not so for the catastrophes in which Venus and the Earth participated, when only the approximate time in the space of a definite century could be established. Still, I found it advisable to narrate the story of the second millennium first: it was possible to write the story of the contacts with Venus with a fair amount of detail.

"But each cataclysm is not only more remote in time from us, it is also obscured by the catastrophes that followed. As we seek to penetrate ever deeper into the past, we can see the foregoing periods through the veil of the catastrophes; dimmer and dimmer is the light behind every veil, till our eye can distinguish no more behind the veil that hangs over the period When The Earth Was Moonless, though already inhabited by human life [Lunatics?]. We do not know the beginning; we can only enter the theater at what may have been the third or fourth act."

[end quoting]

This connection between massive events within our Solar System and their effects on planet Earth spans the realms of science and history. Few are willing to pursue such information with an open mind because the contradictions with "established fact" can get such honest researchers into a lot of trouble.

The Kolbrin [Bible] will be discussed shortly during the interview with James McCanney. There is also some discussion of Planet X, also known as Nibiru. In my prior interview with Professor McCanney, he referred to a large comet as being responsible for the flood referred to in Genesis. He cited as his source a hard-to-find book called the Kolbrin Bible.

Let's see what images this old reference work draws to mind. In Chapter Four, which is titled "The Deluge" from The Book of Gleanings, we read:

[quoting]

Then, with the dawning, men saw an awesome sight. There, riding on a black rolling cloud came the Destroyer, newly released from the confines of the sky vaults, and she raged about the heavens, for it was her day of judgement. The beast with her opened its mouth and belched forth fire and hot stones and a vile smoke. It covered the whole sky above, and the meeting place of Earth and heaven could no longer be seen. In the evening the places of the stars were changed, they rolled across the sky to new stations; then the floodwaters came.

The floodgates of Heaven were opened and the foundations of Earth were broken apart. The surrounding waters poured over the land and broke upon the mountains. The storehouses of the winds burst their bolts asunder, so storms and whirlwinds were loosed, to hurl themselves upon the Earth. In the seething waters and howling gales all buildings were destroyed, trees were uprooted, and mountains cast down. There was a time of great heat; then came a bitter cold. The waves over the waters did not rise and fall but seethed and swirled; there was an awful sound above.

[end quoting]

This is obviously a detailed description of a massive cataclysmic event. Was it produced by a comet coming our way? How does one prove such an assertion?

A number of weeks ago, there were articles posted all over the Internet about a "discovery" of the oldest known planet. While there are many articles to choose from, here is just one, issued by NASA on July 10, 2003:

[quoting]

Hubble Helps Confirm

Oldest Known Planet

Long before our Sun and Earth ever existed, a Jupiter-sized planet formed around a Sun-like star. Now, almost 13 billion years later, NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has precisely measured the mass of this farthest and oldest known planet.

The ancient planet has had a remarkable history, because it has wound-up in an unlikely, rough neighborhood. It orbits a peculiar pair of burned-out stars in the crowded core of a globular star cluster.

The new Hubble findings close a decade of speculation and debate as to the true nature of this ancient world, which takes a century to complete each orbit. The planet is 2.5 times the mass of Jupiter. Its very existence provides tantalizing evidence the first planets were formed rapidly, within a billion years of the Big Bang, leading astronomers to conclude planets may be very abundant in the universe.

The planet lies near the core of the ancient globular star cluster M4, located 5,600 light-years away in the summer constellation Scorpius. Globular clusters are deficient in heavier elements, because they formed so early in the universe that heavier elements had not been cooked-up in abundance in the nuclear furnaces of stars. Some astronomers have therefore argued globular clusters cannot contain planets. This conclusion was bolstered in 1999 when Hubble failed to find close-orbiting "hot Jupiter"-type planets around the stars of the globular cluster 47 Tucanae. Now, it seems astronomers were just looking in the wrong place, and gas-giant worlds, orbiting at greater distances from their stars, could be common in globular clusters.

"Our Hubble measurement offers tantalizing evidence that planet formation processes are quite robust and efficient at making use of a small amount of heavier elements. This implies that planet formation happened very early in the universe" said Steinn Sigurdsson of Pennsylvania State University, State College.

