Dean (from Dick), Why NOT examine the Eitodorpha "accretion of space dust" explanation based on your understandings? Isn't that what you and the rest of us do every moment about everything else? None of us would even be interested in the HE and alternate science if we hadn't already questioned much of what is accepted orthodox "facts." Did the Creator-of-all directly dictate every word in Etidorpha (like some believe about the Bible) and therefore one must NOT question any statement in it even if some parts seem illogical? In my opinion Dean, REASONABLE PROOFS of asserted "FACTS" on any subject, should be asked of you, me, Cater, Lamprecht, Churchward, Etidorpha, list members, scientists, governments, etc., etc., etc when we assert those "Facts" to be true. Those proofs may still not be sufficient to some of us but NOT to ask for some proof seems foolish. If we are simply stating our OPINIONS, our THEORIES, and present them as such, that's different. But the Etidorpha being did not say "this is my theory." He said his assertions were FACTS, reality, the way things are. Then (somewhere in the book} reasonable proofs to backup those "facts" should have been presented. Apparently not. No wonder some readers having read Etidorpha during the past century, tossed it aside as fantasy - without proofs. Good grief, Dean, you and others are constantly trying to PROVE the HE to be true with what Nansen and others have found. Or Lamprecht about nuclear radiation apparently passing through a north opening and coming out at the south pole. Those are REASONABLE PROOFS.
Dean, all my adult life I have questioned many "facts" accepted by most other people that just didn't make sense to me. And tried to find out any proofs behind those "facts." Sometimes, especially what pretends to be scientific "facts" on various subjects, I have discovered were poorly proved, mainly just widely agreed-upon conjecture and theories. Like many of you, I have found that to be so about many subjects including causes and treatment of ailments, politics, economics, history, religion, geology, astronomy and other physical sciences, etc. I've become a CYNIC (a "healthy" cynic I hope). And in further looking sometimes I have discovered different "facts" based on better proofs about many of the subjects listed above. Not necessarily the FINAL "facts" but closer to reality than the former orthodox "facts" to my discernment.
I originally also doubted Churchward. Put his books aside. But as years passed, in re-reading his 5 books, I found he attempted to provide REASONABLE PROOFS for his every scientific assertion. I have NOT found that with many of the assertions of orthodox scientists, and so far, not in the several "explanation" excerpts you have provided from Cater. Like the orthodox thinkers he clearly disagrees with, Cater's explanations about soft and hard particles coming from the Sun, seem to me to be ASSERTED FACTS, not stated as his THEORIES. I do not know if he also provides REASONABLE PROOFS to back up his assertions. Perhaps he does in his books, but Dean, you have not provided those backup proofs in the excerpts you've so far posted on the list, so far as I remember.
Churchward, on the other hand, after presenting his proofs, left it up to each reader to discern whether his proofs were sufficient. I'm still not convinced about his every notion, leaving those on the shelf. But I have been very impressed about the REASONABLE PROOFS he presented about HOW this planet was geologically created. EVERY major phenomena is reasonably explained in a unified sequence of events, especially volcanos, earthquakes, the emersion and sinking of land, the uplifting of mountains, the falling of sea floors creating our ocean depths and the existence of a great HOLLOW in Earth's center. Many of the conflicting and disconnected explanations for the same preceding phenomena by orthodox geologists and astronomers come across to me as misunderstood and poorly proven theories.
Churchward's OTHER notions about ancient populations and ancient lands I have put aside as POSSIBLE, but not sufficiently proven to me yet. But the same goes for your ideas about the ARYANS, Dean. Possible, but not reasonably proven.
By the way, Churchward thinks (correctly or incorrectly) the ancient Scandanavians may have came from light skinned QUETZELS and King Quetzel, that fled in their ships long before 12,000 years back, after an invasion by outsiders of their homeland. If Churchward was correct, prior to the formation of the "gas belts," there was an OVERLAND ROUTE from Europe to Canada and America. Above surface land stretched from France to Canada. The British Isles and Ireland are the major pieces that remained above water. The rest was sunken, like Atlantis, MU and Ancient Ceylon, when upholding gas chambers beneath each were blown out and emptied by penetration of the subterranean "gas belt" tunnels between 15,000 and 10,000 years past. If that overland route existed in ancient times, travel of some ancient people to America and back, would have been made easier. Also, if Atlantis and MU both also existed at that time, ship travel on Earth prior to 15,000 years ago, may have required only relatively short distances between coastlines. Of course IF those land masses existed, the entire CONTINENTAL DRIFT theory will have to be tossed in the ash can! - Dick
Sure I can "pass judgement." Orthodoxy is unable to EXPLAIN how the different elements were created. Right or wrong, Churchward DID and presented reasonable proofs. Read his stuff thoroughly and judge for yourself. He doesn't leave out much. - Dick
Cater may be right about some of the above. But maybe Cater should read Churchward too, and see where they agree or disagree. The explanation you provided above seems THEORETICAL to me at this moment, and not very substantial to my mind. Please explain further. - Dick
No, I don't see and understand what you are saying. Centrifugal, centripetal and magnetic (gravitational) Forces MOVE the particles in atoms around - and MOVE the Suns and their satellites throughout space. These are the GREAT secondary Forces emanating (I think) from the One Great FORCE, the Creator. They can't be dismissed. They are what makes the physical Cosmos function in the magnificent orderliness we perceive. As basic as they are, they HAD to play the major roles in creating this physical planet from its original hot nebula of elementary gases. - Dick
If Churchward (or anyone appealing to other scientists of his day or now) had asserted the above idea of a "spirit bubble," he'd have been laughed at so hard none of his other conceptions would even have been read! I personally like the Seth (Jane Roberts) idea that "we (all of us in concert) create our reality." I also like (though have difficulty understanding it) Seth's assertion that ALL HAPPENS AT ONCE in a vast present "moment." And the idea that we each exist SIMULTANEOUSLY in many alternate realities, present, past and future.
And still like some of my former "insights" from early Scientology that DISTANCES are an agreed-upon illusion by all of us "Thetans" (Spirits). We agree those Suns are millions of miles away, so they "are," when in reality there is no "distance." We "postulate" things into existence, sometimes. (A Rishi Master postulates or decrees and the atoms move instantly to produce his desire).
Dean, those are concepts similar to those you find in the Vedas. But if we try to present such SUBJECTIVE views as "spirit bubbles" to explain and PROVE physical Earth has a HOLLOW CENTER... and other planets also have hollow centers, Scientists and MOST ordinary people will ignore us and look on us as loonies. That is why, in my opinion, we must present REASONABLE physical PROOFS about the HE, as well as REASONABLE PROOFS about any related alternative scientific assertions. Just the same as we'd each do about ANY subject we are attempting to PROVE to those people yet uninformed. - Dick