The Role Of Science In Reconsideration Of World Mythology

Archived Articles:

By David Talbott

One of the most common responses from people who’ve heard about the DVD “Symbols of an Alien Sky” is to ask for the scientific support. While that response is understandable, it also exposes a fundamental error in perception, one that must be corrected if science is to benefit from the massive cultural testimony concerning things seen in the ancient sky.

Here is a statement I recently received from a reader of this Update: “To me, the attempt to explain all mythology with a hypothesis that has not as yet proven it’s own possibility doesn’t make much sense.”

Though I have no desire to embarrass the individual in question (who shall remain anonymous), the words used here do indeed speak for a deep mis-perception. The first reason to take the hypothesis seriously is the historical evidence. And that means reconsidering common scientific assumptions. At its core the essential evidence comes from global patterns that would not even be possible had the implied events never occurred. The fact that major dimensions of the hypothesis have now been confirmed by independent scientific investigation simply verifies a prior and inescapable conclusion.

The prior conclusion is best stated in its most elementary terms, because these are the terms that inspired an interdisciplinary investigation now reaching well beyond my own claim of planets close to the Earth in an earlier time. Was the ancient sky the theater for electrically driven, dynamically evolving formations that once dominated human imagination?

Perhaps most of those reading this already know that, several years ago, two preeminent researchers launched independent investigations, both inspired by the historical argument, and both fully capable of refuting the reconstruction as presented in Symbols of an Alien Sky — IF that reconstruction is fundamentally incorrect. One is plasma scientist Anthony Peratt, who is now in his tenth year of a global investigation of rock art in relation to known plasma discharge formations. In this case, the judgment rendered is not given by any human interpretation, but by a supercomputer. Do images carved on stone reveal concrete celestial forms recorded from DIFFERENT VANTAGE POINTS on earth? And do these formations, with their extraordinary and inexplicable detail, correspond to the known forms taken by high energy electrical discharge in the plasma laboratory?

The catalyst for this investigation was Peratt’s attendance at a private meeting (September 2000) in Portland, Oregon. Both during and after that meeting I presented a series of rock art formations along with notes on mythic themes that pointed to the very forms inscribed on stone. Peratt’s subsequent investigation has already provided some definitive conclusions. One of these is that formations I’d reconstructed in the late eighties and nineties, based entirely on historical evidence (“caduceus,” “chain of arrows,” “backbone of the sky,” “ladder of heaven,” and “thunderbolts of the gods”), did indeed loom above ancient sky worshippers. “I can now say you are absolutely correct,” Peratt stated to me personally, and more than once, over the past ten years.

The second investigator, linguist and comparative mythologist Rens van der Sluijs, was also present at the private meeting attended by Peratt. He has since gathered and indexed tens of thousands of mythic, literary, and symbolic references. His photographic collection, gathered around the world, also numbers in the tens of thousands. Van der Sluijs has applied a rigorous analytic approach to the collective memories of the ancient cultures. His most fundamental conclusion is unqualified. Our forebears witnessed heaven-spanning plasma formations in the sky, and these included such configurations as the “polar mountain” and “enclosure of the gods” first presented in my book The Saturn Myth (Doubleday, 1980).

One point in particular must be made clear. Nothing could be more senseless than to ask today’s theoretical sciences to validate the historical reconstruction. The crazy quilt of guesswork by popular theorists today has not even provided a credible foundation for their own conjectures. What is the significance of the fact that, years after the foundations of the “Saturn hypothesis” were already set, plasma scientists verified the most spectacular and detailed of the reconstructed formations? These developments simply confirm that we’ve not been shooting in the dark all these years. What actually occurred is that we did not permit critics — those presuming to speak on behalf of “good science” — to overrule the historical evidence. Rather, the historical evidence redirected scientific investigation, so that science could ask the right questions, delivering the specific, detailed, and highly concrete results that the reconstruction had predicted (the subject of Episode Two of
Symbols of an Alien Sky).

It certainly won’t be helpful to respond to critics in ways that just make them mad. But first things first, and it’s only appropriate to follow a little common sense here. Ask yourself why so many individuals well trained in both the sciences and in comparative mythology have found the historical evidence compelling. Until one considers the evidence in both its depth and its breadth, he’ll have no basis for assessing the reconstruction. There’s a reason why a substantial majority of those viewing Symbols of an Alien Sky have watched the DVD more than once, some up to ten times or more. And that’s just the first DVD in a three-part INTRODUCTION! The truth is that trying to answer the question of veracity in the abstract, based on things you think you already know, will get you nowhere. What is really at stake here is the veracity of common presumptions and pretensions, because these — as already demonstrated — constitute the most severe obstruction on the path of discovery.