5 Versions of Catastrophism

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

5 Versions of Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:22 am

* Catastrophism means interest in large-scale catastrophes in early or ancient times. There are many different theories of catastrophism, but I'll just discuss some of the major ones relevant to the Thunderbolts website.
* I think it's beneficial to compare related theories in order to study each theorist's evidence and find which evidence seems strongest.
* I welcome any corrections to the list of theories and any suggestions of how to improve the list, how to make it more useful, or just discuss it or related issues.
5 Catastrophist Theories Comparison
* Theorists: Immanuel Velikovsky (IV), Dave Talbott + Ev Cochrane + Wal Thornhill (TB=ThunderboltsTeam), Dwardu Cardona (DC), John Ackerman (JA), Gary Gilligan (GG)
(I include John Ackerman only because Gary Gilligan seems to derive some of his theory from Ackerman's findings and Gilligan sometimes supplies important material for TPODs. Talbott, Cochrane and Thornhill are listed together, because they seem to largely agree with each other, but I don't know what datings they suggest for events.)

IV:
(from his book, Worlds in Collision etc)
Saturn as planet of Sun
Earth as moon of Saturn
Great Flood caused by Saturn nova flare
Venus ejected from Jupiter via nova flare
Venus as large comet
Earth-Venus encounter 3,500 BP
Exodus during Earth-Venus encounter
Venus-Mars encounters 3,000 BP
Earth-Mars encounters 2,700 BP
There was no continental drift

TB:
(http://maverickscience.com/saturn.htm)
(http://thoth2.webs.com)
(http://holoscience.com)
Saturn as brown dwarf star outside Solar System
Venus, Mars & Earth as moons of Saturn
Polar Column from Saturn to Venus, Mars & Earth
Venus as large comet
Mars moved cyclically between Venus & Earth
Venus later moved cyclically as well between Saturn & Earth

DC:
(http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... 0&t=3D3824)
Saturn from Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy millions BP
Saturn as brown dwarf comet-star outside Solar System
Saturn with two polar columns, or jets
Venus, Mars & Earth as moons of Saturn
One Polar Column from Saturn to Venus, Mars & Earth
Saturn flare on entry into Solar System 10,000 BP
Saturn flares caused continental drift, detritus, conflagration & Great Flood on Earth
First sighting of Sun immediately after flare
First sighting of Venus on face of Saturn immediately after flare
First sighting of Mars indefinite time later
Saturn System breakup at asteroid belt 4,500 BP
First sighting of captured Moon during breakup
Loss of Polar Column caused Great Flood

JA:
(http://www.firmament-chaos.com/va_scenario.html)
Earth captured Moon 11,600 BP
Sun with 6 planets: Mars, Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune before 6,000 BP
Large extrasolar planet hit Jupiter 6,000 BP
Venus comet ejected from Jupiter's Great Red Spot after collision
Venus comet on elliptical orbit had many encounters with Mars
Venus comet encountered & scorched Earth, making great deserts
Mars encountered Earth every 15 years from 6,000 to 2,700 BP
Mercury ejected from Mars at Valles Marineris 2,700 BP

GG:
(http://www.gks.uk.com/about)
Sun with 6 planets: Mars, Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune before
5,200 BP
Large extrasolar planet hit Jupiter 5,200 BP
Venus comet ejected from Jupiter's Great Red Spot after collision
The Moon captured into Earth orbit 3,200 BP
Venus & Mars approached Earth about 3,000 BP
Comet Venus appeared 2,900 to 2,000 BP
Mercury ejected from Mars at Valles Marineris 2,600 to 2,800 BP

User avatar
tayga
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: 5 Versions of Catastrophism

Unread post by tayga » Fri Aug 26, 2011 7:10 am

Lloyd, do you think Jno Cook's Saturnian Cosmology should be included?

