The ET Analysis of Anton Parks- A Most Interesting Prespective

Spread the love



by Gerry Zeitlin

2007

from Zeitlin Website

Spanish version
 

Quoted materials from

books, interviews, and communications

by Anton Parks
2008-2009

 


Readers of these pages have already encountered the term Kirišti (look it up in the Decoder), which is associated with the concept of Christ.

Although this class of being arises in the system of Gagsisá (Sirius), from which Sa’am/Enki embodied genetic material, Parks clearly states that Sa’am/Enki did not meet the genetic requirements for a Kirišti, and Parks himself, as human as you and I, far less so!

This needs to be emphasized, as Parks’ information relating to “Neb-Heru” contains clarifications of the term Kirišti and readers are cautioned not to gather from this that Parks is preparing in any way to assume the role of such a being.

Parks includes in his appendix relating to Neb-Heru a very explicit warning about this, written by “The Collective of the Site Antonparks.com”.

 


Neb-Heru, the Morning Star

I am not in accord with author

Zecharia Sitchin’s thesisconcerning

Nibiru. I am absolutely certain that he describes Venus before it entered the orbit that we know today.

In my appendix to Ádam Genisiš, NEB-HERU, The Morning Star, I bring numerous new elements, in rapport with mythology, that explain that there existed a planet between Mars and Jupiter which I name Mulge (the Black Star). This planet was the base of the Life Designers in the solar system. I have evoked its existence inLe Secret des Etoiles Sombres.

I saw at the time that I received knowledge of this history that Venus was then its satellite. The war that brought the Anunna against their opponents exploded Mulge more than 10,000 years ago.

When Mulge exploded, its satellite (the future Venus) was ejected and roamed in the solar system for several thousand years.

In the heart of the ancient Egyptians, Venus is Neb-Heru (the lord Horus), the avenger of his father Osiris. The funerary texts explain this marvelously and clearly associate Horus and afterwards the dead kings (the images of Horus) to the Morning Star.

I have compiled equally a large number of documents proving that Venus wasn’t in the place where we know it before 3000 [B.C.E.] Numerous myths relate its wanderings in the solar system. I speak of it in my appendix.

I am thus on this point in accord with the work of Immanuel Velikovsky (Worlds in Collision).(Private Communication)

Ádam Genisiš includes an appendix of this name, highlighting very telling ancient texts concerning the planet Venus, which they called (among other appellations) the Morning Star, and which they describe as having been a roving star (“astre”) before taking its present position in the solar system.

As he says, this interpretation was developed by Immanuel Velikovsky in Worlds In Collision.

Yes, we know how Velikovsky fared at the hand of the brilliant Carl Sagan. We hope that our pages may help to redress the affair, which has served to deprive generations of the knowledge which was their birthright.

Parks examines a number of singular documents that confirm, in part, the proposals of Velikovsky, as well as the cosmic events described in Ádam Genisiš, involving the “astre” Mulge-Tab (companion of Mulge).

The most eloquent of these documents are funerary Egyptian texts, but others are just as convincing.

Here is a brief outline (paraphrased from Ádam Genisiš) of the method Parks used to develop his “Neb-Heru/Morning Star” scenario.
 

  1. Document the total conviction of the Mesopotamians about the place of origin of their gods. Set against this ideology the recent astronomical discoveries concerning the solar system. This serves to reestablish a truth long distorted by authors such as Zecharia Sitchin who wished to see in a wandering member of the solar system, the original home of the Anunna “gods” of the Mesopotamian texts.
     
  2. Attempt to identify this perturbing celestial object. It is found to be mentioned in the Indian Rig-Veda. Draw parallels between this Vedic text and the Egyptian ideology. Note that there is a common source.
     
  3. Establish that Enki and Osiris were one and the same personage. This leads to the possibility of authenticating the amphibian filiations of Enki-Osiris (Sa’am) as well as his consanguinity with the Abgal Designers-of-Life from Sirius – those which were considered to be KIR-IS-TI. Together, these facts connect the Kiristi with the Christ, symbolized by the Morning Star in the hermetic passages of the Bible. This in turn leads to interpretations of the meaning of the various crosses found in different parts of the world. Also, explore the sacrificial tradition of the Dogons which recounts the death of Nommo, the “Christ” of Mali. In consequence of this sacrifice, the universe was disrupted, along with the positions of the stars. All of this gives for the first time the opportunity to assimilate the sacrificed celestial Nommo to a celestial body, whose destruction produced the birth of the planet Venus.
     
  4. Perform a close study of the origins and formation of the planet Venus as seen by different cultures. Note that Venus is always born from the destruction of its progenitor.
     
  5. Explore the connections between various myths that see the planet Venus as having caused floods over the ages. Noting that in the Mesopotamian traditions, Venus and its progenitor bore the names Neberu and Mulge, begin to understand the hermetic ideology of the Egyptians that saw in the dismembered Osiris the asteroid belt. Discover that the shattered tree of the horizon and the primordial hill from which emerged the new sun (Venus) form an identity: a celestial image of Osiris in the sky. Osiris symbolizes the hill of the ancient gods (Kadištu) because he is their representative on Earth. Horus the Avenger, the posthumous son of Osiris, represents the Morning Star. Show that the various Pharaohs (images of Horus) all symbolize Venus. Discover through a study of the Egyptian funerary texts that the soul of the Pharaohs must make the celestial voyage that permits the rejoining of the dismembered body of Osiris in the sky and restoration of the previously disrupted universe. For that, they must follow the ancient path of Neb-Heru (Horus-Venus), the orbit that goes from the light to the darkness. All these discoveries lead to the resounding evidence that the Mesopotamian astre Neberu and the Egptian Neb-Heru form the same astral image. Provide a graphic showing a possible bit of the object’s disruptive trajectory.

Put simply: there was indeed a wandering object in the solar system, which was occasionally highly disruptive to the Earth (and other planets).

Its birth out of the destruction of another celestial body was observed by humans, as was its eventual assumption of a stable solar orbit. We know it as Venus. It never was the home of the gods, and there is no such place associated with the solar system.

But there are deep connections between this object – Venus – and Horus/Neb-Heru, with Osiris identified as its progenitor.
 



“Neberu” vs. the Planets X

Parks first examines Zecharia Sitchin’s assertions that the Sumerians placed the origins of the Anunnaki on a wandering planet that they named “Neberu” or “Nibiru”.

This planet, according to Sitchin, possesses a highly elliptical orbit of period 3600 terrestrial years. Sitchin apparently derives this idea solely from the clay tablet “VA-243”, which he believes shows the mysterious astre revolving around a sun.
 


But this is not any sort of astronomical document. It contains three lines of text, simply indicating:

“Dusbsiga (a personal name), Ili-Illat (personal name), your servant”.

There is no allusion to Neberu and no trace of this planet as the home of the Anunna(ki) “gods”. Nor is there any tablet that declares such a thing.

I repeat, there is none! [If there were,] the whole world could verify it, a thing which has definitely not been done up to the present. I insist and I show this in my recent book.

I am not asking anyone to believe words that I have received affirming,

“this version is better than any other”.

On the contrary, I must insist that M. Sitchin doesn’t seem to know the truth about the tablets that he pretends to analyze. Otherwise, he would long ago have given the references to those tablets that a rash handful have demanded of him for years…

Nowhere is there any written allusion such as,

“the Anunna of Neberu” or “the gods of Neberu” or “they descended from Neberu”.

[GMSS]

On the contrary, all the Mesopotamian texts evoke a unique place of origin for the Anunna(ki), clearly denominated Dukù, of which the sense is “sacred mound” or “holy mound”.

The Gina’abul-Anunna and the Sumerians had the habit of using the terms “mountain” or “mound” to poetically name heavenly places in the sky, and more precisely stars and planets. The Sumerians utilized this same term Dukù to designate chapels in Eridu and Nippur, in honor of the primordial hilltop of the “gods”.

No need to search for any connection between the Dukù and Neberu; there is none.

But Neberu plays a key role in Sitchin’s thesis. The Anunnaki needed Earth’s gold to place in the atmosphere of their distressed planet in order to fix the sunlight; this was supposed to help retain the atmosphere. Thus the need for gold mines and for human slaves to work in them.

But as explained in Le Secret des Etoiles Sombres and Ádam Genisiš, the gold served a radically different purpose, in relation to the secret of immortality! See our page Twilight of the Age of Heroics for specific information about this.

Meanwhile, neither Sitchin nor anyone else has identified one word of support for the gold-in-the-atmosphere thesis in the Mesopotamian mythology. Furthermore, the name Neberu (Nibiru) itself is rarely found, and when it is, it seems to be associated with the planet Jupiter or with Mercury.

If Neberu indeed exists, would it not be one of the objects recently discovered (since 2002) at the periphery of the solar system? Let’s look at their characteristics:

DESIGNATION DIAMETER, KM ORBIT PERIOD, YRS COMMENTS 2002 LM60 “Quaoar” ~1300 Nearly circular, mostly beyond Pluto 287 Largest known Kuiper Belt object 2003 EL61 “Santa” Length 2300 (elongated) = Pluto’s diameter Transneptunian, inclined   Two small satellites 2003 VB12 “Sedna” ~1800 Transneptunian, 3x diameter of Pluto’s or Neptune’s, perihelion 76 AU 10500 Member of “inner Oort cloud” 2004 DW “Orcus” 1600 Transneptunian, perihelion 30.5 AU, 2:3 resonance with Neptune 247.5 minor ice planet 2005 FY9 “Easterbunny” 3/4 size of Pluto Transneptunian, perihelion 38.5 AU 310 Kuiper Belt 2003 UB313 “Eris” 2600 Perihelion 38 AU 557 In “scattered disc”, just beyond Kuiper belt

Many of these have highly-elongated orbits, yet they are all transneptunian, meaning that they never come within the orbit of Neptune – a minimum requirement, one would think, for the Mesopotamians to have seen them raging through the sky. And not one of them has an orbital period anywhere near 3600 years.

How could Neberu be any of these?

There is also a problem stemming from the name given to Pluto by the Sumerians and Akkadians: ŠU-PA.

Sitchin translates this as “the supervisor of SU”. Parks explains why this cannot be correct, and opts to translate ŠU-PA as “the control of the ramification (branch point)”, meaning the planet that controls the astres and planetoids situated outside the solar system.

The Sumerians recognized Pluto as the first planetoid of a very large family!

Parks also notes that the descriptions of the solar system cited by Sitchin to validate his thesis all imply the presence of the asteroid belt. We will see that this dates from approximately 10,000 years ago; various other traditions distinctly hold this notion, as we shall also see.

That said, we note all the same the fact that the Mesopotamian astronomers did seem well acquainted with an obscure Neberu, whose periodic passages frightened everyone.

Parks proposes that the Sumerian “gods” knew the solar system well, including the position of Pluto. But the “gods”, and by consequence the Mesopotamians, had not been able to tabulate the planets beyond Pluto because they are unnumerable. And this corresponds well to the way recent astronomical discoveries are pointing.

It is perfectly possible that a planet matching the characteristics of Sitchin’s Nibiru may someday be found. But what would qualify it to be the “10th planet” (12th by Sitchin’s counting)?

