View Single Post
Old 01-27-2010, 02:19 PM   #939
Avalon Senior Member
truthseeker's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Halifax, W. Yorks, England
Posts: 26
Default Re: Thuban Q&A: (warning longer than normal posts here)

Hi Abraxasinas,

Thanks for this fascinating thread. I can not claim to understand all the physics and mathematics that you have here presented, as I am no scientist myself, though I do sense some truth here in what you write and say. Whilst not a scientist myself, I have a great fascination with true science, as opposed to the scientism or pseudoscience that is so often presented as the real thing by many mainstream scientists (after all, they are only human too), those that fund them (the big corporations), those that repeat their claims to the wider world (the mainstream media) and those that pedal those same claims to support their own short-term agendas (the politicians).

I do not know whether the messages that you are transmitting from the Thuban Council are representative of the truth or not. However, I have the same lack of knowing with regard to other transmissions (e.g. the Wingmaker or Voyager materials) and channellings (e.g. the Ra, Seth or ‘Galactic Federation of Light’ materials) from alleged extraterrestrial, inter-dimensional, angelic or other sources. However, I do like it that you attempt to frame the Thuban transmissions within known science, whilst at the same time recognizing the limitations of the latter. Indeed, I find it quite refreshing to find someone here at Avalon presenting mainstream physics in a spiritual context; or, put another way, presenting deep spiritual truth within a framework of mainstream physics (both Newtonian and Quantum).

So here is my first set of questions, most of which of which relate to the science of astronomy: -

Question 1

Are you familiar with the Electrical Universe theory (see plus this beautiful video, from the same group)? This group suggest that black holes may not exist at all. They suggest that they are a creation of mainstream astronomers, along with dark matter, dark energy, neutron stars and much, much more. They argue that mainstream astronomers have invented a whole range of phenomena in an attempt to explain the many anomalies that exist, if a largely gravitational based universe is taken as fact. In contrast, the Electric Universe theorists propose electromagnetism, as opposed to gravitation, as the dominating force within our galaxy and universe. They suggest that these apparent anomalies can be explained electromagnetically, without reference to black holes, dark matter, etc. These theories also raise all sorts of other questions about the standard gravitational model of the universe, including well known theories such as the ‘Expanding Universe’ and the ‘Big Bang’. Even the very nature of our own Sun does not appear to fit the gravitational theory. The latter suggests that the Sun should be hotter at its core and cooler at its extremities. However, according to the Electric Universe theorists the opposite is true.

The physics and astronomy presented on this thread by your self and apparently supported by the Thuban Council seems largely to be mainstream in orientation and thus not supportive of the Electrical Universe theorists. Abraxas, what is your view (and that of the Thuban Council, if different) on the Electrical Universe theories?

Question 2

The maverick scientist, Paul LaViolette, also questions the existence of black holes at the centre of galaxies (see here,, for clarification on this). Within his own theories, he suggests that an enormous ‘Mother Star’, which is a very different proposition to a ‘Black Hole’, occupies the centre of our galaxy. He argues that something similar exists at the centre of all galaxies. According to LaViolette it is from our own central mother star (i.e. the Galactic Centre or GC) that cosmic ray particles are dispersed in major periodic galactic core outbursts, also referred to as ‘Superwaves’. These superwave events are believed to occur at relatively regular intervals that very roughly seem to correlate with the precessional cycle and its half-cycle, though their also appear to be smaller, and less catastrophic, interim core outbursts between the main events.

If such a precession-superwave correlation were precise it would suggest a major galactic core outburst every 26,000 or 13,000 years. On reading some of LaViolette’s work, I have not found a precise correlation between the two phenomena, only a very rough correlation. However, some writers seem to be trying to fit the two concepts together in a very precise and specific way. Thus they seem to suggest that, if the current precessional cycle is due to end on 21st December 2012, then it will be marked by the commencement of the next superwave outburst from our galactic core as it impacts us here on Earth. This would suggest that the last superwave occurred fairly precisely around either 13,000 or 26,000 years ago (i.e. 11,000 or 24,000 BCE). However, the truth of the matter appears to be that LaViolette’s theories (and yes, again they are theories, rather than facts) are not quite as simple or specific as that.