I'm no authority and so in position to assess how much of his writing is original and peculiar to himself but he has various points of agreement and disagreement with all of the above and some concepts I haven't come across before.
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn

User avatar
starbiter
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Antelope CA
Contact:

Re: 5 Versions of Catastrophism

Unread post by starbiter » Fri Aug 26, 2011 7:42 am

Hello Lloyd: You might want to consider some of the following in your thread.

http://www.sis-group.org.uk/ancient.htm#p6

5.5 G Heinsohn and the Evidence of Stratigraphy
Heinsohn has made a very important contribution to the revisionist debate by focussing attention on the evidence of stratigraphy outside Egypt. Dayton had uncovered many examples in museums around the world where near identical ancient artefacts of very similar styles and manufacturing techniques were given dates which varied sometimes by as much as 1000-1500 years. Heinsohn, from an extensive study of archaeological reports from most of the better known sites across Asia Minor, showed how these anachronisms had arisen. At site after site, archaeologists had artificially increased the age of the lower strata by inserting, without supporting evidence, 'occupation gaps' of many centuries. They did this in order to meet the expectations of excessive antiquity among historians, who had used Biblically derived dates for Abraham (c. 2100), initially seen as broadly contemporary with the great Assyrian king Hammurabi. Using this elongated time frame, great empires of the past such as the Sumerians, Akkadians and Old Babylonians were invented by late 19th C and early 20th C scholars to fill the historical voids. The ancient Greek and Roman historians, not surprisingly, knew nothing of these ancient peoples. Sumerian, said Heinsohn, 'is the language of the well known Kassite/Chaldeans, whose literacy deserves its fame'.

He showed that the Bronze Age started in China and Mesoamerica some 1500 years later than in the Near East and proposed this gap be largely closed by lowering the ages of the Mediterranean civilisations. He cited the Indus Valley where the early period civilisations, dated from Mesopotamian seals to c. 2400BC, sit right underneath the Buddhist strata of 7-6C. Seals from Mesopotamia are found in the Indus valley and in Mesopotamia there are seals from the Indus Valley. So the excavators have to say they have an occupation gap of some 1700 years. Thus some sites only about 30km apart have chronologies some 1500 years apart. But in the same strata, supposedly 1500 years apart, they frequently find the same pottery.

C&CR had insufficient space to provide a full forum for Heinsohn's work, but a volume entitled Ghost Empires of the Past was published in C&CR format in 1988, thanks to help from SIS stalwarts Birgit Liesching and Derek Shelley-Pearce. In this, Heinsohn set out many chronological 'problems' and 'riddles', and argued persuasively for equating, among others, the Mittani with the Medes (as did Velikovsky) and the Empire Hittites with the Late Chaldeans.

His excellent paper on the archaeology of Hazor (C&CR 1996:1) revealed some important anachronisms. For example, two cuneiform tablets written in Old-Babylonian Akkadian and two more written in the Akaddian of the Amarna era were found in the upper layers of the site. Heinsohn asks 'How did tablets from the early second millennium end up in a stratum reaching its peak in the period of the Persian Empire (550-330 BC)?'. The tablets were, of course, immediately labelled 'heirlooms' by their finders. But, as Heinsohn pointed out, it seems strange that the later Hazoreans kept tablets for over 1000yr as heirlooms from the MBA or LBA, yet were apparently incapable of producing any texts of their own. Also, a clay jar inscribed in 23C Old-Akkadian was found in the Hyksos layer c17C. Yes, you've guessed - this was explained as yet another boring old 'heirloom'. Heinsohn makes a plea to archaeologists to 'set textbooks aside and allow oneself the liberty of following reason and hard stratigraphical evidence'. The textbook schemes 'separate by enormous time spans what is found in parallel stratigraphical locations, exhibiting very similar material cultures.' Unfortunately for archaeologists, the writers of the textbooks are often the 'Guardians of the Dogma' who control the funding for archaeological research. As a result, an archaeologist brave enough to confront conventional thinking may quickly find himself both professionally discredited and out of a job.

Heinsohn has presented many well-researched papers exposing stratigraphical problems, and suggesting much lower chronologies for Near Eastern civilisations. His stratigraphy and stylistic-based chronologies and, more recently his explanation for the 'lost' Persian layer throughout the Persian Empire have generated much debate and some unanswered controversy among revisionists.

