The Undying Stars

The concept of the "undying stars" (also known as the "imperishable stars") was important to ancient Egyptian cosmology and religion.

In the Pyramid Texts from the tomb of the Pharaoh Unas (reigned circa 2353 BC - 2323 BC), some of the oldest texts in existence, we find this expression in the Sarcophagus Chamber's south wall, utterance 214:

The (glorified) humanity bewail you after the Imperishable Stars have carried you. Enter then into the place where your father is, where Geb is! He gives you that which was on the brow of Horus, so that you become powerful and full of glory through it, so that you become the One-at-the-Head-of-the-Westerners through it.

Evidence suggests that the undying or imperishable stars were those stars which never set but which can be seen all through the night, every night of the year.

This concept can be easily understood if you imagine the earth's path around the sun each year. You might imagine the edge of a large round dinner plate or platter as the earth's path (it travels around the edge of the plate -- of course we know that its path is slightly elliptical, but for this illustration you can imagine your large platter to be round).

If you placed a burning candle or a bright yellow golf ball in the middle of this plate and think of it as the sun, you can then think of night and day for the observers on earth as they travel around the edge of the plate throughout the year. Perhaps you could imagine another golf ball (or a marble) as the earth rolling along the edge of the plate, and remember that it spins on its axis once each day as it proceeds. When your place on the spinning earth is facing towards the sun, it is day -- you can't see any stars other than the sun, which drowns out all the others with its light. When your place on the spinning earth is facing away from the sun (the candle in the middle of the plate, in this case), then it is night.

If you imagine night time on our little model, you can imagine an observer on the ball of the earth looking "outward" away from the sun along the plane of the table that the plate is resting on. This plane of the table is the "ecliptic plane" -- the plane on which the planets are orbiting. Constellations along this plane will rise and set during the night as the earth turns.

However, if you imagine night time on our little model and imagine an observer looking "straight up" (as it were) from the surface of the table, then he will be looking up and seeing stars and constellations that are always visible, because even as the earth spins he can still see the stars located in that direction, while the stars located in the direction of "straight out" (along the table's surface) will sometimes be obscured by the turning of the earth.

If the observer on our model were located right at the north pole (latitude 90^o north) then the star that was "straight up" (around which the entire sky seems to turn due to the earth's spinning on its axis) would be the north star, Polaris. It would be at an elevation of 90^o from the horizon (the horizon being "straight out"). However, if the observer were to walk south for one entire degree of the earth's surface, then the north star would sink behind him by one degree in the sky.

The further south he walked, the lower in the sky the north star would sink. By the time he had walked sixty degrees along the full circle of the earth (to latitude 30^o north, near the latitude of the Great Pyramid), the elevation of the north star above the horizon would have sank a corresponding sixty degrees, so that it was at an elevation of 30^o above a "straight out" horizon.

Each night, however, Polaris would still be visible from this latitude: it is an undying star and never sets below the horizon. The rest of the sky and all the other stars appear to turn around this point in the sky due to the rotation of the earth. Stars very close to the north star would also stay in the sky the entire evening, but as we looked further out from the north star (more towards the plane of the "table" in our mental exercise and less "upwards" towards the ceiling of the room) we would begin to see stars whose paths through the sky would eventually take them below the horizon as the earth turns.

How far down from Polaris the north star would we have to look before we started encountering stars that dip below the horizon as the "sky turns"? Well, at latitude 30^o north (where the north star is located at an elevation of 30^o from the straight-out horizon) we would have to go only 30^o "down" from the pole star. All the stars within 30^o "down" from that point would be undying stars or imperishable stars -- they never set during the night. All the stars further "down" than 30^o from that pole star would dip below the horizon at some point. We can now see why these stars are often referred to as the "circumpolar stars" in modern terminology -- they are those stars arranged close to the celestial north pole.

The convention for locating a star's elevation in the sky is called "declination," and by this convention the celestial north pole has a declination of +90^o . At a latitude of 30^o north, then, all stars with declinations of +60^o or more will be circumpolar or undying stars. This includes the stars of the Big Dipper (pictured above).

