Cardona Interview on Saturn Theory

[Lloyd]

Dwardu Cardona has agreed to share some of his Saturn Theory with me for posting here on the Thunderbolts forum. He’s been writing about catastrophist topics relating to Velikovsky since at least the 1970s. I’ve read a lot of his articles in Kronos magazine, Aeon, Thoth etc. He and Dave Talbott seem to have hit on the basic Saturn Theory at about the same time in the 70s. In recent years he’s written 3 books so far on his version of the Saturn Theory. And he’s working on more books in the series. My understanding is that he’s attempting to establish a chronological framework for advancing the sciences relating to the Saturn Theory. His books are described on the following webpages and can be ordered there. There’s also mention of his background. The titles of the books are: God Star, Flare Star and Primordial Star. The Tables of Contents are listed too and look very interesting to me. I haven’t read any of them yet, but plan to soon.
God Star: http://www.mikamar.biz/godstar.htm
Flare Star: http://www.mikamar.biz/book-info/fs-a.htm
Primordial Star: http://www.mikamar.biz/book-info/ps-a.htm

Here’s the first part of my interview with Dwardu. If anyone has questions or comments, I’ll pass them on to him, if they seem especially good. He doesn’t have much time, due to writing his books.

LLOYD
* Now, to begin with, I just have one question, or two, for the interview. Do you think the following 7 part list is a good chronological outline of your Saturn Theory?

REPLY:
Not quite. Some of the points you mention are dead on. Some are not.

LLOYD:
Part 1: Saturn System Formation: Brown Dwarf Saturn alone in space with a Circumstellar Disk

REPLY:
Plus (1) the "jetting" axial Birkeland current, and (2) the encasing plasmasphere. But, even then, only in as much as that is what was seen by man. The plasmasphere itself would definitely not have been seen.

LLOYD:
Part 2: Numerous Saturn Flare-up cycles

REPLY:
Yes.

LLOYD:
Each cycle involved: a) a Saturn Flare-up; b) a Rocky Planet Ejection [forming Earth, Mars, Mercury, & other Satellites, one per cycle];

REPLY:
*That* I cannot vouch for. Man was not around to record actual planetary formation and its sequence. Besides, as stated above, man could only report what he saw. He did not always understand what he was seeing. Now SOME of what came before can be worked, but only in a general manner, not in detail.

LLOYD:
c) Deposition of Disk Dust on Satellite Planets; d) Melting of Temperate Zone Glaciers; e) a Long Quiet Interim; f) New Disk Formation & New Glacier Formation.

REPLY:
Disk dust would have been mostly expelled equatorially. With Earth suspended axially beneath proto-Saturn's south pole, little of it would have reached the terrestrial surface. Most detritus had to have come from the proto-Saturnian globe itself. But I *AM* open to alternatives on this.

LLOYD:
Part 3: Earth Expansion

REPLY:
This is not necessitated by my reconstructed scenario. But it is taken into consideration. For that matter, so is terrestrial shrinkage. And various other matters.

LLOYD:
Part 4: Some more Saturn Flare-up cycles [forming more satellites]
Part 5: Appearance of Humans
Part 6: Some more Saturn Flare-up cycles [forming Titan, Venus etc.]

REPLY:
I haven't yet come to a conclusion about the formation of Venus. I refuse to comment about that until I have put it all to bed in the volume I am presently writing.

LLOYD:
Part 7: Saturn System breakup

REPLY:
Yes, but much more before that.

Dwardu

[Lloyd]

* Having discussed some more with Cardona, I think the following is more correctly:
Cardona's Saturn Theory Chronological Outline

Part 1: Saturn System Formation: Brown Dwarf Saturn alone in space [as far as we know so far] with a Circumstellar Disk, Bipolar Jets and an invisible Plasmasphere

Part 2: Numerous Saturn Flare-up cycles
Each cycle involved:
a) a Saturn Flare-up;
b) a possible Rocky Planet/Satellite Ejection [possibly forming Earth, Mars, Mercury, & other Satellites, one per cycle];
c) Deposition of Saturn Flare Dust on Satellite Planets;
d) Melting of Earth’s Temperate Zone Glaciers;
e) a Long Quiet Interim;
f) New Disk Formation, Resumption of Bipolar Jets & New Glacier Formation on Earth.

