www.saturniancosmology.org Open in urlscan Pro
2001:19d0:2:6:c0de:0:6874:7470  Public Scan

Form analysis
0 forms found in the DOM

Text Content

[PRINTED BOOK IN 3 VOLUMES, PLUS PDF, EPUB, MOBI.]


> RECOVERING THE LOST WORLD,
> A SATURNIAN COSMOLOGY -- JNO COOK
> CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> $Revision: 42.43 $ (index.php)
> Contents of this chapter: [What this Site Is About] [Disbelieving History]
> [The History of Objections] [The AAAS and the Heretic] [Validation]
> [Mesoamerica] [Who I am] [This Text on the Internet] [What Others Say]
> [Endnotes]
> 
> 
> INTRODUCTION
> 
> > "... a large planet stood above the
> > North Pole for a very long time."
> 
> That is what all the mythology throughout the world uniformly states --
> mythology from every nation, region, tribe, and period, in thousands of
> languages, in hundreds of forms, from every continent -- they all resound, "a
> large planet stood above the North Pole for a very long time." Every country,
> that is, except those more than 10 degrees below the equator.
> 
> The mythology of regions as far removed from each other as Siberia, North
> Africa, and Guatemala all agree. If the mythology is true (and what other
> conclusion could be drawn), then the fact that a large planet stood at the
> northern horizon is true. How this could be, is a matter which this text will
> attempt to address.
> 
> As others have also done, I will suggest that this planet was Saturn. From
> other sources we can estimate that the planet Saturn moved on a wildly
> elliptical path around the Sun in the remote past, entering the Solar System
> at very long intervals. Some time in the last 3 million years, perhaps after
> passing Jupiter, Saturn was drawn into a much closer orbit around the Sun,
> very near Earth. And from 10,900 BC, Saturn captured and held the Earth in a
> sub-polar position lasting until 3147 BC, when Earth broke away.
> 
> 
> 
> > "You cannot reason a person out of a position
> > he did not reason himself into in the first place."
> > 
> > -- Jonathan Swift
> 
> This is, however, exactly what I will attempt to do with this text: I will try
> to tell the actual history of the world and humanity -- in spite of the
> knee-jerk reactions and spitting noises you may see and hear from those who
> feel they know better. This is not my story, but the efforts of a great many
> people, and based on evidence in plain view.
> 
> My starting point is the postulate that myths throughout the world should be
> taken at face value. For the recurring worldwide mythology this is almost
> completely obvious. No other form of meaning can be assigned.
> 
> An attempt to apply local culture and limitations to mythology almost always
> meets with failure because of a lack of appreciation of the constant refrain
> of identical themes by peoples who have remained completely foreign to each
> other -- who have never had cultural contact. Any theory of mythology based on
> limited and local origins will fail to translate to the hundreds of additional
> instances across the world. This holds true also for all the variations of
> analogies that are presented to us as explanations of mythology: notions of
> ritual, model behavior, allegories of nature, personifications of the weather.
> 
> This leaves only the historicity of mythology. It has an evidential character
> which is absolute. If myth tells us that a large planet stood above the
> northern horizon, then we are stuck with this as fact. It cannot be negated,
> waived aside, or turned into an allegory. It only remains to investigate how
> this could have been so. Mythology is history.
> 
> Of course it is not always astoundingly clear. Frequently we are met with
> wording which is no longer understood, and frequently it will be easier for us
> to elicit metaphors from our own culture and language in an attempt to explain
> the inexplicable. This is probably the most frequently made mistake in
> investigating mythology.
> 
> Mythology represents a history stretching into the depths of time. On the
> other hand, the accepted mainstream history is a 2000-year record of rewriting
> and softening of facts, created for the sake of sanity and the comfort of your
> soul. It is a history of the survivors, written to cover their suspicions and
> allay any fears. It was initiated with the scrutiny of myths by Plato, and has
> grown since the Renaissance, culminating in the scientificism of the last
> hundred years. If the narrative based on conventional wisdom suits you, you
> should stop reading here, for the story presented here will get progressively
> stranger. Be comforted, though, that this will not be about crashing meteors,
> undetected planets, or visits by aliens.
> 
> The story of what has happened to Earth has no plot and no direction, and
> makes no sense. This is, in fact, one of the basic parameters of myth: there
> is no encompassing teleological design, it does not teach, it does not
> glorify, it does not propose any new arcane knowledge. It only recounts the
> past.
> 
> Returning now to that large object in the sky:
> 
> > "The evidence of myth which points to Saturn having once occupied a position
> > above Earth's north polar regions is voluminous. There is not a race on
> > Earth that has not preserved at least one account which states as much.
> > According to this evidence, Saturn occupied a central position in the north
> > celestial regions. It rotated, and rotated widely; but other than that, it
> > was immovable.
> > 
> > -- Dwardu Cardona (1978) [note 1]
> 
> It rotated, in fact, in a circle around the polar axis. From a vantage point
> 15 to 20 degrees of latitude further south than Mesopotamia and Egypt, the
> Guatemalan Popol Vuh recounts that it rose out of an ocean and sank back into
> it every day for what appears to have been some 2500 years starting 10,900 BC.
> 
> 
> WHAT THIS SITE IS REALLY ABOUT
> 
> This is a cosmology. It is not the traditional handed-down narrative passed
> off as the history of everything. It is an alternative -- one which is very
> extensive -- quite complete and accurate. My starting premise was to hold
> worldwide mythology as absolute and believable, although at times very
> obscure. My method subsequent to this starting position was the collection of
> myths and iconography, and then to develop, in turn, a chronology of events
> (Appendix A) and a likely process of celestial mechanics (Appendix B). At that
> point I started a narrative.
> 
> As an alternative cosmology the narrative has remained within the accepted
> boundaries of physics and dating. This has continued to surprise me as the
> details developed. I have had no problem with the integration of the
> iconography, the odd events, and the obscure mythological phrasings. Other
> alternative cosmologies have had to resort to analogical and metaphorical
> readings of the past, or suggest improbable exploding bolides.