Note that those stars which are not undying stars not only dip below the horizon at some point during the earth's rotation daily, but are also invisible during some months of the year. This is because for any star not within that circumpolar circle, there will be some times during the earth's orbit when they are only above the horizon during the day.

Thinking back to our dinner plate model, we can understand that an observer on the earth ball looking across the dinner plate towards the sun candle in the middle will not be able to see the stars or constellations arranged along the "far wall" on the other side of the candle, because those stars and constellations will be "up" during the day. However, when the earth ball progresses around to the other side of the plate, those stars and constellations on that wall will be visible during the night, because the candle will now be "behind" the earth at that point.

This is why Orion is absent from the night sky during certain parts of the year, and makes his reappearance later in the year. The same holds true for all the constellations not within that circle of imperishable stars, and it is especially noticeable for constellations along the plane of the ecliptic (the direction of "looking out along the table top" in our mental construct) or close to that plane.

Now you understand the concept of the undying stars!

What do you think about cholesterol?

The tectonic theory is an example of a theory that was rejected and ridiculed for many decades before being accepted in the second half of the twentieth century and then coming to dominate geological thinking. If you were to walk into a university today and declare that you thought the tectonics theory was wrong, you would face severe criticism.

However, just because the prevailing orthodoxy has lined up decisively behind a theory does not make it true. In fact, there is extensive evidence (see for example the discussions here and here) that the theory of plate tectonics is incorrect. It may appear to explain the evidence, but the actual underlying explanation may be quite different.

Erroneous theories based upon incorrect interpretation of the evidence can lead to serious consequences. To use an example that may be even more familiar to readers, imagine that instead of walking into a university and declaring your opposition to the theory of plate tectonics, you were to walk into your doctor's office and declare: "I think fat and cholesterol are actually good for me, and all the medical literature that says it causes heart disease is based on flawed interpretation of the data!"

This is in fact what some detectives are concluding after looking at the evidence (these outside voices of course are ridiculed and marginalized by the "authorities," in exactly the same way that Sherlock Holmes or the gang from Scooby Doo are resented and marginalized by the authorities in crime fiction).

For example, Uffe Ravnskov (who is an MD and a PhD) has written numerous books challenging the theory that consumption of cholesterol and fat in the diet is responsible for atherosclerosis and heart disease. His numerous books, articles and research pieces, some of which are listed here, argue that the data in the studies during the twentieth century which led to the adoption of the hypothesis that atherosclerosis and heart disease are caused by cholesterol was wrongly interpreted. His examination of the evidence is quite detailed and extensive, and his conclusions are convincing.

Dr. Ravnskov argues that cholesterol is not the cause of the atherosclerosis and blood clotting that can lead to heart disease and death, but rather that it is found near such atherosclerosis and clots because it is part of the body's defense against the real culprit, which is microbial infection and arterial inflammation. The body sends LDL cholesterol to fight the symptoms of the microbial attack, and the cholesterol that is being blamed is actually beneficial: it is the microbial invaders that the current theory overlooks which are the actual problem.

Dr. Ravnskov outlines this theory in his book Fat and Cholesterol are Good for You! In the introduction to that book, he explains the attacks that his arguments have endured:

When the cholesterol campaign was introduced in Sweden in 1989 I was very suprised. Having followed the scientific literature about cholesterol and cardiovascular disease superficially I could not recall anything in support of the idea that high cholesterol or saturated fat should be harmful to human health. I became curious and started to read more systematically.

Anyone who does that with an open mind soon discovers that the emperor is naked. But I also learnt that my critical comments were met with little interest from the editors of the medical journals or with mocking answers from the reviewers. [. . .]

My first book on this subject, the Cholesterol Myths, was published in Sweden in 1991 and in Finland in 1992, and has since then been translated into five languages. It made little impact. In Sweden the science journalists usually lost their interest in the subject when they, after having read the book, consulted the researchers or health authorities that I had criticized. In Finland the book was actually burnt in a television show after having been denigrated by some of the Finnish proponents to the cholesterol campaign.