For clarity on all of LaViolette’s theories see his informative website ( or read some of his papers and books, many of which are available to be read or bought at his website?

So, Abraxas, what are your views on LaViolette’s mother star and superwave theories? Do they have any basis in truth according to the Thuban perspective?

Question 3

Many researchers imply or suggest that the Maya knew that there is in fact a black hole at the centre of our galaxy and that they referred to this as ‘Hunab Ku’. This, of course, may or may not be the case. However, even if there is not a black hole at the centre of our galaxy, as LaViolette and the Electric Universe theorists suggest, this does not necessarily make the Maya wrong. ‘Hunab Ku’ may simply refer to the very visible dark rift that descends into the central bulge of the Milky Way as it is seen in our night skies from here on Earth. The Maya see this dark rift, amongst other things, as the birth canal of the Milky Way. The lower end of this dark rift terminates just above the ecliptic which itself lies around 6° above the Galactic Centre, whether that be a black hole or a mother star.

Abraxas, do you and the Thuban Council, like John Major Jenkins (see plus his books on the Mayan Long Count Calendar), maintain that the creators of the Long Count Calendar aimed the long count calendar to end when the dark rift and bulge of the Milky Way aligned with the December Solstice Sun?

Question 4

a) According to the Thuban perspective, who actually created the Long Count Calendar?

b) According to John Major Jenkins this 5125.325 year calendar was most probably created by the pre-classic Mayan peoples of Izapa in south-western Mexico somewhere between 400 and 36 BCE. Do you concur with this view or are the origins of the long-count calendar much older (e.g. Olmec or even Atlantean)?

c) Is the current 5125.325 year long count precisely one fifth of a precessional cycle (5,125.325 x 5 = 25,625.625 years) and thus the fifth and final age of the current precessional cycle?

d) Some Maya groups suggest that we are coming to the end of the 4th Age rather than the 5th. If this is the case does this invalidate the above proposed Mayan Long Count/Precessional Cycle correlation?

Question 5

What is the actual duration of a single precessional cycle? The period of time generally quoted for one Precessional Cycle falls somewhere between 25,000 and 26,000 years. The classic figure is 25,920 years (2,160 x 12), though more recently various authorities have suggested somewhere between 25,600and 25,800 years as the correct figure. My own researches suggest that all these figures are probably inaccurate, largely because they all assume a fixed rate of precession.

Estimations regarding the actual length of a single precessional cycle have largely been based on observations of the motion of stars and other astronomical bodies relative to the equinox and solstice points that are fixed to the seasons of the year, as we experience them here on Earth. In the current era (c. 2000) this rate is deemed to be about 50.29 arc seconds/year. This suggests a fixed precessional cycle of 25,770 years. Such an estimation on the actual length of the precessional cycle is based on that rate being an unchanging constant. However, in 1900 CE the rate was calculated at around 50.25 arc seconds/year. This latter figure suggests a precessional cycle that is twenty years longer than the current estimate (i.e. 25,790 years). Both of these rates appear to be correct for the eras concerned. Assuming this is so, the only conclusion one can draw from these figures is that the precessional rate is not constant at all. In fact, the precessional rate is clearly increasing at the present time. This does seem to explain, to some degree, the varying estimates on the length of the precessional cycle that I have come across over the years. My further researches have suggested to me that the precessional rate itself is also not a constant, and that it increases and decreases over much longer periods of time.

Abraxas, do you and the Thuban Council concur with my own findings here, which basically tell us that the precessional rate is both variable and not constant over larger periods of time?

Question 6

My own researches suggest two possible explanations for the variability in the precessional rate. These two explanations also suggest two very different theories of the actual mechanics behind precession. The first of these is the well known wobble explanation, also known as Lunisolar theory. This theory postulates that the precessional cycle exists as a result of a slow wobble in the Earth’s axis over long periods of time, which is believed to be caused by the gravitational effects upon the Earth from the Sun and, particularly, the Moon.

