VELIKOVSKY Symposium- Florida, July 12
David Talbott
AEON Journal is pleased to announce that it is sponsoring a symposium on
Velikovsky, the Saturn Myth, and Catastrophism to be held next month in
Deerfield Beach, Florida. The symposium will kick off on Friday July 12th
and run through Sunday July 14th. For details on costs and registration,
simply email Ev Cochrane at Ev.Cochrane@ ames.net
A list of speakers and topics of discussion follows:
Vine Deloria, author of Custer Died for Your Sins and most recently Red
Earth, White Lies, will be speaking on evidence for catastrophism in
Native American myths and legends.
David Talbott, author of The Saturn Myth, will be offering a preview of
his new video entitled Mythscape, a discussion of planet-induced
catastrophism in recent historical times. This video serves notice that
Carl Sagan9s Cosmos series is little more than a modern fairy tale.
Charles Ginenthal, author of Carl Sagan & Immanuel Velikovsky, will
address the anomalies surrounding the extinction of the Mammoths.
Ted Holden, internet legend and author of various articles on dinosaurs,
will discuss the fantastic scenarios which conventional scientists have
put forward to explain the extinction of the Megafauna.
Peter James, author of Centuries of Darkness, will outline the need for a
radical reconstruction of ancient chronology, one which owes more than a
small debt to Velikovsky9s Ages in Chaos series.
Dwardu Cardona, former editor of Kronos and current editor of Aeon, will
discuss the phenomena accompanying the Exodus.
Lynn Rose, author of Ancient Calenders and Sothis, will address the
problems inherent in ordering ancient chronology by reference to the
Sothic cycle.
Ev Cochrane, author of Martian Metamorphoses, will be speaking on the
prominence of the planet Mars in ancient myth and religion.
Leroy Ellenberger, author of countless postcards and at least one t-shirt,
will not be speaking. He will probably be lurking about the parking lot
nevertheless. --
Ev Cochrane
Editor/Publisher of Aeon
A Journal of Myth and Science
http://www.ames.net/aeon/
Email: ev.co...@ames.net
Richard A. Schumacher
>Vine Deloria, author of Custer Died for Your Sins and most recently Red
>David Talbott, author of The Saturn Myth, will be offering a preview of
>Charles Ginenthal, author of Carl Sagan & Immanuel Velikovsky, will
>Ted Holden, internet legend and author of various articles on dinosaurs,
>Peter James, author of Centuries of Darkness, will outline the need for a
>Dwardu Cardona, former editor of Kronos and current editor of Aeon, will
>Lynn Rose, author of Ancient Calenders and Sothis, will address the
>Ev Cochrane, author of Martian Metamorphoses, will be speaking on the
Be sure to let us know how sucessfully these worthies manage to
reconcile the various mythologies. Deloria ought to have an
especially bad time of it.
David Wright
In article <kronia.834640974@kelly> kro...@teleport.com (David Talbott) writes:
>
>AEON Journal is pleased to announce that it is sponsoring a symposium on
>Velikovsky, the Saturn Myth, and Catastrophism to be held next month in
>Deerfield Beach, Florida. The symposium will kick off on Friday July 12th
>and run through Sunday July 14th.
>A list of speakers and topics of discussion follows:
...
>Ted Holden, internet legend and author of various articles on dinosaurs,
>will discuss the fantastic scenarios which conventional scientists have
>put forward to explain the extinction of the Megafauna.
Talk about the blind leading the blind, given that Ted has never shown
even the slightest familiarity with conventional science. His posts
contain a weird, funhouse-mirror version of conventional science.
-- David "Chris" Wright, Associate Professor, CS Dept, U of Ediacara
wri...@hi.com :: Babe Ruth Chair of Designated Hitting
Official Spokesman for U of E when sober :: Go Anomalocaridids!
Ashland S. Henderson
In article <4psdql$7...@clam.Hi.COM>,
wri...@clam.Hi.COM (David Wright) wrote:
:In article <kronia.834640974@kelly> kro...@teleport.com (David Talbott)
::
::AEON Journal is pleased to announce that it is sponsoring a symposium
::on Velikovsky, the Saturn Myth, and Catastrophism to be held next
::month in Deerfield Beach, Florida. The symposium will kick off on
::Friday July 12th and run through Sunday July 14th.
:
::A list of speakers and topics of discussion follows:
:....
:
::Ted Holden, internet legend and author of various articles on
::scientists have put forward to explain the extinction of the
:Megafauna.
:
:Talk about the blind leading the blind, given that Ted has never shown
:even the slightest familiarity with conventional science. His posts
:contain a weird, funhouse-mirror version of conventional science.
It's sad, really. Even I reduced Ted to cutting off
communication and calling my points "bullshit", since he couldn't refute
them. Not, mind you, that he appeared to understand them or even read
them with any care. On the other hand, what can you expect from someone
who can't figure out how to kill a mammoth.
Tim Thompson
In article <kronia.834640974@kelly>, kro...@teleport.com (David Talbott) writes:
> AEON Journal is pleased to announce that it is sponsoring a symposium on
> Velikovsky, the Saturn Myth, and Catastrophism to be held next month in
> Deerfield Beach, Florida. The symposium will kick off on Friday July 12th
> A list of speakers and topics of discussion follows:
>
> Vine Deloria, ...
> David Talbott, ...
> Charles Ginenthal, ...
> Ted Holden, ...
> Peter James, ...
> Dwardu Cardona, ...
> Lynn Rose, ...
> Ev Cochrane, ...
> Leroy Ellenberger, [NOT!] ...
Oh my, what a distinguished list of speakers. Why, I'l bet people will come
from all over Deerfield Beach just to ask the burning question that we are all
asking now ... Ted who? Of course we have all heard it before. our time is
running out, time is on the Velikovskian side, the hoards are turning to
Velikovsky for enlightenment, etc., etc. So, Deerfield Beach will be awash in
Velikovskians come July. Right?
Wrong. According to my confidential but well placed sources, there were
about 100 names on the list (counting dupilcates and bogus names and kids and
so forth) for the July '95 symposium in New York, but probably never more than
80 in the room at any time. In Portland ('94) there were 100 places set for
the post-symposium closing dinner. Going back through the years, there are
never more than about 120 signed up for any of these meetings, until we hit
the early 70's, when Velikovsky himself was still around. He managed to
pull in over 1000 once, but then he was a well known character, a celebrity
if you will, somebody that people wanted to come and see, whether or not
they actually believed anything he had to say. But it has been downhill for
the dwindling "hordes" of Velikovsky ever since.
Just look at that list of speakers! Ginenthal? Holden? These guys are lucky
they can find their shoe-laces, let alone actually tie them without the aid of
a certified shoe-lace technician. People are going to actually travel, spend
time and money, to hear a couple of Jerks like them? No wonder the "hordes"
of Velikovsky are shrinking fast, it's natural selection in action. People
dumb enough to do that drop out of the gene pool pretty efficiently.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Thompson, Timothy.J...@jpl.nasa.gov
California Institute of Technology, Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer.
Atmospheric Corrections Team - Scientific Programmer.
Twisted STISter
In article <4q1pke$b...@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>,
Tim Thompson <t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
[about a meeting for Velikovsky-ians]:
>People are going to actually travel, spend
>time and money, to hear a couple of Jerks like them? No wonder the "hordes"
>of Velikovsky are shrinking fast, it's natural selection in action. People
>dumb enough to do that drop out of the gene pool pretty efficiently.
Unfortunately, you are wrong. They mostly do survive to reproduce.
Even if they didn't, there are always more to fill their shoes. Worse,
they tend to be loud, drawing far more attention then they deserve.
Remember too they are not generally dumb; they just have not
been very credulous and analytical. More on that below.
You need not look any farther than this very group to see that.
Clearly, people like Abian, Ludwig P. and Nancy are mentally,
uh, challenged, but they post a lot, making their points seem
more important. I ignore what they say when I can (I have them
carefully entered in my killfile). I am of two minds about acting
against them. Certainly, no one will ever convince Nancy she is wrong,
so posting rebuttals is futile. However, I fear some people might
listen to her and take her seriously, so it is our duty as scientists
to take some time to correct her ravings. I myself choose not too, but
there are plenty who do. I prefer to stick with more scientific
offerings, and poke my two cents in when I think it's needed.
Velikovsky is the same way. In a way, it is like a disease; let
it alone, ignore it, and you risk its eventual domination. Air it out,
discuss it in the open, and you will keep it small. Complete exorcism
is impossible, but information and reason will champion the day yet.
I think that some people believe whatever comes along because it's easy
to do so. It takes effort to think, to rationally work out the pros and
cons of a subject. It's much easier to simply believe what you are told.
Science is the opposite of that. At some level there is faith in prior work,
but everything-- EVERYTHING-- is subject to scrutiny, rebuttal and possible
refutation. that's what keeps it healthy, despite mundane human failings
such as greed, envy and laziness.
So I continue to argue with people that exhibit bad logic, failures of
reason and the like. I hope that eventually they -- and I, for that matter--
will see a broader picture, and perhaps if not change their mind, at least
leave it a little bit more open.
--
* Phil Plait, Pee Aytch Dee pc...@virginia.edu
* "Twinkies are not sentient in any way we can understand."
Ted Holden
Tim Thompson oinks:
[.... ]
I see Tim Thompson as a propagandist and refuse to waste any more of my
time dissecting any more of his idiotic bullshit. For newcomers, the
following dissection of past bullshit from Thompson is offered as evidence
of what you are dealing with and what Thompson is about:
.....................................................................
This one begins with Tim (Hey Boy) Thompson and Ben Dehner stooging on
the net for Leroy Ellenberger again. In fact, I don't believe in
insider jokes all that much. Another poster once asked whether to
address Thompson as Dr. or Prof. Thompson and I replied naturally enough
that Thompson's ilk should be addressed the way Richard Boone used to
address the Chinese porter on Have Gun, Will Travel, i.e. "Hey boy...".
Ellenber and hence also Thompson and Dehner (who likes to talk about
scientific illiteracy) was making a case against the Saturn hypothesis
based upon a claim that, amongst other things, the Rig Veda was 7000
years old and, of course, preserved astronomical knowledge which
contradicts the idea of any change in our solar system over that span of
time. Ev Cochrane, Don Lowry and others naturally enough noted that was
ridiculous. Hey Boy replied:
From: t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.catastrophism
Subject: Re: Velikovsky, Cochrane, and Ellenberger in Skeptic
Date: 12 Feb 1996 23:30:52 GMT
In article <xxBKBNQ....@delphi.com>,
Ev Cochrane <ecoc...@delphi.com> writes:
[ ... ]
> In fact, I *do* know better. Tim doesn't seem to understand that
> Sidharth/Ellenberger's claim is tantamount to someone claiming that
> Abraham Lincoln assumed the presidency in 3000 B.C. I mean, the
> claim that part of the Rig Veda stems from 7300 B.C. is so ludicrous
> that only a fool could take it seriously.
I am going to take the position that this is a fundamentally ludicrous
statement, which cannot be justified or supported by any logical argument,
or any scholarly research. Cochrane's analogy is pure invention.
and:
From: t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Velikovsky, Cochrane, and Ellenberger in Skeptic
Date: 22 Feb 1996 00:18:45 GMT
Message-ID: <4ggcp5$4...@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In article <Z5FpaUj....@delphi.com>,
Ev Cochrane <ecoc...@delphi.com> writes:
[ ... ]
> Once again Leroy demonstrates his unparalleled capacity for
> misunderstanding *his own sources*, something we've
> encountered again and again on talk.origins.
Pure propaganda; this is a crock. Cochrane has consistently insisted
that Sidharth's claims required a knowledge of "advanced astronomical
reckoning", "advanced astronomical concepts" and "advanced astronomical
practices". However, in each and every case Cochrane provided no hint
at all as to just exactly what he thought constituted "advanced
astronomical practices", or "advanced astronomy" in this context. For
all we know, Cochrane is claiming that we think ancient aryans were
practicing quasar red-shift measurements.
Sidharth, on the other hand, specifically said " *comparatively*
advanced astronomical concepts", and then went on to describe exactly
what he was talking about.
Ellenberger has no way of knowing what Cochrane meant, and neither
does anybody else. Cochrane just waits for somebody to complain, and
then twists the words into his own favorite meaning. By doing this in
a consistent fashion, Cochrane insults the intelligence of his audience
and successfully demeans only himself.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Thompson, Timothy.J...@jpl.nasa.gov
and then backpedals a little:
>>> Cochrane is continuing to ridicule and belittle the argument even
>>> while
>>> admitting that he does not even know what argument he is ridiculing.
>>> Certainly this is a thoroughly unacceptable practice.
>[Lowry ... ]
>> The fact remains that the burden of proof for such an extraordinary
>> claim as a date of 7300 BC for ANY work of literature is on he who
>> makes the claim.
> Second, nobody ever claimed that the Rig Veda dates from 7300 BC.
>Sidharth's claim, such as it is, is that the astronomical content of
>the Rig Veda could *possibly* preserve some knowledge that dates from
>7300 BC. That knowledge is preserved in the form of descriptions of
>astronomical events that can be dated by running the solar system, or
>the Earth itself, backwards in time on a computer. Some of the early
>dates for the Rig Veda are very solid (for instance, it is now well
>known that some of the Rig Veda contents can be clearly dated to
>circa 2400 BC).
and then pedals forward some more:
From: t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.catastrophism
Subject: Re: Velikovsky, Cochrane, and Ellenberger in Skeptic
Date: 23 Feb 1996 19:45:06 GMT
Message-ID: <4gl5g2$j...@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>
In article <medved.824999952@access5>, med...@access5.digex.net
(Ted Holden) writes:
> Cochrane posted a massive response to this foolishness last week, which
> clearly
> indiicated that he knows more about he Rig Veda than you, Ellenberger,
> and
> Sidharth singly or combined know about it. You'd do well to read it
> before
> embarrassing yourself further on this topic.
Cochrane's response was not all that massive, but more importantly was
full of mistakes and easily refuted. The only reason that I have not already
done so is that I was away all weekend, and have had a very busy week. I
hope to finish crafting my response this weekend. Cochrane's argument thus
far is not very good, and I will embarrass both of you as soon as I can.
Timothy J. Thompson, Timothy.J...@jpl.nasa.gov
And then posted a piece of garbage intended to resemble scholarship or
something like that, footnotes included. Ev cochrane replied:
From: Ev Cochrane <ecoc...@delphi.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Velikovsky, Cochrane, and Ellenberger in Skeptic
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 96 00:52:48 -0500
On February 23rd, Tim Thompson announced that he would be
embarrassing me in the very near future. Shortly thereafter, he
posted a six-page document detailing his understanding of the
chronology and astronomy of the Rig Veda. Having examined
Tim's document with some care, I am prepared to admit that
I am indeed embarrassed------for Tim. The ignorance displayed
in this particular document is so abysmal, the level of insight
so critically-challenged, that had Tim not expressly claimed
authorship I would have naturally assumed it had been dictated
by Leroy Ellenberger. While a paragraph by paragraph analysis
of Tim's document is warranted and will be complete by the weekend,
the following will suffice to expose the level of "scholarship"
to be found therein.
Tim sets out to undermine my critique of Sidharth's discussion
of the precession of the equinoxes:
In article <4gon41$j...@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>,
Tim Thompson <t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>This is my reply to an earlier post by Ev Cochrane.
[del]
>
> Cochrane continues ...
>> Sidharth also claims of the ancient Hindus that "they knew
>> of the precessional cycle, which takes about 25,800 years....There
>> is a possibility that in the earliest Vedic times, precession was
>> known." (p. 12). Once again, there is no evidence to support this
>> view. Indeed, so far as I'm aware, there is no credible evidence
>> for knowledge of precession before Hipparchus. Here the learned
>> opinion of D.R. Dicks might be cited: "To suppose that astronomical
>> theory or observational technique had reached such a level in
>> Philolaus' time that the effects of precession (about 50'' of arc
>> a year for stars on the ecliptic) would be noticed, is quite out of
>> the question, and it is now certain that it was Hipparchus
>> in the second century BC who made this discovery." (Early Greek
>> Astronomy to Aristotle, 1970, pp. 69-70).
>
> Here, however, both Cochrane and the authoritative Dicks are
>simply wrong. Hindu knowledge of precession is documented in the Surya
>Siddhanta, a 6th century BC Indian document which pre-dates Hipparchus
>(who lived circa 150 BC) by 400 years. Here is how Rene Taton put it,
>back in 1957! [4] ...
>
> " Fairly accurate determinations of the sun's position by
> means of their nakshatra system enabled the Indian astronomers
> to notice very early that the equinoctal and solstitial points
> do not remain stationary. However, this fact was not mentioned
> in any text earlier than the Surya Siddhanta, which speaks of
> a libratory motion rather than a rotary precession. It has been
> assumed that this notion was borrowed from Greek astronomy which
> does, in fact, have a theory of that kind, but there is no reason
> why the Indians could not have arrived at it independently."
Understand, it matters little to my theory whether knowledge of the
precession stems from Hipparchus--as most authorities seem to agree--
or whether it can be traced slightly further back in time. The question
here is whether it is *credible* that the ancient Hindus from the earliest
Vedic times--dated, it will be remembered, to 7300 BC by Sidharth--
also possessed such knowledge. As I have observed, such a view is
*incredible* in the truest sense of the word.
This said, let us examine Tim's sources. We'll overlook the fact that
Rene Taton is not exactly a leading figure in Vedic astronomy. And
we'll overlook the fact that no quote from the Surya Siddhanta is
offered to buttress the claim and to assure critically-minded scholars
that precession is actually being described. But there is one little
detail that we cannot overlook: The fact that the Surya Siddhanta
dates to c. 505 AD, not to the sixth century BC as claimed by Tim! [1]
This, my friends, is what we've come to know as "Thompsonian scholarship".
Footnotes:
1. The following quote is taken from Tim's own source--The History
of Oriental Astronomy, p. 140: "Surya-Siddhanta i.e., the Siddhanta of the
Sun, composed by Latadeva (505 A.D.)." Note that there were several
texts which came to be known by the name Surya-Siddhanta. The
earliest, according to David Pingree, is the one associated with
Latadeva. Thus Pingree refers to "the Old Suryasiddhanta, a work
known to us now only through Varahamihira's summary of the
recension made by Latadeva in 505 AD." See "Astronomy and
Astrology in India and Iran," ISIS 54, 1963, p. 239. Recensions of
this "text" continued well into modern times.
Hey Boy (seriously embarassed) replied:
From: t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Velikovsky, Cochrane, and Ellenberger in Skeptic
Date: 29 Feb 1996 20:59:24 GMT
In article <ZfMq7wg....@delphi.com>,
Ev Cochrane <ecoc...@delphi.com> writes:
> But there is one little
> detail that we cannot overlook: The fact that the Surya Siddhanta
> dates to c. 505 AD, not to the sixth century BC as claimed by Tim! [1]
Constant streams of insults are not necessary, it is sufficient to
simply point out my errors. My notes are not clear enough, but I
believe the c. 600 BC date came from Taton, though I will have to
look again and see (something I will not be able to do until the
weekend in any case). If I am in error, my apologies.
Timothy J. Thompson, Timothy.J...@jpl.nasa.gov
Which is not to claim that he won't go back to making the same kinds of
cases and arguments ten minutes later. In the middle of all this somewhere,
I noted that Leroy Ellenberger is <ALWAYS> turning up idiotic theories
to hold up as one last-ditch defense against the Saturn thesis the way
Von Helsing holds up the star of David against the vampire in Love at first
Bite:
Text of a typical mass-distribution
postcard from Tim Thompson's literary
protege, Leroy Ellenberger, dated
23 Oct., 1995:
DAWN BEHIND THE DAWN: A Search for
tThe Earthly Paradise (1992) by Geoffrey Ashe
"A lively, scholarly detective story In which Ashe turns
his Inquisitive eye on the possible truth of a prehis-
toric Golden Age." -- Kirkus Reviews
Prehistorian Ashe claims that an Indo-
European people, through contact
with shamans of Siberia in the Altai
Mountains 5000 years ago, created a
hybrid culture that exerted a Pro-
found, hitherto unrecognized influ-
ence on Western civilization. This
nameless people presumably absorbed
such shamanic beliefs as goddess wor-
ship; a mystique around the number
seven, reflecting reverence for Ursa
Major with its seven stars; and motifs
of a cosmic center aasociated with a
divine mountain. In Ashe's (Discovery
of King Arthur) scenario, the Indo-Eu-
ropean people drifted to Iran and In-
dia, and ideas from the "Altaic seed-
bed" were also disseminated through,
out Mesopotamia, ancient Israel,
Canaan and Greece and across Old Eu-
rope with its Paleolithic worship of an
earth mother goddess. One Altaic lega-
cy, he argues, is seven as an ordering
principle in ancient seven-planet as-
trology, the musical scale and the spec-
trum. It's an interesting but un-
stantiated theory. -- Pub. Week
This book even better than J.
Godwin's ARKTOS, puts the lie,
albeit Implicitly, to that per-
verse corruption called the
"polar configuration," a naive
concoction even Lenny Bruce
would recognize as "the anti-
thesis of everything right and
proper intellectually," and
thereby shows hpw incompetent is
the "interdisciplinary synthesis"
foisted by the "Saturnists" who
are with no doubt cosmic poseurs
par excellence. One would never
know from THE SATURN MYTH how
intimately involved with polar
tradition are the twins Apollo
and Artemis, for example.
Another antisaturnic is THE
ORION MYSTERY by R Bauval.
Hey Boy first defended this thesis:
From: t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson)
Newsgroups: alt.catastrophism,talk.origins
Subject: Re: More Ellenberger/Thompson/Dehner "Prehistory"...
Date: 12 Feb 1996 22:33:03 GMT
Well, I have been "ignored", entered into the Splifford FAQ, and now
Holden even puts me in the subject line! It's noce to know he cares :-)
In article <4ffnde$j...@access5.digex.net>, med...@access5.digex.net
(Ted Holden) writes:
[Holden earlier ... ]
>>> Again, the last or second-to-last postcard I got from Ellenberger
indicated
>>> that the golden-age tradition, along with most of everything else
>>> Indo-Europeans know about religion and philosophy, came from contact
with
>>> Mongolian shamen in the Altai mountains around 6000 BC...
[Nyikos responded ... ]
>> What is his source
>> for this? _The Aquarian Age Gospel of Jesus Christ_? the "Akashic
Records"
>> which is the alleged source for that New Age fantasy? Or some more
ancient
>> source, like the caveman for whom Boopsie was channeling on "Doonesbury"?
[Holden now ... ]
> Everybody needs friends, but with opponents like Ellenberger, Thompson,
and
> Dehner, we Saturnists probably don't need as many as would otherwise be
> the case.
I am not impressed, either by Holden's incessant derision of everything
too complicated for him to understand (which, of course, means just plain
everything anyway), or Nyikos's argument by sillification. It is not evident
to me that either of these gentlemen care to think about the matter.
I have not read Ashe's book, so I don't know what his argument is, but it
should be crystal clear that neither Holden nor Nyikos know either. I am
consistently amazed by the ability of some to ridicule what they have never
even read. Since it is a common ploy for the Velikovskian to complain that
critics have not read Velikovsky's works, you would think that they would
have a care to not behave in the same manner.
Now, would someone care to explain to me why it is fundamentally silly,
or obviously impossible, for Ashe's argument to be wrong, something so
obvious that it can be ridiculed without even being read? We know that the
indigenous population of India was displaced, or at least conquered, by
Aryan migration from the steppes region, somewhere in the 3000 - 2000 BC
timeframe. We also know that we can trace the worlds oldest written
languages
to a similar timeframe. We also know that there must have been a long oral
tradition before the advent of writing. Finally, we know that the pre-
historic
Celtic population in Europe had already developed a network of commerce,
and had established standard 'trade routes'.
This all means that we know there was a considerable traffic in both
peopleand merchandise, in this area, well before the advent of written
history. I see nothing fundamentally silly about the idea that this could
also have included a traffic in ideas, customs, and oral-literature. On
the face of it, there is nothing "silly" about this idea, whether or not
it turns out to be right.
This kind of argument, to ridicule as if it is "obvious", is not
acceptable.
Timothy J. Thompson, Timothy.J...@jpl.nasa.gov
I.e. one should not ridicule the idea of western man learning all of his
religion and philosophy from Mongolian shamen in the Altai mountains.
Then, characteristically, hey Boy begins to backpedel just a bit:
From: t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson)
Newsgroups: alt.catastrophism,talk.origins
Subject: Re: More Ellenberger/Thompson/Dehner "Prehistory"...
Date: 14 Feb 1996 23:05:54 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Earth and Space Science Division
[Holden ... ]
> I.e. Thompson believes that Western man owes it all to Mongolian shamen. I
> rest my case.
Now you all know where the phrase "Air Hed Ted" comes from. Personally,
I would prefer a Mongolian Shaman to a delusional Russian psychiatrist.
Holden's view of History, and his opinion of mine both qualify as emminent
examples of "Air Hed" in action.
No, neither I nor anyone else believes "western man owes it all to
Mongolian Shamen". However, we know that what are now the Hindus of India
started out as Aryans, or Indo-Europeans, who migrated to India from the
steppes region east of the Ural mountains. The Aryan migrations to India
are dated around 2000 BC or so. They weren't Mongolians. But they
undoubtedly brought their own history and customs with them on the
migration. One of few the things we can be fairly sure of is that the
Rig Veda, or some part of same, came with them, and represents knowledge
and/or custom from the pre-migration period. That is the point.
Air Hed Ted wigs out in public again.
Timothy J. Thompson, Timothy.J...@jpl.nasa.gov
And then a lot:
From: t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson)
Newsgroups: alt.catastrophism,talk.origins
Subject: Mongolian Shamen
Date: 21 Feb 1996 23:54:10 GMT
......
.......
The line about "Mongolian Shamen" is entirely the literary invention of
Monsieur Holden. And that leads us to another fruitful avenue of
investigation.
