There are a number of substantial blog entries that are slowly being worked on, so this is just offering some footnotes on certain interests. I haven’t written about the personal impact of Ray Harryhausen as a child, but he captured the imagination of several generations of filmmakers, visual effects artists, and his work with producer Charles Schneer built up a body of iconic work. After recently reviewing my copy of First Men In The Moon, I realized that I had forgotten that Nigel Kneale, who’s work with the Quartermass series remains legend, was the co-screen writer for that film. Someone whom I had been in contact with in the past, Tim Lucas, has written the best piece as to why Harryhausen’s work was so important.
On another point: Someone had recently uploaded on You Tube the full movie of Starship Invasions (1977), a Canadian production that starred Christopher Lee and Robert Vaughn. One does get the feeling that these actors were sort of slumming it by appearing in this film. But for those interested in the UFO phenomenon, the film referenced a number of UFO iconoclasts that were prevalent in the real world culture at the time. Enjoy it while it lasts, as I suspect copyright issues will force it to be pulled down soon enough.
This month also represents another milestone: the release in late May, 1977 of George Lucas’s Star Wars. The San Francisco Chronicle wrote up several pieces about the film’s impact on Bay area audiences in 1977. I was a part of that generation that was at the right age to see that film. I fear that contemporary readers in this day and age do not understand the visceral impact, or have forgotten about the visceral impact that Star Wars had on a certain generation. I mean that impact was seismic, and drove a lot of people to want to get into film, the arts, or the sciences. John Wasserman’s review correctly sized up the film, acknowledging that “The Force” was in essence, God. The article by Peter Hartlaub accurately depicts seeing the film at the Coronet Theatre in 70 MM, in six track Dolby. I was one of those people that would gladly wear a “I was there, May, 1977” badge. When I write seismic, I would liken it to The Beatles on Ed Sullivan for our generation; it was that great of a shift in the psyche of a lot of young people. The article is also interesting with the portrait that is painted, sans the historical revisionism that has occurred with Star Wars, and now that we are entering into the post-Lucas era, I fear we will see a lot more revisionism under the Disney machine.
Lastly, this brings up some unpleasant thoughts about the new Star Trek: Into Darkness film. There isn’t any other way to put this, but I had some real problems with the second half of the film. While I had no problems with a reimaging of the “Space Seed” story arc, and really liked the 2009 film, I felt the overt quotes from The Wrath of Khan used in the film seemed lazy on the part of the writers. Many of the quotes seemed out of context in relation to the aim of the story. I was left with the impression that the writers weren’t as clever as they believed they were, and I could not tell if the writers and J.J. Abrams weren’t demonstrating a real contempt for the viewing audience, and to long-term Star Trek fans. It’s true that Nicholas Meyer did not view Star Trek as a sacred cow back when he helmed ST II: The Wrath of Khan, but having met Nic Meyer, in spite of his high intelligence, I never felt he had contempt for the fans, nor the viewing public. This is a real problem for the film, and now that word of mouth is circling, this might explain the weaker box office than expected. I appreciate that J.J. Abrams has expressed real admiration for The X-Files, but some things have to be said, and the attitude with certain sites to not criticize Abrams and view him as ‘one of us’ as a self-professed genre geek, really must stop. By many accounts, Abrams has always been a Hollywood insider, and has professed to not liking 60s Star Trek, as he sees it as being a little too talky and cerebral. I see too many fan sites that are tying themselves in knots trying to defend Abrams on this film, and it’s a great disservice for all.
While there has been a certain level of cynicism that has developed within Hollywood genre blockbusters, when filmmakers start to develop contempt for the viewers, the worm indeed turns. Harryhausen captured that sense of wonder--even an exploitation genre film like Starship Invasions had a certain naïve, but flawed charm--and Star Wars shared the same enthusiasm, reconnecting with the past, while moving forward with innovation. Something seems to be lost with some of the new generations of genre filmmakers. If Abrams sees Star Trek as too high minded, how could he not see The X-Files in the same way?
This is why I have such misgivings with Abrams being involved with any X-Files reimaging, if such rumors persist.
Special thanks to XScribe for editorial assistance.
What I've seen, I've seen because I wanted to believe. I…if you look too hard, you can go mad… but if you continue to look, you become liberated, And you become awake, as if from a dream…
- Fox Mulder (Patient X, Season 5)
One of the inherent problems with people who explore these areas is the risk of accepting anything at face value, without one’s own inquiry. This has been a concern I have brought up previously. One should have a filter, discern, and accept that if there is enough forensic evidence that something isn’t necessarily true, then it probably isn’t. Why would the subject of crystal skulls hold such appeal? Actually, I think I understand the appeal. Archeologists keep making enough discoveries about ancient civilizations that end up altering our assumptions of those cultures–there are some known gaps in history that haven’t been explained–and it would demonstrate a hubris for any scientist or archeologists to assume that an ancient culture wasn’t more advanced. I don’t mean in the industrialized sense, as we have come to know it, but in the sense of cultures that had knowledge that we only ascribe to coming from western culture. The curiosity with Crystal Skulls speaks to a suspicion many share–that many conventional scientists aren’t giving the public the whole story, or that scientists are so blinded by their own assumptions, or hubris, they ignore data that is right in front of them.
We left the previous piece with the origin of the Mitchell-Hedges skull in question, that the origin had been cited in an anthropological journal which connected it to an art dealer named Sydney Burney, and the fact that Norman Hammond had failed to mention the crystal skull in his book about Lubaantum, which he had excavated, and had argued that the crystal skull had nothing to do with Lubaantum, and had noted “I have always thought it is most likely a memento mori–something designed to remind us that we all must die–of sixteenth to eighteenth century origin. While a Renaissance origin is not improbable, given the sheer size of the rock crystal block involved, manufacture in Quing-dynasty China for a European client cannot be ruled out.” Sotheby’s records show that Sydney Burney had put up the skull for auction in 1943, but since no one had bid no more than 340 pounds for it, Burney kept it, and it was apparently sold to Mitchell-Hedges in 1944 for 400 pounds.
Mitchell-Hedges on one of his expeditions.
Matters were further complicated when Joe Nickell pressed Anna Mitchell-Hedges about the story. She had explained that the skull had been left for security to Burney for a loan to finance an expedition, and that Burney had no right to offer the skull for sale. Yet there was no scrap of evidence to prove that the skull was in the possession of Mitchell-Hedges before 1944. Furthermore, a letter from Sydney Burney, dated March, 21 1933 to someone at the American Museum of Natural History declared that before Burney owned it, the skull was in the possession of the collector from whom Burney bought it, and before that, in the collection of an Englishmen. These disappointing details would confirm the “Mystery” of the skull as a hoax. Yet considering that, less crafted skulls in the British Museum are generally accepted as genuine; for example, the skull found at the Museum Of Man, near Piccadilly Circus in London was purchased from the New York Jeweler Tiffany in 1998 for 120 pounds.