Part 3: Continental Drift [possibly part of Flare-up cycle] and possible Earth Expansion

Part 4: Some more Saturn Flare-up cycles [possibly forming more satellites]

Part 5: Appearance of Humans

Part 6: Some more Saturn Flare-up cycles [possibly forming Titan, etc.]

Part 7: One final Saturn Flare-up during entry into Solar System, which ended the Age of Darkness [plus first appearance of Venus, Mars etc., possibly with Venus ejected from Saturn]

Part 8: Beginning of Religion & History

Part 9: Saturn System breakup

[Lloyd]

I asked Dwardu: [Should the] Saturn Flare-up cycle [include] a POSSIBLE rocky planet ejection. ... Or should I leave that out completely? And he replied:

It's up to you. We may both have a better idea once I've exhumed my research notes on that and worked it all into my unfolding chronological series of events. At this point, I'm actually as curious as you are.

Should Continental Drift be part of each Flare-up Cycle? He said as follows:

Good question. Wish I had a good answer.
... One thing that must be understood about that "alone in space" business is that THAT is what was visible from Earth due (1) to the proto-Saturnian system's having not originally been a member of the present Solar System, with the Sun nowhere yet in sight, and (2) to the invisibility of the stars, the relative dimness of which could not penetrate through the opacity of the encasing plasmaspheric sheath's boundary.

[Lloyd]

LLOYD:
* Do you want to share with us your ideas about what may have caused proto-Saturn's flare-ups?

REPLY:
I've already done so in FLARE STAR.

LLOYD:
Do you think it was from entering an area of space that had a stronger electric current?

REPLY:
That is what probably transpired when the proto-Saturnian system entered the Solar one. If we are to believe Hannes Alfven, space consists of separate plasmaspheric cells, each of which entails different levels of electrical potential. Any body that manages to steer from one into another is forced to readjust its electrical vitality.
- However, judging by what we see red and brown dwarf stars go through, relative minor flares can also be intrinsic. Changes in luminous outbursts are transitions which these dwarf stars are known to undergo, brightening as they cool with age. This is thought to be because their atmospheric gases condense into liquid droplets which form clouds. Storms are then said to whisk these clouds away, revealing the brighter atmospheric strata underneath. The actual cause of these stellar storms is still debatable. But, because many of these changes are seen to occur suddenly, I concur with those who continue to maintain that they result from sudden electrical discharges.

LLOYD:
Does it seem likely that proto-Saturn could have been in an orbit that took it in and out of such an electric current in space?

REPLY:
It does not seem that the proto-Saturnian system was in orbit around anything while it was traveling through space. Stars, dwarf and otherwise, are now known to travel alone. More than that, they travel in a poleward direction, which eliminates the possibility of orbital motion unless captured by other bodies..
- It thus seems that the proto-Saturnian system wandered too close to our present Sun and was eventually captured by it. Once within its electro-gravitational embrace, proto-Saturn WOULD have been pulled into a slowly closing spiraling orbit around the solar orb. It would also have brushed against, and bounced off, the boundary of the heliosphere (that is, the heliopause) more than once, with minor flaring at each brief contact. So, at least, according to both Wallace Thornhill and Donald Scott.

LLOYD:
Do you know if this may likely be the cause of brightness variability in variable stars?

REPLY:
I am sure that differing electrical potential is the major cause, but I have no idea to what extent.

Dwardu

[mague]

Hmm...

I'll offer you an observable Saturn theory.

Look at your main fuses in your house. The more devices you switch on in your house, the more energy is flowing over the fuses, the more they will heat up.