"This is tremendously encouraging that planets are probably abundant in globular star clusters" says Harvey Richer of the University of British Columbia (UBC), Vancouver, Canada. He bases this conclusion on the fact a planet was uncovered in such an unlikely place: orbiting two captured stars, a helium white dwarf and a rapidly spinning neutron star, near the crowded core of a globular cluster. In such a place, fragile planetary systems tend to be ripped apart due to gravitational interactions with neighboring stars.

The story of this planet's discovery began in 1988, when the pulsar, called PSR B1620-26, was discovered in M4. It is a neutral star spinning just under 100 times per second and emitting regular radio pulses like a lighthouse beam. The white dwarf was quickly found through its effect on the clock-like white dwarf, as the two stars orbited each other twice per year. Sometime later, astronomers noticed further irregularities in the pulsar that implied a third object was orbiting the others. This new object was suspected to be a planet, but it also could have been a brown dwarf or a low-mass star. Debate over its true identity continued through the 1990s.

Sigurdsson, Richer, and their co-investigators settled the debate by at last measuring the planet's actual mass through some ingenious celestial detective work. They had exquisite Hubble data from the mid-1990s taken to study white dwarfs in M4. Sifting through these observations, they were able to detect the white dwarf orbiting the pulsar and measure its color and temperature. Using evolutionary models computed by Brad Hansen of the University of California, Los Angeles, the astronomers estimated the white dwarf's mass.

This in turn was compared to the amount of wobble in the pulsar's signal, allowing the team to calculate the tilt of the white dwarf's orbit as seen from Earth. When combined with the radio studies of the wobbling pulsar, this critical piece of evidence told them the tilt of the planet's orbit, too, and so the precise mass could at last be known. With a mass of only 2.5 Jupiters, the object is too small to be a star or brown dwarf and must instead be a planet. The planet is likely a gas giant without a solid surface like the Earth.

The full team involved in this discovery is composed of Hansen, Richer, Sigurdsson, Ingrid Stairs, UBC, and Stephen Thorsett, University of California, Santa Cruz.

Electronic images and additional information are available at the http://hubblesite.org/news/2003/19 Internet website.

[end quoting]

Another factor that has gotten a lot of attention is the "close" passage of Mars. Will the close proximity of Mars to Earth have any effects on our weather? Our magnetic poles? Anything? I took the opportunity of inquiring about that in my discussion with Professor McCanney, but before we get to the interview, here is some brief information about the Mars passage by June Ferguson, posted 7/30/03 at the Rense.com Internet website:

[quoting]

Mars Watch

The Red Planet is about to be spectacular! This month and next, Earth is catching up with Mars in an encounter that will culminate in the closest approach between the two planets in recorded history. The next time Mars may come this close is in 2287. Due to the way Jupiter's gravity tugs on Mars and perturbs its orbit, astronomers can only be certain that Mars has not come this close to Earth in the last 5,000 years, but it may be as long as 60,000 years before it happens again. The encounter will culminate on August 27 when Mars comes to within 34,649,589 miles of Earth and will be (next to the Moon) the brightest object in the night sky. It will attain a magnitude of -2.9 and will appear 25.11 arc seconds wide. Mars will be easy to spot. At the beginning of August it will rise in the east at 10 p.m. and reach its azimuth at about 3 a.m.

By the end of August when the two planets are closest, Mars will rise at nightfall and reach its highest point in the sky at 12:30 a.m. That's pretty convenient to see something that no human being has seen in recorded history. So, mark your calendar at the beginning of August to see Mars grow progressively brighter and brighter throughout the month. Share this with your children and grandchildren. No one alive today will ever see this again.

[end quoting]

Mars remains a prominent figure in the night sky for a time well after the date of closest approach, and the question remains as to what possible residual effects may be produced on Earth from this window of close proximity of the two planets.

Interview With James McCanney

On July 18, I had the privilege of speaking with physicist James McCanney again, this time in more detail, about the Sun, the solar winds, our unusual weather patterns, and his latest book. Remember that all of his provocative information is noted at his www.jmccanneyscience.com Internet website.

