably well written piece about the intersection of the orbit of Earth and Mars up to the beginning of the 8th century. But the back-tracking through well mannered calculations do not constitute a confirmation. It offers a single and rather simple solution, much too rigid and invariant in its mechanics, of the near-contacts with Mars during this time period, extending back to Mars being hit by some (watery) asteroid. It fails to give an account of any previous celestial history, or suggest a closure.
A magnetic field is required for Mars (which does not exist), which alternately topples the axis of Earth (and Mars) to assume a "least interactive position" of 22.5 degrees with respect to their plane of rotation about the Sun. But, as I have pointed out in [Chapter 12], "The seventh century BC and the start of History," the 22.5 degree inclination (actually 23.5) was not achieved until 685 BC, and at a time when Mars was about as far from Earth as it could possibly be.
Although momentum and energy equations are carried out to many decimal places, the difference in orbital inclination to the equator of the Sun in not taken into account. (Patten and Windsor state at one point that the orbits of Earth and Mars are coplanar. They are not.) Some of the momentum seems to be transfered to the outer planets without any plausable mechanical connection over very long distances, and without explaining how gravitational interaction would furnish the connection.
I disagree also with their selection of 701 BC as the date for the terminal event of Mars, which enlarged the Earth's orbit. There is just too much evidence that this happened in 747 BC, from calendar considerations -- such as the start of the Era of Nabonaser and the start of the Olmec Long Count.
A major objection is that Patten and Windsor have Mars pass between Earth and the Moon in order to increase the orbit of Earth and reduce the orbit of the Moon -- both by gravitational attraction. It also forces them to have Mars pass significantly closer to Earth, the evidence of Hesiod's "The Shield of Hercules" not withstanding. The possibility of a "shove" instead of a "tug" is not considered, probably because much of the plasma theory was still undeveloped at the time of their authorship. Mars could have "shoved" the Earth with an electrical field thrust -- a repulsive force -- from much larger distances with Mars well within the orbit of Earth. Even though Mars would not have had a large plasmasphere, it still would have had a tail, an electrical shadow, on the side away from the Sun. The intesection of this with the plasmasphere of the Earth would have sufficed to provide the shock.
There is a previous book by Patten about a world flood, "The Biblical Flood and Ice Epoch" (1966), which is far-fetched, being based on a watery asteroid.
-=-= Hologram =-=-
Roger Ashton "The Bedrock of Myth" (1987). An essay. From the text:
"The foregoing is the forbiddingly difficult context of providing a magnetospheric model for the Polar Apparition. It must agree with the variety of metaphors of myth. It must be present when human technological metaphors require it to be so. It must be visible in the same form to people scattered over wide areas of North America and Eurasia."
"I therefore propose a hologrammatic phenomenon of polarization of light of stratospheric particles which is manifested only at certain points in a series of intensities of solar radiation at harmonically related electromagnetic frequencies."
"At an appropriate intensity, the radiation at various frequencies is in a proper mutual relationship, and the hologram is brilliantly lighted. It is seen in essentially the same form from points of viewing thousands of kilometres apart. It appears to be in the rotational polar space. It constitutes the central feature of the sky. The complete visual assemblage of it is that lost ancient sky which was radically different from what we now associate with the sky."
This is just an essay, but it is a 'heads-up' on physical models for the Saturnian Configuration in general. I am including it here for that reason. The 'hologram' isn't a hologram, nor do I find "harmonically related electromagnetic frequencies" or "hologrammatic phenomenon of polarization of light of stratospheric particles" at all convincing.
-=-= Binary star =-=-
Alfred de Grazia and Earl R. Milton "Solaria Binaria" (1984), in the "Quantavolution" series of papers and books.
"An astronomer and astro-physicist join to perfect an elegantly coherent and logical theory, backed by physical, psychological, and mythological studies, of the origins and history of the solar system with Jupiter as the remnant of the Uranian binary partner of Sol."
The theory is based on the concept of our Solar System being the remnant of a binary star system. Thus a plasma connection between the Sun and Jupiter is responsible for the creation of the inner planets. The theory suffers from an unwillingness to allow for the enormous time scale required for the energy transfer under plasma conditions, as I have noted elsewhere. De Grazia, however, is a prolific writer and his site is well worth looking at because it includes a dozen other books on topic closer to what has been established or held as true by other authors on catastrophism.
-=-= Firmament =-=-
John Ackerman ("angiras") "Firmament: Recent Catastrophic History of the Earth" (1996) and "Chaos: A New Solar System Paradigm" (2000) establishes the repeated meetings of Earth and Mars (and Venus) primarily from Vedic sources. Ackerman is a physicist.
"Prior to 4000 B.C. there existed only two terrestrial planets, what I call priori-Mars and the Earth. That is, Mercury and proto-Venus were not present in the solar system. Priori-Mars, the more ancient of the two by some 800 million years, was in an orbit similar to that of Venus today. It had a thick atmosphere, lots of surface water, rain, and a myriad of life forms similar to those found on Earth. The entire planet was covered with vegetation."
My estimate of the age of Mars and Earth is exactly the reverse. And as I have pointed out in [Chapter 5], "Saturn and Archaeology," if, as I suspect, Mars had been subjected to 30,000 years of an electrical arc from Saturn impinging on its northern hemisphere, all life forms, if there were any, would have been burned to a crisp and obliterated. But that's just my opinion.