The explanation for precessional rate variability that seems to best fit the lunisolar theory can be found amongst the theories of Serbian astrophysicist, Milutin Milankovitch (1879-1958). He maintained that the Earth’s orbital cycle has modulations that lead to considerable fluctuations in its climate. Following the lunisolar theory, it would appear that at least one, possibly more, of these modulations, could effect the rate of precession, resulting in the increasing and decreasing motion suggested above. The three cycles, proposed by Milankovitch, that are deemed responsible for the modulations in the Earth’s orbital cycle are the Eccentricity Cycle (actually two generalized cycles of 100,000 and 400,000 years respectively), the Obliquity Cycle (approximately 41,000 years duration) and the Perihelion Cycle (a variable cycle of between 18,900 and 23,700 years in duration but averaging around 21,300 years).These three cycles, appear to have a more direct bearing on the Earth's climatic cycles than does the standard precessional cycle. The last statement assumes that both the Milankovitch cycles and the lunisolar theory of precession are correct, which, as we will see shortly, now appears to be open to question?

Of the three Milankovitch cycles – eccentricity, obliquity and perihelion – it appears to be the obliquity cycle that is the strongest candidate for creating the variable rate in the precessional cycle, according to lunisolar theory. This involves the changing tilt of the Earth’s equatorial plane relative to the ecliptic plane over a period of approximately 41,000 years. The tilt is presently at an angle of 23.45° (23°27’) and oscillates between extremes of 22.1° (22°06’) and 24.5° (24°30’). The angle is currently decreasing. The greater the angle between ecliptic and global axis the greater the seasonal differences between summer and winter on the one hand and the climatic differences of the northern and southern hemisphere on the other. According to this theory it would appear to be the case that, as the angle of obliquity decreases over an approximate 20,500 year period, the rate of precession increases; then as the angle of obliquity increases over the remaining 20,500 years of its cycle, the precessional rate decreases. Whether the eccentricity and perihelion cycles might also effect the precessional rate is not clear. However, it seems likely that both cycles might have some bearing on precession, if the lunisolar theory is accepted as the correct explanation.

Abraxas, it is this explanation of the precessional cycle and its variability that seems to most closely concur with that of your own and the Thuban Council. Do you concur with this statement?

Question 7

The second alternative theory for both the mechanics behind the precessional cycle and its variability in rate is known as the Binary theory of precession. It has been most eloquently proposed by Walter Cruttenden (see He maintains that the so-called Lunisolar wobble of the Earth does not exist. He argues that precession is caused by the curved motion through space of our Sun, with its solar system, around a second star that is its binary companion. This Binary theory of precession suggests a completely different explanation for the decreasing-increasing rate of precession, to that described above for the Lunisolar theory.

However, before I attempt to describe that explanation for the variable precessional rate, I firstly need to summarize the basics of Cruttenden’s binary theory as a whole. Firstly, Cruttenden proposes a significantly shorter precessional cycle of about 24,000 years, as opposed to the usual 25,000 to 26,000 years described by proponents of the lunisolar theory. He bases this shorter period for precession on the writings of one Swami Sri Yukteswar. In 1894, Sri Yukteswar, one of the great Indian sages of that time, wrote his book, “The Holy Science”. Cruttenden argues, based on Yukteswar, that the precessional cycle is precisely the same cycle as that described by the Vedic civilization in India, as the Yuga Cycle. According to both Yukteswar and Cruttenden, the Yuga cycle comprises a 12,000 year Descending Phase, followed by a 12,000 year Ascending Phase. This results in a 24,000 year cycle in all, which both Yukteswar and Cruttenden correlate with the precessional cycle. Each phase is divided further into four Yugas each. In the descending phase these commence with a Satya Yuga (Golden Age) of 4,800 years, followed by a Treta Yuga (Silver Age) of 3,600 years, a Dwapara Yuga (Bronze Age) of 2,400 years and finally a Kali Yuga (Iron Age) of 1,200 years. The ascending phase then immediately follows with each Yuga repeated, but in reverse order, commencing with a 1,200 year Kali Yuga and ending with a 4,800 year Satya Yuga.