As we see here, Holden is claiming that we are making claims that we are, in
actuality, not making at all. Now, what is the usual word used to describe
this kind of activity? In the best of pedagogical traditions, this is left
as an exercise for the student.
Timothy J. Thompson, Timothy.J...@jpl.nasa.gov
And then, some serious backpeddling:
From: t...@ediacara.org (Tim Thompson)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.catastrophism
Subject: Re: Velikovsky is wrong -- Earth's axial tilt must be ancient
Date: 23 Feb 1996 19:51:28 GMT
Message-ID: <4gl5s0$j...@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>
At this point I do not intend to mince words. Not only is Holden's
statement
obviously stupid, it is just another in a long string of deliberate and
calculated
lies told by Holden. I am not at all appreciative of his habitual lying,
most especially when he lies about me. The "Mongolian Shaman" line is just
another of Holden's typical fairy tale inventions, and neither he nor it
are deserving of any kind of respect at all.
In other words, Hey Boy is seriously embarrassed by his erstwhile
defense of his stoogemeister Ellenberger's claim of a Mongolian origin
for our culture, philosophy, religions, cosmological ideas etc.
Consider the ultimate chieftain of the people who Ellenberger sees as
our "roots". What goes around in life comes around; Hey Boy may
ultimately have to explain his backsliding to this gentleman in some
future incarnation. We don't really have a whole lot on Chengis Khan in
our English-speaking world other than Harold Lamb's book. Russians, of
course, got a somewhat closer view of the Mongol empire for several
hundred years, and have a better feel for it. Allow me, therefore, to
translate just a tiny section of V. G. Yan's "Chengisxhan I Batui" for
you. This is a historical novel, but the breadth of detail is immense
and a reader assumes it isn't far from fact.
Chengisxhan, in immeasureable amazement, put his hand on his mouth,
pointed towards Jelal ed-din and said to his sons:
Thus should a son be to his father!
The Mongols, seeing the sultan had thrown himself in the river, wished
to pursue immediately, but chengisxhan forbade it.
They massacred the army of Jelal ed-din, not before the soldiers had
thrown the sultan's wife and mother into the river, to prevent their
falling to the Mongols.
There remained amongst the living only the seven-year-old son of the
sultan, seized by the Mongols. They brought him before Chengisxhan.
The youngster, turning towards the kagan, fixed a brave and hateful gaze
upon him.
"The seed of our enemies must be extirpated by the roots.", said
Chengisxhan. "The progeny of such brave Muselmen will strive to
slaughter my grandchildren. Therefore, feed ye my Borzoi hound this
boy's heart."
The Mongol palach (head executioner/torturer), smiling to the ears with
pride at an opportunity to display his skills before the great Kagan,
rolled up his sleeves and walked over to the boy. Throwing the boy on
his back, he of an instant, per Mongol custom, cut his chest open with
his knife below the ribs and ripped out his steaming little heart, and
carried it to Chengisxhan who, several times like an old boar raised the
Mongol war cry: "khuu - khuuu - khuu, turned his paint horse and,
dourly slumping somewhat in the saddle, headed further along the stone
path.
From everything else I've read, that seems believable; that's how
Chengisxhan might deal with an innocent youngster whose existence had
simply become inconvenient. How he might deal with an unscrupulous
and psychopathically dishonest propagandist, with pictures of Himler
and Tokyo Rose up on his walls, I'll leave to Hey Boy's imagination.
Tim Thompson
Followups cut to alt.catastrophism only.
A most curious affair. According to those who met Holden in NY, Live and
in person, he at least acted like a pretty nice guy. Hard to reconcile with
his less-than-attractive net persona. Maybe it's easier for him to just
mouth off when he can't see who he is talking too?
In article <medved.835064387@access5>, med...@access5.digex.net
(Ted Holden) writes:
> Tim Thompson oinks:
>
>[.... ]
>
> I see Tim Thompson as a propagandist and refuse to waste any more of my
> time dissecting any more of his idiotic bullshit. For newcomers, the
> following dissection of past bullshit from Thompson is offered as evidence
> of what you are dealing with and what Thompson is about:
[ remainder of extensive post deleted - see original ... ]
Well, at least the learned Mr. Holden has decided to recycle something
else for a change; this is a departure from the old Venus albedo diatribe.
However, I can summarize in a lot fewer words than Holden needs.
The object of query is the age of an ancient Indian document, the "Rig
Veda", or, perhaps more precisely stated, the age of its contents. I managed
to mis-read the age of another document, an error which I admitted, and for
which I received a flood of criticism. Cochrane gave his estimate of the
age of the Rig Veda as considerably younger than the astronomically
demonstrated date of circa 2400 BC. When I cited the literary source
for this early date, Cochrane instantly ceased posting on the matter and
has never returned to the subject. The material in the Rig Veda dates from
circa 2400 BC and that's that, and Cochrane has effectively admitted same
by his silence.
The Indian scholar B.G. Sidharth believes that some of the material
in the Rig Veda can be dated astronomically to as early as about 7300 BC.
His notion may be controversial, but Cochrane dismissed it as "so ludicrous
that only a fool would believe it", despite the fact that he had not even
read any of Sidharth's writings on the matter. He then played the propagandist
himself, but eventually retreated into silence when his own idea was shown
to be untenable.
As for Holden, he screwed up everything. He managed to prove that he
couldn't tell a Mongol from a Turk, and that he didn't know where the
Aryan homeland was (despite claims to the contrary). Indeed, Holden has
posted on a number of topics, and has effectively demonstrated a genuine
and deeply held ignorance of every thing he has ever tried to understand.
Quite sad, actually, since he seems cemented to beliefs that are rooted
in profound ignorance.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Thompson, Timothy.J...@jpl.nasa.gov
California Institute of Technology, Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
David N. Talbott
Tim Thompson's recent post, in response to an announcement of the upcoming
symposium on Velikovskian and catastrophist research, only serves to
accent the infantile posturing on talk.origins and so many other
newsgroups these days.
I find it interesting to see what has happened to t.o over the past 18
months, since I last checked in. The number of daily posts has increased
two-fold or more, and yet one searches in vain for any *exploration* of
anything. It has become a one-note dirge. Posture. Posture. Posture.
Day and night.
My guess? By now the only people reading any of this are those doing the
public posturing. The intellectually curious must have deserted the
premises long ago.
What a sad commentary on human nature. When I first read materials from
Tim a couple of years ago, he at least showed the intelligence that could
make for some interesting discussion. So I invited him to debate
"Velikovsky's Place in History" at the Portland symposium in November,
'94. (He declined.) But today I can't see anything to distinguish his
submissions from Leroy Ellenberger's postcards. Which reminds me: you
can be certain that Tim's "inside source" on things Velikovskian is in
fact the postcard pugilist himself, which says all you need to know.
Is there any intellectually curious lurker within shouting distance of
this madhouse? If so I would love to hear from you, just to assure me
that Tim's downward spiral does not foretell the fate of the Internet as a
whole.
Posture. Posture. Posture. See? I can do it too.
What a waste of brain cells.
Dave
Andrew MacRae
In article <dtalbott.835544279@julie> dtal...@teleport.com (David N.
>
> Tim Thompson's recent post, in response to an announcement of the
> upcoming symposium on Velikovskian and catastrophist research, only
> serves to accent the infantile posturing on talk.origins and so many
> other newsgroups these days.
Well, there has been little beyond conference announcements and
Walter Alter robotic postings to respond to, and for the latter,
scientific discussions seem to be largely ignored. For example, I
composed a fairly lengthy comment on the claims about J.H. Bretz's
interpretation of the Washington State channeled scablands, but it
vanished into the ether without a response.
Perhaps like other people, I find it somewhat amusing that these
conference announcements and pleas to evaluate or buy videos have been the
main contributions to talk.origins on a Velikoskian theme in recent
months. There have been exceptions, but they are uncommon.
> I find it interesting to see what has happened to t.o over the past 18
> months, since I last checked in. The number of daily posts has
> increased two-fold or more, and yet one searches in vain for any
> *exploration* of anything. It has become a one-note dirge. Posture.
> Posture. Posture. Day and night.
Or ignore, ignore, ignore, when something other than posturing is
presented.
> My guess? By now the only people reading any of this are those doing
> the public posturing. The intellectually curious must have deserted the
> premises long ago.
Possibly. However, I keep getting e-mail from interested people
who have read some of my postings and found them interesting, even if they
did not agree with me.
> What a sad commentary on human nature.
For some, yes. For others, no. Perhaps your broad-brush negative
evaluation of everything that happens here, based on a tiny sample, is the
saddest commentary of all.
> When I first read materials from
> Tim a couple of years ago, he at least showed the intelligence that
> could make for some interesting discussion. So I invited him to debate
> "Velikovsky's Place in History" at the Portland symposium in November,
> '94. (He declined.) But today I can't see anything to distinguish his
> submissions from Leroy Ellenberger's postcards.
Look harder. Or perhaps any similiarity is a result of trying to
deal with the same Velikovskian advocates with the same rhetorical
strategies?
> Which reminds me: you
> can be certain that Tim's "inside source" on things Velikovskian is in
> fact the postcard pugilist himself, which says all you need to know.
Of course. Perish the thought that Tim or any other critic of
Velikovsky's claims or those of his advocates could possibly be thinking
for themselves and finding their own reasons for disagreeing about
interpretation of the evidence.
> Is there any intellectually curious lurker within shouting distance of
> this madhouse? If so I would love to hear from you, just to assure me
> that Tim's downward spiral does not foretell the fate of the Internet as
> a whole.
They exist. I hear from them all the time. Perhaps your postings
do not usually instill enough interest from lurkers to elicit a response.
> Posture. Posture. Posture. See? I can do it too.
Yup. That is easy.
> What a waste of brain cells.
Indeed. I can repost some of the comments I have made about
Walter Alter's various Velikovsky-related postings if you like. I have
them archived around here somewhere, just in case someone decided to show
some interest.
--
-Andrew
mac...@geo.ucalgary.ca
home page: http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae
Murray Rennie
In article <dtalbott.835544279@julie>,
dtal...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) wrote:
>
>Tim Thompson's recent post, in response to an announcement of the upcoming
>symposium on Velikovskian and catastrophist research, only serves to
>accent the infantile posturing on talk.origins and so many other
>newsgroups these days.
And you decided to pop up and add your own posturing to the mix.
How amusing.
>I find it interesting to see what has happened to t.o over the past 18
>months, since I last checked in. The number of daily posts has increased
>two-fold or more, and yet one searches in vain for any *exploration* of
>anything. It has become a one-note dirge. Posture. Posture. Posture.
>Day and night.
Obviously, you have noticed the Ted and Ed show. Yes, they do posture
quite a bit, don't they.
>My guess? By now the only people reading any of this are those doing the
>public posturing. The intellectually curious must have deserted the
>premises long ago.
Then you should talk Ted out of pushing the Saturn Fantasy. He probably has
done more damage to your "Theory" than anyone else.
>What a sad commentary on human nature. When I first read materials from
>Tim a couple of years ago, he at least showed the intelligence that could
>make for some interesting discussion. So I invited him to debate
>"Velikovsky's Place in History" at the Portland symposium in November,
>'94. (He declined.) But today I can't see anything to distinguish his
>submissions from Leroy Ellenberger's postcards. Which reminds me: you
>can be certain that Tim's "inside source" on things Velikovskian is in
>fact the postcard pugilist himself, which says all you need to know.
>
>Is there any intellectually curious lurker within shouting distance of
>this madhouse? If so I would love to hear from you, just to assure me
>that Tim's downward spiral does not foretell the fate of the Internet as a
>whole.
>
>Posture. Posture. Posture. See? I can do it too.
At least your honest about yourself...
>
>What a waste of brain cells.
>
>Dave
Well Dave, before you waste anymore brain cells, maybe you can answer
the following questions. Ted seems unable (or unwilling) to. They
all have to do with the Saturn Hypothesis. If some of it seems strange,
blame Ted's interpretation of your book.
What orbit was the Saturn configuration in: Earth's, Saturn's, or some other
orbit?
Explain how much heat Saturn would have to churn out to keep Earth at
a habitable Temperature, and how close to Saturn would Earth have to be to
be habitable.
Where were Saturns other Satellites? Where are the Myths that mention them?
What broke up the Saturn Configuration? How did Earth Survive this Breakup?
How did Earth Survive travelling from the orbit of the configuration to its
present orbit (assuming the configurations orbit was not in Earths)? How
did all the planets end up in what appears to be fairly normal elliptical
orbits?
Where were Saturns other Satellites? Where are the Myths that mention them?
If Saturn's pull was strong enough to pull Pangea into a "world mountain",
what would happen to the Earth's water? Water would be more affected by
gravity than the land; would it not flood the "world mountain"?
How was the pole kept pointing at Saturn?
Murray Rennie
Ev Cochrane
AEON Journal is pleased to announce that it is sponsoring a symposium on
Velikovsky, the Saturn Myth, and Catastrophism to be held next month in
Deerfield Beach, Florida. The symposium will kick off on Friday July 12th
and run through Sunday July 14th. For details on costs and registration,
A list of speakers and topics of discussion follows:
Native American myths and legends.
catastrophism in recent historical times. This video serves notice that
Charles Ginenthal, author of Carl Sagan & Immanuel Velikovsky, will
will discuss the fantastic scenarios which conventional scientists have
put forward to explain the extinction of the Megafauna.
Dwardu Cardona, former editor of Kronos and current editor of Aeon, will
Sothic cycle.
David N. Talbott
Seeing Tim Thompson's recent post in response to the upcoming "Velikovsky"
symposium reminded me of the need for a summary separating fact from
fiction on the subject of Velikovsky and modern science.
At the heart of Velikovsky's thesis was a seemingly outrageous idea. He
claimed that _planets_, moving on quite different courses than observed
today, formerly disturbed the motions of the Earth and caused great
destruction to ancient nations. These extraordinary events, Velikovsky
claimed, are recorded in ancient chronicles, myths and rites around the
world, sources that are simply incomprehensible in terms of celestial
motions today.
Velikovsky contended that the planet Venus, just a few thousand years ago,
possessed a spectacular, comet-like "tail" of gas, dust and rock, and its
orbit intersected that of the Earth. .Though Velikovsky's interest in the
subject began with a reading of biblical accounts of the Exodus period,
the plagues of Egypt, and the spectacles of the wandering in the desert,
what led to his startling conclusions was a thorough cross-referencing
with global myths of disaster--stories in which the agent of catastrophe
takes the form of a great comet or flaming dragon, a body consistently
identified with the _planet_ Venus.
Velikovsky also argued that the planet Mars, in the eighth and seventh
centuries before the present era, moved on an erratic course, disrupting
the Earth. Celestial upheavals caused by the unstable movements of Mars,
according to Velikovsky, are the true reason why Mars appears in ancient
records as a great war god, shaking the heavens and producing general
pestilence and devastation.
For the simple answer to the question of Velikovsky's place in the history
of science, you can ignore almost everything else you may have heard about
the heretic. Why? Because, if Velikovsky was as wrong on these
fundamentals, as Tim and company would have us believe, then nothing could
be more wasteful than spending any time at all on the subject. But if
Velikovsky was even _close_ in his discernment of planetary instability
and catastrophe, he is one of the true intellectual pioneers of the
twentieth century. It really is that simple.
Of course the stakes are high here, because if Velikovsky was right in any
fundamental sense, then the treatment of Velikovsky by an arrogant and
thoughtless scientific elite will be exposed as exactly what Velikovsky's
supporters have claimed--a horrifying picture of business as usual within
the scientific establishment. The fact that major theoretical edifices
would collapse under the impact of anything resembling Velikovsky's
revelations is not a small matter either--a consideration one could hardly
ignore in examining the rampant psychology of denial in conventional
treatments of Velikovsky.
So who was Velikovsky? Here's a common-sense suggestion. When someone
claiming knowledge on the subject issues a sweeping dismissal, calling
Velikovsky an ignoramus or fool masquerading as a scientist, the first
thing you might ask yourself is whether the speaker could be an ignoramus
or fool masquerading as a historian. It's a fact: Velikovsky commanded
the respect of intellectual giants of the twentieth century, a respect
clearly demonstrated by his friendship and scholarly discourses with the
likes of Claude Schaeffer, one of the deans of modern archaeology, the
eminent geologist, Harry Hess of Princeton University; Horace Kallen,
founder of the respected New School for Social Research in New York; the
esteemed Robert Pfeiffer of Harvard University; the pioneering
psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud; and of course Albert Einstein, who edited the
physics and mathematics sections of Velikovsky's publication _Scriptas
Universitatis_.
But was Velikovsky himself a physicist or astronomer? No. His training
was in law, economics, history and medicine. Did he pretend to be a
physicist or astronomer? No. But intensive historical research did lead
him to believe that physicists and astronomers have misunderstood the
history of the solar system. Moreover, as stated by the leading
astronomers Archie Roy, Lloyd Motz and Valentin Bargmann--and more
recently by Victor Clube (Oxford department of astrophysics) and the
astronomer Tom Van Flandern--Velikovsky did show a remarkable ability to
converse with specialists outside his own field, even the ability to
expose certain weaknesses or anticipate unexpected discoveries in other
fields. Not one of these astronomers, it must be added, embraced
Velikovsky's comet Venus or anything like the planetary instability
claimed by Velikovsky, but in no case did any of them engage in the kind
of belittling commentary that seems always to lead the way when the dimmer
lights of science begin to expound on Velikovsky.
In the years since publication of Worlds in Collision a relatively small
group of researchers--some well-accredited academically and some working
entirely as outsiders, but all inspired to investigate questions first
raised by Velikovsky--has produced interesting and highly significant
results. The work ranges from the study of physical markers consistent
with interplanetary upheavals, to the systematic exploration of the great
ritual and symbolic traditions of the ancient world. All told, the work
raises issues that urgently need to be addressed in a forum free of
prejudicial rhetoric and posturing.
Keep in mind that not just Velikovsky's conclusions, but his entire
theoretical approach, challenged conventional ideas. He insisted that
events remembered by ancient peoples _count as evidence_. When far flung
cultures preserve the same distinct, but highly unusual memory, or employ
quite different symbols to tell the _same_ extraordinary story, there must
be an explanation we have overlooked . Velikovsky saw in ancient
literature, with its pervasive imagery of cosmic disaster and improbable
monsters in the sky, a story of planets out of control, and he claimed
that the collective records of early man will permit a reconstruction of
the crucial events, if only we will suspend our judgment long enough to
rigorously assess the material from a new vantage point.
And keep in mind as well that Velikovsky's argument for large-scale
catastrophe was offered in 1950, at a time when astronomers and geologists
were entirely captivated by uniformitarian models, in which catastrophes
played virtually no significant role in the history of the solar system,
in the history of the Earth, or man's own past. So we have to ask
ourselves: under the weight of space age discovery, has it been
Velikovsky, or his critics, that have had to give the most ground? Who
could deny that, by comparison with the intellectual environment of 1950,
the effected sciences have moved dramatically toward more catastrophist
models, sounding more Velikovskian every year?
But what about Velikovsky's use of ancient mythical, religious and
historical material--a body of evidence the scientific elite, in the
1950's, considered to be ludicrous?
Well it seems that even this remaining chasm between Velikovsky and
established science is closing. Consider, for example, the work of the
British astronomers, Victor Clube and Bill Napier, authors of The Cosmic
Serpent, and Cosmic Winter, offering a theory of cometary catastrophe that
not
only sounds a lot like Velikovsky, but is Velikovskian in more ways than
one--even in its broad use of ancient myth and symbolism as _evidence_.
These respected astronomers bring to their argument a great deal of
scientific credibility. Recently, for example, the eminent astronomer,
Fred Hoyle, expressed personal support for the Clube and Napier general
thesis.
What Clube and Napier have done is write a Velikovskian thesis of cometary
catastrophe in historical times while replacing the comet Venus with the
known comet Encke, thereby removing the potential embarrassment posed by
Velikovsky's _planetary_ "comet." In the process they have created for
themselves a different set of unanswered questions: 1) why do ancient
sources repeatedly identify the intruder with the planet Venus? and 2) why
do so many _global_ aspects of the story refuse to fit a theory based on
the comet Encke? (Much has already been published outlining universal
imagery of the "Great Comet" that simply cannot be explained by the comet
Encke, under any conceivable scenario. I can only urge the intellectually
curious to begin with the publication AEON: A Journal on Myth and
Science.)
Issues of this sort are moving science inexorably toward a final reckoning
on the Velikovsky question. If Clube and Napier's use of previously
forbidden evidence (ancient chronicles) is accepted, there will be just
one core issue remaining. And if that issue is answered in Velikovsky's
favor--as I am certain it will be--the final victory will be Velikovsky's
even if, on the way to victory, he erred a hundred times and more. This
issue is: Did the planet Venus, only a few thousand years ago, appear as
a comet-like form in the sky, moving close to the earth and causing
_remembered_ upheavals?
All that is needed here is an appropriate methodology allowing the
researcher to apply common-sense rules of logic and demonstration. If
Venus' did, in fact, once roam the skies in anything like the fashion
Velikovsky suggested, this attribute would--beyond a shadow of a
doubt--show up in the ancient language and mythical images of Venus, even
though the images would have no relationship to Venus' appearance in our
sky today.
What a fascinating juncture this is! After more than forty five years,
the challenge sparked by Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision has come down to
an issue on which the evidence is overwhelming. If I speak with assurance
on this, it is because I have (along with fellow researcher Ev Cochrane)
spent many years examining the images of Venus around the world. And I
can say without the slightest equivocation that wherever astronomical
traditions of Venus are preserved in any detail, Venus is the mythical
Great Comet, appearing in the sky at a time of world-destroying
catastrophe. You will find this identity confirmed from Mexico and Peru
to ancient Greece and Rome, from ancient China to even more ancient Egypt
and Mesopotamia. Long-haired star. Bearded Star. Smoking star. Torch
star. Feathered star. Cosmic serpent or dragon. In fact, literally all
of the astronomical hieroglyphs for "the comet" are _simultaneously_
attached to Venus and to the revered great goddess, who _is_ Venus in the
first astronomies.
To apply common-sense rules of logic, one should start with the
obvious: 1) the symbols cited above are the acknowledged, most
frequently-employed hieroglyphs for the comet in the ancient world, and 2)
the _only_ astronomical phenomenon answering to these glyphs is the comet.
Additionally, as a matter of simple logic, the attachment of these
distinct comet glyphs to Venus must be considered alongside the
_convergence_ of these glyphs on a biologically impossible monster--
the bearded serpent, long-haired serpent, flaming serpent, fire-breathing
serpent, and feathered serpent. In none of these instances could
phenomena observed today account for the incongruous motifs, which occur
again and again throughout the ancient world. But let the comet glyphs
mean what they meant in the ancient languages themselves, and the
incongruity vanishes. Should it surprise us that one acknowledged
comet glyph would be brought into conjunction with another comet glyph?
And will anyone propose with a straight face that these universal comet
images could have found their inspiration in the quiet and regular motions
of Venus today?
(Just in case the point is missed: the comet as celestial serpent or
dragon, and the comet as long-haired star leads to the simple and
undeniable identity of the comet as the long-haired serpent, etc. If, as
a matter of simple curiosity, you will investigate the incredible extent
to which ancient language, in seeming denial of nature, combined words and
images for "serpent" and for "hair", you will begin to sense how deeply
the roots of civilization itself were shaped by experiences the modern
world failed to understand. In the Egyptian language, for example,
numerous, quite _different_ words mean, at once, "hair" and "serpent", a
fact which the conventional schools could only explain as a ridiculous
coincidence. And by such an explanation they must ignore the _worldwide_
juxtaposition of hair and serpent in myth, language and religious
symbolism. Try as you may, you will never find an explanation for this
apart from the global identity of the"long-haired star"/Great Comet with the
cosmic serpent/Great Comet)
But to see the integrity in the ancient profile of the Great Comet is to
simply take the first step. Even more stunning is the inseparable link of
these Venus images to the larger themes of ancient myth and ritual.
Velikovsky's comet Venus is, in fact, a key to the substructure, enabling
us to re-envision human history and the history of the solar system in
ways never anticipated by established science. In the end, many revisions
in Velikovsky's reconstruction will be necessary, but none of these
revisions will dimninish the stature of the pioneer.
For further reading, visit the Kronia Communications website--
http://www.teleport.com/~kronia/
Dave
abe...@peg.apc.org
Title: Global Flood Myths
IMHO, recent postings on talk.origins discussing Global Flood
Myths have not yet addressed the primary problems raised by the
existence of the historical evidence in the first place..
Most, if not all, talk.origins correspondents appear to assume
that `global flood myth' refers to a terrestrial event of global
extent. But the `global' in `global flood myth' refers to the
`myth,' not the `flood.' It is the *myth* that has global
distribution.
From the historical evidence we discover that all the major themes
of the flood myth are most definitely pre-historic. That is, the
themes are present in the earliest historical evidence (Pyramid
Texts, epics, sagas, etc.) and the associated signs and symbols
are clearly discernible in pre-historic settings.
One of the primary global themes of the flood myth is that the
flood was *celestial*. Now, you may ask: "What on earth did the
ancients mean by a celestial flood?" Trying to find an answer to
that question down here `on earth' has been consuming a lot of
time recently on talk.origins.
But the real answer lies in looking at *all* of the themes of
global flood myth. Because the flood, while often of celestial
water, is also comprised of celestial blood, or milk, or fire-
water, or wind, or darkness, or light, or fire. And while the
first two could receive some sort of terrestrial interpretation,
the rest of them clearly belong in the sky.
So just what did the ancients mean by a pre-historic *celestial*
flood?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* . === . EFMRL Research *
* // | \\ Exploring the Saturn Myth *
* // .-. \\ *
* ||---( )---|| Internet: abe...@peg.apc.org *
* \\ `-' // *
* \ \..|../ / ONE -1- Column *
* `...o...' TWO -2- Crescents *
* / | \ THREE -3- Circles *
* / | \ FOUR -4- Cross *
* / | \ SEVEN -7- somethings *
* / | \ NINE -9- Spiral *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Richard A. Schumacher
Novices are cautioned that Velikovski was not an historian,
physicist or astronomer. He ignored facts as needed to fit
his pre-conceptions.