Emmett Sweeney, a contributor to many early Workshops, must be congratulated for achieving the distinction of now having had two revisionist books published; 'The Genesis of Israel and Egypt' [28] and 'The Pyramid Age' [29]. The latter in particular contains much well argued evidence in favour of a much lower Egyptian chronology, including the elimination of both the FIP and SIP. Although his conclusion that the three Giza pyramids were built c870-770BC have not found much support, the real value of his books lies in the very wide range of evidence he introduces in support of many of his proposed synchronisms.


Concerning Charles Ginenthal's model,

http://www.maverickscience.com/misinformation.pdf

The wild goose chase that culminates in Pillars of the Past, Charles Ginenthal’s most
recent foray into ancient chronology, can be laid squarely at the doorstep of Immanuel
Velikovsky. Thus it is only fitting that the first two words of Pillars of the Past are
“Immanuel Velikovsky,” for it was that very author who, in the Ages in Chaos series,
claimed to find evidence that conventional chronology was falsely inflated by some five
centuries, thereby inspiring several generations of readers to cast aside the Cambridge
view of ancient history and become amateur chronologists. Alas, Velikovsky’s bold
attempt at historical reconstruction has not fared well and it has long since been evident
that he made a number of fundamental errors in reasoning that undermined his goal of
bringing order to ancient chronology (more below).
1
The stated purpose of Pillars of the Past is to eliminate some 1500 years from ancient
Near Eastern history as conventionally understood. Ginenthal did not derive this number
from Velikovsky—such a reduction would make a shambles of Velikovsky’s ancient
chronology despite repeated protestations to the contrary.
2
Rather, the 1500 years derives
from Gunnar Heinsohn, whose radical reconstruction of ancient history was also inspired
by Velikovsky. Heinsohn argued that the Sumerian civilization never existed as such,
and should properly be identified with the Chaldean empire of the first millennium BC.
Among other sensational claims advanced by Heinsohn are that Sargon I of Akkad is to
be identified with Sargon II of Assyria; that Hammurabi is to be identified with Darius;
and that the Mitanni and Median empires are one and the same. Heinsohn’s
reconstruction has recently been endorsed by Emmet Sweeney, a British researcher
otherwise known for arguing that Abraham brought the first instruments of civilization to
Egypt and that the pyramids were constructed in the first millennium BCE.
3


Me again,
There are other options. None of the dates are important to my work.

michael
I Ching #49 The Image
Fire in the lake: the image of REVOLUTION
Thus the superior man
Sets the calender in order
And makes the seasons clear

www.EU-geology.com

http://www.michaelsteinbacher.com

johnm33
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 4:43 am

Re: 5 Versions of Catastrophism

Unread post by johnm33 » Fri Aug 26, 2011 12:43 pm

Thanks for that starbiter some real gems in that for me. I came to EU whilst trying to understand the caroliner bays, one thing i noticed about them was that if you take the long axis and project it around the globe[ as an equator] one of the poles would be close to mt. ararat. I,m still trying to get what kind of 'body' it could have been that caused such massive discharges, and possibly shifted temporarily[?] the axis of rotation.
In one of Alan Wilson/ Baram Blacketts books he mentions that a french linguist searching for the roots of the english language found far more corelations with ancient chaldean than with any german language. According to older versions of british history, in the time of king lear who founded leicester [cair leriron] the border between the Cymreig [welsh] language and Icinglas [old english] was just to the south and west of leicester. Anywhere theres a river called avon[afon = river] spoke welsh so in the south it clearly extended into the sacred landscape around avebury and stonehenge. In a book called 'the keys of the temple' david furlong makes a fairly convincing case for a large plan of the great pyramid being overlayed on the landscape, with the sightlines being facillitated by silbury hill, I know there are other connections so I just googled 'silbury hill great pyramid' and got this http://www.cropcirclesandmore.com/thoug ... 01sgp.html
There are two possible explanations for the english-chaldean connection the first is that albine is said to have arrived in about 1600 bc from syria and brutus who after liberating the trojan slaves from their greek masters arrived in devon [totnes] around 600bc and went on to found 'new troy'- london [known at the time of boudiccas revolt as trinovantium] and founded a temple to diana ,now st pauls. At the moment i'm leaning to some sort alliance between crete/ knossus and the hittites/chaldeans with strong connections to the british isles but cant decide who were the 'elders'
Until things are set in some sort of order that hangs together I have no attatchment to dates.