Frank Dorland’s research helped to conclude that the skull was likely a religious object, its purpose was connected to divination, and it was probably kept on an alter. He was informed by friends of Mitchell-Hedges that the skull was brought back from the holy land by the Knights Templar during the crusades, and that it was kept in their inner sanctum in London until it found its way onto the antiques market. Due to the phenomenal success of the Knights Templar from 1118 until their demise in 1307 under the orders of King Philip IV of France who ordered mass arrests and executions, it is likely, due to their practice of ritual magic, as noted by scholars, the Mitchell-Hedges skull might have been one of their many treasures. Yet it will never be known, as King Philip never succeeded in getting his hands on their fabled ‘treasures’ if such a skull was part of their rituals.
Anna Mitchell-Hedges had claimed the skull held mystical properties, and in the seven years that Dorland conducted his research, he did describe hearing sounds of “high-pitched silver bells,” and sounds like an “a capella choir.” Furthermore, Dorland stated, while staring into the skull he saw “…images of other skulls, high mountains, fingers, and faces.” While this could be autosuggestion, the mystical aspects were reinforced by some proponents during a visit from “Satanist” Anton LaVey who called on Dorland with the help of an Oakland, CA newspaper. He visited Dorland, staying so late that the skull was not placed back in its safe deposit box. That night, there were many strange sounds that kept Dorland and his wife awake. When they got up to investigate, they found nothing, yet the next morning they found many of their belongings displaced, and objects moved across the room. Of course some could argue that LaVey, a notorious opportunist, could have engineered the incident to validate the skull had a “satanic” connection. But Dorland had offered his own theory about the incident – that LeVey’s ‘vibes’ and those of the skull conflicted, producing physical effects. This would reinforce Rupert Sheldrake’s morphic resonance argument, a kind of telepathy that Sheldrake believed has always played an active part in evolution. It needs to be noted that skeptics like Joe Nickell and Robert T. Carroll have dismissed Frank Dorland as a mere crystal carver, and freelance art restorer.
Further questions.
Of course, the rest of the story, to cite Paul Harvey, is complicated when you consider the pro and con mechanizations to declare the “Mitchell-Hedges” skull as a ‘hoax,’ as well as efforts that skirt the issue if the Mayan and Aztec cultures could have been more advanced than archeologists generally assume, a hubris of some scholars that one should be vigilant when accessing the merits of this case. It should be noted that Erich von Daniken’s ‘ancient astronaut’ argument in the case of the Mayans and Aztecs also demonstrates a kind of hubris in fairness–there could be a middle ground over how advanced these Pre-Columbian cultures were.
Believers in the idea that the skulls had a connection to Atlantis, in part based this assumption on maps that place Atlantis between the Americas and Europe, as well as psychic comments from Edgar Cayce that described cities in Atlantis being controlled by crystal technology.
Joe Nickell(1) has cited the work of Ian Freestone, which had concluded the skull was likely a fake, apparently fashioned from a lump of poor quality Brazilian crystal. The skull’s cutting and polishing was done at a lapidary in nineteen-century Europe, and the work of Jane Walsh, an archivist at the Smithsonian, who found documents showing that two of the known crystal skulls were sold to the same man, a French collector of Pre-Columbian artifacts, Eugene Boban. The British Museum purchased its skull from Tiffany’s and in turn, which had bought it from Boban. It has also been argued that a possible source for many of the crystal skulls was the renowned gemstone center of Idar and Oberstein in Germany. Scholars have noted that the area underwent a resurgence in the1870s with the shipment of Quartz crystals from Brazil.
While one has to accept these points as likely, I have noted that many skeptics cite Joe Nickell’s work as gospel, or regurgitate Walsh’s and Freestone’s work. I opted to do my own inquiry to help answer several salient questions; could the Aztecs or Mayans have had the skills, Pre-Columbian, to craft with quartz such equivalent skulls? Was there any evidence beyond Pre-Columbian work with ceramics that these cultures were sculpting with quartz? While Mitchell-Hedges’s credibility is questionable, why the overwhelming effort to question the credibility of Eugene Boban, Frank Dorland, and others who have done their own research?
My first efforts were to inquire to an archeology professor about these questions. I found a Professor emeritus from Berkeley’s Anthropology department, 20-years-retired John Graham, that offered some interesting comments about the Mitchell-Hedges skull. Noting that “The Mitchell-Hedges crystal skull is an impressive object of splendid craftsmanship.” The professor further noted that it was in the hands of a Marin County dealer many years ago, and was brought to the professor on several occasions in the hopes of authenticating the piece. He added, “To the best of my knowledge there isn’t even the most minimal evidence of any kind to support a claim of pre-Columbian New World origins.” Personally, he observed he has read Mitchell-Hedges’s publications, and concluded that “the man fabricated all sorts of ridiculous claims for sensational purposes and personal aggrandizement.” The professor also noted that the skull had been examined from a technical standpoint by various reputable specialists, and as far as he was aware, the evidence pointed to a comparatively modern origin. I wasn’t able to pose further inquiries to the professor regarding other nagging questions about the issue of pre-Columbian artisans, and had to look further on my own.
My speculation and question has been: Could such work have been produced by superheating blocks of quartz into a oval shape, then shaping the details while cooling?
Quartz crystal melts at 1670 degrees. The most cited civilizations that might have had the means to melt, and have found a way to melt such crystal is Egypt. The most common explanation would be the use of copper saws and fine sand combinations for cutting granite and marble. One anonymous scholar who’s an expert in Mesoamerica, noted that stone construction was usually made of limestone. Another scholar noted that Peru used harder stones: In the Inca capital of Cusco they used stone like andesitic or metamorphosed basalt. Kiln temperatures, for example, in the Peruvian Andes dating from around 800-700 (Middle Cupisnique Period), Batan Grande, ranged between 650 to 800 degrees, which comparatively makes it not likely that the Aztecs or Mayans had the means to melt quartz crystal blocks to the necessary temperatures,(2) which also makes the argument difficult that Pre-Columbian cultures could have had the means to craft such large scale crystal work.
Yet, some conclusions might not be so cut-and-dried when you consider examples of Pre-Columbian work that used crystal. One example would be an Aztec crystal ear spool, and another would be a Huari mosaic mirror circa 650-800 A.D.(3) Nevertheless, there have been arguments that the melting of quartz could have been achieved through the use of mirrors and sunlight as suggested by some. However, researcher Mark Chorvinsky has cited other examples (4) that demonstrate that Pre-Columbians had the skills to manufacture objects out of hard quartz crystal.
There’s a process of elimination that one has to evaluate within the conventional argument that such quartz crystal would have had to come from the mountains of Brazil. There is evidence the Mayans were a seafaring nation,(5) and when you consider that geographically the nations of the Aztecs and Mayans overlap with the continent of Brazil, it becomes plausible that trading routes(6) had been established that would have granted access to the quartz in question.
Philip Coppins (7) has been highly critical of the conventional thinking by most archeologists that the origins of most crystal skulls (8) were post-Columbian. He has argued that most crystal skulls are likely to have originated in Central America and may have performed an important role in re-enacting Mayan creation myths. He has disputed Freestone’s arguments that such artifacts were 19th century European in origin, and has pointed out that Freestone has acknowledged that it doesn’t amount to cast-iron proof. He has also disputed Jane Walsh’s conclusions, pointing out that the skull at the Museum Of Man–Musee de I’Homme–was sold by Boban. Boban was a controversial collector of Pre-Columbian artifacts who ran his business between 1860 to 1880. Though Boban is indeed likely to have placed the skull at Tiffany’s for auction, there was no hard evidence. He disputes her argument that the skulls’ manufacture were German in origin.