David N. Talbott
Here begins Andrew Macrae's response to my obnoxious salvo directed at Tim
Thompson--
>In article <dtalbott.835544279@julie> dtal...@teleport.com (David N.
>Talbott) writes:
>>
>> Tim Thompson's recent post, in response to an announcement of the
>> upcoming symposium on Velikovskian and catastrophist research, only
>> serves to accent the infantile posturing on talk.origins and so many
>> other newsgroups these days.
> Well, there has been little beyond conference announcements and
>Walter Alter robotic postings to respond to, and for the latter,
>scientific discussions seem to be largely ignored. For example, I
>composed a fairly lengthy comment on the claims about J.H. Bretz's
>interpretation of the Washington State channeled scablands, but it
>vanished into the ether without a response.
Andrew I am convinced you are a quite intelligent and well-educated
fellow. And so it mystifies me that you cannot see the nature of the
problem here. Let me put it even more bluntly: NOT ONE IN A HUNDRED
QUALIFIED FOLKS WOULD COME ONTO THIS TALK GROUP TO DISCUSS ANYTHING. In
fact some time ago I spent several weeks seeking to entice, cajole or
otherwise persuade some very capable folks, including but not limited to
catastrophist researchers, to add a little content to the vacuum here.
Nothing could have been more futile. The problem is: PEOPLE SEE THIS
NEWSGROUP EXACTLY FOR WHAT IT IS. A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME.
Now if the more intelligent folks on t.o won't take the initiative to
set a different standard, who will? That is my question to both you and
Tim.
> Perhaps like other people, I find it somewhat amusing that these
>conference announcements and pleas to evaluate or buy videos have been the
>main contributions to talk.origins on a Velikoskian theme in recent
>months. There have been exceptions, but they are uncommon.
And since I personally know the people posting these announcements you can
take my word for it that they don't believe this group has any other
value than general dissemination of information. Occasionally, they say,
this produces queries from people who believe there is still more to
learn, and that redeems the invested time in posting announcements, etc.
If, however, any qualified t.o regular ever accepts one of the _repeated_
challenges by Ev Cochrane or myself, to debate a subject on an even
playing field, with the right of both parties to publish the full text of
the debate, I can guarantee you that the results will be a far cry from
the t.o junk yard.
In fact, let me make a simple proposal: Why do we not organize an
electronic discussion around the catastrophist thesis of planetary
instability in historical times. The field of evidence would include all
of the surprising revelations of the space age, geology of the Earth, and
the roots of civilization. We will simply establish a ledger, and ask,
with respect to each layer of evidence: how well is this evidence
explained by the conventional model? And how well is this evidence
explained by a catastrophist model? Since the catastrophist model we
would offer has planets moving on much different orbits than today, and
engaging each other at close distances _within human memory_,the predicted
"big picture" profiles of planets and of human history should be vastly
different.
As a final note, I want to make clear that I am not making this proposal
just to you, Andrew, or to Tim Thompson. It is an offer to anyone who
would like to work with us to establish an electronic discourse, in the form
of a debate, aimed at clarifying the evidence for or against a model of
interplanetary catastrophe--with the parties to the debate committing
themselves in advance to principles of civility and mutual respect.
Dave
William Sommerwerck
Richard A. Schumacher wrote:
> Novices are cautioned that Velikovsky was not an historian,
> physicist, or astronomer. He ignored facts as needed to fit
> his pre-conceptions.
Agreed. I've read "Worlds in Collusion" ** -- I mean, "Collision" -- and
it's a piece of unmitigated intellectual dreck.
Velikovsky's "problem" is that he wanted everything in the Old Testament
to be LITERALLY true. Instead of assuming that that these stories were
myth (likely) or true "acts of God" (possible), he wanted them to be
actual events with verifiable physical causes.
So he has the planets of the Solar System wandering all over the place, on
their own volition, for no apparent reason -- except to be at the right
place at the right time to bring about these events. These theories were
utterly stupid when he first suggested them almost 50 years ago. Our
current understanding of chaos theory shows that planet orbits do
spontaneously move between stability and instability.
Far from being a visionary, Velikovsky was a total intellectual moron. And
so is anyone who agrees with him.
Velikovsky was right about one or two things (just as a person with bad
aim will hit the dart board once in a while). His prediction that Jupiter
had a hot center was correct, but hardly surprising. Planets were probably
formed by gravitational attraction; is it surprising that some of the
gravitational potential energy winds up as heat?
Velikovsky's supporters trot out the same old crap -- because the
scientific community tends to be conservative and hide-bound (which IS
true), anyone disagreeing with the current point of view must, ipso facto,
be a brilliant visionary, and totally right about everything.
Spare me.
** Actually, that's a more-accurate description of the book. The joke
isn't mine, but Ira Wallach's. You can find his send-up of Velikovsky in
"Hopalong-Freud and Other Parodies." It's a Dover book.
Ted Holden
William Sommerwerck <will...@nwlink.com> writes:
>Agreed. I've read "Worlds in Collusion" ** -- I mean, "Collision" -- and
>it's a piece of unmitigated intellectual dreck.
[remainder of ignorant diatribe omitted...]
Newcomers curious as to who Velikovsky was and what the emerging worldview
of catastrophism amounts to are invited to:
http://access.digex.com/~medved/Catastrophism
and the now numerous catastrophism sites linked from it, particularly the
Kronia site which now includes details and ordering info for a new video
on these topics.
Ted Holden
med...@digex.com
ev.co...@ames.net
Richard A. Schumacher wrote:
>
> Novices are cautioned that Velikovski was not an historian,
> his pre-conceptions.
Richard Schumacher, it should be noted, is a world's famous
historian, physicist, and astronomer. If you can't believe
Schumacher when he tells you Velikovsky was crazy, who can you
believe?
--
Ev Cochrane
Editor/Publisher of Aeon
A Journal of Myth and Science
http://www.ames.net/aeon/
Email: ev.co...@ames.net
James G. Acker
David N. Talbott (dtal...@teleport.com) wrote:
: If, however, any qualified t.o regular ever accepts one of the _repeated_
: challenges by Ev Cochrane or myself, to debate a subject on an even
: playing field, with the right of both parties to publish the full text of
: the debate, I can guarantee you that the results will be a far cry from
: the t.o junk yard.
:
: In fact, let me make a simple proposal: Why do we not organize an
: electronic discussion around the catastrophist thesis of planetary
: instability in historical times. The field of evidence would include all
: of the surprising revelations of the space age, geology of the Earth, and
: the roots of civilization. We will simply establish a ledger, and ask,
: with respect to each layer of evidence: how well is this evidence
: explained by the conventional model? And how well is this evidence
: explained by a catastrophist model? Since the catastrophist model we
: would offer has planets moving on much different orbits than today, and
: engaging each other at close distances _within human memory_,the predicted
: "big picture" profiles of planets and of human history should be vastly
: different.
Dave,
I offered to discuss/debate Ev regarding geology and
oceanography and the catastrophist model at least a year ago.
(Actually, I offered to take on Ginenthal, who doesn't post here,
in the hopes that if Ginenthal was shown to be incorrect, Ev
would distance himself from him. That hasn't happened.) Andrew
and I collaborated on a point-by-point response to Ginenthal's
1991 paper on Venus, showing numerous factual errors, and I
believe we received one grudging response from Ev, regarding that
article, indicating that Ginenthal was working on an update. That
was all I remember. Since it has been awhile, my memory of this
subject is probably not reliable.
James G. Acker
Credentials: B.A. Chemistry, Ph.D. Oceanography (just in
case Ev wants to address me in the manner in which he just
replied to Schumacher)
===============================================
| James G. Acker |
| REPLY TO: jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov |
===============================================
All comments are the personal opinion of the writer
and do not constitute policy and/or opinion of government
or corporate entities.
Bowen Simmons
Talbott) wrote:
> In <uEzzxIi9...@MBnet.mb.ca> ren...@MBnet.mb.ca (Murray Rennie) writes:
>
> >Well Dave, before you waste anymore brain cells, maybe you can answer
> >the following questions. Ted seems unable (or unwilling) to. They
> >all have to do with the Saturn Hypothesis. If some of it seems strange,
> >blame Ted's interpretation of your book.
>
>
> >What orbit was the Saturn configuration in: Earth's, Saturn's, or some other
> >orbit?
>
> >Explain how much heat Saturn would have to churn out to keep Earth at
> >a habitable Temperature, and how close to Saturn would Earth have to be to
> >be habitable.
>
> >Where were Saturns other Satellites? Where are the Myths that mention them?
>
> >What broke up the Saturn Configuration? How did Earth Survive this Breakup?
> >How did Earth Survive travelling from the orbit of the configuration to its
> >present orbit (assuming the configurations orbit was not in Earths)? How
> >did all the planets end up in what appears to be fairly normal elliptical
> >orbits?
>
> >Where were Saturns other Satellites? Where are the Myths that mention them?
>
> >If Saturn's pull was strong enough to pull Pangea into a "world mountain",
> >what would happen to the Earth's water? Water would be more affected by
> >gravity than the land; would it not flood the "world mountain"?
>
> >How was the pole kept pointing at Saturn?
>
>
> Is that all? Your constraint is exemplary.
>
> Why don't we just go have a beer together? I'm sure all of these
> questions could be answered with perfect clarity in ten or fifteen
> minutes.
Well, Dave, you said that you wanted to discuss substance, here were some
perfectly substantive questions. Did you answer any? No. Not a single
one.
> [content-free rhetoric deleted]
--
Bowen Simmons
bo...@netgate.net
Paul J. Gans
[deletions]
: For the simple answer to the question of Velikovsky's place in the history
: of science, you can ignore almost everything else you may have heard about
: the heretic. Why? Because, if Velikovsky was as wrong on these
: fundamentals, as Tim and company would have us believe, then nothing could
: be more wasteful than spending any time at all on the subject. But if
: Velikovsky was even _close_ in his discernment of planetary instability
: and catastrophe, he is one of the true intellectual pioneers of the
: twentieth century. It really is that simple.
[deletions]
Yes it is. Which is why I'm about the only one responding to
your posts. Everyone else has concluded that "nothing could
be more wasteful than spending any time at all on the subject."
I note only for the edification of newbies: Converts to Veli-
kovskism, neo or regular, are so few and far between that Mr.
Talbott is reduced to trolling the waters of talk.origins looking
for interested souls. As further evidence one notes that the
list of speakers at the much-reposted upcoming Florida meeting
is the same as the list of speakers at the last countless number
of meetings. No new converts there either.
Why do I respond? Everyone needs a hobby. This one is mine.
Besides, it drives Talbott and Cochrane crazy.
------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Andrew MacRae
In article <medved.835756422@access5> med...@access5.digex.net (Ted
> William Sommerwerck <will...@nwlink.com> writes:
> >Agreed. I've read "Worlds in Collusion" ** -- I mean, "Collision" --
> >and it's a piece of unmitigated intellectual dreck.
>
> [remainder of ignorant diatribe omitted...]
How can his opinion be ignorant when he has read Velikovsky, and
you continually recommend it as being on the list of items to read to
become informed? Isn't this like, oh, complaining to someone because they
*have* read Darwin's "Origin of Species" before making their criticism of
it?
> Newcomers curious as to who Velikovsky was and what the emerging
> worldview of catastrophism amounts to are invited to:
And people interested in catastrophism are invited to consult (for
example):
Sharpton, V.L. and Ward, P.D. (eds.), 1990. Global catastrophes in Earth
history. An interdisciplinary conference on impacts, volcanism, and mass
mortality. Geological Society of America, Special Paper 247, p.1-631.
Clifton, H.E., 1988. Sedimentologic consequences of convulsive geologic
events. Geological Society of America, Special Paper 229, p.1-157.
For some of the current conventional scientific view on the issue
of "catastrophism". People interested in straw man versions of
conventional science and outdated models of catastrophism should refer to
Ted's site and Velikovsky's original work. I encourage people to compare
that perspective to conventional science directly, rather than relying on
Velikovsky supporters for what conventional science actually says.
> http://access.digex.com/~medved/Catastrophism
>
> and the now numerous catastrophism sites linked from it, particularly
> the Kronia site which now includes details and ordering info for a new
> video on these topics.
--
ev.co...@ames.net
At least Jim and I are agreed on one thing: Jim's memory of
this subject/episode/fantasy is not reliable. Not only have
I never seen the article by Andrew and Jim, I have never
offered a grudging response regarding Ginenthal's fallibility.
Nor have I ever said anything about Ginenthal working on
an update. That said, I would be happy to see a copy of
the article in question. Perhaps then we'd have something
to debate. On the several occasions that I have offered
to debate Jim Acker on one point or another, he has always
declined. If he's as busy as I am currently, I can understand
why. But I'd be curious to see what these two have to say
nonetheless. And while I don't make a habit of defending
Ginenthal--he doesn't need my help--I will be seeing Mr.
Ginenthal in the next few weeks at the forthcoming
symposium and I would be happy to share the details of
Jim/Andrew's article with him at that time. Thanks in
advance for emailing/posting the article in question.
Andrew MacRae
(Mike Payne) writes:
> Richard A. Schumacher <schu...@convex.com> wrote:
> > >> Novices are cautioned that Velikovski was not an historian,
> > >> physicist or astronomer. He ignored facts as needed to fit
> > >> his pre-conceptions.
..
> > Oh, heavens no. People should not take my word for it, or yours.
..
> In my 40 years of study and learning the "basic facts" of ancient
> history & astronomy I have found that these "facts" are founded on the
> shaky structure of theories that have yet to be proved one way or
..
> Velikovsky's THEORY was first proposed the thought of comets wrecking
> havoc on Earth was thought ludicrous, but now the prevailing theory of
> the extinction of the dinosaurs uses a comet as the destroying agent.
Actually, the idea of comets "wrecking havoc on the Earth" by
collision and/or near miss has been around since at least the late 1600s,
as has the suggestion that Biblical stories reflect such an event. Of
course, the suggestion has been "thought ludicrous" almost as long :-)
> There was a time when rocks falling from the sky was thought ridiculous,
> nowadays we are finding evidence of impact craters all over the planet.
Then why did Velikovsky barely mention impact processes, and even
seem to prefer other explanations for impact features?
> Galileo was thought so crazy at his time that he had to be locked up.
> Whether it was a rogue planet (Velikovsky), solar system invader (Allan
> & Delair), crust slippage (Hapsgood), or some other agent, something
> major happened to this planet 10,000 to 17,000 years ago
Yes, the end of the last glaciation.
> and as a race we were there to witness it.
Yes.
> It has left a basic impression on us in
> ways that we can't even hardly recognize.
It would not surprise me if some of the catastrophic floods which
occurred near the end of the last glaciation were imprinted in ancient
myths. It is pretty difficult to demonstrate that scientifically, though.
> I believe that denial of the events is one that I recognize.
Andrew MacRae
> James G. Acker wrote:
> >
> > David N. Talbott (dtal...@teleport.com) wrote:
> >
> > : If, however, any qualified t.o regular ever accepts one of the
> > : _repeated_ challenges by Ev Cochrane or myself, to debate a subject
> > : on an even playing field, with the right of both parties to publish
..
> > I offered to discuss/debate Ev regarding geology and
> > oceanography and the catastrophist model at least a year ago.
> > (Actually, I offered to take on Ginenthal, who doesn't post here,
> > in the hopes that if Ginenthal was shown to be incorrect, Ev
> > would distance himself from him. That hasn't happened.) Andrew
> > and I collaborated on a point-by-point response to Ginenthal's
> > 1991 paper on Venus, showing numerous factual errors, and I
> > believe we received one grudging response from Ev, regarding that
> > article, indicating that Ginenthal was working on an update. That
> > was all I remember. Since it has been awhile, my memory of this
> > subject is probably not reliable.
> >
> > James G. Acker
>
>
> At least Jim and I are agreed on one thing: Jim's memory of
> this subject/episode/fantasy is not reliable. Not only have
> I never seen the article by Andrew and Jim,
Some of your colleagues have.
> I have never
> offered a grudging response regarding Ginenthal's fallibility.
True. You never quite said what your opinion actually was.
> Nor have I ever said anything about Ginenthal working on
> an update. That said, I would be happy to see a copy of
> the article in question. Perhaps then we'd have something
> to debate. On the several occasions that I have offered
> to debate Jim Acker on one point or another, he has always
> declined.
Sounds impressive, doesn't it? But, like me, he probably did not
like the conditions suggested for the debate. You and James did discuss
the issue of Venus geology and your interpretation of it (or at least
constraints on it from the work you have done) in January and February
1995. At that time, James did specifically ask about problems with
Ginenthal's claims. I have archived postings that demonstrate at least
that much. However, it was before James and I posted the more detailed
comment on Ginenthal's work. Perhaps this is what James remembers.
> If he's as busy as I am currently, I can understand
> why. But I'd be curious to see what these two have to say
> nonetheless.
It was posted on May 12, 1995, article
<3ov3uj$p...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>, with subject "Re: VELIKOVSKY: astronomic
evidence/Venus- new planet (LONG!!!)", in reply to a robopost from Walter
Alter, and an earlier one from Ted.
> And while I don't make a habit of defending
> Ginenthal--he doesn't need my help--I will be seeing Mr.
> Ginenthal in the next few weeks at the forthcoming
> symposium and I would be happy to share the details of
> Jim/Andrew's article with him at that time.
It was my understanding that someone (Ted? Walter?) was going to
inform him of the comments James and I made over a year ago. There are
few things in our comment that are now our of date (e.g., there are some
interesting ideas and evidence which bear on the question of higher
conductivity surface materials at high altitudes), but they are fairly
minor.
Anyway, a guantlet was thrown down on this issue more than a year
ago. Either people did not notice it, or they decided it was not worth
responding to in this forum. The latter would not prevent someone from
responding to James and I directly.
> Thanks in
> advance for emailing/posting the article in question.
If you have trouble with WWW access, let me know, and I will
e-mail it.
William Sommerwerck
"Catastrophes" don't fit in very well with science. A single, isolated event
does not lend itself to mathematical description, and may not fit in very
well with broader theories.
For this reason, "catasrophic" explanations were generally ignored until
Velikovsky came along. The trouble is, Velikovsky is like the kid in "To
Kill a Mockingbird" who pours molasses over everything.
Anyone who reads "Worlds in Collusion" :) can see that Velikovsky's theories
are much like "science" as painting mustaches on paintings is like "art."
And like a kid with a fresh grease pencil, Velikovsky paints the mustache on
EVERYWHERE.
The thing that makes Velikovsky's "theories" so stupid, is that he has
catasprohies explaining almost EVERYTHING. For example, the appropriate
catastrophe occurs at just the right time for the Israelites to cross the
Red Sea (not to mention many other Biblical events). C'mon, now. Ever heard
of "common sense"?
Matt Silberstein
>[sci.astro removed from distribution for obvious reasons]
>In article <dtalbott.835713408@julie> dtal...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) writes:
>>[Velikovsky is our hero.]
>Velikovsky's method consisted of reading diverse ancient works,
>reinterpreting some of the writings to match his preconceived ideas, and
>ignoring the vast majority of writings that contradict him. His successors
>seem to have adopted the same methods. The only rule I see them applying
>with consistency is that every mythical reference to a god must be an actual
>reference to a planet.
>>(Just in case the point is missed: the comet as celestial serpent or
>>dragon, and the comet as long-haired star leads to the simple and
>>undeniable identity of the comet as the long-haired serpent, etc. ...)
>Probably the most common haired serpent in mythology is the rainbow serpent
>which is very nearly universal in Australia. It is interesting to note that
>rainbow serpents invariably live either in deep water or underground. Very
>comet-like, don't you think?
>In fact, snakes and dragons living underground or underwater is one of the
>most common motifs regarding them. Fafnir went underground when he turned
>into a dragon. Beowulf's dragon lived underground. St. George's dragon
>came out of a lake. Jormungand lived under the oceans. Nidhog lived
>underground. The Python which Apollo slew emerged from the ground. Typhon
>lived in Cilician caves. The snakes that killed Laocoon came from the sea.
>The giant snake that Cadmus slew came from a cave. Satan, when identified
>with a serpent, was cast into the abyss. The snake which stole Gilgamesh's
>herb of immortality came from a pool. Even the earliest use of "dragon"
>cited by the Oxford English Dictionary places the dragon in a pit.
>Those are but a few examples. They clearly show that Velikovsky and his
>successors are looking in the wrong direction. The real explanation of
>ancient myth lies, not with comets, but underground, in the Once Hollow
>Earth theory.
V. was wrong only in the details. The snakes and dragon's all live in the
ground you say. Any fool can see this refers, not to fly-bys, but to
actual collisions. So these myths refer to the comet/asteroid that killed
off the dinosaurs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I was ma...@lainet.com
I would sooner believe a Yankee professor would lie than stones
would fall from the heavens.
Benjamin Silliman
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Holden
>I promised I wasn't going to say anything else, but I have to.
>"Catastrophes" don't fit in very well with science. A single, isolated event
>does not lend itself to mathematical description, and may not fit in very
>well with broader theories.
I'm sure the good people of Pompei, Hiroshima, and any number of similar
places will be tremendously reassured to hear that they didn't really die
in mathematically indescribable events...
Ted Holden
med...@digex.com
Murray Rennie
: >Well Dave, before you waste anymore brain cells, maybe you can answer
: >the following questions. Ted seems unable (or unwilling) to. They
: >all have to do with the Saturn Hypothesis. If some of it seems strange,
: >blame Ted's interpretation of your book.
: >What orbit was the Saturn configuration in: Earth's, Saturn's, or some other
: >orbit?
: >Explain how much heat Saturn would have to churn out to keep Earth at
: >a habitable Temperature, and how close to Saturn would Earth have to be to
: >be habitable.
: >Where were Saturns other Satellites? Where are the Myths that mention them?
: >What broke up the Saturn Configuration? How did Earth Survive this Breakup?
: >How did Earth Survive travelling from the orbit of the configuration to its
: >present orbit (assuming the configurations orbit was not in Earths)? How
: >did all the planets end up in what appears to be fairly normal elliptical
: >orbits?
: >Where were Saturns other Satellites? Where are the Myths that mention them?
: >If Saturn's pull was strong enough to pull Pangea into a "world mountain",
: >what would happen to the Earth's water? Water would be more affected by
: >gravity than the land; would it not flood the "world mountain"?
: >How was the pole kept pointing at Saturn?
: Is that all? Your constraint is exemplary.
These seem to have strained Ted Holden to the point where he claimed they were
a "banishing ritual". I figured if all Saturnists had such weak constitutions,
I had better toned them down. It appears that they strained you to the limit
as well, as the non-existent answers show...
: Why don't we just go have a beer together? I'm sure all of these
: questions could be answered with perfect clarity in ten or fifteen
: minutes.
Somehow I doubt that....
: Murray! Are you talking to me, or to the imagined throng of lurkers out
: there? I'm afraid I have some bad news for you. With the exception of a
Sorry Dave, I am talking to you. You directly. Do you have any answers?
Or are they buried in some unpublished Velikovskian manuscript?
: straggler or two, no one is left. What do you suppose folks would
: be hanging around for, an encore performance by the class clown?
Is that why your back here? You're giving an encore...
: If I am misreading you I apologize. And if so, please join me in urging
: a debate on the theory as a whole. Instead of speaking to ghosts, why not
: a discussion for the benefit of intelligent readers and specialists
: who've steadfastly avoided these unlit halls? Such a debate would not
: preclude posting on t.o by anyone wishing to talk to themselves late into
: the night. But it might also offer those approaching exhaustion a way into
: the light of day.
You assert that there are no lurkers here. I assure you there are more
lurkers here than on alt.catastrophism. Why do you think Ted still posts
here (despite his statement that he was avoiding T.O.)?
As for unlit passages, the only ones I see in this debate are on the
Saturnist/Velikovskian side. The short question list is an attempt
to light those passages. However, I would like them to be answered publically,
where all can appreciate them.
By the way, what about the other possible explaination for your main motif (the
planet-inside-planet motif). It's rare and tends to have a profound effect on
those witnessing it. Steven J. Gould devoted his first essay from "Dinosaur in a
Haystack" to one that occured over New York City. It's called an Annular eclipse.
Any reason why this cannot be the actual explaination?
: Dave
Murray Rennie
Jim Reilly
Symposium is quite remarkable. It brings to mind the quote by Einstein
that "great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from
mediocre minds." I suspect that fear and envy are the basis for the
present attacks on Velikovsky's followers even as they were for the
earlier attempts by the academic world at suppression of Velikovsky's
theories. No amount of argument will overcome an irrationally based
response so I present none here. I state only that I for one will
always admire this great man for his temperament in dealing with
essentially ad hominem argument his entire life. I repeatedly tell my
students that Velikovsky was one of the greatest intellects of all time,
not just of the twentieth century. I advise colleagues and friends at
every opportunity to read his books. And I look forward to the day when
a new generation of scholars whose careers are not threatened by
Velikovsky's revolutions will give him the honor he deserves. J.R.
Richard A. Schumacher
>the extinction of the dinosaurs uses a comet as the destroying agent.
Please note the small but significant differences
between the average comet and the planet Venus.
>There was a time when rocks falling from the sky was thought ridiculous,
>nowadays we are finding evidence of impact craters all over the planet.
Please note the small but significant differences
between the average comet and the planet Mars.
>Whether it was a rogue planet (Velikovsky),
Please note that the Solar system swarms with asteroids and
comets. It has not a single "rogue" planets.
>solar system invader (Allan
>& Delair), crust slippage (Hapsgood), or some other agent, something
>major happened to this planet 10,000 to 17,000 years ago and as a race
>we were there to witness it.
So major, yet you can't decide which it was? So major, yet
it leaves no physical evidence? This is self-delusion born
of religious mania.