And as to such a planet’s being the original planet of the Sumerian “gods”, the clay tablets and all of Parks’ work state otherwise.

But Parks’ work is not concerned with this issue. His Neb-Heru, the Morning Star appendix to Ádam Genisiš is devoted to demonstrating that at a certain epoch of our story, an astre – a celestial object, in this case a planet – that was already a part of the solar system, was displaced, and strongly perturbed all the planets of this system over a period of several millennia.

And this planet is easily identified.
 

Sitchin’s Nibiru and the Longevity of the Anunnaki

Throughout his books, and in public talks, Zecharia Sitchin has ascribed the remarkable longevity of the Anunnaki to their home dwelling place, the planet Nibiru, whose orbital period is 3600 earth years.

This, he says, means that every year of the life of an Anunnaki god equals 3600 years of earth human life.

That no one challenges Sitchin on this nutty idea is a tribute to the cultish quality of his following. However he was challenged once – by me, at a public appearance in the Bay Area. I simply asked him how he might justify the assertion that longevity and aging are linked to the length of a planet’s year.

His (smirking) reply: “Next question?”

I won’t easily forget that arrogant smirk. May I say, you have in this exchange the epitome of the Sitchinesque logic and reasoning methodology.




Identifying the Celestial Disrupter

The epoch of disruption would have occurred within the time embraced by the history of long-lived indigenous cultures still found on the earth today.

This motivates Parks – as it did Velikovsky and others – to delve into diverse mythologies, searching for descriptions of the disruptions and whatever caused them.

Tales of monumental disruptions are common. As to what caused them, the source is often described as a fiery celestial visitor, and as often as not, the visitor is personified as a god.

Mythologists readily accept such cultural myths of gods as descriptions of natural events. Parks follows this practice, while also knowing that actual living beings were also seen as gods.

This might tend to confuse the reader. Really it should not, when it is recalled that memories of both powerful beings and powerful celestial events were accumulated and retained over thousands of years… and memories can be quite plastic.

Parks begins the quest with the Indian Rig-Veda and its description of the awesome Agni [Decoder], god of fire and sacrifice, the celestial perturber that heaved the earth, yet a warrior in the personal sense, mighty in combat.

Parks traces connections between the Vedic Agni and the biblical Lucifer (Venus), the Latin name meaning “light bearer”. In the Greek version of the Bible, Lucifer is named Phosphorus, which also translates as “light bearer”.

Doubtless from the celebrated passage in Isaiah,

“How are you fallen from the sky, Star of the Morning (phosphorus)?…”,

…the Christian church makes the erroneous association with Satan (look up this name in the Decoder).

Parks provides several astonishingly parallel references to Agni in the Rig-Veda.
 


Note: Of necessity we are being brief; Parks’ treatment of the Indian and other myths in his appendix is lengthy.

As with other aspects of his work, we cannot provide the details on these pages, but we do attempt to trace the outline or structure of his material, to at least help the reader gain an appreciation of the logical development.

Or is there yet more in store for the reader? Consider this: Parks’ narrative has on several occasions explicitly described the initiations of the central character, Sa’am, who is revealed in Ádam Genisiš to be identical to Enki-Ea, Osiris, and other important figures.

In his pursuit of information reflecting on the identity of the celestial perturber, Parks goes deeply, one might say lovingly, into ancient scriptures of several cultures that have always been with us, but that we now clearly see are also devoted to initiation.

For example, there is the Egyptian Book of the Dead, containing instructions to the dead Osiris who with the aid of the initiating priestesses will undergo transformation into Horus, and rise like the Phoenix from the burning ashes.



Question:

can one undergo initiation by reading about the information transmitted to the initiate in full ceremony?

One would think not; the initiation must be experienced; death or imminent death must be a part of the experience. The information alone is insufficient; it is not knowledge. Yet the information is essential.

Now consider the human race as a whole. In your opinion, with respect to the information written in these books by Anton Parks, would you say that the human race has been ignorant? I would, yes. Is the human race at this time facing the experience of death or imminent death?

An outrageous suggestion, perhaps. Perhaps with vital information about its past and about its true place in the cosmos, the human race gains the potential to move from the status of uninitiated to pre-initiated and then to the initiated state.

We continue…

Parks provides passages from the Rig-Veda that clearly associate Agni with the the Egyptian Horus (Heru).

Some notable points:

Born of two mothers… powerful and reasonable… for the sake of man and the worlds… reposes throughout nature… extracted by rubbing from the breast of his parents… first borne to the east and then to the west.Rig-Veda, Hymn 12, by Angiras Hiranyastupa

When Agni wished to harness his chariot, his two mothers labored first by mutual efforts to give him a body… These two mothers who remain together hold equally in their breast the fruit who, faithfully conserved, born day and night, always young, always in movement, immortal across the human ages.Rig-Veda, Hymn 8, by Dirghatamas

Where the father of Agni is “the master of the sacrifice”, Osiris is himself the great sacrifice.

The two mothers of Agni are comparable to those of Horus: two pieces of wood making the ritual fire. They represent night and dawn. Isis and Nephtys transform themselves symbolically into docking posts to guide the soul of Osiris so that he will not be lost in the void but will be able to raise himself and transmute himself into Ra’af (black sun or black celestial body) before reincarnating as Horus, the celestial son.

This ritual is accomplished in the Great Pyramid.

As noted in Le Secret, the Egyptian term for pyramid is Mer. Please consult the Decoder for a full elaboration of this word.

Readers may recall that the Great Pyramid is symbolic of Isis. The tomb of Thutmosis III (Amduat, 5th Hour, Register 3, 374) leaves no doubt of this, because it assimilates the flesh of Isis to the primordial hill.

The head of the goddess is clearly seen at the pinnacle.
 

The pyramid symbolizes Isis. At its eastern extremity (on the right) appear a serpent and a star, representing the Morning Star.

The four seated divinities evoke the four aspects required for the transmutation of the dead king into the celestial Horus in the form of Seker/Sokaris (lower center, with two wings).

Before the head of the serpent-star an inscription reads, “Living God. He goes and he returns. He opens (the door called) the slicer.”


The Great Pyramid is the place where the “god” Osiris was conceived and resuscitated as Horus, the first divine king of Egypt.

The body of Osiris, equipped for the great voyage, was placed in the sarcophagus in the chamber known as “the King’s”, while the two mothers, Isis and Nephtys, were stationed in the lower chamber (“queen’s”) to produce the son, the divine falcon.

In the ancient Egyptians’ Book of the Dead this falcon (“of gold”) is proclaimed to have the head of a Phoenix (because of its feathered crest of brilliant colors), which Parks shows is connected to another passage of the Rig-Veda (Hymn 10) concerning the birth of the royal infant Cumara, heir of the throne.

The deceased, assimilated to Horus, explains what he sees, what he lives.

This passage has the sense of the Hymn 10 mentioned above.

I came today from the land of Ruty (the double lion); I left there to go to the dwelling place of Isis the divine.

I have seen the secret mysteries, having been conducted to the hidden retreats, because they have made me see the birth of the great god; Horus has granted me his Bâ (soul) and I have seen what was there… I am the one who has been charged with bringing his thoughts to Osiris and to the Duat.

It is I, the falcon who lives in the light, who is powerful thanks to his diadem, he who is powerful thanks to his radiance. I will cause him to go and to return, as far as the ends of heaven.

Parks provides many more examples from Egypt and India, tying together the Morning Star, falcon and phoenix, and the planet Venus as essential factors in rituals of resurrection.

This history brings to us precious mythological correspondences. Parashu-Râma, the Indian Venus, possessed a father considered as the sacrificial fire in the image of Osiris who is the grand sacrificed in Egypt. The Purânas indicate that the terrestrial father of Venus worked for humanity and that he was in relation with the priests and the master agriculturalists.

Were these not the functions of Enki in Mesopotamia and of Osiris in Egypt?

The Mahâbhârata indicates that Jamadani, the terrestrial father of Venus, was assassinated by a king and his son belonged to a warrior cast. We know that Osiris (Enki) was assassinated by Seth (Enlil) and his proud partners (the Anunna warriors).

The murder of Enki does not appear to exist on the Mesopotamian tablets, because his assassination did not take place in (Sumer).
 



Abzu (2)

As will be explained in the third volume [a reference to Le Réveil du Phénix], the ancient Egyptian priests in the service of the Osirian cult succeeded in partly hiding the murder of Osiris and in “reviving” their “god”, notably in his principal temple at Abdju (Abydos) in Upper Egypt.

The objective of the technique was to cause Osiris, the dead god, to speak through the voice of a carefully hidden priest.

Thus the penitent-initiate, after a long iniiatic journey and a beneficial ritual bath in the temple water, had the impression of hearing the voice of Osiris while viewing the holy relic, at Abydos the head of the Egyptian “god”.

This simulation doubtlessly evoked the fixed and glassy-eyed or expressionless aspect of Enki in his Abzu surrounded by water.
 

Osireion

Photo 2008 by Anton Parks
 

For a review of general information on this structure, see

Osireionand

Abydoss: The Osireion. Osiris treats Osiris as the primary deity of Egypt at the time of the height of its civilization.

THOSE BUILDING BLOCKS: CARVED OR RECONSTITUTED STONE (CONCRETE)?

A controversy has raged for many years over whether the stone blocks used in such structures as the Osireion (seen above; click for enlargement) and the pyramids are quarried limestone or concrete, poured and molded in place.

Parks is convinced that the building blocks used in these structures, not only in Egypt but in Central and South America, are indeed mixed and poured.

Archaeologists agree that the Roman civilization had and extensively used concrete, but question whether this technology could have been possessed by much earlier civilizations. And isn’t it easier to simply accept that the blocks were quarried from the seabed and dragged up onto the pyramids by Jewish slaves under the urging of the Egyptian overseers and their whips?

We find that the very question is inappropriate, based as it is on erroneous models of human civilization and history.

Those who created the human race, in Parks’ memory experiences, had and used concrete building blocks for pyramid-style buildings on their home planets, and so naturally continued the practice here.

Parks has shared with us some of his personal photographs that he made in Egypt in 2007.

Part of the ground surface at the foot of the Great Pyramid.

The molding is manifest, impossible to create such paving by other means.
 


A stone taken from the Great Pyramid. A fine particle on the surface resembles plastic.

This stone is warm in the shade, where a natural stone would be cold!

[Implies higher specific heat and/or some difference in the distribution of air pockets, etc.]
 


Temple of the Valley, facing the Sphinx.

Take careful note of the angles and how certain stones form angles.

Above all, note how these stones resemble those of South American structures, such as at Cusco.

These cyclopean blocks are of the same type as those of the Osireion at Abydos.

 


Temple of the Valley. The central stone possesses five corners,

where one would have been sufficient.

Such prowess could have been achieved only by molding.

The same technology as exhibited by the Amerindians of Mexico and South America.

It can be nothing other than molding.

In related research, Parks examines an image found in a University of Bern general review article on the Osireion.

There is access at

Abydos: Voruntersuchung für die Sanierung des Osireions (6.4.2005). Images are found on that page, while the article’s text is contained in

Medienmitteilung.

At left we show the image that caught Parks’ attention;

click hereto view a detail of the stone at the top.
 

