This formula has a corollary: anything chimerical or of a “hybrid” nature“, particularly if it involves a heavenly component and an earthly one - the Nephilim or “sons of God” who sired chimerical giant offspring with human women in the Old Testament for example - is a meteorite, since a meteorite, as a remnant of the exploded planet, has both a heavenly component since it fell from heaven, and an earthly one, since it fell to, and in some cases, penetrated under, the surface of the earth.
Accordingly, as Alford explicitly states, “it is worth mentioning that even the Sphinx - a supreme solar symbol in the eyes of Egyptologists - was actually an exploded planet symbol.”133
b. Giants and Titans as Meteorites
Similarly, even the hero of the Babylonian epic Gilgamesh becomes a similar symbol, for as the epic itself states, “Two thirds of him is god and one third of him is man.”134 Since Gilgamesh was also a “giant” according to the Babylonian epic, the meaning of the symbol thus becomes crystal clear for Alford:
Once we marry up this information with the other legends of Gilgamesh’s Titan-like birth, together with the fact that the senior gods were exploded planets, it becomes evident that the “flesh of the gods” was the meteorite efflux of the gods. The name Gilgamesh, then, meant “meteorite...”135
So far so good, but the reader may perhaps have already detected a difficulty with Alford’s methodology: there are no external controls or checks on it. Once his basic formula is unleashed on mythological texts, anything fitting its general parameters becomes a symbol of the catastrophism of an exploded planet.
c. Planetary Collisions as Wars
Thus, when ancient mythological texts speak of the “wars” of the gods, they are speaking of the “collisions” of celestial bodies, notwithstanding the fact that not all ancient texts can be construed as collisions between objects. In other words, while it is certainly true that some ancient texts speak of divine “arrows” and “stones” or “missiles” being used to slay some divine opponent, not all war references include these types of weapons. Just as often mythological texts speak of the “lightning” or “bolt” of the gods, and even the theme of “divine arrows” could be a metaphor for lightning discharges. Thus, Alford’s formula begins to show a subtle crack. Nonetheless, there is a consistency with which he applies it, for the “children” of the “gods” then become the meteors and asteroids that crash to the earth.
For example, the “‘people’ who came forth from the womb of the goddess Ishtar were not really ‘people’ at all - they were the meteorite offspring from an exploding planetary body. ”136
d. The Ultimate Reductio
Alford’s catastrophism knows no bounds. Even “Noah was not a man but a god - a fallen meteorite.”137 And if that were not enough, Alford reaches his ultimate reductio ad absurdum with the following passage:
How would the Church explain the fact that Jesus Christ was originally a physical flood of meteorites?
And, if this long-hidden-aspect of Jesus Christ was revealed, how would the Church explain the role of Jesus-the-man from the 1st century AD? Would the Church admit that Jesus-the-man was an actor in a Mystery Play or Passion play? Would the Church acknowledge that the crucifixion was in fact an ingenious esoteric parable for the death of a planet?
The mind absolutely boggles at the thought of all this.138
Yes indeed, the mind truly does boggle at the thought of all this, for it would seem that, following his well-footnoted formula with the absolute devotion of a fundamentalist, one can interpret literally all mythological references or religious texts in such a manner as to construe it as referring to nothing more than an exploded planet.
But - if I may be permitted to paraphrase the Christian apologist C.S. Lewis for a moment - to see through everything is to see nothing at all; there must be some opacity to the text.
Thus, how would Alford explain the fact, referred to in my book The Giza Death Star Destroyed, that these same planets-as-gods then go on to sire very human offspring and teach them the various arts and sciences necessary to civilization, as those very same texts, across several cultural traditions, attest? Alford’s answer is to maintain that this meteoric bombardment seeded the earth with life which then evolved, via the familiar mechanisms of “evolution,” into mankind.
So how does one answer someone like Alford?
Very simply.
If all the textual references to giants, titans, Nephilim, Anunnaki and so on are nothing but cleverly concocted metaphors for an exploded planet, and thus not real, then one should never be able to find any evidence or ancient artifact of intelligent life on nearby planets, nor any evidence of giants, titans, and such on earth. If, however, such things are found, then by the very nature of the sweeping and universal explanatory power that Alford claims for his “method” of interpreting the texts, these things would constitute loose corroboration of my own reading of the texts, and the fatal “exception” to Alford’s claims, for to claim universal validity and powers of explanation is to claim no exceptions. We shall turn to the evidence for the existence of ancient giants in the next chapter.
e. An Intriguing Formula: Gods Equal Mountains Equal Planets
Here we shall concentrate on the implication of the discovery of ancient extraterrestrial artifacts of intelligent life for Alford’s hypothesis, by focusing on the significant, and truly important and legitimate insight that Alford makes regarding the equation “mountains equal planets equal gods.” Referring to the fact that Mesopotamian texts often refer to the god Enlil as “the Great Mountain” who engenders the four seasons, Alford then makes the following insightful observation: “It must be said that the idea of summer and winter being engendered upon a ‘mountain’ only makes sense if the ‘mountain’ in question was the entire planet of Earth.”139 Thus one arrives at a significant formula that guides Alford (and as we shall see in later chapters, contains another constant or variable that Alford does not take into account). That formula is, once again, “mountains equal planets equal gods.” And I mean the word “equals” here in its entire logical and ontological significance; if “a” equals “b” and “b” equals “c”, then by the laws of logic and commutivity, “a” equals “c”.