> 
> In the realm of orthodox cosmology, since 2007 we are seeing astrophysicists,
> atomic physicists, and archaeologists doing exactly that -- that is,
> suggesting improbable exploding bolides in attempts to explain an event in
> 10,900 BC which caused the complete destruction of all the megafauna of the
> North American continent, plus an absolutely stupendous conflagration which
> vaporized everything organic and melted rocks. To explain these data,
> published papers have alternately posited an influx of meteors, aerially
> exploding iceballs from space, the propagation of flaming shockwaves from
> kinetic energy conversion in the air (even though there is no such thing), and
> the influx of atomic particles from a supernova. The establishment scientists
> are lost, and by their own admission they are grasping at straws.
> 
> But there is a straightforward answer. It lies in the predictable effects of
> repulsive electric force between planets when their plasmaspheres touch, that
> is, line up with each other. And this is what I will propose, even though you
> are very unlikely to be in the least familiar with this.
> 
> This is so because for some almost inexplicable reason, such forces and such
> interactions cannot be conceived of or even discussed within the realm of
> consensus science, especially in astrophysics, despite the fact that electric
> fields have been the stock of electrical engineering since the early 19th
> century. Ralph Juergens wrote in 1972:
> 
> > "When the moment arrived for the inevitable encounter [between
> > plasmaspheres], [the] sheaths would make contact. Unleashed electric fields
> > would clash. Almost instantly, forces immeasurably greater than gravitation
> > would be brought to bear on the charged bodies. Cosmic thunderbolts would
> > flash between the bodies in an effort to equalize their electric
> > potentials."
> > 
> > -- "Reconciling Celestial Mechanics and Velikovskian Catastrophism" (Pensee
> > 1972)
> 
> The forces "immeasurably greater than gravitation" are real. They are
> electrically repulsive, billions on billions of times stronger than gravity,
> and they operate instantaneously (not "almost instantly"). The effects do not
> last long, for a charge of the opposite polarity would quickly be induced.
> After a delay (perhaps of minutes) the "cosmic thunderbolts" would follow -- a
> charge equalization. Since this is the movement of electrons and protons
> across space it will involve a travel time delay.
> 
> Juergens continues with:
> 
> > "The list of unthinkably disastrous effects that would result could go on
> > and on. The point to be made, however, is that Worlds in Collision [Immanuel
> > Velikovsky's book] -- at least in my opinion -- documents historical
> > evidence to indicate that phenomena associated with space-charge sheath
> > destruction were actually suffered and survived by peoples of antiquity."
> 
> The repulsive force between planets with like charges (or attractive force for
> unlike charges) is about 39 orders of magnitude greater than the attractive
> force due to gravity -- thus it is greater than gravity by a factor (a
> multiplier) of 10 to the 39th power -- 10 followed by 39 zeros. Gravity drops
> off with the square of the separation distance. That is also true for point
> electric charges, but for charged surfaces the force drops off as the inverse
> of the separation distance.
> 
> It is here taken for granted that all Solar System planets carry an extremely
> high negative charge -- at their surface (or in the near-space region). This
> has been known for Earth for a long time, but this awareness is only slowly
> creeping into the field of celestial mechanics. The planets keep electrically
> isolated from each other by means of their enclosing plasmasphere (what
> Juergens called a space-charge sheath above) which for Earth is approximately
> equal to the Earth's magnetosphere (thus with a radius generally 20 times the
> diameter of the Earth). For comets this is called the coma.
> 
> In popular mainstream astrophysics the "plasmasphere" is frequently
> represented as consisting only of the Van Allen belts, an equatorial toroidal
> region of charged particles surrounding the Earth. The visible comas and tails
> of comets contradicts this, as does the analysis of the electrical properties
> of the space surrounding the Earth which is based on satellite measurements.
> See for example J. H. Piddington Cosmic Electrodynamics (1969) and others.
> 
> It is absolutely astounding that, in the 40 years since 1972, not one author
> among the writers in catastrophism has taken proper account of the repulsive
> forces Juergens first introduced into the literature.
> 
> I should point out also, that when Juergens writes "almost instantly forces
> immeasurable larger" and "cosmic thunderbolts would flash between the bodies,"
> most readers fail to realize that there is a delay between these two separate
> actions. It seems to have been universally assumed that the thunderbolts
> result instantaneously from sensing a difference in potential, perhaps because
> one sentence follows directly on the other.
> 
> The difference in potential which causes the "cosmic thunderbolt" does not
> exist until an opposite charge is induced at one of the planets (which takes
> time) and the thunderbolt is further delayed by the time it takes for
> electrons and ions to travel from one planet to the other. And I should also
> point out that interplanetary lightning strikes are almost benign compared to
> the destructive interaction due to the likeness in potential -- the electric
> repulsive forces.
> 
> What is perhaps more astounding is the sheer lunacy of Velikovskian
> researchers, almost none of whom had the slightest background in physics or
> engineering, in insisting, for a span of thirty or forty years (as did
> Velikovsky), that somehow an interaction of magnetic fields between planets
> would account for changes in the Earth's orbit and Earth's axial inclination
> -- despite the fact that the two planets accused of interfering with Earth,
> Venus and Mars, have no magnetic field.
> 
> Much of this was due to Velikovsky's insistence on the primacy of magnetic
> fields while ignoring electric fields. Magnetic fields remained in the
> conceptual foreground as long as it was thought that the planetary interaction
> genuinely involved "collisions" or "near collisions." Everyone has played with
> magnets and understands their effectiveness at close distances. Almost no one
> has any feel for the enormous wallop packed by electric charges at great
> distances.
> 
> As I have discovered over and over again, the theorists (mostly "story
> tellers") of the catastrophic events first proposed by Velikovsky have seldom
> given much thought to the obvious: Venus could not have made a close approach
> to Earth without overall destruction of both planets.
> 
> The retellers of Velikovsky's narratives have held his book as Bible truth,
> for a number of reasons: in order to remain in his good graces, from a
> deficiency of imagination, and from the complete lack of knowledge of physics
> and electricity. There has been a whole generation of "researchers" who have
> never given a single thought to alternate scenarios which would generate the
> same descriptions from antiquity.
> 
> This is so like the established mainstream notions of today's science
> orthodoxy, which holds that things always were as they are today. No other
> condition can enter the imagination and certainly cannot present itself as
> fact. Yet all indications from the recent past are that things were different.
> Even very recently the arrangement of the Solar System differed markedly from
> today.