He points out…

In zooming onto the stone, I found seashells!!! But there are no shellfish in the Nile (it being sweet water) !!!

Thus this image indicates that the Osireion was covered by the sea at some point in time. And that means the Osireion predates the last great world flood dating more than 10,000 years ago. At least this is a supplementary proof.


The Abdju (Abydos) site was sufficiently important that each Egyptian made a pilgrimage there at least once in his life.

Please review the Decoder entry for abzu. The Sumerian word is very similar to the Egyptian hieroglyphic for the sacred city of Osiris: Abdju (Abydos). (There is no Z in Egyptian.)

A modern language correspondence may be illuminating: absoudre (Fr.) from the Latin absolvo / absolvere. In Christianity, to absolve of one’s trespasses through a sacrament of penitence is exactly what the initiates in Egypt did as they presented themselves in the Osireion of Abdju (Abydos).

Note: In the third volume Parks will explain why the body of Osiris was originally interred under the Giza plateau, afterward to be dispersed and brought back together in several temples of the time in the Egyptian territory.

The principal sanctuary of Enki-Ea was situated at Eridu. This aquatic temple that symbolized the primordial waters bore the name É.ABZU (the dwelling place of the Abzu). According to tradition, when he was not in the Abzu itself (the subterranean world), Enki usually lived in this type of temple with his wife, where they were accompanied by Abgal [see Races], “saintly carp” who later became priests/purifiers.

The term Abzu came to serve to designate parts of certain sanctuaries associated with extensions of natural or artificial bodies of water in the form of basins and of copses of roses and sacred trees.

In Egypt, the aquatic temple of Osiris at Abdju (Abydos) gives but a small idea of the Mesopotamian “Abzu sanctuaries” of which there remain only very few vestiges today. But it is without doubt the first of a series dedicated to Enki-Osiris.

Abydos was a necropolis where the Egyptian sovereigns all had their sepulchres. Its local divinity was Khentamentiu, “the First of the Occidentals (Westerners)”, which is to say the first god coming from the “Occident”.

The occident was regarded by the Egyptians as their ancestors’ place of origin. This was the land of A’amenptah (Atlantis), the country of Ptah.

Please refer to the Decoder entry for Ptah. As we have seen, this “First of the Occidentals” was no other than Sa’am-Enki before the designation was attributed to Usir (Osiris) upon his death.

A’amenptah (Decoder) refers to Atlantis, the homeland from which came a part of the ancient Egyptians.

After its successive engulfments, the island of the A’amentptah was progressively transformed into the Amenti or the Amenta, the Occident or West, the world beyond the terrestrial life of the Egyptian culture, where the ancestors lived.

We must not fail to connect the Amenti with the surname given to Enki-Ea in Emesal: Amanki “Lord of Heaven and Earth”.

Archaeologists have always agreed on the great antiquity of the Osireion, that in fact it is the oldest structure found in Egypt. Parks traces the discussions, the more radical of which place it at 11000 to 12000 years ago.

In Ádam Genisiš Parks designates this building as the first cenotaph in all of Mesopotamia erected in the honor of Osiris-Enki.

Its construction of cyclopean stones using the same technique employed in building the Sphinx, dates it to the time of the final engulfment of Atlantis and the death of Osiris, almost 12,000 years ago. And this puts it at the epoch of the explosion of Mulge (the “black star”) and the ejection of its satellite that brushed the Earth, provoking the upset that is discussed in the book, and others of which Parks will write in his third volume.

The Egyptians also named Abdju Ta-ur, “the Great Earth”. This term also evoked in a way the “hill of the origins”, the primordial land of the Egyptian “gods”.

To the Mesopotamians, the “hill of the origins” is the Dukù, the celestial realm where the Anunna “gods” were created. In Egypt, it seems more to be the land of the ancestors, that is to say at the time of the A’amenpteh (Atlantis) from which arose the majority of the Egyptians, and the Abzu, the subterranean world.

Their celestial “pendant”, their “Hill of the Origins,” was no other than the “astre” of the “gods”, the planet found between Mars and Jupiter, of which we will speak later.

In Ádam Genisiš the two primordial hills (Ta-ur and the Dukù) are geographically and politically opposed. Atlantis and the Abzu symbolized the lands and the people of Enki-Osiris and the Dukù more the Anunna of Enlil-Seth.

Ta-ur, the great Earth of the ancient Egyptians materialized through Abydos and its original Osireion butte, gains its full Hermetic sense when we decompose its name in Sumerian:

TA-ÚR “toward the roots” or TA-UR5 “toward the heart of the foundation” or even “the nature of the soul.”


Enki = Osiris

Parks finds numerous correspondences between the Sumerian Enki-Ea and the Egyptian Osiris, and Quetzalcoatl as well, supporting his “memories” that they are indeed one. (Quetzalcoatl is the subject of a future book.)

We do not have space to convey here all of the material from his Neb-Heru appendix, but here are a few of the main points:

The Sumerian word ENGUR generally designated the underground waters of the Abzu, the subterranean world. It was often employed as a synonym of “Abzu”. ENGUR also corresponded to the Akkadian term Apsu. It was a saintly name associated with the goddess Nammu and her son Enki.

We can decompose the term as EN-GUR8 and translate that in two ways:

“the lord (or ancestor) of the profoundness (or depths), or again “to the depths”.

Parks finds an Egyptian form in the hieroglyphic En-Khu-Ur (“for the glory of the prince”).

The Cuneiform sign for ENGUR resembles the plan of the Osireion of Osiris at Abdju.

“Enki” [Lord of the Earth] declines to “É-A” [(Master of the) Temple of the Water] in Akkadian. Parks shows a Mesopotamian cylinder seal depicting Enki-Ea, solitary and vegetative, in his watery sanctuary Engur-Abzu.

Shown below is a corresponding Egyptian image, a symbolic representation of the Osireion of Abdju (Abydos).
 


The hidden meanings of the Engur of Enki such as “place where one restores the heart” or “place absorbed in repose” correspond perfectly with the diverse Egyptian temples, such as the Osireion, in which were sheltered tombs in honor of Osiris.

Note to the right of Osiris, the Ankh, symbol of life.

The ENGUR sign as given by Parks is a rectangle containing a cross, symbol of the KIR-IŠ-TI [Decoder], captured by the Christian church as the symbol of Jesus Christ.

The sign of course well antedates Christianity and is found on numerous ancient monuments, especially those of Central America, where it is identified as the “Cross of Quetzalcoatl” – the being assimilated to the Morning Star and the Christ of the pre-Columbian culture. We will see that he appears to be a double of Horus.

The circled cross of Quetzalcoatl symbolizes the new (fifth) sun of the Aztec culture, created after the destruction of the preceding world by Quetzalcoatl and his “shadow” Xolotl.

The planet Venus, as the Morning Star, was also considered as the new sun by the ancient Egyptians, and was none other than Horus, the Egyptian “Christ”.

The Engur symbol equally resembles a coffin or casket, the semblance being confirmed by the fact that this sign can be pronounced ZIKUM, meaning “sky” in Sumerian. But ZIKUM can also be decomposed as ZI-KUM, meaning “wounded life”, “wounded spirit”, or even “wounded and carried away”!

Does not the spirit of a mortally wounded person ascend to heaven? Is this not what happened to the spirit of Osiris?

Given that the Akkadian pronunciation of ZIKUM is Šamû, Parks offers more wordplay; see the Decoder entry for Šamû.

In summary, Parks has shown a number of connections between the Mesopotamian Enki-Ea and the Egyptian “god” Osiris and with notions relating to the resurrection of the Egyptian “god”.

He mentions that…

…numerous Egyptian cities possessed culture centers designated as “Per Ankh “House of Life”, generally attached to major temples of the kings.

We may compare them to schools or universities for learning distinct sciences following disciplines such as history, astronomy, writing, etc. The city of Abjdu (Abydos) was reputed to have specialized in medicine.

Interesting that Enki-Ea was, in the eyes of the Sumerians, the great doctor, the healing serpent of the “gods”!



Sign of the Fish

Readers are likely aware that Carl Sagan and co-author I.S. Shklovskii (Intelligent Life in the Universe) were taken with Babylonian historian Berosus’ account of the amphibious teacher Oannes, who brought knowledge to the neolithic peoples of the Persian Gulf.

Their discussion, along with the work of Zecharia Sitchin, whose first book was published ten years after Sagan’s and Shklovskii’s, on the mystery of the Oannes and the related Nommo legends of the Dogons of Mali, and Robert Temple‘s (The Sirius Mystery) focusing more on the Nommo, constitute the sources of the many ongoing discussions and speculations on extraterrestrial contact with early human civilizations.

It actually is not much to go on, and would seem to offer no further insights as to what took place, which is most unfortunate considering the monumental impact such a connection must have had on the path of human development leading to the world in which we find ourselves today.

As it happens, Parks’ virtual-reality memories are filled with information about the Oannes and Nommo amphibians, who are Abgal originally from Sirius, and this is conveyed in both of his books to date, Le Secret des Etoiles Sombres and Ádam Genisiš.

In the present section of his Neb-Heru appendix to Ádam Genisiš, Parks checks his memories against ancient legends and myths, and shows that the contact, if that is what it was, left much wider residue for us to consider.

This is important not only in itself, but in its bearing on the Mulge/Mulge-Tab/Morning Star scenario, due to a major connection between the amphibious Abgal and the lost planet Mulge.
 

The Egyptian term Abdju (Abydos) possesses a homophone whose sense is “fish”. This sacred fish served as pilot of the solar bark of Râ. Its function was to warn the passengers of the bark of enemies sent by Seth.

We have no difficulty in identifying the Abdju fish with a symbolic Horus or even better a reincarnated Osiris, while the Sumerian counterpart of Osiris is Enki who himself possessed the fish symbol.

This fish that precedes the solar bark is evidently the planet Venus which today leads [at least it does sometimes] the course of the sun (Râ).

We know that the fish equally represents Sirius, the Egyptians’ other sacred star and the home of the amphibian Life Designers. Of course this reminds us of the aquatic beings called Nommos frequently mentioned in Ádam Genisiš.

The Dogons affirm that the Nommos restored the world several times and that they transmitted to humanity such gifts as speech and grain.

To the Sumerians the Nommos are the famous Abgal who follow Enki’s directives. The Sumerian term Abgal translates to Apkallû in Akkadian, a designation for a sage and, as follows, a priest.

Berossus, the Babylonian historian and priest of the Temple of Bel in Babylon brings us some details concerning an Abgal-Apkallû in a surviving fragment of his book

The Babyloniaca, unfortunately lost in the meanderings of history.

His descriptions are reminiscent of those of the Dogon.

In Babylon there were many people of diverse origins who dwelled in Chaldee and lived lawlessly, like animals in the fields.

In the first year there appeared a being that came out of the Erytheraeum Sea that runs parallel to Babylon. It said its name was Oannes and it was an animal gifted with reason. Its body seemed to be that of a fish.

It had under its fish’s head another head; it also had feet like those of a man, coming from its fish’s tail. Its voice and language were human in their articulation.

This representation has been conserved down to our time.

This being was accustomed to passing the day among men, but it never took any food. It gave them elements of learning in letters, science, metallurgy, art, the manner of constructing cities, of founding temples, creating laws; it taught the principles of geometry.