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: 5 Versions of Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Fri Aug 26, 2011 4:58 pm

* Tayga, Michael and John, you're welcome to discuss anything like that, esp. any evidence of catastrophes that seem relevant.
Cook's Saturnian Cosmology
* I read Cook's website before, but it looks like he may have added a lot to it since then. It seemed that he got some of his ideas from Sitchin, whom I distrust, but I don't recall for certain. Feel free to list major catastrophic events from Cook, if you like. He seems to have some criticisms of the Saturn theory/ies, which might be worth discussing. Gary Gilligan and Rens van der Sluijs also have disagreements with it that I'd like to see discussed.
Revised Chronology
* Michael, I read at least one or two articles about Heinsohn's revised chronology in Aeon magazine. I remember that Martin Sieff liked his version, until Heinsohn said that Abraham lived about 5 hundred something BC. He strongly disagreed with that. I think it might be best to try to focus this thread on catastrophic events. Revised chronology might be best discussed on a new thread. But if Heinsohn's findings help date any catastrophic events, that would be relevant here, I think.
* Micheal, feel free to list your version of the dating of major catastrophes.
* John, were London and Paris both founded by Trojans? Anyway, could that discussion go into a separate thread, as I suggested to Michael, for revised chronology? If you have evidence of planetary catastrophes involved in the Trojan War etc, that would be relevant to this thread.

601L1n9FR09
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:24 am

Re: 5 Versions of Catastrophism

Unread post by 601L1n9FR09 » Fri Aug 26, 2011 10:46 pm

Hi Michael, Tayga, John and Lloyd!
http://s8int.com/joseph.html
I came across this a few years ago and even got a reply from Sweeney. See I always figured that if there is anything to the Bible (and I figure there is) Egypt had the best opportunity to build the pyramids just prior to Exodus. I think Sweeney was going just after. By my fake historian calculations Egypt was not only feeding herself but all the region. Pharaoh not only ended up with all the money and land of Egypt but lots of money from the famine starved nations surrounding him. Before the famine ended he had a 20% income tax and an entire population of genuine slave labor, along with the proceeds from the starving nations who came to buy grain from Joseph. There was a centralized government well organized and the population had been relocated to cities. My argument is that after the Exodus Egypt had suffered the 10 plagues and lost it's entire army in the Red Sea. Anyhow, I am hoping this qualifies as "revised chronology". Oh, incidentally Micheal, Job was several generations prior to Moses IMHO, err...I think that is sorta in keeping with the topics of this thread too.

Sincerely,
Jay
Fake Intelectual

601L1n9FR09
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:24 am

Re: 5 Versions of Catastrophism

Unread post by 601L1n9FR09 » Sat Aug 27, 2011 4:21 am

Hi Michael again,
It is me, egg faced Jay. In Northrup's catastrophes he has nothing after Job. In the duning thread I said I would be disappointed if he didn't and he doesn't so I am. :oops:
Howdy Lloyd,
Is this thread here so we can separate the chronological revisionism part of the duning discussion? I am lacking in the focus department and sort of see the revision element as relevant to the duning thing. Everything seems to hinge on dating, from events to artifacts and the methods relied upon to "establish" dates. About the only thing objective observers agree on is that no one can agree on the dates or the methods. :?

User avatar
tayga
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: 5 Versions of Catastrophism

Unread post by tayga » Sat Aug 27, 2011 6:49 am

601L1n9FR09 wrote: http://s8int.com/joseph.html
I came across this a few years ago and even got a reply from Sweeney.
Joseph = Imhotep is an interesting idea and rings true. I wonder whether either really existed. ;)

I'm new to all this and am only just waking up to the fact that the stories of the Ancient Civilisations are pretty much the one story variously flavoured to suit local religions and politics. There is an overwhelming amount of information available and a range of opinions.