Sadly, this kind of ridicule and marginalization often characterizes the response of those who uphold the prevailing theory (as stated above, the currently-popular tectonic theory was subjected to exactly the same kind of treatment). Instead of trying to silence dissenting voices, alternate views should be welcomed and the arguments and evidence brought forward by those with a different interpretation should be examined on their merits.

Dr. Ravnskov typifies this approach in his own work: he states that his explanation is only a hypothesis, and invites his readers to examine the data and decide for themselves. In the same book cited above, he tells his reader: "remember, my idea is only a hypothesis, just as the idea about good and bad cholesterol is a hypothesis. I may be wrong, and most doctors and researchers who have been accustomed to the cholesterol hypothesis for many years will probably shake their heads uttering: It is high cholesterol, stupid! but if you have an open mind and if you are willing to spend a little time by following my arguments I think that it will be very difficult for you to find anything in conflict with my hypothesis" (193).

Other medical doctors have reached similar conclusions, such as Dwight Lundell, MD, who argues that inflammation in the arteries is the problem and that it is not caused by cholesterol. Others have put forward the possibility that the oils used to fry and cook food, which changed significantly during the twentieth century due to a variety of social factors and medical theories, are the real problem, rather than the foods themselves.

The point of this discussion is not who is right in the topic of diet and heart disease, which is outside the scope of this particular blog about mankind's ancient history. The point is that in one very important topic, open examination of the prevailing theory is not permitted, and even contrary opinions put forth by sincere professionals and backed up with extensive evidence are mocked and even burned in public. Since the cause of heart disease is an actual matter of life-and-death, uncritically accepting what "the authorities" say can lead to serious consequences if their theory is wrong, and individuals would be advised to conduct at least some level of due diligence on their own.

The question of mankind's ancient history is perhaps not as immediately important to human health, but it does carry important implications for the health of a society. Following the wrong theory about history and origins can lead to societal "heart disease" over long periods of time.

Because these issues are so important, we should be alert to those whose response is to ridicule or even burn contrary opinions or conflicting evidence. We should adopt the attitude expressed by Dr. Ravnskov in the quotation above, which freely admits that his hypothesis and the prevailing hypothesis are each only hypotheses, and that individuals should be encouraged to examine the evidence for themselves.

Dr. Brown adopts the same attitude in his books on the hydroplate theory, and suggests that teachers should say to students: "Don't be concerned with what I believe. What matters in this class is how thoroughly you examine the scientific evidence on both sides of this issue" (7th edition, 285).

It may turn out that the current cholesterol theories are incorrect, based on what was originally a sincere but misguided interpretation of the evidence. I would argue that the tectonic theory may in fact misinterpret the evidence in much the same way.

While the original errors may have been based on sincere misinterpretation, I would further argue that the more the defenders of an interpretation use ridicule and marginalization instead of honest examination and argument to protect their position, the more we might suspect that their theory is in need of the attention of a Sherlock Holmes or a Scooby Doo.

Surf a Sojourner Surfboard

So far there is no direct evidence that members of the ancient lost civilization discussed on these pages (see here and here for example) were surfers.

However, it is somewhat suspicious that many of the areas where they were obviously active, including Peru, Mexico, New Zealand, Australia, Ireland and Rapa Nui (Easter Island) have excellent waves and are modern surf destinations. This could be a fruitful direction to explore for future research.

There are other connections between surfing and the study of the evidence for a global worldwide flood within human memory.

For one thing, surfing itself takes place at the boundary of the world's mighty oceans, which by their very presence should remind us to be grateful that mankind survived the worldwide flood that extensive evidence shows once covered the earth. In the first book of the Hebrew Scriptures we find the promise given to Noah: "And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth" (Genesis 9:11). In the Proverbs we also find that the limit of the waters is set by divine decree: "When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment" (Proverbs 8:29a). Standing on the shore observing the waves before a session can be a moment to reflect on the fact that the mighty waters are restrained to their place.