"One of the most profound ideas suggested by the Velikovsky/Ackerman (V/A) scenario is an understanding of how a higher power may have only recently regenerated the Earth to enable its population by billions of human beings. ... The V/A scenario makes it possible for us to understand how major changes in a solar system were activated by small physical actions leveraged by a level of intelligence far beyond our own."
A tip-offs are "a higher power" and the "level of intelligence far beyond our own." I do not see the need for any of this. Ackerman eventually proposes that Earth is populated by Marsian life.
"The Velikovsky/Ackerman scenario, derived from ancient myth, involved two periods. The first was very short, lasting some fifty years, but was the one in which most fauna on Earth were destroyed. These were the proto-Venus encounters."
"It passed close to the Earth on two occasions, the first when it was still an earth-sized ball of flame. It scorched northern Africa and the Middle East, forming the Sahara desert, and left a path of destruction that can still be seen today in satellite images. These two encounters overturned the lithosphere of the Earth causing tidal waves to sweep across entire continents killing most animals and beings."
"The second part of the Vedic period involved the interactions of what I call priori-Mars with the Earth. These were not transient in nature, but involved the capture of the more diminutive planet in geosynchronous orbit around the Earth for fifteen years and then its release into a solar orbit for another fifteen."
"This process was repeated one hundred times over 3,000 years, and the associated events on both planets are detailed in Firmament."
Ackerman has Mars stand over the Himalayas for 15 years at a time, thus raising them to great heights. It requires a magnetic field for Mars and an iron core which leaks out of the giant crack the Valles Marineris, bundles up, and start revolving about the Sun independently, eventually to enter Mars again at the end of the 15 year period. At the very last instance of this repeating cycle it fails to return, and now circles the Sun as the planet Mercury -- magnetic, dense, and smaller than Mars. Another feature are long tubes of lava that extend from Mars towards Earth. During these many visits all the Martian oceans and vegetation leak out and are cast onto Earth.
-=-= God King Scenario =-=-
The site God King Scenario, at [http://www.gks.uk.com], promotes the book "An Ancient World in Chaos" (2008) by Gary Gilligan with a dozen synoptic pages from its contents. It takes on an analysis of Egyptian iconography, refreshingly direct and unpretentious, which assigns the Gods of Egypt to the known planets but Hathor to an equatorial ring system. Gilligan shows much more sensibility than most investigators, especially with respect to the basic fabric of religious philosophy. His evidence for the fact that most battles were held in the skies, not on land, is worth the price of the book alone.
I would disagree with the mechanics involved, and some of the chronology, and certainly would not assign the appearance of Mercury during the New Kingdom to an expulsion of the core of Mars, a la Ackerman, [above]. I think the strongest point of this book is that it makes sense of Egyptian religious beliefs in terms of the observable Universe. Amazing.
Clube and Napier's Serpent
"The Cosmic Serpent" (1982) by Victor Clube and Bill Napier is a book which attempts to suggest a basis for ancient catastrophes in supposed meteors strikes. Clube and Napier are astronomers, but show an incredible ineptitude when it comes to antiquity, mythology, and perhaps especially when it comes to astronomy. "The Cosmic Serpent" deserves extensive comments, because it is held in high regard by many people, perhaps because it "looks so scientific." I will start with a short description by Bob Kobres, from his website (which promotes the cause of explaining the past in terms of meteor impacts) -- [http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/].
"Clube and Napier suggest that Jupiter and Saturn occasionally divert giant comets into the inner solar system into short-period orbits. Debris from the resultant disintegration of these giant comets can adversely affect the environment of the Earth. Dusting can block sunlight, resulting in globally cooler conditions."
"Impact events in the Super-Tunguska class may result in not only heavy localized destruction but also the occasional 'impact winter' or dust veil with global climatological effects. Clube and Napier identify the progenitor of the Taurid complex as such a giant comet whose injection into a short-period (about 3.3 year) orbit occurred sometime in the last twenty thousand years.""The effects of the disintegration of this object in an Earth-crossing orbit should appear in the geological and climatological record as well as in protohistorical and historical records."
"Clube and Napier ... also seek evidence of catastrophic events in ancient mythology. Their contention is that the great Taurid progenitor was the basis for much of the mythology associated with 'sky gods' and themes of generational conflict along gods."
It seems highly unlikely and amazing if ephemeral phenomena like meteors or even repeating meteor showers formed the cast of the theater of "sky gods" of antiquity, most of which have unique identities and many of which persisted for 3000 years.
"Clube and Napier note that many of the themes Velikovsky ascribed to 'comet Venus' rightfully belong to the Taurid progenitor, and at least some of those ascribed to Mars by Velikovsky rightfully belong to Halley's Comet."
The authors, in fact, completely dismiss Velikovsky's work as "wildly improbable" and "absurd speculations," except when some factoid fits their thesis.
Alfred De Grazia wrote, in "Cosmic Heretics" (1984),..
"Like many others working on catastrophism, the two Edinburgh astronomers find themselves isolated, both because of the extremity of their ideas and because they need much material from fields like mythology and linguistics that they cannot grasp themselves nor command expert consultants to provide for them."