I'm warming to the idea that the Old Testament story and others like it are not a story of humans but of celestial events. Whereas pantheistic religions named planets as gods, Judaism, being monotheistic, was a bit stuck for heavenly personnel so made up humans such as Adam (Saturn), Eve (Venus) and Moses (Moon).

One comment about all this. I'd love to read Cardona's work; I gather his research is extensive and exhaustive and the book summaries look very impressive. However, at £ 60 and upwards per book I'm just not going to get my hands on his work. I understand that folks have to make a living and that publication costs money but the lack of availability of these books is a shame (the same applies to Secrets of the Aether, by the way). The outstanding advantage, to me, of Jno Cook's work is that it's free. As I read it I'm converting the pdfs to book format which I hope to be able to give back to Cook by way of thanks.

I wonder whether the folks at Mikamar might look at electronic format for Cardona's work...
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: 5 Versions of Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Sat Aug 27, 2011 9:30 am

Jay-601 said: Is this thread here so we can separate the chronological revisionism part of the duning discussion? I am lacking in the focus department and sort of see the revision element as relevant to the duning thing. Everything seems to hinge on dating, from events to artifacts and the methods relied upon to "establish" dates.
* No, I just started a new thread for revised chronologies. This thread is just for dating ancient catastrophes and connecting catastrophes with historical events, when possible.
Tayga said: I'm warming to the idea that the Old Testament story and others like it are not a story of humans but of celestial events. Whereas pantheistic religions named planets as gods, Judaism, being monotheistic, was a bit stuck for heavenly personnel so made up humans such as Adam (Saturn), Eve (Venus) and Moses (Moon).
* Saturnists seem to agree that Adam and Eve were celestial, but don't seem to have come to a conclusion yet re Moses. Gary Gilligan says the Egyptians were dualists who considered celestial objects as spirits or souls of people living on Earth. So there could have been an Earthly Adam and Eve, as well as the celestial ones. Same re Moses et al.
* I discuss the identity of Joseph in the Revising Ancient Chronologies thread at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... 702#p55702.

The Aten
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:41 am
Location: UK
Contact:

On Heisohn and the very 'recent' capture of the Moon.

Unread post by The Aten » Mon Aug 29, 2011 3:58 am

As proposed the Moon was captured around the 1st millennium BC. The New Kingdom followed (revised chorology). Many have dismissed this out of hand largely because the Moon features strongly in Mesopotamian mythology, and since said cultures are conventionally dated back to around 3200 BC then the Moon obviously existed long before my proposed date.

I find the work of Heinsohn and many other revisionists refreshing, more importantly, they offer indirect support for my 'recent' Moon capture theory, in that by moving Mesopotamian cultures to the 1st millennium BC then any mention of the Moon has to be relocated accordingly.

Given my 'dualistic world' and the belief that kingly planets and personified bodies are directly responsible for ancient history, I would strongly argue, the exact chronology of ancient times will never be known, only relative dating as 'history' it is all the recording of events above.

The reason being different cultures associated themselves with the same divine kingly bodies (Mesopotamian cultures also replete with god kings). The very same people associated themselves with vast marauding armies of moons, asteroids, comets, etc, all seemingly battling each other for control of the skies as clouds of debris began to settle down along the plain of the ecliptic. These sky battles continued for millennia.

It is the very reason the ancients were so obsessed with warfare and the very reason why chorology is in such a mess.
Heinsohn set out many chronological 'problems' and 'riddles', and argued persuasively for equating, among others, the Mittani with the Medes (as did Velikovsky) and the Empire Hittites with the Late Chaldeans.
On this 'equating' I feel we are on the right track. My problem is vast however; working from the Egyptian god kings and lesser dignitaries, I have to somehow line these up with other cultures. Heinsohn, Sweeney and other revisionists are going a long way in assisting in this process. Although, as far as I'm aware they do not subscribe to my theory. As the evidence mounts (such as the lack of archaeological evidence for ancient battles)... perhaps one day.