Also, surfers often rise early in the morning to take advantage of better wind conditions, which have an important impact on the waves. As the sun heats the land during the day, the lower air pressure over the land can result in onshore winds that are not desireable, while the early morning hours tend to have less wind or even offshore winds as the air flows from the relatively cooler land towards the realtively warmer ocean. This tendency to surf early in the morning provides the opportunity to observe the constellations before dawn, the heliacal rising of constellations, and the sunrise itself. The concept of heliacal rising is important for understanding the clues left by ancient mankind in myths and legends.

Finally, waves and tides are manifestations of the earth's energy and the influence of the earth's turning and the motion of the moon. Surfing is a way to participate in and interact with that energy.

Because such interaction is somewhat challenging, having the right surfboard for the waves at hand can be very important, and for this every surfer should talk to a human shaper who can actually shape the board to the surfer and the types of waves and surfing that he wants. While the author of this blog only surfs in secret, undisclosed locations, he unreservedly recommends the surfboard crafting skills of California shaper Paul Finley of Sojourner Surfboards for this important task.

Above is a photo of the author of the Mathisen Corollary after a surf session at a secret undisclosed location. While this particular board is one he shaped himself, it has a glassing job by Sojourner which has held up to years of abusive treatment by the author in the water. Not only that, but Sojourner glass seems to possess a special property which causes even choppy water conditions to become perfectly smooth, glassy and rideable (but only in the immediate vicinity of the board with the glassing in question).













Further, Sojourner has an awesome blog with images and videos of the sophisticated and forward-looking boards that Paul designs (and the classic boards he makes as well).

While Sojourner is located in Morro Bay, California, it is quite likely that Paul would be happy to craft a personal board for you even if you live in Rapa Nui.

You owe it to yourself to check out a Sojourner surfboard.

The Septuagint

In a previous post explaining the concept behind the precessional numbers, I wrote that "once one becomes aware of the precessional numbers, they turn up in the most surprising places."

One surprising place that illustrates this assertion is the tradition surrounding the first translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. This translation became known as the Septuagint (often abbreviated as "the LXX") and it was an extremely important and influential translation from its origin in the first half of the 3rd century BC all the way up to the modern period (and is still preferred by the Orthodox Church as a source for Old Testament Scripture).

Most scholars agree that the earliest part of the Hebrew Scriptures translated into Greek was the Torah (the Law of Moses or the Pentateuch), and it is around this earliest translation that the tradition of the original translators is centered, as well as being the source of the title "Septuagint."

According to the Talmud (in the first section of the Tractate Megillah), the first translation into Greek was done by order of King Ptolemy II (309 BC - 246 BC), who reigned with and then after his father Ptolemy I, one of Alexander the Great's generals and his successor to the portion of Alexander's empire centered on Egypt after Alexander's death.

He designed a test whereby 72 elders from Jerusalem were summoned, placed into 72 separate rooms so that they could not collaborate, and ordered to translate the Torah from memory into Greek. By a miracle, all of them translated the Hebrew into Greek the exact same way. Other ancient sources add that the 72 elders accomplished the task in 72 days. From this tradition, the translation was called "the Septuagint," meaning "the Seventy" (a shorthand version of "the translation of the seventy").

The repetition of the number 72, one of the most fundamental and important precessional numbers, is startling. Whatever one thinks of the story itself (whether one believes it took place that way or not, and whether or not miraculous intervention was involved), it is quite clear that the ancient sources took care to repeat the number 72 in order to call attention to its significance.

The incorporation of this precessional number into the tradition of the Septuagint translation is all the more startling because conventional history teaches that precession was not even noticed until the meticulous work of Hipparchus of Nicea, who lived from about 190 BC to 128 BC (perhaps to 120 BC), and who probably did not discover it until close to his death (some scholars believe this crowning achievement came in the year 126 BC). The original translation of the Septuagint, on the other hand, took place before 250 BC (Ptolemy II died in 246 BC).