John Major Jenkins suggests a similar correlation between the yuga and precessional cycles. However, he appears to be unaware of the binary theory of precession. For this reason he attempts to explain the Yuga cycle in classic lunisolar theory terms (including the presumed 25,600 – 25,800 years which assume a constant and fixed motion for precession). However, Cruttenden and Jenkins also differ on a more important detail. This relates to the actual timing of the Yuga cycle. Jenkins suggests a chronology for the cycle with the low point between the descending Kali Yuga and the ascending Kali Yuga of the cycle based on the Mayan end date of 21st December 2012 CE. For Yukteswar and Cruttenden that low point occurred over 1,500 years earlier, in or around 499 CE. This difference is important as it raises the very significant issue of where we are now within the Yuga-Precessional cycle?

Sri Yukteswar maintained that the precession of the equinoxes and solstices is based on a forgotten cosmic motion of our Sun around another star. He provides an explanation for the misunderstanding of the length of the Yuga cycle in Divine Years as opposed to Solar Years. Here is a quote from his work: -

“The mistake crept into almanacs for the first time around 700 BC, during the reign of Raja Parik****, just after the completion of the last Dwapara Yuga (Bronze Age). At that time, Maharaja Yudhisthira, noticing the appearance of the dark Kali Yuga (Iron Age), made over his throne to his grandson, the said Raja Parik****. Maharaja Yudhisthira, together with all the wise men of his court, retired to the Himalayan Mountains, the paradise of the world. Thus, there was none in the court of Raja Parik**** who could understand the principle of correctly calculating the ages of the several Yugas. Hence, after the completion of the 2,400 years of the then current [descending] Dwapara Yuga, no one dared make the introduction of the Kali Yuga more manifest by beginning to calculate it from its first year and to put an end to the number of Dwapara years.”

So here we see Sri Yukteswar offering his understanding of the origins of why measurement, definition and timing of the Yuga cycle has come down to us in such a confused manner in the present era. Yukteswar argued that the 24,000 divine years, each of 360 solar years each, as advocated by most current day Vedic scholars is an inaccurate interpretation of the ancient scriptures. This classic traditionalist version of the Yuga cycle suggests a very lengthy cycle of four descending ages; a 1,728,000 year Satya Yuga; a 1,296,000 year Treta Yuga; a 864,000 Dwapara Yuga; and a 432,000 Kali Yuga. Thus, the whole descending phase covers a period of 4.32 million years. According to this traditional dating of the Yuga cycle, the current Kali yuga commenced in 3102 BCE.

So, if Sri Yukteswar is correct and the lengthy classic traditionalist interpretation of the yuga cycle is in error, what is the basis for the decreasing-increasing rate of his proposed 24,000 year yuga-precessional cycle as defined by the proposed binary theory? Basically, the answer to this relates to the distance between our Sun and its proposed binary companion, which according to the binary theory changes over the 24,000 year cycle. This is basically due to both stars having elliptical, rather than circular, orbits around each of their separate centre points. According to the theory, our Sun is furthest from its binary companion at the low point between the descending and ascending Kali Yugas. It is also at that point in time when the precessional rate is at its slowest. At the high point between the ascending and descending Satya Yugas, the precessional rate will be at its fastest. At that point our binary companion will be at its closest proximity to our Sun and solar system.

Yukteswar, Cruttenden and Jenkins all propose that civilization is at its highest between the two Satya Yugas and at its lowest between the two Kali Yugas. However, as mentioned above, Jenkins believes we are at that low point right now, whereas Yukteswar and Cruttenden propose that the low point was in or around 499 CE. If this is so, then since about 1699 CE we have been in the ascending Dwapara (Bronze Age) phase of the Yuga cycle.

So, Abraxas, I would be really interested to hear your view on this alternative Binary theory of precession as presented by Sri Yukteswar and Walter Cruttenden, as it seems to contradict both your own view and that of the Thuban Council that you represent?

Question 8

a) John Major Jenkins has, to my mind, persuasively argued the idea that the current galactic alignment between the December Solstice Sun and the Galactic Equator was the basic reason why the astronomically aware long count calendar creators (Maya or otherwise?) proposed that the end of their calendar would occur in the present era.