While a more complete biography for Professor McCanney was presented as part of the front-page story in our May 2003 issue of The SPECTRUM, this brief version comes to us from the Coast-To-Coast AM late-night talk-radio program (hosted by George Noorey) website, when introducing him as a guest on that program:

[quoting]

Professor James McCanney, M.S., is a physicist who has spent decades promoting his theoretical work showing that the Solar System is ever changing and is electrically active. These theories have been confirmed with space probe data and prove that there are definite Earth effects resulting from our Sun's electrical activity. He has openly opposed NASA's view that outer space is electrically neutral.

McCanney was a faculty member of the Physics and Mathematics departments of Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. He has researched theoretical Celestial Mechanics and Plasma Physics (for the layman, these are the studies of planetary motion and electrified gases in outer space), and has presented his theories at the Los Alamos National Laboratories and American Geophysical Union.

[end quoting]

With that intro, let's see what Professor McCanney has to say:

Martin: I realize you have a new book out and I would like to talk to you about that, but before we get into that I would like to talk to you about the announcement by the World Meteorological Organization saying that our weather is going crazy, and in all probability is going to continue to go crazy.

How do the solar winds influence our atmosphere and our weather, and what is going on with the Sun? Talk as long as you like about the Sun, about SOHO, about satellites, about the general public's inability to monitor what's going on, what is NASA afraid of, and those kinds of things.

I know that's a VERY loaded question.

McCanney: [Laughter] That's a big little question.

I actually had a short, brief note in one of my early comet papers and I talked about the electrical nature of the Solar System and what comets were. I had a short, maybe even a one-sentence note saying: "The effect of the electric fields in outer space on

Earth's upper atmosphere and weather should be investigated." That's all it said.

At the time, I thought there must be something here. We have jet-streams. I knew there was an energy problem, which means that, basically, there is not enough energy in the local environment to cause tornadoes, hurricanes. There is no source of electrical energy to cause lightning.

In fact, I guess this is the simplest way to put it: If you do an analysis on solar energy strictly based on visible light that many people consider as the source of energy for our weather system and for the heating of the oceans, and ocean currents, and all of that, there simply is NOT enough energy to do the kinds of things we see.

To begin with, let me go through the standard theories.

The standard theory is that the sunlight comes in and heats up the ground, and then that energy is lifted up somehow, magically, causing the jet streams to flow. That's totally incorrect. It violates the first, second, and third laws of thermodynamics to have an energy source that's first dissipating and then reconcentrating into organized energy fields like the jet stream. It, basically, doesn't work.

Also, there is just not enough energy to do that. Take, for example, hurricanes and tornadoes and the kinds of storms that build-up and develop into these larger storms. Once again, simple energy calculations show that, in an average small hurricane, you would literally have to take the energy from the entire globe for, probably, a couple of days to feed into that storm to give it enough energy to cause the storm, which means that the rest of the globe would go without any energy, just to feed that storm. Clearly, that's not happening.

The standard theory for how hurricanes develop now includes salt content and basically says that hurricanes develop because the cloud system is absorbing the warm water, evaporates, causing a stirring form of motion around a low cell, starts to spin, and then this forms the hurricane. But how can you maintain that low cell when you have wind rushing into it at 200 miles an hour? There's clearly a problem here.

Let's take a tornado. They talk about wind sheers in, say, a cold front and a warm front coming together, and these move by each other causing the rotating motion that would cause a tornado. Clearly, if you look at tornadoes, they come DOWN OUT OF THE CLOUDS. They do not have anything to do with wind sheer, especially down at ground levels where they are very damaging, where the biggest tornadoes develop.

There are all kinds of physics problems involved in meteorology.

In the formation of the jet stream which gets up to the upper atmosphere, where we're dealing with interaction of outer space and Earth, there are obvious connections with the jet stream and high- and low-pressure cells in the atmosphere, because the jet stream will wrap around, up and over, and down below high and low cells. So, there is some association between the high- and low-pressure cells that are down at the surface of the Earth and the movement of the jet stream which is up in the upper atmosphere.

We know that there is an Ionosphere which exists on both the day and night side of Earth, equally. It's not different on the night side. Well, it's a bit different but not extremely different on the night side as it is on the day side of the Earth. And we have the very interesting property of the northern and the southern jet streams. We have three jet streams on planet Earth. The northern tropical belt or semi-tropical belt flows eastwardly around the Earth. The southern semi-tropical belt flows eastwardly around the Earth. And the central equatorial jet stream flows westerly around the Earth.

