A Very Brief Response to Grey Cloud's Critique

[nick c]

A VERY BRIEF RESPONSE TO GREY CLOUD'S CRITIQUE
OF CARDONA'S GOD STAR



Grey Cloud posted a lengthy criticism of Dwardu Cardona's God Star here:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 555#p10555

For the purposes of this response, I will refer to Cardona as the 'author,' God Star as the 'book,' and Grey Cloud as 'GC.'

I do not necessarily agree with everything in the book, indeed I would question the details of some scenarios, for example, the longevity of the polar configuration. The author would be the first to admit that this is a 'work in progress.' The book is to be followed with other volumes, continuing the story of disturbances to the celestial order where this book leaves off.
The author presents a remarkable case for a 'stranger than fiction' picture of the human species' past. That being said, it seems to me, that GC refuses to accept the validity of author's method of analysis, opting for metaphorical interpretations, the implications of this tendency will be explored further.

There is nowhere near 493 pages of theory (or evidence) in this book. Half as many pages would have been more than sufficient.

This is a criticism which I find unwarranted, especially since GC is guilty of the same crime, his critique could have been much shorter and to the point, it fails to summarize or point out the general flaws in the book, instead, it is filled with nitpicking and misconceptions. Perhaps the author could have condensed his case to make it more readable to the casual reader, however, this is not an introductory (to planetary catastrophism) book. It is more of an advanced treatise in the topic of planetary catastrophism. I for one, thought the author constructs his case in a workman like manner paying attention to the details. Perhaps GC would prefer the "Readers Digest" version, but I found the author's meticulous style, necessary to assembling his case and presenting evidence from many fields, including explanations derived from the latest astronomical discoveries which hint at how such a bizarre situation (polar alignment of planets) could develop. Current revelations relating to the behaviors of plasmas in space, brown dwarf stars/gas giant planets, the splitting up of Pangea, various geological anomalies associated with the north polar region of the Earth, Herbig-Haro objects, etc etc are discussed. Furthermore this evidence is coordinated with the mytho-historical record, a record that caused several uniformitarian mythographers over the last century to be independently perplexed over references to Saturn as the first Sun or night Sun, residing in a stationary position over the north pole. The fact that numerous ancient references depict an unfamiliar and alternate cosmogony yet display a descriptive consistency requires an explanation, especially so, since the order described is thought to be impossible according to accepted mainstream astronomy. Plasma cosmology and the Electric Universe provide the mechanisms and supporting evidence that lend credence to such outlandish claims. Traditionally, Saturn theory and planetary catastrophism in general, were rejected on the grounds of celestial mechanics, slowly but surely that argument is being eroded by the realization that planets and stars are moving charged bodies and space is a tenuous plasma conducting electric currents which in turn create magnetic fields. The size of the work is necessary due to the requirement that the author both present his scenario, its' comparisons to mainstream interpretations, and competing alternative theories as well, each of which must be explained and weighed against each other. I cannot fault the author for attention to relevant detail, nor do I think he is guilty of long windedness.

Nowhere in the book does he state in one place, and in full, exactly what his theory is.

It is difficult to understand how GC could have missed the theory. The author presents a set of hypothesis' which are gradually expanded and refined. The hypothesis' are numbered and explicitly stated. At the end of the book the author presents to the reader a numbered list of the finalized hypothesis'. I had no problem figuring out what was the proposed sequence of events: the events are explicitly described in sequential order in pages 490-492.
The author's proposed scenario:
-the Earth was originally a satellite of a small brown dwarf star, located inside of the dwarf star's plasmasphere which was in glow mode, obscuring stars as seen from Earth, the remnant of this brown dwarf is the body we today call Saturn
-the system was traveling through space alone for an unspecified, but presumably long period of geological time, the brown dwarf (and its' plasmasphere), was the sole source of warmth and light for the Earth
-they shared their axes of rotation, giving the brown dwarf the appearance of a large stationary orb over the North pole
-the system eventually came under the influence of (was captured by) the Sun disrupting the brown dwarf causing its' plamasphere to move into dark mode, stars became visible on Earth, the brown dwarf shone brighter presumably because of electrical stress, the Sun became visible
-the approaching Sun was first visible as a very bright star getting larger and brighter as the dwarfs' system was in the process of being captured, becoming a part of the Sun's system, during this time Saturn, still stationary at the celestial pole, was visible in the daytime but dominated the night sky and was described as a sun of night.
The rest of the story is left for a subsequent volume.
The thesis is explicitly stated, GC's above statement is perplexing.

Nowhere in the book is a single mythological tale used, let alone analysed. Instead the reader is presented with Cardona's opinion on what he is about to read, what he is reading and what he has just read, supported by certain key words and phrases culled from everywhere and anywhere and arranged to suit Cardona's 'theory'.

Here GC (misunderstands or rather refuses to accept) the comparative technique. He desires to have each myth told in its entirety and analyzed, so the reader can learn the metaphorical meanings or ethical lessons that are symbolized or defined. But this is not the way the comparative method is properly used. It's purpose is not to explain the detailed meanings of a single myth, rather it is a means of extracting an unusual detail or motif and relating it to other myths from other cultures with a similar unusual detail or motif. This process requires that many elements of a specific myth must be ignored (it is a filtering process) as local, and therefore irrelevant, embellishments. It is in essence a forensic technique.
Noting that a myth depicts some bizarre or unusual occurence that is repeated in other cultures is central to the technique. The probabilities of the same bizarre or unusual events independently appearing in myths of seperate cultures are exceedingly small, and an explanation is required. The author explores this in detail taking theories such as diffusion into consideration.
For example (pps 40-43), the figure of a straggly haired witch riding a broom appears in Europe as well as Mesoamerica, also several cultures associate comets with the broom. Through out Asia comets are called "broom stars."
http://books.google.com/books?id=9JatFv ... #PPA107,M1
Furthermore, the Aztec witchs' broom is depicted entwined with a serpent, also a well known cometary symbol.
It is therefore not a stretch to visualize various peoples in different areas of the world, confronted with an impressive comet with visually stunning plasma effects, independently arriving at a similar description of the picture viewed on the screen of the sky. Whatever other elements of the myth; such as the name of the witch, her purpose, her deeds, ethical lessons, metaphorical meanings, etc are only relevant if they are connected to a similar myth(s) from elsewhere, otherwise those details that are unique to only a single story are irrelevant. The more unusual and unlikely the motif, the more impressive is any commonality.
But GC's attitude is typified by the way he shrugs off this impressive piece of evidence without offering any alternative, so what does GC write concerning the example of the Mesoamerican broom riding witch?

Notice that she isn't riding side-saddle.

This comment betrays a tendency permeating GC's entire critique...dwelling on irrelevant details and totally missing the larger point. The fact that the picture in the book depicts a European witch riding side saddle and the Mesoamerican witch does not, has absolutely no bearing on the startling enigma of two unrelated cultures describing a witch as riding a broom, both involving cometary imagery.

The author uses a technique analogous to that of a forensic investigator interrogating witnesses and extracting information pertinent to solving a crime. The detective discards extraneous information, keeping that which is pertinent to the case. Most of this extra information in other contexts may be interesting, but it is irrelevant to the investigation. Most of the body of myth is festooned with local embellishments and subjective interpretations, added on in telling and retelling, which must be filtered out as extraneous detail. GC complains, because his preferred approach is to consider every detail, so that some metaphysical, ethical, or such meaning can be learned from the wisdom of our ancestors, when all that this approach can accomplish is an obscuration of the celestial events described, by a confusion of inconsequential minutia. To paraphrase R. Buckminster Fuller, problem solving is the process of dismissing irrelevancies.
GC's complaint that the author is selectively picking can only stem from a misunderstanding of the particular technique.
True! the author is selectively picking, that is, he is picking those common themes that appear all over the globe, as this is the very essence of the method. The author is consistent and meticulous in his methodology, GC's complaints notwithstanding.

"As we all know, the sun does not send forth its rays into a circle; it does not reside in a ring" (p25). I thought that the Sun resides in a ring of planets and also had a magnetosphere (though technically spherical rather circular) and that the Sun sends its rays out in all directions; does Cardona think it only radiates at the Earth? Cardona does not explain how his Saturn, proto- or otherwise, sends forth its rays into a circle or how it resides in a ring, given that, according to his explanation, the inhabitants of Earth could not see anything other than darkness, semi-darkness or haze

Again, I thought that the author was clear in bringing forth the scenario he was developing, but GC does not get the picture being presented. GC draws a comparison to the present order of the solar system but the author is describing an entirely different type of system. The criticism misses the point.
From my reading, the author is proposing....The basic picture described is that of a brown dwarf star (Proto-Saturn) and Earth which shared the same axis of rotation. The appearance as seen from Earth would have undergone changes over time. Earth was immersed in the brown dwarf's plasmasphere which was in glow mode. Surrounding the brown dwarf was an expulsion disc forming a nebulous torus in the star's equatorial plane. The shining orb of the brown dwarf cast a dim light, a perpetual twilight on Earth. The sky would have an auroral type glow, with a visibly more intense plasma connection between the poles of the star and Earth. As seen from Earth, the star would appear as a large shining orb stationary over the North Pole (axis of rotation) surrounded by a circular halo (ring) of nebulosity and sitting atop an ethereal mountain, tree, pole, etc, also known as the 'axis mundi.'

The ancients knew that all the planets were spherical, Saturn wasn't a special case.

The author cites several instances where Saturn was not only known to be a sphere, but also encircled by a system of rings. The fact that the ancients knew that other planets were spheres in no way subtracts from the author's thesis, on the contrary it will be shown ultimately, to be in support. The question that really needs to be answered is:
How is it that the ancients knew the planets were spheres? Why would they not assume that they were just bright stars that moved differently than the fixed stars? as this is the present case as viewed from Earth.
They knew the planets as spheres because that is the what was observed. The planets were at times much closer than what we see today. Like the witch on the broom example that was cited earlier this is what was displayed on the screen of the sky to all the peoples of the world.
As far as other planets being known to be spheres, again, that is because they were at times closer to the Earth and were perceived by observers as spheres. I assume, in the next volume some other celestial bodies such as Venus, Mars, and others will be introduced into the model.

This also begs the question of what was shining during the day in order for there to be a night for Saturn to shine in.

GC brings up this question more than once in his critique, which I can only explain as his misunderstanding of the dynamics of the scenario proposed in the book. Again, the author explains this too.
First, proto Saturn would have shined in subdued light, which the author calls a perpetual twilight, it is more akin to (but brighter and larger than) the full moon. The difference being that proto Saturn was a small brown dwarf star and was it's own light source, hence the categorizing it as a "sun." The Earth was a satellite enveloped in the plasmasphere (in glow mode) of this little star.
Later, the brown dwarf was captured by the present Sun. The Saturnian system would have then been in orbit around the Sun, at this time the plasmasphere of Saturn went into dark mode as it entered the plasmasphere of the Sun. During this period, the present Sun provided daylight illumination, and Saturn was the 'sun of night.'

Mostly Cardona uses secondary, tertiary and, in some cases, quaternary sources. This begins on page 1 with the first footnote of the book. According to the text, it is one Franz Xavier Kugler being quoted but when one looks at the footnote it turns out to be L. C. Stecchini who quoted Kugler, and Stecchini was in turn quoted by De Grazia in a book about Velikovsky.
Then there is Sanchoniathon who we get from Philo Byblos, who in turn we get from Eusebius, and who Cardona gets from Velikovsky. Sanchoniathon is circa 700 BCE, Philo c. 64-141 CE, and Eusebius c. 263–339 CE. In other words, there is aproximately 1,000 years between Sanchoniathon and Eusebius. Eusebius was a Christian bishop which makes anything he writes about a pagan somewhat suspect.

The criticisms here are largely irrelevant. The book has an abundance of footnotes, they show where the author derived any particular statement. GC is attacking the footnote itself not the content of the authors statement, this is unwarranted. Kugler is one of the greatest experts on Assyrio-Babylonian culture ever. His published works were in the German language, so it is not out of order for the author to rely on others interpretations and translations of those works. The important point is that Kugler repeatedly expressed his uniformitarian puzzlement at incongruencies in Babylonian tablets and cosmogony and that the author resolves these issues using his theory.
Likewise, Sanchoniathon is known to us through other sources. It does not matter that Eusebius was a Christian bishop or whatever, what he wrote is to be assessed according to the comparative method which (and this is the strength of the method) filters out subjective bias as was already explained in a paragraph above. This line of criticism is the equivalent of condeming the use of Plato's statement that the "Phaethon" myth is based on a cosmic catastrophe because Plato got his info from Critias, who got it from Solon, who got it from an Egyptian priest. The topic is about events that took place in the beginnings of human collective memory, of course many accounts would be handed down through indirect sources! Most eyewitnesses perished with no legacy, those that survived would have faced a world of no laws or social structure, accompanied by geological upheaval. This is not conducive (as Plato explained) to the preservation of first hand written accounts.

He also fails to explain how these same people could come up with such works as the I Ching, the Vedas, or any of the other sophisticated philosophical works from around the world.

Irrelevant. The detective does not worry about whether a potential witness possesses some esoteric wisdom, only what that witness can contribute to the solution of the case at hand. He does not want to know if the witness is a great philosopher, only if he got the license plate, make, model, and color of the getaway car.

At this point, my response has taken more time than the criticism deserves, so I will break it off here. I have given some examples to demonstrate that GC has by and large misunderstood the author's method or has dwelled on irrelevant details. In short, GC has his own interpretations of myth as a body of sacred knowledge, and bristles at the suggestion that at its' root, it is an account of celestial events of a catastrophic nature, this despite statements by Plato and Aristotle indicating that the gods were celestial bodies and the anthropomorphic details were added on later. He also ignores the evidence that the catastrophic interpretation is supported, beyond mythology, by physical evidence such as that presented by the Electric Universe and findings in geology and astronomy.

The irony is that this book is open to some formidable questions and counter arguments, such as:
-is the polar configuration possible according to celestial mechanics?
-how could humans have survived?
-are the time scales, both historical and geological, untenable?
-can the references to the polar configuration be explainable by precession or other means?
-and so on...
GC does not even raise these questions, he could have made a better case exploring these avenues of criticism.

Nick

[Lloyd]

* Thanks a lot, Nick, for this extensive rebuttal of GC's criticisms. I think you did a rather good job of it.
* I think one of GC's criticisms was that the myths cited are not very ancient. Can you share with us some of the major sources for the myths cited by Cardona? I think Dave Talbott has cited the Egyptian Bood of the Dead as a very ancient source. Does Cardona cite it? Do you know how old it is and how old the other sources are?
* It would be good to have a list of sources of ancient myths in chronological order. Does anyone know of such a list? I guess the Sumerian tablets are considered among the oldest.
* I see Wikipedia does have a list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mythologies.
* Here's what they have for Mythologies by time period:
Ancient mythologies by period of first attestation.
Bronze Age
* Proto-Indo-European mythology (reconstructed) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo ... _mythology
o Proto-Indo-Iranian mythology (reconstructed) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo ... _mythology
* Mesopotamian mythology (Sumerian, Akkadian) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesopotamian_mythology
* Egyptian mythology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_m ... #Mythology
* Hittite mythology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittite_mythology
* Hurrian mythology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurrian_mythology#Religion
* Rigvedic mythology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigvedic_mythology
Iron Age
* Classical mythology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_mythology
o Greek mythology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_mythology
o Roman mythology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_mythology
* Etruscan mythology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_mythology
* Celtic mythology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_mythology
* Germanic mythology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_mythology
Late Antiquity
* Altaic mythology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altaic_mythology
* Slavic mythology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_mythology
* Arabian mythology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabian_mythology

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Nick,

I’d like to address some of the faults you found with my critique.

The length of the critique was dictated partly by the length of God Star (GS), partly by the number of faults I found with GS, and partly by the number and length of the quoted passages I used.

You wrote:

The author would be the first to admit that this is a 'work in progress.'

… however, this is not an introductory (to planetary catastrophism) book. It is more of an advanced treatise in the topic of planetary catastrophism.

So which is it? Is it a ‘work in progress’ or ‘an advanced treatise’?

The fact that numerous ancient references depict an unfamiliar and alternate cosmogony yet display a descriptive consistency requires an explanation, especially so, since the order described is thought to be impossible according to accepted mainstream astronomy.

It was familiar to all the ancients and is an alternative to the BB, but that in no wise means that it supports any of the Saturn theories. The Saturn theories are thought to be impossible by mainstream astronomy but the ancients theory has they advantage of being part and parcel of a philosophy which incorporates all aspects of life. That the Saturn theorists continually choose to ignore this is their problem.

Cardona’s hypotheses and theory. My point was that these hypotheses are not stated together until p490-91, i.e. at the end of the book rather than at the beginning. His theory itself it not stated at all other unless one accepts the list of hypotheses as the theory. Nor are these hypotheses entirely consistent. For instance On p140 he states: “… Hypothesis #1 – to the effect that, according to the ancients, the planet Saturn once shone as a sun.”. [Cardona’s emphasis]. On page 490, “Hypothesis #1: That the present gas giant planet we know by the name of Saturn had previously been a sub-brown dwarf star free floating in space outside the demarcation of the present Solar System”.

“At this point we can add Hypothesis #2 to the effect that, still according to the ancients, the primeval Saturnian sun shone during that time that we call night”. [p153, Cardona’s emphasis].
“Hypothesis #2: That, from what can be deduced from ancient as well as primitive astronomical lore, Earth had once been a satellite of this proto-Saturnian sub-star, which, because of its proximity, loomed large in the sky as a distinct disc larger than the apparent size of the full moon”. [p490]. I couldn’t be bothered checking and typing up the rest.

“Here GC (misunderstands or rather refuses to accept) the comparative technique. He desires to have each myth told in its entirety and analyzed, so the reader can learn the metaphorical meanings or ethical lessons that are symbolized or defined. But this is not the way the comparative method is properly used. It's purpose is not to explain the detailed meanings of a single myth, rather it is a means of extracting an unusual detail or motif and relating it to other myths from other cultures with a similar unusual detail or motif. This process requires that many elements of a specific myth must be ignored (it is a filtering process) as local, and therefore irrelevant, embellishments. It is in essence a forensic technique”.

Yes I desire each mythological tale to be analysed in its entirety but not just so the reader can learn metaphorical or ethical lessons. I wish the tale to be taken in its context not to be cherry-picked for a word or phrase then abandoned. That there are metaphorical, ethical and allegorical elements to myths is not my invention, it has been recognised for thousands of years, e.g. by Plato. A further point which I made in the critique and have mentioned more than once on this forum is that every part of a given tale is information – it is not padding.
I still do not understand your (and the Saturn theorists’) use of the word ‘forensic’.

The witch, her broom and my comment about her not riding side-saddle. My comments were directed to the illustration of a mediaeval witch, not the Mesoamerican comet examples. My comment alluded to the sexual symbolism of the picture which in turn involves the broom being a phallic symbol. The concepts involved are related to Tantra and the use of sexual energy. Perhaps now you can see why she is not riding side-saddle. I have no problem with comets being associated with witches as such, my problem was and is that Cardona’s image does not really reflect what he says in the text, i.e. he is using a modern caricature of a mediaeval European witch to illustrate his comments about Mesoamerican comet depictions.

“As far as other planets being known to be spheres, again, that is because they were at times closer to the Earth and were perceived by observers as spheres. I assume, in the next volume some other celestial bodies such as Venus, Mars, and others will be introduced into the model”.

According to Cardona’s hypotheses and your interpretation of them, no other body was visible, not even the Sun. As for your last sentence, what happens in subsequent volumes has no bearing on Cardona’s evidence in GS or my critique of it. Cardona has in fact released the next volume, so are these other bodies introduced?

Saturn the night Sun. It is Cardona who constantly makes reference to Saturn shining at night. See his hypothesis #2 above (the one from p153) – “the primeval Saturnian sun shone during that time that we call night”. This has nothing to do with your attempted explanation involving different phases of this supposed scenario. There is no time we call night without the planet revolving around its axis and a non-coaxial illuminating orb.

Cardona’s use of his sources. I notice that you make no attempt to explain away the discrepancies between what the sources actually say and what Cardona says that they say, e.g. his use of ellipses and his not actually having read the source he is ostensibly quoting from (i.e. taking things out of context).

I do not deny that various ancient texts and mythology contain references to celestial and catastrophic events, something you should know as we have had this dance on several threads. Nor do I advocate that said texts and mythologies contain only metaphysical information. My position has always been that mythology and literature such as the Vedas contains a wealth of knowledge pertaining to various subjects. It is you and the Saturn theories on the contrary, who advocate that all mythology and literature such as the Vedas contains only information on celestial catastrophe. This is why they are forced to cherry-pick their information and disregard the rest.
Let us take the Rig Veda as an example. If its subject matter is celestial catastrophe and nothing else, then surely an in-depth examination of the book would yield much information about such a catastrophe(s). Or are the Saturn theorists suggesting that there is only a small kernel of information about catastrophe and the rest of it is just padding and flannel? Why would the authors of the Rig go to the trouble of writing in verse 10 Mandalas containing over 1000 hymns for a total of 432,000 syllables? It seems an awful lot of trouble to go to. As far as I am aware, none of the hymns is addressed to Saturn (Shana or Shanaishchara, though he might have another name in the Rig).
Incidentally the number 432,000 pops up in other cultures too.

As for me not addressing the science behind God Star, as I have stated elsewhere I do not have the science knowledge to do so. There again, I don’t see anyone with such knowledge leaping to support Cardona’s (or Talbott’s) science – maybe I missed it?

[Lloyd]

GC said: My position has always been that mythology and literature such as the Vedas contains a wealth of knowledge pertaining to various subjects. It is you and the Saturn theories on the contrary, who advocate that all mythology and literature such as the Vedas contains only information on celestial catastrophe. This is why they are forced to cherry-pick their information and disregard the rest.
Let us take the Rig Veda as an example. If its subject matter is celestial catastrophe and nothing else, then surely an in-depth examination of the book would yield much information about such a catastrophe(s). Or are the Saturn theorists suggesting that there is only a small kernel of information about catastrophe and the rest of it is just padding and flannel?

* I've never noticed any catastrophist claim that any myths are about catastrophes and nothing else. They have stated that the original reports of catastrophes either were not written down by observers or the writings were lost. The human mind may even have been different at that time than now. Reports were handed down mainly or entirely by word of mouth. Later generations that did not witness the catastrophes did not understand their ancestors' reports, because conditions on Earth were no longer the same. So they added ideas to the reports that made sense to them, giving explanations for things that weren't in the original reports. This led over time to entire systems of beliefs that were not part of their ancestors' reports, but that often contained much wisdom. And the only way for anyone to discover what the original reports were is to find all of the things, i.e. motifs, that all of the ancient myths had in common, not the many details added by later generations in each nation.

Why would the authors of the Rig go to the trouble of writing in verse 10 Mandalas containing over 1000 hymns for a total of 432,000 syllables? It seems an awful lot of trouble to go to. As far as I am aware, none of the hymns is addressed to Saturn (Shana or Shanaishchara, though he might have another name in the Rig).
Incidentally the number 432,000 pops up in other cultures too.

* They obviously felt that it was very important wisdom to pass on to future generations, even if they didn't entirely understand the original meanings of the original "myths", or ancestral eye-witness reports.

As for me not addressing the science behind God Star, as I have stated elsewhere I do not have the science knowledge to do so. There again, I don’t see anyone with such knowledge leaping to support Cardona’s (or Talbott’s) science – maybe I missed it?

* Why do you ignore the many scientists who contribute to this site and the forum? Most of them probably haven't read Cardona's expensive book, but many know the basic theme, based on some of the material here and from Thoth and other sites.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Loyd

I've never noticed any catastrophist claim that any myths are about catastrophes and nothing else.

What about god = plaent full stop? What about Talbott writing that the Iliad is entirely celestial?

Later generations that did not witness the catastrophes did not understand their ancestors' reports, because conditions on Earth were no longer the same. So they added ideas to the reports that made sense to them, giving explanations for things that weren't in the original reports. This led over time to entire systems of beliefs that were not part of their ancestors' reports, but that often contained much wisdom.

I accept that over time each body of myth was added to and subtracted from etc. However the core meaning of the mythology was retained. The underlying philosophy of the Orphics is no different from that of the Iliad; or Pythagorus or Plato. The Mesopotamian philosophy is the same, and essentially the same as the Greek. The Vedic is essentially the same as the Mesopotamian and the Greek. The Egyptian maintains its coherence throughtout Egyptian history and is essentially the same as the Greek, the Mesopotamian and the Indian. It is similar with the Mesoamerican which is essentially the same as the old world philosophy. All of these philosophies emerge fully formed in the earliest accounts we have, they do not evolve over time. The wisdom is there from the start.

Why do you ignore the many scientists who contribute to this site and the forum? Most of them probably haven't read Cardona's expensive book, but many know the basic theme, based on some of the material here and from Thoth and other sites.

Point me to the many scientists on this site and the forum who provide evidence for the science involved in either Cardona's or Talbott's planetary merry-go-round.

[CTJG 1986]

Hi Loyd

I've never noticed any catastrophist claim that any myths are about catastrophes and nothing else.

What about god = plaent full stop? What about Talbott writing that the Iliad is entirely celestial?

Later generations that did not witness the catastrophes did not understand their ancestors' reports, because conditions on Earth were no longer the same. So they added ideas to the reports that made sense to them, giving explanations for things that weren't in the original reports. This led over time to entire systems of beliefs that were not part of their ancestors' reports, but that often contained much wisdom.

I accept that over time each body of myth was added to and subtracted from etc. However the core meaning of the mythology was retained. The underlying philosophy of the Orphics is no different from that of the Iliad; or Pythagorus or Plato. The Mesopotamian philosophy is the same, and essentially the same as the Greek. The Vedic is essentially the same as the Mesopotamian and the Greek. The Egyptian maintains its coherence throughtout Egyptian history and is essentially the same as the Greek, the Mesopotamian and the Indian. It is similar with the Mesoamerican which is essentially the same as the old world philosophy. All of these philosophies emerge fully formed in the earliest accounts we have, they do not evolve over time. The wisdom is there from the start.

Why do you ignore the many scientists who contribute to this site and the forum? Most of them probably haven't read Cardona's expensive book, but many know the basic theme, based on some of the material here and from Thoth and other sites.

Point me to the many scientists on this site and the forum who provide evidence for the science involved in either Cardona's or Talbott's planetary merry-go-round.

Although I could get into a lengthy post regarding your preconceived notions and ignorance of the "evidence" this site puts forth individuals such as Nick and Lloyd seem to do a much better job of conveying the technical aspects of such things than I do so I'll leave it to them.

But as Nick pointed out you seem to have no real grasp of comparative mythology as a discipline, there is little "evidence" beyond the actual myths themselves hence why we interpret and compare them in such a way to try to understand them.

In regards to the EU take on Saturnian theory pretty much all of the evidence for such a catastrophic event is laid out in the TPOD's here. You ignoring that evidence isn't the problem of anyone but yourself.

Why are you on this site if you don't consider the opinions of Thornhill, Talbot, Nick, Lloyd and many others to be of any credibility and you ignore the work they put forward?

The wisdom is there from the start.

Maybe I'm misreading that statement but please provide evidence that these first recorded philosophies were the 'start' and that prior word of mouth passage of such information did not occur.

Although chronology is a sticky thing around here it's generally accepted that the events that are laid out by Saturnian theory would have occurred thousands of years before Plato or any of those other philosophers were alive, their work is the end result of generations of people passing on the 'myths' and adding to them and such and not the 'start'.

Most of the altering of the stories would have occurred prior to them being recorded by such philosophers as once recorded it's far more difficult to alter a story. Once recorded the only thing that can really be "changed" is the interpretations of the story.

On this site an EU interpretation of mythology is presented and it includes Saturnian theory.

If you disagree with that interpretation then that is your right but ignoring the evidence you don't like or taking issue with the comparative mythological context used is not the fault of Saturnian theory or any of it's proponents.

Note: I'm not trying to be confrontational here but I've rewritten this post four times and no matter how I word it it comes across that way. No offense intended.

Jonny

[Grey Cloud]

Hi CTJG 1986,

Although I could get into a lengthy post regarding your preconceived notions and ignorance of the "evidence" this site puts forth...

If you are going to accuse me of preconceived notions and ignorance then the least you could do is to provide an example or two.

But as Nick pointed out you seem to have no real grasp of comparative mythology as a discipline, there is little "evidence" beyond the actual myths themselves hence why we interpret and compare them in such a way to try to understand them.

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. As I've mentioned before, exegesis of myth is not a new discipline, it has been around for thousands of years. Those exegetes from, say, Plato's time, had access to records which we no longer have.

In regards to the EU take on Saturnian theory pretty much all of the evidence for such a catastrophic event is laid out in the TPOD's here. You ignoring that evidence isn't the problem of anyone but yourself.

Again you make a stement without giving any examples or evidence. I have never stated that there was no catastrophes. What I was referring to in my post above was the quote from Lloyd:

Why do you ignore the many scientists who contribute to this site and the forum? Most of them probably haven't read Cardona's expensive book, but many know the basic theme, based on some of the material here and from Thoth and other sites.

Maybe I'm misreading that statement but please provide evidence that these first recorded philosophies were the 'start' and that prior word of mouth passage of such information did not occur.

There is a certain irony in you calling for evidence but yes you are misreading the single sentence. The preceding sentence read: "All of these philosophies emerge fully formed in the earliest accounts we have, they do not evolve over time". My point being that these supposedly illiterate, traumatised people suddenly all appear with a coherent, sophisticated philosophy and one which is moreover the same in all its essential details. This is not some crack-pot idea of mine but has been recognised by such as the Indian philosopher Sri Aurobindo and by modern academics.
Have you studied mythology or do you just rely on what the Saturn theorists tell you? What about ancient philosophies and religions?

Although chronology is a sticky thing around here it's generally accepted that the events that are laid out by Saturnian theory would have occurred thousands of years before Plato or any of those other philosophers were alive, their work is the end result of generations of people passing on the 'myths' and adding to them and such and not the 'start'.

Most of the altering of the stories would have occurred prior to them being recorded by such philosophers as once recorded it's far more difficult to alter a story. Once recorded the only thing that can really be "changed" is the interpretations of the story.

You seem unfamiliar with the work of anthroplogists who have studied pre-literate societies, and the difficulties modern scholars have in identifying scribal errors and interpolations in written documents. It is much easier for a written document to become corrupted than for an oral version. Well into the C20th century there were Brahmins who had memorised the entire Rig Veda for instance - all 432,000 syllables.

Why are you on this site if you don't consider the opinions of Thornhill, Talbot, Nick, Lloyd and many others to be of any credibility and you ignore the work they put forward?

My reasons for being on this site are my own business. I have not accused Thornhill of lack of credibility nor can I recall ever criticising any of his work. As I said in one my my posts above, I don't have the requisite knowledge to comment on the science side of things which is why I limit my criticisms to the mythological aspects. Nick and Lloyd are members of this forum just like you and me. I have had sensible discussions with both of them in the past and am currently having one with Lloyd on a different thread. I can agree with a person on one subject and disagree with that same person on a different subject.

[CTJG 1986]

If you are going to accuse me of preconceived notions and ignorance then the least you could do is to provide an example or two.

I wasn't accusing you of ignorance in general but in ignoring the TPOD's that provide the evidence here on this site, whether you agree with the interpretation of that evidence or not simply dismissing it completely is not a wise move.

Your preconceived notions have to do with your prior studies of mythology, which last I checked you openly admit too so I didn't realize I needed to link to it(though I suppose I should have clarified that).

You stated:

Point me to the many scientists on this site and the forum who provide evidence for the science involved in either Cardona's or Talbott's planetary merry-go-round.

You can point yourself at the TPOD's and criticize them for the interpretations they put forward, but they do provide evidence. Or rather an EU Saturnian theory interpretation of the evidence.

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. As I've mentioned before, exegesis of myth is not a new discipline, it has been around for thousands of years. Those exegetes from, say, Plato's time, had access to records which we no longer have.

That was poorly worded on my part I admit and apologize for, I wasn't referring to your general knowledge of mythology or calling it into question but simply your interpretation on this subject matter of Saturn Theory and the comparative method used therein.

Again you make a statement without giving any examples or evidence. I have never stated that there was no catastrophes. What I was referring to in my post above was the quote from Lloyd: ...

I never said that you stated there were no catastrophes either, simply that the evidence of such catastrophes is provided in the TPOD's and all over this website.

Again, if you have a different interpretation of the evidence that's fine but I don't see why you felt the need to make such a huge critique about it(much of which was nitpicking) while ignoring the most important questions such as the ones Nick mentioned in his OP here and dismissing the evidence they provide as not being evidence.

There is a certain irony in you calling for evidence but yes you are misreading the single sentence. The preceding sentence read: "All of these philosophies emerge fully formed in the earliest accounts we have, they do not evolve over time". My point being that these supposedly illiterate, traumatised people suddenly all appear with a coherent, sophisticated philosophy and one which is moreover the same in all its essential details. This is not some crack-pot idea of mine but has been recognised by such as the Indian philosopher Sri Aurobindo and by modern academics.
Have you studied mythology or do you just rely on what the Saturn theorists tell you? What about ancient philosophies and religions?

I only know or have read the work of three Saturn Theorists that I'm aware of, and I'd say I agree with about 40% of their work at most. I'm far more inclined to Perrat's theory of a Z-Pinch aurora in explaining most of the evidence attributed to Saturn Theory but am still doing research on that and other possibilities.

I just take issue with someone writing out a huge criticism of a theory when 90% of the criticism is irrelevant to the actual theory and is essentially just nitpicking. As a massively political person I recognize such behavior quite easily, you should run for a position of power and fit right in.

I have studied modern theology in great depth(historical theology only a bit so far) and philosophy to some extent(reading the actual philosophical works not investigating the authors or the chronology or anything like that), that post was meant to be taken with the next two paragraph's as a lead-up to my point that the "adding on" to the myths occurred before they were recorded by the likes of Plato.

They didn't 'start' with that wisdom as you stated originally but acquired it from prior sources.

The written history may start off with that wisdom but those that wrote it acquired it from others who developed it over time based on their experiences, that is logically the most likely time for such alterations to occur as word of mouth is highly inaccurate. That was simply my point, mistaken impressions and inaccuracies aside.

You seem unfamiliar with the work of anthroplogists who have studied pre-literate societies, and the difficulties modern scholars have in identifying scribal errors and interpolations in written documents. It is much easier for a written document to become corrupted than for an oral version. Well into the C20th century there were Brahmins who had memorised the entire Rig Veda for instance - all 432,000 syllables.

Fair point, though I hope you aren't suggesting that passing information on orally would be any near as reliable as using written works which at least provide some kind of references.

My reasons for being on this site are my own business.

I never said they weren't, though I didn't think you'd take issue with the simple question.

I have not accused Thornhill of lack of credibility nor can I recall ever criticising any of his work. As I said in one my my posts above, I don't have the requisite knowledge to comment on the science side of things which is why I limit my criticisms to the mythological aspects. Nick and Lloyd are members of this forum just like you and me. I have had sensible discussions with both of them in the past and am currently having one with Lloyd on a different thread. I can agree with a person on one subject and disagree with that same person on a different subject.

That's good and I have no problem with you either and have been following many of your posts on many subjects without issue, maybe it's just the internet at work and the lack of tones and inflictions but in the case of your original criticism of God Star and your response to Nick here it seemed to come across as being quite arrogant. It seems like you are saying you know how it is and anyone who suggests otherwise is a nut who believes in a 'merry-go-round' theory...

Being so dismissive on this site is in poor taste in my view, hence my confrontational response(I really did try to lighten it up).

I'm sure that was just another misinterpretation on my part though.

Jonny

[Grey Cloud]

Hi CTJG 1986,
For the record, I didn't take your tone as confronalional (I accepted waht you said at the end of your first post).

I just take issue with someone writing out a huge criticism of a theory when 90% of the criticism is irrelevant to the actual theory and is essentially just nitpicking. As a massively political person I recognize such behavior quite easily, you should run for a position of power and fit right in.

It wasn't a critique of the Saturn theory, it was critique of the book. Whether you are a massively political person or not, and I've no idea what such a thing is, you know nothing about me. I realise your statement was made in jest but it nowhere near describes me or my values. I take the sentiments expressed in my signature very seriously.

The TPODs do not as far as I am aware directly address either of the Saturn theories. They are mostly comments upon mainstream press-releases from an EU perspective, with a lesser proportion of them dealing with catastrophism. That some mainstream explanations can be better interpreted from an EU perspective and that there are references to catastrophe in ancient literature etc does not in any way, shape or form constitute evidence that the planets once lined up as per Talbott's theory or that Earth was a satellite of Saturn as per Cardona. If anyone can point me to TPODs which directly address either Saturn theory then I stand corrected.

They didn't 'start' with that wisdom as you stated originally but acquired it from prior sources.

That is my point - the wisdom apears fully formed, i.e. it came from prior sources or sources that are lost in prehistory. Therefore to maintain that the ancient peoples originally started out with the simplistic notion that god = planet and then gradually evolved and elaborated their philosophy over the ensuing centuries or millenia is untenable.

[StevenJay]

[...] therefore to maintain that the ancient peoples originally started out with the simplistic notion that god = planet and then gradually evolved and elaborated their philosophy over the ensuing centuries or millenia is untenable.

Hi, GC -

For one who prides himself on the ability to align with the minds of ancient authors, it comes as somewhat of a surprise that you seem to be unable to grasp the mindset of a sentient race of beings who knew nothing of want or need, and who very well may have known nothing of fear. During those times, all they EVER saw above their heads - untouchable - was a looming figure that looked very much like a human eye. It doesn't take much of a stretch of imagination to see how those ancient, innocent terrestrial beings might have revered that all-seeing eye as the Source and Provider of all things - which, indeed it would have been.

If the break-up of the Saturn system took place over the course of several, or even dozens of generations, then the collective perception of the one, all-seeing eye of the benevolent provider might morph into multiple all-powerful beings, who then, at the complete bewilderment of terrestrial inhabitants, proceed to do deadly battle - resulting in MUCH collateral damage.

Our species has been suffering the psychological trauma and emulating that scenario ever since.

As I see it, the original rock-art record of what actually went down (as well as the impetus behind it) was overlaid with all of the philosophical (including religious) points of view regarding that species-changing period of human experience, long (millenia) after the fact. I see that outcome as being partly due to our ability to learn and extrapolate from experience, and interpret it abstractly. I also see it as a way of dulling, or re-directing, the cutting-edge of horrors that were previously unimaginable.

You consistently maintain that the "humanities" cannot be examined via the scientific (forensic) method but, rather, must ONLY be metabolized in their larger philosophical context. Sorry, but that sounds suspiciously pseudo-religious to me.

It's all a dance of perceptions.

[Sparky]

A quote from a John Wayne movie,"Is this a private fight or can anyone join in?"

I would also like a link to an explanation of how Saturn could position itself over Earth's N. Pole...

Also, a short explanation of what this means,"-a brown dwarf star (Proto-Saturn) and Earth which shared the same axis of rotation. "

thank you...

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Steven,

For one who prides himself on the ability to align with the minds of ancient authors, it comes as somewhat of a surprise that you seem to be unable to grasp the mindset of a sentient race of beings who knew nothing of want or need, and who very well may have known nothing of fear. During those times, all they EVER saw above their heads - untouchable - was a looming figure that looked very much like a human eye. It doesn't take much of a stretch of imagination to see how those ancient, innocent terrestrial beings might have revered that all-seeing eye as the Source and Provider of all things - which, indeed it would have been.

How do you know any of this to be the case?
Have you ever read any of the Vedic accounts of Satya Yuga? Or even the Greek accounts of the Golden Age? Or the Egyptian accounts?
For two years or so I have been asking for somebody, anybody to provide me with an ancient reference to an account of something that resembles either of the Saturn theories’ configurations, or something which tells of a re-arrangement of the solar system. I’m asking again.

If the break-up of the Saturn system took place over the course of several, or even dozens of generations, then the collective perception of the one, all-seeing eye of the benevolent provider might morph into multiple all-powerful beings, who then, at the complete bewilderment of terrestrial inhabitants, proceed to do deadly battle - resulting in MUCH collateral damage.

Friggin big ‘if’. So you are saying that these formerly innocent but now bewildered people created their theogony on the fly while all this was going on? Then how come they all made up the same story? A story which, according to this line of thinking, then developed into the same philosophy? Or are you saying that they developed the theogony at a much later date? How did they manage this when they are all supposed to be suffering from collective amnesia? Or did they do it in the immediate aftermath when they had nothing better to be doing but before the collective amnesia kicked in?

Our species has been suffering the psychological trauma and emulating that scenario ever since.

What evidence do you have that all or any of mankind is suffering from any sort of psychological trauma? What do you mean by emulating that scenario?

As I see it, the original rock-art record of what actually went down (as well as the impetus behind it) was overlaid with all of the philosophical (including religious) points of view regarding that species-changing period of human experience, long (millenia) after the fact. I see that outcome as being partly due to our ability to learn and extrapolate from experience, and interpret it abstractly. I also see it as a way of dulling, or re-directing, the cutting-edge of horrors that were previously unimaginable.

The Lascaux cave paintings, for instance, are dated to 17,000 years ago, how does that fit in with the Saturn theories?
If you are referring to the petroglyphs, I do not lump them all together. I do see some of them as done by survivors of catastrophe, not done by any sort of intelligentia but by ordinary folk. Others, some of the Australian art comes to mind, are probably shamanic, similar to the Lascaux-type art.

You consistently maintain that the "humanities" cannot be examined via the scientific (forensic) method but, rather, must ONLY be metabolized in their larger philosophical context. Sorry, but that sounds suspiciously pseudo-religious to me.

Why do Saturn theorists and their supporters have to invoke the word ‘forensic’? Can a myth be recreated in a lab? The humanities are more art than science as they rely on subjective judgement. Sure, artefacts etc can be dated using scientific techniques but the Saturn theorists don't accept the dating techniques, or the ice-core records or any other science which disagrees with their theories anyway, so where does that leave 'forensic science'?
What I actually maintain is that any mythological tale or episode should be examined in context.
I don’t understand your reference to pseudo-religious. Am I being criticised for the pseudo, the religious, or both?

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Sparky,
Come on in, the water's lovely.

[starbiter]

This is from Dr. Velikovsky, with footnotes.

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



Deification of the Planets

The Sun and the Moon are two great luminaries, and it is easily understandable that the imagination of the peoples should be preoccupied with them and should ascribe to them mythological deeds. Yet the ancient mythologies of the Chaldeans, the Greeks, the Romans, the Hindus, the Mayans, preoccupy themselves not with the Sun or the Moon, but prima facie with the planets. Marduk, the great god of the Babylonians, was the planet Jupiter; so was Amon of the Egyptians, Zeus of the Greeks and Jupiter of the Romans.(1) It was much superior to Shamash-Helios, the Sun. Why was it revered by all peoples? Why was the planet Mars chosen to be the personification of the god of war? Why did Kronos of the Greeks, Saturn of the Romans, play a part in hundreds of myths and legends? Thoth of the Egyptians, Nebo and Nergal of the Babylonians, Mithra and Mazda of the Persians, Vishnu and Shiva of the Hindus, Huitzilopochtli and Quetzalcoatl of the Mexicans, were personifications of planets; innumerable hymns were dedicated to them and adventures and exploits ascribed to them.

“The life of our planet has its real source in the Sun,” wrote E. Renan. “All force is a transformation of the Sun. Before religion had gone so far as to proclaim that God must be placed in the absolute and the ideal, that is to say, outside of the world, one cult only was reasonable and scientific, and that was the cult of the Sun.” (2) But the Sun was subordinate to the planets, even though they are not conspicuous, poor sources of light, and no sources of warmth.

The night sky illuminated by stars is majestic. The geometrical figures of the constellations, such as the Pleiades, Orion, or the Great Bear, rolling from the east in the evening to the west before morning, are favorite motifs in poetry, no less than the Sun and the Moon. But the discrepancy in the choice of motifs by the ancients becomes still more obvious. The constellations of the sky took only a minor and incidental part in the mythology of the ancient peoples. The planets were the major gods, and they rule the universe.(3)

“It is not easy to understand the idea which was the basis for the identification of the Babylonian gods with the planets,” writes an author;(4) but the same process of identification of major gods with the planets can be found in the religions of the peoples in all parts of the world. The planets were not affiliated to the gods, or symbols of the gods—they were the gods. In prayers and liturgies they were invoked as gods. “The greater gods, even when addressed by name in prayer, were regarded as astral powers.” (5) This or that planet is selected, according to the text of the prayer, from “the multitude of the stars of heaven” to receive a gift.

“The planetary gods are much the most powerful of all. Their positions in the sky, their reciprocal relations . . . have a decisive influence on all physical and moral phenomena of the world.” (6)

The great majority of us moderns pay no attention to these points in the night sky, and probably not one in ten or even in a hundred is able to point to Jupiter or Mars in the firmament. The planets change their places, but not conspicuously. Were they indebted for their deification to this slow movement, by which they differ from the fixed stars? Did Zeus-Jupiter-Marduk-Amon become the supreme deity, the thunderer and dreadful lord of the universe, only because of his slow movement—he passes in twelve years the circle of the zodiac, traversed by the Sun in twenty-four hours, and by the Moon even quicker? When seen with the naked eye the planet Jupiter distinguishes itself from the fixed stars of first magnitude only by this slow change of position.

Augustine, confused by the problem of the deification of the planets, wrote in the fourth century:

But possibly these stars which have been called by their names are these gods. They call a certain star Mercury, and likewise a certain other star Mars. But among those stars which are called by the name of gods, is that one which they call Jupiter, and yet with them Jupiter is the world. There also is that one they call Saturn, and yet they give him no small property beside, namely all seeds.(7)

Mercury, the closest to the Sun, is barely visible, being hidden in the Sun’s rays. But the ancients made the planet Mercury into a great god—Hermes or Nebo. Why was it feared and worshiped? What is there generally in the planets to inspire awe, so as to influence people to build temples for them, to sing liturgies, to bring sacrifices, to narrate legends, and to dedicate to them the domain of science, of war, of agriculture?

The ancients were sufficiently enlightened to know that the planets are large rocks like the Earth that circle on orbits.(8) And this makes the modern scholars wonder: knowing that the planets are rocks, why did the ancients believe that they are gods?(9)

The key to this problem, which is the major problem of all classical mythology, is already in our hands. The planet Venus was deified because of its dramatic appearance and because of the havoc it brought to the world, as described in Worlds in Collision. I illuminated also the events which made Mars a feared god. Divine qualities were ascribed to the other planets because of the catastrophes they wrought in earlier ages.

In the Persian holy books it is said that “on the planets depends the existence or non-existence of the world—wherefore are they especially to be venerated.” (10) “The seven planets rule the universe,” says a Nabatean inscription.(11) The Greeks and Romans believed that “everything is, in fact, subject to the changes brought about by the revolutions of the stars.” (12)

“The celestial orbs by their combined movements are the authors of all that was, and is, and is to come.” According to ancient Hebrew traditions, “there are seven archangels, each of whom is associated with a planet.” (13) “The seven archangels were believed to play an important part in the universal order through their associations with the planets. . . .” (14)

The reason for the deification of the planets lay in the fact that the planets only a short time ago were not faultlessly circling celestial bodies, nor were they harmless. This is also expressed in a Mandaean text: “How cruel are the planets that stay there and conspire evil in their rage . . . the planets conspire in rage against us.” (15)

References

[These identifications are discussed below, Part IV: “Jupiter of the Thunderbolt.” ]
Dialogues et fragments philosophiques (Paris, 1876), p. 168. [Cf. Macrobius]
[For ancient planetary worship among the Babylonians, see Bartel L. van der Waerden, Science Awakening, Vol. II (Leyden, 1974), p. 59; among the Egyptians, see H. Brugsch, Astronomische und astrologische Inschriften altaegyptischer Denkmaeler (Leipzig, 1883); E. Naville, “La Destruction des hommes par les dieux,” Transactions of the Society for Biblical Archaeology IV (1875), pp. 1-18; O. Neugebauer and R. Parker, Egyptian Astronomical Texts (London, 1969); among the Hebrews, see M. Seligsohn, “Star Worship” in The Jewish Encyclopaedia (New York, 1905); cf. L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia, 1925), vol. III, p. 371; vol. VI, pp. 66f.; among the Persians, see The Dabistan, transl. by D. Shea and A. Troyer (Washington, 1901); among the Finns, see J. M. Crawford’s preface to The Kalevala, (Cincinnati, 1904), p. xiv.].
P. Jensen, Die Kosmologie der Babylonier (Strassburg, 1890), p. 134.
L. W. King, Babylonian Magic and Sorcery, (London, 1896), Section V.; cf. Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride, 48.
F. Cumont, Astrology and Religion among the Greeks and Romans, (1912), p. 120; cf. idem, “Le mysticisme astral,” Bull. Acad. de Belgique (1909); also idem, “Les noms des planetes et l’astrolatrie chez les Grecs,” Antiquite Classique IV (1935), pp. 6ff.
The City of God, transl. by M. Dods (1907), Book VII, ch. 15.
This was the teaching of Anaxagoras as reported by Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Famous Philosophers, II. 8.
E. Pfeiffer, Gestirne und Wetter im griechischen Volksglauben (Leipzig, 1914), pp. 24f. [The deification of the planets is advocated in the Platonic Epinomis 471; cf. also Cicero, De Natura Deorum II. 21. 54-55.]
Yasnav I. 307. See J. Scheftelowitz, Die Zeit als Schicksalgottheit in der indischen und iranischen Religion (Stuttgart, 1929), p. 2.
D. Chwolson, Die Ssabier und der Ssabismus (St. Petersburg, 1856), vol. II, pp. 604f.
Cumont, Astrology and Religion among the Greeks and Romans, pp. 113-114; [cf. M. P. Nilsson, “The Origin of Belief among the Greeks in the Divinity of the Heavenly Bodies,” Harvard Tr. Rel. 33 (1940), pp. 1ff. and idem, “Symbolisme astronomique et mystique dans certains cultes publics grecs,” Homages Bidez-Cumont (1949), pp. 217ff. Cf. also P. Boyance, “La religion astrale de Platon a Ciceron,” Revue des Etudes Grecques LXV (1952), pp. 312-350.]
J. Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition (New York, 1939), p. 98.
Ibid., p. 250.
M. Lidzbarski, “Ein mandaeischer Amulett,” Florilegium, pp. 350f.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Michael,
That post is off-top, see the thread title.

Velikovsky answers his own question:

The Greeks and Romans believed that “everything is, in fact, subject to the changes brought about by the revolutions of the stars.” (12)

“The celestial orbs by their combined movements are the authors of all that was, and is, and is to come.”

That's what astrology is all about. It is no big mystery but is well documented in the ancient literature and modern scholarship.