“Though Boban was indeed a controversial figure, he was, of course, no different from all the other operators on the antiquities markets in those days–some of whom made deals for treasures such as the Rosetta Stone or the Elgin Marbles that continue to upset entire nations from which they were "exported."
However, there is no evidence–not even circumstantial–that Boban sourced these skulls from Germany. It is logical to conclude that, as Boban operated in Mexico, he may have acquired the skulls in Mexico. It would be completely logical to assume that if they are Aztec in origin, they were offered on the Mexico City antiques market where Boban picked them up. It is the most logical scenario, yet academics seem to prefer the modern German fabrication theory for which there is no evidence. Why? Perhaps they prefer to label them as fakes so as to evade potential claims from Mexican authorities?”
This raises an interesting point; could there be efforts to evade Mexican authorities, or to conclude such items are post-Columbian to skirt around the narrative that suggests that Pre-Columbian cultures could have been more advanced than assumed? Coppin has further argued that Walsh and her colleagues have presented Boban as a charlatan, yet they have failed to report that Boban had owned genuinely ancient artifacts, had written a scientific study–“Documents To Serve The History of Mexico”--and led his own crusade against frauds, such as in 1881 when he spoke out against forgeries that were being made in the suburbs of Mexico City. Coppin also noted that the source for questioning Boban’s credibility came from a single source, a competitor named Wilson Wilberforce Blake. Coppin argues that no clear evidence exists to question Boban’s credibility and that Blake attempted a smear campaign as he was after Boban’s share of the marketplace.
Another silent point that Coppin has made regarding archeological testing that proves such skulls were post-Columbian in origin is as follows:
The problem of the crystal skulls is that they are made of crystal. Quartz crystal does not age; it does not corrode, erode, decay, or change in any way with time. It cannot be carbon-dated. A skull could be hundreds if not thousands of years old, yet still look as if it was made yesterday–and vice versa. Hence, other means of dating had to be devised, and so evidence of skulls having been polished with wheels has become the key determinant of whether they are modern/post-Columbian or "genuine" archaeological artifacts.
While Coppins reviews the new age argument, that such skulls were the constructions of extra-terrestrials, or the remnants of a lost civilization read as Atlantis, or the claim that the skulls’ origin is German, he points out a fourth option: that many of the skulls were indeed pre-Columbian. He cites one skull owned by Norma Redo, as a skull that supports a large crucifix, showing similar “evidence” of wheelwork:
From his analysis, archaeologist Dr. Andrew Rankin argued that the skull was sculpted from the same crystal as that of the crystal goblet from tomb no. 7 at Monte Albán, which is an uncontested archaeological find. Furthermore, the 1571 hallmark on the crucifix is also deemed to be genuine, thus in general excluding the likelihood that this skull is of 19th century European fabrication. In short, this hard evidence confirms what Michael Coe has argued: that the Mayans apparently do seem to have been able to work with crystal...
Further pointing out that in the mid-19th century, English archeologist Sir John Layard excavated the remains of Babylon and Nineveh, where in 1850, during the excavation of the throne room of Assyrian King Sargon II’s place, he discovered a lens that was dated 721-705 BC, and it is considered to be the first used–or found–convex lens. It is indeed extraordinary that such high technology was used in the 8th century BC. As pointed out by Coppins, most archeologists continue to deny the existence of such lenses, or a recent find in the Idaean Cave in Crete of two rock crystal lenses of good optical quality, suggesting that the use of such lenses was widespread throughout the middle east and Mediterranean basin over several Millennia.
Taking into account some of these points, while Mike Mitchell-Hedges might not be credible, the question of the credibility of a number of crystal skulls might not be so easy to conclude. Aside from the argument that their origin was tied to Atlantis or ancient astronauts, it is possible that certain cultures deemed not on par with ancient western based civilizations, could have been more advanced than assumed (9). We simply don’t have concrete evidence as of yet, to alter the assumptions about certain Pre-Columbian New World cultures, but indeed gaps in history continue to surface from time to time that shake the foundations of what is known.
The point of this exercise was to encourage the reader to do their own investigative inquiry on any given subject, and not just passively accept anything from single sources.
The truth of the Mitchell-Hedges skull might not be what many want to hear, but it could be the starting point to raise legitimate questions about the level of technical skills and advances that predominated Ancient civilizations, and how the demise of such cultures could be a learning tool for our future.
Special thanks to XScribe for editorial proofing.
Special thank you to Professor John Graham for his generous attention.
In 1962, Donald Seaman, a journalist for the Daily Express, who was writing a book about espionage, came across a photograph of the recently convicted spy, Gordon Lonsdale, that showed him posing with two middle-aged women. Careful research revealed that one of the women was Anna Mitchell-Hedges. Curious to find out what she was doing with a spy, Seaman contacted her at her home in Reading and went to see her, accompanied by a photographer. The story behind the photo proved to be innocent enough; it had been taken at an historic castle, where she and her friend had fallen into a conversation with the man who would later prove to be the center of the Portland spy case. She hadn’t seen Lonsdale since then.
Anna asked, perhaps out of guilt for their wasted visit, if they would like to see the “Skull of Doom.” Being that nether of them had heard of it, she escorted them to the master bedroom, and while groping under the bed, pulled out a large cabbage-sized object wrapped in newspaper. They followed her back to the sitting room where she unwrapped it and placed it on the table, a nearly life-sized skull that seemed to be made of polished diamond. In the dim light it had a greenish hue, as if lit from inside or from underneath. Its lower jaw moved like that of a human jaw. Anna told them that this was the “skull of doom” found in a Mayan temple in 1927 by adventurer Albert Mitchell-Hedges, thus beginning a strange tale.
It has been described as a fearsome skull, weighing 11 pounds 7 ounces (5.19 kilograms), carved of pure quartz crystal. Its eyes are prisms and some believe the future and the past appear in them. Its owner believed it came from a lost civilization. The skull had belonged to Mitchell-Hedges, born in 1882, and upon his death in 1959, was passed onto his ward, Anna, who was born in 1910. She had claimed to have initially discovered it, according to her own account:
“I did see the skull first–or I saw something shinning and called my father–it was his expedition, and we all helped to carefully move the stones. I was let [allowed to] pick it up because I had seen it first.”
This discovery was made during a South American expedition to the Mayan city of Lubaantun, meaning ‘place of fallen stones’, in the British Honduras. It was found, apparently, underneath the alter in the ruins of a Mayan temple. The date she had given for this find was 1924, which would conflict with the later date when she claimed the discovery was made on her seventeenth birthday. She had found the upper part of the skull and she revealed that the jaw was found three months later under rubble, twenty-five feet away. She further told Seamen that in 1927, her adopted father had been looking for treasure buried by the pirate Henry Morgan in 1671. Mitchell-Hedges was convinced that the remains of the lost civilization of Atlantis were located within Lubaantun. After her father died in 1959, Anna wanted to return to Honduras to look for Morgan’s treasure, and in order to raise the funds, she was willing to sell the skull, as well as a drinking mug that had been presented to King Charles II by Nell Gwyn – a piece that had been authenticated by scholars.
