The existence of observers highlights one aspect of the interpretive problems associated with this hypothesis. As will be seen in the main body of this work, human myths and legends abound with details of the “wars of the gods” and the horrendous weapons with which they were fought. As such, one must either (1) opt for the “naturalist” and “materialist” interpretation of such myths along catastrophist lines, or (2) posit the tremendous antiquity of man in a time frame lying quite beyond the pale of standard cultural history, evolutionary theory, anthropology, and paleontology in order for there to be observers of the events that the texts describe, or (3) one must posit a precursor race or species somehow tied to humanity, which bequeathed to mankind its own observations of this war and catastrophe, which then became the nuclei for these human myths and legends. As will be evident in the main body of this book, the myths themselves point to this third alternative as their own favored explanation. But any way one views this problem, one has stepped quite outside the pale of the standard academic models of history, evolution, and anthropology.
It must therefore be frankly and bluntly acknowledged that this work is accordingly not one that would be accepted in any academic context. It merely makes a case for looking at these myths as containing real elements of historical and scientific truth in yet another way: that the “wars of the gods” were real, that they engendered planetary destruction and catastrophe here on earth and elsewhere in the solar system, and perhaps even outside it, and that some of the consequences may still be with us in ways that we scarcely imagine.
Similarly, the cosmic war hypothesis is not likely to be met with much enthusiasm among certain strains of revisionists either. At one end are the catastrophists best exemplified in the work of Alan Alford and many others, for whom the whole matrix of conceptions in the complex of symbols used by myths are nothing more than a metaphor for naturally occurring explosions of planets. The cosmic war hypothesis is, needless to say, antithetical to this whole enterprise. At the other end of the spectrum is the disturbing tendency in so much alternative literature to paint this putative paleophysical past in idealistic terms, as a golden age, a warm and fuzzy “Disneyworld” of “jonquils and daisies” devoid of nasty bad things like interplanetary wars and their associated technologies. However, such an attitude simply flies in the face of the overwhelming preponderance of “cosmic war” traditions from all over the globe. And this brings us to the nature of the evidence itself.
Careful consideration of the questions outlined above, and of the parameters of the “interplanetary war scenario” itself, will also reveal the types of evidence to be considered in this work: (1) physics, (2) the material evidences of anomalous artifacts, (3) evidences and mechanisms of planetary destruction, (4) evidences of possible deliberate targeting and destruction, and finally, and by no means the least important, (5) textual and “legendary” evidence from texts, oral myths and traditions, and physical monuments and ancient glyphs. “Text” in other words is understood in this book in the broadest sense, as being inclusive of all these things.
Finally, a word about how the term “war” is to be understood in this work. When one normally thinks about this word “war”, one conjures images of trebuchets, tanks, and triremes, of ballistas and bombards, of cavalry and cannon, of ships-of-the-line and steel-clad armored dreadnoughts, of armies, fleets, and more recently, vast aerial armadas and mushroom clouds, particle beams, high energy lasers and grasers,2 all clashing and often annihilating their enemies. In short, one naturally imagines all the associated technologies of war. It is no different, as we shall see, with the ancient texts. There too, the ancient texts conjure images of generals, admirals, political leaders, of heroic deeds and despicable acts, of the suffering of the innocent, wanton destruction of property, and most importantly, a technology capable of the most contemporary interpretation of extreme sophistication. The ancient texts, as does recent history, conjure images of city-wide devastation, and of the as yet (and hopefully) only theoretical regional destruction that might follow even the most limited nuclear and thermonuclear exchange. As will be seen in the remainder of this work, I certainly believe the cosmic war scenario to include these aspects of “war.”