The current glowing spot we call sun was much more dim in the times before Saturn (and other planets?) entered the system. Once such a huge planet enters the system, the energy transfer goes up like a rocket. Depending on induction, resistance and a few other values this may turn sun from a softly glowing ball into what we observe today.

If an inhabited earth existed before saturn entered the system, then the people woud have been able to observe the increase of brightness, heat and size. This would have been looked like the death of the oldsun and the birth of a new sun. Mix that with gravitational effects and an adjustment of earths orbit and all ancient knowledge does makes sense.

It would be interessting to see what happens if another giant joins the system.

[Tzunamii]

Great interview, thanks for posting this, and thanks to Mr. Cardona for making it available.

[GaryN]

...in the times before Saturn (and other planets?) entered the system.

Under a gravity dominant solar system, can we calculate how long
it would take for the orbits of the new planet(s) to have settled
into the stable orbits we see now?
I can't imagine the capture of one wandering planet, let alone more
than one, being so easily achieved, from my limited understanding
of orbital mechanics.

[nick c]

Hi GaryN,
There is no exact answer, ie mathematical calculation, for your question.
It is called the three body (or n body) problem:
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Three_body_problem

While the two-body problem is integrable and its solutions completely understood (see [2],[AKN],[Al],[BP]), solutions of the three-body problem may be of an arbitrary complexity and are very far from being completely understood.

It is sort of the skeleton in the closet of celestial mechanics, but the solar system (assumed to be governed only by gravity) and composed of three or more bodies is not a simple calculable clockwork mechanism. But then that is neither here nor there, because to assume that gravity would be the only force determining the reordering of the solar system is contrary to what is being proposed by planetary catastrophists. The EU points out that ancient tales of electrical discharges between the planets, as well as the evidence of electrical scarring on various members of the solar system, demonstrate that electrical forces are required to be taken into consideration. Wal Thornhill has stated that planets only "see" each other when their plasmaspheres touch, once this situation occurs electrical forces would dominate. The stabilizing of the solar system would involve achieving positions of least action interaction leaving a gravity dominated system as we see today. Calculations based on a gravity only assumption are probably not of much use. I do not see the time period as a problem since there are probably several millenia (or more) for the solar system to arrive at the present order.

Nick

[starbiter]

Hello lloyd: You wrote in the first post of this thread,
lloyd,
[...]
He [Cardona] and Dave Talbott seem to have hit on the basic Saturn Theory at about the same time in the 70s.

me again,
In his book "The Saturn Myth" David Talbott states he learned of the Saturn Theory concept from Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky over lunch. I have no idea about Cardona's timeline. Velikovsky was helped by the writings of Abraham Rockenbach who died in 1615.

http://www.varchive.org/itb/index.htm

Cardona and Talbott proposed the polar configuration of the Saturnian System which Dr. Velikovsky rejected.

This is my understanding of the chronology. To not mention Dr. Velikovsky when giving credit for proposing the Saturnian System seems problematic.

michael

[mague]

...in the times before Saturn (and other planets?) entered the system.

Under a gravity dominant solar system, can we calculate how long
it would take for the orbits of the new planet(s) to have settled
into the stable orbits we see now?
I can't imagine the capture of one wandering planet, let alone more
than one, being so easily achieved, from my limited understanding
of orbital mechanics.

One day in future we probably will find out that the gravity constant is a result of the local hubs (here solar system) sum of gravity and maybe other factors like sum of systems energy flux and/or charge of the double layer feeding the system.

The growing planet theory and theories about dinosaur to heavy to walk and the megaliths may hint to a time with a lower gravity constant. A huge body entering the system may be an answer.

Under such "loose" conditions rapid adjustments could be possible.

[Lloyd]

Here's my latest message to Dwardu, which he hasn't had time to reply to yet.

One TB forum reader, Mague, speculates that, if the Saturn System was captured by the Sun, the Sun would have been dimmer before capture and would have brightened significantly during and after capture. Would the ancients have been able to make such a determination?