She further explained that Mitchell-Hedges felt that the skull belonged to the local Indians, descendants of the ancient Mayans, and he gave the skull to them. But when he prepared to leave for England, during the rainy season of 1927, the Indians returned it to him as a present for his kindness. Mitchell-Hedges believed that there was a connection between the Mayans and Atlantis, and he hadn’t been the only one who shared such a belief. Another explorer, Colonel Percy Fawcett, believed that he had evidence that survivors from Atlantis had reached South America and that the evidence lay in Brazil, yet Fawcett vanished without a trace on a Brazilian expedition in 1924. Mitchell-Hedges believed that the survivors had come ashore farther north, in the Yucatan Peninsula of central America, and one of the objectives of his expedition in Honduras was to look for proof of this theory. While he never found it, he did find clues to the lost treasures of Captain Morgan.
Mitchell-Hedges declared that the skull was three thousand and six hundred years old, but such a date would have taken the skull back a thousand years before the earliest known date suggested by the Mayans. Mitchell-Hedges also suggested that it must have taken a hundred and fifty years to create, by the grinding and polishing of rock with sand. Erich von Daniken in his book Chariots of the Gods had suggested the skull was created by ancient astronauts, the same astronauts who helped create the Great Pyramid. Many experts are divided on the subject of the skull’s origin: most concur that it was probably carved in Mexico, or Calaveras County, California, and it could have been manufactured within the past five hundred years, arguing that all known skulls are post-Columbus.
By most accounts Albert Mitchell-Hedges was a remarkable man. He met Anna in Toronto in 1917. She was a seven-year-old orphan by the name of Anna Le Guillon. He was touched by her plight and adopted her, and so it would be understandable that she would be devoted to him. His character has been described as similar to a swashbuckling Henry Morgan. He had a keen sense of humor, and he enjoyed telling–even printing–tongue-in-cheek tall tales, inspired by his childhood reading of Rider Haggard stories, and Arthur Conan Doyle’s Lost World, which reflected the character of a man who was, in some respects, like an over-grown schoolboy. He did pen his own books of his experiences, Land of Wonder and Fear, and Battles with Giant Fish, and his autobiography Danger My Ally (1954). In some respects, one could compare him to P.T. Barnum. Some consider Mitchell-Hedges an Elizabethan adventurer born out of his time.
Skeptics are focused on a number of inconsistencies, and have used them for ammunition. It has been suggested that Mitchell-Hedges had brought the crystal skull from London to Lubaantum and planted it to be discovered. Norman Hammond, an archaeologist who excavated Lubaantum, failed to mention the crystal skull in his book on Lubaantum, and has explained that “Rock crystal is not found naturally in the Maya area,” to skeptic investigator Joe Nickell, and that the Crystal skull had nothing to do with the area. Hammond had further pointed out that the nearest places where crystal skulls had been found were Oaxaca, in southern Mexico, and small skulls of Aztec manufacture in the valley of Mexico.
Other skeptics have pointed out that Mitchell-Hedges had been caught in several falsehoods. One being that he served with the Mexican revolutionary Pancho Villa, and fought at the battle of Laredo, and that he lost a libel suit against the Daily Express in 1928, which claimed that Mitchell-Hedges had staged a fake robbery for the sake of publicity. The issue of the skull’s bonefides became questionable when the skull was referenced in a 1936 journal entitled Man- A Monthly Record of Anthropological Science, wherein two experts compared the skull with another and referred to it as “the Burney Skull,” which we will discuss in the next segment.
Yet, for enthusiasts on the matter, the issue of its authenticity was made more complicated when a modern crystal expert, Frank Dorland, claimed he could make a similar skull within three years, but with the aid of modern technology. Yet Dorland, who was allowed to examine the skull for seven years starting in 1963, speculated the skull could be as old as twelve thousand years, Dorland had sent the skull to the laboratory of Hewlett-Packard Electronics, who suggested the skull had taken a long time to manufacture–perhaps three hundred years. Dorland believed from personal experiences that the skull might have mystical properties--that the skull could absorb living energies, an idea espoused as possible by clairvoyants, who use crystals because they can absorb such energies. Basis for this belief has been argued by biologist Rupert Sheldrake, that learning between human beings and animals is “transmitted” by a process he described as morphic resonance.
Of course the truth can often be not as we like, or more evasive, and the details of this story are far more complicated than initially assumed. The next segment will explore my own personal inquiry into the Mitchell-Hedges skull, and personal contact with a archeology professor emeritus on their experience with the skull, and the question as to if the skull should be regarded as nothing more than a fascinating urban legend, or a subject that raises the far more interesting question, if ancient South American civilizations were much more advanced than science assumes.
To be continued...
Special thanks to Xscribe for editorial assistance.
Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and other mythologies
I never considered myself a lucky person. I'm the most extraordinary pessimist. I truly am. – Christopher Nolan
When I started writing the Ophiuchus Code series, the basis of my interest was to argue a simple idea, that all mythology and religious parables are merely tools for enlightenment, and that individual choice, the choice between right and wrong, the choice between action and inaction on one’s life is the ultimate aim, you can spending your whole life interpreting symbols and parables, but if the messages aren’t applied in your daily life, then it’s an empty exercise.
The previous entry dealt with one aspect of pop culture, and a series of random connections I was pondering, or synchs. Chris Nolan’s Batman trilogy seems to have had a profound and unexpected impact, as well as touched on seismic issues that address the state of America. It seems the films trigger strong reactions and I have concluded that Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and The Dark Knight Rises are a kind of Rorschach test; people read what ever they want to read into them. The very problem is that people might not be really seeing Nolan’s real intent. Regarding America, we live in a country that many people see as in decline, with systems that are no longer working, including a justice system that by all accounts seems too skewed to protect those with wealth, a callous indifference to the disadvantaged and lower middle class, and a push for mindless militarism and nationalism. Due to all of these factors and more, we live in cynical and jaded times, and I can’t really say I blame the sentiment that drives the cynicism. As a result, there’s a vigilance that many call for when a segment of pop culture pushes a militant, and fascist leaning agenda.
Some of the origin of this vigilance might have been triggered during the height of the popularity of Joel Surnow’s 24, a pro militant, pro torture, pro jingoism program that seemed to be feeding the propaganda Fox News messaging of the Bush Administration era. Perhaps Howard Gordon and Alex Gansa had sensed something was amiss with the jingoism when they developed their own show Homeland, Perhaps. Surnow’s 24 stood in stark contrast to Chris Carter’s sensibility, a healthy mis-trust of government, and corporate power, and an unease with American supremacy through The X-Files, Millennium, Harsh Realm, and The Lone Gunmen.