> 
> What is most important about the changes in the arrangement of the Solar
> System, many of which were catastrophic, is the cultural and psychological
> reaction of the people of Earth to these events. The last 1000 years of the
> period when Saturn visually stood above the north horizon (4077 BC to 3147 BC)
> were beneficial and was remembered as the "Era of the Gods." Subsequent human
> history has been a singular effort to regain that Paradise. This period was
> followed by a series of adjustments in planetary orbits, some of which also
> had significant destructive effects on Earth and traumatic psychological
> effects on humans.
> 
> Humans changed after Paradise closed in 3147 BC. It was not just the rapid
> changes which we identify as civilization since 3147 BC, but also the
> acquisition, over the next three millennia, of subjective consciousness. The
> response to catastrophic events determined how we became fully human. To say
> it would have happened anyway does not hold up. There could have been any
> number of other outcomes. We could still be chipping flints. After all, we did
> that for more than a million years.
> 
> 
> DISBELIEVING HISTORY
> 
> Of course, many will disbelieve and deride the concept of an alternative
> history, for it was not learned at their mother's knee. Most people have never
> actually tested the logic of the mainstream scenarios. The orthodoxy just
> "feels so right," because it is promulgated by a consensus of the established
> community of scientists, and especially by astronomers and historians. These
> two disciplines, it should be pointed out, operate without a physical object
> they can lay their hands on and are thus relegated to considering their
> subject of study mostly within the vacuum of the mind.
> 
> The physicality and history presented by the establishment is so here and now:
> it is everywhere and as accepted as religion (and with as little basis in
> fact). Any alternative to the conventional cosmology is thought to be
> impossible.
> 
> So, if you need to ask me: none of the information presented here has been
> published as scientific opinions in peer-reviewed professional journals. There
> are no clinical trials underway. My readers either understand and agree or
> they maintain an absolute silence. Over the last fifteen years I have only
> been faulted once -- for my claim that mountains existed before the Biblical
> flood of Noah.
> 
> Ralph Juergens, in 1972, in a brief evaluation of reasons for the "emotional
> outburst from the community of astronomers" (in particular) to the writings of
> Immanuel Velikovsky, wrote in summary about the scientific community:
> 
> > "... I believe it is only fair to acknowledge an underlying and totally
> > sincere scientific disbelief in the historical record."
> 
> Juergens here plainly translates mythology to history, as I do. Let's face the
> facts: the major portion of the historical record of mankind is our mythology.
> But this is not how most people understand mythology, including, or perhaps
> especially so, the scientific community.
> 
> To most people mythology is an exercise in didactic preachings on ethics and
> morals, akin to religious education. This represents an attitude initiated
> with the skepticism of Plato, and most recently reinforced by Joseph Campbell
> with his 1949 book The Hero of a Thousand Faces.
> 
> To Campbell myths are universal truths presented in symbolic language. But to
> everyone else myths are insubstantial and unreal. They have no relationship to
> anything in the physical world, and quoting the fanciful language of ancient
> sages doesn't prove anything about the real world of astronomers and
> physicists.
> 
> But it may be more than that. It is, in fact, difficult to understand the
> violent reaction to Velikovsky and his book as being solely based on a
> disbelief in history or in misconceptions about mythology. The reaction that
> was evoked primarily seemed to consist of predictable psychological defenses
> to perceived attacks. The astronomers had been bested by an outsider. [note 2]
> 
> 
> THE HISTORY OF OBJECTIONS
> 
> Efforts to debunk the cosmologies proposed by Immanuel Velikovsky (Worlds in
> Collision published in 1950), as well as David Talbott (The Saturn Myth of
> 1980), and work by Wallace Thornhill, Don Scott, and others have continued
> unabated for 60 years by those who need to convince themselves that they live
> in a stable Universe where things have always been as they are today.
> 
> Even recently, in 2012, more books are being published which are intended to
> show the terrifying influence of Velikovsky, such as Michael Gordin's The
> Pseudoscience Wars and the Birth of the Modern Fringe. Gordin equates
> Velikovsky's writing (as the publication blurb announces) with "other fringe
> doctrines, including creationism, parapsychology, and more."
> 
> Another book, Laird Scranton's The Velikovsky Heresies: Worlds in Collision
> and Ancient Catastrophes Revisited, supports Velikovsky, but with little
> effort at an in-depth analysis. Most of the writing simply rehashes the
> favorable reviews of the 1960's.
> 
> Whereas Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision is listed under "Astronomy and
> Astrophysics" at Amazon.com, the above books are listed under "Religion and
> Spirituality" and "Christian Books and Bibles." As ever, the ability to
> influence religion is the greatest fear.
> 
> Today it is absolutely taboo to cite the work of Velikovsky in any scientific
> papers. This is observed with a religious zeal. Alfred de Grazia suggests it
> is a symptom of "collective neurosis" among astronomers and especially among
> archaeologists. Archaeology deals with actual objects but derived time
> periods. Velikovsky's later theory of displaced archaeological dates was very
> threatening. The violent rejection and debunking by professionals, whether
> they be astronomers, historians, or linguists, is perhaps the best
> certification of the very likely veracity of new ideas.
> 
> 
> THE AAAS AND THE HERETIC
> 
> I should add an additional note on Velikovsky, since people tend to hold
> pre-formed opinions of him which are derived from rather scurrilous
> condemnations by the scientific community, in fact, almost entirely due to a
> symposium held by the American Association for the Advancement of Science in
> 1974 -- twenty four years after publication of Velikovsky's book Worlds in
> Collision.
> 
> The symposium was presented as the ultimate excommunication of Velikovsky in a
> trial of scientificisms performed by the AAAS. Velikovsky was on a panel with
> five scientists who were to consider his ideas. He was allowed to speak for 30
> minutes, but was then followed by four anti-Velikovsky panelists who spoke
> against his ideas for two hours. The press loved it, extravagantly quoted Carl
> Sagan, and held Sagan as the winner.
> 
> At the time of the symposium, 24 years after his first publication, all too
> many predictions and corollaries formed by Velikovsky had been verified, based
> mainly on data gathered from the space program. Meanwhile Velikovsky had been
> giving standing-room-only lectures at universities and had become an
> embarrassment to astronomy.
> 
> James Hogan, in Kicking the Sacred Cow (2004), writes:
> 
> > "Organized science had tried every tactic of distortion, evasion,
> > misrepresentation, intimidation, vilification, and suppression of evidence
> > to slay the monster that threatened the entire foundation of the collective
> > uniformitarian world-view and mind-set.