Do you concur with this?

b) Many have criticized Jenkins theory, stating that the alignment was actually closest at the December Solstice 1998, which is certainly true. However, Jenkins counters this, rightly in my view, with the fact that the December Solstice Sun in fact eclipses the galactic equator for a much longer period of time. He suggests a period of 36 years, from 1980 – 2016, on the basis that the Sun is 30’ of arc longitude in diameter. In fact, according to my Starry Night programme, the December Solstice Sun will eclipse the Galactic Equator for 43 years, from 1976 – 2019, as the actual diameter of the Sun at that time of the year, in the current era, is 33’ of arc longitude wide. The 2012 cycle ending date is well within this range and thus seems to support Jenkins’ arguments.

Do you and the Thuban Council concur with this view?

c) However, the question still remains as to why the long count creators specifically chose the 2012 December Solstice, as opposed any of the other 43 December Solstices’ between 1976 and 2019?

Do you have an explanation as to why 2012 in particular is so special?

d) From the Thuban perspective, is their anything that stands out for the more astronomically precise 1998 December Solstice alignment?

Was that year significant or is it the entire period from 1976 – 2019 that is of greatest importance here?

Question 9

Many alternative researchers and writers have, through some very sloppy research in my opinion, confused the current galactic alignment between the December Solstice Sun and the Galactic Equator, as we view it from our location on Earth and as described above, with the very different phenomenon of our solar system periodically crossing the plane of our galaxy.

This latter phenomenon is believed to occur several times during our solar systems 225 – 250 Million year orbit of the Galactic Centre. Many alternative researchers claim that our solar system is now in the process of crossing the plane of our galaxy. Astralwalker, on his Nexus thread has stated this (see his second entry on the Nexus thread). Kerry Cassidy, and many others at Avalon, continually refer to this alleged phenomenon occurring in 2012, at the end of the Mayan Calendar. Here is the truth of the situation as far as I can currently understand it.

From what I can gather, no scientist can definitively say exactly where our solar system is in relation to the galactic plane. As far as mainstream astronomy is concerned, I have so far come across the following. Back in the mid-1980’s, as far as I can gather, certain astronomers were proposing the following theory. They suggest that our solar system is not currently crossing the galactic plane. The general thrust of this perspective seems to indicate that our solar system oscillates above and below the galactic plane in whole cycles of between 54 and 80 million years. The favourite seems to be a 66 million year cycle, with 33 million years below and 33 million years above the galactic plane. The indication from that research is that we are now above the plane and have been ascending away from it for about the last 3 million years.

However, in contradiction to the above, here are nine estimates (courtesy of one Zyzygyz), from various sources, of our distance above the galactic plane that I found on Geoff Stray’s website (see - see bottom of page). 1 parsec (pc) is equal to 3.26 light years (ly). The range is 14 ly (approx 4 pc) - 112.67 ly (approx 34.5 pc), with a median value of about 63 ly (approx 19.5 pc). The top of the wave has been estimated at 85 ly or 26 pc or ( ). From this data, it would appear that are solar system is at or near the top of the sinusoidal wave. These figures seem to suggest that it is much longer than the 3 million years ago, mentioned earlier, that our solar system actually crossed the galactic plane.

Frankly, I do not know how to translate the number of parsecs or light years above the galactic plane into the number of years in time that have transpired since our solar system last crossed over? I guess there are various parameters to take into account, including the actual length of our solar systems transit around the galactic centre (estimates vary from 200 to 250 million years). Additionally one would need to know precisely how far above and below the galactic plane our solar system rises and falls in its oscillating journey around the GC. As the extremely variable figures for all of these parameters suggest in the explorations I have so far found above, then it is currently virtually impossible to state anything precise about the location of our solar system in relation to the galactic plane.

It appears then, that claims that our solar system is crossing the galactic plane now or on the 21st December 2012 are not as well founded as many here on this forum and elsewhere seem to believe.