Therefore, I can’t say I can blame people's leeriness over Nolan’s Batman films. But I also suspect the films were addressing questions about the role of the super-hero archetype in relation to the ‘real world’ vs. the ‘reel world’. Each film is a critique on Vigilantism, Anarchy, and Nihilism, which each illustrating the cause and effect of such philosophies.
In Batman Begins, Rachel makes a key point to Bruce when his parents murderer is gunned down just out of court, justice is about harmony, balance, Pointing out that while the cities depression may have ended, people are hurting and criminals like Falcone exploit that desperation. Pointing out: "What chance does Gotham have when the good people do nothing?" Bruce confronts Falcone who points out how he owns the city officials, and how Bruce has never faced desperation. Bruce leaves, vanishes, becomes a petty thief until he is discovered by Ducard who represents Ra’s al Ghul and the league of shadows. Bruce becomes Ducards best student until he is made to see that he must kill a murder without a trial, and learns the league plans to destroy a hopelessly corrupt Gotham, Bruce fights, destroys the organization, yet spares an injured Ducard, but Bruce learns the key lesson: to make himself more than just a man, more than an ideal, to become a legend and a symbol. Wayne returns, consolidates his power, set’s up his infrastructure, meets Lucius Fox, and get’s the assistance of Alfred, donning the Batman persona, he tackles Falcone, and Dr. Craine a.k.a. Scarecrow. When he is introduced to Lt Gordon, the Lt observes "You’re just one man." to which the reply, "Now we are two." This is the idea the drives the super-hero archetype, symbols to drive people to their better natures. Fairly straight forward until the ending of the film and Gordon’s warning that fight the crime lords will trigger further escalation.
Scarecrow has been a pawn of Ducard / Ra’s al Ghul all along, and the fear toxin that has been created is a tool staged to drive the citizen’s of Gotham to self destruction. Wayne had rejected Ducard because he had realized that the league of Shadows mission, to balance out corruption, would victimize the innocent and assume the guilt of all, their vision of justice was deluded in it’s utopian ideal. The very problem of utopian ideals is the fact that someone is always victimized that is never taken into account, expecting perfection in a imperfect world isn’t grounded in reality; compromise is needed, even in a flawed social system. Wayne prevails, but at the expense of Wayne manor, which is burned down during the skirmish, thus illustrating that Wayne’s mission, his self sacrifice will come at a price.
We see the next part of these issues played out in The Dark Knight, where Batman, through Capt Gordon’s secret crime squad department, makes gains in stamping out what is left of Gotham’s organized crime, to such a degree that a petty thief who is highly clever, and sociopathic, The Joker offers a deal to the crime lords to destroy Batman, after interrupting a video conference between Sal Maroni, Gambol, Chechen and an accountant named Lau, who has hidden their funds and fled to Hong Kong. The city hedges the hopes on a new district attorney, Harvey Dent, whom becomes involved with Jim Gordon and Batman’s plans to starve out the mod by stopping the flow of their wealth. The Joker kills Gambol and takes control of the crime lords – revealing his anarchy philosophy.
To complicate matters, dent is dating Rachel Dawes, Bruce’s long time love interest. The Joker issues a series of ultimatums, and plays cat and mouse, killing Commissioner Lobe, and a Court Judge who is an effective tool for Dent, attempts to reach Dent, and attempts the assassination of Mayor Garcia. To save lives, Wayne plans to turn himself in to the police, but is foiled by Dent who claims to be Batman. Gordon appears to sacrifice himself to protect the Mayor, all of which is an elaborate ruse to ensnare The Joker when he tries to get Dent during a secure police escort. The ruse allows Gordon to be promoted to Commissioner, but due to the betrayal of female officer, The Joker has captured Dent and Dawes, who are being held in two separate buildings filled with explosives. A no-win scenario that forces Batman to rescue Dent, while Rachel dies in a timed explosion when Gordon can’t make it there in enough time, yet even Dent’s rescue is a failure when he is horribly disfigured in the adjacent explosion, half of his face burned to ash, thus turning Dent away from his idealism, and into Two-Face, blinded by rage over his losses. The Joker had allowed himself to be captured to get to the secure level of the police station, which he detonates with explosives, kills Lau, uses the people of Gotham against one another to reveal Batman’s identity. The Joker, already several steps ahead, visits Dent in the hospital and convinces him to seek revenge, offering a twisted logic like a Mephistopheles, Dent is twisted into the very kind of person he was fighting against.
The Joker: [speaking to Two-Face] Do I really look like a guy with a plan? You know what I am? I’m a dog chasing cars. I wouldn’t know what to do with one if I caught it! You know, I just, do things. The mob has plans, the cops have plans, Gordon’s got plans. You know, they’re schemers. Schemers trying to control their worlds. I’m not a schemer. I try to show the schemers how, pathetic, their attempts to control things really are. So, when I say, ah, come here, when I say that you and your girlfriend was nothing personal, you know that I’m telling the truth. The Joker: It’s the schemers that put you where you are. You were a schemer, you had plans, and uh, look where that got you. I just did what I do best. I took your plan and I turned it on itself. Look what I did, to this city with a few drums of gas and a couple of bullets. Hm? You know what, you know what I noticed? Nobody panics when things go according to plan. Even if the plan is horrifying. If tomorrow I tell the press that like a gang banger, will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it’s all, part of the plan. But when I say that one, little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!
The Joker: [Joker hands Two-Face a gun and points it at himself] Introduce a little anarchy. Upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos. I’m an agent of chaos. Oh and you know the thing about chaos, it’s fair.
To point out, of course Chaos isn’t so much fair, just random, but the Joker isn’t finished, capturing hostages from the hospital, The Joker rigs two ferries with explosives, one ferry full of Gotham citizens, and the other full of Asylum inmates and guards, and gives them the choice the blow up the other ferry before midnight, or both ferries will explode.
Batman is forced to use an illegal city-wide prototype device with Lucius Fox’s to find the Joker, and the hostages staged as henchmen, luring Gordon’s SWAT team to strike at them, Batman is forced to attack the SWAT team, and save the hostages, apprehends The Joker, who gloats over his final victory, driving Dent to kidnap Gordon’s wife and children. Gordon is forced to watch the near death of his family, as Dent declares his judgment, while Batman appears to sacrifice himself before he tackles Dent to his death at an abandoned building. Batman is forced to take the blame for Dent, and the death of the other officers, to frame him so the public will never know of Dent’s decline, so that Dent will remain a beacon of hope for the city, thus creating a great lie that plays out in the final film, The Dark Knight Rises.
The Joker is a trickster, a Mephistopheles character that offers a deceptive philosophy that, at it’s face, seems to make sense, but rings hollow in the face of truth. He is also an enigma, whom consistently offers statements to various key characters, to explain the origin of his psychosis: that he was abused as a child, that his spouse was attacked, disfigured, and she left him when he mutilated himself, yet one cannot tell if any of it is true, as he is playing with typical liberal assumptions about what drives a person to crime, socio economic conditions, poor education, abuse, but being that he is mocking conventions, he is holding up a mirror to one aspect of society. Of course, Bruce Wayne begins to see the cause and effect of his actions.