B. A Return to the Catastrophist Problematic
Is this formula true? Or has Alford misconstrued close association or approximation in the texts of those three components with equality and identity? Is the formula this:
Mountains ≡ planets ≡ gods,
where “≡” means “is identical to”, or this:
Mountains ≈ planets ≈ gods,
where “≈” means “is closely associated with”?
If the latter, then the three things, while closely related in the text, remain distinct, requiring not the reduction of various levels of meaning in the texts to one prosaic and materialistic level, as with Alford’s formula, but rather the careful unpacking of several intertwined levels of meaning. This brings us to something I discussed briefly in my book The Giza Death Star Destroyed:
1. The Unified Intention of Symbol
To understand how the difference in formulas works, and to understand how the formulas require some external check or grounding, let us return to the plasma cosmology and the observations of physicist Anthony Peratt and the ancient petroglyphs.
While Peratt’s interpretations of petroglyphs as symbols of plasma stabilities and instabilities are compelling, and give new weight to the plasma cosmology from the paleographical context, there is a significant problematic, which presents itself in two fundamental ways: (1) a cosmological and physics component, and (2) a textual component.
The cosmological and physics component may best be examined by noting one implication of the “catastrophist” interpretation of plasma cosmology, for during the age of the “interplanetary discharges,” a very different picture of celestial mechanics would have been necessitated:
According to Talbott, what the ancients worshipped and feared as powerfu
l gods were planets positioned extremely close to the Earth. This close congregation of planets appeared as huge powers in the sky. Their instabilities and unpredictable movements gave rise to one of the most common themes of myth - the wars of the gods. In these dramatic stories, the gods pounded each other with cosmic lightning while fire and stone descended on Earth.140
This is as succinct a statement of both aspects of the problematic as one could wish for.
In it, one encounters the familiar catastrophist theme of the interpretation of the names of gods as metaphors for planets. But note the implication of this interpretation for the rest of the textual evidence of ancient mythologies, for the metaphor “bleeds into” that of the “wars of the gods,” a common theme in ancient myths. As I noted in my book The Giza Death Star Destroyed, this would be a plausible interpretation were it not for the fact that many of these same mythological cultures then continue the “story” by having these gods marry and sire, or mother, children.141 This too, as I noted there, would be capable of a plausible catastrophist interpretation were it not for the fact that these children, through similar marriages, eventually become the ancestors to very real, very human, flesh and blood ancient kings. In other words, the metaphor was “mixed” in the very worst fashion, reminiscent of the most hackneyed and clumsy schoolboy compositional exercise. So much, for the moment, for the “textual” component of the problematic.
What is of great significance is the cosmological component alluded to, for as is clear, in the standard electro-dynamic plasma cosmology view of these “wars”, the planets were once, in the very distant past, much closer to each other and therefore much more electrically active and unstable. And this highlights the difficulty, for if this were the case, then what mechanism would have led from this initial chaotic condition to the condition of the relatively stable celestial mechanics in evidence now? More importantly, what process of extrapolation, from the observable existing “stability” of the local celestial system backwards to the paleoancient chaotic one, could have led the myth makers to such an exact and apparently accurate description of these ancient events? Talbott and Thornhill state this problem in the following way:
How stable was the solar system in the past? In the pioneering work of Hannes Alfvén and his successors, orbital instability is a virtual certainty in the long-term evolution of an electrical model. In the birth of stellar and planetary systems, the electric force will typically dominate. But as the system dissipates electrical energy, it will reach a transitional phase at which a shift toward gravitational supremacy will occur, with potentially violent consequences. A chaotic system will then move toward stable electrical and gravitational equilibrium. Once planets achieve predictable orbits, no computer simulation based on later motions of the planets can provide even a clue as to the earlier system or its disruption.142
In answer to this problem, we are left with two choices: (1) either the celestial science of the ancients was considerably more advanced than we realize, such that it possessed such a theoretical model that allowed such extrapolations to be made, a thesis that, if true, would make their science much more advanced than our own; or (2) human myth-makers were telling stories that they had received, and ultimately the events that the myths described were therefore observed by intelligent entities (and/or mankind) and passed down to subsequent humanity.
This last possibility raises two further, and equally important, and equally problematic questions. Either the events were (1) observed by humans, or (2) were observed by non-human intelligent life (either in conjunction with human observers, or not) and then subsequently communicated to man. The first is problematical for the simple reason that it implies an antiquity and cultural sophistication for humanity quite at variance with standard academic theory of the biological and cultural evolution of mankind, since the events described would be on the order of millions if not billions of years old. The second is problematic for a similar reason, and additionally so, for it implies an “interventionist” origin for human culture, and perhaps for humanity itself. But additionally, it is problematic for the simple reason that this interventionist view is what most of the ancient myths themselves state!