Another reader, Gary N, asks if gravity would have been sufficient to capture the Saturn System and can you give a rough estimate of how long capture would have taken? - I think Robert Grubaugh has suggested that gravity alone would not be able to slow down a body so that it could enter orbit. The body would just sling-shot away in another direction, but electrical forces would slow it down so it could enter orbit. Do you concur? And do you know if Wal does?

Michael says Dave T learned of the Saturn Theory from Velikovsky. If he had a Saturn Theory, can you describe Velikovsky's version briefly? Did he consider Earth to be a satellite of Saturn? All I think I recall is that he thought the Great Flood might have been caused by Saturn.

You said: "It does not seem that the proto-Saturnian system was in orbit around anything while it was traveling through space. Stars, dwarf and otherwise, are now known to travel alone. More than that, they travel in a poleward direction, which eliminates the possibility of orbital motion unless captured by other bodies."

I think I've heard in TB forum discussions over the last 3 years that the Sun does have an orbit-like motion within the arm of the galaxy and I suppose that motion would be perpendicular to the axis of the galactic arm. So, if the arm had a hand pointing inward toward the galactic nucleus, the Sun, and presumably all star systems would be revolving around the wrist, so their orbits would be like bracelets around the wrist and arm. And I thought proto-Saturn would have had a similar motion, that might have taken it in and out of Birkeland currents, although, if the currents have a helical motion, that makes the concept harder for me to grasp. If my impression is wrong, I hope to find that out soon enough.

Your theory says that proto-Saturn was a Brown Dwarf Star with a Circumstellar Disk, Bipolar Jets and an invisible Plasmasphere that blotted out the stars. Did you find that brown dwarf stars have all of those features? Did you say that the ancients saw the disk as an ocean that proto-Saturn sailed on? And was one of the bipolar jets what they saw as the Polar Column?

[Lloyd]

LLOYD:
> One TB forum reader, Mague, speculates that, if the Saturn System was captured by the Sun, the Sun would have been dimmer before capture and would have brightened significantly during and after capture. Would the ancients have been able to make such a determination?

REPLY:
That the Sun had been much dimmer in ages past is what orthodoxy has been assuming for years. Whether it actually was dimmer just prior to the capture of the proto-Saturnian system is something that cannot be determined from the mytho-historical record. The reason for this is that the Sun was still nowhere in sight at the time, it having been too far away, and thus too small in appearance, to shine through the opacity of the encasing plasmasphere. Even when man first saw the Sun, he described it being as small as a distant star which began to grow larger as it loomed closer.

LLOYD:
> Another reader, Gary N, asks if gravity would have been sufficient to capture the Saturn System and can you give a rough estimate of how long capture would have taken? - I think Robert Grubaugh has suggested that gravity alone would not be able to slow down a body so that it could enter orbit. The body would just sling-shot away in another direction, but electrical forces would slow it down so it could enter orbit. Do you concur? And do you know if Wal does?

REPLY:
In that respect, Grubaugh was right and, in fact, the proto-Saturnian system is described in my work as brushing against, and bouncing off, the heliosphere several times before it actually managed to penetrate it. And yes, this one actually comes directly from Thornhill.

LLOYD:
> Michael says Dave T learned of the Saturn Theory from Velikovsky.

REPLY:
To an extent, we both did, at least in as much as he directed us in that direction—although, to be sure, Talbott and I were working independently of each other. Velikovsky, however, would not buy into the proto-Saturnian linear formation. In fact, that is when, and why, he broke away from both Talbott and I and, from then on, would have nothing further to do with either one of us.

LLOYD:
> If he had a Saturn Theory, can you describe Velikovsky's version briefly? Did he consider Earth to be a satellite of Saturn?

REPLY:
Yes he did consider Earth to have been a satellite of Saturn, but, according to him, Earth was held in an equatorial orbit around the larger planet. Still according to him, Saturn then suffered a near contact with the planet Jupiter, which event resulted in the freeing of Earth from Saturn's gravitational embrace and the ejection of the planet Venus from Jupiter's core.