> 
> Hogan is not exaggerating. As he mentions:
> 
> > ... after twenty years, interest in Velikovsky's theories was not only
> > getting stronger with the apparent vindication from all quarters that was
> > getting past the censorship and receiving coverage, but Velikovsky was no
> > longer virtually alone. Scientists from many disciplines were beginning to
> > organize in his defense, bringing the message to a new generation of readers
> > and students."
> 
> But the AAAS symposium would bring all of that to an end. I won't go into
> details. You may readily find them. The end result was a disaster for
> Velikovsky's reputation.
> 
> The AAAS printed up the proceedings, but without allowing responses from
> Velikovsky. The papers of the 1974 AAAS conference appeared in Donald W.
> Goldsmith, Scientists Confront Velikovsky (1977).
> 
> The introduction by Isaac Asimov begins with, "What does one do with a
> heretic?" Indeed! Asimov's essay goes on to suggest that miracles by God are a
> more likely solution to the catastrophes recorded in the Bible: "the
> hypothesis that divine intervention caused the miracles."
> 
> In later recollections by Sagan in Broca's Brain (1979), however unbelievably,
> the television-personality astronomer accused Velikovsky of religious
> delusions: "Velikovsky attempts to rescue not only religion but also
> astrology."
> 
> Although presented as ridicule, that statement incorporates the hidden fear of
> the astronomers and scientists: that Velikovsky's book was an effort to tie
> science and astronomy to Bible fundamentalism -- just when the scientists had
> thought they had rescued humanity from such blundering behavior and
> superstitions. As Robert McAulay wrote in "Extra-Scientific Dimensions of
> Science" (Society for Interdisciplinary Studies (SIS) Review, 1979):
> 
> > "Velikovsky can be further comprehended. Of special significance is the fact
> > that Velikovsky's catastrophism is seen by a number of eminent scientists as
> > raising once more the spectre of the arch-nemesis of modern science:
> > Christian fundamentalism."
> 
> Of any number of analyses I have read of the controversy surrounding
> Velikovsky, only those that give voice to the idea that, inadvertently or not,
> Velikovsky was supplying evidence in support of Bible fundamentalism, made
> sense -- and this despite the fact that Velikovsky was an atheist and
> basically anti-religious. But nevertheless fundamentalist ideas were being
> read into his work.
> 
> > "Perhaps the key factor is that Velikovsky's theories are regularly linked
> > with literal interpretations of the Bible, and are thus viewed as being of
> > one piece with 'fundamentalism,' rather than as an historical use of the
> > Bible and other sources."
> 
> McAulay continues:
> 
> > "Along these lines, the number of times that scientists refer to the
> > religious implications of Velikovsky's work is striking."
> 
> What is happening here? I think we are seeing such violent reactions to
> Velikovsky because the real reason for being so upset with him was to be kept
> secret and hidden. It was a reaction to the invalidation of the life's work of
> the scientists. Let me quote Edward T. Hall who, in Beyond Culture (1976),
> sums up the reaction to telling people that their world is misconceived:
> 
> > "When other people call attention to ... perceptual differences, suggesting
> > that the world is not as one perceives it, these observations can be
> > unsettling. To do so is to suggest that a person is incompetent, not
> > properly motivated, ignorant, or even infantile."
> 
> This is exactly what Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision did to the astronomers
> of the USA. The unspoken implications were that they were incompetent and
> ignorant, and they were being told so by an outsider.
> 
> Many wrote also about the AAAS exercise in exorcism. Lynn Rose, who was
> present at the symposium, but not allowed to comment, produced articles in
> Kronos, "Just Plainly Wrong," in 1977 and 1978.
> 
> Charles Ginenthal spent nearly a decade researching Carl Sagan and Immanuel
> Velikovsky (1995), which took up Sagan's points of disagreement with
> Velikovsky.
> 
> Alfred de Grazia authored, with Ralph Juergens and Livio Stecchini, The
> Velikovsky Affair (1966, 1978), including an update for the AAAS Symposium
> experiences. [note 3]
> 
> But all to no avail. There is no right and wrong in any of this, there is
> nothing to prove. My feeling is that the participation by Velikovsky in the
> symposium was a mistake which backfired by producing astoundingly bad press.
> It was the single largest mistake that Velikovsky and his supporters ever
> made, and perhaps the only one. Nothing will ever be proven through debate of
> theories.
> 
> There is no decisive proof to be had. The establishment owns a complete
> culture of empty fictions -- the Big Bang, Black Holes, Dark Matter, the Dark
> Ages of Greece, Sothic dating, and the pretentious paradigm of Absolute
> Gradualism. None of it is real, yet all of it is accepted as Gospel Truth.
> What the Velikovskians needed was marketing by professionals -- not some
> self-generated precepts of decisive proof of their theories. As de Grazia
> noted, in Cosmic Heretics (1984):
> 
> > "The practice of advancing priorities is childish and the idea of proving a
> > general cosmogony by a race of claims is ludicrous. There can be no crucial
> > test or event."
> 
> Almost the complete series of objections presented by Wikipedia today is in
> error or is of no current import. While many of the initial celestial
> suppositions of Velikovsky have proven to be wrong, his corollaries have been
> correct, despite the fact that in the 1950s the astronomical establishment
> absolutely railed against them.
> 
> One outstanding and contrary element, from Wikipedia, however, is the
> following:
> 
> > "He proposed that electromagnetic forces could be the cause of the movement
> > of the planets, although such forces between astronomical bodies are
> > essentially zero."
> 
> These forces are, in fact, zero, and will remain hidden and inactive within
> the shielding plasmaspheres of the planets. However, if the plasmaspheres of
> planets of nearly equal surface potentials intersect, then the forces are
> absolutely stupendous, so much so that even today many catastrophists shun all
> mention of repulsive forces between planets, for, without a grounding in
> electric field theory, it simply cannot be imagined how these forces act or
> how large they could be. They are, in fact, billions on billions of times
> greater than gravitational forces. This was how Venus "collided" with Earth at
> a distance of 20,000,000 miles (32,200,000 km).