Batman: Why do you want to kill me? The Joker: [laughs] Kill you? I don’t want to kill you! What would I do without you? Go back to ripping off mob dealers? No, no, you... you complete me.
His actions have empowered a psychopath like The Joker, and indeed both represent two sides of the coin. Bruce begins to see the diminishing returns of his cause, and how he won’t escape becoming the thing he despises. Yet the The Joker goes even further.
The Joker: You’ll see, I’ll show you, that when the chips are down, these uh… civilized people, they’ll eat each other.
The Joker: [to Batman] You didn’t think I’d risk the battle for Gotham’s soul in a fistfight with you?
Of course, The Joker and Bane in their hubris, have a fatal flaw in their thinking, as we see played out in both films. The Joker’s anarchist philosophy has a ring of truth, exposing weaknesses in the human condition, but he discounts the better angels of man’s nature, and our capacity, when faced with important issues, to strive for the better. The by-product of this is a kind of Nihilism we will see played out in practice in The Dark Knight Rises.
Anarchy, in theory has it’s place, but when applied in practice doesn’t really function in a society, the exceptions could be it’s use in a commune in a limited fashion. This does not mean that one should dismiss our deeply corrupt society, history has consistently shown how easy it is for figures with authority can abuse their power, but one cannot replace one form of tyranny for a tyranny built on the illusion that it is ‘free of power’. The Joker offers easy answers to society’s problems, but a free society is messy, conflicted, and contorts around this pursuit of balance. The theme of ‘the lesser of two evils’ is constantly played out in each film, and the real question becomes, ‘should we accept the lesser of two evils if it saves lives?’: If one views each film as a reflection of the year it was released, Batman Begins seemed to deal with American Jingoism post 9/11, a year after Bush was reelected, and The Dark Knight dealt with the national security policies the Patriot act, and the imposition of TSA and it’s authority over air travel, issues that were wearing thin leading up to the election of 2008, when most people were concerned over the economy and a crumbling infrastructure. There was a great deal of concern over the Nihilism of The Dark Knight, but Nolan’s perspective might have been more an end, than a means.
Therefore the final film plays out in a closing thesis, illustrating the limits of all three brands of thought, Vigilantism, Anarchy, and Nihilism, and doesn’t advocate for the ‘rule of law’ in a authoritarian sense, but advocating for true justice to bring about balance, to live up to the American Constitution and the Declaration’s credo – to form a more perfect union. Nolan also seems to warn against following false prophets or leaders who offer easy outs to the complex problems, or easy outs to fix entrenched corrupt political systems. We shall explore how this thesis plays out in The Dark Knight Rises, how these societal issues impact individual decisions, how the karmic, or astrological themes that are implied with the Ophiuchus meme, and why interpretation should translate into positive action.
There’s a lot of concern for those on the east coast, I have a cousin that lives in New Jersey with his family, and an old colleague that has been connected with The X-Files Lexicon, Christopher Knowles lives in Jersey, I hope he and his family are safe. The following song has been running in my mind for the past day, to the point of haunting me.
To those who have lost their lives due to Hurricane Sandy, you will be remembered, and our thoughts are with those who are suffering due to this storm, we will weather it.
At a time like this, please donate to an organization like the Red Cross who are helping to assist the Hurricane Sandy victims.
It is sobering times like this that allow us to reflect. I hope all fans are safe tonight.
One of the more positive aspects of the Ancient Aliens program on the History Channel is the fact that it explores some subjects that I haven’t found commonly explored within UFOlogy. One program from season three dealt with alleged “Cursed Places”: areas that have such unexplained activity that the results lead to disappearances or fatalities. Yet one segment was especially fascinating, the 1959 incident at Mount Otorten in Russia.
I don’t want to dwell too in depth into the details, as several web resources offer an excellent overview of the basic details, which you can find here, and here.
Photo of the hikers preparing to camp, Feb 2, 1959.
There are countless mysteries as to what happened, as well as theories. The common theory was that the hikers were exposed to extra-terrestrial craft and that the intense radiation triggered the pre-mature aging, burns, broken bones, or ruptured organs, depending on how one interprets the autopsies. Other’s argue the hikers were exposed to living entities made of energy that travel between dimensions. Yet if that were the case, how can we explain the physical evidence regarding Ludmila Dubinina, who was found with no tongue?
The mutilation of Lubmila Dubinina does match other reports found within cattle mutilations, missing organs, blood that has been drained, etc…and this set’s up a dilemma for the argument that the hikers were exposed to energy based entities, or energy probes. Of course, the Russian military could have covered up the incident, if they were conducting experiments with some kind of energy weapon, and perhaps a member of the rescue team had removed Dubinina’s tongue to hide proof that some kind of pulse based energy weapon had been used. One question that has to be explored would be if the Russian military had the capability of experimenting with such weapons at the end of the 50s?
There is evidence that Russia, like America, had begun to research anti-satellite weapons starting in 1956 when Sergei Korolev had started to work on the concept at OKB-1, while other’s attribute the work to Vladimir Chelomei and his OKB-52 around 1959. So, it’s possible that a classified experiment was underway during that period. But then again, one would have to discount the legends from the local Mansai’s about such events happening in ancient history, when you consider the Mansai legend of man dying in the same area during an ancient flood.
Jacques Vallee has argued for the interdimensional and extradimensional hypothesis as an alternative to extra-terrestrial hypothesis, and Christopher Knowles has leaned towards the idea that many extra-terrestrial craft could be living entities. Paranormal researcher Brad Steiger has written “We are dealing with a multidimensional paraphysical phenomenon that is largely indigenous to planet Earth.”
When one considers the countless encounters within Leslie Stevens The Outer Limits that were beings based on energy. and a series that taped into the idea of a wide variety of alien life, and thus following into the common tradition of a lot of science fiction: alien life taking on many forms and from many dimentions. Or even The X-Files episode, "Fallen Angel" that featured an extra-terrestrial cloaked in an energy field.
Then again, how does this all jive with certain details within the Mount Otorten incident?
If those hikers encountered an interdimensional entity that was highly evolved and sentient, wouldn’t such an entity be aware that it’s exposure to human beings was harmful? These issues set up an Gordian Knot, an intricate, seemingly insoluble problem when trying to categorize what this incident depicts and what it represents. The Otorten Incident might illustrate not being locked into one type of hypothesis when it comes understanding such unexplained phenomenon, but to adopt an ‘all of the above’ on a case by case basis.
Be it biological beings with mechanical craft, or beings made of energy, or interdimensional beings that might very turn out to be us, our descendents from some far future.
Duran Duran, Lacerta, and Ophiuchus: Road Signs to Choice
(The following is pure speculation and observations, possible true and false assumptions, there's nothing definitive in the following points. -MA)
I’m reticent to throw around the word “Synch” for the following points, as “Synchronicity” is so freely misused–that is, if one grasps Jung’s technical definition to use when applicable--yet on the 19th of July, at night, before news of The Dark Knight Rises theatre shooting in Colorado, a song was running in my mind that hadn’t crossed my attention for a spell: the B-Side of Duran Duran’s “Union of the Snake” single, “Secret Oktober”.