LLOYD:
> All I think I recall is that he thought the Great Flood might have been caused by Saturn.

REPLY:
Yes, that was his claim.

LLOYD:
> You said: "It does not seem that the proto-Saturnian system was in orbit around anything while it was traveling through space. Stars, dwarf and otherwise, are now known to travel alone. More than that, they travel in a poleward direction, which eliminates the possibility of orbital motion unless captured by other bodies."
> I think I've heard in TB forum discussions over the last 3 years that the Sun does have an orbit-like motion within the arm of the galaxy and I suppose that motion would be perpendicular to the axis of the galactic arm. So, if the arm had a hand pointing inward toward the galactic nucleus, the Sun, and presumably all star systems would be revolving around the wrist, so their orbits would be like bracelets around the wrist and arm. And I thought proto-Saturn would have had a similar motion, that might have taken it in and out of Birkeland currents, although, if the currents have a helical motion, that makes the concept harder for me to grasp. If my impression is wrong, I hope to find that out soon enough.

REPLY:
It gets weirder because proto-Saturn's capture involved the collision of the Milky Way with a foreign galaxy. Orthodoxy is well aware of this collision, the signs of which are still etched across the sky.

LLOYD:
> Your theory says that proto-Saturn was a Brown Dwarf Star with a Circumstellar Disk, Bipolar Jets and an invisible Plasmasphere that blotted out the stars. Did you find that brown dwarf stars have all of those features?

REPLY:
Yes I have, and yes they do.

LLOYD:
> Did you say that the ancients saw the disk as an ocean that proto-Saturn sailed on?

REPLY:
Not quite. I have never stated it in those terms. Some of the ancients did liken the disk to whirling water because, among other things, that is what it looked like. And, naturally enough, to them, proto-Saturn did appear to float—but not sail—on this water. "Sailing" would connote motion across, or around, the disk.

LLOYD:
> And was one of the bipolar jets what they saw as the Polar Column?

REPLY:
But of course.

Dwardu

[Lloyd]

MONUMENTAL REPORT
* Cardona's previous interview replies were show-stopping and his next ones are too. Here are the highlights of the previous post, which, for some odd reason, no one has commented on yet. Maybe highlighting will elicit some remarks.
* Cardona commented on Mague's comment about the sun maybe getting brighter when the Saturn System entered the Solar System:

That the Sun had been much dimmer in ages past is what orthodoxy has been assuming for years. Whether it actually was dimmer just prior to the capture of the proto-Saturnian system is something that cannot be determined from the mytho-historical record. The reason for this is that the Sun was still nowhere in sight at the time, it having been too far away, and thus too small in appearance, to shine through the opacity of the encasing plasmasphere. Even when man first saw the Sun, he described it being as small as a distant star which began to grow larger as it loomed closer.

* He replied to Gary N's question about the Sun's capture of the Saturn System and my reference on electrical forces being likely involved:

In that respect, Grubaugh was right and, in fact, the proto-Saturnian system is described in my work as brushing against, and bouncing off, the heliosphere several times before it actually managed to penetrate it. And yes, this one actually comes directly from Thornhill.

* He commented on Michael's comment about Dave T having learned of the Saturn Theory from Velikovsky.
To an extent, we both did, at least in as much as he directed us in that direction—although, to be sure, Talbott and I were working independently of each other. Velikovsky, however, would not buy into the proto-Saturnian linear formation. In fact, that is when, and why, he broke away from both Talbott and I and, from then on, would have nothing further to do with either one of us.
* He commented about Velikovsky's Saturn Theory:

Yes he did consider Earth to have been a satellite of Saturn, but, according to him, Earth was held in an equatorial orbit around the larger planet. Still according to him, Saturn then suffered a near contact with the planet Jupiter, which event resulted in the freeing of Earth from Saturn's gravitational embrace and the ejection of the planet Venus from Jupiter's core.

* When I asked if he thought the Great Flood might have been caused by Saturn, Cardona said:

Yes, that was his claim.