It showed them how to distinguish the grains of the earth and to harvest fruits. In short, it instructed them in each thing that would serve to “sweeten” their mores and to humanize their life.

At that time, no material needed to be added to improve these instructions. And when the sun rose, this being, Oannes, returned to the water, to pass the night in the depths, because it was amphibian.

There followed other animals resembling Oannes.Berossus, in The Ancient Fragments, Isaac Preston Coy, 1980

The records of the Egyptian Helladius report that a man-fish named Oe lived in the Persian Gulf. He had come out of a luminous egg and consecrated himself to the erudition of humanity.

There is a myth among the indigenous Pomo tribes of California that tells of the arrival of a supreme founder being who “came out of the ocean and transformed himself into a man.”

In China there appeared the Lingyus, aquatic beings with human face, hands, and feet, but with the body of a fish.

In Egypt, fish was consumed by the people, but was strictly forbidden at the royal table of the Pharaoh! Doubtlessly, the pharaohs knew the symbolic truth of the fish. In a way, some of them remembered the “amphibian” origins of their “god” Osiris who was “massacred” by his enemy Seth.

Strangely, Jesus Christ was sacrificed on a Friday, the day when the Christians eat fish.

The Christian churchhas obviously chosen tohijack the symbols.


Anubis, the embalmer god,

charged with the mummification of Osiris and of the rite of KRST (interment).

Osiris was the first “god” to be buried and brought back from the dead.

Tomb of Khabeknet, 19th dynasty.
 

There is a quasi-homophone of Abdju [see previous section,

Abzu(2)] in the Egyptian language: Abtu.

According to Budge, this term has the meaning: massacre, carnage, bloodshed. He noted that the term equally signified “sacrifice(s)”, and that as late as the 19th dynasty, as revealed in The Book of the Amduat (Div 7), the Egyptians believed that human sacrifices originated from the time when Osiris was buried.


Continuing with this development, Parks shows that the hieroglyphic representation of the name Sa’am carries the meanings “to kill” and “to assassinate”.

The name “Osiris” (Usir = the seat of the eye) was given to Sa’am after his death by the Egyptians, who knew his true name.
 


Sign of the Cross – KIR-IŠ-TI and the Morning Star

Followers of the major religions, especially the western ones, tend to believe that certain miraculous events took place at a favored place and time, involving unique super-human individuals, which led to the religious system that they know.

They usually do not realize that all of these religions are filled with rich mythological elements that had already existed for thousands of years before their religion’s founding days.

Religious scholars do know this; this is what they study, and this study does not seem to interfere with or undermine their religions faith. They maintain a dual focus.

Anton Parks also has a dual focus, but his is not the situation of a conventional religious scholar. On the one hand he has his vivid memory-like impressions of being a full participant in the events that eventually became “mythologized” elements of religions. On the other hand, he has become a student of the mythologies that developed.

This not only serves him (and us) as a check on his experiential information, but it brings out information about events taking place at the time that the myths were developing into what they now are.

Important case in point:

we are concerned in this section of our work with the planet Venus, because it appears to be today’s remnant of Mulge-Tab.

Characteristics ascribed to Venus down the millennia might tell us something about the putative Earth/Mulge-Tab encounter. And some of these characteristics have been associated with or ascribed to religious figures, such as Jesus Christ.

As stated at the top of this page, the term KRST and variations are decomposed on the Decoder page.

Please review the important concepts given as relating to these words.

We also mentioned at the top of the page that Sa’am-Enki (Osiris) was considered by certain Gina’abul as being a KIR-IŠ-TI. At the end of the book Ádam Genisiš there is a description of the rite of resurrection of which Sa’am-Enki was the object.

There was an occult Egyptian concept that considered Osiris, the premier dead and resuscitated “god”, as being symbolically transmuted into the Morning Star before reincarnating as Horus.

And in the New Testament, Jesus declares himself,

“The Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last…, the progeny of the race of David, the radiant Morning Star.”

(Apocalypse 22.13 and 16)

In Apocalypse 22, Jesus presents himself as “he who comes”.

As to the Alpha and Omega, he appears as the first and the last. He is the king, the source, the Annointed of the Eternal. His role as Messiah is clearly defined.

We find here several extremely precise aspects which are “in affinity” with Osiris and Horus. The Greek term Christos – Messias in Latin – possesses the sense “anointed, blessed by the lord”. One speaks of a person who has been anointed (from the Latin unctum, “unguent”) when he has been consecrated by a liturgical unction.

The initiatic ritual in the cenotaph of Osiris at Abdju (Abydos) consists precisely of this, and from this ritual comes the Christian baptism.

The initiate, also the future king, presents himself in the pool after a long initiatic journey. He climbs the steps to gain access to the central island on which is found the head of Osiris and is reborn as a young sun.

We have just noted that the term Messiah comes from the Latin Messias. However we do not fail to underscore that the Egyptian Mesi is translated as “to be born” or “to mother”!

The initiation ritual in the Osireion temple of Abdju is reminiscent of the earlier Sumerian one that led the “gods” to the Engur of Enki-Ea in the Abdju, the subterranean world:

You enter the Earth; Geb (god of the Earth), opens himself for you. You enter the subterranean hall under the (sacred) trees. You have arrived now, near to the god (Osiris), the god who sleeps in his sepulcher.

His true image reclines on his funeral bed.

Heket (HÉ-KET), “who blends the breath” in Sumero-Akkadian, is a goddess with the head of an amphibian. She wears the Ankh sign, which is her attribute par excellence.

Heket is a primordial divinity who gives life; she forms the infant in the maternal belly. She is “the saintly obstetrician”.

This goddess contributes to the regeneration of Osiris in the Osireion of Abdju and to the conception of Horus as the resurrection of his father.

In all these attributes she resembles the goddess Nut, mother of Osiris, who one knows to be the double of Nammu, the mother of Enki, herself amphibian in nature.

In this holy place, one accords him the title “Vindicated”. His body is purified in Râ-Anedjti; his flesh is purified in the (sacred) basin of Heket.

For you, are opened the Gates of the Horizon of the Other World. In peace, in peace, you attain the holy place of Osiris. You pass the night and you sleep in the secret place of the mysteries.

The abyss of Osiris-Enki is without doubt the abyss of the world, the dwelling-place of the “god” of water, in miniature. The initiate is taken deep into the Earth, through the tunnel leading to the subterranean Osireion, and is immersed in the sacred water before climbing onto the sacred isle (platform) and encountering the sarcophagus and the reliquary containing the head of Osiris.

The immersion occasioned a sort of programming that had the effect of exalting the miracle of the initiate’s resurrection.

In the Abzu or in Abdju, the initiate faces the anointed, the Messiah, which is to say the savior, the liberator who will absolve him of his sins. This is very much the role taken by Osiris after his death; he becomes the great judge, the master of eternity.

In Judaism, Jesus is the envoy of the God who will restore Israel to its rights and inaugurate the era of justice.

For the Egyptians, justice is a goddess named Maât. She accompanies Osiris at the time rendering Osirian justice in the hidden world of the dead.

Maât (justice) judges the soul of humans in proceeding to the weighing of the heart of which Horus is the divine form, while Osiris pronounces the judgment.

Again, the Bible, compiled by the Hebrew priests, does not miss the opportunity to base itself on the esoteric Egyptian ideology:

“You are advised to regard it (the prophetic word) as a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day begins to break and the Morning Star (the Christ) rises in your hearts.”2 Peter 1.19

IAW (adoration, prayer)
The name of the Biblical god Yahvé

is clearly taken from the Egyptian hieroglyph IAW.

From this term comes the name

of the Hebrew priests named Yahouds (Judeans).


Parks cites Messod and Roger Sabbah (The Secrets of Exodus, 2000) for the explanation that the Aramaic translation of the Bible reveals that the Hebrews were the monotheistic “Yahoud” priests, the Judean exiles from Egypt, who were previously the priests of Amon and then of Aton, under the influence of Akhenaton, who transformed Aton (the solar disk) into a unique god.

Another example of the deep ancient roots of elements of Jewish culture is given by the Decoder for the common Jewish/Hebrew name Cohen, widely understood to mean “priest”.

And, speaking of priests and priestesses, Parks traces the attributes of these highly significant functionaries or beings through several cultures. Significant because their source is of great interest:

they didn’t just arise out of nowhere, and if you have considered much of the material on these pages, you will probably agree they were not simply characters in “fairy tales”. It also is safe to say they were more than simple graduates of theological seminaries.

Beyond all that, the attributes themselves have a continuity through several cultures, and this can provide lines to very ancient times and events.

We’ll present this information and also trace concepts relating to the “Messiah” (anointed) and the Christ in the following table:

Concept Mesopotamia/Sumer Egypt Judeo/Christian/Latin Priest
Priestess GUDU4
Akkadian: Pašišuen
Def: priest (masculine), annointed, ritual purity by divine unction
Archaic sign: Egyptian ankh cross from which will be taken the symbol representing femininity and the planet Venus GUDU4-ABZU
Akk: Gudapsu
This connects the Sumerian sign with the Abzu, depicted in form of aquatic temples in the human world. Purification of soul of defunct attributed to goddesses Isis, Nephtys, Maât and Heket, all carrying the ankh, manifestation of the resurrection of the soul in the Osirian cult.
  GALA Priest
(Akk: Kalû) Drawn from information about the ancient Abgal connected to the aquatic cult of Enki-Ea. Principal task: sing, accompanied by corded instrument, harp.
Chants and lamentations accompanied burial of the dead.
Chased the demons and protected the dead one on his voyage.  
This practice (KRST) associated with Sirius through the Sirian connection of the Abgal and Isis.
  Messiah (Annointed)
Christ Note: Enki-Ea responsible for the Santana priestesses who harvested agricultural products for the Gina’abul in Edin Ex: Horus with mission to avenge his father,
liberate people of Osiris-Enki oppressed by Seth-Enlil,
cleanse his maternal family of dishonor
Plutarch in Isis and Osiris indicated “God” introduced fruits of the earth to the Egyptians
Osiris symbolized renewal of nature; every Egyptian deceased carried his name.
As the first dead and resuscitated God, considered the premier initiate of Egypt.
Believed to be inventor of wheat, which for the Egyptians presaged immortality.
Egyptians celebrated the mysteries of the passion, death, and resurrection of Osiris. Latin: annointed, blessed by the Lord
He for whom one waits for salvation
Saviour, liberator
Latin terms Messio (crop) and Messis (produce of the Earth)
Note: Edin transformed to “Paradise”


Signs and Symbols: Further Notes…

Ankh
Symbol of life and of goddess-priestesses
Egypt


The symbol of life and the divine breath.


The ankh bow or knot accompanies all ritual ceremonies and figures in numerous talismans and funerary objects. Epithet of Osiris: “He who lives”. Also in terms Ankhu and Ankhiu, titles given to “blessed dead”.


In the plan of a cathedral, the nave embodies the sign of the Ankh with the elliptical choir placed along its “horizontal” axis and perpendicular to the center aisle.

In Egyptian imagery, when a human (or divine) personage presents the Ankh bow/knot to another personage, what is offered is life.