Paul J. Gans
Mike Payne (mp4...@batnet.com) wrote:
: Richard A. Schumacher <schu...@convex.com> wrote:
:
: > >> Novices are cautioned that Velikovski was not an historian,
: > >> physicist or astronomer. He ignored facts as needed to fit
: > >> his pre-conceptions.
: > >Richard Schumacher, it should be noted, is a world's famous
: > >historian, physicist, and astronomer. If you can't believe
: > >Schumacher when he tells you Velikovsky was crazy, who can you
: > >believe?
: >
: > Oh, heavens no. People should not take my word for it, or yours.
: > They should just go learn the basic facts of history, physics and
: > astronomy. They would quickly see that Velikovsky was a self-deluded
: > science wanna-be, and his followers today just, well, the followers
: > of a self-deluded science wanna-be.
:
:
: In my 40 years of study and learning the "basic facts" of ancient
: history & astronomy I have found that these "facts" are founded on the
: shaky structure of theories that have yet to be proved one way or
: theory of the time. History has shown that theories come and go and the
: theories we cling to today will be gone tomorrow. In the 50's when
: Velikovsky's THEORY was first proposed the thought of comets wrecking
: havoc on Earth was thought ludicrous, but now the prevailing theory of
: the extinction of the dinosaurs uses a comet as the destroying agent.
: nowadays we are finding evidence of impact craters all over the planet.
: Whether it was a rogue planet (Velikovsky), solar system invader (Allan
: & Delair), crust slippage (Hapsgood), or some other agent, something
: major happened to this planet 10,000 to 17,000 years ago and as a race
: ways that we can't even hardly recognize. I believe that denial of the
: events is one that I recognize.
But, of course, you are not prepared to say what this "something
major" was, are you? And, of course, you have no physical
evidence for whatever it was either.
What you do have is a misch-mash of human stories, many taken
out of context (such as flood stories).
And by the way Galileo was not locked up because of his
astronomical ideas, impacts from outer space have been
well-respected astronomically ever since the nature of the
craters on the moon were recognized for what they are,
"rocks falling from the sky" have been recognized for several
hundred years, and the crust never slipped.
Beyond that you have your basic facts correct.
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
ev.co...@ames.net
>
[del]
>
> In my 40 years of study and learning the "basic facts" of ancient
> history & astronomy I have found that these "facts" are founded on the
> shaky structure of theories that have yet to be proved one way or
> another. Many times facts discovered are altered to fit the prevailing
> theory of the time. History has shown that theories come and go and the
> theories we cling to today will be gone tomorrow. In the 50's when
> Velikovsky's THEORY was first proposed the thought of comets wrecking
> havoc on Earth was thought ludicrous, but now the prevailing theory of
> the extinction of the dinosaurs uses a comet as the destroying agent.
> There was a time when rocks falling from the sky was thought ridiculous,
> nowadays we are finding evidence of impact craters all over the planet.
> Galileo was thought so crazy at his time that he had to be locked up.
> Whether it was a rogue planet (Velikovsky), solar system invader (Allan
> & Delair), crust slippage (Hapsgood), or some other agent, something
> major happened to this planet 10,000 to 17,000 years ago and as a race
> we were there to witness it. It has left a basic impression on us in
> ways that we can't even hardly recognize. I believe that denial of the
> events is one that I recognize.
A voice of reason at last.
ev.co...@ames.net
Two voices of sanity in one night on talk.origins. This
is almost unbelievable, and hopefully a sign of things to
come.
ev.co...@ames.net
I post the following e-mail from Ev Cochrane with his permission.
(Actually, he thought that he had posted it in the first place.)
Robert Grumbine
From ev.co...@ames.net Thu Jun 27 01:20:23 1996
Received: from bbs.ames.net (ames.net [206.29.126.2]) by mail1.access.digex.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA28352 for <rm...@access5.digex.net>; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 01:20:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [206.29.126.2] by ames.net id 2690.wrk; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 00:19:18 -0600
Message-ID: <31D228...@ames.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 00:23:56 -0600
Reply-To: ev.co...@ames.net
Organization: Cochrane & Assoc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robert Grumbine <rm...@access5.digex.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: R
Robert Grumbine wrote:
>
> I'm intersplicing two responses here, please don't assume
> that the references have been preserved properly.
[Robert is quoting Dave Talbott here]
> >If, however, any qualified t.o regular ever accepts one of the _repeated_
> >challenges by Ev Cochrane or myself, to debate a subject on an even
> >playing field, with the right of both parties to publish the full text of
> >the debate, I can guarantee you that the results will be a far cry from
> >the t.o junk yard.
>
> What would be an 'even' playing field? Ev had what would seem to
> be one in a print magazine with Leroy Ellenberger. After the first
> pair of articles appeared in print, Ev started posting to talk.origins,
> which Ellenberger doesn't have access to. That doesn't appear to
> be an interest in an even playing field.
>
> Rights to publish the text ... precisely which text, only what
> you say yourself, or are you giving Aeon the right to publish what
> it wants of both sides?
>
Robert, I suggest you get your facts straight before
pontificating in this manner. What "pair of articles" are
you referring to? This is a figment of your/Leroy's
imagination. Moreover, my posting to talk.origins had
absolutely nothing to do with the one article of Leroy's
that Aeon did publish. You have your history bass-ackwards.
It was Leroy who elected to carry his campaign against
Velikovsky and the Saturnists to talk.origins, using the
likes of Jim Lippard. In attempting to set the record
straight, I was drawn into a debate with Leroy.
Tell me something: If Leroy is so handicapped with regards
to debating via talk.origins, how is it that I have several
hundred pages of posts from him? If Leroy wanted to
debate, he has dozens of pen pals on talk.origins who will
disseminate his disinformation. But he doesn't want to
debate. Nor, I suspect, do you. If either of you did,
you would accept my offer to print any article of your
choice--unedited accept for obnoxious slurs of character,
etc.--within the pages of Aeon. I have made this offer
on numerous occasions, but Ellenberger and his pals on
talk.origins always decline. Why do you think that is?
--
Ev Cochrane
Editor/Publisher of Aeon
A Journal of Myth and Science
http://www.ames.net/aeon/
Email: ev.co...@ames.net
--
Bob Grumbine rm...@access.digex.net
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Robert Grumbine
The following is my e-mailed response to Ev:
From rmg3 Thu Jun 27 14:15:57 1996
Received: (from rmg3@localhost) by access5.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA25562 ; for ; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 14:15:43 -0400
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 14:15:43 -0400
From: Robert Grumbine <rmg3>
Message-Id: <1996062718...@access5.digex.net>
To: ev.co...@ames.net, rmg3
Subject: References
Status: R
To: ev.co...@ames.net
Subject: Re: Talbott's 'debate' offer
>[Robert is quoting Dave Talbott here]
>> >If, however, any qualified t.o regular ever accepts one of the _repeated_
>> >challenges by Ev Cochrane or myself, to debate a subject on an even
>> >playing field, with the right of both parties to publish the full text of
>> >the debate, I can guarantee you that the results will be a far cry from
>> >the t.o junk yard.
>>
>> What would be an 'even' playing field? Ev had what would seem to
>> be one in a print magazine with Leroy Ellenberger. After the first
>> pair of articles appeared in print, Ev started posting to talk.origins,
>> which Ellenberger doesn't have access to. That doesn't appear to
>> be an interest in an even playing field.
>>
>> Rights to publish the text ... precisely which text, only what
>> you say yourself, or are you giving Aeon the right to publish what
>> it wants of both sides?
>>
>
>Robert, I suggest you get your facts straight before
>pontificating in this manner. What "pair of articles" are
>you referring to?
Cochrane, Ev "Velikovsky Still in Collision", Skeptic, vol 3, number
4, 47, 1995.
Ellenberger, Leroy "An Antidote to Velokovskian Delusions", Skeptic,
vol 3, number 4, 49, 1995.
That was a special issue on cosmology. The index is available on-line
at http://www.rtd.com/~lippard/skeptic/03.4.contents.html
You posted regarding these articles earlier this year on the net.
A search at http://www.dejanews/com/ for talk.origins, Jan 1, 1996 to
30 April, 1996, revealed 81 articles by you, most relating
to the Skeptic articles. I append the initial article below.
It is to these articles and your subsequent postings to which
I was referring.
>This is a figment of your/Leroy's imagination.
So much for my imagination and your memory.
Robert Grumbine
rm...@access.digex.net
Appended:
Subject: Velikovsky, Cochrane, and Ellenberger in Skeptic
From: Ev Cochrane <ecoc...@delphi.com>
Date: 1996/01/20
Message-Id: <htMJwwO....@delphi.com>
Organization: Delphi (in...@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
This past month, the journal Skeptic devoted several articles to
a discussion of Velikovsky's place in the history of science. A
relatively pro-Velikovsky position was taken by your's truly, articles
by Henry Bauer and Leroy Ellenberger taking a more critical position.
As there are more than a few skeptics on talk.origins, I suggest that
it might prove enlightening to continue this debate within these
hallowed halls. Tomorrow I will type up my article and post it.
I suggest that someone do the same with Leroy's article. Ihave
already prepared a rebuttal of Leroy's various arguments which I
will also post.
Alan Scott
(In response to Mark Isaak's post describing mythological evidence for
a once hollow earth)
>The hostility toward Velikovsky evident in your reaction to this
>Symposium is quite remarkable.
I don't think there is much hostility towards Velikovsky evident in
Mark's posting. He is merely trying to illustrate the ease with which
*any* theory can be supported by selective interpretation of myths.
This is the method used by Cochrane, Talbott & co.
>It brings to mind the quote by Einstein
>that "great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from
>mediocre minds."
This is true. Any revolutionary theory which overturns even one
well supported theory will be met by extreme skepticism in the
scientific community. Perhaps you see this as a problem. Likely
you would characterize current scientific understandings as
'dogma' peddled by an 'ivory tower elite'. You would not be the
first. Perhaps you think all new theories should be accepted as
gospel truth without first checking if the predictions correspond
to observations. Fortunately, science does not work this way.
A new theory must do a better job of explaining observations than
the one (or ones) that it is meant to replace. Velikovsky's
supporters have had decades to produce a working physical model
of the astronomical events he predicted. They haven't done it.
Velikovsky's supporters have had decades to dig up any geological
evidence corresponding to these world shattering catastrophes.
They haven't done it.
Velikovsky's supporters have had decades to pin down an actual
chronology for the alleged cataclysmic events. They haven't done
it. (This is likely due to their failure to find any geologic
evidence of said catastrophes).
Scientists have become much more receptive to the possibility of
catastrophic events influencing the Earth's history since the
time of Velikovsky's initial publications. For example, the
asteroid thought to have caused the extinction of the dinosaurs
was accepted quickly once the iridium layer was discovered.
Rigorous mathematical models have lead to the acceptance of an
impact phenomenon as the originator of Earth's moon.
If Velikovsky's theories are correct, why have his supporters
failed him so?
>I suspect that fear and envy are the basis for the
>present attacks on Velikovsky's followers even as they were for the
>earlier attempts by the academic world at suppression of Velikovsky's
>theories. No amount of argument will overcome an irrationally based
>response so I present none here.
I notice Ev Cochrane himself has praised your arguments. Your
convincing presentation of the physical evidence in favour of
Velikovsky's thesis is certainly one of the best that
I have seen as well.
>I state only that I for one will
>always admire this great man for his temperament in dealing with
>essentially ad hominem argument his entire life. I repeatedly tell my
>students that Velikovsky was one of the greatest intellects of all time,
>not just of the twentieth century. I advise colleagues and friends at
>every opportunity to read his books. And I look forward to the day when
>a new generation of scholars whose careers are not threatened by
>Velikovsky's revolutions will give him the honor he deserves. J.R.
The man must certainly have been very charismatic to evince such a
religious response from his followers. I look forward to the day
when one of the serious scholars (read Velikovsky supporters)
puts forth some evidence from outside of their serious field of
mythological interpretation.
--
--Al Scott-- Quoting Victor Grauer: Are mathematical truths universal, for all
places and all times? The cultural bias of math shows itself in the very effort
to make them so, even in the face of strong evidence (such as the existence of
irrational numbers) to the contrary.
Andrew MacRae
> The hostility toward Velikovsky evident in your reaction to this
> mediocre minds."
Why do we *always* have to listen to this nonsense? Criticism
does not equate to unfair supression, and in no way indicates any validity
to the claims being criticised. You are describing *excuses* for ignoring
the legitimate, dispassionate scientific criticisms, because some people
happen to offer personal criticisms too.
Some people offer detailed, specific, scientific reasons for not
accepting Velikovsky's claims. Some other people offer personal
criticisms and broad opinions of Velikovsky's work. What happens?
Advocates of Velikovsky always respond to the personal criticisms and say,
"See! See, that is all they have! They are just afraid for their
professional lives." There is something very peculiar and very
unscientific about this common ploy. It is as if you would rather regard
Velikovsky as a unfairly persecuted martyr than to consider the
possibility the scientific criticism is valid, let alone actually deal
with those criticisms preferentially. You have turned "the persecution of
Velikovsky" into a myth bigger than reality, and it has absolutely no
scientific relevance.
..
Richard A. Schumacher
>> Whether it was a rogue planet (Velikovsky), solar system invader (Allan
>> & Delair), crust slippage (Hapsgood), or some other agent, something
>> major happened to this planet 10,000 to 17,000 years ago and as a race
>A voice of reason at last.
They can't decide what it was but it musta been good! Hoo-wee!
Chris Camfield
Mike Payne <mp4...@batnet.com> wrote:
[chop]
>In my 40 years of study and learning the "basic facts" of ancient
>history & astronomy I have found that these "facts" are founded on the
>shaky structure of theories that have yet to be proved one way or
>another. Many times facts discovered are altered to fit the prevailing
>theory of the time. History has shown that theories come and go and the
>theories we cling to today will be gone tomorrow. In the 50's when
>Velikovsky's THEORY was first proposed the thought of comets wrecking
>havoc on Earth was thought ludicrous, but now the prevailing theory of
>the extinction of the dinosaurs uses a comet as the destroying agent.
It seems to me that it's a lot more plausible that a comet struck the
earth and hurled huge amounts of dust etc into the atmosphere, than to
think that (for instance) a comet struck the earth in such a way that
the earth stopped rotating, and was then struck by another which
started it rotating again, which (as I understand it) is Velikovsky's
or a Velikovskian explanation for how the sun stood still in the Old
Testament of the Bible.
Pull the other leg, it's got bells on.
Chris
--
Christopher Camfield - ccam...@uwaterloo.ca - 1996 BMath Joint CS/C&O
"Do you need a new invention? Are you in the right dimension?"
(The Jazz Butcher)
Mike Payne
> >havoc on Earth was thought ludicrous, but now the prevailing theory of
> >the extinction of the dinosaurs uses a comet as the destroying agent.
>
> Please note the small but significant differences between the average
> comet and the planet Venus.
>
I find Velikovsky's wandering protoplanet Venus in 1500 B.C. more
believable than an "average" comet lowering the curtain of one of
Earth's great ages. Anyway, the point of the statement was the
acceptance of an idea today that was thought ludicrous 1/2 a century
ago.
> >There was a time when rocks falling from the sky was thought ridiculous,
> >nowadays we are finding evidence of impact craters all over the planet.
>
> Please note the small but significant differences between the average
> comet and the planet Mars.
>
Same as above.
> >Whether it was a rogue planet (Velikovsky),
>
> Please note that the Solar system swarms with asteroids and comets. It has
> not a single "rogue" planets.
>
Presently it doesn't. But that doesn't mean it couldn't have happened
in the past. And it also doesn't mean it couldn't happen in the future.
In the past there may have been a period of time when there were no
asteroids or comets.
>
> >solar system invader (Allan & Delair), crust slippage (Hapsgood), or some
> >other agent, something major happened to this planet 10,000 to 17,000
> >years ago and as a race we were there to witness it.
>
> So major, yet you can't decide which it was? So major, yet it leaves no
> physical evidence? This is self-delusion born of religious mania.
The inquisitors of Galileo stated there was no evidence for his
self-deluded convictions either but it was all around them, all they had
to do was look. You are right in that I suffer from a religious mania,
it's the religious mania of keeping an open mind.
Mike Payne
Mike Payne
> It seems to me that it's a lot more plausible that a comet struck the
> earth and hurled huge amounts of dust etc into the atmosphere, than to
> think that (for instance) a comet struck the earth in such a way that
> the earth stopped rotating, and was then struck by another which
> started it rotating again, which (as I understand it) is Velikovsky's
> or a Velikovskian explanation for how the sun stood still in the Old
> Testament of the Bible.
>
> Pull the other leg, it's got bells on.
>
> Chris
It certainly is not in my realm to disagree with you on what you believe
is more plausible, your beliefs are your own. The reason of my post was
to point out the changes in academic thinking over the years. Your
statement above about the plausibility of a comet striking the Earth and
wiping out the dinosaurs, if uttered just 45 years ago, would have made
you the laughing stock of the intellectual academia of that time.
Truly, I'm not interested in pulling either one of your legs whether
they have bells on them or not. ;-)
Mike
abe...@peg.apc.org
M. Isaac claims that "A. Beggs is the only person I know of who
sees anything remotely celestial in flood myths."
M. Isaac has apparently never heard of I. Velikovsky who, in his
1950 book "Worlds in Collision," directly connected the planet
Saturn with the mythical Flood and proposed to write a book on the
subject, to be entitled "SATURN AND THE FLOOD."
M. Isaac has apparently never heard of D. Talbott who, in his 1980
book "The Saturn Myth" and subsequent writing in KRONOS and AEON,
has shown consistent global patterns of image and symbol directly
connecting the planets Mars, Venus, Saturn, and Jupiter, with The
Flood and, in fact, with *all* of the themes of global myth.
M. Isaac has apparently not yet taken the opportunity to purchase
*his own* copy of the MYTHSCAPE series video "Remembering the End
of the World" where all of the above is clearly and brilliantly
illustrated.
M. Isaac has probably never heard of D. Mowaljarlai. .
David Mowaljarlai is a Ngarinyin elder living in the north-west of
Australia. He is co-author of a recently published book:
YORRO YORRO -- Spirit of the Kimberley .
By: David Mowaljarlai and Jutta Malnic .
Published 1993, by Magabala Books, Broome, Western Australia
In a recent posting M. Isaac had stated: "Probably the most common
haired serpent in mythology is the rainbow serpent which is very
nearly universal in Australia. It is interesting to note that
rainbow serpents invariably live either in deep water or
underground."
Let us see what David Mowaljarlai has to say about the rainbow
serpent, and about Floods, and about things celestial.
On page 192 of Yorro Yorro we find: .
"When Mowaljarlai translated the Kalumburu tapes of the five old
men, he had found that some ancestor stories were going back to
when the islands originated, and even further back, to what the
Birrimitji, the In The Beginning people had seen before the Ice
Age -- that moon, sun and some of the stars had been on earth, for
instance; and that the Birrimitji knew why. One song told about a
flood, long before the last, that was brought on by Kallowa
Anggnal Kude, a star with trails. The symbols that testify to
these events are still in the Kimberley."
[Jutta Malnic, David's co-author, tells me that the "star with
trails" is "Wanda" -- the Morning Star]
"The important one is the `Song After the Flood,' the one that
praises the Big Wandjina for coming and standing it all up again--
a praise for his re-Creation and restoration. This song was not
made today."
"We've lost so many stories. Many anthropologists in my time ...
went about for months recording Wandjina story. But they never
went back as far as Creation to connect it up to the present.
They never put it all together as it was, right up till today. I
only find out yesterday, only you [Jutta Malnic] and I are doing
this. I can tell you, it would take a thousand years to put the
whole detail, all the pieces together"
"The old people, who knew, died many, many years back in their
grid-places. I say that we got no hope to show the new generation,
the future generations, no way. They can only study -- but they
wouldn't know where it was, where everything is written into the
country."
********************************* .
The Wandjina, who "came out of the sky at the end of the Dreamtime
and painted themselves in the cave," is portrayed as a striped
*hairy* serpent whose body forms a *circle* directly above a huge,
bright, recumbent *crescent*. Not unlike my Logo, in fact!!
Allan Beggs
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* . === . EFMRL Research *
* // | \\ Exploring the Saturn Myth *
* // .-. \\ *
* ||---( )---|| Internet: abe...@peg.apc.org *
* \\ `-' // *
* \ \..|../ / ONE -1- Column *
* `...o...' TWO -2- Crescents *
* / | \ THREE -3- Circles *
* / | \ FOUR -4- Cross *
* / | \ SEVEN -7- somethings *
* / | \ NINE -9- Spiral *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Twisted STISter
In article <1996062819...@mp4747.batnet.com>,
Mike Payne <mp4...@batnet.com> wrote:
>Richard A. Schumacher <schu...@convex.com> wrote:
>
>> >havoc on Earth was thought ludicrous, but now the prevailing theory of
>> >the extinction of the dinosaurs uses a comet as the destroying agent.
>>
>> Please note the small but significant differences between the average
>> comet and the planet Venus.
>>
>
> I find Velikovsky's wandering protoplanet Venus in 1500 B.C. more
>believable than an "average" comet lowering the curtain of one of
>Earth's great ages. Anyway, the point of the statement was the
>acceptance of an idea today that was thought ludicrous 1/2 a century
>ago.
I understood the original point, but a digression here is needed.
We see no-- absolutely NO-- evidence of planets moving outside
their appointed rounds as we see them today. On the contrary,
the orbits of the planets are so well defined that if one--Venus, say--
started out on a highly eccentric orbit, even millions of years ago,
it would be hardly likely to have such a nice nearly circular
orbit today. Orbital evolution is a VERY long and slow process.
To counter your second point, we DO see tremendous evidence of
comet and asteroid impacts on every major solid body in the solar
system, the Earth included. I saw with my own eyes the incredible
scars in Jupiter's clouds left by Shoemaker-Levy 9, an "average"
comet. That impact would have wiped clean everything for 5000 kilometers
had it ocurred on the Earth.
[...]
>> >Whether it was a rogue planet (Velikovsky),
>>
>> Please note that the Solar system swarms with asteroids and comets. It has
>> not a single "rogue" planets.
>
> Presently it doesn't. But that doesn't mean it couldn't have happened
>in the past. And it also doesn't mean it couldn't happen in the future.
>In the past there may have been a period of time when there were no
>asteroids or comets.
That is highly unlikely. The origin of comets is still debated, but the
fact that we see dozens every year tooling in from the outer solar system--
which is apretty damn big place-- indicates there are lots of them out
there, and they have been coming in at a fairly regular rate for a long
time. Ancient drawings and tapestries show comets on them, indicating
again they have been appearing for a long time. The regular orbits of
long period comets comets indicate orbital periods of anywhere up
to millions of years, again indicating they have always been there.
>The inquisitors of Galileo stated there was no evidence for his
>self-deluded convictions either but it was all around them, all they had
>to do was look. You are right in that I suffer from a religious mania,
>it's the religious mania of keeping an open mind.
Galileo had two advantages over Velikovsky:
He had made repeatable observations, and he was right.
I can think of no astronomer who will deny that catastrophism
plays a role in solar system evolution. We have *seen* catastrophes happen.
But we have never seen any catastrophes as Velikovsky describes them.
The vast majority of his science is blatantly wrong, yet this seems to
always get glossed over in arguments. You cannot pick and choose which
observations to use to confirm your theory; they must all
fit or the theory is rejected (or modified). Venus *cannot* have come
from Jupiter, you cannot simply stop a planet from
rotating and then start it up again, and on and on.
I do not reject Velikovsky out of hand; I reject his theories
because EVERY observation has shown his theoris to be grossly
incorrect.
--
* Phil Plait, Pee Aytch Dee pc...@virginia.edu
* "Twinkies are not sentient in any way we can understand."
Mark Isaak
>
> The hostility toward Velikovsky evident in your reaction to this
> Symposium is quite remarkable.
What hostility? Velikovsly was a wonderful entertainer. For example, he
proposed Venus was simultaneously hot enough to glow and cool enough to
support life, and he got people to applaud him for it! Not even Charlie
Chaplin or Jack Benny have accomplished anything like that.
--
Mark Isaak "The first principle is that you must not
is...@aurora.com fool yourself, and you're the easiest
person to fool." - Richard Feynman
Chris Camfield
Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[chop]
>V. was wrong only in the details. The snakes and dragon's all live in the
>ground you say. Any fool can see this refers, not to fly-bys, but to
>actual collisions. So these myths refer to the comet/asteroid that killed
>off the dinosaurs.
This comment begs the questions
- when do you think the dinosaurs were killed off?
- how long do you think humanity has been on the earth?
Bowen Simmons
(Mike Payne) wrote:
> ...
> I find Velikovsky's wandering protoplanet Venus in 1500 B.C....
>
> The inquisitors of Galileo stated there was no evidence for his
> self-deluded convictions either but it was all around them, all they had
> to do was look. You are right in that I suffer from a religious mania,
> it's the religious mania of keeping an open mind.
Someday there may be a nut or a crank who doesn't invoke Galileo, but I
wouldn't hold my breath.
--
Bowen Simmons
bo...@netgate.net
Bowen Simmons
> I advise colleagues and friends at every opportunity to read his books.
Let's pretend I am a friend or a colleague of yours and that following
your advice, I read WinC. Now I have some questions. How do you answer
them?
"Some indirect conclusions can also be drawn concerning the presence of
liquid petroleum on Jupiter. If, as is assumed here, Venus was thrown off
from Jupiter in a violent explosion, and if Venus has petroleum gases,
then Jupiter must also have petroleum. The fact that methane has been
discovered in the atmosphere of Jupiter...makes it rather probable that it
has petroleum; the so-called "natural gas" found in and near oil fields
consists largely of methane." p. 369
Is the atmosphere of Venus like that of Jupiter? What are the main
constituents of the Jovian atmosphere? What are the main constintuents of
the Venusian atmosphere? Does Venus have petroleum gases? Does Jupter?