Gg
Last edited by The Aten on Mon Aug 29, 2011 4:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

The Aten
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:41 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Imhotep = Moon

Unread post by The Aten » Mon Aug 29, 2011 4:33 am

Joseph = Imhotep is an interesting idea and rings true. I wonder whether either really existed
Imhotep (Moon) "the one who comes in peace."

"He was the world's first named architect who built Egypt's first pyramid, is often recognized as the world's first doctor, a priest,. scribe, sage, poet, astrologer, and a vizier and chief minister, though this role is unclear, to Djoser (reigned 2630–2611 BC), the second king of Egypt's third dynasty. He may have lived under as many as four kings. An inscription on one of that kings statues gives us Imhotep's titles as the "chancellor of the king of lower Egypt", the "first one under the king", the "administrator of the great mansion", the "hereditary Noble", the "high priest of Heliopolis", the "chief sculptor", and finally the "chief carpenter".
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/imhotep.htm

I've tentatively looked into Imhotep and would suggest he was just another guise of the Moon, why? Mainly because of his association with the lunar god Thoth. As well as....

"He was praised as the inventor of healing, and was believed to be the one who held up Nut, the goddess of sky."
A human cannot hold up the sky, Imhotep as the Moon however, could be seen to do this.

He was believed to be the son of Ptah who I identify as Jupiter (Ju-Ptah?), the god believed to be responsible for calling the world into being and one who held up the metal frame of heaven (an arch of debris spanning out from Jupiter ). I would suggest in later times Jupiter and the Moon many times dominated the heavens. The Moon/Imhotep as high priest (literally) with the father Jupiter/Ptah in the background as a bloody large star (due to recent activity).

Now I cannot remember the exact quote but I do have it recorded on tape somewhere, a reference to Imhotep would go something like this.

"He makes barren women fertile, he turns fallow fields plentiful, Imhotep."

An allusion to a guise of the Moon?

As always, there is much more to this.

And a belated big thanks to Lloyd for including me in these discussions.

Gg

seasmith
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: 5 Versions of Catastrophism

Unread post by seasmith » Mon Aug 29, 2011 12:04 pm

He was believed to be the son of Ptah who I identify as Jupiter (Ju-Ptah?), the god believed to be responsible for calling the world into being ...
Clearing away some of the highly conflated Egyptian mythery and looking at Sumerian roots, the correlation would appear to be Saturn/ Ptah/ Enki (fire come to Earth/the artificer; and Jupiter/ Amun/ Enlil (ruler).

Imhotep and Thoth would be in the line of Ptah .

s

johnm33
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 4:43 am

Re: 5 Versions of Catastrophism

Unread post by johnm33 » Wed Aug 31, 2011 12:22 pm

Aten
In moses in the hieroglyphs they have djoser as joseph a viceroy [imhotep is a title of office like minister or bishop] under neterjerekethet [1500bc+/-]who was a kassite emporer, djoser was given the heave by sneferu who's dynasty succeeded neterjerekhets. djoser was then succeeded by three of his brothers none of whom lasted long, and then came the 4th dynasty

The Aten
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:41 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: 5 Versions of Catastrophism

Unread post by The Aten » Thu Sep 01, 2011 2:08 am

seasmith wrote:
Clearing away some of the highly conflated Egyptian mythery and looking at Sumerian roots, the correlation would appear to be Saturn/ Ptah/ Enki (fire come to Earth/the artificer; and Jupiter/ Amun/ Enlil (ruler).
I would disagree with this.

Although many correlations can be found between Egyptian and Mesopotamian cultures some cannot, why? The confusion lies with the locational viewpoint of some major events in the heavens and here on earth. An prime example:

Some major catastrophic events were centred on, around and above the Trans-Himalayas as Mars (& later Mercury) locked into orbit above the Himalayas (thus raising them). An enormous great cosmic 'Tree of Life,' or Tower of Babel (the origin of the Christmas tree) was formed as volatiles from Mars intermingled with earth. Mesopotamian cultures being further east were closer to such tumultuous events, they experienced some very, very dark days. As a result there viewpoint in regards to some deities (not all) was different to the Egyptians, hence the confusion that still reigns even today. With this in mind I will briefly discuss the deities you've mentioned. please note; although I am 100% confident with my Egyptian identities I'm only 80% sure of the physical identity of some of the Mesopotamian deities. This is, after all, ongoing research.