What causes this counter-rotating set of jet streams? The northern and southern jet streams snake around and dip down toward the Earth, and snake wildly—kind of snaking patterns—around the Earth. Whereas the westward equatorial jet stream moves in a very, very steady, concentrated stream, westward, right around the equator, sometimes just a little north of the equator, sometimes a little south.

None of these things make any sense given a Sun which just is putting out solar light radiation in the form of visible light and ultraviolet light, and the other forms of light that affect Earth.

The other thing is that most of the light that comes from the Sun—the ultraviolet, the infrared, the x-rays, everything but the visible—is pretty much lost in the upper atmosphere. So, the only thing that really reaches the surface of the Earth is visible light. And, of course, that turns into infrared heat which the animals use to see, and the fish under the water. There is a lot of infrared light that is generated from the visible light coming in. In other words, things heat up; they give off infrared light, kind-of like an iron that you iron your clothes with. If you plug it in and heat it up, and then put it on the table, you will not see the iron at night with your eyes, but an animal would, because they see in the infrared. Infrared light is secondary light, secondary transmission, but the point is, our weather simply could not form, we would have very bad weather.

Let's take a look at another issue here, and that is cloud production. How do clouds form? There is a very interesting piece of equipment in physics; it's called a cloud chamber. You put moisture in there, and then you put a high electric field along that chamber, and water droplets form. In fact, they use it. It was one of the very early forms of detecting subatomic particles. The subatomic particles would move through the cloud chamber, ionize the water, and leave a little trace, and therefore you could see these subatomic particles moving around and spinning in a nearby magnetic field. That's literally called a cloud chamber. But, you would not form the cloud if you didn't put this extensive electric field across the cloud chamber. To translate that into our atmosphere, clouds could form, a water accumulation could occur, but the big Cumulonimbus, the storm-type clouds and the hurricane-type clouds, those clouds would not form at all if you did not have some kind of significant electric field.

So, to start putting all of this information together. Looking at weather in general through many different aspects, the science that is taught in meteorology is simply wrong. It could not possibly explain tornadoes, and cyclonic storms, and thunder coming out of clouds that have lightning bolts coming out of them.

The standard explanation for lightning, for example, is that there are thermal currents in a cloud. You can see those thermal currents. But, that is not the source of lightning. Lightning is an electrical phenomenon. You could have all of the movement of thermal currents that you would like, but it's not going to GENERATE an electric field that is going to then send a lightning bolt down to the ground. Whereas, with the vertical upward electrical phenomenon above major storms, there is no mechanism for lightning to leave.

Say it did form by that mechanism. There is no way for this lightning to then leave that cloud to some place else because the

cloud would be, basically, electrically neutral relative to everything else.

So, the lightning and the spikes that we see above the storm system, and also below the storm system reaching the ground, has to be the result of some much larger electrical system in the atmosphere.

You put all of this stuff together and you realize that standard meteorology today is just bogus. It cannot explain anything. That's why weathermen are right 80% of the time. Their models can predict under normal circumstances.

Let's talk about weather modeling and climate modeling as it is performed today by meteorologists and related professionals. What they do is, they take PAST data and they say: "Today is like a day that occurred 3 years ago, similar weather patterns, similar wind patterns." Then they do a statistical analysis. This is also the way they predict where hurricanes will go, by the way. They take this past data, and then they say: "This is what our computer model predicts." But, this is why they are wrong on the very violent storms—because they're using past data that has nothing to do with the SOLAR conditions that exist today, when they're trying to predict.

Let's take Hurricane Floyd; it came into Florida. The computer models said that the storm would approach land and then turn northward. And, in fact, they were correct in that. But, if certain other conditions were a little bit different, that would not have happened, and Floyd would have come into Florida, killing millions of people, because they didn't give any evacuation notice to Florida.

So, they are, basically, using very crude, incorrect models.

[Editor's note: Furthermore, you more aware readers are likely to be wondering where artificial weather control enters this picture. And, of course, the answer is that such covert manipulations add yet another layer of unpredictability for the already befuddled meteorologists to contend with.]