> 
> I would never have made any sense of any of this were it not for the
> elucidation provided by the writings of Ralph Juergens, Wal Thornhill, and Don
> Scott, which readily explain virtually all the planetary interactions in
> electrical terms. Additionally, the mythological aspects of my model developed
> out of writings and theories developed by David Talbott and Julian Jaynes, to
> whom I am also greatly indebted. [note 4]
> 
> 
> VALIDATION
> 
> I have done little more than connect the details of research by others, which
> I reference in these first chapters. As a result, very little of the following
> essay is speculative. Almost all of it can be backed up with currently
> available data and the theories of "Cosmic Electrodynamics." This last is
> otherwise known as plasma theory, which is based on long-standing concepts in
> electricity and field theory, and data gathered with space probes. But don't
> worry, I'll keep it simple.
> 
> Any speculation will be identified as such. More will be based on common sense
> and intuition. I'll detail my methods in a later chapter.
> 
> There have been numerous changes to this text, for many facets of the past
> have only slowly revealed themselves over the span of the last 10 years. But
> the changes are almost all in details. The overall narrative has remained the
> same since 2003.
> 
> Last, the reader will be looking for proof of my claims. Proof of specific
> ideas is at times overwhelming and at other times very sparse. But the
> strongest indication for the validity of the overall claims made here lies in
> the fact that the complete set of ideas explains almost all mythology with
> great ease, including many concepts which have remained entirely obscured
> under uniformitarian consensus and even ideas which have remained inexplicable
> to alternative cosmologists despite years of investigations.
> 
> The Velikovskian studies have generated a number of magazines over the years,
> from 1972 through to today. Much of this is available as a CDROM at
> [www.catastrophism.com] of texts from past issues of Pensee, Kronos, SIS
> Review, SIS Workshop, Horus, Aeon, Velikovskian, and Thoth (with the last also
> at [othergroup.net/thoth/]. There are over 4000 published articles directly
> concerned with these topics (and another 10,000 as news reports and uninformed
> drivel).
> 
> Most of these magazines have gone under. Only the Society for
> Interdisciplinary Studies (SIS) publications have been added to the CDROM as
> updates. The CDROM is perpetually out of date, and much of the graphics are
> missing. Why all of this information is being hoarded is curious. It should be
> freely made available on the internet as the most important and intellectually
> liberating concepts to have been developed in the last 1000 years.
> 
> In this essay I am providing no more than cursory information on what has
> already been written about extensively by others. I have limited references to
> their work because there is no reason to weigh down a narrative with thousands
> of "op cit" and "ibid" footnotes -- which are too unrevealing and foster the
> decontexualization of primary sources.
> 
> Therefore, I did not include sources for most of the information in this text
> since all I am doing is remapping areas already explored by others and all of
> it is readily available, although scattered over many sites and books.
> 
> On the other hand, what is missing from the wide-ranging efforts of other
> researchers is a coherent analysis of Mesoamerican sources. I have added this.
> But it could not have been done without the prior exposition, by others, of
> the sequence of events as described in Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Indian, and
> Chinese sources. I am also indebted to earlier commentators and chronographers
> from Augustine to Ussher.
> 
> This site is thus in a large part a collation and synthesis of the efforts of
> many other people to recoup the past and a restatement of their work. Most of
> the information has been published previously, although I could not accept all
> of the writings. A portion of these prior resources is conjectural when based
> on unsound chronology, impractical when based on poorly understood physics,
> and pure fantasy when based on analogies.
> 
> And thus, in an attempt to put it all together, I am providing a narrative
> text of findings which I feel are acceptable and adding what I feel is
> missing: a sound chronology, realistic mechanics, and an extrapolation to
> events not recognized by many researchers.
> 
> I collected available material and put it in order, and, when it no longer
> made sense, started writing. Overall, the construction of a cohesive narrative
> resolved every significant outstanding "problem" which other researchers had
> run into, although at times it took months to find a solution -- however
> obvious it eventually turned out to be.
> 
> I should warn that the subject matter here is not any sort of accepted science
> narrative. It is a cosmology based on a set of reasonable starting postulates.
> The postulates, like those of any cosmology, are untestable. However,
> established theories of physics can be applied to these and this results in an
> amazing concordance of information in agreement with the initial postulates,
> historical recollections, and observable facts. It is this which confers
> validity on the explication pursued here. It suggests sensible answers to
> questions about the history of mankind, the Earth, the Solar System, and the
> Universe which have remained completely unanswered by the traditional
> "handed-down wisdom." The sum total of the conclusions derived here goes much
> further to constitute a cohesive "world-view" than traditional opinions and
> narratives have done.
> 
> This website takes Velikovsky's groundbreaking work, his book Worlds in
> Collision (1950), as a starting point for the development of a history of
> antiquity which answers more questions than any other alternative cosmology,
> and certainly more than the commonly accepted uniformitarian cosmology.
> 
> Many catastrophists still accept Velikovsky's ideas. Others, such as David
> Talbott, Wall Thornhill, and Dwardu Cardona of the Thunderbolts group, hold
> that nothing ever happened after the so-called Polar Configuration came apart
> in 3147 BC: not with Venus in 1500 BC or with Mars after 800 BC. Considering
> (as I do) the huge assembly of mythology which recounts these events, spread
> over three continents, with Mesoamerica detailing this with identifiable
> dates, I am astounded at the oversight. What else could be expected as the
> winding down of the cataclysm of 3147 BC with the removal of Saturn except
> further adjustments and interactions of the loosened planets?
> 
> I also came to the conclusion that some very large aspects of the past --
> including some immense events -- had been overlooked by some of the most able
> researchers. I discovered and detailed the fall of the Absu in 2349 BC and the
> resurrection of Jupiter, and discovered the blazing of Venus and Mercury in
> 685 BC and the plasmoid delivered from Jupiter to the Sun (to the exact date
> and hour). Both the Velikovskians and the Thunderbolts people have remained
> completely unaware of these particular events -- and not that both could not
> have been discovered among available texts. You will not have to be able to
> read dead languages to find the information.
> 
> This cosmology can explain everything from the geology of the Earth to the
> astrophysics of the Solar System. Other people have expanded on separate
> facets extensively. My first concern was to provide a chronology and a
> mechanics (see the Appendixes A and B). The connecting narrative came later.
> In this narrative my main interest has been to trace the origins of
> contemporary cultural practices. Of greatest importance, from my point of
> view, is that a Saturnian cosmology provides an explanation of the actions and
> thoughts of our ancestors and insight into our contemporary behavior and
> thinking.
