Welcome to Space News from the Electric Universe,
brought to you by The Thunderbolts Project™
at Thunderbolts.info
The parent star of planet Earth holds a strange and special place in
countless ancient traditions around the world.
The celestial body identified as the sun in myth, religion, ancient
astronomies and rock art routinely bears no resemblance at all to our familiar Sun.
One of the most common ancient depictions of the Sun is an orb or star
within a crescent, an image with no modern natural referent, and numerous
traditions depict the Sun as a spectacular celestial wheel, with a
warrior hero appearing as the axle of the wheel.
For decades, comparative mythologist Ev Cochrane, as well as his
colleague David Talbott have worked to reconstruct the natural events to
produce these extraordinary mythical patterns.
It is their conclusion that in the relatively recent past, in the era of
prehistory, a period of instability reigned in the inner solar system,
bringing planets within close proximity to Earth.
In this episode, Ev begins our investigation into the question, did
ancient man observe a different Sun?
It is important to underscore the radical nature of our hypothesis.
We hold that the solar system has only recently been
subject to wholesale reordering that in fact, well
within the memory of mankind, a different Sun prevailed.
Our hypothesis is fundamentally a work of historical
reconstruction based upon our mutual researches
in comparative mythology and ancient religion.
The research of Dave and myself, is distinguished from other
comparative mythologists in that we draw upon and emphasize the message of
prehistoric rock art to illustrate our findings from literary traditions.
To take but one example from hundreds that might be offered, ancient paintings and
petroglyphs of the Sun depict a wheel-like object
commonly 4- to 8- spoked in structure.
Such artworks are global in nature,
yet how is this fact to be explained?
From the conventional standpoint, such artworks
are interpreted as abstract or metaphorical in nature.
Miranda Green for example, in her otherwise
interesting book, The Sun-Gods of Ancient Europe,
concludes, "The pictures do not describe reality."
We beg to differ, it is our view that the prehistoric paintings
accurately reflect the appearance of the ancient sky and offer compelling
testimony with regards to an unfolding catastrophic celestial event, in which
nearby planets dominated the northern circumpolar heavens.
The mere fact that analogous Sun petroglyphs will be found
around the globe, supports this conclusion.
At the same time, ancient myth offers corroborating testimony in this
regard, wherein a different Sun dominated the sky in former times and
presented a wheel-like appearance.
In this sense, as in countless other examples, the testimony of ancient myth
and prehistoric rock art agrees at a level of detail that is impossible to
explain by mere coincidence.
In the Thunderbolts of the Gods, together with
a number of other recent publications, Dave
and myself have presented a wealth of evidence that the former Sun was the
focus of prodigious electrical activity and the source of spectacular outbursts
of lightning, heaven-spanning storms, and Aurora-like phenomena.
In ancient Mesopotamia for example, the Sumerian word for Sun is Ud.
The same word is employed to write storm or thundergod, a
startling extension of meaning.
Sumerian hymns invoking the ancient Sun God,
likewise, describe it as a source of storms.
So one hymn reads, "The Sun God thunders over the mountains like a storm."
Another hymn reads, "As my king the Sun God comes forth the heavens tremble
before him and the earth shakes before him."
Now I ask, does this sound like a realistic description of the modern
experience of sunrise?
In what sense is the Sun's appearance over the eastern horizon ever accompanied by a
shaking of heaven and Earth or great bouts of lightning?
What could the Sun have to do with thunder and lightning?
In the present solar system, of course, the answer is
nothing at all, yet the mere fact that other ancient languages preserved this
very same semantic link between Sun and lightning, confirms the fundamental
historical veracity of the Sumerian
traditions and cries out for an explanation.
Ancient Egypt, for example, offers corroborating testimony in this regard.
In the Pyramid Texts from the 3rd millennium BCE, the Sun God's thunderbolt
is specifically compared to the lightnings of the Sun.
The word in question here is mawt, m a w t, which has
cognates denoting lightning in numerous other African languages.
Significantly however, the very same word is used to
denote the spokes of a wheel.
In the present world of course, lightning has
nothing whatsoever to do with the Sun or wheels, hence the fundamental importance
of such terminology for our historical reconstruction.
But we need not rely simply on ancient language in myth alone.
Mesopotamian cylinder seals, together with prehistoric rock art and other
early artworks, likewise depict the Sun with lightning-
like structures emanating from its core.
Students of comparative myth will recognize the structure adorning the
face of the Sun here as the thunderbolt wielded by the Thunder God.
So for example, thunder gods like Zeus or the Semitic Hadad are routinely depicted
holding exactly this thunderbolt.
Properly understood, the evidence from ancient language, like the testimony of
prehistoric rock art, represents an enduring fossilized record of a
different solar system, much as the discovery of a dinosaur bone harks back
to its former age, one radically different from that which currently prevails.
It must be remembered here that the denigration of myth is a relatively
recent development basically originating
during the early decades of the 20th century.
The science of comparative mythology, like the complementary science of
comparative linguistics, grew out of the 19th century writings of world-class
scholars such as Max Mueller and Adalbert Kuhn who rightly emphasized the
prominent role of the Sun and the Thunder God in ancient myth and religion.
Yet the excesses of these schools together with that of the Pan-
Babylonians led to a general backlash against naturist or astronomical
interpretations of myth and religion.
Current models of myths such as that advanced by Georges Dumezil, which
dominates scholarship, emphasize linguistic connections above all else
and are much more narrow-minded in scope.
For example, Dumezil largely focuses on Indo-European myth.
Most important perhaps is the fact that current models
of myth always seek to understand the ancient
traditions by reference to the present sky.
But the ancient testimony is impossible to square with the present
solar system and as a result, scholars are left with empty slogans pointing to
figurative language, metaphor and such statements as that of Green quoted
earlier, to the effect that the pictures do not describe reality.
As Dave and I have documented however, granted the fact
that the ancient traditions and prehistoric rock art complement each other.
It therefore stands to reason that they do indeed describe historical reality.
Confronted by these sun-wheels for example, on ancient rock art, the
default position of so many modern scholars is just to ascribe those
artworks to imagination or abstract forms, completely overlooking
the fact that the same exact design is found all over the world.
So, at that point you need to ask yourself a
question, were ancient sky watchers on every continent on the Earth imagining
the same fantastic structure in the sky, which in this case is just a cross on
the face of the Sun or a lightning bolt on the face of the Sun? But we could cite
a thousand other structures that we could describe if we wanted to, we're
just trying to focus the discussion on these particular structures at the moment.
But are we supposed to imagine that all these sky watchers all around
the globe were imagining the same thing?
That is not a logically sound position.
It's much more rational to assume that the ancient sky watchers
were trying to describe their personal reality. They drew the picture of the Sun
that they saw, and that's why those pictures agree all around the world.
Things that are imagined are not going to agree unanimously around the world.
It's just that simple!