* When I said: "I think I've heard in TB forum discussions ... that the Sun does have an orbit-like motion within the arm of the galaxy ... [a]nd I thought proto-Saturn would have had a similar motion", he said:

It gets weirder because proto-Saturn's capture involved the collision of the Milky Way with a foreign galaxy. Orthodoxy is well aware of this collision, the signs of which are still etched across the sky.

* Did everyone notice that this time? Our ancestors may have come from another galaxy!
* When asked if proto-Saturn had a Circumstellar Disk, Bipolar Jets and an invisible Plasmasphere that blotted out the stars like other brown dwarf stars, he said:
Yes ... they do.
* When asked if the ancients saw the disk as an ocean that proto-Saturn sailed on, he said:

Not quite. I have never stated it in those terms. Some of the ancients did liken the disk to whirling water because, among other things, that is what it looked like. And, naturally enough, to them, proto-Saturn did appear to float—but not sail—on this water. "Sailing" would connote motion across, or around, the disk.

* Re whether the bipolar jets were seen as the Polar Column, he said:

But of course.

[Lloyd]

MORE MONUMENTAL REVELATION
* Please review the previous post before reading this one. Here's the next set of interview questions and replies.
LLOYD:
You said: "the proto-Saturnian system is described in my work as brushing against, and bouncing off, the heliosphere several times before it actually managed to penetrate it."
Gee, that's a little hard to imagine. Do you know if Wal has discussed that on his website?

REPLY:
Well, I do not remember whether he has described it on his website, but he HAS discussed it in an AEON interview [i.e. Wal], published as "The Electric Saturnian System," in the February 2001 issue of that periodical.

LLOYD:
I'm guessing the theory is that the Sun's and proto-Saturn's plasmaspheres were of the same charge and repelled each other electrically. Is that about right, or not?

REPLY:
No, on the contrary, the Sun's electrical potential was much higher than proto-Saturn's, which is why proto-Saturn ended up in a flare-up, as originally proposed by Ralph Juergens back in 1977.

LLOYD:
Did the ancients say anything that suggested there were a few such bounces?

REPLY:
No, this follows from known plasmatic behavior. That said, quite a few seemingly disconnected events reported by our ancient ancestors actually fill the bill. See here, especially, the events associated with what we now refer to as the Younger Dryas, as described in the volume I am presently writing.

LLOYD:
You said: "according to [Velikovsky], Earth was held in an equatorial orbit around the larger planet ... , Saturn, [which] then suffered a near contact with the planet Jupiter, which event resulted in the freeing of Earth from Saturn's gravitational embrace and the ejection of the planet Venus from Jupiter's core."
- I remember a long article you wrote in Kronos magazine in the early 80s, called "Jupiter, God of Abraham." I think you mentioned in that article that the fire and brimstone that the Bible says destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah was electric discharge and sulfur from Io or Jupiter and that the Earth apparently flipped over, making Jupiter appear to replace Saturn at the north pole. Did I phrase that correctly? And, if so, do you still hold to any of that?

REPLY:
The Abrahamic events came long after the dissolution of the proto-Saturnian system and, until I reach that point in my chronological reconstruction, I really cannot comment further on them. As I have often said, and will undoubtedly say many more times, I'm as curious as the next guy in finding out what really happened.

LLOYD:
Re my idea that proto-Saturn's possible motion in and out of Birkeland currents may have caused its flare-ups, you said: "It gets weirder because proto-Saturn's capture involved the collision of the Milky Way with a foreign galaxy."
- That's indeed very weird. I remember a TB forum discussion about the Sun possibly having been from the other galaxy. Have you been able to determine whether it was probably the Sun or proto-Saturn, or neither, that came from the other galaxy? It would be quite incredible, if, not only was Earth etc not part of the Solar System over ten thousand years ago, but that it or the Sun was not even part of this galaxy.