> 
> Let me state at the outset that I have no particular axe to grind, no politics
> to promote, this is not a "creationist's young earth" thesis, I do not hold to
> extraterrestrial interventions, I have no religious or theistic proposals to
> make, nor do I put stock in the "Elohim" of the Old Testament. I'll remain
> within accepted physics -- I will not propose new solutions to gravity or
> offer new "forces" for you to consider, or have planets arbitrarily leave
> their orbits. And I'll use accepted dates and dating.
> 
> I started this essay in late 2001. I never meant to write as much as I did,
> but people asked, "So what came before 4077 BC?" That alone resulted in nine
> additional chapters. And then there were minor questions on items I had never
> paid much attention to, like, "Why was Sirius red in antiquity?" and "What
> about the two latitudes of Babylon?" This last has been under discussion by
> astronomers since AD 100. But the solution is simple.
> 
> 
> MESOAMERICA
> 
> And then, as noted directly below, I started to look at Mesoamerica, which
> resulted in seven more chapters. So, after completing most of the narrative
> described in these pages in March of 2006, I came across the Books of the
> Chilam Balam Of Chumayel of the Yucatan Maya which were written shortly after
> the invasion by the Spanish. These were an attempt to secretly keep ancient
> myths and tales alive.
> 
> I was astounded to find among the texts a step-by-step rendition of the course
> of the "creation of the world" dating back to long before 3147 BC, followed by
> an accounting of other catastrophic events. The events are described in the
> same detail as the parallel Egyptian and Mesopotamian "legends." The Chilam
> Balam also provided dates which turned out to be congruent with what had
> already been extracted from sources in the Eastern Mediterranean by others. I
> started to include references to the Chilam Balam within the main text.
> 
> I followed up on ideas by Vincent H. Malmstrom, writing in Cycles of the Sun,
> Mysteries of the Moon (1997), and Anthony Aveni in Skywatchers of Ancient
> Mexico (1980), who both claim that the Mesoamerican ceremonial sites are
> aligned to the setting of the solstitual summer Sun. They are not.
> 
> I have much better data for longitude and latitude available today than
> Malmstrom and Aveni had, and found their conclusions to be completely wrong.
> What I found instead, unnoticed by Malmstrom and Aveni, were alignments to the
> setting of the zenithal Sun -- the day the sun exactly overpasses a particular
> site, 90 degrees up in the sky. It became clear that the location of every
> site in Mesoamerica was selected not only so that the Sun would pass directly
> overhead (which happens two days each year anyway), but sites were
> specifically selected to have the Sun set at a mountain or in a volcano on the
> western or northwestern horizon. The mountains were selected to correspond to
> an alignment within 1/3 degree of this.
> 
> I thus looked closely at 13 early and well-established ceremonial sites in the
> Olmec region and the Valley of Mexico (plus two sites elsewhere), and found
> that they shared some 70 alignments to mountains or volcanoes -- each for
> sunsets primarily on six calendar dates only. These are, in fact, the calendar
> dates associated with the four major catastrophes identified for the Eastern
> Mediterranean.
> 
> After considering sources from the Eastern Mediterranean, I was able to tie
> the calendar dates to the catastrophic events of 2349 BC (September 8), 1492
> BC (April 19), 747 BC (February 28), and 685 BC (three dates in June and
> July).
> 
> The dates turn out to represent the "flood of Noah" in 2349 BC (as the
> culmination of the Pleiades), the Earth shock of 1492 BC (recorded in Exodus),
> the shock of 747 BC (the start of the Babylonian "Era of Nabonassar" and the
> Roman calendar), plus a distribution of three dates which can be assigned to
> forty days of a solar nova event in June and July of 685 BC, corresponding to
> the Phaethon legend. [note 5]
> 
> What is interesting here is that the equivalent (seasonal) calendar dates
> which were found are likely to be very correct, even if the year these events
> are assigned to is not. To have all the multiple alignments of 13 sites
> consistently show up on 6 days only is well beyond random. Alignments for
> matching calendar dates vary only by a fraction of a degree between calculated
> and observed values from site to site. Among the 13 sites I looked at, there
> were 25 alignments assigned to the date of September 8th, 16 to April 19th, 10
> to February 28th, and 22 to three dates in July. In all there were some 70
> identical alignments used by 13 sites, plus 10 alignments for the setting Sun
> after an overhead (zenithal) passage.
> 
> Later chapters will deal with these Mesoamerican sources -- the Maya calendar,
> the ending of the "First Creation" in 8347 BC, the history of the world since
> the ending of the "Second Creation" of 3147 BC, the event known as the end of
> the "Third Creation" of 2349 BC, the cosmological crisis of 685 BC, the search
> for the "day of Kan," and an exposition of the Popol Vuh.
> 
> Within the text of the Chilam Balam I have identified the trees of the four
> directions, the place of reeds, the crossroads or rivers in the sky, the
> turtle first seen long ago, the three hearthstones in the sky, and a number of
> additional phenomena. Based on Olmec and later Maya iconography, I have
> managed to identify the plumed God with the crocodile body as well as the
> double-headed dragon with the Sun and Venus coming out of its two mouths, and
> the sloped-walled canyon for ballgames. This seems like the material of
> fantasies, but it is exactly what constitutes the religious symbols of
> Mesoamerica.
> 
> 
> WHO I AM
> 
> I should mention who I am, and what drove me to write this text.
> 
> First, I am a visual artist (sculpture, installations), living in Chicago
> where I have taught photography for years. But I also have a background in
> electrical engineering, cinematography, public administration, and
> programming, and a curiosity dating back a lifetime. More information is
> available at my website, [jnocook.net].
> 
> Second, I researched and wrote this text mainly because a comprehensive
> narrative of events and a plausible physical explanation were lacking in the
> literature of catastrophism and alternative cosmologies. This is a void I have
> been attempting to fill over the last decade, initially for my own benefit.
> The text of the narrative is based on a carefully derived chronology and a
> celestial mechanics which has remained within accepted boundaries of physics.
> 
> 
> WHY THIS TEXT IS PRESENTED ON THE INTERNET
> 
> This text is presented on the internet as webpages. The advantage of a web
> site is that it can be easily changed, added to, corrected, and expanded,
> while simultaneously having all of the ideas publicly available. The
> alternative of publishing this in printed book form would delay the
> availability, limit distribution to a select few, and allow no updates. And by
> going public I have been forced to complete the investigation and have been
> under pressure to make all of it coherent. Amazingly, additional details keep
> coming forward as the edits continue.
