On the Origins of Myth

[Thatch]

I've noticed that quite a number of people like JRR Tolkiens works and so I thought I would share this video with you all, especially those who are fascinated by myth. The video is lengthy (over 1 hr), but it's quite fascinating, really, in how it attempts to solve this riddle. I hope others will enjoy it. :)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374


A new theory is being proposed, a theory which can both predict and explain the data coming back from deep space. It's implications are profound and affect all the scientific disciplines. It is in fact a synthesis of the disciplines. A synthesis which has already led to discoveries that link modern astronomy, leading-edge plasma physics and ancient mythology.

[PrinceMyshkin]

I've noticed that quite a number of people like JRR Tolkiens works and so I thought I would share this video with you all, especially those who are fascinated by myth. The video is lengthy (over 1 hr), but it's quite fascinating, really, in how it attempts to solve this riddle. I hope others will enjoy it. :)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374

I've begun to loook at this and from the earliest 5 or 10 minutes of it, I'm fascinated. Many thanks for posting it.

[PeterL]

The introduction is pretty bad. If it is about mythology, then it should get to it.

[Thatch]

The introduction is pretty bad. If it is about mythology, then it should get to it.
Well, actually, the video deals with multiple facets of science, primarily the electric view of the Universe, and mythology is a part of that view as the video shows.
Our ancient ancestors carved strange shapes on rock, and those shapes are turning out to be plasma phenomenon. So the sky at the time of our ancestors was not as it is today. The sky has changed and so we cannot understand what it was that the ancients were saying that has led to myth and the stories related. Our ancestors simply drew what they saw, but what they saw we cannot relate to today.
Interesting stuff, I think...:D


I've begun to loook at this and from the earliest 5 or 10 minutes of it, I'm fascinated. Many thanks for posting it.
:thumbs_up

[PeterL]

Well, actually, the video deals with multiple facets of science, primarily the electric view of the Universe, and mythology is a part of that view as the video shows.
Our ancient ancestors carved strange shapes on rock, and those shapes are turning out to be plasma phenomenon. So the sky at the time of our ancestors was not as it is today. The sky has changed and so we cannot understand what it was that the ancients were saying that has led to myth and the stories related. Our ancestors simply drew what they saw, but what they saw we cannot relate to today.
Interesting stuff, I think...:D

:thumbs_up

I think that the closest it comes to the creation of myths is that it is an attempt to create a new set of myths. Most of the alleged science is mythology. They even cite Velikovsky.

I don't think they explained anything any better than it had been explained before, and most of their "explanations" are silly ideas.

[Cicilin]

I've noticed that quite a number of people like JRR Tolkiens works and so I thought I would share this video with you all, especially those who are fascinated by myth. The video is lengthy (over 1 hr), but it's quite fascinating, really, in how it attempts to solve this riddle. I hope others will enjoy it. :)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374



:bawling: How sad I can't get into this site. When I open it, the computer shows these words:

"Currently, the playback feature of Google Video isn't available in your country.

We hope to make this feature available more widely in the future, and we really appreciate your patience. ":crash: :crash: :crash:

[Thatch]

I think that the closest it comes to the creation of myths is that it is an attempt to create a new set of myths. Most of the alleged science is mythology.
That's a very broad statement. Can you explain what you mean more?


They even cite Velikovsky.
I don't know who Velikovsky is, though I understand he proposed radical ideas during his time and published a few books about his ideas. Within the video David Talbott and the others said that they don't agree with a number of points that Velikovsky made, but that Velikovsky was dead on when he stated that the ancient civilizations referred to Venus as a comet. And that's true as the video clearly shows.


I don't think they explained anything any better than it had been explained before, and most of their "explanations" are silly ideas.
What do you mean? Which ideas are silly?

Perhaps this thread can be made more interesting? :)


:bawling: How sad I can't get into this site.
Really? That's odd, though I'm sorry to hear that. The video is actually a companion to a book, and from it's own site they have video clips that you can view, though I don't think they show the entirety of the video as on Google. Here's the link if you should still be interested...http://www.thunderboltsdvd.com (http://www.thunderboltsdvd.com/thunderbolts-videos/video-quicktime.html)

(As a note, I don't think any copyright/law is violated by the video being on Google as I've seen from an article, this article (http://www.thunderbolts.info/webnews/072107worldend.htm)(at the bottom of the page), from within that site that links to the Google video.)