At the height of Duran Duran mania in late 1983, they released this rather cryptic single from their third album Seven and the Ragged Tiger. A song, that some argue, holds illuminati references along with their follow-up single “New Moon On Monday”. I have never bought into the argument that Duran Duran was consciously pushing an illuminati agenda, or the more absurdist angle that the band was pushing some Satanist / illuminati meme. The term ‘occult’ which means ‘hidden from view,’ or a system claiming use or knowledge of secret or supernatural powers or agencies, has been so misused to infer Satanism, or as a negative, while it’s historical meanings are more complex. Simon LeBon back in the eighties had described the meaning behind “Union of the Snake” in an 1984 interview with the following:
“I’ll tell ya. The union of the snake is the union of the snake and the man. The snake symbolizes a kind of subconscious power force or strength, and the song is really about the fears of the subconscious mind breaking through to the conscious mind.”
Some have argued this states the song’s outright occult meaning, but I have to say, this certainly sounds like someone (Le Bon) that has a passing understanding of Jung and Freud. Jung offers some interesting distinctions within his “The Psychology of the Child Archetype” – 5. ‘Child God and Child Hero’*;
“Snake-dreams usually occur, therefore, when the conscious mind is deviating from its instinctual basis. The motif of ‘smaller than small yet bigger than big’ complements the impotence of the child by means of its equally miraculous deeds. The paradox is the essence of the hero and runs through his whole destiny like a red thread. He can cope with the greatest perils, yet, in the end, something quite insignificant is his undoing: Baldur perishes because, and so on. The hero’s mean feat is to overcome the monster of darkness: it is the long-hoped-for and expected triumph of consciousness over the unconscious. Day and Light are synonyms for consciousness, night and dark for the unconscious…Even among primitives today the possession of a soul of the mistletoe, Maui because of the laughter of a little bird. Siegfried because of his one vulnerable spot, Heracles because of his wife’s gift, others because of common treachery is a precarious thing, and the ‘loss of soul’ a typical psychic malady which drives primitive medicine to all sorts of psychotherapeutic measures. Hence the ‘child’ distinguishes itself by deeds which point to the conquest of the dark.”*
Most people can relate to moments in their lives when things were going well; a good relationship, a good career path, and they will take a course of action that undermines those positive developments. Unconscious self sabotage, this conflict of good, and ill, the struggle to appeal to our better angels, choice and freewill, are age old issues for an individual, but the above points are also relevant to us in society as a collective whole. Some of Jung’s point will be more relevant in the continuing piece. But the fear of the unconscious driving us to self destruction is a very real concern, and why understanding the psyche, as argued by Jung and Freud, becomes extremely important, but I have digressed. Let’s look further into the conflicting meanings of the Duran Duran track.
While there might very well be an esoteric meaning as argued by some, simply on the basis of the “Union of the Snake” single sleeve, which some argue a bonified example, an eye symbol as a reference to the illuminati ‘all seeing eye,’ while many of these proponents are remiss in acknowledging that same symbol had been used on the Rio album sleeve. The company ‘Assorted Images,’ Malcolm Garrett, and Keith Breeden had designed the sleeve. Perhaps there was a directive from the band to design ‘something cool with occult symbols.’ Perhaps those choices came from the stylistic whims of Garrett and Breeden. Nothing operates in a vacuum, and many ideas in pop culture are lifted from historical sources. Nevertheless, there needs to be something more substantial to the argument rather than throwing out ‘illuminati’ at every rock album sleeve design, but a basis of evidence that supports past influence. We’ll get back to this debate in a moment.
Of course the configuration of an eye and snakes is nothing new, think the phrase ‘snake eyes’, the following image, a drawing of a motif from a Roman mosaic on the floor of a house in Moknine, Tunis, represents an apotropaism against the evil eye, as demonstrated from Jung.*
But a key point is the following: Symbols can have one meaning, and re-appropriated into having another meaning, often with negative connotations, the Nazi’s mastery of re-appropriating symbolism is a classic example. Therefore, one should be vigilant when researching the origins of symbols to find out the original meaning, and not take at face value what one initially learns, especially on the internet.
A few other points about Duran Duran should be mentioned. The sleeve design might have been inspired as a byproduct of the Indiana Jones craze following Spielberg and Lucas’ ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’, a lot of films, and music pop culture mired from that 30s adventurer sensibility till in the early eighties. As well as a cross influences that were jumbling about, the bulk of the 1982 Rio videos were filmed in Sri Lanka, and the Indiana Jones II production crew were already filming “Temple of Doom” in Sri Lanka in 1983. The “Union of the Snake” video seems to depict a post-apocalyptic, Mad Max desert, where Le Bon descends into an under-ground cavern. There’s even some reference to child sacrifice / abuse.
Yet, the single’s B-side has always resonated for me:
Wise on a birthday party In a world full of surprising fireworks And sudden silence Lies on a stranger's bed The new day breaks like a speeding train or an old friend Ever expected, but never knocking Holding your own in a battered car All night parties, cocktail bars and smile When the butterfly escapes the killing jar
Sure eyes awake before the dancing is over Wise or naked in secret Oktober Freefall on a windy morning shore Nothing but a fading track of footsteps To prove that you'd ever been there Spoken on a cotton cloud Like the sound of gunshot taken by the wind And lost in distant thunder Racing on a shining plain Tomorrow you'll be content to watch As the lightning plays along the wires and you'll wonder Sure eyes awake before the dancing is over Wise or naked in secret Oktober Sure eyes awake before the dancing is over Wise or naked in secret Oktober...
The actual track itself, that was allegedly put together by Rhodes and LeBon in a late night session--a piece of electronica, sans bass and guitar, with a tribal rhythm that predates their Arcadia project collaboration--seems to touch on something primal. We’ll get back to its personal significance in the next piece. Now, Simon LeBon has admitted his early lyric writing was influenced by Jim Morrison and the Doors, and for the band, David Bowie had been a profound influence. It stands to reason that Bowie’s occult dalliances in the 70s, had compelled the band to mine in the same esoteric milieu. There had been further arguments for the Illuminati references on the front and back cover for Ragged Tiger. The symbol to the left could be a reference to Saturn, the symbol to center right could be a reference to Jupiter, and the symbol to the right a hybrid symbol of Ophiuchus and the infinity symbol?
Actually, no, and therefore there’s a basis in the assumption of Satanic influence. The symbol looks like the Satanic Cross, but as defined in Wikipedia, the satanic cross is a variation of the alchemical symbol for Sulfur. The Sulfur symbol was placed above the Nine Satanic statements in Levay’s Satanic Bible, but it could be interpreted as a combination of the Lorraine Cross and the mathematical symbol for infinity, or as a phallic reimaging, while associated with Satanism due to LeVay. Hermetic alchemists of the renaissance used the emblem of earth and spirit by combining a square cross with the cross of Christ, and when drawn symmetrically, it symbolized the hermetic maxim, “As above, so below.”