It is fair to ask whether any of the scientific information and theory presented above is accurate or true? And yes, we are here definitely dealing with theory rather than fact. So the scientists and researchers might simply be wrong. They have been wrong before and they will undoubtedly be wrong again in the future. They can not even agree amongst themselves! However, we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Even if they are incorrect, the vastness of our galaxy and the very slow progress of our Solar System oscillation above and below the galactic plane, as suggested by all these theories and measurements, would make it virtually impossible to identify an exact date for it crossing the galactic plane. It would certainly seem unlikely that a specific day (such as 21st December 2012), year, decade, century or even millennium could be determined for the Solar Systems entrance into and exit out of the galactic plane? Indeed, how thick is the galactic plane and how long would it take our Solar System to pass through it? Would it take hundreds, thousands or even millions of years? Determining where our solar system is in relation to the imaginary line of the galactic equator is equally problematic. We simply do not have a precise enough knowledge on the size of our galaxy; how far we are from its centre; how long a single orbit around the centre takes; or how frequent our oscillation above and below the galactic equator is?

So, Abraxas, what is the Thuban view on the location of our solar system in relation to the galactic plane? I would imagine that the Thuban Council have accurate measurements for our galaxy and could tell us exactly where we are in relation to the galactic plane and the galactic centre. So, when did our solar system last cross the galactic plane? When will it next cross it? How long dose it actually take for the solar system to cross the galactic plane? How thick is it? What are the true dimensions of our galaxy in terms of width, depth, the true period of orbit of our solar system around galactic centre and our distance from same?

Question 10

It has been suggested by many new age and alternative researchers and also from various channeled and transmitted (including Ashayana Deane in her Voyagers 2 book) sources that our solar system is in a 26,000 year (generally believed to reflect the precessional cycle of the same length) orbit around Alcyone, the central star in the Pleiades Cluster. The latter is located in the shoulder area of the constellation of Taurus. Often associated with these sources is the suggestion that we are about to enter a 2000 year period of time within this cycle that takes us into an area of galactic space known as the Photon Band.

This reference,, to LaViolette’s work is very interesting, as it deals with the confusion between LaViolette’s galactic superwave theory (mentioned earlier) and the new age concept of the photon belt, together with the idea that our solar system is orbiting Alcyone. For the record and hopefully to clear up further confusion, this short article from LaViolette is well worth a read. The article basically shows the photon band theory for what it is, which is a rather ludicrous piece of misinformation and/or disinformation, first published in the 1980’s. The Pleiades connection to the Mayan Calendar is both true and interesting. However, the photon band theory that suggests that our solar system is orbiting Alcyone is quite simply nonsensical. Whether one accepts LaViolette’s superwave theory or not (I remain open minded on that one), the above article clearly demonstrates to me that the Photon Band and Alcyone orbit theory is not based on any kind of rational observational astronomy.

So, Abraxas, what is the Thuban view on both the Photon Band concept and our solar system’s alleged 26,000 year orbit of Alcyone?

Question 11

What is your view on the idea presented by some alternative researchers that our solar system is originally from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy and is not indigenous to the Milky Way Galaxy?

This perspective on our place in the galaxy, at first appears rather complicated. However, the complication seems to have been created by certain writers either misunderstanding or purposefully distorting the original article by Steven Majewski, a Professor of Astronomy at the University of Virginia. Basically, the original article proposes the presence of two galaxies, the Milky Way Galaxy (MWG) and the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy (SDG) crossing each other at a sharp angle of nearly 90°. The basic proposition is that the more massive of these two galaxies, our very own MWG, is slowly devouring (over billions of years) a less massive galaxy, the SDG. The following source (, by Robert Roy Britt (2003) suggests that our solar system, within the MWG, is now passing close to (though not necessarily through) the cross-flow between the MWG and the SDG. There is no suggestion, in the original article or the report referred to above, that our Solar System ever originated anywhere other than within the MWG.