So, anyone else have a comment or a question? Anything thought provoking is welcome. :D

[PeterL]

That's a very broad statement. Can you explain what you mean more?


I don't know who Velikovsky is, though I understand he proposed radical ideas during his time and published a few books about his ideas. Within the video David Talbott and the others said that they don't agree with a number of points that Velikovsky made, but that Velikovsky was dead on when he stated that the ancient civilizations referred to Venus as a comet. And that's true as the video clearly shows.


While electrical effects are significant to the Sun and to the rest of the universe. Real cosmology accepts the electrical nature of plasma, but the idea that the Sun's heat comes from electrical effects doesn't make sense, because the amount of electricity necessary to produce that much heat would be huge, and there is no convenient mechanism for generating the electricity. The show was completely correct about planets, etc. having electrical charges is completely correct, and most of the solar wind that pushes a comet's tail away from the Sun is made of charged particles. A simple assertion was made about the origin of the general fear of comets, but there was no evidence for the assertion. I have no idea of the origin for the fear.

Velikovsky was a crackpot. He made up some interesting stories and claimed that they were true. The idea that Venus had moved around the solar system about 1400 BCE is absurd. If Venus had changed its orbit so recently, it would not yet have a stable orbit, but the orbit of Venus as regular as the orbit of any other planet. I read two of Velikovsky's books, and I was amazed that e had crammed so much non-science into so small a space. Reading those books made me very skeptical about any person who cites Velikovsky as a source. The assertion that ancient civilizations "referred to Venus as a comet" was made in the video, but no evidence for that claim being true was provided.

Another silly claim was that the sky looked very different in prehistoric times. There is no evidence that the sky looked significantly different (except for stars being in slightly different locations) in the past exists, unless one looks back many millions of years.

It is possible that there were more meteors striking Earth in the past, and, if the meteors were from comets, that could be the reason for the general fear of comets.

[Thatch]

the idea that the Sun's heat comes from electrical effects doesn't make sense, because the amount of electricity necessary to produce that much heat would be huge, and there is no convenient mechanism for generating the electricity
Hmm...it's a bit difficult for me to respond to this statement as I am not a scientist nor do I understand electricity beyond an elementary level. From one point I can say that I hope you don't think that the sun's energy comes from its core being a nuclear furnace, because, then, how do you explain sun spots? Obviously from the video the more deeply we can observe into the sun, the more colder we find it to be. And if the sun's energy comes from nuclear reactions at its core, then these spots should be hotter. Yet we find that the hottest temperatures that have to do with the sun actually occur above the sun's surface with a difference into the millions of degrees Kelvin, a difference between the sun's surface and that above its surface. Now I can't tell you the reason for this, but it's probably electrical in nature. Hence, the electric sun model...


A simple assertion was made about the origin of the general fear of comets, but there was no evidence for the assertion. I have no idea of the origin for the fear.
The evidence is in the descriptions that the ancients gave to figures having cometary characteristics. These figures, whichever had a cometary characteristic, always had a destructive behavior attributed. You can see that towards the end of the video when it focuses on comets and catastrophe, around 53:08. Especially David Talbott says, "It was cosmic catastrophe that inspired the ancient words and phrases for the comet".


If Venus had changed its orbit so recently, it would not yet have a stable orbit...
Good point, but on what theory do you base that claim? I'll bet you can derive that conclusion from a gravitationally-driven Universe. And that's another point that were dealing with here, that's rather new in perceiving the Universe, electricity.


Reading those books made me very skeptical about any person who cites Velikovsky as a source.
Well, let me help relieve some of that skepticism. As David Talbott says, "Both Wal Thornhill and I disagreed with many components of Velikovsky's reconstruction, but we also felt that Velikovsky had nailed certain principles that can help us to understand the early cultures. In particular Velikovsky was correct in naming the planet Venus as the great comet and the cometary language of Venus goes far beyond anything that Velikovsky himself published."
Even if Velikovsky, as you say, was a crackpot, that doesn't mean that anything he did or said is immediately wrong and should be ignored, imho.