But it is probably precisely because of the overall ineptitude and cluelessness that this book has stood as a monument to overactive imagination. Nothing much can precisely be negated because nothing much is asserted with anything backing it up except a sort of spongy foundation.
The persistance of this counter-myth is amazing. The specificity of the infrequent close approaches of Venus and the coincidence of dates in the eastern Mediterranean region with records in Mesoamerica for 'contacts' by Venus and Mars cannot be explained by Taurids or Halley.
Meteors do not turn the sky blood red for days, shoot arrows upward into the sky, suddenly show up the Pleiades, send tsunamies across the Pacific, boil up oceans of water, scar the land with traveling arcs, dump yards of incinerated trees and soil on hilltops, cause a thousand years of constant earthquakes, nor do they cause Earth shocks, or send the Earth to a new orbit.
I do not doubt that meteor swarms have been recorded since 32,000 BC (as I have pointed out). But I seriously doubt if meteors have ever had any significant impact on mythology, or, for that matter, on the weather.
The book of Clube and Napier are held in high repute because of the qualifications of the authors, but also because the subject matter is inarguable. Comets are emphemeral, and just about anything can be said of them, especially in the past tense. The Yucatan Chicxulub 'impact crater' has lent its reputation to the tales of comets.
Walt Thornhill at his website, [holoscience.com], makes note of the ease with which writers of catastrophism tracts, and even, as we see here, professional astronomers, imagine a "fanciful" past that never happened. He writes..
"...the crucial distinction between the planetary catastrophism of the Electric Universe and that of neo-catastrophists who attempt to explain the evidence for planetary encounters in terms of cometary phenomena. Modern comets simply do not fit the descriptions from the past. Nor can they account for abundant evidence of fresh looking planetary cratering and scarring. Besides, in an Electric Universe comets are not the apocalyptic threat to the Earth imaginatively portrayed by artists. Such pictures are entirely fanciful because a comet would be disrupted electrically by a cosmic thunderbolt before it hit the Earth. The only visible evidence remaining would be an electric arc crater."
Note that Kobres touts the contents of the book as "evidence," but evidence it is not. All of it, end to end, is speculation dressed up with tables and graphs; the primary subject is one of pure avoidance. The books represent the absolute cluelessness of mainstream astronomy: Comets are snow balls; stars and galaxies are generated from clouds of dust; dust in turn result from exploding stars; sothic dating is held as real; the invarient lenght of the year is fact; the dark ages of Greece are affirmed. A new chronology for antiquity is introduced, based on selected a few elements from a single 'study.' Then every notion in mythic antiquity, questionable dating, and unrevealing graphics is paraded out to account for the complete pantheon of Egypt, Babylon, and Greece as comets, plus Typhon and Phaethon, and, of course, the celestial snake Apep.
... comets are snow balls
[p 23] "We must seek to avoid total commitment to a particular scenario."
You would expect this cautionary note near the beginning of the book to set the tone for all that follows. But it does not. It is only said with respect to the generation and description of galaxies, where the authors know for certain they are not treading on solid grounds. But galactic matters, however speculative, have to be set in place, because, just as galaxies are made of dust and stars and planets, so too must be the comets.
From this point the book procedes entirely by suggestions and inuendoes. Often the diverse current views (but none too radical) are given on an astronomical topic, yet when an opinion ("study") of a single individual is found which confirms some implications of the book, it is offered as fact. It is absolutely amazing how the authors segue from one topic to the next, as if a syllogism was being constructed, whereas only a loose collection contiguous statements are used to insinuate a set of causal connections in a theory of cometary catastrophism.
[p 35] "Comets are conglomerates of ice and dust, perhaps with large boulders."
The source of the comets are here placed in the spiral arms of galaxies, composed of planetesimals, a word (I presume) for 'rocks.' Then an opinion is offered on the makeup of comets, based on the initial suggestions from Whipple, the originator of the "dirty snowball" theory of comets..
[p 43ff] "Evidence has accumulated, however, in favour of the dirty snowball model developed by the American astronomer Whipple, in which the nucleus is seen as a lightly packed ball of ices including ammonia, methane, carbon dioxide but about 50 percent water ice. Imbedded in the ice are solid particles about 0.01 percent of a millimeter in diameter, that is, about the size of interstellar grains."
"Interstellar grains" have never been seen or measured, but worse yet, all of the above information is shear conjecture. No evidence has been accumulated at all. The nucleus of comets, in fact, are rocks.
... stars are generated from clouds of dust
[p 35] "The traditional view has been that stars are made by the collapse of huge, relatively hot masses of gas under their own weight. ... individual regions of the cloud are able to collapse separately, until they themselves fragment and so on, down to the point where the gas is so dense and opaque that further contraction initiates nuclear fusion, and stars are born."
LaPlace is mentioned in passing, and his nebular hypothesis, a notion which has never been affirmed and has frequently been disproven.
[p 58] ".. solar nubula, a disk-shaped region the extent of the planetary system, from which not only the comets but also the asteroids, planets and Sun condensed ...."
... dust in turn result from exploding stars
[p 47] "Ineveitably, then, with this picture, the interstellar medium is steadily enriched by heavy elements produced in supernova explosions."
