http://www.thunderbolts.info

Any comments anyone?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Without actually reading the book, I doubt anyone can point out specific errors or inconsistancies or even where it may be right. On the other hand, when the cover of the book says, "A radical reinterpretation of Human History and the evolution of the solar system" well, my alternative science and/or history warning light comes on.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

Thornhill = http://www.holoscience.com/index.php

Edit: and I think this is related to the other co-author, David Talbott
http://home.austarnet.com.au/livtrad/saturn.htm

Edit 2 Fixed wrong link to holoscience homepage

__________________
By asking questions we sometimes get the wrong answers, from wrong answers we learn to ask the right questions.

The blurb says: "...planets are charged bodies in space, and they have not always moved on their present orbits. Only a few thousand years ago our ancestors lived beneath an alien sky, as planets close to Earth loomed huge above them."

That's pretty ludicrous.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Without reading the book I cannot say much but it seems pretty far out to me. I would like to know how they try to prove this theory. Seems to me that is the planets were "looming" over us, then we would be subjected to intense gravitational tides, Radiation, dodging their moons etc.

I would also be interested in seeing how they attemt to explain why the planets are in far orbits.

As far as multiple cultures having similarities in their lore goes, well remember, it is threorized we all migrated out of Africa back in the day. Before we all spread out, there had to be a common belief. This beliefe had to be shared. People feared the unexplained and tried to attribute them to Gods. Some they feared, some were created to justify desires. Monotheism only came to light about 6000 years ago.

__________________
The More I learn, The More Ignorant I Become

Eagle Eye Observatory

Hi skrap1r0n,

The entire subject concerns (essentially, in my view) the interpretation of ancient myths with respect to the present-day understanding of astronomy/cosmology and human-kinds' reactions to past world-wide calamities etc (but also contained and engendered within the human psyche, for just one example).

Interesting, for sure.

However, the book/s are yet to be published.

What you read was a somewhat condensed version of just a few chapters.

As I have mentioned to the BA on several occasions, this could be in a sense the works of present-day Velikovskianism, but not necessarily endorsing the entire theory per se (and I do in fact know this is not the case, but certainly the late Velikovsky was the inspirational motivator, of years past)

In essence, the book/s are basically an "electrical" theory of the cosmos (as opposed to the currently accepted and dominant "gravitational" theory/understanding)

Anyway, following publication (sometime this year I think), I for one look forward to comments on this site, particularly from the BA, TT and of course anyone else, including yourself!

Cheers

John T

I note the obligatory whinging about the peer review process on the "timely announcement" link:
:roll: :^o

__________________
GhiaPet Home Page

This would appear to be the basic premise.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/PART%20I_Chap1.pdf


P.S.

Um...where exactly did Plato say this? Cite? I don't see anything like "The planets' orbits have changed!" mentioned here or here. As a matter of fact, Platonic astronomy seems to assume that the planets are all in stable orbits, there's no mention of them ever having been otherwise. So, where did you get that from?

Okay, I read all 38 pages of it, looking for a suggested mechanism whereby five planets could have been moved closer to Earth, allowing them to hang in Earth's sky for long enough to impress Ancient Man with their godlike qualities (I'm flashing on the Vogon ships here, "hanging in the sky the way a brick--doesn't"), and then moved to their present positions.

No soap.

There's a lot of fine vague hand-waving about plasma and its mysterious electrical properties, but no actual nuts-and-bolts explanation of "how the thing's supposed to work". Lots of nifty graphics, though.

The closest it comes to an actual explanation is on page 31:

So I guess, umm... "Changes in the galactic currents" made it happen.

Or something.

And now I unavoidably can't help wondering whether, when the changes in the galactic currents made this happen, the Earth's magma--bobbled.






P.S. John Owens:

And I note the obligatory "They scoffed at Galileo, too!" By inference, at least.

On page 12.

And, for the bottom line from http://www.kronia.com
Quote:
Most of these educational materials are available only through Mikamar Publishing.
End quote.

Books

CD's

Videos

Lectures

And who runs Kronia.com?

Well I'm not sure of BA's policy regarding posting public whois details about website registrants (addresses and phone No's etc.) so you will have to look them up yourself but the guy behind the operation is none other than a Talbott, David.

__________________
By asking questions we sometimes get the wrong answers, from wrong answers we learn to ask the right questions.

In other words, thank heavens I know longer actually have to provide any real evidence for my ideas, given they can now be accepted unthinkingly by the same people that bring you GLP! So much easier!

#-o

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

"Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of wood in your hand is often useful." - Ian Faith

He sounds like Ted Holden.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

If I had $10 for each time I’ve read that one… :roll:

They did? All of the gods?

They did?!

Color me skeptical.

That might be tricky to do, especially for Hinduism... and Shintoism... and the polynesian gods ... and native Americans... and ... (I could go on)

Come to think of it, not even the ones we normally call 'ancients' limited themselves enough to fit their gods to the planets. Not the Romans, not the Greek, definitely not the Egyptians. I can't really say for the Sumerians, but perhaps they didn't have enough imagination.

__________________
"We do not require reality to conform to the expectations of the ignorant"

Even for the ancient mesopotamians, there was no straightforward correspondence between gods and planets.

That is the series of big questions:

In ancient times, were the "gods" planets? or were the planets "gods"?

Does anyone know?

Well as far as the greek and roman gods go, if they were based on a planet for every god out there, they by counting the gods/minorgods we should have many more planets out there...

But what I'm most interested in is the propulsion technology, I mean if I can push around a mass the size of Jupiter with fancy lightening/plasma drives and place it in an orbit, what a drive system, I could enclose a whole city and fly it off the earth to alpha centari at a good clip close to c :P

__________________
-- the only conspiracy I believe in is this damn monopoly on breathing air.

Not only that, but all those planets are somehow perched on top of Mount Olympus! Except for the planets that exist underground, that is.

__________________
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

Just as with the Big Bang theory, neither can be proved or disproved. There is merely evidence that is either consistent or inconsistent with each theory; of course it's also possible for the consistency to be misinterpretted... if the theory is wrong.

Regards,
Ian Tresman
Society for Interdisciplinary Studies
www.knowledge.co.uk/sis/

In an ideal world, criticism of peer review would be just joke. In reality, it can fail because peers are human. Yes, it is a rare event... unless you are on the receiving end, and your work is effectively banned.

A good example is criticism of the Big Bang theory. Whether the theory is right or wrong, scientists should have the opportunity to freely and openly criticise it. This is not the case. See the article at http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=zj49j0u7

Regards,
Ian Tresman
Compiler, Catastrophism CD-Rom
www.catastrophism.com

Welcome to the forum, iantresman. You might like to take a look at this thread, if you haven’t already.

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.