There are several other images that need to be cited. The grid is labeled with matching runes, The Glyph on the cover looks like an Eihwaz–the yew–rune of protection, and it is also a mark of the masons. A variation of that glyph, as well, shows up in German heraldry. The Glyph shares similarities with the Wappen Kleinblitterdorf coat of arms. The Glyph also shares similarities to the Wolfsangel or “Wolf-Hook,” which is a term for heraldic changes. While the Wolfsangel is identified with German Nazi symbolism, none of the modern symbols called Wolfsangel are historically part of any runic alphabet.
One of the things that have resonated for me was the pairing, the juxtaposition of "Union of the Snake” / “Secret Oktober.” Let’s review the basics of what had been discussed here and here. Ophiuchus was part of the 13 Zodiac system; it is the thirteenth sign, and is known as the lost sign. The sign falls between Sagittarius and Scorpio, and in mythological terms Ophiuchus was known as the Snake holder. At the time, I drew a specific correlation between Ophiuchus and the Ouroboros, which represents self-reflexivity or cyclicality, that sense of something constantly re-creating itself. Bear in mind that Ophiuchus is known as an interpreter of dreams or premonitions. Between the front and the back of the Ragged Tiger sleeve, one can find thirteen symbols, several barely discernable.
Astrologers have noted a harmonic convergence between the constellation Ophiuchus and Saturn in August 1987 and an Ophiuchus and Jupiter retrograde in April 2007. Yet Liz Durkin, an associate from Christopher Knowles’ Secret Sun, offered up a range of information;
Although it is often called "the thirteenth constellation" it is actually the 10th if you follow the traditional order. It has been combined with the stars of Scorpio because most of it lies above and on the ecliptic, standing over the Scorpion, which swings quite south of the ecliptic under Ophiuchus. Antares, heart of the Scorpion, defines the center of the sidereal sign of Scorpio, and embodies the essence of the Scorpio constellation. Antares lies below the ecliptic as well, in the body of the Scorpion. Because Ophiuchus actually crosses the ecliptic (where the planets transit) its stars should be considered as influential to our local planets that pass by it. As argued by Liz Durkin.
But in India they have it covered. In the Vedic tradition of Astrology, Ophiuchus falls in the 18th nakshatra (lunar mansion) called Jyeshtha, meaning the eldest wife of the moon (opposite its favorite young wife in Rohini). This nakshatra is ruled by the planet Mercury and associated with the deity, Indra, the dragon slayer, and thunderbolt. James Holmes has three planets (Sun, Mercury, and Saturn) in Jyeshtha/Ophiuchus in the 12th house that rules hospitals, prisons and ashrams -- the places outside of mainstream.
In ancient Greek mythology, Ophiuchus was the son of Apollo and Coronis who cheated on the god and was killed by Apollo's sister, Artemis. Little Ophiuchus/Aesculapius was foster by the centaur, Chiron, who taught him the art of healing. Ophiuchus/Aesculapius learned how to raise the dead which threatened Hades, who complained to Zeus, who then killed Ophiuchus/Aesculapius with a thunderbolt. Apollo raised him from the dead and placed him in the stars. So Ophiuchus is really a child of the sun God Apollo and was killed by Zeus (Jupiter).
Tracy Twyman furthered offered some intriguing, yet perhaps tenuous, ideas about Ophiuchus that connects him with Saturn and Abraxas, the Gnostic deity. She had written about the symbolism of child sacrifice and brephophagy (eating of babies) in medieval alchemical manuscripts. She argues that in alchemy, it is symbolized by Saturn, who in roman myth was said to have swallowed his own children. She drew a connection to the most basic concept in the history of religion, the sacrifice of the first-born. Noting that alchemists wrote in coded language about the process of creating the Philosophers Stone, which involved the sacrifice of a baby, while Twyman rebutted the vicious urban legend of Jews sacrificing Christian babies at Passover, and turning the blood into matzo, connecting blood with renewal. She cites that Ophiuchus is associated with the Mesopotamian god, Sagimu, the God of Invocation. She draws some distinctions that the snake between the feet of Ophiuchus could be thought of as an umbilical cord, and that Ophiuchus himself might be a fetus. She adds:
Another word for this constellation is Anguis. That’s a word indicating something that is part snake. Since his sacred animal is the cock, I am reminded of the so-called Anguipede, the cock-headed god of the gnostics, Abraxas, which had legs made of serpents. He is sometimes called Alpheichius, which contains the word Alpha, the first letter of the Greek alphabet.
Again connecting to the original thread, Alpha and Omega, the beginning and end, she further adds:
What we have here is a meme embodying the concept of a sacrificial victim, a fetus, who is killed and then ritually reborn, phoenix-like, as a way of initiating a new age. I think this is why Ophiuchus is being trotted out now as the new zodiac sign: so that the calendar and the monetary system can be changed suddenly on a global scale, to bring us into a new era.
Without trivializing real world matters, one has to wonder with the spate of mass shootings we are seeing in America and Europe, driven by unstable individuals, if this explains the “Blood Libel” sacrifices we seem to be living under through this transitional period. I’m not certain I really accept the notion that blood equals renewal in a literal sense, being that myths and archetypes are figurative symbols to guide. Yet some seem to believe so, or are tragically misinterpreting the signs. Burt Reynolds in his X-Files appearance in “Improbable” argued for learning to read the numbers (or signs) correctly.
Yet, then what about this juxtaposition between the snake figure and October? Was it an unconscious inspiration, or based on certain sources? There may be some basis, although again tenuous. Lacerta, the “lizard”, which has been described as shaped like a small W, is also known as Little Cassiopeia. Lacerta is one of the main constellations that are visible during the month of October. As cited from Masm:
The Demeter goddess looked for its Persefone daughter, who had been raptada by Hades. When it passed by the region of Atica, one felt thirsty and it requested water to drink (from) a woman called Misme. The goddess drank with such avidity that caused the laughter of Ascxabalo, a son of Misme. Angered of which, they smiled themselves of her, threw on him the rest of the water and the boy became lizard or lacerta like Latin nomenclature of the constellation.
Could the myths of Ophiuchus and Lacerta illustrate a way through our transitions? One then has to look at the present state of our society, especially in America, and see if pop culture is reflecting this state, which is why The Dark Knight Rises seems so prescient, for good or ill, which we’ll explore in the next piece.
To be continued…
Special thanks to XScribe for editorial assistance, and to Liz Durkin for some incredible research and resources.
Highly Strange Cinema: Wavelength (1983)
-
I'm not quite sure how it happened, but somewhere in the course of my
wanderings I came across this strange interview from the Project Camelot
site. It w...
Queen II (1974)
-
Queen, like Led Zeppelin, is another band that has become synonymous with
my past, and the impact of Queen crept up on me after not really knowing
what t...
More news about Carter's "Unique"
-
According to Deadline.com, more than a dozen drama specs were sent to the
five nets this weekend, including high-profile project by The X-Filescreator Chris...
The Final Tally
-
GRAND TOTAL: 2,509
(Give or take several thousand)
Humans: 2,314
Creatures: 131
Aliens: 64
Ugh. It seemed like there were some inconsistencies, and so I we...
DRAWING AUCTION FOR CHARITY
-
Dear Frank,
I’m writing to you because a French friend of mine and I have arranged an
auction for Gillian’s OTSK.
We are selling two drawings made by us an...
