A Very Brief Response to Grey Cloud's Critique

[starbiter]

Hello Grey Cloud: Sorry, your correct. I've been reading Leroy Ellenberger quoting you about planets not being gods. I thought it was in this thread by mistake. Another time.

michael

[nick c]

hi GC,

I don't think Nick is foolish enough to accuse me of lack of knowledge of comparative mythology. What Nick accuses me of is lack of knowledge, or understanding, of the comparative method employed by the Saturn theorists.

Yes. That is at the root of the issue. If one does not accept the method used in the analysis then there is not much more to talk about.

To those interested:
Here is Talbott's explanation of the approach:

From Thoth Vol. II #6
ON THE RELIABILITY OF HUMAN WITNESSES
By David Talbott

In THOTH II:5, Amy Acheson wrote: "But will we cultivate the
necessary discipline to find the EVENT which first gave meaning to
the symbols?"

Finding the event behind archaic symbols is indeed the challenge.
Could any lines of reasoning be dependable, when the "evidence"
includes such enigmatic sources as myth, magical rites, and cultic
symbols? Many specialists in the hard sciences will find
abhorrent our claim that myth points to unusual natural events.
And particularly objectionable to them will be our insistence
that, under certain circumstances, human memories can give us
considerable detail about events unknown to science (Of course
the limitations of scientific knowledge come into the equation
as well.)

When reports by more than one person imply a shared experience,
issues of logic and probability arise. We deal with such issues
all the time in judicial proceedings--and in fact we do not
hesitate to send someone to the electric chair based on the
memories of three people. But the principles for assessing
testimony are generally ignored when it comes to the patterns of
ancient memory.

Rules of evidence need to be clarified, and perhaps we can work
upward from a couple of simple examples. The first question is
whether the occurrence of contradictory versions of an underlying
story excludes the possibility of a reliable reconstruction. On
this issue, common opinion is almost never correct. There are
rules for finding reliable testimony in a sea of contradictions.

Imagine an experiment involving a dozen groups with a dozen
members in each group and no communication permitted between the
groups. From each group, one individual is allowed to witness a
newly-written play, then asked to convey the story verbally to
another individual in his group, recalling as much detail as
possible. The second individual then reports to the third, and so
on until the story reaches the last person in each group, who will
then report the story to you.

>From this exercise you would likely receive many different ways of
telling the story, with many contradictions between versions. But
to come as close to the original as possible you would give
greatest weight to those story elements retained in several
accounts. And despite horrendous errors in transmission within
various groups, if you follow this simple principle, your
reconstruction will be generally reliable. Even if it lacks the
full texture of the original, you can be confident in the basic
structure.

To see why comparison of accounts can produce a reliable
reconstruction, you only have to recognize what a mistake in
transmission will do to a remembered event or story It will
introduce a contradiction to the way the story is told by others.
It is typically much easier to make mistakes than to make the
SAME mistakes others have made. So in the cross-referencing of
stories, the first key is to follow the points of agreement.

More significantly, there is a common paradox which even the
experts in comparative study frequently ignore. One might think
that when two groups share an improbable story element, it
becomes more likely that the two groups made the same error of
transmission. But actually the reverse is true. The more
unusual or bizarre the points of agreement, the more likely it is
that they speak for the original story. Here's why: it's much
easier to make a mistake on matters of routine background, than
on unexpected or startling detail. How many chairs were in the
room when the protagonist died? Well, there were five, but who
was counting? Here, not just mistakes, but similar mistakes would
be predictable. Consider, however, that when the protagonist
died, a dove leapt from his chest and flew away. The recurrence
of that particular element in just three of the accounts will
create a virtual certainty that the motif was part of the
original story, even in the unlikely event that the nine other
accounts failed to mention it. Short of cross contamination of
our storytelling groups, it is simply too dramatic and too
unusual to have been injected into the story by more than one
storyteller, either through a mistake or through deliberate
deception.

