Dwardu Cardona
Born
Malta
|
God Star
|
|
|
Flare Star
—
published
2007
—
3 editions
|
|
|
Primordial Star
—
published
2009
—
5 editions
|
|
|
Metamorphic Star
|
|
|
Stephen J. Gould and Immanuel Velikovsky
by
—
published
1996
—
4 editions
|
|
|
Newborn Star
|
|
|
Primordial Star by Dwardu Cardona (2009-03-19)
|
|
“For those who are not familiar with 'the Saturnian configuration', the theory, bizarre in the extreme, can be reduced to its simplest form by positing that the planets Saturn, Venus, Mars and Earth were once much closer to each other. [..] I make no apologies here for the fact that this theory was constructed on the basis of the mytho-historical record rather than from astrophysical considerations. [..]
The reconstruction of this model, together with its attendant event-filled scenario, is the fruit of decades of research - first by David Talbott and myself, later by Ev Cochrane and now Wallace Thornhill. For me, the impetus for this derived directly from the writings of Dr Immanuel Velikovsky, even though it led to the complete abandonment of Velikovsky's own scenario. It has often been stated by those who now oppose Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision cosmic scheme that the good doctor might have been incorrect in details but correct in his overall reconstruction. As the years went by, I came to the opposite conclusion and now claim that Velikovsky was correct in details but entirely wrong in his overall presentation. He had the pieces correct but, unfortunately, displaced them in time.”
―
The reconstruction of this model, together with its attendant event-filled scenario, is the fruit of decades of research - first by David Talbott and myself, later by Ev Cochrane and now Wallace Thornhill. For me, the impetus for this derived directly from the writings of Dr Immanuel Velikovsky, even though it led to the complete abandonment of Velikovsky's own scenario. It has often been stated by those who now oppose Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision cosmic scheme that the good doctor might have been incorrect in details but correct in his overall reconstruction. As the years went by, I came to the opposite conclusion and now claim that Velikovsky was correct in details but entirely wrong in his overall presentation. He had the pieces correct but, unfortunately, displaced them in time.”
―
Is this you? Let us know. If not, help out and invite Dwardu to Goodreads.