But there are also more subtle forms of warfare, such as when a “vanquished” party goes underground to wage a “guerilla war,” complete with secret cells, passwords, means of recruitment, propaganda and psychological warfare and all that these things entail. These, too, are included in my use of the term “war”. Consequently, I mean the term “cosmic war” in a truly “cosmic” sense inclusive of its spiritual aspects and ongoing nature, for as any careful consideration of the texts will demonstrate, this war possessed the characteristics of an ongoing guerilla that from time to time erupted into wholesale open hostilities. And as the texts also indicate, some of the “people” who fought this war, or their descendents, may still be around. In this respect, “war,” also includes the underlying concept of the civilization fighting it. So in examining the cosmic war hypothesis, we are also examining the underlying civilization and its mores, and this fact may indeed by why the hypothesis has never been adequately explored by the two strains of revisionists previously referred to, for it thrusts the philosophical question of theodicy to the fore, a question totally avoided by catastrophism which is but a variant of materialism, and by the golden age warm fuzzies and Disneyworld “jonquils and daisies” approach, which is but a variant of wishful thinking.
In fact, as I suggested in my book The GiZa Death Star Destroyed,, the paleoancient war was not only the fertile seeding ground for the many versions of catastrophism (including that version which views it as a regular cycle), but also the soil that germinated and nurtured the ancient mystery cults and eventually the secret societies and priesthoods that succeeded them. The “cosmic war,” as many religious traditions - especially the Judeo-Christian - have alluded, is an ongoing one. But as will become equally clear, that latter tradition may itself have erred somewhat by viewing that “warfare” as an exclusively “spiritual” or even “personal” one, without considering the possibility that it was also a very real war in a very real cosmic sense fought in very real places by very real persons who possessed very real technologies. It is, after all, only our modern outlook that opposes the spiritual and the physical, but such an opposition would have been foreign to the ancient frame of mind, and would seem to be at complete variance with the broad sense of the Christian tradition’s own legacy of sacramentalism.
One may perhaps now appreciate the magnitude of the task presently before us, for not only are so many disparate themes and subjects - as outlined in the opening paragraph - possible components of this scenario, but many discrete types of evidence must be adduced and synthesized in a convincing fashion to support it. Consequently, on any number of levels the scenario may be rightly and strongly challenged, from the weight accorded to different types of evidence, to the interpretation put upon them, to the broad picture that emerges, to the chronological - and more importantly spiritual and theological - questions it raises.
For these reasons it must be reiterated - here, now, and in the strongest possible fashion - that the highly speculative and indeed radical scenario outlined here is only hypothetical, dwelling in that foggy gray area between ancient science fiction, and the disturbing question “Yes, but what if it were true, even if only in parts?”
When I first began this line of research and writing a few years ago with my book, The GiZa Death Star, I included as an epigraph to the Preface of that book a statement allegedly made by the physicist Nils Bohr to his colleague Werner Heisenberg, one of the main architects of modern quantum mechanical theory, and discoverer of the Uncertainty Principle which is named after him. It seems fitting to close this preface with that same remark, and to suspend it over the totality of this work as a reminder of its radical and speculative nature: “Sir, we’re all agreed your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is, whether it is crazy enough.
”1,2
Joseph P. Farrell
2007
PART ONE: THE BACKGROUND LIGHTNING, STONES, AND WHIRLPOOLS
“I suggest that Van Flandern’s Exploded Planet Hypothesis makes sense only if one is willing to entertain a nonnatural explanation. Of course, this is heretical on several levels, as the explanation must somehow encompass the presence of potential artifacts on Mars as well as a presumed high-tech culture on Mars’ erstwhile parent. “Strangely, the revelatory climax from Eando Binder’s Puzzle of the Space Pyramids comes to mind. In Binder’s novel, the asteroid belt was formed by a focused gravity assault that harnessed the energy of the entire solar system. The pyramids of the title were essentially gravity generators used to manipulate space-time. ”
Mac Tonnes,
After the Martian Apocalypse: Extraterrestrial Artifacts and the Case for Mars Exploration, p. 47.
“Reality will transcend allegory every time. ”
Paul Krassner, from the Foreword to Peter Levenda’s
Sinister Forces: A Grimoire of American Political Wlitcbcraft,
Book Three: The Manson Secret.
1.