The knowledge of supernovas has, of course, changed radically. Although not yet admitted by astrophysicists, these are electrical in nature, or we would otherwise not be seeing repeating novas of the same star. Heavy elements are spat out continuously by the Solar Wind. This is sufficient to account for all except a few of the elements.
... and now for the comets
The authors also offer an unsupported opinion on asteroids..
[p 65] "There are strong grounds for considering that most of these [asteroids] are degassed comets."
Things have changed since 1983, and especially in the last 5 years. Comets are rocks, asteroids are rocks, and the interactions we see are electrical. The hydroxyl (OH) molecules detected in the tails of comets are not from sublimed water, but from solar wind protons (H+) with cometary Oxygen (O-) ions released from silicates. The silicate (rock) source has not been recognized yet by NASA, but the fact that the 'water' in the cometary tails is due to other sources than subliming ice, has been noted. Although NASA still produces a lot of "ice" talk, perhaps because the press releases of NASA and other organizations are still written by PR crews who received their education 30 or 40 years ago.
[p 67] "The essential point is that the asteroid system ought to look like the rings of Saturn rather than a doughnut. It [the asteroid belt] has too much internal energy, and ad hoc mechanisms have to be added to the conventional picture to puff the system up. One such proposed mechanisms is the gravitational stirring of asteroids by massive planetesimals which were once scattered into the belt, but have since vanished." [numerical examples are given]
This is a typical case of Clube and Napier connecting disparate dots in the data to wend their way through a series of statements and reach a 'conclusion' favorable to their thesis. Amazingly, here we see the suggestion of bad ad hoc emendations to faulty theories, but the authors then accept these as fact. Anyone in their right mind would suggest that the theories which have to be patched should be dropped.
... meteors are launched into the inner planetary space
[p 88] [about meteorite dates] "Most of the ages cluster around 4.5 billion years"
Where did they get this? The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th edition, which has the same publication date as this book, disagrees completely. The statement might be nearly correct in that many meteorites are quite old, but only the iron meteorites, which are a distinct minority (1 percent), have been dated to 4.4 and 4.6 billion years. Most are quite recent in comparison -- to under 700 million years, with some under 100 million years. "Clustering" assumes an equal portion with ages greater than 4.5 billion year, suggesting that some are as old as the accepted age of the Universe.
[p 146] "The significant feature [of comets] is not collision with comets themselves but with their debris. For comets spread dust and rocks along their orbits; and as we have seen already, they are often observed to split and sometimes disintegrate."
As I have pointed out earlier, the idea of "collisions" leaves a lot to be desired, considering that comet and all the parts of comets are traveling at the same speed. Reducing the colliding objects to dust is just absurd.
... Sothic dating is held as real
But first, dates offered by 16th century researchers are dismissed.
[p 220] "Rockenback's sources are lost and the merging of Exodus and Typhon might still be apocryphal...."
Rockenback is actually fairly specific in differentiating between his historic sources. Some of the church fathers came to the same conclusion: Typhon appeared at the time of Moses.
[p 227] "So the Sothic calendar stands today virtually unchallenged, and with all the authority that its successful use for nearly eighty years can provide."
Let me point out the Sothic dating is entirely bogus, and, although the notion is endlessly repeated in text books, it has today been abandoned. Peter James writes, at [http://www.centuries.co.uk]..
"The Sothic theory depends on a number of assumptions which do not stand up to close scrutiny. Since our first published criticisms (James et al. 1987, 71-74) there has been a sea-change in opinion as to the reliability of this astronomical dating.""Two key references to the rising of the star Sirius (Sothis) provide the lynchpins for the conventional chronology of the Egyptian Middle and New Kingdoms respectively. Both of them have been effectively scotched. Senior Egyptologist W. Helck (1989, 40-41) pointed out that the Ebers Papyrus, which supposedly provides the Sothic fixed point (traditionally 1517 BC) for the New Kingdom, does not actually contain a calendar date -- so that it is useless for any calculations. The Middle Kingdom fixed point (traditionally 1872 BC) derived from the Illahun Papyri now faces serious problems raised by L. Rose (1994), who has demonstrated that the lunar data mentioned in the same documents cannot fit a date in the 19th century BC."
"As there are no longer any reliable astronomical fixes, Egyptologists have, by and large, abandoned their reliance on Sothic dating -- although they have been rather slow in admitting it in public."
To continue with Clube and Napier..
[p 228] "Thus, although archaeologists have come to depend totally on the validity of the [sothic] cycle, it remains to this day a very disturbing fact that there is no known reference to the Sothic cycle in Egyptian texts."
No kidding! Clube and Napier next proceed to revise the dating of antiquity to meet their particular needs.
... the invarient lenght of the year is fact
Clube and Napier next [p 226] take selections from R. A. Parker, "The calendars of Ancient Egypt," in "Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations # 26" (1950), which suggests an intricate system for an Egyptian lunar calendar, based on the length of the current year, sothic dating, and a 30 day month (although I cannot follow this at all), to come up with a date of 1369 BC for the year of the Exodus (and thus for the appearance of Typhon).