The assertion that ancient civilizations "referred to Venus as a comet" was made in the video, but no evidence for that claim being true was provided.
At 55:25 you can hear David Talbott say, "In every corner of the world the language of the comet and the language of Venus are identical." He then goes on to give examples of how the ancients described Venus, being exactly with the same characteristics of comets. Then you have the Sumerian goddess Inanna, the Bablylonian goddess Ishtar and the Egyptian goddess Sekhmet...


Another silly claim was that the sky looked very different in prehistoric times. There is no evidence that the sky looked significantly different (except for stars being in slightly different locations) in the past exists, unless one looks back many millions of years.
Based on the movements of the planets now, there doesn't seem to be any evidence. Nothing seems to have changed. For a partial answer to that, here is a link to a sample from the book, which the video is based upon, SamplePDF (http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/01.1PART%20I_Ch1.pdf). Please read the "Introduction" section.
You can also find evidence from the video based on the petroglyphs of the ancients. Simply put, how could it be that different people, speaking different languages spread all around the globe, could express in art form the same shapes if they weren't being inspired from the same sources? The answer then becomes rather simple. Our ancients had to have looked at the sky and have seen the same thing, plasma phenomenon. Why plasma phenomenon? As you can see in the video, the art expressed in the petroglyphs is strikingly similar to plasma phenomenon that can be easily reproduced in a laboratory. Nowadays we don't see (with the naked eye, that is) plasma phenomenon in the sky today, do we? So something has changed.

Obviously this is an hour long tutorial and not every piece of research can possibly be included within that limited span of time. And as I've noted before, this is a companion video to a book of the same title. So, maybe, more detail is provided there. But if you buy the book and still not be satisfied, please don't blame me. Anyone can also search the web...
Overall, from the video alone, I find it all fascinating and intriguing.

Getting back to myth alone, it is very possible that the foundational starting point of these "out of world" stories is with plasma phenomenon. And that's one of the key points, that people who spoke different languages and who lived apart from one another, still, at the archetypical level, describe the same story. And these art forms that manifest themselves around the world are precisely similar to plasma discharge, as is clearly shown. Even in the sample pdf doc that I have linked above there are more examples of the similarities of ancient art and plasma discharge phenomenon. From the SamplePDF:

Peratt reports that "some 87 different categories of plasma instabilities have been identified among the archaic petroglyphs and there exists nearly none whose whole or parts do not fit this delineation."

But, overall, did you find anything interesting, did you like something about the video? When Velikovsky's name was mentioned, did that do it for you? :lol:
Well, as Tolkien himself says, "It is perhaps not possible in a long tale to please everybody at all points, nor to displease everybody at the same points..."
I'm a bit tired...:yawnb:
Cheers,
:)

[PeterL]

Hmm...it's a bit difficult for me to respond to this statement as I am not a scientist nor do I understand electricity beyond an elementary level. From one point I can say that I hope you don't think that the sun's energy comes from its core being a nuclear furnace, because, then, how do you explain sun spots? Obviously from the video the more deeply we can observe into the sun, the more colder we find it to be. And if the sun's energy comes from nuclear reactions at its core, then these spots should be hotter. Yet we find that the hottest temperatures that have to do with the sun actually occur above the sun's surface with a difference into the millions of degrees Kelvin, a difference between the sun's surface and that above its surface. Now I can't tell you the reason for this, but it's probably electrical in nature. Hence, the electric sun model...


That bit about the Sun being colder as one goes deeper into it is false. The evidence cited was in reference to sunspots. Sunspots are caused by variations in the Sun's magnetic field. The paths along which the strongest electro-magnetic currents run alter the matter through which they pass, heating some and cooling others. The field lines are also excellent conductors of heat in addition to the electro-magnetic forces that create them.



The evidence is in the descriptions that the ancients gave to figures having cometary characteristics. These figures, whichever had a cometary characteristic, always had a destructive behavior attributed. You can see that towards the end of the video when it focuses on comets and catastrophe, around 53:08. Especially David Talbott says, "It was cosmic catastrophe that inspired the ancient words and phrases for the comet".


"Cometary characteristics", what exactly does that mean? So Talbot saw something that reminded him of comets in some ancient figures. Might those features have been shaggy hair or something similar?





Good point, but on what theory do you base that claim? I'll bet you can derive that conclusion from a gravitationally-driven Universe. And that's another point that were dealing with here, that's rather new in perceiving the Universe, electricity.