"...if I am not mistaken, Venus and Jupiter must possess an organic source
of petroleum. On preceding pages it was shown that there are some
historical indications that Venus - and therefore also Jupiter - is
populated by Vermin; this organic life can be the source of petroleum." p.
369
Is Jupiter populated by vermin? Is Venus?
"The other modern theory, which ascribes the origin of comets of short
period to explusion by large planets, is also correct:" p. 173
Are comets expelled by large planets? How does this happen?
"During these catastrophes the moon's surface flowed with lava and bubbled
into great circular formations, which rapidly cooled off in the long lunar
night, unprotected by an atmosphere from the coolness of cosmic spaces.
In these cosmic collisions or near contacts the surface of the moon was
also marked with clefts and rifts." p. 361
Are the lunar craters flash-frozen bubbles? Do things cool more quickly
in a vacuum?
"The part [of the tail of comet Venus] retained by Venus burned or smoked
for a long time, as long as the oxygen carried from the Earth lasted; what
remained forms today the envelope of carbon clouds of the morning star."
p. 368
Are Venus's clouds made of carbon?
"The persistance with which the planet Venus is associated with a
fly...create the impression that the flies in the tail of Venus were not
merely the earthly brood, swarming in heat like other vermin, but guests
from another planet." p. 186
Is Venus populated by flies?
"The planet Mars, its atmosphere distorted by its approaches to other
celestail bodies - Venus, earth, moon - took on different shapes...[it]
took the form of various birds and beasts. On one occasion Mars very
characteristically resembled a wolf or a jackel." p. 264
"The atmosphere of Mars is invisible. If there are any living creatures
on that planet, and if they are endowed with organs of sight, they see a
black sky, not a blue one as we do." p. 365
Is the atmosphere of Mars visible or invisible?
"The main ingredient of the atmosphere of Mars must be present in the
atmosphere of the Earth...It could be nitrogen, but the presence of
nitrogen on Mars - or its absence - has not yet been established...The
absorbtion lines of argon and neon have not yet been investigated...If
analysis should reveal them [argon and neon] in rich amounts, this would
also answer the question: What contribution did Mars make to the earth
when the two planets came into contact?" p. 367
Is the atmosphere of Mars rich in Neon and Argon? What are the main
elements of the Martian atmosphere?
"The white precipitated masses on Mars, which form the polar caps, are
probably in the nature of carbon, having been acquired from the trailing
part of Venus, and only the difference in atmospheric conditions on Mars,
together with a difference in temperature, keeps this "manna" from being
permanently dissolved under the rays of the Sun." p. 366
Are the icecaps of Mars made out of Manna? How can petroleum gases
precipitate as food?
> And I look forward to the day when
> a new generation of scholars whose careers are not threatened by
> Velikovsky's revolutions will give him the honor he deserves. J.R.
I wouldn't hold my breath.
--
Bowen Simmons
bo...@netgate.net
Ted Holden
>In article <31D31D...@kent.net>, Jim Reilly <rei...@kent.net> wrote:
> > I advise colleagues and friends at every opportunity to read his books.
>Let's pretend I am a friend or a colleague of yours and that following
>your advice, I read WinC. Now I have some questions. How do you answer
>them?
[list of stupid bait questions...]
You call that a question list? Now HERE's a question list:
1. Evolution begins with the idea of one-celled animals somehow arising
from inert materials (abiogenesis). Nonetheless, I've read articles
indicating that the probabilistic odds against even deriving one of
the required chemical components of a one-celled animal are way
beyond what any mathematician would categorize as impossible. For
instance, the following appeared on the internet recently:
>It is estimated that the smallest possible self replicating species
>would contain 124 separate protein chains. With each made of 400
>aa-molecules. Probability of forming one protein chain of 400 links
>
> 114
>(all L-type) from a mixture of 50/50 D- and L-forms is 1 in 10.
>Probability for 124 seperate chains being created out of chance,
>each containing 400 links of L-type molecules from a mixture of D-
> 14,136
>and L- forms is 1 in 10 .
>
>Probability for 124 properly sequenced protein chains being formed
> 64,480
>by chance alone is 1 in 10 .
>
>Probability for 124 protein chains to have been formed from L-type
> 78,616
>molecules alone from a 50/50 mixture of D and L types 1 in 10
>To produce these 124-x400 L type chains would require DNA with
>148,800 nucleotides. This doesent even reflect the 124 x 6 codons
>for go/stop punctuation. Probability of forming one DNA strand of
> 89,280
>148,800 nucleotides is 1 in 10.
>
>Now....the probability for this one example of DNA amd 124 chains
> 167,896
>to have formed by chance alone simultaneously is 1 in 10.
>
>WE HAVE NOT EVEN GOTTON TO A COMPLETE PROBABILITY FOR A WHOLE CELL
>YET. AND WE HAVENT EVEN TOUCHED UPON THE PROGRAMING FOR DNA TO CARRY
>ALL THIS OUT. And the nuclutides for a human is like 3,000,000,000.
>
>Conclusion: Mathmatics do not support the theory of evolution as
>it is currently concieved. Mathmatically there is a zero probability
>for any kind of cell development by haphazzard chance alone.
The question is:
1. How does anything beat 1 to 10 raised to the 167,896 power odds?
You have to figure proteins would be destroyed faster than they could
be created by any natural, undirected process, and that that the ratio
between these rates is again some sort of astronomical number. Again
from the internet, Bill Anderson:
15) There have been many imaginative but unsuccessful attempts to
explain how just one single protein could form from any of the
assumed atmospheres of the early Earth. The necessary chemical
reactions all tend to move in the opposite direction from that
required by evolution. Furthermore, each possible energy source,
whether the Earth's heat, electrical discharges, or the sun's
radiation, would have destroyed the protein products millions of
time faster than they could be formed.
And from Tricia Borawski:
>Even the question "Given billions of tries, can a spilled
>bottle of ink ever fall into the words of Shakespeare?" has
>become obsolete as a result of modern man's understanding of
>random mutation. Till now, this question pointed out odds so
>astronomical that it rendered the event a virtual impossibility.
>Now, it's not even a question of beating ridiculous odds. Now
>we're shooting dice which deteriorate with each throw and
>eventually self destruct. That is, we're shooting dice (genetic
>"messages") which deteriorate (cause genetic diseases) with each
>throw (of random mutation) and eventually self destruct (the host
>organism). Thus, instead of, "Can you beat such ridiculous
>odds?" the question now becomes, "After relatively few tries,
>will you have any ink, paper, or dice left with which to try
>again?" Since the very life that is supposed to evolve will be
>destroyed in the process, it is impossible for the process to
>even go on for any required length of time. This makes it highly
>questionable, to say the least, that a trial-and-error method of
>genetic mutations could beat even realistic odds--forget about
>the preposterous odds proposed by evolutionists. Therefore,
>whether life could develop in an environment (of genetic
>mutations) where even fully developed biological systems cannot
>survive is really no more a question of odds than whether a cow
>could survive underwater long enough to conceive and give birth--
>it's simply impossible.
The question is:
2. How did proteins ever first evolve given all of this?
Again, Bill Anderson:
16) If, despite the virtually impossible odds, proteins arose by
chance processes, there is not the remotest reason to believe that
they could ever form a self-reproducing, membrane-encased, living
cell. There is no evidence that there are any stable states
between assumed naturalistic formation of proteins and the
formation of the first living cells. No scientist has ever
advanced a testable procedure whereby this fantastic jump in
complexity could have occurred--even if the universe were
completely filled with proteins.
17) DNA can only be produced with the help of certain enzymes. But
these enzymes can only be produced at the direction of DNA. Since
each requires the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin
of one must simultaneously explain the origin of the other. No
evidence exists for any such naturalistic explanation.
18) The simplest form of life consists of 600 different protein
molecules. The mathematical probability that just one molecule
could form by the chance arrangement of the proper amino acids is
far less than 1 in 10^527. The magnitude of the number 10^527 can
begin to be appreciated by realizing that the visible universe is
about 10^28 inches in diameter.
The question is:
3. How did the first one-celled animals ever evolve against all of that?
Suppose that God or some other creator created the first one-celled animals,
or that we simply split up abiogenesis and evolution into separate topics,
and allow evolutionists to defend evolutionism, and criminals to defend
abiogenesis (as punishment for their crimes), as a number of the t.o.
howler monkeys insist upon; can we get to humans, given the one-celled
animals?
Millions of steps appear to be required to get from a one-celled
animal to a human, and yet we know that even one of the smaller
steps, such as between two different humanoid ancestors, involves
odds which begin to sound like those in question 1. Again from the
internet:
>There is 1,000's if not million's of nucleotides that must be
>directed to line up in a specific sequence. There is enormous
>alignments as well as additions to the genetic code from
>Gigantopithecus to Australopithecus for example. If there was a
>1% diffrence in the genetic bases of man and ape, that comes out
>to about 30,000,000 bases. With such enormous numbers of bases
>involved, mathematics become very relevent. Why? Becuse there is
>well accepted laws in mathematics that say if you want to talk
>about such feats, don't use "chance", "time","mutations" or any
>other defined event that must act in some random way to bring it
>about.
The question is:
4. While one might believe that one such step against those kinds of odds
had taken place in all the history of the world, how is anybody supposed
to believe that millions of such steps did??
Aside from the problems involving genetics and probability, there are
problems with what you might term programmatics.
Consider the "proto-bird" (TM), a favorite amongst evolutionists, even
as Porky Pig and Lambchop are favored by children. This poor little
creature is supposed to have somehow survived a thousand generation
process during which it had neither functional arms, nor functional
wings, during which it had enough flight feathers to look weird and be
laughed at, but not enough to fly, a light enough bone structure to be
kicked around on beaches, but not light enough to fly, and was generally
an outcast, pariah, ugly duckling, and effortlessly free meal for every
predator which ever saw it for 1000+ generations before it ever succeeded
and flew.
An idea of how hard it would truly be for "proto-bird" (TM) to make it
to flying-bird status can be gotten from the case of the escaped
chicken.
Consider that man raises chickens in gigantic abundance, and that
on many farms, these are not even caged. Consider the numbers of such
chickens which must have escaped in all of recorded history; look in
the sky overhead: where are all of their wild-living descendants??
Why are there no wild chickens???
They've got wings, tails, and flight feathers, and the whold nine yards.
In their domestic state, they can fly albeit badly; they are entirely
similar to what you might expect of an evolutionist's proto-bird, in the
final stage of evolving into a flight-worthy condition.
According to evolutionist dogma, at least a few of these should very quickly
finish evolving back into something like a normal bird, once having escaped,
and then the progeny of those few should very quickly fill the skies.
But there are no wild chickens. In real life, against real settings,
real predators, real conditions, the wings and tails are fatal burdons,
and the bad flying capabilities do not suffice to save them.
Thus we see that "proto-bird" (TM) not only couldn't make it the entire
journey which he is supposed to have, he couldn't even make it the last
yard if we spotted him the thousand miles minus the yard.
The question is:
5. If, as we see above, "proto-bird" can't make it the last yard with
our spotting him the thousand miles minus one yard as noted, how are
we supposed to believe that he made it the thousand miles without
our spotting him anything?
In similar vein, Bill Anderson notes:
20) Detailed studies of various animals have revealed certain
physical equipment and capabilities that cannot be duplicated by
the world's best designers using the most sophisticated
technologies. A few examples include: the miniature and reliable
sonar systems of the dolphins, porpoises, and whales; the
frequency-modulated radar and discrimination system of the bat; the
efficiency and aerodynamic capabilities of the hummingbird; the
control systems, internal ballistics, and combustion chambers of
the bombadier beetle, and the precise and redundant navigational
systems of many birds and fish. The many components of these
complex systems could not have evolved in stages without placing a
selective disadvantage on the animal.
The questions are:
6. How are we supposed to believe that all of these animals survived
prolonged periods of profound disadvantage during the lengthy times
required to develop such specialized capabilities which would be
worthless very late in the process of development?
and
6.1 Evolution supposedly being a system of ensuring survival via a development
path of least resistence, why do we see these hugely complex systems
as Bill Anderson mentions when simpler systems might suffice and expose
the creatures developing them to danger over a much shorter period of time?
and
7. How is natural selection supposed to thus select on the basis of a
hoped-for functionality, rather than simply do a random walk around
some starting point for such a potential?
Again, from Bill Anderson:
2) Mendel's laws of genetics explain almost all of the physical
variations that are observed within life categories such as the dog
family. A logical consequence of these laws and their modern day
refinements is that there are limits to such variation. Breeding
experiments have also confirmed that these boundaries exist.
5) Mutations are the only proposed mechanism by which genetic
material becomes available for evolution. However all (perhaps
all) observable mutations are harmful; many are lethal.
6) No know mutation has ever produced a form of life having both
greater complexity and greater viability than its ancestors.
7) Over seventy years of fruit-fly experiments, equivalent to 2700
consecutive human generations, give no basis for believing that any
natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity
and viability. No clear genetic improvement has ever been observed
despite the many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates.
The question is:
8. How is a process which is invariably destructive in common
experience supposed to drive evolution?
Aside from being unable to develop new kinds of animals, we observe that
breeding cannot produce antediluvian sizes amongst present animals.
For instance, the Argentinian teratorn, a type of eagle, had a 25'
wingspan, and weighed around 170 - 250 lbs. Nonetheless, we know that
Central Asians have been breeding hunting eagles for size and strength
for 2000 years, and cannot get them past 25 lbs; at that point, they
start having too many problems taking off and landing.
9. Why is that?
Similarly, enormous sizes were part and parcel of the game plan for a
number of animals which are supposed to have dominated the Earth for
hundreds of millions of years.
10. If 70,000+ lb sizes were such a winning ticket back then, why has
nothing ever RE-EVOLVED into such sizes, given the tens of millions
of years which are supposed to have passed between then and now.
Given evolution, you have to assume that human culture and language
evolved with man as man was evolving; you have to figure that man was
speech-capable hundreds of thousands of years ago. Thus, since the
Indo-European and Semitic groups show no racial differences and cannot
have separated from eachother more than a few thousand years ago, thier
languages should be very strongly related, nearly as much so as the
individual languages of the Indo-European groups are to eachother.
11. How do you explain the fact that they are not?
12. How do you explain the fact that Indo-European languages appear to
have been simplified grammatically since the first records we have
of them; that they appear to DEVOLVE rather than evolve?
I've been looking at the official U.S. Government photographs of that
funny region on Mars called Cydonia, and you can get those images from:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/PhotoGallery-Mars.html. They
show a gigantic five-sided pyramid, and a number of other pyramids
arranged in some sort of a complex and one more complicated building
with a triangular enclosed space surrounded by two straight walls and a
curved wall, and then there's this pedestal base with a humanoid face on
it, about a mile and a half long nd 1500' high. That face is not really
one of us, but either a neanderthal or something like that or some kind
of a monkey, and the odds against monkeys or anything like that
developing separately on Mars is clearly astronomical. Now, I've
watched monkeys a lot and they're not really terribly smart or anything,
at least by human standards, and the questions are:
13. How did those monkeys or Neanderthals or whatever they were get to
Mars?
14. If monkeys were organized enough to do that in the past, how did
they get to be like they are now?
15. Why do we not find any evidence of a past simian or neanderthal
culture sophisticated enough to get to Mars, or any of the
infrastructure which such a feat would entail?
16. If we're supposed to be descended from monkeys, how did they beat us
to something like that?
Ted Holden
http://access.digex.com/~medved/medved.html
______
[ \ ^^^^^^^^^^ / ]
\ \ / /---
| \ \ / / |
_..-'( / _0 | 0_ \ )`-.._
./'. '||\\. / \ _ / \ .//||` .`\
'.|'.'||||\\|.. _______ / \__/ \__/ \ _____..|//||||`.`|.`
/'.||'.||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||.`||.`\.
Splifford the bat says: Always remember
A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist.
Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
doctrines.
Unknown
You do not even have to go back 45 years to see this. Dietz in 1964
got laughed off of the stage when he suggested that the Sudbury basin
was an astrobleme. He has since been proven to be corect, however
I wonder if the Velikovskians have more geologists aggreeing with their
theory as Dietz had when when he original presented his paper.
I doubt it.
It also did not take very long to convert most of the skeptics in this
case either.
Archae Solenhofen (jmca...@gtn.net)
Andrew MacRae
> Chris Camfield <ccam...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> > It seems to me that it's a lot more plausible that a comet struck the
> > earth and hurled huge amounts of dust etc into the atmosphere, than to
> > think that (for instance) a comet struck the earth in such a way that
> > the earth stopped rotating, and was then struck by another which
..
> > Pull the other leg, it's got bells on.
> >
> > Chris
>
> It certainly is not in my realm to disagree with you on what you believe
> is more plausible, your beliefs are your own. The reason of my post was
> to point out the changes in academic thinking over the years. Your
> statement above about the plausibility of a comet striking the Earth and
> wiping out the dinosaurs, if uttered just 45 years ago, would have made
> you the laughing stock of the intellectual academia of that time.
I'm not so sure. At least one proposed hypothesis for the
extinction of the dinosaurs did involve extraterrestrial processes --
specifically, the radiation and other effects from a nearby supernova. I
am not sure when this one was proposed (1930s?), but it did receive
consideration, even if it was almost untestable.
However, your observation of "changes in academic thinking over
the years" is missing an important point: virtually *none* of that change
has been the result of "mythohistorical" analysis. It has been the result
of accumulated physical evidence and proposal and testing of mechanisms
with that evidence by conventional astronomers, geologists,
paleontologists, and others. In other words, Velikovsky's ideas and his
advocates had virtually nothing to do with it. This fact seems to be
neglected when advocates of Velikovsky mention the changes that have
occurred in the last few decades in conventional science.
> Truly, I'm not interested in pulling either one of your legs whether
> they have bells on them or not. ;-)
Well, I can understand that :-)
Andrew MacRae
> Richard A. Schumacher <schu...@convex.com> wrote:
>
> > >havoc on Earth was thought ludicrous, but now the prevailing theory
of
> > >the extinction of the dinosaurs uses a comet as the destroying agent.
> >
> > Please note the small but significant differences between the average
> > comet and the planet Venus.
> >
>
> I find Velikovsky's wandering protoplanet Venus in 1500 B.C. more
> believable than an "average" comet lowering the curtain of one of
> Earth's great ages.
It does not appear to have been an "average" comet. It appears to
have been a pretty big one, judging by the 100+km diameter crater which is
currently thought to be the impact site. There is not a single other
crater known on the face of the Earth that is that big. That is not to
say such impacts did not occur, but if they did, the Earth is quite active
geologically, and would tend to remove traces of the crater over time (in
fact, this is probably the main reason the one on the Yucatan Peninsula
went unrecognized for so long, even after geologists had started
suspecting the Carribbean as the impact area).
Anyway, this was not an "average" event. And what do you find
"less believable" about this theory? There is *tons* of physical evidence
for an impact at the K/T boundary being the main mechanism for the event.
There is the Ir anomaly, shocked minerals, microtektites, and possible
giant tsunami deposits around the Caribbean. All but the last occur
world-wide at exactly the same point with respect to biological changes
(within the resolution of the fossil evidence). A recent paper even
discovered microscopic fragments of metallic Ir in the impact melt of the
crater on the Yucatan Peninsula, which is coincident in radiometric age
with the K/T boundary at other locations which have been dated. What do
you find less likely about an event with a known mechanism (bolide
impact), and plenty of evidence; compared to a process which has not even
been demonstrated to be physically possible with a realistic model, and
for which the best evidence seems to consist of myth, not physical
evidence?
> Anyway, the point of the statement was the
> acceptance of an idea today that was thought ludicrous 1/2 a century
> ago.
Yes, but largely due to the success of conventional scientists
formulating hypotheses and testing them with the physical evidence; not
comparison to myth.
> > >There was a time when rocks falling from the sky was thought
> > >idiculous, nowadays we are finding evidence of impact craters all
> > >over the planet.
> >
> > Please note the small but significant differences between the average
> > comet and the planet Mars.
>
> Same as above.
>
>
> > >Whether it was a rogue planet (Velikovsky),
> >
> > Please note that the Solar system swarms with asteroids and comets. It
> > has not a single "rogue" planets.
> >
>
> Presently it doesn't. But that doesn't mean it couldn't have happened
> in the past. And it also doesn't mean it couldn't happen in the future.
No. But in the presence of a solar system which *is* swarming
with potential bolides, and ample evidence of encounters in the past, and
ample evidence of "global catastrophe" in association with some of those
encounters, why is more needed? What sets Velikovsky's claims apart from,
say, the possibility of a decent-sized bolide impact in the ocean a few
thousand years ago that generated a huge tsunami and tossed plenty of
water vapour and other debris into the atmosphere, causing climatic
changes, crop failure, and famine on top of the coastal flooding due to
the tsunami? Why did it have to be Venus rolling by instead of this
hypothesis?
> In the past there may have been a period of time when there were no
> asteroids or comets.
There is no evidence for this. The impacts observed on the Earth
are a great variety of ages.
> > >solar system invader (Allan & Delair), crust slippage (Hapsgood), or
> > >some other agent, something major happened to this planet 10,000 to
> > >17,000 years ago and as a race we were there to witness it.
> >
> > So major, yet you can't decide which it was? So major, yet it leaves
> > no physical evidence? This is self-delusion born of religious mania.
>
>
> The inquisitors of Galileo stated there was no evidence for his
> self-deluded convictions either but it was all around them, all they had
> to do was look. You are right in that I suffer from a religious mania,
> it's the religious mania of keeping an open mind.
But are you Galileo or the inquistators? Are you looking at the
evidence for a K/T impact, or just assuming it is implausible because it
sounds like it? Can you demonstrate you are not dismissing that
possibility (as you do above) with little consideration or familiarity
with the evidence?
Robert Grumbine
In article <medved.836105923@access5>,
Ted Holden <med...@access5.digex.net> wrote:
>
>That's totally wrong; none other than Robert Bass has blown that one
>apart and has in fact shown that Bode's law which describes the
>positioning of the planets can be derived dynamically and represents a
>condition into which the system would relax in a few thousand years from
>any starting configuration you might wish.
I really need to get this written in to a note that I can auto-post.
The articles that Ted refers to do no such thing. Ted mailed me copies
and I have duly read them (a couple years ago no). The strongest that
can be said is that Bass concluded then that there were initial conditions
from which it was possible, due to chaos, for Venus to reach its present
orbit in only a few thousand years after ejection from Jupiter. He
also concluded that those conditions were phenomenally unlikely and
in fact admitted that he hadn't found any such conditions.
This was in a set of nontechnical articles. They refer to technical
articles that he had written which were supposed to contain the actual
proofs. Ted doesn't have those articles, or at least he didn't the
last several times I asked. Bass appeared on talk.origins briefly a
while ago. I asked then whether he had a copy of these articles, or
could at least outline the derivation. He said that he could not find
the papers, having not seen them for some time during the last 20 years
worth of moves. Also, he couldn't outline the argument he used because
he hadn't looked at that problem for a long time.
Until someone can produce the technical articles, the status must
remain that only a non-technical assertion exists, and that the assertion
is merely that there _may_ be an initial condition which permits
Venus to reach its present orbit from ejection by Jupiter in only
a few thousand years.
If anyone (Ev Cochrane, Ian Tresman, Dave Talbott, Ted Holden, I
explicitly include you in this request) has copies of Bass's technical
articles on the evolution of Venus's orbit to the presently observed
from ejection by Jupiter, please do send me a copy.
Richard Harter
mp4...@batnet.com (Mike Payne) wrote:
>It certainly is not in my realm to disagree with you on what you believe
>is more plausible, your beliefs are your own. The reason of my post was
>to point out the changes in academic thinking over the years. Your
>statement above about the plausibility of a comet striking the Earth and
>wiping out the dinosaurs, if uttered just 45 years ago, would have made
>you the laughing stock of the intellectual academia of that time.
This is to be blunt, false. There were any number of hypotheses
bruited about for explaining the demise of the dinosaurs. The
relevant phrase is not "laughing stock of the intellectual academia"
but "interesting hypothesis but no evidence". A speculation without
evidence and mechanics is only that -- a speculation. It may be
interesting; it may even be true; but without evidence it is only
dandelion fluff blowing in the wind.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-508-369-3911
If a poster won't behave put that poster in the grave.
Kill him quick for life is short. Silence is the best retort.
David N. Talbott
I haven't followed this thread, so I'm not sure what's been said before by
various parties. But:
>Ted Holden <med...@access5.digex.net> wrote:
>>
>>That's totally wrong; none other than Robert Bass has blown that one
>>apart and has in fact shown that Bode's law which describes the
>>positioning of the planets can be derived dynamically and represents a
>>condition into which the system would relax in a few thousand years from
>>any starting configuration you might wish.
And Bob Grumbine responded::
The articles you must have seen, Bob, would not be what Ted is apparently
referring to. A number of months ago I asked Dr. Bass to evaluate several
aspects of Bob Grubaugh's work on Saturnian configuration models, which
he agreed to do. The project would lead Dr. Bass to an evaluation of
the effects of tidal friction on a collinear configuration, and a
mathematical derivation of the Grubaugh's procedure was in simulation
collinear dynamics. He also tackled a problem which had been left
unresolved in Grubaugh's preliminary work, which is the
stability/instability issue at the planetary mass ratios involved in the
collinear model. In the course of this work, he resurrected some of his
ground-breaking earlier principles with respect to planetary
equilibrium and "least interaction." The result of this new focus was
that Bob (apparently) derived Bode's Law mathematically,
demonstrating that planets would move from a state of chaos into
their present orbits by bumping each other resonantly until they reached
the positions of least interaction. The preliminary work has been
submitted to a couple of world class mathematicians (among whom Bob
himself must be counted). Though the last word I heard was quite
encouraging, that's all I know. And yes, it's all anecdotal at this
point.
There is, of course, an actual draft of a paper, but I'm not sure I could
get Dr. Bass to release it at this preliminary juncture. I will, however,
see what I can do this week.