While it is of course possible that the legendary aspects of the translation and the insistence on the number 72 came later than that, the tradition and number of the translators is referred to in an ancient text called the Letter of Aristeas whose author purports to be a courtier of Ptolemy II writing contemporaneously to the actual translation, but which has been shown to have been written some eighty to a hundred thirty years later, between 170 BC to 130 BC. Nevertheless, this date clearly puts it before the achievement of Hipparchus and raises the question as to the presence of an important precessional number in the tradition of a miraculous translation of the Torah.

While some modern scholars have argued that the traditions surrounding the translation of the Septuagint were invented to try to raise that translation to prominence over other competing translations in the second century BC, this argument does reduce the significance of the use of a precessional number. In fact, this interpretation adds to the mystery, because it means that the choice of that significant number (which also shows up in the most foundational Egyptian myth of Osiris, Set, and Horus) may have carried some authority with certain groups who were also familiar with its importance.

Others might argue that the number 72 was simply a coincidence, in that six elders were chosen as representatives of each of the twelve tribes of Israel. However, the possibility that it is a coincidence is diminished by the fact that Ptolemy reigned over the Egyptian portion of Alexander's empire, where the number 72 had great significance (from the Osiris mythology), as well as by the repetition of the number in the description of the event, as well as by the tradition that the translation was accomplished in 72 days (which cannot be explained by any connection to the twelve tribes of Israel).

Not only that, but Hebrew Scripture and tradition clearly teach that many of the twelve tribes (most commonly ten) were lost after the captivity events that took place hundreds of years earlier (around 720 BC by some accounts -- a date which of course contains the very same precessional number we are discussing!). Thus the simple explanation that the Septuagint's 72 elders represented six elders per tribe and had nothing to do with any other significant numbers is historically difficult to maintain.

It is also a fact that precessional numbers appear in the Hebrew Scriptures themselves, including in the book of Numbers (part of the Pentateuch) and thus to argue that the significance of these numbers was unknown at that time is not plausible (I discuss some of these examples towards the end of the Mathisen Corollary, following some of the detective work by the tireless and extremely insightful Martin Doutré).

I have not seen anyone else discuss the precessional significance of the numbers involved in the tradition of the translation of the Septuagint, but it is possible that someone else has noticed it (although the significance of precessional numbers is often completely overlooked, and so this connection may have escaped attention until now).

Either way, this example proves my assertion that, once you understand the precessional numbers and their significance, you might find that they pop up when you least expect them.

Gaps and biases

One thing readers of the Mathisen Corollary should realize is that the author does not have expertise in every area of study related to ancient civilization, astronomy, geology, mythology, or anything else.

It is impossible for anyone to be an expert in everything, and every author necessarily comes from a unique background that will have areas of relative strength and weakness based on areas of academic specialization, life and work experience, places that author has lived and visited so far, and the work of other authors and researchers where that author has focused most.

Similarly, every individual comes with a certain set of biases related to beliefs and convictions acquired through life experience, upbringing, education, personality and disposition, religious views, and other aspects of being human.

Since no human is perfect, the work of every human author you encounter will necessarily have these gaps and biases. On the other hand, every individual also has unique strengths, skills, and life experiences that no one else has, and therefore brings something to the conversation that no one else can bring.

It is important to keep these obvious facts in mind when it comes to the quest for the truth about mankind's ancient past and the history of the planet. One author will -- by disposition, training and experience -- be able to throw light on one aspect of the mystery in a way that another author cannot, while the second author can likewise uncover threads of the tapestry that the first author could not see.

Rather than getting frustrated at any one contributor's personal gaps and biases, we should realize that everyone has a unique perspective to bring to the conversation, and that the more perspectives that are brought to bear on the problem, the more opportunity we all will have to discover the real solution to the mystery.

In this case, perhaps, the Scooby Doo analogy might actually be better than the Sherlock Holmes analogy, in that the gang of teenagers each had their own strengths and weaknesses that contributed to the solution of the mystery, and it was usually the pair with the biggest biases (mainly a bias towards avoiding trouble and finding food) that ended up inadvertently uncovering the answer.