Now these principles are extremely relevant to the cross-cultural
comparison of human memories. But there is still much more to
consider here. It is often noted that human witnesses are
notoriously unreliable. In judicial proceedings this
unreliability is properly noted--and demonstrated--all the time.
But commonly overlooked is a further consideration. In certain
circumstances the accounts of UNRELIABLE witness can produce
ABSOLUTELY RELIABLE conclusions.

To make this point I have concocted an episode called "The
Unfortunate Peter Smith"--

On Tuesday morning, a man robbed the bank down the street,
escaping with about $12,000. When the police arrived they faced a
dilemma. The man was seen rushing from the bank toward a blue
Honda, jumping in, and speeding off. But the car was too far away
for anyone to catch the license plate.

Inside the bank, the police found only three witnesses, and as it
turned out all were highly unreliable. One had a history of lying
relentlessly. Another was a schizophrenic, often hallucinating.
And the third was dyslexic.

Immediately on their arrival, the police had separated the
witnesses and interviewed them. There seemed to be general
agreement that the robber was wearing a ski mask, a black leather
jacket, and blue jeans. But there were more discrepancies than
points of agreement. This was partly because the known liar
freely made up details as he answered police questions, the
schizophrenic described things seen by no one else, and the
dyslexic could not even get the name of the bank right.

Nevertheless, when the police compared notes they immediately sent
out a bulletin, and it wasn't long before a fellow officer stopped
a blue Honda, driven by a man named Peter Smith. When the officer
looked inside the car, he did not see a ski mask, and he did not
see any money. But the moment he observed the driver, he made an
arrest. And he was certain he had nabbed the robber.

How did he know?

His confidence came from certain details the police had noted in
their interviews with the witnesses. While much of what the
congenital liar reported was self-serving and almost certainly
invented, one thing he had said was most unusual, and was
remembered by the police interviewer. He had laughed about the
robber wearing two different running shoes. On his left foot he
was wearing a Nike, and on his right foot he was wearing an
Adidas, the man said. The second witness said nothing about the
shoes, and seems to have heard strange voices and seen things
reported by no one else. But he did mention that when the robber
started to leave the bank, several bills fell from the paper bag,
which the robber bent down to pick up. That was when the witness
noticed that the tag on his tee-shirt was on the outside; his
shirt was inside out. He could even read the label. The third
witness, the dyslexic, also had noticed the tag up close, but said
he couldn't read it. Additionally, he reported the robber wearing
two different running shoes--a Kine and a Daddies.

So the police drew a conclusion--formulated a "prediction," if
you will--that the bank robber was driving a blue Honda, wearing
two different running shoes and a shirt inside out. And when they
found Peter Smith, they had every reason to be confident. Short
of a conspiracy to deceive them, this WAS the robber, beyond
a shadow of a doubt. THE WITNESSES DO NOT EVEN HAVE TO BE
DEPENDABLE!

In this example the confidence of the police relates directly to
THINGS OUT OF PLACE. A liar, a schizophrenic, and a dyslexic may
create havoc in their contradictory accounts, and yet the force of
agreement on highly unusual details is far greater than the burden
of contradictions. In fact, the convergence of testimony on the
two cited details is simply inconceivable--astronomically
improbable--unless Peter Smith was the robber. The police would
not need DNA tests, lie detector tests, fingerprints, or any other
wonders of modern science and technology to draw a reliable
conclusion.

So the moral of this story is that in certain situations a simple
comparison of human testimony can achieve exceptional reliability,
even though the witnesses are not inherently trustworthy.

And how does all of this apply to the patterns of more ancient
human memory--those distinctive, archetypal complexes referring us
back to the mythical age of the gods? In this series of
explorations we will illustrate the following principles--

1) Cultures around the world, using quite different words and
symbols, describe remarkably similar experiences;

2) These points of agreement consistently include unique, but
well-defined forms in the sky;

3) The recurring forms have no relationship to things seen in our
sky, or to any natural experience today;

4) Granting the presence of these extraordinary forms will make
possible a unified explanation of myth, removing hundreds of
contradictions and anomalies left unexplained by prior theories of
myth.