Jupiter = Ptah/Anu both sharing similar traits i.e. they created the world and everything in it but played little part in close hand events. Jupiter, although appearing much larger and brighter than today (having just given birth to Venus) very much located where it is today.

Saturn = Sokar: (Sumerian?? not sure yet, I've not ruled out the possibility Saturn wasn't seen by MC) The Egyptian Horus of the night. The 'brilliant one, both at thy rising and thy setting.' The 'great god with his two wings opened,' refers to Saturn's recently discovered gossamer rings visible and giving the illusion of wings. Before discovery i stated in my book Saturn's wings were highly visible and greater in size than today due to recent events (Comet Venus p 109-113).

Enki: as per convention, he was the god of freshwater (no definitive Egyptian equivalent), only there's more to it than that. Vast quantities of water were drawn up and towards Mars as it docked above the Himalayas. Hence Enki was shown on cylinder seals with streams of water flowing from his shoulders with fish swimming UP these streams.
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9 ... 0fMMqP5qt6
If Enki was the planet Saturn, how is such iconography explained?

Amun = aurora.

Amun was most definitely the aurora and finds no correlation with Jupiter/Ptah. Rather than copy and paste a load of material from my web may I respectfully request a cursory glance at my 'Amun was the Aurora' page.

http://www.gks.uk.com/god-amun-aurora/

Amun rose to prominence as 'king of the gods' as intense geomagnetic storms increased and literally dominated the skies of earth, with many magnetic poles seemingly touching earth, hence the veneration of certain sacred locations.

I would tentatively equate Amun with the god Enlil (the god of auroral 'winds') Although he was superseded by Marduk, a god manifest in the planet Mars, auroral storms, jet stream (snake dragon iconography), the whole works - again this would be as Mars and Mercury periodically locked on to earth above the Himalayas - the greatest firework show on earth!

Marduk http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9 ... xs_CWo6r9S

As the heavens begin to settle down along with the dissipation of auroral manifestations we have the slightly milder version of Amun/Enlil (later Marduk) - Zeus, the god of thunder and lightning (& 'mild' aurora??).

Gg

User avatar
tayga
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: 5 Versions of Catastrophism

Unread post by tayga » Thu Sep 01, 2011 2:38 am

The Aten wrote: Enki: as per convention, he was the god of freshwater (no definitive Egyptian equivalent), only there's more to it than that. Vast quantities of water were drawn up and towards Mars as it docked above the Himalayas. Hence Enki was shown on cylinder seals with streams of water flowing from his shoulders with fish swimming UP these streams.
Gary, as a comparison, here's Jno Cook's take on Enki:
When the Mesopotamians start mapping the sky, they name the southern section of the sky, below the equatorial, "the path of Ea." Ea is the Babylonian God of the waters, the Akkadian god of the Absu. He is the Sumerian Enki, also God of the Absu. In Akkadian "Ea" is written with the Sumerian glyphs "EN.KI" -- "water house." "En" translates as "home," "house," or "temple." Houses in Sumer were initially constructed of reeds and with semi-circular (domed) roofs. This is what was seen in the south, a dome of reeds extending from the east to the west, located somewhat below the level of the equatorial in the sky, but with all the rings or sections of rings coming together at the east and west cardinal compass direction. There is no question about the location of the Absu.
http://saturniancosmology.org/noah.php

Cook had earlier claimed the Absu (Duat to the Egyptians) was the ocean in the southern sky - Earth's rings. Absu is Sumerian for "abyss" or "deep". It offers an alternative explanation for the water seen in the sky. He argues that the Egyptians' widespread of the gods in boats ties to this perception of the 'southern' ocean.

http://saturniancosmology.org/flood.php
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests