As usual, the sheeple have missed the point. The real question is: Why was no expense spared in the search for and production of purple dye? The answer is that kings and priests desperately wanted to wear the coloured garments of their god, the planet Saturn.
When were the full rings of Saturn, that we see today, created? In legend and myth there is frequent reference to the "Crescent of Sin" - which the sheeple of academia have mainly interpreted as our Moon, which it so obviously is not - that to me means the partial rings of Saturn as seen from different latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_(mythology)
Were they gradually created when the planet Venus and presumably other satellites were "born" from Saturn's south pole?
My explanation is that the rings were fully formed when the Earth was flooded with salt water (coming from Saturn, Venus or Mars, or any combination thereof) on the collapse of the Axis Mundi. Also created at the same time was the Ouroboros ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros ) encircling the Earth and consisting of water droplets, ice blocks, rocks, stones, sand, minerals, etc, probably formed around the equator and which could have created a second, less severe, global flood and meteorite bombardment years, maybe centuries, later.
Lloyd
Re: Earth Was a Moon of Saturn
Dave X said: When were the full rings of Saturn, that we see today, created? In legend and myth there is frequent reference to the "Crescent of Sin" - which the sheeple of academia have mainly interpreted as our Moon, which it so obviously is not - that to me means the partial rings of Saturn as seen from different latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_(mythology) - Were they gradually created when the planet Venus and presumably other satellites were "born" from Saturn's south pole? - My explanation is that the rings were fully formed when the Earth was flooded with salt water (coming from Saturn, Venus or Mars, or any combination thereof) on the collapse of the Axis Mundi. Also created at the same time was the Ouroboros (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros) encircling the Earth and consisting of water droplets, ice blocks, rocks, stones, sand, minerals, etc, probably formed around the equator and which could have created a second, less severe, global flood and meteorite bombardment years, maybe centuries, later.
Saturn's Crescent * The cover picture on Dave Talbott's video, Symbols of an Alien Sky, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH7lrjixaNA, may show the crescent of Saturn as pictured here: Saturn's Rings * In the above image the crescent is the sunlit part of Saturn. If the rings reformed at that time, early in the Golden Age, the crescent probably would have included the sunlit part of the rings too, but the rings may have been smaller then. The rings should have been seen from underneath, instead of from the side, as we see them today. Cardona calls the original rings a circumstellar disk, which he said was blown away each time Saturn flared, but then reformed sometime after each flare. Here's a quote from the Cardona Interview thread at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1~.
[LK:] Re proto-Saturn's circumstellar disk, do you think it was formed in the same way it seems to be formed now, from "geysers" on its moons ejecting matter into the rings? You said the disk was blown away each time proto-Saturn flared up every few thousand years and that it reformed each time. If it reformed from moon geysers, the moons must not have been blown away. Right? Or were new moons ejected from the brown dwarf each time it flared up? [DC] REPLY: I do not think so. Circumstellar disks and Birkeland jets are blown out of existence when stars go supernovae, but they re-form again. This seems to be a natural response to the stars' electric discharge—a backlash, if you wish—which has to be intrinsic. But much more needs to be done in order to unravel the real impetus behind cosmic flare-ups.
"born" from Saturn's south pole * I haven't heard anyone else suggest that Saturn's moons were ejected from its south pole. Do you have any sources for what anyone else has said along those lines? When the Rings Formed * If I understand Cardona right, the rings of Saturn may have formed after the last flare about 10,000 years ago, although they may have formed in a somewhat different way, since Saturn had just entered the Solar System. Since material seems to be added to the rings from geysers from some of its moons, maybe that's entirely how the rings formed this time. After all, the geysers are electrical effects. It's possible that more rings formed about the time of the "saltwater flood", which would have been at the time of the Saturn System breakup about 5,000 years ago, when the plasma column was severed and released Earth's ocean water it had suspended back onto the Earth. Ouroboros * The Ouroboros is the circular apparition of a snake biting its tail. I initially thought it formed from the Venus comet before Venus settled "on the face" of Saturn at the beginning of the Saturn Golden Age, but I believe now that what Talbott, Cardona et al have in mind is that the Venus comet formed toward the end of the Golden Age, when Venus became unstable, like Mars, and made a smoky circular enclosure around Saturn and eventually along with Mars left the Saturnian domain, probably causing catastrophes enroute. Initially, during most of the Golden Age, Venus had appeared to be a multi-pointed star on the face of Saturn. I suppose the Ouroboros may have made or enlarged Saturn's rings, since it seems to have occurred toward the end of the Golden Age. Here's how Talbott answered me four years ago on this matter of the Ouroboros at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=13&am~.
Re: Chronology Postby David Talbott » Fri May 09, 2008 8:56 am
Lloyd wrote [on Wed May 07, 2008 10:56 am]:- In the Crowns Part 2 thread I mentioned my interest in learning in what chronological order all the ancient apparitions & events occurred, from the beginning of the human race on Earth till the end of the Saturn Age. This seems to be the thread to really discuss that. As I said in part, my understanding of discussions of the Saturn Model is that: 1. Saturn was originally seen as a dim reddish ball that stayed near the horizon, I guess like the way the sun is now seen from within the Arctic and Antarctic circles, there was no sun and no stars or planets were visible, besides Saturn, Earth was in a constant dark twilight with a reddish tint to the sky, 2. then Saturn went to the stationary polar position and turned a golden color, 3. then it became surrounded by a circular cloud, the ouroboros, which was Venus circling it, 4. then Venus moved to the center of Saturn's face, 5. Mars also moved in and out of the same position as Venus, but I don't know if it was already there before Venus arrived.... [snip]
- One thing I've tried to avoid is dwelling on debatable issues of chronology. Saturn as originally a dim red ball on the horizon is, to me, debatable. The idea that the Egyptian "sun-god" Atum roamed "to and fro," looking for a resting place (before he found it, and initiated the "creation"), is about as far as I would go in discussing position and "movement" prior to the phase of the central and motionless luminary. The worldwide tradition of the primeval, motionless sun is, of course, bedrock. - Both the original idea and the language of the Polar Configuration were my own, before others took up the cause. But others have added enough to, 1) provide crucial support for the hypothesis, and 2 ) to complicate matters in terms of unresolved issues. I've always felt that discussion should focus first on principles that can be readily clarified. And on these the best researchers who've taken up the concept of the Polar Configuration will virtually always agree. - Since it was I who first stated the claim that the stars were not seen in the primordial epoch, I'll stand by that one as well. And so too the connection of the comet Venus to the Oroboros or circular serpent, which also originated with me. This last one underscores the need to clarify "levels of confidence." The Oroboros is bedrock (highest confidence). The theme is global and its contexts can be reconstructed in detail. The role of Venus as eye, heart, and soul of the universal sovereign is also bedrock, while the issue of exactly how or when it appeared in that position is more speculative. - What we want to avoid is mixing levels of confidence such that insubstantial conjectures erode the interest in foundational principles, since the latter can be substantiated at the highest levels of confidence. - David Talbott
Dave
Re: Earth Was a Moon of Saturn
Thanks Lloyd, very interesting and informative.
Since our ancestors saw the birth of Venus, I assume the south pole of Saturn to be the logical birth canal - http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2006-137 - as the north pole would not have been seen from the phase-locked Earth. I can't envisage the satellites of Saturn being ejected from anywhere but the poles given what seems to be a north-south vortex in Saturn - http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-034 However, what came first? - the birth of Venus or the Axis Mundi - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_mundi - which presumably also originated from the south pole. Greek myth tells us only that Athene "came out of the head of Zeus", but it would be naturally poetic to carry the birth metaphor further and say the Axis Mundi could have been Venus' umbilical cord which eventually extended to Earth.
My assumption of the Ouroboros encircling the earth comes from the Norse - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B6rmu ... seEdda37-0 and the plethora of rainbows in mythology - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_mythology Imagine the beautiful, awe-inspiring rainbow the encircling serpent/dragon would have made for years as the Earth moved closer to the present Sun. This hinges on whether there was a second flood and meteorite bombardment post-Apocalypse i.e. after the unveiling of the present Sun, Moon and stars. Pre-Apocalypse, there seems to be no mention of our Moon, whatsoever. However, the Axis Mundi itself would have been awash for years with ever-changing rainbows, angels, fairies, cherubs, sprites, demons, squatter-men (see Ezekiel's chariot - http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... NASB-20472 ), thunder and lightning, and other innumerable plasma discharges.
Very exciting, this Electric Universe of ours.
Lloyd
Re: Earth Was a Moon of Saturn
Saturn's Rings Grew * In my previous post I mentioned that Saturn's rings were possibly much smaller during the Golden Age of Saturn. Now, I got support for that from a tv show about the Cassini mission to Saturn. Some of the rings are nearly pure ice and others are contaminated, probably by meteor impacts and possibly by remains of Saturn's last flare, just before the Golden Age. The most contaminated rings are thought to be the oldest and the least contaminated, and the purest water ice rings, the youngest. Contamination by meteors is thought to be fairly constant over the centuries, but there were likely times when there was much contamination during catastrophes, while most of the time there has been very little. Saturn's outer rings are least contaminated, but there are uncontaminated bands within the inner rings too. So there were likely fewer bands from 5,000 or up to 10,000 years ago. Venus and Ouroboros * Since Venus was a moon of Saturn, it may have spewed out water, when it formed the Ouroboros around Saturn. Its atmosphere contains sulfuric acid, H2SO4, which can be made by bubbling SO2, sulfur dioxide or the like, through water. Its surface consists partly of sulfur and the atmosphere is mostly CO2, so those could be the source of the SO2. I believe the surface sulfur shoots up to about 50 km into the atmosphere, according to John Acerman's interpretation of the space probe data. Venus' Ouroboros around Saturn probably also contained CO2 and sulfur. I'll try to find if there's info on what the rings are made of besides water ice. Wikipedia says the rings are 93% water ice with traces of tholin impurities and 7% amorphous carbon. Looks like there's very little, if any, sulfur. Titan's Oddities * As an interesting aside from the show, on Titan there appear to be water ice pebbles and pools of methane, as well as ammonia. The ammonia is said to mix with water and lower water's freezing point, so there are ammonia-water eruptions that run like lava flows on Titan. Venus' First Appearance * Dave, the EU team considers ancient Greek sources to be rather late and less reliable than the earlier sources from Sumer and Egypt. And I haven't heard that those earlier sources mentioned witnessing the birth of Venus. Cardona seemed to say that, after Saturn's last flare subsided, Venus was seen on the face of Saturn. It was not known to be separate from Saturn until a few thousand years later. It's a reasonable guess that Venus erupted from its south pole, since there wasn't much orbiting at that point, except in the disk. But some think Venus erupted from Jupiter's Great Red Spot, and Jupiter may have been behind Saturn. If that were the case, Venus would have had to go around Saturn to get below it, but that may be possible, because it may have been unstable between the two planets. The Original Earth * If the ancients said anything about the Ouroboros circling the Earth, they likely meant Saturn, not the present Earth, or a plateau above the horizon of what we now call Earth. The plateau was possibly at the level of the aurora, which may have looked like a rainbow. Plasma phenomena there sometimes had the appearance of animal and human forms and I think the animals in Noah's Arc could have been on that atmospheric plateau. There is at least one TPOD on the subject of that plateau with creatures dwelling there. It was written by Rens, I believe.
celeste
Full Mars in Crescent Saturn?
I just watched "Symbols of an Alien Sky" again, and caught something big I never noticed before. How can we have a nearly full Mars, right in front of a crescent Saturn? It's not an error on Talbott's part. The ancient drawings show the same thing. Think! I swear it will hit you like a ton of bricks when you get it. For starters, realize that to see a crescent (less than half) of Saturn means that it must be lit by a source more distant than Saturn itself. But then why not a crescent Mars? In "Symbols of an Alien Sky", Talbott shows a picture of Saturn with the crescent at the bottom, a full Mars, and it is labeled midnight (on Earth). There is a picture of Saturn with the crescent at the top, a full Mars, and it is labeled noon. We are told during this segment, that our current sun did not even appear in the sky at these times.
If people could see a polar configuration of planets, day or night, they must be in the northern hemishere. If the sun was at the south pole, it would explain two things: 1. they did not see the sun because it was not visible from their latitude. and 2. Mars was full because it was lit from the sun behind us . This would also be consistent with the alignment of other planets, just adding our sun behind us. But then why a thin crescent of Saturn? And how could it be noon or midnight with out our sun ever being in the sky? Anyone? Anyone? I'll put the answer in the next post, but I'd like to see someone get that same kick I did from figuring it out.
celeste
Re: Full Mars in Crescent Saturn?
Let's imagine our solar system spiraling on a Birkeland current filament, with another star across from us on the other filament. Now let's enter a z-pinch. Observers on Earth, unaware of the filaments we are in, just see a star moving closer to us. The star moves faster and faster towards us, and then all of a sudden, stops, and appears to just hover at the same distance from us. (sound familiar to any religious,mythological stories?) After the z-pinch, the other star recedes slowly at first, but picks up speed, and finally, it's just another backgroud star. What happens to our solar system during z-pinch? We are no longer a sun with orbiting planets, but instead become part of a bigger system, where our planets and sun spiral around the z-pinch. The orbital speed of the planets in the original system are going to determine which leads the way in the new magnetic field. (it's a bit complicated, but we'll come back to it in another post). So, we've got our planets in a line, in a polar configuration, with another star lighting them from the side. Our sun, behind us, still lighting the face of Mars ahead of us. Earth's daylight in the northern hemisphere comes from the other star, as does that crescent phase of Saturn (which is why observers saw the crescent at the top of saturn during noon, and at the bottom at night).
All this, by the way, was right in the mythology. Combine "Saturn Myth" ideas of golden age during a polar alignment, with "Lost Star of Myth and Time" ideas of golden age occuring as another star takes us towards some "seat of universal magnetism".
celeste
Re: Full Mars in Crescent Saturn?
Three quick arguments to make the same point: 1. An objection to Talbott's polar alignment was that we can not get such an alignment by the known forces of physics. A consideration of objects orbiting gravitationally at LaGrangian points may give us an alignment, but not a POLAR alignment. What is'nt talked about is how forces OUTSIDE our solar system could cause such an alignment. 2. The Binary Research Institute has shown that Earth does not precess relative to the sun, but instead, our whole solar system precesses. As Walter Cruttenden pointed out ,if our WHOLE solar system precesses, it must be from forces OUTSIDE our system. 3. The fact that Saturn was showing a crescent, means that it was lit by something not itself dragged into our polar alignment, and more distant than Saturn itself. Our aligned system of planets was lit by something OUTSIDE that aligned system.
Could it be that whatever is causing our solar system to slowly precess now, is the same object/force that in the past, rearranged our entire solar system? Those are the behaviors we expect to find if our solar system is spiraling in a Birkeland current. Slow precession outside z-pinch, stringing out of planets in a filament at z-pinch.
moses
Re: Full Mars in Crescent Saturn?
This is getting speculative. - But I'll bite. One looks at the picture of a planet in front of a larger planet with a crescent, say. You are saying that this implies another star is involved ? Shall we consider some other possibilities.
What about this representing a conjunction of planets. And due to the electrical flow between the planets in this configuration, bright things happened and this is why this configuration got recorded by the ancients. This would explain the full Mars, or Moon, or maybe another planet. Now the big planet with crescent behind Mars might not be a planet at all, but rather the edge of the magnetosphere of some planet. The double layer on the edge of this magnetosphere might be in glow mode, or possibly in the conjunction position the double layer is suddenly shoved into glow mode.
To get a crescent then is simply a matter of a twisting Birkeland Current entering the magnetosphere in that particular position. And so we don't need a Saturn System at all in this theory. And one could think of other theories too, but they are too wild to mention, although they might offer ideas.
In fact I tend towards thinking that any Saturn System was before the Younger Dryas and before the Neanderthal artifacts in Europe. So just a few survivors that spent thousands of years in basic survival mode and spreading across the Earth to re-populate it. And a very chaotic and very electrical Solar System during this time producing many of the myths.
So we all have our different theories here but somehow we have to get along. Mo
celeste
Re: Full Mars in Crescent Saturn?
Moses, Keep in mind the following two pictures from Talbott's video (also matching ancient depictions): We have the picture of the sky at noon, showing a crescent of Saturn at the top. We also have the picture of the sky at midnight, showing Saturn's crescent at the exact bottom. So it could be some electrical event causing that crescent, and it could just happen to line up exactly with Earth's day/night cycle. But keep in mind,that if Earth was lit from exactly above (noon), then the same source of light would light the top crescent of Saturn. And again, if the source of light was on the other side of the earth (midnight to our observer), the same light source would light the bottom crescent of Saturn. In this case, it is not coincidence at all that the crescent's position lines up exactly with our day/night cycle. The proof is in those pictures.
moses
Re: Full Mars in Crescent Saturn?
Celeste - think about the Moon. What part of the Moon touches the horizon as the moon rises, and then is that the same part of the Moon that touches the horizon when the Moon sets. No, it is the opposite side. So the same would apply for any planet, and if that planet, or edge of the magnetosphere, happened to have one side much brighter, then the drawings of it would indeed have the bright side moving from one side of the planet/magnetosphere to the other side.
You see celeste that if Earth escaped from Saturn then logic dictates that chaotic conditions whould have lasted for a long time before the present stable conditions arose. And our ancestors would have had an immense amount of stories about planetary interactions in terms of gods/etc from this chaotic period. And so the major difficulty is sorting these stories from any stories of a distant past configuration. Thus we have an incredible puzzle to solve. So don't fall in love with any theory - yours or Talbot's or anybody else's. Think ! Mo
celeste
Re: Full Mars in Crescent Saturn?
Moses, We are not even close to deciding who's theory is right. No one yet HAS a complete theory. You were right in your last post, that it is difficult to separate stories of the near past, with stories from the long past. What is more, it is difficult to separate stories by scale. We have Talbott making a case that a golden age has to do with alignments of planets, and Saturn being a sun. People like Cruttenden say a golden age has to do with cycles of our sun and another star. "Hamlet's Mill" is all about ages being determined by where we are in our precessional cycle. We even have those like Jenkins, saying that ages have something to do with our solar system's alignment to the galactic plane. So, who is right? NO ONE , until they realize that in an electric universe, these cycles are in no way independent. Talbott is right about the polar alignment of planets, but will continue to struggle with finding a mechanism to produce this alignment, if he does not consider forces from OUTSIDE our solar system. Cruttenden correctly associates the precessional cycle with our position relative to another star, but thinks both are due to gravitational forces. Whether or not you agree with my earlier posts, know this: You can not have charged stars or planets moving through magnetic fields without it affecting their precession. You can not have a solar system spiraling through z-pinch, without disrupting the orbits of it's planets. You can not have stars travelling on Birkeland currents through the galaxy, and say they are immune from our orientaion in that field. No theory will be right if it attempts to explain all the behavior on one scale alone.
Lloyd
Re: Full Mars in Crescent Saturn?
Celeste said: Let's imagine our solar system spiraling on a Birkeland current filament, with another star across from us on the other filament. Now let's enter a z-pinch. Observers on Earth, unaware of the filaments we are in, just see a star moving closer to us. The star moves faster and faster towards us, and then all of a sudden, stops, and appears to just hover at the same distance from us. (sound familiar to any religious, mythological stories?) After the z-pinch, the other star recedes slowly at first, but picks up speed, and finally, it's just another backgroud star.
I've heard Peratt or Thornhill theorize that a z-pinch in a Birkeland filament would cause stars to form from the pinch, but I haven't heard anyone theorize that existing stars could fall into or near a z-pinch.
So, we've got our planets in a line, in a polar configuration, with another star lighting them from the side. Our sun, behind us, still lighting the face of Mars ahead of us. Earth's daylight in the northern hemisphere comes from the other star, as does that crescent phase of Saturn (which is why observers saw the crescent at the top of saturn during noon, and at the bottom at night).
Although their theories may suggest that each filament could hold a star and planets, I don't think the other star would have been close enough to the solar system to light up any of the planets. The cause of the movement of the crescent around Saturn was the Earth's rotation. Instead of Saturn or the crescent turning, it was really the Earth that was rotating. The Sun was relatively fixed. The Sun, Saturn, Venus and Mars were virtually the only stars that the ancients reported seeing. They never saw other stars until about 5,000 years ago, after the Saturn System broke up. Many of them thought the stars were the remains of Saturn, which is how the first constellations got their names. I think Cardona figured that Saturn's plasmasphere prevented stars being seen before that, other than the Sun, which latter was bright enough to pierce the haze or whatever. - I imagine Talbott may simply have overlooked the fact that Mars should have appeared crescent shaped too, although I haven't heard anyone mention the ancients ever seeing Mars as crescent shaped.