In seeking to reconstruct ancient memories through cross-cultural
comparison, we will discover a substructure of remarkable depth
and coherence. The power of human memory is incomparably greater
than scholars have typically assumed.
----------------------------------------------

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Nick,

GC.I don't think Nick is foolish enough to accuse me of lack of knowledge of comparative mythology. What Nick accuses me of is lack of knowledge, or understanding, of the comparative method employed by the Saturn theorists.

Nick. Yes. That is at the root of the issue. If one does not accept the method used in the analysis then there is not much more to talk about.

A theory is judged on its evidence not its methodology.

You might want to edit out DT's email addy there.

From the Acheson piece:

In this series of explorations we will illustrate the following principles--

Was that done and is it available online?

[nick c]

hi GC,

You might want to edit out DT's email addy there.

Done.

From the Acheson piece:

In this series of explorations we will illustrate the following principles--

Was that done and is it available online?

Actually Amy Acheson asked a question and Talbott answered. And yes there is an entire series of articles using this technique. These are in the Thoth newsletter. I expect them to reappear at some EU related site, hopefully sooner than latter. In the meantime, Lloyd posted them on a website here:
http://sci2.lefora.com/forum/category/s ... pics-news/

the table of contents:
http://sci2.lefora.com/2010/06/22/24/

Nick

[Grey Cloud]

Cheers Nick

[Sparky]

nick c

"-the Earth was originally a satellite of a small brown dwarf star-"

"-they shared their axes of rotation, giving the brown dwarf the appearance of a large stationary orb over the North pole"


"Plasma cosmology and the Electric Universe provide the mechanisms and supporting evidence that lend credence to such outlandish claims."

How is that?...From what i have read it would seem to disprove the 90deg tilt of the earth... with normal induced rotation axes 90deg to plane of orbit.....not sure how earth shared axes of rotation with saturn/sun?....Our axes wanders a bit.....for sun to appear as stationary would not the earth have to be in geosynchronous orbit with a more normal axes of rotation, not the 90deg tilt which would not allow a geosynchronous orbit? ...what do i not understand?...thanks

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Sparky,
Nick's away for a while so wont be able to answer. In any case you are off-topic with your questions.

[Sparky]

Hi Sparky,
Nick's away for a while so wont be able to answer. In any case you are off-topic with your questions.-----A theory is judged on its evidence not its methodology.

I was questioning evidence, interpretation of mythology, and methodology.

thank you...

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Sparky,
Nick's away for a while so wont be able to answer. In any case you are off-topic with your questions.-----A theory is judged on its evidence not its methodology.

I was questioning evidence, interpretation of mythology, and methodology.

thank you...

Hi Sparky,
The topic of this thread is per the title. I didn't address the science in the critique (of the book God Star not the Saturn theory per se). Your post doesn't mention mythology.

[StevenJay]

How do you know any of this to be the case?

Obviously, I don't - any more than you know it to NOT be the case. You put forth a hypothetical notion and I responded with one. I'm not going to respond to any of the rest because, frankly, I've grown weary of this dance.

You have repeatedly stated something to the effect of: "I'm no scientist... my interest lies in ancient texts and the philosophy contained therein." Fair enough. Most of us here aren't scientists either; just open-minded enthusiasts. So then, that begs the question (and I'm not being facetious): Why do you hang out at a science-driven forum, since you don't seem much interested in that aspect of what is discussed here? Why not beat the crap out of the Saturn Theory and its proponents at, say, an ancient texts and wisdom forum?

As I've said before, those ancient texts, the translations of which you so fervently hang your hat on, were all - ALL - generated hundreds of generations; thousands of years AFTER the theoretical Saturn event. So, tell me, what makes them so bullet-proof?

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Steven,

Grey Cloud wrote:
How do you know any of this to be the case?

Obviously, I don't - any more than you know it to NOT be the case. You put forth a hypothetical notion and I responded with one. I'm not going to respond to any of the rest because, frankly, I've grown weary of this dance.

Perhaps, but at least I can cite some ancient evidence in support of what I say. My 'hypothesis' is not mine; it is based on what the ancient texts say, e.g. Nature operates in cycles and periodically the Earth gets overtaken by a catastrophe, alternately deluge and conflagration.
Fine, you have grown weary of the dance. May I remind you that you started it?