It turns out that the most important component of weather forecasting is in the SOLAR electric fields. The solar wind passes by Earth, that carries the electric field with it; and I've identified 17 of what I call local environmental batteries, or lebs. These are, literally, batteries or capacitors that exist around the planet Earth and they are built-up by the solar conditions.

The Solar System is dominated by the Sun. I would estimate the Sun is putting out 100,000 times more electrical energy than it is putting out physical light energy.

We are very much buffered from this energy because we have a huge magnetic field, and there are many other conditions in space which buffer us from this electrical energy which is just pouring by us, continually.

Let's look at a New Moon. The Moon moves in front of Earth, breaks that electrical flow, and then moves out of the way. It gives us tremendous bombardment after that Moon moves out of the way, the first and second day after the New Moon. That's the condition that has been identified as being one of the leading causes of kicking-off major hurricanes and storms. What it does is: The Moon is interacting with the solar electric field. It's that CHANGE which causes the storms, and causes the environment around Earth to change, and thus affects Earth weather.

Planetary electrical alignments are another factor. There has been a lot of misinformation about planetary alignments regarding, say, earthquakes and all kinds of devastation when the planets line-up. There was one alignment back in the 1990s where we had, I think, 5 or 6 planets lining-up, and everybody thought the world would come to an end. People were predicting gravitational effects. They were ridiculous predictions based on a very poor understanding.

Gravitationally, we are NOT affected by the other planets. What we are affected by are the electrical alignments that these planets hold with the Sun. When the planets line-up, there are electrical connections made which increase the energy flow around Earth. That can affect us and, in fact, does affect our weather.

I've made a lot of weather predictions based on the electrical alignments of celestial objects—especially when you throw a comet in, for example, which is very large, electrically. The electrical size of a comet is very much larger than its physical size. That's something that standard astronomy and space scientists and astrophysicists simply don't understand.

In fact, to date, astrophysicists, space scientists, and astronomers deny that there is anything electrical in outer space at all. They want to explain everything in terms of gravity and magnetic fields which, somehow, self-exist out there—which is another quagmire in modern space physics.

These scientists, many of whom have very poor physics backgrounds, talk about magnetic effects. I'll just name off a few:

Io, the small moon of Jupiter, close to the big moon of Jupiter, carries with it a tremendous electrical current. The astronomers say: "This is due to the fact that Io is moving in Jupiter's magnetic field and it causes the `dynamo effect', and this causes the electrical current." When, in fact, it's the OPPOSITE.

The electrical current is part of the electrical current flow between the Sun and Jupiter, and the small moon is just getting in the way and carrying the current with it. That's creating the magnetic field. What they don't understand is that these magnetic fields do not just self-generate. In fact, it goes back to very fundamental electrical physics, called Maxwell's equations. It's a set of four equations that describe the interaction between magnetic fields and electric fields, and basic electric charges.

Fundamentally, magnetic fields do not self-exist. They only exist when charges move and create magnetic fields. To understand magnetic fields in outer space, you have to understand that charges have to move to create those magnetic fields. For charges to move, you need some sort of battery or capacitor that is sustaining the condition; in other words, it's there all the time. These charged currents, then, create the magnetic field, not visa-versa.

There's another thing that space scientists and astronomers talk about, called "magnetic reconnection", where the magnetic field lines go around and then reconnect. It's as if they float out into the middle of nowhere and then came back and reconnect into a particular region. What they don't realize is that this is simply a SECONDARY effect. The more fundamental thing you have to look at is: what are the electric fields that are causing the electrical current, that are causing the magnetic field? It's that progression. They are looking backwards, and they never get to the electric fields, or the electrical currents, because they don't understand the fundamental concepts of Maxwell's equations.

These modern concepts of "magnetic reconnection" include a thing called "solar pick-up ions". Another fallacy is—it's actually an impossibility—astronomers have been trying to explain why the solar wind particles accelerate once they've left the Sun. Throughout an interplanetary stage they're moving along, and all of a sudden they see these tremendous accelerations in the solar wind particles. And so, they theorize that the magnetic field is sweeping out and it picks up these ions and sweeps them