> 
> 
> WHAT OTHERS SAY
> 
> A few comments from readers, via infrequent emails.
> 
> 
> 
>  * "A titanic job. It is mind blowing..." - A Suta
>  * "Absolutely fascinating and a masterpiece; when I came across your site my
>    jaw slowly started dropping." -- R Houston
>  * "I was AMAZED. It is awesome." -- H George
>  * "Fantastic site ... sweeping in scope." -- EU forum fan
>  * "... a feeling ... of finally coming home." -- H Pluut
>  * "I am totally amazed and awed." -- M Signatur
>  * "If you are right then everything we know so far about human history is
>    wrong." -- R Boerman
>  * "... reads like one of those can't-put-it-down pageturners." -- J Smith
>  * "The best and most complete i've seen." -- P Mitronikas
>  * "This is BIG stuff you're doing. ...feeling like I'm finally connecting to
>    reality." -- N Rothstein
>  * "I love reading your website. I am actually reading it a second time. I
>    think your chronology is brilliant." -- M Harris
>  * "I am not only enchanted but almost 'enthralled' by all this head-swimming
>    learning...." -- D Sessoms
>  * "... far more interesting than the narrative that the historians or
>    astronomers or geologists or priests tell us." -- K Widen
>  * "I started rereading your book this weekend and I could hardly put it down;
>    your reconstruction makes so much sense." -- D Smith
>  * "Reading your Saturnian stuff ... awesome." -- E Boettger
>  * "I am overwhelmed by the scale and breadth of your ideas and writings." --
>    D Levie
>  * "... absolutely revolutionary." -- C George
>  * "Very impressive; your site is one of the more accessible rundowns for the
>    layman of Saturnism." -- W Radtke
>  * "Love your site, I've read everything on it that I could." -- J Robillard
>  * "Found it quite profound ... a big part of what I am looking for." -- A
>    Flanagan
>  * "Fantastic. You have pulled together so many things." -- J Brookes
>  * "My appreciation at the sterling work you have done." -- S Borruso
>  * "I admire your extensive and expansive research." -- H Postma
>  * "The scenario you have laid out answers many questions I have had for years
>    and the way you present it is very comprehensible." -- D de Santis
>  * "This is truly an eye opener." -- J Dionne
>  * "For everything you want to know about Saturn and its myth, go to Jno Cook.
>    This guy is twenty years ahead of everybody. ...take a peek regularly at
>    this mind-blowing site." -- Dodeca at a forum
>  * "The best synthesis I have read." -- Sinner at a forum
>  * "A far cry better than some of the so-called 'legitimate' research out
>    there. It is a shame more people cannot see what is staring them in the
>    face." -- D Perkins
>  * "I love your site; your work is amazing." -- R Adams
>  * "I'm struck by the magnitude of your thinking." -- E Dawson
>  * "... probably the most comprehensive coverage ... pertaining to the history
>    of Mankind." -- L Pronko
>  * "Well researched and painstaking work, well worthwhile reading" -- World
>    Mysteries blog
>  * "A marriage of your art, and engineering, and your cut-to-the-chase writing
>    style." -- P Thompson
>  * "... thoroughly enjoying returning to it periodically" -- A Mckay
>  * "... spellbound by finally uncovering some deep history mostly hidden from
>    public view." -- A Fitts
>  * "... all of this has the force of a total paradigm shift. ... Suddenly most
>    of the so-called mythological 'experts' -- such as Jo Campbell, M Eliade, I
>    suppose Jung too -- seem rather laughable in many instances." -- J West
>  * "I used to consider the Velikovsky books to be the cornerstones of my
>    library, but now I know better." -- T Hornbrook
>  * "You have my undying admiration for the monumental research you have done"
>    -- J Buche
>  * "I'm starting on your book and am riveted!" -- J H
>  * "[The book] has completely taken over my imagination. It's the most
>    fascinating and compelling thing I've ever read in my life." -- E Eckstein
> 
> 
> COLOPHON
> 
> All the webpages are free of any requirement for specific fonts and font sizes
> (with one exception). So as a reader you ought to set your browser to some
> font type and font size that suits you for easy reading.
> 
> The exceptions are the tables, where a CSS script forces the use of Courier,
> so that the data of the tables will fall in-line correctly. No size is
> specified -- so set your monospaced font (Courier) to a size commensurate with
> the normal reading font you have selected.
> 
> I don't know what happens to typefaces and fonts when the HTML (PHP) files get
> converted to pdf. I'll sort that out later.
> 
> 
> IMAGE CREDITS
> 
> The sources for images are listed in the captions. Otherwise they are
> generated by the author. Icons are from public domain sources.
> 
> -- Portland, Oregon,
> January 21, 2012
> 
> ____
> Special thanks to G Van Aacken for pointing out the electric force dropoff.
> Special thanks for editorial assistance and word editing to Claudia George,
> Danford Vander Ploeg, Natan Rothstein, Kevin Widen, Kim Gibson, Jean Hafner,
> Maggi Thickstun, Roger Poisson, and Hathor. Very special thanks to Kees Cook
> for book production.
> 
> Recent access [saturniancosmology.org/access] by domain name.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> ENDNOTES
> 
> 
> 
> > Note 1 --
> 
> The opening quotation ("A large planet ...") is lifted from a later chapter in
> this text.
> 
> The quotation by Cardona is from Alfred de Grazia's Cosmic Heretics (1983) as
> the content of a letter by Cardona to Earl Milton, who worked with de Grazia.
> I originally used a date for the Cardona quotation of 1982, since de Grazia's
> text covers up to 1983. De Grazia has no endnotes to clear up his sources. In
> 2010 I changed the date of the Cardona quote to 1978, which is what de Grazia
> seems to suggest in his text. The concept of Saturn at the North Pole had been
> under public discussion for about five years at that time.
> [return to text]
> 
> 
> 
> > Note 2 --
> 
> > "The emotional outburst from the community of astronomers that so blackened
> > the name Velikovsky and so successfully, if only temporarily, discredited
> > Worlds in Collision, has been laid to many causes, from the psychological
> > and the political to simple resentment against invasion of the field by an
> > outsider."
> 
> From Ralph E. Juergens "Reconciling Celestial Mechanics and Velikovskian
> Catastrophism" (Pensee, 1972). Two years later the American Association for
> the Advancement of Science (the AAAS) organized their famed symposium on
> Velikovsky.