MODERN ARMAGEDDON, ANCIENT CATASTROPHE: CATASTROPHE CONFRONTS TECHNOLOGY, AND LOSES
“The strategy that Werner Von Braun taught me was that first the Russians are going to be considered the enemy... Then terrorists would be identified, and that was soon to follow... Then we were going to identify third-world country ‘crazies.’ We now call them Nations of Concern. But he said that would be the third enemy against whom we would build space-based weapons. The next enemy was asteroids. Now, at this point he kind of chuckled the first time he said it. Asteroids — against asteroids we are going to build space-based weapons. And the funniest one of all was what he called aliens, extraterrestrials. ”
Dr. Carol Rosin.3
The war rooms of the world’s major powers are busy with gloomy activity, playing out games with think tank precision and dedication, toying inconsistently with planet-busting technologies in order to avert a global Armageddon and save the world.
In Moscow, in hardened bunkers far below the Kremlin, Russian President Valerie Pisczoff and his senior defense command heatedly discuss their options. Some urge that they deploy their gigantic region-busting hydrogen bombs en masse and, in a sudden, decisive, and massive strike, blow the enemy into a thousand pieces. Others weigh in against such a drastic move, reminding the President that the danger of a radioactive rain from such a move would be almost as dangerous as the threat itself.
In Beijing, in similar bunkers, the mandarins of China’s burgeoning defense establishment argue with China’s premie r, Dang Mai Luk, for a more subtle course. Perhaps it would be just possible, they argue, to divert the attack with just the right, precisely placed counterstrike to give it a slight “push” in the right direction, and thus avert the catastrophe. It is a classical martial arts approach, one steeped in the Oriental tradition of warfare: the use of an enemy’s strength and mass against him.
In Europe, defense ministers and heads of governments hastily summoned to Berlin by German Federal Chancellor Angeline Merkwurdigliebe urge an international diplomatic effort in the United Nations Security council, warning of dire political consequences if any of the world’s powers should decide to deal with the rogue attack unilaterally in an ill-conceived and hasty military response, while outside, Neo-Fascist skinhead groups protest, urging that Europe’s powers flex their considerable military and technological muscles and take out the rogue, demonstrating to a grateful world that Europe was still a “player.” Inside, some delegates, acutely aware of the demonstrations outside, call for a technologically sophisticated variation on the subtle Oriental approach: a “nudge,” a “warning shot across the bows,” not with the sledge-hammer thermonuclear approach of the Russians, nor the scaled-down nuclear nudge of the Chinese, but with space-based lasers and other exotic directed energy weapons. Leading the charge for this approach are the four major European powers, France, Great Britain, Germany, and Italy. The rest of the European nations’ delegates fidget and squirm nervously in their chairs, but ultimately acquiesce, for the reality of European geopolitics has not changed since the Franco-Prussian War; those four nations still possessed the bulk of Europe’s financial, technological, and military clout. Everyone else was, well, just along for the ride.
In the United States, an ad hoc presidential “blue ribbon panel” has been quickly, if not quietly, assembled on the orders of President Jordan Walter Schrubb. The panel consists of the National Security Council, Pentagon generals and admirals, various scientists, engineers, economists, and media experts. Typically, the panel weighs all the alternatives being discussed in the other capitals, recommends all of them and none of them at the same time, urges “cautious but decisive action,” calling upon the State Department to mitigate the political fallout of what will be perceived as “American unilateralism.” The Congressional opposition meanwhile calls for hearings on why nothing was done about the rogue threat long before, since the United States government gave every indication of having known about it for several years, and of having done nothing to avert it. And in typical fashion, the Congressional opposition’s more radical members produce their own retired military and scientific experts who argue that the threat is no threat at all, that it will break up of its own internal stresses long before it can do any serious damage. Even more radical elements in Internet chat rooms and discussion groups go so far as to suggest that the government had engineered the threat for its own benefit, or at the minimum was capitalizing on a heaven sent opportunity to expand its power. But the opposition is clear about one thing: no military action should be taken against the threat, since that could be used as an excuse to militarize outer space.
And there is a final player, a most unexpected one. In Sao Paolo, Brazil, a small and elite cadre of generals, scientists, and cabinet ministers gather in the president’s study over cognac and cigars, casually recommending that the Brazilian President offer to the concerned parties Brazil’s own quite unique technology for dealing with the threat, a technology that has no need of the “gentle” thermonuclear nudge of massed hydrogen bombs nor of the more sophisticated obliteration of lasers, particle accelerators, or phased plasma cannon. The discussion is relaxed and cordial, having none of the sense of urgent gloom that pervading the discussions in other world capitals.