I based my conclusion on the standard theory. If you think that planetary orbits are determined by electrical forces, then please explain how that force would have stablized the orbit of Venus in less than 2000 years.




Well, let me help relieve some of that skepticism. As David Talbott says, "Both Wal Thornhill and I disagreed with many components of Velikovsky's reconstruction, but we also felt that Velikovsky had nailed certain principles that can help us to understand the early cultures. In particular Velikovsky was correct in naming the planet Venus as the great comet and the cometary language of Venus goes far beyond anything that Velikovsky himself published."
Even if Velikovsky, as you say, was a crackpot, that doesn't mean that anything he did or said is immediately wrong and should be ignored, imho.


It is my opinion that Velikovsky wrote fiction and called it his theory.



At 55:25 you can hear David Talbott say, "In every corner of the world the language of the comet and the language of Venus are identical." He then goes on to give examples of how the ancients described Venus, being exactly with the same characteristics of comets. Then you have the Sumerian goddess Inanna, the Bablylonian goddess Ishtar and the Egyptian goddess Sekhmet...

I heard that and thought "Utter hogwash." Venus, Aphrodite, Inanna, and Ishtar do not ave "exactly with the same characteristics of comets." If you or Talbot had read up on ancient religions, neither of you would have agreed with that assertion.


Based on the movements of the planets now, there doesn't seem to be any evidence. Nothing seems to have changed. For a partial answer to that, here is a link to a sample from the book, which the video is based upon, SamplePDF (http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/01.1PART%20I_Ch1.pdf). Please read the "Introduction" section.

I may look at that, if I get a chance.



You can also find evidence from the video based on the petroglyphs of the ancients. Simply put, how could it be that different people, speaking different languages spread all around the globe, could express in art form the same shapes if they weren't being inspired from the same sources? The answer then becomes rather simple. Our ancients had to have looked at the sky and have seen the same thing, plasma phenomenon. Why plasma phenomenon? As you can see in the video, the art expressed in the petroglyphs is strikingly similar to plasma phenomenon that can be easily reproduced in a laboratory. Nowadays we don't see (with the naked eye, that is) plasma phenomenon in the sky today, do we? So something has changed.

That is very easy to explain. Humans are humans. Most of what humans experience is common among all people. Whether one looks at poetry, art, literature, or anything else, they are similar. Although there are thousands of languages, there are similarities among the different languages. In addition, most of the examples shown were generally regular gemetric shapes that are easy to make.



Getting back to myth alone, it is very possible that the foundational starting point of these "out of world" stories is with plasma phenomenon. And that's one of the key points, that people who spoke different languages and who lived apart from one another, still, at the archetypical level, describe the same story. And these art forms that manifest themselves around the world are precisely similar to plasma discharge, as is clearly shown. Even in the sample pdf doc that I have linked above there are more examples of the similarities of ancient art and plasma discharge phenomenon. From the SamplePDF:
But, overall, did you find anything interesting, did you like something about the video? When Velikovsky's name was mentioned, did that do it for you? :lol:
:)

From the beginning, I didn't see much value in the video. was hoping for some real evidence, but the closest to real evidence was showing a variety of images that were supposed to show that there was some strange event(s); but they didn't.

There were large holes in logic. Assertions were made, unrelated evidence was presented, and the assertion was deemed to be proven. I prefer to be shown evidence that is related to the assertion.

I don't know whether it was a deliberate omission, but, as I mentioned above, humans have fundamentally the same sets of experiences. Although there are people who think otherwise, humans have been much like they are now for a rather long time. One thing that humans have done in the past and continue to do is travel. If you look into human migrations, you will learn that peoples that now live far from each other live in adjacent areas in the past. The Navaho Indians speak a language that is closely related to Chinese, as one small example. It isn't surprising that we have similar symbols, because we are closely related, and, if some anthropologists are right, we a have common ancestors who lived only a couple hundred thousand years ago; that was rather recent.

[Thatch]

Thanks for your replies and time, PeterL, but we are seriously different :brickwall (not that I hold it against you, nor do I mean any offense by it). It's been fun, kinda, but no matter what I come up with, I know you'll be a few words ahead of me. :argue:


One thing that humans have done in the past and continue to do is travel.
Yeah, I need a trip myself. ;)
Cheers...