> [return to text]
> 
> 
> 
> > Note 3 --
> 
> Alfred de Grazia, in Cosmic Heretics (1983), sources Shane Mage's book
> Velikovsky and His Critics (1978), with the following note: [abbreviations
> expanded]
> 
> > "Shane Mage, in appraising the speeches against Velikovsky, uncovered in
> > them several important concessions that had been apparently achieved over
> > the years. First, the book Scientists Confront Velikovsky, 'disavows and
> > repudiated the entire Scientific polemic of the 1950's and 60's both
> > implicitly and explicitly.'"
> > 
> > "Next, both the sponsor, Goldsmith, and Mulholland assert that Velikovsky's
> > ideas and arguments are not un- nor anti-scientific, whatever the press and
> > then the scientific community presumed to draw from the event. Furthermore,
> > the legitimacy of cosmic catastrophic hypotheses in science was acknowledged
> > both by Sagan and Mulholland, but the specific hypotheses of Velikovsky were
> > attacked (and obviously the scientists are in confusion as to how they can
> > work historically and empirically with the hypotheses that they admit.)"
> > [return to text]
> 
> 
> 
> > Note 4 --
> 
> Find Ralph Juergens's essay "Reconciling Celestial Mechanics and Velikovskian
> Catastrophism" at [saturniancosmology.org/juergens.htm]. This does one of the
> best jobs of introducing interplanetary plasma.
> 
> Much more important are two other essays by Juergens which apply plasma
> theories to conditions within the Solar System: "Of The Moon and Mars Part I -
> The Origins Of The Lunar Sinuous Rilles" at
> [saturniancosmology.org/juergensa.htm] and "Of The Moon and Mars part II -
> Searching For The Scars Of Battle" at [saturniancosmology.org/juergensb.htm],
> both published in Pensee in 1974.
> 
> All discussions of planetary interactions presented at this website,
> "Recovering the Lost World," are extensions of the basic electrical concepts
> originated with these two papers. Once you figure out what they say, you will
> know everything there is to know about planet to planet interactions.
> 
> Other relevant articles deal mainly with the Sun, and are found at
> [kronos-press.com/juergens/index.htm].
> 
> A recent discussion on plasma by James Hogan can be found at
> [saturniancosmology.org/jameshogan.htm].
> 
> See also the following collection of websites:
> 
> 
> 
>  * Wal Thornhill's website at [www.holoscience.com/].
>  * Don Scott's explanation of plasma theories at
>    [www.electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm] and his book The Electric Sky
>    (2006).
>  * The work of David Talbott (with Wallace Thornhill and others), including
>    the book Thunderbolts of the Gods (2005), at [www.thunderbolts.info]. A
>    second book by the same authors, The Electric Universe (2007), is more
>    specific and does a much better job of presenting galactic, solar, and
>    planetary plasma.
>  * The "Thunderbolts" site (above) includes an amazing series of daily images
>    and comments, mostly dealing with outer space, but at times including some
>    mythological themes. A brief rundown of Talbott's "Saturn Theory" is
>    included among essays. There is also a forum with discussion ranging from
>    the well-informed to the inane and mostly concerned with contemporary
>    astronomy from the standpoint of interstellar plasma.
> 
> Specific to plasma theory are the following:
> 
>  * The website of the astronomer Halton Arp at [www.haltonarp.com/].
>  * Material by Anthony Peratt of Experimental Programs at Los Alamos National
>    Laboratory. Find it at [plasmauniverse.info].
>    
>    Peratt is one of the world's leading pioneers in plasma physics and plasma
>    cosmology. Peratt's papers on the petroglyphs and the south polar plasma
>    column are located at the site above, but hard to ferret out:
>    
>    Look under NearEarth.html for "A. L. Peratt, Characteristics for the
>    Occurrence of a High-Current, Z-Pinch Aurora as Recorded in Antiquity" and
>    "A.L. Peratt, J. McGovern, A.H. Qöyawayma, M.A. Van der Sluijs, and M.G.
>    Peratt, Characteristics for the Occurrence of a High-Current, Z-Pinch
>    Aurora as Recorded in Antiquity, Part II: Directionality and Source."
> 
>  * An extensive collection on plasma theory, developed and maintained as a
>    Wiki site by Ian Tresman of SIS, at [www.plasma-universe.com].
>  * The most readable synopsis of the elements of plasma theory is the website,
>    [www.plasmacosmology.net] -- a very extensive site, written in a summary,
>    easy-to-read style. The descriptions include some catastrophism and
>    mythology.
>  * Another website equal in scope and general interest is
>    [www.plasmaresources.com] -- run by David Smith, AU.
>  * A very readable overview which generally cuts across the handed-down
>    "science" to zero in on essentials:
>    [sites.google.com/site/cosmologyquest/default] by Michael Suede.
> 
> There are more links relevant to prior research in the next chapter, and in
> the Appendix "List of Links." See also the Appendix "List of Books." Plasma is
> a controversial subject with Wikipedia, since it may be enlisted to present
> evidence against the Big Bang theory. Wikipedia articles dealing with plasma
> and related topics are therefore often edited in favor of handed-down science.
> The reader should be aware of this bias. As an antidote I recommend two books:
> Eric Lerner, The Big Bang Never Happened (1991), and Hilton Ratcliffe, The
> Virtue of Heresy: Confessions of a Dissident Astronomer (2007).
> [return to text]
> 
> 
> 
> > Note 5 --
> 
> The culmination of a star (the Pleiades mentioned in the text) is the date
> when it reaches the highest point in the sky. This would always be directly
> south, and at midnight. The Pleiades culminated on the third night after the
> fall equinox in 2349 BC, which occurred 15 days earlier before 685 BC.
> Precession of the equinox does not apply to the era before 747 BC. The concept
> of the "third night" (actually two days and a night) is of importance in later
> religions. All the calendar dates are "Gregorian equivalent" dates,
> apportioned over the real-time calendar days for shorter years. These
> conditions will be detailed in later chapters.
> [return to text]
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> URL of this page: http://saturniancosmology.org/index.php
> This page last updated: Monday, November 20th, 2017
> Size of this page: 9836 words.
> 
> Feel free to email me with any comments or corrections. Find an email
> [address] here.
> 
> Copyright © 2001 - 2024 Jno Cook
> 
> Permission to reprint in whole or in part is granted,
> provided full credit is given.