You have repeatedly stated something to the effect of: "I'm no scientist... my interest lies in ancient texts and the philosophy contained therein." Fair enough. Most of us here aren't scientists either; just open-minded enthusiasts. So then, that begs the question (and I'm not being facetious): Why do you hang out at a science-driven forum, since you don't seem much interested in that aspect of what is discussed here? Why not beat the crap out of the Saturn Theory and its proponents at, say, an ancient texts and wisdom forum?

That I confess to a lack of scientific knowledge does not mean that I have no interest in the subject. I happen to think that the EU side of things has a lot going for it. I also happen to believe that the Saturn theories are a handicap to the EU. Hence I read, learn and inwardly digest what is posted on the upper boards but refrain from comment, while down here I criticise what I percieve to be wrong about the Saturn theories.
If you happen to know the whereabouts of an ancient texts and/or wisdom forum then I would be most grateful if you wold be so kind as to point me to it.

As I've said before, those ancient texts, the translations of which you so fervently hang your hat on, were all - ALL - generated hundreds of generations; thousands of years AFTER the theoretical Saturn event. So, tell me, what makes them so bullet-proof?

They are not bullet-proof but they are consistent, real and generally dateable. What have you or the Saturn theorists got to hang your hats on?
The contents of these ancient texts, which incidentally, the Saturn theorists use, were not plucked out of thin air. The authors in many cases had access to older records which have not come down to us, and obviously the oral tradition. I would add they they could probably, at least in many cases, read the glyphs, hieroglyphs and other symbolic forms of 'writing'.
You say 'ALL' were written 'hundreds of generations; thousands of years AFTER the theoretical Saturn event'. When exactly was the Saturn event? Which Saturn event, Talbott's or Cardona's? Do you have a date for the writing of the Rig Veda?

[Grey Cloud]

To whom it may concern.

I did not open this thread nor did I bring up the topic of my critique in the other thread.
If anyone wishes to debate the contents of my critique then fine, let's do it but can we please have an end to sniping at me, which nobody appears capable of backing up and the rest of the off-topic posts?

We thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Have a nice day.

[GaryN]

Hi GC,

My 'hypothesis' is not mine; it is based on what the ancient texts say, e.g. Nature operates in cycles and periodically the Earth gets overtaken by a catastrophe, alternately deluge and conflagration.

That's as deep into this subject as I ever want to go. Attempting to date and describe the nature of the events is pointless if there have been many such events, and the nature of each varies, depending most likely on the temperature, voltage, polarity, and perhaps some pulsations, in the plasma flows/electrical discharges.
Very interesting to note that many events that have had positive effects on the human race seemed to begin about 6500 years ago. I haven't read this book, just happened to find this while surfing the 'Net. I think this fits in with what the Greeks said, that there have been many destructions, many more to come, and sometimes life on earth has to be 'reinvigorated'. Of course, then you have to ask who the invigorator was??

http://books.google.ca/books?id=V2VuYC2 ... on&f=false

And we are now moving back into Aquarius.

[Sparky]

Hi Sparky,
Nick's away for a while so wont be able to answer. In any case you are off-topic with your questions.-----A theory is judged on its evidence not its methodology.

I was questioning evidence, interpretation of mythology, and methodology.

thank you...

Hi Sparky,
The topic of this thread is per the title. I didn't address the science in the critique (of the book God Star not the Saturn theory per se). Your post doesn't mention mythology.

jeeez, guy!......how anal and long winded does someone have to be to post in the EU forums?!

For all you know i may agree with your critique, devoid of science as it was.

I am not of the EU religious cult, but i am honestly trying to understand the more valid perspectives in my way.. That is by asking questions when someone brings up a point that i don't understand....That is what i did...I asked a question about something that someone brought up....Even though you do not think it relevant, i do... i hope you don't have a problem with that.thank you..

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Sparky,

The topic of this thread is per the title. I didn't address the science in the critique (of the book God Star not the Saturn theory per se). Your post doesn't mention mythology.

Which part of this do you not understand?

Oh, and you wont make many friends with remarks such "EU religious cult".