This analysis includes repeated calendaric corrections instituted by various pharaoh (Parker). Clube and Napier accept some of Parkers analysis, and out of hand reject other portions. The Giza Pyramid construction phase dated to 2196- 1687 BC, rather than 2590 to 2500 BC [p 236]. I could not believe this when I read this!
The revised chronology which has been devised by Clube and Napier is then justfied in reference to the access shaft of the Great Pyramid at Giza, as follows..
[p 237] ".. the Descending Passage, which slopes steeply downward for over 100 metres into the Great Pyramid, was aligned precisely on the then Pole Star, Alpha Draconis [Thuban], about 2160 BC before it precessed away from this position. This and other arguments led Piazzi Smyth [in 1867] to favor 2170 BC [for the construction]. Such dates agree very closely with that of the Great Pyramid construction on the revised chronology [by the authors] but have no relevance to the date of 2600 BC implied by the standard chronology."
I can't believe I am reading this. And this is written by astronomers! Have they ever looked at the sky? Let me note that a retrocalculation based on the current measure of the precession of the polar axis, in the winter of 2170 BC, Thuban was not the pole star, but turned in a circle about the north celestial pole. As Thuban passed the north meridian (at 7 pm at the winter solstice) it dropped down to an elevation of 26.4 degrees above the horizon. It passed through this elevation nightly for hundreds of years. At no time was it ever at the required 30 degrees above the horizon. At the latitude of Giza, the center of the sky, the location of the polar axis, is at 30 degrees above the horizon, not 26.4 degrees. Thuban was never a pole star.
The shaft of Khufu's pyramid is at an angle of 26.5 degrees, a nice coincidence with the lowest point Thuban's rotation in the sky. But the other pyramids differ, even though built at the same time and at the same latitude. Khafre's is at 25.9 degrees; Menkaure's is at 21.6 degrees. Pyramids for the next thousand years, in fact, all have access shafts which vary from 22 to 28 degrees. Let me note that a half degree is equal to the diameter of the Moon in the sky. The access shafts of the three Giza pyramids pointed to locations in the north sky differing by 10 diameters of the Moon.
And what is the point of this? Perhaps I have missed something in my close reading of "The Cosmic Serpent." Maybe it is to show that they also are reasearchers on par with Velikovsky, who also identified a similar (but later) 400 year gap. I see absolutely no other reason for this diversion. If they are out to demonstrate thier abiblities as astronomers, they missed the boat.
... a new date of 1369 BC for the Exodus
Of course, since the date of the Exodus is still in dispute today, even the very event, Clube and Napier are free to make yet another suggestion. What enters the equation is, however, about as hokey as can be imagined.
[p 237] [1369 BC is justified on the basis of Greenland ice core data] "Many historical [volcanic] eruptions have recently been dated from Greenland ice cores, one of them being the Thera eruption in the Aegean Sea which some have associated with the end of the Minoan civilization [at 1388 BC].""Several layers of volcanic tephra from cores taken from the eastern Mediterranean sea bed have also been examined recently. These can be dated, and for the Minoan ash a date of 1390 BC has been found. These absolute dates differ greatly from the radioactive carbon dates of the Thera event adjusted to the standard scale, the latter being assumed to be in agreement with conventional Egyptian chronology. On this scale, the date is 1720 +/- 50 BC and there is an implied discrepancy of 330 +/- 100 years in adjusted carbon dates of this epoch."
"These independent lines of evidence seem then to lead to the same conclusion: there is a major error in the standard chronology...."
The "absolute dates," "radio carbon dates," "standard scale," "conventional chronology," and "implied discrepancy" of the "volcanic tephra" and "Minoan ash," in the above paragraph make absolutely no sense. I should also point out that the 1369 BC eruption of Thera has been shown to be incorrect by Peter James in "Centuries of Darkness" (1991). See his website, [http://www.centuries.co.uk].
But what is the point of all this? The point is that this claim will allow Clube and Napier to furnish a new chronology for the past and date the Exodus to 1369 BC, rather than the well established dates from 16th century chronographers -- 1492, 1493, 1495 BC. And the point of the new chronology will be to fit the dates numerologically to other dates and periods that they have discovered.
[p 255] "It is only speculation at the moment but the near-coincidence in time between the Thera eruption, the decline of Minoan civilization and our proposed date of Exodus [1369 BC] suggests that these events may have been interrelated."
The speculation remains, although over the next pages this embarassing admission is forgotten.
... megalithic missionaries
Clube and Napier next discuss barrows and henges.
[p 259] "In France, Ireland, and Britain, the building of graves and cairns was a relatively small and local scale untill about 2400 b.c." and warn that, "in this section, we use uncorrected carbon dates"
I don't think so. A look at the dates of the constructions at Carnac -- the mounds, barrows, the Grand Menhir, the five causeways, and the now sunken henges -- will show that most of the construction was thousands of years earlier than 2400 BC. It was so long ago that the melting glaciers have raised the ocean to inundate some of the works.
They quote one author [E. Mackie "The Megalith Builders" (1977)] who refers to the activity in "2400 through 2000 b.c" as..
[p 259] "an astronomy-practicing theocracy, exactly paralleling, it seems, the main phase of pyramid construction in Egypt [although the authors date the Giza pyramids to 2196 -- 1687 BC]. Accurate surveys of many stone circles in Britain by Thom [Alexander Thom, not referenced, who published in 1951 to 1967] and others have been interpreted to show that a proportion of them could have been used as solar and lunar observatories."
"Could have been" leaves a lot to be desired. The "others" which might have suggested astronomical alignments is Gerald Hawkins, who found so many astronomical alignments for Stonehenge that it became a joke. I should also point out that the date range "2400 BC through 2000 BC" is not valid. Most of the megalithic activity came to a sudden halt -- worldwide -- after 2400 BC.
The authors have more to say about henges, some of it inaccuratly rendered, including a misreading [p 260-261] of William Stukeley who wrote about henges 250 years ago, in AD 1740.
[p 261] "... it is now known that their constructed shapes [of henges] were evolving from purely circular amongst the earliest to elliptical and egg-shaped configurations among the latest. The reason for this development of patterns are not yet understood."
The phrase "not yet understood" is a typical in the sciences for, "we do not know." The evolution of circular to elliptical (noted in by Alexander Thom, "Megalithic Sites in Britain" (1967) has no bearing on anything that follows, except perhaps to suggest that the people of these regions became stupid over time, and thus proposing that perhaps they would have need for outsiders to set them straight. In fact, the earliest circular shapes of placed stones, at the ends of the rows of standing stone causeways at Carnak, are elliptical, not circular. These date from 5000 to 4000 BC. Many of the henges date from before 3000 BC. All the later henges are circular.
[p 260] "The plan layout of the early earthworks at Stonehenge, for example, was a circle out of which led an avenue toward the eastern horizon."
Like the eliptical henges, this is another data point which connects to nowhere. What is the point of mentioning this? The avenue, in fact, leaves the henge in the northeasterly direction, then turns east, and after a while turns southeast to meet the river Avon.
[p 265] "The advance of the civilization prior to 2400 BC shows much more the signs of a steady infiltration of a new culture into a previously existing primitive society. MacKie [sic, E. Mackie is meant] leaves the sources of this culture quite open, but suggestively deplores the lack of solid evidence for any infiltration or diffusion from the east.""The Phoenicians seem perhaps the most likely candidates, but the evidence unequivocally focuses attention on the Atlantic front."
What does "focuses attention on the Atlantic front" mean? The Phoenicians migrated to the western Mediterranean in ca 800 BC, not in 2400 BC.
"We will not speculate further but leave the reader with the inevitable thought: that around 2400 BC, the time of the Flood if our analysis is correct, saw the arrival of what seems to have been a stream of more sophisticated immigrants very conscious of what caused the calamity they survived and who rapidly took over the administration of the Atlantic border."
I have broken the original paragraph up into three parts, so that the reader can have a feel for how two professional astronomers blather like drunken sailors with wild tales, but otherwise make little sense.
The notion of invaders, called the 'Beaker People' (and the 'Battle Axe People') two centuries ago, has been removed from archaeological theory in the last century. This is "analysis?" Next, of course, there will be reference to Plato and Solon, and maybe to Atlantis?
Having suggested that the intruders were Phoenicians.... But wait, this was a favorite cause célèbre early in the 20th century: Phoenicians as missionaries from the east who proselytize the western European coastal tribes to a religion of large stones and beer. I have already discussed this above.
Now the two are tied together.
[p 265] "If short-period comets were indeed sky-gods, and the comet which we are now calling the Cosmic Serpent came spectacularly close to the Earth at intervals, then the desirability of predicting the returns would be clear: astronomy would grow out of theology. Obviously no extreme or exclusion claims can be made for the role of comets, as agricultural and navigational requirements provide their own impetus for observing the heavens. Nevertheless...."
Nevertheless, the argument is not sustained. The suggestion that Phoenician missionaries, who were traders and merchants and interested in little else, induced the coastal French, British, and Irish tribes to build huge 'observatories' when a few sticks in the ground would have done the same, is just plain specious. Why did 20 ton rocks have to be set up in circles, again and again and again, to look at the incomprehensible stars? What would possibly signal a return of the flood? Having experienced one flood, why, indeed, was there even the suggestion that a flood would ever return again?
... calendars are conformed to their needs
Next the Maya Tzolkin is disassembled to their use..
[p 266] "It happens that twice 260 days [the Tzolkin] is the mean interval between oppositions (i.e. the synodic period) of any object in a direct orbit whose orbital period is 3.35 years. This is remarkably close to the orbital period of comet Encke." [which is 3.30 years]
Not "close" at all. I get, expressed in days..
[p 267] "Now 73 periods of 260 days equals 52 years almost exactly [51.96 years, 13 days difference]: no smaller number of these periods gives a whole number of years so closely."
The above totally ignores the relationship between the Tzolkin and the Haab calendar in Mesoamerica, where there is an absolute coincidence -- and exactly to the day -- between 73 Tzolkin cycles and 52 Haab cycles. Clube and Napier seem to have missed or neglected this entirely. I suspect they know nothing about this subject except what they may have read about 260-day calendars in Mexico.
[p 267] "European and Asiatic calendars were unquestionably lunar and solar and tied to agricultural needs."