The two components of this problematic - the cosmology-physics and the (con)textual - are not unrelated nor even loosely so, for lacking a plausible physical model of celestial mechanics that could bridge the gap between the paleoancient “chaos” to the present “order”,143 the texts and mythical traditions themselves indicate the answer to this question in no uncertain terms, for a real war would be able to do just that.
But that, of course, implies real people to fight the war, and real weapons of truly cosmic proportions, to fight it with.
To appreciate the significance of the war scenario, one may refer to the chronological questions it both resolves and the new chronological questions it raises. On the one hand, if one takes the “war” scenario seriously, then there is no need to assume the “cosmic catastrophes” that the myths describe as having to do with the initial chaotic conditions of the entire universe. In other words, there is no need to push the events back into the remotest past of billions of years ago, during the electrically stormy period of the universe’s initial formation. Indeed, the “chaotic” conditions it describes need not indicate anything at all about the “normative celestial mechanics” of the period in which the events described occur, since such chaotic conditions could be imposed upon the otherwise normal and regular celestial mechanics of any local solar system by a society possessed of a sufficiently advanced physics to do so, and a technology capable of weaponizing that physics. Such physics, if it existed at all, could be imposed on any regularly ordered celestial system, including our own, thus making it appear for the moment to be chaotic. We may therefore not be dealing with events that transpired some billions of years ago, but with events that occurred “mere” millions of years ago.
Once this highly speculative concept is entertained, it opens the door to a resolution of other chronological issues, for it allows the war to have occurred at any stage that such a society might have emerged. In short, and barring the consideration of other types of evidence for the moment, the door is open for the cosmic cataclysm to occur anywhere from millions, to mere thousands, of years ago. And as has already been seen from the evidence presented in this chapter, there are two loci around which a chronological resolution must be orbited: on the one hand, it must account for the existing planetary data of such a catastrophe, from the asteroid belt as remnants of a missing exploded planet in our solar system, to the electrical discharge scarring on the various moons and planets - most notably Mars - in our solar system. The evidence, in other words, precludes that catastrophist interpretation which would see the myths as describing the chaotic conditions at the origins of the solar system. The evidence necessitates a much later dating, for once one adds intelligent observers into the mix to observe and record these events, one perforce cannot be dealing with the primordial conditions of the solar system. As will be seen eventually, the petroglyphic evidence compiled by Peratt, and the textual evidence of the myths themselves, fix another terminus a few thousands or tens of thousands of years ago.
When these thoughts are seriously entertained, they lead to an almost inexorably inescapable conclusion: if one must take such texts and cultural traditions seriously when it comes to planetary cataclysm, as the catastrophists consistently maintain, then perhaps it is time to take the same texts and traditions equally seriously and consistently when they talk of the wars that caused the catastrophes in the first place, and when they refer to the motivations and consequences for those wars.
a. Further Considerations of The Unified Intention of Symbol
This raises the question of what is meant by “the unified intention of symbol.” Basically, I mean this terminology to indicate that the multi-leveled nature at which mythological symbols operate were originally chosen and intended to operate in such a fashion by the creators of those myths. The phra
se means, then, the exact opposite of what one encounters in Alan Alford’s work. Where Alford would have us reduce and identify several symbolic motifs and implied layers of meaning to one layer of meaning - that of the exploded planet - the ancients employed individual symbols or motifs in constellations and arrangements designed to unfold into several layers of meaning.
In this respect it would be useful to review what I wrote concerning this very same subject in The Giza Death Star Destroyed.
What are we to make of all this textual ambiguity that permits of so many different, well-argued interpretations? One could maintain that each hypothesis remains open until more evidence is known, until such time as a determination may be made between them. However, it is my belief that this interpretive ambiguity is intentional and original to the case, the deliberate contrivance of some paleoancient “elite” to preserve knowledge. That is to say, it would appear that the gods’ names, lengths of reigns, genealogies and bloodlines, the record of an interplanetary war and resulting recurrent catastrophism, and paleophysical astronomical and quantum and sub-quantum-mechanical “secrets” were all deliberately combined in a densely packed, multi-leveled symbolism designed to convey accurate knowledge of all of these things simultaneously. These densely packed symbols are a device to preserve simultaneously the bloodline records, the interplanetary war and the origins of the current structure of the solar system, the necessary astronomical, physical, mathematical knowledge (and, by implication, the technology) by initiates into the Egyptian mysteries who doubtless did not know the full significance of their own religious esoteric tradition. That the texts intentionally combine all the religious, cosmological and quantum mechanical data along with dynastic wars is itself a corroboration of the type of unified physics I believe the Great Pyramid itself attests to. That ambiguity results from their interpretation should come as no surprise.144
The Cosmic War: Interplanetary Warfare, Modern Physics and Ancient Texts Page 9