While the standard set by the polymath Sherlock Holmes is certainly worth striving to emulate, in reality the better way to bring deep expertise spanning many disciplines to bear on the question of mankind's ancient past is to inspire more people to enter the conversation. This is what I attempted to convey in the final sentence of my introduction to the Mathisen Corollary, where I wrote:

"While no human book has all the answers, and all will contain some mistakes, it is hoped that the examination which follows will stimulate more detectives to examine the fascinating case of man's ancient past."

This, dear reader, means you. As Victor Laszlo says to Rick (two characters who each had their own strengths and weaknesses, gaps and biases) in the classic screenplay Casablanca, "Welcome back to the fight: this time I know our side will win."

Alien astronauts more plausible than evolution and conventional theories of mankind's past

There is so much anomalous evidence from human archaeology that almost any alternative theory you can come up with makes more sense than the conventional theory that is taught in schools. I believe that this observation goes a long way towards explaining the abundance of "alternative theories" for mankind's ancient past.

One large family of alternative theories, of course, involves ancient alien visitors. Some of these theories allege that ancient aliens from other planets or star systems visited earth and were instrumental in teaching primitive humans to stop behaving like animals and to begin raising crops and forming civilizations. Some of these theories even credit the aliens with performing genetic alterations on apes or other species in order to create humans in the first place. Some of these theories argue that the flat-topped pyramids found around the world functioned as alien landing-platforms where alien ships came down to retrieve human and animal sacrifices for their nourishment or other purposes.

While I do not subscribe to such alien theories, I would in fact argue that they are more plausible than the storyline put forward by conventional academia! It is easier to believe some of the scenarios outlined above than it is to believe that, after tens of thousands of years of hunter-gathering, mankind suddenly created in rather short order the civilizations of Old Sumeria, Bablyon, and ancient Egypt and started authoring myths that dealt with the subtle astronomical phenomenon of the precession of the equinoxes with a high degree of precision (higher than that achieved thousands of years later by Hipparchus and Ptolemy), and building massive structures that related to the equatorial circumfrence of the spherical earth by a ratio that incorporated a significant precessional number!

I have argued that the reason academia vehemently rejects the extensive evidence of a highly advanced ancient civilization and the possibility of a catastrophic explanation for geology can be found in an a priori commitment to Darwinian evolution, which the entire modern educational edifice is founded upon and which is therefore seen as a dogma that must be defended at all costs.

And yet the problems with the Darwinian theory are so thorny that even the most articulate defender of Darwinian orthodoxy, evolutionary biologist and academic Dr. Richard Dawkins, has famously had to resort to the alien explanation when pressed on some of the more difficult details of biological origins.

In this famous exchange with actor, political science professor and economist Ben Stein, Dawkins admits to being ignorant of the mechanism by which the first self-replicating molecule could have arisen (and points out that so is everyone else). This is a major gap in the Darwinian theory, because the Darwinian mechanism relies upon mutations and natural selection plus vast amounts of time (the requirement for vast amounts of time being the source of their vitriolic rejection of catastrophic geological theories).

In order to have both mutations and natural selection, one must first have self-replicating molecules (such as DNA and RNA). The origin of such molecules, however, is a problem, because a Darwinist cannot very well argue that self-replicating molecules arose through either mutation or natural selection (since those processes require self-replicating molecules). Dawkins knows this, and explains quite honestly that it is a huge problem.

Because the origin of self-replicating molecules is such a problem, Dawkins appeals to aliens in the above interview in response to Stein's dogged questioning on the subject. The conversation went like this:

Dawkins: Nobody knows how it got started; we know the kind of event it must have been – we know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.

Stein: And what was that?

Dawkins: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.

Stein: Right. And how did that happen?

Dawkins: I’ve told you: we don’t know.

Stein: So you have no idea how it started.

Dawkins: No, no. Nor has anybody.

Stein: Nor has anyone else. What do you think is the possibility that intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution?

Dawkins: It could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by -- probably some kind of Darwinian means – to a very, very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto, perhaps, this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility, and I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer. And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe – but that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable, process. It couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously: that’s the point.