They were certainly lunar after 1492 BC, but only some were solar. None of them, though, were "tied to agricultural needs." Farmers do not need a calendar to plan farming. They need to take note of the weather. Farmers would be poorly assisted by calendars. The calendars of antiquity were primarily, emphatically, and universally religious. By Classical Greek times the calendars were given over to tax collection, initially also a religious function. They became fiscal administrative calenders. Which is why there were dozens of differing calendars in use among the Greek city states. This happened to Rome by Republican times also. There was no coincidence with seasonal agricultural tasks. Julius Ceasar was lauded in 40 BC for rationalizing the calendar which had been altered repeatedly by the Senate, and which had become completely out of sync with the seasons. Egypt by Ptolemaic times uses two (or more) calendars, one religious and administrative, another that was seasonal, and thus agricultural.
[p 267] [early Roman calendars quoted as..] ".. twelve months plus extra days to make up a year of 354 days", and "a year of ten months and 304 days, which makes no sense in terms of agriculture or planetary movements. As is happens, four such years amount to 3.33 solar years."
The authors are desparately reaching. I am not sure where these Roman calendars came from, unless mandated during late Republican times for tax collection purposes -- in which case they are temporary fiscal calendars. They then suggest that four of "these" make up a 3.33 year period, even though the Encke period has previously been declared as 3.3 years.
The paragraph continues.. "The number four seems arbitrary but ... the Greeks ... [later] set up a twelve-month year, they also chose to celebrate a major event [not mentioned, the Olympic games], whose primary symbol was the torch of Olympus on a four-year cycle. Speculative though this is, the numerology is sufficiently striking to suggest that a deeper investigation of these early calendars might be rewarding."
The authors, by the way, hold 'Olympus'to be the name of a comet, and 'Zeus' too. "Speculative though this is," it is even more striking to suggest that readers of this book never finished school and take all this drivel in without question.
A look at what we have at hand as a calendar since 747 BC will indicate that there were no "extra days to make up a year" for Rome, but it requires knowing that the Earth's orbit, and thus the year, was different in the past. The calendars of antiquity then assume an even more "striking numerology."
... the dark ages of Greece are affirmed
[p 181ff] [Re: Homer] "The Greeks themselves also systematized a mass of local and particular mythology ... to form the mythological prehistory leading up to the large-scale Dorian invasion and settlement of the Peloponnese around 1000 BC, the time also of the return of the Heraclids to Mycenae."
Not to be picky, but there is no evidence of a "Dorian invasion" and the Heraclids are the sons of Hercules which is Mars. They were seen in the sky, not on Earth, and are properly placed in the 8th and 7th century BC, not in the "Dorian invasion" time of 1100 BC. The third generation returned in 761 BC to destroy much of the Peloponnesus. There is, in effect, no history in Greece before this time. The chronology of Greece, in being matched to a faulty Egyptian chronology, has a gap from 1200 BC to about 800 BC during which time nothing happened, and civilization stood still for 400 years.
... the flood of Noah based on 19th century data
[p 209] "Not far below the level of the first royal tombs at Ur, probably constructed around 2500 BC, archaeologists have discovered material evidence for a vast flood. It has been confirmed that there exists throughout the extent of the Tigris-Euphrates valley, a clay deposit several meters thick."
This is simply not true. The "vast flood," thought to be the 'flood of Noah,' was a 19th century notion (based only on the excavation at Ur), which was soon entirely disproven from the fact that it was very local and mostly absent elsewhere. Some British archaeologists still adhere to this.
... the pantheon of Egypt, Babylon, and Greece
[p 180] ".. the Egyptian mythology placed him [Horus] on the prow of the solar barque, watching for the other great enemy of Ra, the Sun-god, namely Apepi [Apep], the god of darkness. Apepi was not apparently of Nut's family but was pictured independently as a snake or dragon, one of its roles being to eclipse the Sun. However he did this, he does not seem to have been related to the Moon-god, Thoth."
That Apep was "not apparently of Nut's family" is entirely correct. Apep [Apophis] was the last remaining red-colored ring after the Absu fell, seen in the sky since 2349 BC. This is clear from how it made the star Sirius look red in antiquity. There are Mesoamerican references to this equatorial river in the sky also, dating to 2349 BC. (See Chapter 16, "The Chilam Balam Books.") Clube and Napier perhaps also did not notice that there are few references to Apep in Egyptian mythology or iconography until Ptolemaic times. Apep is not the snake Typhon.
Thoth is Mercury, not the Moon.
[p 256] "The aspect of Velikovsky's thesis that seems to have generated the most steam is his identification of the planet Venus as a gigantic comet that swept past the Earth before moving into its present orbit. Wildly improbable though this is for dynamical as many other reasons, there is no doubt that Venus did eventually assume a particular significant place in many early astronomies. If undue reliance is placed on the mythological rather than the scientific evidence, the absurd speculations about Venus [by Velikovsky] can at least be understood if not forgiven. How the confusion of blame between Typhon and Venus arose in some myths, assuming indeed it did, is obscure."
I have discussed the "wildly improbable" dynamics in a previous chapter and an appendix. Could Clube and Napier get this any more wrong? I do not think Venus came closer than 9,000,000 miles. The cometary tail it still has today. Velikovsky may not always have been correct, but his main thesis stands unimpeded by particulars. It is, in fact, a "concept indifferent to the details of [its] formulation." The mythological evidence is solid and overwhelming, and hardly absurd. Of course Clube and Napier use exactly the same mythological evidence to butress their speculation, selectively dismissing what they cannot comprehend.