REPLY:
Astrophysicists have been shying away from the problem. But, to judge by what has been discovered so far, the Solar System's cosmic neighborhood is still quite chaotic, with the System itself dangerously close to instability. Stellar clues indicate that quite a few stars are actually foreigners within the Milky Way. These stars belong to the invading galaxy, now named Sagittarius, which is slicing through the Milky Way at right angles in the very area occupied by our Solar System. Traffic in our cosmic neighborhood is quite heavy, with bodies in the Kuiper belt bearing the imprint of recent disruption by a passing larger body, which could very well have been proto-Saturn on its spiraling way toward the Sun. There is no indication yet that our present Sun belonged to Sagittarius, but, at least in my opinion, Earth and proto-Saturn definitely did. The evidence is all out there, and some of it is scary.

[* Did everyone read that? Cardona thinks Earth and the Saturn System came from the Sagittarius galaxy.]
LLOYD:
If that's the case, people will be curious what it was like in the other galaxy, who our neighbors were etc, and whether we made a good move.

REPLY:
Well, that depends on how one looks at it. Thornhill was not quite sure that the move was good. As for myself, all I can say is that we made it. We survived, when many others didn't. That's good enough for me.

[* Did everyone notice that? We were lucky to have survived the move to this galaxy and there's still possible dangers of collisions.]
LLOYD:
Re proto-Saturn's circumstellar disk, do you think it was formed in the same way it seems to be formed now, from "geysers" on its moons ejecting matter into the rings? You said the disk was blown away each time proto-Saturn flared up every few thousand years and that it reformed each time. If it reformed from moon geysers, the moons must not have been blown away. Right? Or were new moons ejected from the brown dwarf each time it flared up?

REPLY:
I do not think so. Circumstellar disks and Birkeland jets are blown out of existence when stars go supernovae, but they re-form again. This seems to be a natural response to the stars' electric discharge—a backlash, if you wish—which has to be intrinsic. But much more needs to be done in order to unravel the real impetus behind cosmic flare-ups.
- In any case, this is not really my department, which is why, on matters such as this, I have had to rely, as I will continue to rely, on the work of those who are better equipped to handle these matters—such as Ralph Juergens, Wallace Thornhill, Donald scott, Anthony Peratt, and the late Hannes Alfven. There have been others, of course, and I'm sure there wull be more in the future. At least I hope so.

LLOYD:
In Thoth newsletter I think you or Dave T had said that the Great Flood came from the north with the collapse of the polar column, which had held the flood water till then.

REPLY:
Yes, I pointed that out in a paper—"The Demands of the Saturnian Configuration Theory"—that I read at the SIS Silver Jubilee Conference in September of 1999, which paper was then published in SISR (2000:1), with a fuller version appearing in AEON a year later.

LLOYD:
Now you're saying that there was a Great Flood each time proto-Saturn flared up. Aren't you? If so, was life set back much during each flood?

REPLY:
To an extent, since not all proto-Saturnian flares were drastic enough to severe its polar column. But, yes, there would have been many of these floods and life WOULD have been "set back," to say the least, especially since the floods would have been accompanied by other disasters.

LLOYD:
Do you think Earth's rock strata were ejected from proto-Saturn during flare-ups and deposited during great floods?

REPLY:
There is no doubt that detritus from proto-Saturn ended up on Earth. How much is now difficult to ascertain.

LLOYD:
I think Wal has said that the solid or liquid surfaces of the gas giant planets are likely to be composed of rocky material from which the rocky planets and moons were formed. Do you think he's right? Do you think proto-Saturn's surface was liquid or solid [or liquid plasma or solid plasma]? Do you think its flare-ups were like solar flares or CMEs, coronal mass ejections, or more like volcanic eruptions?

REPLY:
You're asking too much of me. These questions need to be researched better than they have. They need to be discussed between interested parties much better than they have. I'll let you know when I have better answers at my disposal. Sorry if I disappoint.

Dwardu

[Jarvamundo]

for some odd reason, no one has commented on yet.

Fascinating Lloyd, thanks for this, very intriguing for a sat-newb, i was hoping reduce the book list... it seems now this will not be the case.