Dave
David N. Talbott
From <bowen-29069...@d26.netgate.net> bo...@netgate.net (Bowen
Simmons):
>In article <31D31D...@kent.net>, Jim Reilly <rei...@kent.net> wrote:
> > I advise colleagues and friends at every opportunity to read his books.
>Let's pretend I am a friend or a colleague of yours and that following
>your advice, I read WinC. Now I have some questions. How do you answer
>them?
Here Bowen proceeds to show that he has no familiariy with any of the
research done since Velikovksy wrote 45 years ago. He talks about Venus
erupting from Jupiter, though I do not know of any researcher who found
support for that idea in ancient testimony. Comprehensive analysis of the
Venus-birth or Venus-departure motif shows that it means the departure of
the mythical "Great Star" appearing in the center of the universal sun
pictograph. Neither the depicted "sun" nor the "Great Star," nor the
transformation of the departing star into a fiery serpent have any
explanation in natural phenomena occurring today.
Take it from someone who has explored the Velikovsky question for more
than two decades: not one question you raise will help you determine
whether Velikovsky was the idiot Paul Gans likes to claim, or the pioneer
of a new way of seeing human history and the history of the solar system.
Obviously, if Velikovsky was wrong about Venus' birth from Jupiter, he
would not likely be right on derivative claims.
Correcto mundo?
Dave
David N. Talbott
In <4r4h9u$v...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca> mac...@geo.ucalgary.ca (Andrew MacRae)
writes in response to Mike Payne--
> However, your observation of "changes in academic thinking over
>the years" is missing an important point: virtually *none* of that change
>has been the result of "mythohistorical" analysis. It has been the result
>of accumulated physical evidence and proposal and testing of mechanisms
>with that evidence by conventional astronomers, geologists,
>paleontologists, and others. In other words, Velikovsky's ideas and his
>advocates had virtually nothing to do with it. This fact seems to be
>neglected when advocates of Velikovsky mention the changes that have
>occurred in the last few decades in conventional science.
Hold on there, Andrew, you're missing the point. The point is that
Velikovsky discerned something that scientists ridiculed mercilessly
in 1950. He claimed that ancient memories counted as evidence and called
for rigorous cross-cultural comparisons. This appeal to ancient testimony
was considered absurd by virtually every critic.
At our symposium in November of 1994, I asked the astronomer
Tom Van Flandern if he agreed with this statement: that there is
considerable evidence to suggest ancient civilizations may have arisen in
the shadow of celestial catastrophe, and if so would he agree that ancient
myths and symbols deserve careful study and cross-cultural comparison to
see if they might point to the nature of the upheavals. I found it very
interesting that he agreed with both statements.
And what do you think the astronomers Clube and Napier have done? Do you
really want to say they would have a case for anything if they had to
exclude the great myths of the world? And is Fred Hoyle also crazy for
supporting the conclusions from this methodology?
Even Carl Sagan and Nancy Druyan, in their book Comet, notice the
prevalence of an ancient symbol, the swastika, and propose a celestial origin
of the symbol. It was a rotating comet spewing streams of gas into
surrounding space, they say. Now are you going to tell me that this
armchair speculation is okay, but work actually exploring the recurring
contexts of that symbol (all of the contexts ignored by Sagan and Druyan)
doesn't count as evidence? Give Velikovsky a break, big guy, and credit
him with having discerned a key to discovery. Notice that even Duncan
Steele, in his book on comets and rogue asteroids, urges scientists not to
"throw the baby out with the bathwater" when it comes to Velikovsky,
calling for openness to mythical sources as possible records of
catastrophe.
I get the feeling that the t.o debunkers could never admit Velikovsky
ever had a worthwhile idea. The word for this kind of response is
_denial_.
Dave
David N. Talbott
Well, thanks to word from Craig Standish, I've just discovered that Mark
Isaak is still on the premises.
Mark was responding to Jim Reilly--
>Jim Reilly wrote:
>>
>> The hostility toward Velikovsky evident in your reaction to this
>> Symposium is quite remarkable.
>What hostility? Velikovsly was a wonderful entertainer. For example, he
>proposed Venus was simultaneously hot enough to glow and cool enough to
>support life, and he got people to applaud him for it! Not even Charlie
>Chaplin or Jack Benny have accomplished anything like that.
Not so fast, Mark, your posturing days are numbered. But let's start with
a little background.
It was perhaps a couple of years ago that I posted some introductory
comments on talk.origins, and a self-assured fellow came onto the group
to begin posting an "alternative theory" seeking to show that what he
called "the Once Hollow Earth" could also account for the recurring themes
I had listed. Well this initiate to the world of ancient mythology was
Mark Isaak. And I'm sure when he started he thought that the total
freedom to make things up as he went along would be an advantage. But it
didn't help at all! After weeks of posting, invoking a veritable Twilight
Zone of make believe, not one theme of myth was accounted for.
How could that be?
Well the reason is that there are no isolated themes of myth; all of the
recurring themes are interconnected. It is simply impossible to make up
an explanation for any theme. Just as soon as you try, you are
immediately contradicting the recurring contexts, the recurring links
between themes.
[Spoken to those at least slightly familiar with the Saturn thesis]
simply consider: If recurring themes are the only evidence allowed, then
there is no Golden Age without a Universal Monarch. The Universal Monarch
is a central sun. The central sun possesses a solitary eye-heart-soul
that is a goddess. The hero is born in the womb of the goddess. The
evolving form of the goddess is as an enclosure, the circular dwelling of
the gods. The activity of the hero produces the cosmic column. The
cosmic column supports the sacred enclosure. The ancient paradise lies
inside the goddess-enclosure. The enclosure is divided by four luminous
winds or rivers.
Now it's a fact that every one of these connecting links between mythical
themes finds global support. So how does one respond as the verifiable
themes and connecting links grow to a hundred, then to several hundred,
and ultimately into the thousands--not one of them standing in opposition
to any of the others, and all constituting a unified substructure? That
is what I mean by the impossible situation one confronts when seeking to
account for any universal mythical theme in conventionally acceptable
terms. Not a single theme of myth is explained by our world today. Not a
single theme is explained by prior theories of myth. And not a single
theme can be explained by resort to make believe. But let the themes mean
what they say, in terms of verifiable, root meanings in the
languages in which they occur, and they will all be explained.
A wise man once said, "the first principle is that you must not fool
yourself, and you're the easiest person to fool." Please take this as
friendly counsel, not an attempt to irritate you. I have just thrown down
the gauntlet.
LET THE POSTURING WARS BEGIN.
Dave
Wayne Throop
: med...@access5.digex.net (Ted Holden)
: You call that a question list? Now HERE's a question list:
Ted's perpetually repeated list of questions. Answers to them are
sketched out (and some further references given) at
http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/ted-qfa-reply.html
--
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
thr...@cisco.com
Chris Camfield
In article <1996062820...@mp4747.batnet.com>,
Mike Payne <mp4...@batnet.com> wrote:
>Chris Camfield <ccam...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
[I think the dinosaurs-destroyed-by-comet theory is more
plausible than a multi-comet impact stopping and restarting
the earth's rotation]
>It certainly is not in my realm to disagree with you on what you believe
>is more plausible, your beliefs are your own. The reason of my post was
>to point out the changes in academic thinking over the years. Your
>statement above about the plausibility of a comet striking the Earth and
>wiping out the dinosaurs, if uttered just 45 years ago, would have made
>you the laughing stock of the intellectual academia of that time.
If the theory had been uttered without any supporting evidence, this
would be quite justified. However, as I understand it, the theory is
based on unusual metal (iridium?) layers that have been found - that
is, physical evidence.
One must also consider the probability of the Earth being struck by
a comet, the probability of it being struck by TWO comets in such a way
that one stopped the Earth's rotation, and the other started it again,
the effects of those impacts on the Earth, and the physical evidence for
such recent cometary impacts. Considering these things together,
especially the LACK of evidence for dramatic climactic shift due to
dust clouds caused by large impacts, the lack of large impact sites
[which I would expect to not be drastically altered over only a few
thousand years], etc, the whole idea becomes near-impossible in my
mind.
Hm, it occurs to me that all of the references to comets here should
perhaps be "large asteroids". I guess that's what I get for not
studying such things for a while...
If Velikovskians want their theories to be taken seriously, they
should produce cold, hard evidence - which, as another poster pointed
out, they have not done.
Chris
--
Christopher Camfield - ccam...@uwaterloo.ca - 1996 BMath Joint CS/C&O
"And the Crow and the Jackal and the Jackfish
Are suited up to go another round / I'll be up to my ticker in dead-beats
When the cold steel hammer swings down" (BRJ)
Ted Holden
ccam...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Chris Camfield) writes:
>One must also consider the probability of the Earth being struck by
>a comet, the probability of it being struck by TWO comets in such a way
>that one stopped the Earth's rotation, and the other started it again,
>the effects of those impacts on the Earth, and the physical evidence for
>such recent cometary impacts.
That's the worst strawman I've ever seen. Neither Velikovsky nor anybody
else involved in catastrophism ever proposed such a thing.
>Considering these things together,
>especially the LACK of evidence for dramatic climactic shift due to
>dust clouds caused by large impacts..
It would be hard to look at evidence for a climate shift and tell if a
dust cloud caused it, but there is certainly no lack of evidence for
massive and recent climactic shifts. Velikovsky's "Earth in Upheaval"
is around 400 pages of such evidence, and Ginenthal's "Sagan and
Velikovsky" is there for those for whom 400 pages worth is just not
enough. Both are in print.
Ted Holden
med...@digex.com
Timothy A. Seufert
In article <dtalbott.836169783@linda>, dtal...@teleport.com (David N.
Talbott) wrote:
>[Spoken to those at least slightly familiar with the Saturn thesis]
>simply consider: If recurring themes are the only evidence allowed, then
>there is no Golden Age without a Universal Monarch. The Universal Monarch
>is a central sun. The central sun possesses a solitary eye-heart-soul
>that is a goddess. The hero is born in the womb of the goddess. The
>evolving form of the goddess is as an enclosure, the circular dwelling of
>the gods. The activity of the hero produces the cosmic column. The
>cosmic column supports the sacred enclosure. The ancient paradise lies
>inside the goddess-enclosure. The enclosure is divided by four luminous
>winds or rivers.
>
>Now it's a fact that every one of these connecting links between mythical
>themes finds global support.
Or not. It doesn't take a genius to see that Velikovskians apply the same
kind of wishful thinking to mythology that Nostradamians do to the
scribblings of Nostradamus.
> So how does one respond as the verifiable
>themes and connecting links grow to a hundred, then to several hundred,
>and ultimately into the thousands--not one of them standing in opposition
>to any of the others, and all constituting a unified substructure?
One responds that nobody outside the Velikovskians considers it to be true
that all myths build an unassailable unified whole. One further responds
that there are bound to be common myths about catastrophes based on
non-global catastrophes, because of common experiences in developing
civilizations. Flood myths are a good example. One finally responds that
no matter how much mythological evidence you've collected, it's all
***WORTHLESS*** without corroborating physical evidence. Myths are by
definition not reliable records. Duh.
(It never ceases to amaze me that there are still Velikovskians, given how
blindingly obvious these three points are.)
> That
>is what I mean by the impossible situation one confronts when seeking to
>account for any universal mythical theme in conventionally acceptable
>terms. Not a single theme of myth is explained by our world today. Not a
>single theme is explained by prior theories of myth. And not a single
>theme can be explained by resort to make believe. But let the themes mean
>what they say, in terms of verifiable, root meanings in the
>languages in which they occur, and they will all be explained.
>
>A wise man once said, "the first principle is that you must not fool
>yourself, and you're the easiest person to fool."
That was Richard Feynman. He would have given Velikovskianism a fair look
(he was nothing if not willing to try strange ideas), and tossed it out as
obvious crap (for all I know, he did). Feynman did not tolerate things
that were unsupported by evidence. You would do well to apply his advice
to your belief in Velikovskianism, as it seems to all be based on fooling
oneself. Start out by trying to gain at least a high school knowledge of
mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology, which should do you a world
of good in learning about how not to fool yourself. As I recall from the
last time you were here, discussing orbital dynamics, it was painfully
obvious that your education was lacking in all of these subjects.
>LET THE POSTURING WARS BEGIN.
You've got it all wrong, Dave. You began them already.
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
|Tim Seufert, bwa...@cats.ucsc.edu | UselessWastedSpace(tm) |
| "I never give them hell. I just tell the truth, and they |
| think it is hell." -Harry S Truman |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Robert Grumbine
In article <dtalbott.836164966@linda>,
David N. Talbott <dtal...@teleport.com> wrote:
>In article: <4r68ts$a...@access2.digex.net> Robert Grumbine wrote
>I haven't followed this thread, so I'm not sure what's been said before by
>various parties. But:
[deletia]
>> Until someone can produce the technical articles, the status must
>>remain that only a non-technical assertion exists, and that the assertion
>>is merely that there _may_ be an initial condition which permits
>>Venus to reach its present orbit from ejection by Jupiter in only
>>a few thousand years.
>
>> If anyone (Ev Cochrane, Ian Tresman, Dave Talbott, Ted Holden, I
>>explicitly include you in this request) has copies of Bass's technical
>>articles on the evolution of Venus's orbit to the presently observed
>>from ejection by Jupiter, please do send me a copy.
>
>The articles you must have seen, Bob, would not be what Ted is apparently
>referring to.
[deletia]
>In the course of this work, he resurrected some of his
>ground-breaking earlier principles with respect to planetary
>equilibrium and "least interaction." The result of this new focus was
>that Bob (apparently) derived Bode's Law mathematically,
This principle is what was described in the Pensee articles as
having lead to a derivation of Bode's law, with reference given
then to a paper which contained the actual derivation.
[deletia]
>There is, of course, an actual draft of a paper, but I'm not sure I could
>get Dr. Bass to release it at this preliminary juncture. I will, however,
>see what I can do this week.
I would be most interested in seeing it. If it would be preferred,
I can accord this draft the same priviledge as the papers I review
professionally - that no public comment is made until publication.
I am concerned, thought, that with Aeon being the journal of appearance,
the mathematics will be trimmed similarly to how they were for Pensee.
Mark Isaak
In article <APC&7'0'125413f0'b...@peg.apc.org> abe...@peg.apc.org writes:
>
>M. Isaac claims that "A. Beggs is the only person I know of who
>sees anything remotely celestial in flood myths."
No, M. Isaac didn't, but I did.
>M. Isaac has apparently never heard of I. Velikovsky. . .
I hadn't heard that he had risen from the dead, though I'm not surprised
that his disciples would believe so. :-)
>M. Isaac has apparently never heard of D. Talbott. . .
Well, yes, it was foolish of me not to realize that Talbott would believe in
a celestial flood, since he seems to believe that everything on earth is
celestial where mythology is concerned.
>M. Isaac has apparently not yet taken the opportunity to purchase
>*his own* copy of the MYTHSCAPE series video. . .
Quite right.
>M. Isaac has probably never heard of D. Mowaljarlai.
Right again.
>YORRO YORRO -- Spirit of the Kimberley .
>By: David Mowaljarlai and Jutta Malnic .
>Published 1993, by Magabala Books, Broome, Western Australia
>
>In a recent posting M. Isaac had stated: "Probably the most common
>haired serpent in mythology is the rainbow serpent which is very
>nearly universal in Australia. It is interesting to note that
>rainbow serpents invariably live either in deep water or
>underground."
>
>Let us see what David Mowaljarlai has to say about the rainbow
>serpent, and about Floods, and about things celestial.
>
>On page 192 of Yorro Yorro we find: .
>"When Mowaljarlai translated the Kalumburu tapes of the five old
>men, he had found that some ancestor stories were going back to
>when the islands originated, and even further back, to what the
>Birrimitji, the In The Beginning people had seen before the Ice
>Age -- that moon, sun and some of the stars had been on earth, for
>instance; and that the Birrimitji knew why. One song told about a
>flood, long before the last, that was brought on by Kallowa
>Anggnal Kude, a star with trails. The symbols that testify to
>these events are still in the Kimberley."
Trails are a common theme in Australian myth. Many myths tell of a serpent
or of a person with some serpent-like qualities wandering across the
landscape shaping it and giving the places names. Sometimes these wanderers
cause floods, too. Since, as the quote above says, stars had been on earth,
that myth probably refers to one of those wanderers leaving a trail behind
him.
The Once Hollow Earth theory explains all this. Some of the underground
passages would have been long sinuous tubes. When they collapsed, they
would have left a trail along the ground as if a giant snake had passed.
Further collapse would have caused floods.
>[Jutta Malnic, David's co-author, tells me that the "star with
>trails" is "Wanda" -- the Morning Star]
The origin of the Morning Star from an earthbound person is another common
theme around the world. It reflects mankind's striving for a better world
at higher realms, which would be perfectly natural if mankind arose from an
underground civilization in which higher was better, but which wouldn't make
sense if the heavens were a source of chaos.
Of course, it is also possible that Malnic, like Velikovsky, simply stuck
the word "Venus" after anything he wanted to be Venus. Not knowing the
person, I can't say.
>"We've lost so many stories. Many anthropologists in my time ...
>went about for months recording Wandjina story. But they never
>went back as far as Creation to connect it up to the present.
>They never put it all together as it was, right up till today. I
>only find out yesterday, only you [Jutta Malnic] and I are doing
>this. I can tell you, it would take a thousand years to put the
>whole detail, all the pieces together"
>
>"The old people, who knew, died many, many years back in their
>grid-places. I say that we got no hope to show the new generation,
>the future generations, no way. They can only study -- but they
>wouldn't know where it was, where everything is written into the
>country."
You seem to be suggesting that we give more weight to an old, almost
forgotten, story, and completely ignore the myths that are practically
universal. I thought the premise of catastrophism was that there were
events in the past so terrific that they entered into the human psyche even
unto today, causing universal themes to appear in mythology. Are you saying
that the fundamental premise of catastrophism is wrong?
--
Mark Isaak "The first principle is that you must not
is...@aurora.com fool yourself, and you're the easiest
person to fool." - Richard Feynman
Mark Isaak
In article <dtalbott.836169783@linda> dtal...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) writes:
>After weeks of posting, invoking a veritable Twilight
>Zone of make believe, not one theme of myth was accounted for.
>
>How could that be?
Simple. Talbott sees only what he wants to see. So far, not one theme of
myth is unaccounted for by the Once Hollow Earth theory.
>[Spoken to those at least slightly familiar with the Saturn thesis]
>simply consider: If recurring themes are the only evidence allowed, . . .
Recurring themes aren't the only evidence allowed. One must also consider
whether one's theory is physically possible, which the Saturn thesis isn't.
>[Saturn thesis links]
>Now it's a fact that every one of these connecting links between mythical
>themes finds global support.
Seek and ye shall find. It's also a fact that every one of those connecting
links finds contradiction among global myths. It's just a matter of what
you focus on, and how efficient your blinders are.
>But let the themes mean what they say. . .
Yes, let the themes mean what they say. Let a snake mean a snake. Let a
column mean a column. Let a womb mean a womb. Let a river mean a river.
If you really mean what you say, your thesis falls to pieces.
Twisted STISter
In article <medved.836183457@access5>,
Ted Holden <med...@access5.digex.net> wrote:
>ccam...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Chris Camfield) writes:
>
>>One must also consider the probability of the Earth being struck by
>>a comet, the probability of it being struck by TWO comets in such a way
>>that one stopped the Earth's rotation, and the other started it again,
>>the effects of those impacts on the Earth, and the physical evidence for
>>such recent cometary impacts.
>
>That's the worst strawman I've ever seen. Neither Velikovsky nor anybody
>else involved in catastrophism ever proposed such a thing.
Oddly, if you had said "Venus sweeping by the Earth stopping and starting its
rotation", I would have considered *that* to be the worst strawman I had
ever seen. Yet, that *is* what Velikovsky said. How Venus can do this in
an instantaneous two-body encounter at all, and without vaporizing both bodies,
is certainly an idea I'd like to hear.
>>Considering these things together,
>>especially the LACK of evidence for dramatic climactic shift due to
>>dust clouds caused by large impacts..
>
>It would be hard to look at evidence for a climate shift and tell if a
>dust cloud caused it, but there is certainly no lack of evidence for
>massive and recent climactic shifts. Velikovsky's "Earth in Upheaval"
>is around 400 pages of such evidence, and Ginenthal's "Sagan and
>Velikovsky" is there for those for whom 400 pages worth is just not
>enough. Both are in print.
As I have said before, catastrophes do happen in the solar system. No
sane astronomer will deny that. Jupiter showed us that pretty dramatically
when SL9 impacted. But catastrophe on the almost daily and mathematically
preposterous scale Velikovsky proposed does *not* happen. Do the math!
David L Evens
Ted Holden (med...@access5.digex.net) wrote:
: ccam...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Chris Camfield) writes:
: >One must also consider the probability of the Earth being struck by
: >a comet, the probability of it being struck by TWO comets in such a way
: >that one stopped the Earth's rotation, and the other started it again,
: >the effects of those impacts on the Earth, and the physical evidence for
: >such recent cometary impacts.
: That's the worst strawman I've ever seen. Neither Velikovsky nor anybody
: else involved in catastrophism ever proposed such a thing.
Yes, Velikovsky's demand was that Saturn is free to fly about the System
at whim, without any input of energy from anywhere to change its orbital
status, and tides don't operate except to abruptly change the Earth's
rotation by such a large factor that the whole crust of the planet should
shatter.
: >Considering these things together,
: >especially the LACK of evidence for dramatic climactic shift due to
: >dust clouds caused by large impacts..
: It would be hard to look at evidence for a climate shift and tell if a
: dust cloud caused it, but there is certainly no lack of evidence for
: massive and recent climactic shifts. Velikovsky's "Earth in Upheaval"
: is around 400 pages of such evidence, and Ginenthal's "Sagan and
: Velikovsky" is there for those for whom 400 pages worth is just not
: enough. Both are in print.
Of course, neither contain any EVIDENCE, what they contain is demands
that myths be accepted as literally true if they coincide with the
Velikovskian mythos.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron, | "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,| But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion, +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down! | "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard A. Schumacher
> I find Velikovsky's wandering protoplanet Venus in 1500 B.C. more
>believable than an "average" comet lowering the curtain of one of
>Earth's great ages.
Why? It's relatively easy to change the orbit of a comet
or asteroid into a collision course with a planet. The
orbit of Venus is enormously stable by comparision. The
amounts of energy required for each are different by a
factor of a billion. How can anyone call the two comparable?
>Anyway, the point of the statement was the
>acceptance of an idea today that was thought ludicrous 1/2 a century
>ago.
It remains ludicrous because no plausible mechanism exists
to permit it. A half-century ago plate tectonics was considered
and dismissed because no mechanism was known to permit it. Now,
after two decades of collecting physical evidence, it's become
the great unifying principle of geology. What have Velikovskiites
done in that half-century? Nothing. They just keep repeating the
same old myths to new audiences, as though they proved something
about the physical world.
>The inquisitors of Galileo stated there was no evidence for his
>self-deluded convictions either but it was all around them, all they had
>to do was look.
Any number of people have looked. It's still absurd,
because there's no physical evidence for it.
>You are right in that I suffer from a religious mania,
>it's the religious mania of keeping an open mind.
You have to remember not to let anything fall out.
Bowen Simmons
In article <medved.836105579@access5>, med...@access5.digex.net (Ted
Holden) wrote:
> bo...@netgate.net (Bowen Simmons) writes:
>
> >In article <31D31D...@kent.net>, Jim Reilly <rei...@kent.net> wrote:
>
> > > I advise colleagues and friends at every opportunity to read his books.
>
> >Let's pretend I am a friend or a colleague of yours and that following
> >your advice, I read WinC. Now I have some questions. How do you answer
> >them?
>
> [list of stupid bait questions...]
>
> You call that a question list? Now HERE's a question list:
>
> 1. Evolution begins with the idea of one-celled animals somehow arising
> from inert materials (abiogenesis). Nonetheless, I've read articles
> ....
Answers to Ted's questions can be found at:
<http://rumba.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/ted-qfa-reply.html>
Now, where are the answers to mine? You won't answer of course. It all
comes back to your reading comprehension problem. You can't read them, so
you can't answer them. Sad really. One wonders whether you might have
been able to accomplish something with your life had it been otherwise.
--
Bowen Simmons
bo...@netgate.net
David N. Talbott
I see Mark Isaak has responded to the challenge, but as elusively as
possible. So let me set the stage once more. I had offered the following
recollection--
>>It was perhaps a couple of years ago that I posted some introductory
>>comments on talk.origins, and a self-assured fellow came onto the group
>>to begin posting an "alternative theory" seeking to show that what he
>>called "the Once Hollow Earth" could also account for the recurring
>>themes I had listed. Well this initiate to the world of ancient
>>mythology was Mark Isaak. And I'm sure when he started he thought that
>>the totalfreedom to make things up as he went along would be an
>>advantage. But it didn't help at all! After weeks of posting, invoking
>>a veritable Twilight Zone of make believe, not one theme of myth was
>>accounted for.
>>How could that be?
>>Well the reason is that there are no isolated themes of myth; all of the
>>recurring themes are interconnected. It is simply impossible to make up
>>an explanation for any theme. Just as soon as you try, you are
>>immediately contradicting the recurring contexts, the recurring links
>>between themes.
But Mark responded to the question, "How could that be?" with this--
>Simple. Talbott sees only what he wants to see. So far, not one theme of
>myth is unaccounted for by the Once Hollow Earth theory.
Somehow I knew he would say that. The single most pervasive
misunderstanding of myth is the idea that "you can prove anything by resort
to myth." Which is, of course, exactly what Mark would like to
demonstrate through farce. As it turns out, the assumption is provably
incorrect, however, and I'm willing to go through the exercise of proving
this in the case of the serpent or dragon, which happens to be very active
in the myths. But I will do this only on the condition that he agree to
debate the subject and be responsible for what he says.