However, two non-scientific sources appear to have either misunderstood or distorted this information. These are at and respectively. Cliff High, among others, has also presented this view in a recent conversation with Michael St. Clair, which frankly leads me to question both High's and St. Clair's credibility as objective researchers. All of these sources claim that our solar system does not originate within the MWG at all. In fact, they seem to state rather categorically, that our home galaxy is the SDG. They suggest that our Solar System is now being drawn into the flow of the plane of the MWG, rather than continuing onward in its flow with SDG. The distorted versions of the theory also seem to be suggesting that the movement of our Solar System into the galactic plane of the Milky Way is the primary cause of the climate change that we are now experiencing on our planet and also elsewhere in our solar system.

I do believe man’s greedy, wasteful and consumerist activities are contributing to the problems we are seeing today and making the survival of this planets biodiversity (including ourselves) much less likely than would be the case had we taken better care of our planet. However, I do concur that this may not be the primary factor in climate change. However, there are other far less radical explanations for solar system climate change that do not require the distorted two galaxy explanation proposed here. For example, it is possible that we are simply entering a slightly more lively and energetic part of the MWG? Or, maybe our Sun is simply undergoing changes that are effecting the rest of the solar system? Or, maybe the two galaxy scenario is in part correct, but that rather than being swept out of the SDG flow and into the MWG stream, we are simply beginning to enter the cross-flow between our own (i.e. that of the MWG) galactic plane and that of the SDG?

Here is what appears to be a fairly accurate rebuttal of the more distorted sources of the MWG devouring the SDG (

Abraxas, what is the Thuban view on this Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy origins view for our solar system?

Final Comment

That is it for now on the question front, though I do have a load of other questions, many of them ET related, that I may ask you in a future post. However, before I go I would just like to express the following thoughts and observations that this thread has initiated within me.

It seems to be difficult for many here at Avalon, and elsewhere within the alternative and conspiratorial communities, to grasp that science and spirit are one, and do not need to be continuously at odds with each other. However, it is just such a polarity between fixed beliefs and opinions that has become so evident within this and so many other threads here at Avalon. There are many diverse opinions and beliefs held here by the contributors to this forum, just as there are out their in the real world. We seem to have a need to find certainty within the scientific, philosophical, political, religious and spiritual frameworks that we come to adopt during the varying phases of our individual life-cycles. This is both natural and human. However, it becomes extremely hard for us to even begin to let go of a given perspective on truth and reality that has seemingly proven itself to us. We thus hang on to the old perspective and resist any new approaches for far longer than we need to.

Abraxas, you have clearly unsettled quite a few contributors here with your presentation from the Thuban Council combined with your own scientific understandings. Hence the defensiveness and hostility you have received here from many at Avalon. We all feel very uncomfortable when yet another perspective arrives to challenge the one we are currently adopting. We often then become defensive of our own presently adopted set of opinions and beliefs and hostile toward the new perspective being presented to us.

Personally, I take your message (and anybody else’s) at face value and have no reason to doubt that you truly believe this information is coming directly from the Thuban Council. Who am I to judge? I merely weigh what you say up against other things that I have learned, and think I know, and then try to use my discernment and discretion. Of course, I rarely, if ever, have a final answer!

I certainly do not feel that you are either a fraud or a disinformation agent, as some seem to believe. I sense that you are presenting your own wisdom as experienced and received. It is, of course, possible that some of this information has been distorted by either your own personality or by the Thuban Council itself. Indeed, the latter could have its own agenda, unbeknownst to you or anyone else. This is clearly what many here at Avalon seem to suspect. However, the same can be said for any other transmitted or channeled source, including that of Ashayana Deanne, which many here seem to hold in, what I believe to be, an unreasonably high regard. I fail to understand why folk are so willing to accept her work as pure and untainted and yet believe your own transmissions are so tainted. I guess it is all a matter of belief and opinion in the end? That is until such time as any one particular approach can be clearly shown to be true or false.

Others here might think you are simply deluded. However, such could equally be said of most of the personalities presented both at Camelot and Avalon. Whilst that might be the case with a few of the whistle blowers and witnesses interviewed by Kerry and Bill, in my humble opinion, I do not feel this is the case with either yourself or many others.

Anyway, I look forward to hearing your responses to my rather long-winded questions.

Best Wishes

Truthseeker (Andrew)
truthseeker is offline