The Egyptian celebration of the resurrection of the dead king through his son was conducted by goddess-priestesses carrying the handled cross. The two KIR-IŠ-TI “ardent sons of life”, Osiris and Jesus, understood the resurrection in which actively participated the saints, respectively Isis and Nephtys; Mary and Mary-Magdalene.

These feminine beings represent the Spirit, or the Holy Spirit of the Judeo-Christians.

 


Celebration of the Mystery of the Passion of Osiris


Synopsis

Begins with a ceremony for the ploughing and sowing. A representation in gold of the mummy of Osiris is covered with precious jewels and substances, wrapped in papyrus, immersed in a deep basin.

On a certain day the image of Osiris is exposed to the sun just before sunset, placed in a sacred bark surrounded in flames that will enter the tomb of Osiris. Following that, the body of Osiris is placed in a casket of mulberry wood and interred at the same site used the previous year.

The past year’s representation is then placed against or enclosed in the interior of an Išed tree (“Tree of the Horizon”, possibly willow or sycamore), symbol of the divine or of the goddess. On the “30th”, the day when the Nile’s flood turns, ceremonies associated with the burial of Osiris begin in a subterranean chamber.

Please see the Decomposition into Sumerian/Akkadian of the Egyptian term Išed. This derivation is key to the understanding of a major point of this entire Mulge-Tab / Neb-Heru development and the myths of the KIR-IŠ-TI.

The Egyptians saw the Išed as the “obstetrician” (there’s probably a better word for this) of the new sun, the birth issuing from the opening or the bursting out of the tree of the horizon.
 

BLACK SUN – NAZI EMBLEM
It is well known that the “black sun” theme was dear to the Nazis. Books have been written about this…

Parks acknowledges all this, while pointing out that the Nazis’ notion that this symbol is associated with renewal of life, is actually of purely Egyptian origin, as it is found in the funerary texts of ancient Egypt.

But for the Egyptians, the soul was aided in transcending death by rising into the heaven, while the Nazis provoked death to produce a renewal of their monstrous ideology.

An example of an ancient and noble symbol being turned around by the “forces of the shadow”.

The star or celestial body symbolizing the the soul of the defunct, in this case of Osiris who was transmuted into Benu (the Phoenix), the guide of the celestial body of the night (Râ’af = black star), finally transforming into the Morning Star, companion of the diurnal sun.

Thanks to the KIR-IŠ-TI such as Osiris and Jesus, death is no longer considered a destruction but rather as a passage.
 


Assyro-Babylonian BAR or BA7
(soul, to liberate, to open or cleave)

 


This passage undertaken by the soul was scribed in clay by the ancient Sumerians in the form shown at left.

The cross symbol is related to the later Christian cross indicating the Son of God or the passion of Christ.

Parks lists the many symbolic meanings of the cross symbol: the meeting of Heaven and Earth, matter and spirit, feminine/unconscious and masculine/conscious… and also a star that is the meeting point of two worlds or crossed/opposed forces; higher and lower.

The Išed trees were planted at the summit of the butte/hill of Osiris covering the aquatic tomb of the “god” of the abysses, the Osireion at Abdju. The Išed, creator tree of the horizon gave birth at once to the nocturnal and diurnal suns, confounded with Benu (the Evening Star) and Neter Duau (Morning Star).

Needless to remind you that Venus transmuted in the terrestrial world symbolizes Horus or the dead king.

Recall that the tree symbolizes the Mother-Goddess.

The idea of the serpent suspended on a sacred tree placed between light and darkness is found on a Mesopotamian cylinder seal and in the story of the serpent (Enki-Ea) and the forbidden tree (the Goddess) in the Garden of Eden.

Parks reviews the many treatments of this theme as it arises among the Hebrews, Egyptian, Sumerians…

  • The larger mythological theme, he points out, is that of the perpetual battle between the Osirian forces (Allies of the Light) and the Sethians (Sons of Darkness).
     
  • The serpent is often replaced by Horus, the posthumous son of Osiris, sometimes in the form of a falcon perched at the summit of the sacred tree.
     
  • Possession of this tree of the eastern horizon constituted a capital stake, the legitimate authority of Râ.

At this point in the development, Parks takes up again his discussion of the Dogon and the Nommo (see Sign of the Fish, above), citing Marcel Griaule’s and Germaine Dieterlen’s excellent presentation of the myth of the Pale Fox’ incest with Mother Earth in their 1965 book, Le Renard Pâle. (Or see the 1986 paperback edition.)

This tradition, he says, will make it possible to assimilate certain elements that we have just revealed, and to discover how the history of the world according to the Dogon passed from one state to another via the unfolding of an enormous cosmic disequilibrium.

Readers without access to the book would do very well to review the web page The Dogon and The Sirius B star, and particularly the discussion of the Dogon’s gods, the Nommo, as being created by “Amma, the celestial God and creator of the universe”, and one of whom rebelled and was “sacrificed” by Amma, his remains being cut up and scattered throughout the universe.

Parks goes into some detail here as to how this was done, where each scattered part went, and so forth.

We will see that the Dogon were not by any means the only culture with this cosmological story. What unifies the versions of it are not only the recognizable themes but the linguistic roots of the terminologies used.

Here with the Dogon, Parks shows the strong ties to Sumerian-Akkadian.

We have placed a couple of key examples into the Decoder: decompositions of the names of Annagonno, the sacrificed Nommo, and the tree Kilena to which he was attached during the event.

Annagonno is of course Enki-Osiris; Amma is An; the “pale fox” is Enlil.

 


Origins of the Planet Venus

In his opening section on this subject, Parks develops the direct link between the sense of the Morning Star (Egyptian: Neter Duau) and “the king”, considered to be Horus (Heru), himself the image of Neter Duau (Venus).
 

Births of the Venus Warriors

The progenitors of Venus all incarnate a being sacrificed in connection with the world of the dead. This is true in all traditions including those of Central America and Scandinavia.

They are also often associated with war or a particular conflict, as with Ištar, Athena, Horus, Parashu-Râma, Lucifer.

The Hellenic form of the Babylonian Ištar (Venus) is Athena who springs, “fully-armed”, from the brow of Zeus (Jupiter). The planet just before Jupiter (i.e., its “head”) was the “black star” Mulge, which ejected Venus from its original position as the satellite of the exploded Mulge.

In Isis and Osiris, Plutarch cites Manethon’s claim that the name “Athena” in Greek evokes “a spontaneous movement”. Now please have a look in the Decoder at the translations of the Sumero-Akkadian transpositions of “Athena”.

The singular story of the head giving birth to a warrior goddess is repeated in Indian mythology with the Goddess Kali in the Devi Mahatmyam. Parks particularly calls attention to chapters 7.8 and 9.22, which we’ll leave for you to view on that page.

Parks continues…

KA-LI9, the “glimmering testimony” in Sumerian, danced frenetically in the sky, excited by the ravages that she produced on her road. Putting in peril the equilibrium of the Earth and of humanity, Shiva lay down at her feet to arrest the destructive dance of the goddess and the stupefying racket that she produced.

This infernal fracas of which speak the texts of India is singularly present in the Sumerian term MU7 which is equally written in the form KA-LI and of which the sense is “to cry” and “to hurl”…

Kali is at once goddess of destruction and of creation.

She is generally represented as a frightening female, dressed in black, which is to say obscurity, with shining, bloodshot eyes. In this form, one can say that she has everything of a dark star! She possesses four arms: two to destroy and two for offering.

She carries a necklace of human skulls and dances on a skeleton. The body on which she excites herself is generally equated to the body of the universe in ruins. Others think that this corpse symbolizes the death that she brings on her passage. More recent representations connect this extended body to that of Shiva who lies down under the goddess to stop her destructive agitation.

We will see in Volume 4 that Venus was effectively immobilized “artificially”…

However, given the circumstances of the creation of the goddess, we retain here the presence of this “cadaver” as the corpse that gave birth to Kali – the famous “head” of the Mother-Goddess that engenders Kali in the version of Devi Mahatmyam, that which corresponds to the head of the god-of-gods Zeus (Jupiter), which was smashed and from which spurted forth Athena whose pronunciations in Sumero-Akkadian give “the warrior” or “the cry of the lord-father” or “that of the cadaver of the lord-father”.


Head of Brahma, Mistress of Zeus

The head of the god-of-gods appeared in the Hindu literature as the fifth and mysterious head of Brahma.

The Indian chronicles relate that Brahma, “the immense being”, possessed four heads placed at the cardinal points.

Knowing that this “god” is considered to be the creator of everything, we can equate him to the Jupiter (Zeus) of the Mediterranean traditions, and the four heads would be the four satellites of Jupiter: Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto.

The Vedic texts say that one day, Brahma fashioned for himself a fifth head with which to keep an eye on the goddess Sandhya (“twilight”). He was taken with her, united with her, and from this union was born humanity.

Shiva-Rudra, the spouse of the goddess, became immensely angry and let loose a flaming arrow that cut off the fifth head of Brahma.

The key point for us is that the fifth head of the Indian Jupiter was said to “keep an eye on” the goddess of “dawn”, which is to say to follow her cult – for which reason Shiva-Rudra smashed it.

We know that in the Egyptian mythology, Isis represents the dawn and Nephtys the twilight. [The two pieces of wood that form the Arani (the two mothers) of Agni (Horus) are correctly assimilated to “the dawn” and “the twilight” in the Vedas…]

The Egyptian traditions make of Nephtys the ancient spouse of Seth (Enlíl) or sometimes his sister. We have seen in this book [Ádam Genisiš] that Nephtys corresonds to Innin (Inanna), the “spouse” of the system of Enlíl, without taking into account that she is also Enlíl’s daughter.

The Egyptians simply made her the spouse of Seth. This story seems to us much more coherent when one recalls the hidden liaisons betwen Osiris and Nephtys (Enki and Innin)…

We saw in this work [Ádam Genisiš] that Innin is not without her connection with the fall of the Amašutum cult on the Earth. The explosion of Mulge (the black star) which was the planet between Mars and Jupiter, resulted from this fall and this intestinal war among the Gina’abul.

Shiva-Rudra (Enlíl-Seth) is definitely the personage who made the decision to destroy the planet of the Life Designers…

Parks next points out an astonishingly-relevant fact:

the Brahmans, the highest caste of India, claim to have been issued from the Head of Brahma!

And this, as Parks has been showing us, is none other than Mulge, the planet of the Kadištu, which was in front of Brahma (Jupiter), and which Shiva-Rudra (Enlíl-Seth) was charged with destroying!

The Brahmans were for a long time farmers and shepherds, and this is in complete concordance with the teaching of the Life Designers of our story, as well as the Nommos of the Dogon, but particularly with the,

“discipline of the Santana-Šandan Amašutum as chiefs of plantations and cultivations, herbalists, etc…”



Semele Ablaze
John McKirdy Duncan


Returning to the Greek versions, there is the story of the death of a sacrificed “entity” who birthed a divinity who had to flee, to escape the wrath of the “gods”.

This is the account of Semele, mistress of Zeus.

The story relates that Zeus was quite taken with the princess Semele. He loved her so much that he showered her with gifts. When Hera, the wife of Zeus-Jupiter, learned of the infidelity of the king of gods, she disguised herself as Beroe, Semele’s nurse.