In other words, Richard Dawkins pushes the problem of the origin of self-replicating molecules off on aliens who "seeded" earth with them. He is quick to point out that such aliens of course must have come about via Darwinian evolution, but does not appear to notice that this line of argument only pushes the problem of the origin of the first self-replicating molecule back by some period of time and to some other star system or galaxy. It does not solve the question of how a self-replicating molecule could have come about at all!

Nevertheless, he finishes with the declaration that the alien civilization "couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously: that's the point." And yet he pretty much leaves us with an explanation that is just as useful as saying that these aliens did in fact jump into existence spontaneously, since he gives us no idea how their evolution could have gotten started. If the origin of the first self-replicating molecule on earth is so hard to explain that it required aliens to bring them from somewhere else, then how do we explain a self-replicating molecule in those aliens' early evolution? Perhaps those aliens were seeded by some other, even more ancient, advanced alien civilization from yet another star system, who also evolved rather than "jumping into existence spontaneously."

It's hard not to feel some sympathy for Dr. Dawkins here, because he is in fact faced with a dilemma, and that is the fact that ancient alien visitation is more plausible than the storyline that we feed children (and college students) in schools. This statement is just as true of the storyline we feed them about the origins of ancient civilizations as it is of the storyline we feed them about the origin of species.

What are cross-quarter days?

Here's a little "back of the napkin" sketch of the sun's rising points as it marches north and south along the eastern horizon between the two solstices each year.

Imagine yourself high up in the air, looking down upon an obelisk which acts as a gnomon to cast a shadow upon the ground throughout the day as the sun makes its way across the sky. Perhaps you'd like to imagine that your obelisk is the one from the Temple of Karnak in Egypt shown below.

























The obelisk in the sketch above looks like a square (because you are looking straight down on it) and it is shaded light blue. The sun will rise over the horizon in the east and move through the sky during the day towards the west (as the earth rotates towards the east, causing objects in the sky to appear to move in the opposite direction, just as a billboard seen from a car will appear to move backwards when the car is driving forwards). The path of the sun is depicted by dotted lines -- the arc of the sun's progress tilts at a slightly different angle each day because the earth is moving around the sun throughout the year, changing the angle we see the sun from our spot on the spinning earth. The shadow of the obelisk is depicted pointing west as the sun rises, one shadow for the summer solstice sunrise and another for the winter solstice sunrise.

Due to the tilt of the earth against the plane of the ecliptic (explained in more detail with more diagrams in the Mathisen Corollary), the position that the sun rises along the eastern horizon will move throughout the year. In the northern hemisphere (the obelisk at Karnak is at 25 degrees north latitude), the axis of the north pole will be most directly tilted towards the sun when the earth is at summer solstice, the point in its path that we call June 21 (our calendar slips a bit from year to year, but the leap years tend to keep our calendar date of June 21 close to the point when the earth is at the summer solstice). The sun will then rise at the most northern point that it ever gets along the eastern horizon (as shown in the diagram above by the most northern dotted arc, labeled "summer solstice").

Conversely, when earth reaches a point at which the north pole is tilted as far away from the sun as it ever gets (at December 21), the sun will rise as far south as it ever rises, and trace a different arc in the sky (shown above and labeled "winter solstice").

These arcs are drawn to depict the fact that the sun makes a much steeper arc through the sky on the summer solstice and a much flatter path on the winter solstice. Another way of describing this would be to imagine that each of these paths of the sun is a paper plate projecting from the flat surface below. The sun would travel along the outer edge of the plate. The summer solstice plate would be much more vertical and the winter solstice plate more horizontal, with its edge much more towards the south. An arrow or a pencil through these plates pointing towards the north pole (around which the entire sky turns) would be pointed much more towards the top of the diagram at the summer solstice and much more towards the viewer of the diagram at the winter solstice.