... the windup
After an earlier wholesale dismissal of Velikovski, he is suddenly given credit for one item, even though Velikovski has the agent wrong, as I have pointed out in a previous chapter, and the effect, an Earth shock, was so minor that the orbit of Earth did not change.
[p 269] ".. if one takes a dispassionate look at the mythological evidence assembled by Velikovsky for example, setting aside his singular astronomy, one may conclude that there was a widespread anticipation of an encounter of the Earth with a comet or its debris in 687 or 686 BC. This event could have been, as he suggests, a significant turning point in the history of civilization, releasing new visions of the nature of the gods, perhaps finally weaning man away from sacred calendars and the view of life in which the world progressed through catastrophe, fire and flood from one 'great year' to the next."
The year 687 or 686 BC (for an uncertain electrical contact with Mars) was also the only date that Velikovsky was uncertain of. The last part of the quoted text is attributable to vd Waerden rather than Velikovsky. Note that the authors here have reference to "sacred calendars," something neglected earlier. All this is contradicted in previous text (agricultural calendars) and following text (waiting for the next catastrophe in AD 0), however the information is used to segue a '684 year period' into the derived date of 1369 BC. Returning to more mundate claims of meteor impacts..
[p 270] "Among the early [?] 'planetary' periodicities that emerged from the Babylonian observations was one significantly related to eclipses of the Sun and Moon for which van der Waerden has been unable to find any really satisfactory explanation. It was a period of 684 years. .. the figure occurs several times in astrological texts, yet there is no combination of known lunar periods capable of explaining it."
The authors now suggest that Velikovsky's allowed catastrophy of 687 or 686 BC is 684 years after their derived date for Exodus of 1369 BC; 686 BC - 684 = 1370 BC. Similarly, 686 BC + 684 = 2 BC, a date in the era when apparently another catastrophe was expected in the eastern Mediterranean region. The authors add to this some loose facts, for example, that a prograde motion of Mars repeats every 171 years, one fourth of 684 years, and that nine returns of Halley take 684 years. So what!
There was no "widespread anticipation of an encounter" in 687 or 686 BC. Instead, there was an absolutely stupendous thunderbolt event in 685 BC, which concluded 121 years of destruction on Persia, Anatolia, Greece, and Italy.
And there was no catastrophe in AD 0. The reasoning presented here -- the 684 year period -- might have served as a suggestion for a time interval, and could be used as an introduction to the "Sibylline Star Wars" texts of the first century AD.
There is no need to move the date of the Exodus up by 100 years. The time span of 684 years is easily derived from the accepted 1492 BC date of the Exodus and 806 BC, the first year that Mars blasted Persia, Anatolia, Greece, and Italy with lightning strikes (686 years). The periodic destructions lasted 121 years and came to an end when the 'thunderbolt of Zeus' toppled Phaethon from his chariot in 685 BC. Spring of the following year saw a conjunction of seven planets.
None of these various dates have anything to do with the Taurids, and the return of comet Encki. But without the single data point from Velikovski, which the authors understand as the "widespread anticipation of an encounter of the Earth with a comet" in 687 or 686 BC, they would be unable to explain the supposed cycle of 684 years, even though in AD 2, at the completion of a second cycle, nothing happened.
I find this extremely selective use of data bothersome. As annoying is the constant juxtaposition of unrelated facts and suppositions, as if by their contiguity these go to prove some extended theory. There is no extended theory. The authors are entirely out of their field when it comes to calendars or archaeology. They are reading school texts from the 1950s, and accepting these as the bearers of fact.
As a final note: What about Clube and Napier? people will ask. An interesting book of no substance. It is doubtful if meteors ever posed a serious threat in antiquity, or today -- the Tunguska event not withstanding. I would bet almost all the 'meteor craters' which have been found are the impact sites of electrical arcs, and not due to bolides falling from space.
On the other hand, meteor clusters are not to be neglected. As I have shown in Chapter 5, "Saturn and Archaeology" (http://saturniancosmology.org/arch.php), the early European Cromagnon were absolutely obsessed with passing comets for some 20,000 years. They appear still during the 300 year period after 3000 BC when Mars cruised close to Earth, to be recorded by the Palermo stone, and then again for a 120 year period in the 8th and 7th century BC. There are still six asteroids closely following Mars. There are still dozens of comet streams which regularly intersect Earth's orbit today, sometimes with spectacular displays -- but all of it from the electrical flashing of dust -- dust, not rocks, not icecubes either.
There is a later book by the same authors, on the same topic, "Cosmic Winter" (1990), which sells for $400.
![[previous]](bp.gif)
![[table of contents]](bc.gif)
![[next]](bn.gif)
URL of this page: http://saturniancosmology.org/other.php
This page last updated: Friday, February 12th, 2010
Size of this page: 11945 words.
Feel free to email me with any comments or corrections. Find an email [address] here.
Copyright © 2010 Jno Cook
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms and licence of Creative Commons. A copy of the license is
included on the page entitled
Creative Commons Deed 2.5