She called on the princess to prove her love. Semele then went to Zeus-Jupiter and asked him to show himself to her in his full splendor.

Zeus did so and presented himself ringed in a blinding light, with his lightning and flashes. In a single instant the body of Semele was consumed. It is said that the tomb of the princess continued to smolder even long after her death.

Zeus just had time to retrieve from the womb of Semele, Dionysos, the son whom she had conceived with him.

The king of gods hid him in his thigh before transforming him into a kid [young goat], so as to escape the wrath of Hera. In that form, Dionysus fled to distant lands and followed his mad course.

In the process, he descended to the underworld to retrieve his mother from the kingdom of darkness, and carried her to Olympus, where Zeus gave her immortality under the name of Thyone.
 


Gustave Moreau:

“Jupiter and Semele”.

At center appears the little Dionysos.

His aspect recalls the Benu (Phoenix)…


This version is infinitely singular, because it portrays Jupiter (Zeus) as being at once responsible for and spectator of the celestial drama.

As with the Nommos’ variant of the sacrifice, the king of the gods will utilize light to immolate the victim. From this victim will come an infant who will follow a mad course, in this instance to escape divine anger. In each case, the infant will be preserved for some time before embarking on its crazy course.

The same notion is found in the Dogons’ version which represents that “out of the flow of blood from the sacrifice of the Nommo sprang Yazu (Venus) in its obscure (invisible) position”. This implies that Venus knows moments of invisibility on its cosmic course…

The personage of Dionysus is among the most interesting. Greek mythology has him stricken with dementia. He roamed over the world, his story full of mysterious voyages. In the course of his movements, he taught agriculture to humanity. Diverse paintings generally depict Dionysus as a cherub coming out of his mother, either weeping for his dying progenitor, or embarking on his mad course, spreading his wings to leave her blasted remains.

For example, the tableau Sémélé et Jupiter by painter François Marot in the Trianon.


Inanna-Ištar, the Morning and the Evening Star

Parks’ work, where concerned with the mythologies of ancient humanity, differs from all other studies of mythology of which we are aware, in that personages begin in Parks’ consciousness as full flesh-and-blood beings, but only over vast periods of time give rise to the myths that our historians know.

These beings enjoy a near-immortality, either as birthright or through some sort of technology, although they can be killed. Given enough time, this is fairly likely to take place, but only perhaps after lifetimes measured in hundreds of millennia.

The genesis of the corresponding mythological personages could have been through the natural social processes as understood today, but could also have been contrived by the actual characters or their peers. Sometimes, given the eventual size of Earth’s civilizations, the myths coexisted with the living personalities; sometimes they simply followed on later.

We must be careful to discern the mode in which Parks works at one time or another.

For example, he opens the current section on Inanna-Istar with the words…

Inanna is according to the evidence a very ancient divinity, because her name appears from the period of Uruk in the 4th millennium B.C.E.

Parks employs here a conventional meaning of “ancient”.

However he has his own direct experiences that have come to him, many from seemingly far more ancient periods, which form the basis of many references in his books.

Continuing…

She is a dominant goddess who reigned over the gods, having neither husband nor progeny.

In the Bible (Jeremiah 7.18 and 44.19), it is she, as “Queen of Heaven”, to whom women offer kneaded cakes in her image, in the temples. Manasses had erected in Jerusalem the post that symbolized her, and at the same time, he installed in the Temple his idol, the one which without doubt Ezekiel calls “the idol of jealousy” because he enflamed the anger of the

jealous god Yahvé in the Bible.

Inanna supported the cult of the Mother-goddess and fought against the ancient patriarchal dogma. This brought her singular reprisals from the “gods” in the Mesopotamian texts, and also from the adepts of Yahvé in the Bible.

Uruk, the town designated to her, is the city of “prostitutes and daughters of joy” where women were instructed in the initiation of men into sacred sexuality…

The presence of terms designating prostitutes and priestesses in the lexical lists of the middle Babylonian epoch poses the problem of the status of these women. But one notes that this groups together all these women who actually are in different situations. The equivalences established, for example, between the Šamhatu [a class of temple prostitute] and the religious Qadištu [see Decoder] do not correspond to what is known of each of these.

This must arise from the fact that at a point in time, the religious functions of each had lapsed into disuse and were no longer included, only retaining the idea that the priestesses formed together a separate class of women, exempt at times from the framework of marriage.

The majority of them worked in the temples where they practiced sacred sexuality. These priestesses were the image of the great goddess. In this work, we have associated Nebet-Hut (Nephtys) with Innin (Inanna-Ištar).

This association is even more striking when we understand that Nebet-Hut signifies “goddess of the temple” and that Nephtys is always represented with the symbol of the cup on her head.

Inanna-Ištar is the divinity who occupies the greatest number of Mesopotamian myths, be they of secondary level or in the principal roles.

The important place held by Inanna-Ištar in the feminine pantheon led to a designation of goddesses in general under the common name Ištarâtu. At Sumer as at Akkad, she incarnated the planet Dilbat (Venus) or Ištar-Kakkabu.

Where one wishes to speak of the planet from the strictly astronomical point of view, one calles it Dilbat, but the religious philosophy loves to confound the planet Venus and the goddess Ištar.

An (the king of the gods) invites the gods to give to Innin the name “Ištar of the stars”, being “the most brilliant among them”. It is Venus who shows the route of the stars.

Dilbat, as the Evening Star, will be the Ištar of Uruk. As the Morning Star, she will be the Ištar of Akkad.

The goddess herself sings the double aspect of her nature:

“It is I, the queen of the sky, the Goddess of the Twilight. It is I, the queen of the sky, the Goddess of the Dawn.”

It would be difficult to provide a better description of the omnipresent character of Inanna in the universe than to identify her with the planet that shines and is,

“visible from one end to the other of the countries”.

In this form, she draws the admiration and the veneration of men who exalt her beauty. Goddess of the Evening, she consecrates herself to the favoring of love, of voluptuousness but also of premonitory dreams.

Goddess of Morning, she will preside over the works of war and carnage.

Parks continues this section with more examples from the mythology of Inanna-Ištar, establishing not only the character herself, but the logic of the choice of this particular character to personify the heavenly appearance of the planet Venus.

We learn of her support of agrarian activities, her teachings on the subject of human nutritional needs… and this in so many cultures, including those of the East and of Central America.

And of course, there is the angry, warrior aspect.

Parks concludes with a most important observation: nothing corresponding to Venus appears in the Babylonian mythology nor in any mythology from periods prior to 3000-2500 B.C.E! Moreover, when it does appear, Venus is described as coming from the depths of the universe to rend the sky and trouble humanity. And this gave rise to the need for many hymns of praise, intended to appease this trouble-maker.
 


Chaos and Resurrection

 

Traces of Mulge and His Son

The Mesopotamian tablets indicate that Neberu (or Nibiru) is an errant “star” that periodically upsets the affairs of gods and humans. His origin is “the place of the celestial battle”.

This localization is extremely important, because it brings to mind beyond a shadow of a doubt the tree Išed of the Egyptian traditions, the shattered axis of the eastern horizon.

Keep in mind that this opening is carried out under the command of Amon (Jupiter), the King of the Gods.
 

Mulge, Mulge-Tab, and Venus

As we have seen, Parks has demonstrated a widespread identification among ancient peoples of the planet Venus with a rampaging sky-god whose birth and life cycle were associated with a great cosmic event, the “explosion” of the planet Mulge (“Black Star”) and the launching of its satellite Mulge-Tab (“Companion of Mulge”) onto a new solar orbital path.

This “explosion” (the word is in quotes because it might possibly have been a slow-motion event) was perpetrated on the Mulge system by the Ušumgal, according to Parks’ memory as mediated by the GÍRKÙ.

In this section we will examine the sequence from an astronomical/astrophysical point of view, with the intent of assessing the possibility that destruction in the Mulge system could eventually have ramifications on Earth. We’ll include some thoughts about what might have been within the capabilities of the Ušumgal.

However, any specific information that Parks could contribute to this aspect is still being developed for use in his forthcoming book, The Awakening of the Phoenix, Volume 3 of the series.
 


Initial State

Please review the section on Ti-ama-te, describing our solar system prior to the explosion of Mulge.

This will give you a sense of the awesome greatness of Mulge within the larger galactic community, and in fact of our entire system before the invasion, hence the dimension of tragedy that ensued, but also will help you to visualize the relative sizes of the planets and their sequence of orbits in this system.

As to planetary sizes and orbital dimensions, we assume that those observed today for all planets other than Venus, such as can be found listed at Orbits and Properties of the Planets, are valid for the initial period – the pre-explosion epoch.

Information that we can deduce for Mulge and Mulge-Tab/Venus has to be considered purely notional. But we can do better than simple guessing.

Parks recalls Mulge as being slightly larger than Saturn, and so it shall be in our picture of Ti-ama-te. We estimate the radius of Mulge to be about 65,000 km. We are probably safe in assuming Mulge’s orbit to be approximately aligned with the ecliptic since all the other planetary orbits (except that of Pluto, which is no longer considered to be a planet anyway) are so aligned, and so is the main asteroid belt, which we think is derived from the explosion of Mulge.

The main asteroid belt occupies a ring of radius 2-4 astronomical units (AU) around the Sun, and so we assign a radius of about 3 AU or, say, 450 million km to the orbit of Mulge.

What might have been the characteristics of Mulge-Tab’s orbit around Mulge?

The first bit of data from the present-day Venus’ orbit that we might apply would be its orientation to the ecliptic plane, just as we did with the asteroids for Mulge. So we will say that Mulge-Tab’s orbit was parallel to the ecliptic.

Its radius? Taking a look at Jupiter, the next planet out, we find that its two largest moons, Ganymede and Callisto, are of nearly the same size and orbits of distance 1,100,000 and 1,900,000 km from Jupiter’s center.

Although the radius of Venus (Mulge-Tab) at 6052 km is much larger – 2.3 or 2.4 times larger – than those of the two largest Jupiter moons, we will take the hint and give Mulge-Tab an orbital radius of around 1,500,000 km.

In this section we will develop the concept of Venus as an ejection from the Mulge system in a sequence of graphics with discussions, including relevant orbital mechanics where indicated.

 


Fig. MMTV-1

View onto the ecliptic plane showing the orbits of Uraš (Earth) and Mulge.

At this scale, the planets themselves are not visible,

nor would the Sun be visible, except for the fact that it is self-luminous.

We show the Sun as a white dot, not to scale.

Kinks in orbits are a graphic artifact.
 


The orbits depicted in Fig. MMTV-1 are of course mathematical abstractions.

It might have been more precise to show them as very thin circles or ellipses. But we are using 3-D modelling software that requires us to depict them as tori, of sufficient thickness to make them visible. Still, they are rather “thin” tori (i.e., their cross-sections are small relative to the image size).

There is a benefit to this graphical method. Suppose we searched along the Mulge orbit for the planet Mulge itself – we know it is in the image, because we put it there.

If we then zoomed in sufficiently to show Mulge, the “orbit torus” would appear very thick indeed, and since we had not changed its scale from what it was in the previous image, the relative sizes of Mulge and the orbit torus would allow us to grasp the scale of Mulge in the solar system itself.