My guess? He'll be out of here by morning.
Just so there's no misunderstanding: I have claimed there is a way of
seeing human history and planetary history that will account for all of
the recurring themes of myths. So all Mark will need to do is show a
recurring attribute of the serpent or dragon that is not predicted by the
hypothesis. Now that should be pretty easy, shouldn't it?
Conversely, Mark can be free to postulate any explanation of the serpent
or dragon he wants, even if the explanation involves an ancient world
he just invented last night. And we'll see if that explanation will
account for any recurring theme whatsoever. The only prohibition will be
against contradicting himself.
I had written,
>>Not a single theme of myth is explained by our world today. Not
>>a single theme is explained by prior theories of myth. And not a single
>>theme can be explained by resort to make believe. But let the themes
>>mean what they say, in terms of verifiable, root meanings in the
>>languages in which they occur, and they will all be explained.
To which Mark replied,
>Yes, let the themes mean what they say. Let a snake mean a snake. Let a
>column mean a column. Let a womb mean a womb. Let a river mean a river.
>If you really mean what you say, your thesis falls to pieces.
>--
I can see it's going to be like pulling teeth here, but I'll state the
point again Mark:
IN THE ANCIENT LANGUAGES, THE MYTHICAL SERPENT IS NOT A BIOLOGICAL
SERPENT. IT IS A MONSTER THAT CRIES OUT FOR AN EXPLANATION SIMPLY BECAUSE
THE SAME INCONGRUOUS ATTRIBUTES RECUR FROM ONCE CULTURE TO ANOTHER.
If Mark surprises me by showing a willingness to defend his own
statements, perhaps he could start by addressing the lines in my own post
from which he excerpted just enough to confuse the reader. My comments on
the serpent-dragon in relation to _cometary_ motifs was as follows:
What a fascinating juncture this is! After more than forty five years, the
challenge sparked by Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision has come down to
an issue on which the evidence is overwhelming. If I speak with assurance
on this, it is because I have (along with fellow researcher Ev Cochrane)
spent many years examining the images of Venus around the world. And I
can say without the slightest equivocation that wherever astronomical
traditions of Venus are preserved in any detail, Venus is the mythical
Great Comet, appearing in the sky at a time of world-destroying
catastrophe. You will find this identity confirmed from Mexico and Peru
to ancient Greece and Rome, from ancient China to even more ancient Egypt
and Mesopotamia. Long-haired star. Bearded Star. Smoking star. Torch
star. Feathered star. Cosmic serpent or dragon. In fact, literally all
of the astronomical hieroglyphs for "the comet" are _simultaneously_
attached to Venus and to the revered great goddess, who _is_ Venus in the
first astronomies.
To apply common-sense rules of logic, one should start with the
obvious: 1) the symbols cited above are the acknowledged, most
frequently-employed hieroglyphs for the comet in the ancient world, and 2)
the _only_ astronomical phenomenon answering to these glyphs is the comet.
Additionally, as a matter of simple logic, the attachment of these
distinct comet glyphs to Venus must be considered alongside the
_convergence_ of these glyphs on a biologically impossible monster--
the bearded serpent, long-haired serpent, flaming serpent, fire-breathing
serpent, and feathered serpent. In none of these instances could
phenomena observed today account for the incongruous motifs, which occur
again and again throughout the ancient world. But let the comet glyphs
mean what they meant in the ancient languages themselves, and the
incongruity vanishes. Should it surprise us that one acknowledged
comet glyph would be brought into conjunction with another comet glyph?
And will anyone propose with a straight face that these universal comet
images could have found their inspiration in the quiet and regular motions
of Venus today?
(Just in case the point is missed: the comet as celestial serpent or
dragon, and the comet as long-haired star lead to the simple and
undeniable identity of the comet as the long-haired serpent, etc. If, as
a matter of simple curiosity, you will investigate the incredible extent
to which ancient language, in seeming denial of nature, combined words and
images for "serpent" and for "hair", you will begin to sense how deeply
the roots of civilization itself were shaped by experiences the modern
world failed to understand. In the Egyptian language, for example,
numerous, quite _different_ words mean, at once, "hair" and "serpent", a
fact which the conventional schools could only explain as a ridiculous
coincidence. And by such an explanation they must ignore the _worldwide_
juxtaposition of hair and serpent in myth, language and religious
symbolism. Try as you may, you will never find an explanation for this
apart from the global identity of the"long-haired star"/Great Comet with
the cosmic serpent/Great Comet)
For further reading, visit the Kronia Communications website--
http://www.teleport.com/~kronia/
Benjamin T. Dehner
[Posted for C. Leroy Ellenberger, received by fax 2 July 1996]
[Despite CLE's request, I have removed sci.astro from the newsgroups
line.]
On Tuesday, June 25, Dave Tablott defended the notion that planet Venus
once sported a cometary tail. In response, herewith:
16 Reason Refuting the "Saturn Myth"
1. It is based on the false premise that the planets were the first gods
when the planets were given names of pre-existing gods whose origin had
nothing to do with planets. Some major deities, e.g., Enlil in
Mesopotamia, were NEVER associated with a planet.
2. Simplistically refer to deities by the name of their planetary aspect,
e.g., call Ninurta Saturn and call Ishtar and Inanna Venus; but Inanna was
not identified with Venus until assimilated to Ishtar.
3. Explanatory consistency NEVER proves an hypothesis because it is
axiomatic in set theory that any set of data can ALWAYS be explained by
some alternative, e.g., as shown by Roger Ashton in "The Bedrock of Myth"
(suppressed by Aeon).
4. "Saturnists" never get into their source material and see it on its own
terms (see Pensee VII, p. 26) but, having no rapport with the sacred,
crassly project modern concepts on archaic perceptions.
5. Adduce no INDEPENDENT evidence to support a wildly extravagant
INTERPRETATION of various myths and religious motifs.
6. Since Venus is too massive ever to have had a visible tail, "comet
Venus" lore originated with a deity (see Item 2) such as Ishtar who was
assocated with both a real comet and Venus, as Clube & Napier explain.
When the comet disappeared, its lore was projected on to Venus by default.
N.B.: the Taurid Complex exists and perforce was more prominent 5000 B.P.
Ironically, the only evidence Velikovsky ever presented for recent
collisions in the Solar System happened in the Taurid Complex!
7. Due to parallax, in the "polar configuration" (PC) Venus would NEVER be
centered on Saturn as seen from latitude 45 degrees, but would be
distinctly off center, unlike the sun-in-circle symbols which resemble
ordinary lunar and solar halos.
8. The annual polar tide created by the close approach of Mars would have
floated the Greenland ice cap which never happened.
9. The assemply of the PC is impossible because no "cosmic Velcro" strong
enough exists to hold it together.
10. The synchronous orbits required in the PC are impossible and the
ability of tidal friction or magnetism to stabilize it is a mere assertion,
never demonstrated by robust simulation.
11. The transition from the PC to the present regime entails problems with
the conservation of angular momentum and energy that makes those attending
Worlds in Collision seem trivial.
12. The synchronous spin-orbit resonances in the satellite systems of
Earth, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn (and the Kirkwood gaps in the asteroid
belt) cannot form in the short time since the PC supposedly collapsed.
13. No physical evidence exists to support the alleged absence of seasons
in some "Golden Age", while records of seasonal changes in ice and tree
rings go back continuosly many thousands of years.
14. The existence of the PC is contradicted by the archaic use of Great
Conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn to track precessional time, as explained
by Santillana & Dechend in Hamlet's Mill and Wm. Sullivan in The Secret of
the Incas.
15. The present polar and ecliptic constellations have no meaning in the
PC, yet Ursa Major was reverred by at least 15,000 B.P. and the Gemini
quartet was probably identified by 7500 B.P.
16. The "Saturn Myth" does not explain the number names of the major gods
in the Mesopotamian pantheon which are derived from Sumerian harmonic
cosmology as shown by Ernest McClain in the Myth of Invariance and Feb.
1994 The World & I. Therefore, the "Saturn Myth" is not universal in its
claimed explanatory power.
The foregoing points are distlled from three previous posts: (1)
"Talbott's Shared Delusion" in "Ellenberger Contra Cochrane: The Second
Reply & Talbott, Too" (20 Jun 1994), (2) "DAVID N. TALBOTT: Hoist, Clueless
& 'Nihilated" (14 Jul 1994), (3) "An Antidote to Dave Talbott's "Saturn
Thesis" "(13 Oct 1994).
In conclusion, the "Saturn Myth" is a fairy tale with no useful
purpose other than to fuel the imaginations of a small number of
self-professed mythographers who have not one soupcan of understanding of
either logic or the laws of physics. Debating with such people in the
alleged recent instability in the Solar System, as Dave Tablott proposes,
would be an utterly useless exercise whose negative outcome he and his
fellow new-Velikovskians would never concede. Watch Dave and Ev ignore
this post.
Leroy Ellenberger, 314-772-4286
"Vivere est vincere"
1 Jul 1996
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner PGP public key Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
b...@iastate.edu available on request Iowa State University
http://www.iastate.edu/~btd/ Ames, IA 50011
Andrew MacRae
In article <dtalbott.836166842@linda> dtal...@teleport.com (David N.
> In <4r4h9u$v...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca> mac...@geo.ucalgary.ca (Andrew
> MacRae) writes in response to Mike Payne--
> > However, your observation of "changes in academic thinking over
> >the years" is missing an important point: virtually *none* of that
> >change has been the result of "mythohistorical" analysis. It has been
> >the result of accumulated physical evidence and proposal and testing of
> >mechanisms with that evidence by conventional astronomers, geologists,
> >paleontologists, and others. In other words, Velikovsky's ideas and
> >his advocates had virtually nothing to do with it. This fact seems to
> >be neglected when advocates of Velikovsky mention the changes that have
> >occurred in the last few decades in conventional science.
>
> Hold on there, Andrew, you're missing the point. The point is that
> Velikovsky discerned something that scientists ridiculed mercilessly
> in 1950.
This was not unique or original to Velikovsky. People proposed
the possibility of direct astronomical influences for decades prior to
Velikovsky. And there were many far earlier proposals. Whiston in 1696
proposed that many events described in the Bible (e.g., a global flood for
40 days and nights) were the result of the passage of a comet, whose
gravity deformed the Earth into an egg shape, and with the rainwater
derived from its tail and falling to the Earth. Sound familiar? He got
mercilessly ridiculed too. [See "The godfather of disaster" in Gould's
"Bully for Brontosaurus" -- a really interesting perspective.]
There are few bonus points in science for making a radical
proposal (they are a dime a dozen), and if any priority is to be offered
for the general idea of cometary astronomical processes influencing the
Earth and accounting for Biblical history, it goes to Whiston. If there
is any credit to be given for causing this general idea to move from the
realm of ridiculed speculation, it is conventional scientists. They can
*not* get credit for proposing it -- agreed -- and they do not deserve
credit for deriding the entire idea for a long time (very bad) -- agreed
-- but they do deserve credit for finding the evidence that demonstrated
the "conventional thinking" about Earth history was wrong. That
transformation occurred within conventional science as a result of a great
deal of physical evidence.
> He claimed that ancient memories counted as evidence and called
> for rigorous cross-cultural comparisons. This appeal to ancient
> testimony was considered absurd by virtually every critic.
Yes. And, as history has demonstrated, it had little effect
convincing scientists.
> At our symposium in November of 1994, I asked the astronomer
> Tom Van Flandern if he agreed with this statement: that there is
> considerable evidence to suggest ancient civilizations may have arisen
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes. In the presence of "considerable evidence" -- i.e.
considerable physical evidence that scientists can use to test the
innumerable interpretations which have been proposed over the years,
including Velikovsky's.
> in the shadow of celestial catastrophe, and if so would he agree that
> ancient myths and symbols deserve careful study and cross-cultural
> comparison to see if they might point to the nature of the upheavals. I
> found it very interesting that he agreed with both statements.
So do I. You may be confused about my point -- that this
transformation of the opinion of many scientists did not occur by their
being convinced that myth had significance to the question. Quite the
contrary.
> And what do you think the astronomers Clube and Napier have done? Do
> you really want to say they would have a case for anything if they had
> to exclude the great myths of the world? And is Fred Hoyle also crazy
> for supporting the conclusions from this methodology?
You are missing my point. Myth is not the source of conclusions.
At best, it can be the source of hypotheses -- i.e. their formulation.
They must be tested with the physical evidence. Myths are not a means to
an end, physical evidence is.
> Even Carl Sagan and Nancy Druyan, in their book Comet, notice the
> prevalence of an ancient symbol, the swastika, and propose a celestial
> origin of the symbol. It was a rotating comet spewing streams of gas
> into surrounding space, they say. Now are you going to tell me that
> this armchair speculation is okay,
I can not evaluate the evidence they present, because I have not
read it. However, I will say it again -- I think myth is fine for
formulating hypotheses, but without something else (i.e. physical evidence
to test it), it is just "armchair speculation". It may be *interesting*
armchair speculation, but that is all it will be until a specific,
testable model is proposed. For example, mythological evidence could
determine that a specific symbol or story originated in a particular area
at a particular time, and that, by sheer coincidence, there is a huge
volcanic caldera in the area and an ash bed of that approximate age which
greatly affected the culture of the time. Or there could even be an
impact crater. The point is, there has to be a clear, testable connection
between the myth and the physical world before scientists are going to
become convinced. If Sagan et al. do not offer such evidence, than it is
just interesting speculation.
> but work actually exploring the
> recurring contexts of that symbol (all of the contexts ignored by Sagan
> and Druyan) doesn't count as evidence?
Sure. It may be possible to offer an alternative interpretation
of myth. That in itself is enough to cast uncertainty on the original
interpretation. That is one of the main problems with mythological
interpretations -- many possibilities.
> Give Velikovsky a break, big guy, and credit
> him with having discerned a key to discovery.
I can only give him credit for formulating his own interpretation.
I can not give him priority on the formulation of a hypothesis that
involves astronomical influence on Earth to account for major
mythohistorical events, and I can not give him credit for mustering a
large amount of high-quality physical evidence to support his
interpretation to the exclusion of other interpretations.
> Notice that even Duncan
> Steele, in his book on comets and rogue asteroids, urges scientists not
> to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" when it comes to Velikovsky,
> calling for openness to mythical sources as possible records of
> catastrophe.
Yes, I agree. However, you phrased it correctly. Mythical
*sources* of "records of catastrophe". They are not an end point, and one
must maintain the same openness when it comes to consideration of physical
processes that could account for them. In my personal opinion, supporters
of Velikovsky's *mechanism* for accounting for myth have not provided
enough justification for the rejection of other mechanisms of
"catastrophe" which geologists and astronomers are familiar with and have
considerable supporting evidence for their past occurrence.
As a source for "records of catastrophe", sure, use myths. It is
a good idea. As a means for testing physical mechanisms to account for
them? I do not recommend it. Myth is okay for formulating questions, but
not answering them scientifically, in my opinion.
> I get the feeling that the t.o debunkers could never admit Velikovsky
> ever had a worthwhile idea. The word for this kind of response is
> _denial_.
Velikovsky had some worthwhile ideas. Unfortunately, he also had
some rather non-worthwhile ones, and he tossed out many worthwhile ideas
himself (e.g., continental drift) with little justification. For example,
Velikovsky's presentation of the geological evidence in "Earth in
Upheaval" was not uniformly poor. He identified and appreciated the
significance of some genuinely interesting geological features that
eventually turned out to be significant to later developments in
geological theory (e.g., the occurrence of glacial evidence in the
tropics). However, this does not make his claims unique or early (many
other people made similar observations and proposed a variety of different
mechanisms to account for them), and, unfortunately, he also presented a
great many misinterpretations of the geological evidence.
One thing that does truely impress me about Velikovsky was his
ability not to be straightjacketed by the attitude of scientists of the
time regarding the existence of "catastrophes". For that, he was a
pioneer (although not the first). It was the implementation he chose that
I find unimpressive, which is one of the reasons I suspect the majority of
criticism was not due to "uniformitarian bias" as claimed, it was due to
more specific scientific problems with Velikovsky's claims. People may
have had a "gut reaction", looked further, and, in their minds, seen their
initial reaction confirmed when they looked at the details. This is also
the reason that, despite the changes which have occurred in geology and
astronomy regarding the general idea of "catastrophe", there is little
sympathy for Velikovsky's claims. The other scientific problems are still
there, even with "uniformitarian bias" now a non-issue.
Andrew MacRae
In article <4r4rh3$1...@doc.zippo.com> Archae Solenhofen (jmca...@gtn.net)
writes:
> >> It seems to me that it's a lot more plausible that a comet struck the
> >> earth and hurled huge amounts of dust etc into the atmosphere, than
> >> that the earth stopped rotating, and was then struck by another which
> >> started it rotating again, which (as I understand it) is Velikovsky's
> >> or a Velikovskian explanation for how the sun stood still in the Old
> >> Testament of the Bible.
..
> >is more plausible, your beliefs are your own. The reason of my post was
> >to point out the changes in academic thinking over the years. Your
> >statement above about the plausibility of a comet striking the Earth
> >and wiping out the dinosaurs, if uttered just 45 years ago, would have
> >made you the laughing stock of the intellectual academia of that time.
Only if it were offered without evidence and without ways to test
it.
> You do not even have to go back 45 years to see this. Dietz in 1964
> got laughed off of the stage when he suggested that the Sudbury basin
> was an astrobleme. He has since been proven to be corect,
Yes, although you have to admit the case for the Sudbury basin
being the result of an impact was complicated by the substantial amount of
deformation and metamorphism which had occurred subsequently. At the time
it was proposed, it was also not certain how definitive shatter cones were
for an impact process, and the possibility the basin represented some type
of unusual Precambrian volcanic style had not been eliminated. If it had
not been so mangled, I suspect an impact model would not have been
regarded so tentatively. If you were going to interpret a structure as
being caused by a large impact, Sudbury isn't exactly ideal.
I do not think it is fair to regard the reaction of Dietz's
hypothesis as being "laughed off the stage" either. His hypothesis was
harshly criticized, but many people also said it remained a contender to
more conventional volcanic models. I remember both models (volcanic and
impact) being presented in the 1970s, even in literature from Inco :-)
> however
> I wonder if the Velikovskians have more geologists aggreeing with their
> theory as Dietz had when when he original presented his paper.
> I doubt it.
I seriously doubt it too. Dietz presented much more compelling
geological evidence, and if people were not convinced, it was as much
because geologists still had a limited understanding of what the results
of large impact processes should look like. Just the term "astrobleme"
reflected the uncertainty about what was possible at the time. There were
plenty of *candidates* for large impacts at the time, but people were
being very cautious about their interpretation. I think many people were
keeping the impact interpretation open as a possibility, even if they did
not regard the evidence as conclusive.
> It also did not take very long to convert most of the skeptics in this
> case either.
Yes. Geological evidence has a way of doing that. :-)
ev.co...@ames.net
Benjamin T. Dehner wrote:
>
> [Posted for C. Leroy Ellenberger, received by fax 2 July 1996]
> [Despite CLE's request, I have removed sci.astro from the newsgroups
> line.]
>
If I respond to Leroy's post outlining 16 reasons supposedly
refuting the Saturn myth, will I be accused of foul play?
After all, according to Bob Grumbine, poor Leroy just doesn't
have access to talk.origins. What the heck: I'm willing to
take the chance. I'll be responding to Leroy's post over
the weekend.
Ev Cochrane
Editor/Publisher of Aeon
A Journal of Myth and Science
http://www.ames.net/aeon/
Email: ev.co...@ames.net
Chris Nedin
In article <dtalbott.836166842@linda>, dtal...@teleport.com (David N.
Talbott) wrote:
> In <4r4h9u$v...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca> mac...@geo.ucalgary.ca (Andrew MacRae)
> writes in response to Mike Payne--
>
> > However, your observation of "changes in academic thinking over
> >the years" is missing an important point: virtually *none* of that change
> >has been the result of "mythohistorical" analysis. It has been the result
> >of accumulated physical evidence and proposal and testing of mechanisms
> >with that evidence by conventional astronomers, geologists,
> >paleontologists, and others. In other words, Velikovsky's ideas and his
> >advocates had virtually nothing to do with it. This fact seems to be
> >neglected when advocates of Velikovsky mention the changes that have
> >occurred in the last few decades in conventional science.
>
> Hold on there, Andrew, you're missing the point. The point is that
> Velikovsky discerned something that scientists ridiculed mercilessly
> in 1950. He claimed that ancient memories counted as evidence and called
> for rigorous cross-cultural comparisons. This appeal to ancient testimony
> was considered absurd by virtually every critic.
[deleted]
> Give Velikovsky a break, big guy, and credit
> him with having discerned a key to discovery. Notice that even Duncan
> Steele, in his book on comets and rogue asteroids, urges scientists not to
> "throw the baby out with the bathwater" when it comes to Velikovsky,
> calling for openness to mythical sources as possible records of
> catastrophe.
Actually it was more like "don't discount mythological evidence when you
throw out Velikovsky"!
Here is the particular passage:
"Let us return to the larger products of such a comet disintergration. From
a catastrophist viewpoint, the association of huge atmospheric detonations
similar to Tunguska with intense meteor showers does not appear ludicrous
at all, and yet such ideas have been dismissed with vigor from mainstream
science. The culprit-or maybe we should simply say catalyst-was Immanuel
Velikovsky. In a series of books published around the middle of this
century, the most notorious of which is the misnamed _Worlds in Collision_,
Velikovsky put credence in the various historical records and mythical
depictions (including many from the Bible) of a huge comet crossing the sky
with attendant calamities and came up with the absurd idea that the "comet"
was in fact Venus having a near-miss of the Earth. Anyone with knowledge
of college-level physics should be able to work out for themselves that
Velikovsky's idea is in breach of various laws of physics and hence
untenable. Nevertheless, a breed of Velikovsky disciples emerged, similar
to alian-contact enthusiasts, and they proved to be the bane of
astronomers, with occasional resurrections occurring even today.
The real problem for science is that astronomers, in America in particular,
became so intrenched and vehement in their criticism of Velikovsky's
astronomical nonsense that their mindsets also became instilled with not
only a rejection of, but also a nonconsideration of, the possibility that
the myths and records of past civilizations might contain important
information about what was happening in the sky in pre-modern times. In
fact, the similarity between the legends of disparate human cultures are
startlingly similar. In scientific publications I have pointed out that
Australian Aborigines and New Zealand Maoris have oral traditions of
strange rocks falling from the sky causing awful fires and many deaths, and
this scenario is common in the myths of other peoples. One one hand,
astronomers have prided thenselves in instructing geologists that impact
catastrophes were responsible in part for the shaping of the planet, but on
the other hand have made a uniformatarian assumption when it comes to their
own science: That the sky as it is now, is as it ever was, at least while
humans have walked the Earth. There is ample evidence not only from
historical records of various forms, but also from the analysis of data
from this century (such as Whipple's modeling of the Taurid meteors), that
around 5,000 years ago the sky did not appear as quiescent as it does now,
and that since that time there have been other disruptions of the heavens,
producing confligrations here below." (Steel 1995, p. 155-156).
What was being "ridiculed mercilessly" as you put it, was Velikovsky's
"untenable" "nonsense".
In fact, one inference from Steel's passage is that Velikovsky was partly
responsible for the dismissal of mythological evidence, and it may be that
mythological evidence might well have been more readily and widly accepted
if Velikovsky's books had *not* been writen!
Steel does accept that mythological evidence does have its place - but the
examples he gives are easily interpreted (meteorite showers and falling
stones - tektites).
You ask us to "credit him with having discerned a key to discovery". What?
That ancient astronomical stories and records can be valid? There is
nothing new about that. Certainly Velikovsky was not the first person to
suggest it, nor to try and support it. Actually Steel suggests that
Velikosky inadvertantly helped discredit the idea with his "nonsense".
What Steel appears to be saying is that *despite* Velikovsky, *some*
ancient records and stories can provide valid astronomical information.
Chris
Steel, D. (1995) Rogue Asteroids and Doomsday Comets. Wiley & Sons, New
York. 308pp.
cne...@geology.adelaide.edu.au ne...@ediacara.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Many say it was a mistake to come down from the trees, some say
the move out of the oceans was a bad idea. Me, I say the stiffening
of the notochord in the Cambrian was where it all went wrong,
it was all downhill from there.
ev.co...@ames.net
Benjamin T. Dehner wrote:
>
> [Posted for C. Leroy Ellenberger, received by fax 2 July 1996]
> [Despite CLE's request, I have removed sci.astro from the newsgroups
> line.]
>
> 16. The "Saturn Myth" does not explain the number names of the major gods
> in the Mesopotamian pantheon which are derived from Sumerian harmonic
> cosmology as shown by Ernest McClain in the Myth of Invariance and Feb.
> 1994 The World & I. Therefore, the "Saturn Myth" is not universal in its
> claimed explanatory power.
>
>
> Leroy Ellenberger, 314-772-4286
> "Vivere est vincere"
> 1 Jul 1996
Other than Ben Dehner, is there anyone within shouting
distance of this post who believes this numerological
mumbo-jumbo? Is there anyone anywhere who has any idea
what Leroy's talking about? I would challenge ANYONE to read
McClain's paper and keep a straight face from start to
finish. Suffice it to say that his credibility in
ancient mythology/science is on par with BG Sidharth--
Leroy's other favorite source--he of the infamous claim
that parts of the Rig Veda date from 7300 BC. This has
always been Leroy's pattern: Once his ludicrous claims
are exposed, as Sidharth was previously on talk.origins,
Leroy simply dreams up another "definitive" critique
of the Saturn-thesis.
--
Ted Holden
b...@iastate.edu (Benjamin T. Dehner) writes:
>[Posted for C. Leroy Ellenberger, received by fax 2 July 1996]
>[Despite CLE's request, I have removed sci.astro from the newsgroups
> line.]