At the latitude of Karnak (25^o north), the summer solstice sun will rise from a position along the horizon such that north will be 64^o to the left of an azimuth shot from an observer towards the sun as it peeks over the eastern horizon. By winter solstice, the sun will rise so much further to the south that north will be 116^o to the left of an azimuth shot by an observer towards the sun from the same point at Karnak at sunrise.

Back and forth the sun will move through the year, from one solstice to the other, as the earth goes around the sun between the two points on its orbit. Between each solstice, the sun will pass through the equinox position, on the days we call March 21 and September 22 each year. This will be the same point on the horizon because the sun will either pass it on its way north to the summer solstice (in the case of the spring equinox in March) or on its way back south to the winter solstice (in the case of the fall equinox in September). On either of these days, the sun will rise due east, and an observer sighting the sun's rise will know that north is exactly 90^o to his left.

As an aside, it may appear that the sun's shadow will draw lines either north or south of the gnomon-obelisk, but in the northern hemisphere above the tropics these shadows will always be to the north of the gnomon. They actually make a curved line in order to accomplish this feat, which you can visualize by thinking about the tilt of the "paper plates" described above. Because the summer solstice arc is very steep, the shadow line will come very close to the gnomon (but always to the north of it) as the sun goes overhead. Conversely, in the winter, when the paper plate is much flatter to the page of our sketch, the line of the shadow will be much further to the north of the gnomon.

The ancients recognized the solstices and equinoxes and paid great attention to them in the alignment of their megalithic monuments and temples. However, they also aligned monuments and temples to dates known as the "cross-quarter days" which are in between the solstices and the equinoxes. These additional dates can be counted off starting from the spring equinox on the way to the summer solstice: the date between the March 21 spring equinox and the June 21 summer solstice is the important cross-quarter date of May 6 (today!). There is evidence that some ancient cultures began their year with this date, and also marked it as the start of summer. In the British Isles this cross-quarter day was called Beltane.

On May 6 at the latitude of Karnak, an observer looking at the sunrise could find north by going 72^o to his left. From there, the sun continues its march to the summer solstice position, and then after a pause begins to move back towards the south. Before reaching the equinox position again, it will pass again through the point at which north would be 72^o left of the rising sun (where it was on Beltane). It would pass that point around the day our calendars reach August 8th, another cross-quarter day.

From there, the sun would reach the fall or autumnal equinox on September 22, and continue on towards the winter solstice. Before it got there, however, it would pass through another cross-quarter day, on November 8. Now the sun would rise from a point on the horizon from which north would be 108^o to the left.

From here, of course, the sun would continue on to the winter solstice. After a short pause, it would turn around again and proceed back to the north. It would pass through position at which north would be left 108^o on February 4 or so on our modern calendar. Moving on, it would reach the spring equinox (rising due east again) on March 21, and proceed to the cross-quarter day of Beltane where we started this tour.

In centuries past, important festivals took place on the cross-quarter days, although for simplicity they were moved to the first days of the month (May 1 instead of May 6, or November 1 instead of November 8).

An excellent explanation of the cross-quarter days can be found in Martin Brennan's the Stars and the Stones, which illustrates the alignment of the passage mounds of the Boyne River in Ireland with the sun's rising (and sometimes setting) on different days for different mounds (some equinoctial, some solstitial, and others with cross-quarter days).

The late Barry Fell demonstrated that similar megalithic passages in North America were also aligned with solstices, equinoxes and cross-quarter days in America BC. He argued for the alignment of one megalithic chamber and gnomon in the Mystery Hill (now rebranded as "America's Stonehenge" in a marketing effort) site in New Hampshire with the sun's rise on Beltane, and argued convincingly that the grooves carved at that particular site were an early form of Ogham indicating a dedication to the sun-deity Bel.

There is some evidence, discussed in the Mathisen Corollary, that not all the ancients who established markers and observatories worshiped as deities the heavenly objects they were marking out, but instead were observing them scientifically just as we do today. There is a tension in many ancient writings between those who would worship these heavenly objects and those who worshiped the one who set them all in motion in the first place.

In any event, you now know the astronomical significance of May 6 and the other cross-quarter days.