That is what we have done in the following illustration.
 



Fig. MMTV-2.

Close-up view of Mulge’s orbit, showing Mulge

and also Mulge-Tab’s proposed orbit around Mulge.

Its orbit was not visible in the previous image.

Mulge-Tab itself is still not visible at this scale.
 


“Explosion” of Mulge

 


Fig. MMTV-3

Mulge “exploding” and somewhat expanded from its normal size.

Mulge-Tab, shown to scale, is just visible at the top.
Dispensing with the orbits now, the Fig. MMTV-3 at right shows Mulge “exploding”,

and for the first time we can see Mulge-Tab, at the top.
 


And now we are in a position to discuss some very important matters.

We are of course interested in learning whatever we can about how Mulge was destroyed, but even more directly important to us is the effect of that event on Mulge-Tab, because we think it is Mulge-Tab that at some later point, and perhaps more than once, came near Uraš (the Earth), and became identified with today’s planet Venus.

Look at the image. At this stage, Mulge has been reduced to fragments that have begun to disperse and will continue to do so. The fragments will eventually stabilize in individual solar orbits, perhaps many of them as today’s asteroids.

Now, it is possible that the forces that destroyed Mulge were large and explosive enough to quickly send a wave of fragments and some sort of energy out to the distance of Mulge-Tab, instantly throwing it off its course. That would have required a much greater release of energy than just enough to totally destroy Mulge.

We don’t know if that much energy was available. But since we don’t know, we must allow for that possibility. Later on this page, we will designate the type of event in which the effect on Mulge-Tab was virtually instantaneous as a “Type 1 collision” between Mulge remains and Mulge-Tab.

It might be reasonable to consider that Mulge expanded “slowly”, leading in the extreme to what we will call a “Type 2 collision”.

Assuming it did so in a radially-symmetric manner (an assumption not fully justified, but a good first approximation to what may have happened), then Mulge-Tab’s orbit would not have changed until significant amounts of Mulge’s remains (i.e., a significant fraction of its mass) moved beyond the orbit of Mulge-Tab, and Mulge-Tab’s orbit finally began to expand in response.

We are going to have to estimate the probability of any sizable piece of Mulge striking Mulge-Tab in this process. Assuming for the moment that Mulge broke up into a relatively small number of large fragments, and that there was no such collision with them, then Mulge-Tab’s orbit simply expanded in response to the continuing diffusing mass of Mulge.

As Mulge-Tab moved farther and farther from the center of this diffusing Mulge mass, its orbital path trended toward an open curve, and it gradually became more subject to the gravitational influence of the Sun.

Another way of putting this is to say that when the total gravitational field, at Mulge-Tab’s position, of the portion of Mulge contained within its orbit, has become less than the gravitational field of the Sun at that position, then Mulge-Tab is in a solar orbit.

What are the parameters of that orbit? Our task is to explore the ways in which Mulge-Tab might enter such a solar orbit, and the range of possible orbital parameters, to learn whether it was possible or even likely that Mulge-Tab would eventually cross Uraš’ orbit, and encounter Uraš itself.

Note that any close encounter and exchange of energy and momentum with another planetary object is going to change Mulge-Tab’s orbit beyond anything we could guess. Therefore we will not be able to say anything at all about a sequence of close encounters, except to note that such sequences are possible.

To begin our exploration, let us collect some elemental data that we either “know” (e.g., if we assume that Venus was once Mulge-Tab), or can obtain through combining what we “know” with what Parks “remembers”, and with what we can compute using basic astronomical information and equations (as may be found here and here).

We will spare the reader the details at this time but offer them in a separate paper that will be prepared for online viewing and/or be included in Parks’ next published book.

OBJECT Radius, km Density, g/cm3 Mass, kg Mulge 65000 4 4.6×1027 Mulge-Tab 6050 5.24 4.87×1024

ORBIT Radius, km Period Mean Orbital Speed S
  km/sec Mulge 450×106 1.64×108 secs
5.21 earth yrs 17.2 Mulge-Tab 1.5×106 6.6×105 secs
7.6 earth days 14.3

An important note about the overall geometry: we assume that all of this is confined to (approximately) the plane of the ecliptic.

This is justified for Mulge itself by virtue of the fact that the orbits of all the other planets (except for that of Pluto, no longer considered a planet anyway) in the solar system are confined to that plane.

As to Mulge-Tab, had it been a satellite of Jupiter, it would have been classified as a Galilean type, such as Callisto or Ganymede, each of which has an orbital inclination of only about 1/4 degree from the plane of the ecliptic. Thus it is not unreasonable to guess that Mulge-Tab’s orbit was in the plane of the ecliptic as well.

All of our work, then, will be in two dimensions.

Of the data given in the table above, the “mean orbital speed S” – the tangential velocities of Mulge and Mulge-Tab within their respective orbits – is of immediate importance, because these will determine whether Mulge-Tab enters an elliptical orbit with perihelion equal to or less than the radius of Earth’s orbit. If that is the case, then an eventual encounter becomes possible.

Note also that in the above tables, “earth days” and “earth years” indicates their modern values. The units are offered simply for help in visualization. The very length of the earth year is to be a subject of discussion in this section, as it is in the literature of Velikovsky and others.

One final important note:

in the tables we assume that, having identified Venus with Mulge-Tab, we can take the mass of Mulge-Tab as the mass of today’s Venus.

But it develops, as will be seen, that in one possible scenario, Mulge-Tab picked up a significant amount of mass from Mulge fragmentary material, and hence originally (prior to the Mulge explosion) had much different characteristics from today’s Venus.

When we realized such a thing had been possible, we had to question our entire analysis up to that point.

However we also realized that the scenario in question may not have actually occurred. Therefore our response has been to stay with our analysis on a contingent basis, but as a separate step to look for signs that the worrisome scenario did occur.

This step is beyond the scope of the present web page, but will probably be covered in the material being offered for inclusion in Volume 3.
 


Fig. MMTV-4

Simplified diagram of Mulge-Tab at moment of release from Mulge orbit,

entering generic elliptical solar orbit.
 


Fig. MMTV-4 illustrates a simple entry of Mulge-Tab into an elliptical solar orbit immediately upon the disappearance of Mulge, around which Mulge-Tab had been orbiting. This is a sort of zero-order approximation to the event.

We depict as a pair of magenta-colored vectors the velocity of Mulge-Tab at that moment in its components parallel (vM-T,r) and perpendicular (vM-T,t) to a radius or line drawn from the Sun.

These motions are themselves the sums of motions of the Mulge system (Mulge and any satellites, etc.) in its solar orbit, and Mulge-Tab in its orbit around Mulge. Note that the Mulge system, being in what we state to be a circular orbit, has zero radial velocity.

Notice also that in this example, Mulge-Tab’s solar orbit has the form of a highly eccentric ellipse, and this causes Mulge-Tab to cross the orbit of Uraš (Earth) – because its perihelion, its closest approach to the sun – falls inside Uraš’ orbit. With such an orbit there is the possibility or probability of an eventual encounter of Mulge-Tab with Uraš. It is not the only class of orbit that would have been possible.

Another possibility would have been for Mulge-Tab’s orbit to be much less eccentric, say, like that of Mulge, which would never cross the path of Uraš.

Or it might have heen hyperbolic – an open shape that would have taken it away from the solar system on a one-way outbound journey. We are going to have to determine the possibilities of Mulge-Tab’s entering these various types of orbits.
 

Fig. MMTV-5

Close-up of Mulge/Mulge-Tab system at idealized moment of release.

All orbits are traversed in the counter-clockwise direction.


To begin, we take a closer look at the composite motion of Mulge-Tab at its moment of release.

Fig. MMTV-5 shows a ghostly Mulge that has by some means just disappeared. It had been traveling along in its orbit at a speed of 17.2 km/sec. Mulge-Tab had been confined to the bright green orbit around Mulge at a speed of 14.3 km/sec, but has just now been released to a new path, the white curve.

Although the directions of the motions are constantly changing, at this instant they can be conveniently oriented with respect to the radial from the Sun. Thus Mulge and its entire system were moving with an average velocity of 17.2 km/sec in a direction transverse to the radial from the Sun.

We designate this as follows:

vM,r = 0
vM,t = 17.2 km/sec

Mulge-Tab participated in this motion, but also had its own orbital motion within the Mulge system.

It was moving tangentially at 14.3 km/sec, and this was at angle f with respect to the solar radial:

vM-T,r = 14.3 sin f km/sec
vM-T,t = 17.2 – 14.3 cos f km/sec

What are the parameters of the new Mulge-Tab orbit?

We will need to know, if we are to be able to decide whether Mulge-Tab could have eventually had a close encounter with Uraš. As is shown in Fig. MMTV-4, if a “small” object enters a closed orbit around a large one (i.e., the mass of the “small” one is much smaller than the mass of the “large” one), the orbit takes the form of an ellipse of some size characterized by its semi-major axis “a” and eccentricity “e”.

According to basic principles of celestial mechanics, these can easily be computed from information that we have already developed on this page, along with the mass of the Sun, and a quantity known as “The Universal Gravitational Constant”.

Please click here to see how all of these quantities are related.

Notice that the velocity components of Mulge-Tab at time of release are related to its angular position f, as mentioned above. We have to presume that this angle’s value was not selected by the Ušumgal.

In fact, since f is itself a parameter of our simplistic “instantaneous Mulge-disappearance” model, which is not necessarily itself correct, we should not at this point be second-guessing how it might or might not have been chosen by anyone.

But we will examine the model shortly.

From inspection of Mulge-Tab’s full orbit shown in Fig. MMTV-4, its perihelion is just,

Rper = a(1-e)

The values of a and e vary with the angle f. We examine this, looking to see if for any values of f, the perihelion of Mulge-Tab falls within the radius of Earth’s orbit (1.5 x 1011 meters).

Here are the results of that computation:

f, deg Semi-Major Axis a
meters
Eccentricity e Perihelion
meters
Earth Encounter 0 2.28 x 1011 .03 2.22 x 1011 impossible 30 2.57 x 1011 .25 1.93 x 1011 impossible 60 3.96 x 1011 .86 5.44 x 1010 possible 90 1.48 x 1012 1.7 negative impossible 120 -8.49 x 1011 2.53 meaningless impossible 150 -3.95 x 1011 3.14 meaningless impossible 180 -3.30 x 1011 3.36 meaningless impossible 210 -3.95 x 1011 3.14 meaningless impossible 240 -8.49 x 1011 2.53 meaningless impossible 270 1.48 x 1012 1.7 negative impossible 300 3.96 x 1011 .86 5.44 x 1010 possible 330 2.57 x 1011 .25 1.93 x 1011 impossible



So, yes, in this first simplified situation, for some values of f, an eventual encounter can occur.

Those values range out to about f = +/- 65 deg, as shown in Fig. MMTV-6, beyond which the orbit would be hyperbolic. For magnitudes of f < 45 deg, the perihelion exceeds the radius of Earth’s orbit and so no collision would be possible.

This means that original positions of Mulge-Tab occupying some 11% of the full circle of phi would likely lead to an eventual interaction – even a highly destructive interaction – with Uraš.

Would this have been a consideration for Enlil, who probably was hoping to escape this solar system eventually anyway?
 