“The earth,” says one paleontologist in perfect and elegant Portuguese, “faced this threat before, and all life was nearly exterminated. We are fairly certain that the dinosaurs, at least, owe their extinction to it. But now we can do something about it, and need not face another such catastrophe. Mr. President, I urge you to deploy the weapon, to make it available to the world, because we can be quite certain that neither the Russians nor the Germans nor the Japanese will reveal their own possession of the weapon unless they absolutely have to, and even then, we cannot risk the chance that they would not do so, and we cannot allow the Russians, Chinese, or Americans to make a thermonuclear strike.” The Brazilian President nods in agreement, savoring his cigar.
The “rogue threat” is a killer asteroid, larger than one kilometer in diameter, and it is on a definite collision course with the planet Earth in approximately nine months’ time. When it collides, it will release the energy of 10,000 megatons of TNT, one hundred times the magnitude of the largest thermonuclear bomb mankind has ever tested. It will throw into the atmosphere a choking cloud of dust, alter the earth’s climate in unknown, permanent and catastrophic ways, and possibly eliminate all life from the face of the earth.
A. Killer Asteroids and the Exploded Planet Hypothesis
While the scenario outlined above may seem to be the farthest thing from the subject of an ancient, lost, technologically advanced civilization, much less an interplanetary cosmic war, it affords perhaps the best entry into a discussion of these subjects, for the scenario of a modern-day killer asteroid strike is based on evidence of similar primordial
strikes on the earth, one of which was indeed believed to have been the cause of the extinction of the dinosaurs, and the rise of mammalian life ca. 65 million years ago. Such a scenario has become a major concern of the militaries of the world’s technologically sophisticated powers. Yet another “minor” event ca. 3.2 million years ago coincides, according to the standard theory, with the rise of the earliest hominid ancestors of mankind. These two dates, as will be seen, will become very crucial in the development of the Exploded Planet Hypothesis, and thus in the development of the Cosmic War Hypothesis.
In the last two books of my Giza Death Star trilogy, The Giza Death Star Deployed and The Giza Death Star Destroyed, I referred to the scenario of an exploding planet in our solar system having been the victim of deliberate destruction utilizing the enormous power of “scalar” or “quantum potential” weaponry. In doing so, I outlined the Exploded Planet Hypothesis of Dr. Tom Van Flandern. Since our focus is now on the scenario an ancient interplanetary war itself, his hypothesis must be outlined more thoroughly, in order to correct the inevitable inaccuracies that arise in presenting any short summary, as well as to understand his hypothesis and its implications for such a cosmic war scenario more completely.
1. The History of the Exploded Planet Hypothesis
The history of the Exploded Planet Hypothesis actually begins in the eighteenth century with an unusual astronomical law known as Bode’s law, or the Titius-Bode law, named for the German astronomers Johann Daniel Titius and Johann Ehlert Bode who first proposed it. Basically, both astronomers noticed that the distance of the planets’ orbits from the Sun fell into a neat harmonic mathematical progression. The progression may be obtained by starting with the simple numerical sequence 0 1 2 4 8 16 32 128 256. Multiply this by 3 to get 0 3 12 24 48 96 192 384 768. Add 4 to this to obtain 4 7 10 16 28 52 100 196 388 772. Setting the earth’s distance at “10” gives Mercury at 4, Venus at 7.2, Mars at 15.2, and Jupiter at 52.0, which is approximately in line with the progression and with their actual orbits. But astronomers noticed that, by the prediction of the law, there should be a planet at the number 24 in the progression, but there was none. The search was quickly on for the missing planet. The modern exponent of the Exploded Planet Hypothesis, astronomer Dr. Tom Van Flandern, puts this history this way in his work Dark Matter, Missing Planets, and New Comets:
The Cosmic War: Interplanetary Warfare, Modern Physics and Ancient Texts Page 2