Fig. MMTV-6

Perihelion of Mulge-Tab’s orbit (meters) vs. f, deg.

We show a range of f encompassing values for which eccentricity

is between 0 and 1 – that is, out to about +/- 65 deg.

(and a bit more for clarity in reading the presentation).

The green rectangle shows the area from perihelion = 0 out to the radius of Earth’s orbit.

Note that a negative perihelion is self-contradictory;

this would not be associated with an elliptical orbit.


Our next task is to consider more realistic “explosion” scenarios.

For example, we know that Mulge did not simply vanish when destroyed. Rather, it was reduced to fragments that either slowly or quickly moved away from what had been its center.

Would any of these fragments have collided with Mulge-Tab? This is an important question, because in a collision, there would have been an exchange of angular momentum and kinetic energy between the colliding objects.

Suppose Mulge had been broken into just two fragments. That would be the minimum, as “one fragment” would mean no explosion or destruction had taken place.

If Mulge had been broken into two fragments, how likely would it have been for one of them to have collided with Mulge-Tab?

Without any analysis other than a look at the images we have provided of these two objects in their original positions, it is clear that a collision at the distance of Mulge-Tab would have been highly unlikely. In that case, our discussion of the event, developed on this page, would be good enough to use.

Suppose, on the other hand, there had been a rather extreme fragmentation of Mulge. Can we guess what the sizes of these fragments might possibly have been?

Well, yes, if we take the distribution of sizes of asteroids as a strong hint, since they presumably all were once a part of Mulge. A caution here: the combined masses of all known asteroids is less than that of our Moon. So are the ones we see in the asteroid belt a good example of the fragmentation of Mulge?

We don’t really know, but it is probably beyond the scope of this discussion to try to ascertain a complete answer to that question. Therefore, let us look at the asteroids, and there we find that the typical diameter of an asteroid is around 1 km. So we will take that to be the size of our Mulge fragments.

Assuming that the fragments move out from the Mulge center uniformly in all directions, we can begin to see the possibilities for collisions with Mulge-Tab.

It is not a simple problem, because it depends on the relative speeds of the outgoing fragments and Mulge-Tab in its orbit.

Why? Suppose that the outgoing speed of the fragments is very high. Then any fragments that were passing through the part of space occupied by Mulge-Tab at that moment would collide, giving up all of its kinetic energy to Mulge by imparting a velocity change in the outward radial direction. We should be able to calculate the fraction of Mulge mass that does this (i.e., collides). Let’s call this a collision of Type 1.

On the other hand, the fragments could be moving so slowly that they impart zero kinetic energy in terms of adding a radial velocity component, but some of them do, at some point, “stand in the path of Mulge-Tab”, and collide in such a way as to join with Mulge-Tab and share its angular momentum.

That will be a collision of Type 2.
 


Type 1 Collision

We can easily calculate the total mass of Mulge fragments that collide with Mulge-Tab.

We know that they all, at some time, will pass through a spherical shell centered on Mulge’s center, with the radius of Mulge-Tab’s orbit. The fraction of that shell occupied by the projected area of Mulge-Tab will be the fraction of Mulge’s mass that will collide with Mulge-Tab.

Using data already provided on this page, we calculate the following:

Total area of spherical shell at Mulge-Tab’s orbit = 2.8×1013 km2
Projected area of Mulge-Tab = 1.15×108 km2
Fraction of Mulge that collides with Mulge-Tab = 4.1×10-6
Mass of Mulge = 4.6×1027 kg

Mass of Mulge that collides with Mulge-Tab ~ 2×1022 kg

That last number is key. Everything we have shown about the path of Mulge-Tab after the loss of Mulge now has to be adjusted to reflect what happens when that amount of Mulge matter collides with Mulge-Tab.

Note that this is 0.4% of the mass of Mulge-Tab as given on this page. Could that relatively-small amount of mass have enough kinetic energy to significantly change the motion of Mulge-Tab once transferred?

Of course, that depends on its velocity, as in the relation,

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 mv2

…for an object of mass m, traveling at velocity v.

We do not know what its velocity might have been, but let’s determine what it would have needed to be, to carry 10% of the kinetic energy of Mulge-Tab.

Sparing you the algebra, it works out to be 5 x the velocity of Mulge-Tab at the moment of encounter. That is, since Mulge-Tab’s velocity was 17.2 km/sec, the Mulge fragments would need to have been traveling outward at 86 km/sec to increase Mulge-Tab’s kinetic energy by 10%.

Is that a realistic velocity for these fragments? Have we discussed the mechanism that was used for destroying Mulge? We have not, yet.

However, achieving an outward velocity of 86 km/sec would appear to require much more energy than just enough to shatter Mulge. And so it seems safe to work with a velocity of 86 km/sec as a conservative figure for estimating the effect of the Type 1 collision on the path of Mulge-Tab.

This collision results in a small adjustment to Mulge-Tab’s velocity, radially outward from the original Mulge center. Except for that adjustment, the no-collision analysis made at the beginning of this study will prevail.

What is the effect of the radial velocity adjustment? Recall that in the basic no-collision case, values of f close to 0/360 degrees result in the lowest subsequent perihelion for Mulge-Tab, because the effect of the “missing Mulge” left Mulge-Tab with a residual motion component retrograde to its solar orbit.

The Type 1 collision creates an actual push on Mulge-Tab, and its retrograde component is greatest for f = 90 degrees. That is, it is greatest if it occurs when Mulge-Tab is at the point in its Mulge orbit characterized by f = 90 degrees (see Fig. MMTV-5).

So in general, the Type 1 collision seems to shift the value of f resulting in the minimum perihelion toward 90 degrees. How great this effect would be, depends on the velocity of the Mulge fragments, which we do not know, but we can guess that this will actually turn out to be rather small.

At any rate, it is not very important because the probabilities of various perihelion values are actually not affected, only the associated values of f, which are probably of no interest.
 


Type 2 Collision

 


Fig. MMTV-7

A first plume of Mulge’s fragment cloud crosses the orbit (shown in green) of Mulge-Tab (orange).

Eventually the entire cloud will cross the spherical shell

containing Mulge-Tab’s orbit but of course only a small fraction

of the Mulge fragments will cross the orbit itself.

Those will all be swept up by Mulge-Tab since in the Type 2 encounter

they move extremely slowly.

They will add to Mulge-Tab’s mass

but will leave its kinetic energy unchanged.

This results in a predictable reduction in Mulge-Tab’s speed.


The event we name “Type 1 collision” represents one extreme of a continuum of possibilities relating to how rapidly the exploded Mulge expands and crosses over the Mulge-Tab orbital shell (i.e., imaginary sphere centered on the unexploded Mulge, with radius equal to that of Mulge-Tab’s orbit).

In this extreme, the radial velocity of the Mulge fragments is so great that Mulge-Tab by comparison is stationary in its orbit.

In the complementary event, the “Type 2 collision”, the fragments move so slowly that when they encounter Mulge-Tab it is as though they are stationary. Of course, had they been perfectly stationary, they would never have even gotten there! So we are speaking in relative terms.

Eventually all Mulge fragments cross over and beyond the Mulge-Tab orbital shell.

Assuming their angular distribution is uniform, we can easily calculate that fraction of them that enter not only the orbital shell, but the orbital ring itself (shown in green in Fig. MMTV-7). Understand that the ring has a finite cross-section; it is after all swept out by the body of Mulge-Tab. It is in fact a torus.

All fragments entering that torus will be swept up by the much more rapidly-moving Mulge-Tab before they can reach the far side.

In a first-order approximation, these fragments are stationary when encountered by Mulge-Tab. They have, then, no kinetic energy, and so add none to the planetoid.

But they do add their mass. How much mass would that be? The total amount of mass contributed by Mulge to Mulge-Tab in this way, is just the fraction that encounters the Mulge-Tab torus.

The fraction is easily calculated.

Replace the torus with a circle of flat ribbon whose width is the diameter of Mulge-Tab. Designate the radius of this circle as RM,M-T (= 1.5 x 106 km). Designate the radius of Mulge-Tab as RM-T (= 6050 km).

The fraction in which we are interested is simply the ratio of the areas of the ribbon and the sphere. Again, leaving out some simple algebra for the energetic reader to perform, that ratio of areas is just the ratio of two radii, and is given by,

RM-T / RM,M-T ~ 4 x 10-3

…and since we have the mass of Mulge as 4.6 x 1027 kg, we can immediately state that Mulge-Tab picks up about 2 x 1025 kg of Mulge fragments.

Since the kinetic energy of Mulge-Tab has not been altered by its encounter with the fragments, but it has a new greater mass, its velocity must have decreased as a result of the fragment encounters.

By how much? Again, leaving the simple algebra to the reader,

new velocity / old velocity = Ö (old mass / new mass) = Ö (1/5) = .45

Have you noticed something quite remarkable about what we have just learned?

Yes, the speed of Mulge-Tab is eventually more than halved, but much more importantly, the mass of Mulge fragments accreting to Mulge-Tab is four times the original mass of Mulge-Tab itself!

This means that the analysis of the Type 2 encounter will be much more complex than that of the Type 1, because during the long period of time that Mulge-Tab takes to acquire its new mass, it is deviating, probably greatly, from its original orbit. That is due not only to its declining speed, but to the slowly-diminishing amount of Mulge mass remaining inside the orbital sphere.

Once beyond the sphere, it is no longer part of the gravitational center of the Mulge/Mulge-Tab system.

Furthermore, if Mulge-Tab is changing size due to the accreting matter, then of course the area representing its orbital torus (and thus the fraction of fragments being intercepted) is also changing, and dramatically at that!

What all of this means is that we do not yet have a way to analyze a Type 2 encounter.

Of course, we do not know if the pure Type 2 encounter even happened. One reason to think it did not, is that the accreted mass on Mulge-Tab would probably not have been uniformly distributed around its surface, and so today’s Venus would be seen to be seriously out-of-round. It is not.

But suppose the encounter was something between pure Type 1 and pure Type 2. Would we be able to predict the result of that, on a continuum of encounter types?

The answer is, probably yes, but that is not a project for this web page at this time.

This issue will be discussed more fully in a forthcoming research publication by Anton Parks.

 

Tidal Locking

A somewhat anomalous synchronous “locking” exists between the rotations on their axes of Earth and Venus.

The following is from Wikipedia:

A curious aspect of Venus’ orbit and rotation periods is that the 583.92-day interval between successive close approaches to the Earth is almost exactly equal to 5 Venusian solar days (precisely, 5.001444 of these), making approximately the same face visible from Earth at each close approach.

Whether this relationship arose by chance or is the result of some kind of tidal locking with the Earth is unknown.

[1]
[1] Gold T., Soter S. (1969), Atmospheric tides and the resonant rotation of Venus, Icarus, v. 11, p 356-366

Tidal locking comes about through variations in gravitational attraction between specific portions of nearby astronomical bodies. The effect would appear problematic to say the least at the current distance of Venus from Earth.

We’ll keep this “curious aspect” in mind for further study and discussion if it should turn out to be relevant in terms of one or more close encounters having taken place between Venus and Earth in relatively recent times (i.e., about 10,000 years ago).

Leave a Reply