>On Tuesday, June 25, Dave Tablott defended the notion that planet Venus
>once sported a cometary tail. In response, herewith:
> 16 Reason Refuting the "Saturn Myth"
>1. It is based on the false premise that the planets were the first gods
>when the planets were given names of pre-existing gods whose origin had
>nothing to do with planets. Some major deities, e.g., Enlil in
>Mesopotamia, were NEVER associated with a planet.
Numerous antique authors make it clear enough that the original gods were
all astral entities. Plato for instance (Timaeus) notes that the CREATER,
his equivalent of the Judeo-Christian conception of God had fashioned four
major races of entities: the heavenly gods (stars, planets etc.), birds
and all such as fly, fish and all such as swim, and men and all such as
walk.
>3. Explanatory consistency NEVER proves an hypothesis because it is
>axiomatic in set theory that any set of data can ALWAYS be explained by
>some alternative, e.g., as shown by Roger Ashton in "The Bedrock of Myth"
>(suppressed by Aeon).
History is not subject to that rule. A real historical event can have
happened in only one way.
>4. "Saturnists" never get into their source material and see it on its own
>terms (see Pensee VII, p. 26) but, having no rapport with the sacred,
>crassly project modern concepts on archaic perceptions.
That is precisely what catastrophists are insisting on getting away
from...
>5. Adduce no INDEPENDENT evidence to support a wildly extravagant
>INTERPRETATION of various myths and religious motifs.
See the section denoted "Four Big Anomalies" in the catastrophism www site
at:
http://access.digex.com/~medved/Catastrophism.html
As noted there, there are four gigantic anomalies which have turned up,
which are explained by the Saturn thesis and by nothing else: the anomaly
of megafauna, the anomaly of the super continent, the anomaly of language,
and the anomaly of Cydonia.
>6. Since Venus is too massive ever to have had a visible tail, "comet
>Venus" lore originated with a deity (see Item 2) such as Ishtar who was
>assocated with both a real comet and Venus, as Clube & Napier explain.
>When the comet disappeared, its lore was projected on to Venus by default.
>N.B.: the Taurid Complex exists and perforce was more prominent 5000 B.P.
>Ironically, the only evidence Velikovsky ever presented for recent
>collisions in the Solar System happened in the Taurid Complex!
The historical evidence for Venus having had a visible tail is massive.
My best recommendation on that one for those interested is to purchase a
copy of the Kronia video. It's all there.
>7. Due to parallax, in the "polar configuration" (PC) Venus would NEVER be
>centered on Saturn as seen from latitude 45 degrees, but would be
>distinctly off center, unlike the sun-in-circle symbols which resemble
>ordinary lunar and solar halos.
There is no other rational explaination for the universal prevalence of
crescent-circle symbols than the Saturn thesis. Nothing in our present
sky suggests such a thing.
>8. The annual polar tide created by the close approach of Mars would have
>floated the Greenland ice cap which never happened.
As Ginenthal notes, the Greenland ice cap is more recent than the Saturn
system. See the section on ice caps in the catastrophism www site.
>9. The assemply of the PC is impossible because no "cosmic Velcro" strong
>enough exists to hold it together.
Bass and Grubaugh say it is possible. They exceed Ellenberger/Dehner in
astronomical knowledge by something like the measure by which the USS
Theodore Roosavelt exceeds a gnat in weight...
>10. The synchronous orbits required in the PC are impossible and the
>ability of tidal friction or magnetism to stabilize it is a mere assertion,
>never demonstrated by robust simulation.
Same answer as above...
>11. The transition from the PC to the present regime entails problems with
>the conservation of angular momentum and energy that makes those attending
>Worlds in Collision seem trivial.
Bass' derivation of Bode's law invalidates that argument.
>12. The synchronous spin-orbit resonances in the satellite systems of
>Earth, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn (and the Kirkwood gaps in the asteroid
>belt) cannot form in the short time since the PC supposedly collapsed.
These phenomena do not occur in isolation. Bass notes that the reverse
spin of Venus coupled with the phase lock with Earth tells us something.
>13. No physical evidence exists to support the alleged absence of seasons
>in some "Golden Age", while records of seasonal changes in ice and tree
>rings go back continuosly many thousands of years.
Many of these beliefs involving ice layer dating have since been destroyed
as noted above. Tree rings are subject to more than one interpretation.
>15. The present polar and ecliptic constellations have no meaning in the
>PC, yet Ursa Major was reverred by at least 15,000 B.P. and the Gemini
>quartet was probably identified by 7500 B.P.
Back to the Thompson/Dehner/Ellenberger favorite topic, i.e. Mongolian
Shamen; How
quaint...
[blah, blah... ]
> In conclusion, the "Saturn Myth" is a fairy tale with no useful
>purpose other than to fuel the imaginations of a small number of
>self-professed mythographers who have not one soupcan of understanding of
>either logic or the laws of physics.
For the uninitiated, a roundup of the last major stooging effort of
Thompson/Dehner for LeRoy's Mongolian shaman thesis:
..........................................................
This one begins with Tim (Hey Boy) Thompson and Ben Dehner stooging on
the net for Leroy Ellenberger again. In fact, I don't believe in
insider jokes all that much. Another poster once asked whether to
address Thompson as Dr. or Prof. Thompson and I replied naturally enough
that Thompson's ilk should be addressed the way Richard Boone used to
address the Chinese porter on Have Gun, Will Travel, i.e. "Hey boy...".
Ellenber and hence also Thompson and Dehner (who likes to talk about
scientific illiteracy) was making a case against the Saturn hypothesis
based upon a claim that, amongst other things, the Rig Veda was 7000
years old and, of course, preserved astronomical knowledge which
contradicts the idea of any change in our solar system over that span of
time. Ev Cochrane, Don Lowry and others naturally enough noted that was
ridiculous. Hey Boy replied:
From: t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.catastrophism
Subject: Re: Velikovsky, Cochrane, and Ellenberger in Skeptic
Date: 12 Feb 1996 23:30:52 GMT
In article <xxBKBNQ....@delphi.com>,
Ev Cochrane <ecoc...@delphi.com> writes:
[ ... ]
> In fact, I *do* know better. Tim doesn't seem to understand that
> Sidharth/Ellenberger's claim is tantamount to someone claiming that
> Abraham Lincoln assumed the presidency in 3000 B.C. I mean, the
> claim that part of the Rig Veda stems from 7300 B.C. is so ludicrous
> that only a fool could take it seriously.
I am going to take the position that this is a fundamentally ludicrous
statement, which cannot be justified or supported by any logical argument,
or any scholarly research. Cochrane's analogy is pure invention.
and:
From: t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Velikovsky, Cochrane, and Ellenberger in Skeptic
Date: 22 Feb 1996 00:18:45 GMT
Message-ID: <4ggcp5$4...@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In article <Z5FpaUj....@delphi.com>,
Ev Cochrane <ecoc...@delphi.com> writes:
[ ... ]
> Once again Leroy demonstrates his unparalleled capacity for
> misunderstanding *his own sources*, something we've
> encountered again and again on talk.origins.
Pure propaganda; this is a crock. Cochrane has consistently insisted
that Sidharth's claims required a knowledge of "advanced astronomical
reckoning", "advanced astronomical concepts" and "advanced astronomical
practices". However, in each and every case Cochrane provided no hint
at all as to just exactly what he thought constituted "advanced
astronomical practices", or "advanced astronomy" in this context. For
all we know, Cochrane is claiming that we think ancient aryans were
practicing quasar red-shift measurements.
Sidharth, on the other hand, specifically said " *comparatively*
advanced astronomical concepts", and then went on to describe exactly
what he was talking about.
Ellenberger has no way of knowing what Cochrane meant, and neither
does anybody else. Cochrane just waits for somebody to complain, and
then twists the words into his own favorite meaning. By doing this in
a consistent fashion, Cochrane insults the intelligence of his audience
and successfully demeans only himself.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Thompson, Timothy.J...@jpl.nasa.gov
and then backpedals a little:
>>> Cochrane is continuing to ridicule and belittle the argument even
>>> while
>>> admitting that he does not even know what argument he is ridiculing.
>>> Certainly this is a thoroughly unacceptable practice.
>[Lowry ... ]
>> The fact remains that the burden of proof for such an extraordinary
>> claim as a date of 7300 BC for ANY work of literature is on he who
>> makes the claim.
> Second, nobody ever claimed that the Rig Veda dates from 7300 BC.
>Sidharth's claim, such as it is, is that the astronomical content of
>the Rig Veda could *possibly* preserve some knowledge that dates from
>7300 BC. That knowledge is preserved in the form of descriptions of
>astronomical events that can be dated by running the solar system, or
>the Earth itself, backwards in time on a computer. Some of the early
>dates for the Rig Veda are very solid (for instance, it is now well
>known that some of the Rig Veda contents can be clearly dated to
>circa 2400 BC).
and then pedals forward some more:
From: t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.catastrophism
Subject: Re: Velikovsky, Cochrane, and Ellenberger in Skeptic
Date: 23 Feb 1996 19:45:06 GMT
Message-ID: <4gl5g2$j...@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>
In article <medved.824999952@access5>, med...@access5.digex.net
(Ted Holden) writes:
> Cochrane posted a massive response to this foolishness last week, which
> clearly
> indiicated that he knows more about he Rig Veda than you, Ellenberger,
> and
> Sidharth singly or combined know about it. You'd do well to read it
> before
> embarrassing yourself further on this topic.
Cochrane's response was not all that massive, but more importantly was
full of mistakes and easily refuted. The only reason that I have not already
done so is that I was away all weekend, and have had a very busy week. I
hope to finish crafting my response this weekend. Cochrane's argument thus
far is not very good, and I will embarrass both of you as soon as I can.
Timothy J. Thompson, Timothy.J...@jpl.nasa.gov
And then posted a piece of garbage intended to resemble scholarship or
something like that, footnotes included. Ev cochrane replied:
From: Ev Cochrane <ecoc...@delphi.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Velikovsky, Cochrane, and Ellenberger in Skeptic
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 96 00:52:48 -0500
On February 23rd, Tim Thompson announced that he would be
embarrassing me in the very near future. Shortly thereafter, he
posted a six-page document detailing his understanding of the
chronology and astronomy of the Rig Veda. Having examined
Tim's document with some care, I am prepared to admit that
I am indeed embarrassed------for Tim. The ignorance displayed
in this particular document is so abysmal, the level of insight
so critically-challenged, that had Tim not expressly claimed
authorship I would have naturally assumed it had been dictated
by Leroy Ellenberger. While a paragraph by paragraph analysis
of Tim's document is warranted and will be complete by the weekend,
the following will suffice to expose the level of "scholarship"
to be found therein.
Tim sets out to undermine my critique of Sidharth's discussion
of the precession of the equinoxes:
In article <4gon41$j...@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>,
Tim Thompson <t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>This is my reply to an earlier post by Ev Cochrane.
[del]
>
> Cochrane continues ...
>> Sidharth also claims of the ancient Hindus that "they knew
>> of the precessional cycle, which takes about 25,800 years....There
>> is a possibility that in the earliest Vedic times, precession was
>> known." (p. 12). Once again, there is no evidence to support this
>> view. Indeed, so far as I'm aware, there is no credible evidence
>> for knowledge of precession before Hipparchus. Here the learned
>> opinion of D.R. Dicks might be cited: "To suppose that astronomical
>> theory or observational technique had reached such a level in
>> Philolaus' time that the effects of precession (about 50'' of arc
>> a year for stars on the ecliptic) would be noticed, is quite out of
>> the question, and it is now certain that it was Hipparchus
>> in the second century BC who made this discovery." (Early Greek
>> Astronomy to Aristotle, 1970, pp. 69-70).
>
> Here, however, both Cochrane and the authoritative Dicks are
>simply wrong. Hindu knowledge of precession is documented in the Surya
>Siddhanta, a 6th century BC Indian document which pre-dates Hipparchus
>(who lived circa 150 BC) by 400 years. Here is how Rene Taton put it,
>back in 1957! [4] ...
>
> " Fairly accurate determinations of the sun's position by
> means of their nakshatra system enabled the Indian astronomers
> to notice very early that the equinoctal and solstitial points
> do not remain stationary. However, this fact was not mentioned
> in any text earlier than the Surya Siddhanta, which speaks of
> a libratory motion rather than a rotary precession. It has been
> assumed that this notion was borrowed from Greek astronomy which
> does, in fact, have a theory of that kind, but there is no reason
> why the Indians could not have arrived at it independently."
Understand, it matters little to my theory whether knowledge of the
precession stems from Hipparchus--as most authorities seem to agree--
or whether it can be traced slightly further back in time. The question
here is whether it is *credible* that the ancient Hindus from the earliest
Vedic times--dated, it will be remembered, to 7300 BC by Sidharth--
also possessed such knowledge. As I have observed, such a view is
*incredible* in the truest sense of the word.
This said, let us examine Tim's sources. We'll overlook the fact that
Rene Taton is not exactly a leading figure in Vedic astronomy. And
we'll overlook the fact that no quote from the Surya Siddhanta is
offered to buttress the claim and to assure critically-minded scholars
that precession is actually being described. But there is one little
detail that we cannot overlook: The fact that the Surya Siddhanta
dates to c. 505 AD, not to the sixth century BC as claimed by Tim! [1]
This, my friends, is what we've come to know as "Thompsonian scholarship".
Footnotes:
1. The following quote is taken from Tim's own source--The History
of Oriental Astronomy, p. 140: "Surya-Siddhanta i.e., the Siddhanta of the
Sun, composed by Latadeva (505 A.D.)." Note that there were several
texts which came to be known by the name Surya-Siddhanta. The
earliest, according to David Pingree, is the one associated with
Latadeva. Thus Pingree refers to "the Old Suryasiddhanta, a work
known to us now only through Varahamihira's summary of the
recension made by Latadeva in 505 AD." See "Astronomy and
Astrology in India and Iran," ISIS 54, 1963, p. 239. Recensions of
this "text" continued well into modern times.
Hey Boy (seriously embarassed) replied:
From: t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Velikovsky, Cochrane, and Ellenberger in Skeptic
Date: 29 Feb 1996 20:59:24 GMT
In article <ZfMq7wg....@delphi.com>,
Ev Cochrane <ecoc...@delphi.com> writes:
> But there is one little
> detail that we cannot overlook: The fact that the Surya Siddhanta
> dates to c. 505 AD, not to the sixth century BC as claimed by Tim! [1]
Constant streams of insults are not necessary, it is sufficient to
simply point out my errors. My notes are not clear enough, but I
believe the c. 600 BC date came from Taton, though I will have to
look again and see (something I will not be able to do until the
weekend in any case). If I am in error, my apologies.
Timothy J. Thompson, Timothy.J...@jpl.nasa.gov
Which is not to claim that he won't go back to making the same kinds of
cases and arguments ten minutes later. In the middle of all this somewhere,
I noted that Leroy Ellenberger is <ALWAYS> turning up idiotic theories
to hold up as one last-ditch defense against the Saturn thesis the way
Von Helsing holds up the star of David against the vampire in Love at first
Bite:
Text of a typical mass-distribution
postcard from Tim Thompson's literary
protege, Leroy Ellenberger, dated
23 Oct., 1995:
DAWN BEHIND THE DAWN: A Search for
tThe Earthly Paradise (1992) by Geoffrey Ashe
"A lively, scholarly detective story In which Ashe turns
his Inquisitive eye on the possible truth of a prehis-
toric Golden Age." -- Kirkus Reviews
Prehistorian Ashe claims that an Indo-
European people, through contact
with shamans of Siberia in the Altai
Mountains 5000 years ago, created a
hybrid culture that exerted a Pro-
found, hitherto unrecognized influ-
ence on Western civilization. This
nameless people presumably absorbed
such shamanic beliefs as goddess wor-
ship; a mystique around the number
seven, reflecting reverence for Ursa
Major with its seven stars; and motifs
of a cosmic center aasociated with a
divine mountain. In Ashe's (Discovery
of King Arthur) scenario, the Indo-Eu-
ropean people drifted to Iran and In-
dia, and ideas from the "Altaic seed-
bed" were also disseminated through,
out Mesopotamia, ancient Israel,
Canaan and Greece and across Old Eu-
rope with its Paleolithic worship of an
earth mother goddess. One Altaic lega-
cy, he argues, is seven as an ordering
principle in ancient seven-planet as-
trology, the musical scale and the spec-
trum. It's an interesting but un-
stantiated theory. -- Pub. Week
This book even better than J.
Godwin's ARKTOS, puts the lie,
albeit Implicitly, to that per-
verse corruption called the
"polar configuration," a naive
concoction even Lenny Bruce
would recognize as "the anti-
thesis of everything right and
proper intellectually," and
thereby shows hpw incompetent is
the "interdisciplinary synthesis"
foisted by the "Saturnists" who
are with no doubt cosmic poseurs
par excellence. One would never
know from THE SATURN MYTH how
intimately involved with polar
tradition are the twins Apollo
and Artemis, for example.
Another antisaturnic is THE
ORION MYSTERY by R Bauval.
Hey Boy first defended this thesis:
From: t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson)
Newsgroups: alt.catastrophism,talk.origins
Subject: Re: More Ellenberger/Thompson/Dehner "Prehistory"...
Date: 12 Feb 1996 22:33:03 GMT
Well, I have been "ignored", entered into the Splifford FAQ, and now
Holden even puts me in the subject line! It's noce to know he cares :-)
In article <4ffnde$j...@access5.digex.net>, med...@access5.digex.net
(Ted Holden) writes:
[Holden earlier ... ]
>>> Again, the last or second-to-last postcard I got from Ellenberger
indicated
>>> that the golden-age tradition, along with most of everything else
>>> Indo-Europeans know about religion and philosophy, came from contact
with
>>> Mongolian shamen in the Altai mountains around 6000 BC...
[Nyikos responded ... ]
>> What is his source
>> for this? _The Aquarian Age Gospel of Jesus Christ_? the "Akashic
Records"
>> which is the alleged source for that New Age fantasy? Or some more
ancient
>> source, like the caveman for whom Boopsie was channeling on "Doonesbury"?
[Holden now ... ]
> Everybody needs friends, but with opponents like Ellenberger, Thompson,
and
> Dehner, we Saturnists probably don't need as many as would otherwise be
> the case.
I am not impressed, either by Holden's incessant derision of everything
too complicated for him to understand (which, of course, means just plain
everything anyway), or Nyikos's argument by sillification. It is not evident
to me that either of these gentlemen care to think about the matter.
I have not read Ashe's book, so I don't know what his argument is, but it
should be crystal clear that neither Holden nor Nyikos know either. I am
consistently amazed by the ability of some to ridicule what they have never
even read. Since it is a common ploy for the Velikovskian to complain that
critics have not read Velikovsky's works, you would think that they would
have a care to not behave in the same manner.
Now, would someone care to explain to me why it is fundamentally silly,
or obviously impossible, for Ashe's argument to be wrong, something so
obvious that it can be ridiculed without even being read? We know that the
indigenous population of India was displaced, or at least conquered, by
Aryan migration from the steppes region, somewhere in the 3000 - 2000 BC
timeframe. We also know that we can trace the worlds oldest written
languages
to a similar timeframe. We also know that there must have been a long oral
tradition before the advent of writing. Finally, we know that the pre-
historic
Celtic population in Europe had already developed a network of commerce,
and had established standard 'trade routes'.
This all means that we know there was a considerable traffic in both
peopleand merchandise, in this area, well before the advent of written
history. I see nothing fundamentally silly about the idea that this could
also have included a traffic in ideas, customs, and oral-literature. On
the face of it, there is nothing "silly" about this idea, whether or not
it turns out to be right.
This kind of argument, to ridicule as if it is "obvious", is not
acceptable.
Timothy J. Thompson, Timothy.J...@jpl.nasa.gov
I.e. one should not ridicule the idea of western man learning all of his
religion and philosophy from Mongolian shamen in the Altai mountains.
Then, characteristically, hey Boy begins to backpedel just a bit:
From: t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson)
Newsgroups: alt.catastrophism,talk.origins
Subject: Re: More Ellenberger/Thompson/Dehner "Prehistory"...
Date: 14 Feb 1996 23:05:54 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Earth and Space Science Division
[Holden ... ]
> I.e. Thompson believes that Western man owes it all to Mongolian shamen. I
> rest my case.
Now you all know where the phrase "Air Hed Ted" comes from. Personally,
I would prefer a Mongolian Shaman to a delusional Russian psychiatrist.
Holden's view of History, and his opinion of mine both qualify as emminent
examples of "Air Hed" in action.
No, neither I nor anyone else believes "western man owes it all to
Mongolian Shamen". However, we know that what are now the Hindus of India
started out as Aryans, or Indo-Europeans, who migrated to India from the
steppes region east of the Ural mountains. The Aryan migrations to India
are dated around 2000 BC or so. They weren't Mongolians. But they
undoubtedly brought their own history and customs with them on the
migration. One of few the things we can be fairly sure of is that the
Rig Veda, or some part of same, came with them, and represents knowledge
and/or custom from the pre-migration period. That is the point.
Air Hed Ted wigs out in public again.
Timothy J. Thompson, Timothy.J...@jpl.nasa.gov
And then a lot:
From: t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson)
Newsgroups: alt.catastrophism,talk.origins
Subject: Mongolian Shamen
Date: 21 Feb 1996 23:54:10 GMT
......
.......
The line about "Mongolian Shamen" is entirely the literary invention of
Monsieur Holden. And that leads us to another fruitful avenue of
investigation.
As we see here, Holden is claiming that we are making claims that we are, in
actuality, not making at all. Now, what is the usual word used to describe
this kind of activity? In the best of pedagogical traditions, this is left
as an exercise for the student.
Timothy J. Thompson, Timothy.J...@jpl.nasa.gov
And then, some serious backpeddling:
From: t...@ediacara.org (Tim Thompson)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.catastrophism
Subject: Re: Velikovsky is wrong -- Earth's axial tilt must be ancient
Date: 23 Feb 1996 19:51:28 GMT
Message-ID: <4gl5s0$j...@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>
At this point I do not intend to mince words. Not only is Holden's
statement
obviously stupid, it is just another in a long string of deliberate and
calculated
lies told by Holden. I am not at all appreciative of his habitual lying,
most especially when he lies about me. The "Mongolian Shaman" line is just
another of Holden's typical fairy tale inventions, and neither he nor it
are deserving of any kind of respect at all.
In other words, Hey Boy is seriously embarrassed by his erstwhile
defense of his stoogemeister Ellenberger's claim of a Mongolian origin
for our culture, philosophy, religions, cosmological ideas etc.
Consider the ultimate chieftain of the people who Ellenberger sees as
our "roots". What goes around in life comes around; Hey Boy may
ultimately have to explain his backsliding to this gentleman in some
future incarnation. We don't really have a whole lot on Chengis Khan in
our English-speaking world other than Harold Lamb's book. Russians, of
course, got a somewhat closer view of the Mongol empire for several
hundred years, and have a better feel for it. Allow me, therefore, to
translate just a tiny section of V. G. Yan's "Chengisxhan I Batui" for
you. This is a historical novel, but the breadth of detail is immense
and a reader assumes it isn't far from fact.
Chengisxhan, in immeasureable amazement, put his hand on his mouth,
pointed towards Jelal ed-din and said to his sons:
Thus should a son be to his father!
The Mongols, seeing the sultan had thrown himself in the river, wished
to pursue immediately, but chengisxhan forbade it.
They massacred the army of Jelal ed-din, not before the soldiers had
thrown the sultan's wife and mother into the river, to prevent their
falling to the Mongols.
There remained amongst the living only the seven-year-old son of the
sultan, seized by the Mongols. They brought him before Chengisxhan.
The youngster, turning towards the kagan, fixed a brave and hateful gaze
upon him.
"The seed of our enemies must be extirpated by the roots.", said
Chengisxhan. "The progeny of such brave Muselmen will strive to
slaughter my grandchildren. Therefore, feed ye my Borzoi hound this
boy's heart."
The Mongol palach (head executioner/torturer), smiling to the ears with
pride at an opportunity to display his skills before the great Kagan,
rolled up his sleeves and walked over to the boy. Throwing the boy on
his back, he of an instant, per Mongol custom, cut his chest open with
his knife below the ribs and ripped out his steaming little heart, and
carried it to Chengisxhan who, several times like an old boar raised the
Mongol war cry: "khuu - khuuu - khuu, turned his paint horse and,
dourly slumping somewhat in the saddle, headed further along the stone
path.
From everything else I've read, that seems believable; that's how
Chengisxhan might deal with an innocent youngster whose existence had
simply become inconvenient. How he might deal with an unscrupulous
and psychopathically dishonest propagandist, with pictures of Himler
and Tokyo Rose up on his walls, I'll leave to Hey Boy's imagination.
Unknown
I would have to disagree with this. The deformation is not so intense
or complex as to preclude the reconstruction of the pre-deformation
structure (X/Z is only about 2.3 in most areas). Metamorphism is not
that extreme either. It was more reasonable, based on the geological
understanding at that time, to accept a volcanic origin over a meteorite
impact. Although the movement toward the acceptance of occasional meteorite
strikes was building strength in the geological community in the 1960's,
volcanic origins were the consensus for most craters until Shoemaker
presented his work on the Barringer Crater in the late 1950’s.
> I do not think it is fair to regard the reaction of Dietz's
>hypothesis as being "laughed off the stage" either.
Many considered his proposal preposterous and openly laughed during the
presentation (or so I have been told). Also Dietz was young when he
proposed this and it was the mid-1960’s after all.
> His hypothesis was
>harshly criticized, but many people also said it remained a contender to
>more conventional volcanic models.
And still do to some degree, but the pendulum has swung far towards the
meteoriticists as of late.
> I remember both models (volcanic and
>impact) being presented in the 1970s, even in literature from Inco :-)
By 1980 most of Inco was behind the meteor impact theory, at least that
proposed by Paterson (1979). Now Falconbridge that’s a different story:-)
Archae Solenhofen (jmca...@gtn.net)
Tim Thompson
In article <medved.835894083@access5>, med...@access5.digex.net
(Ted Holden) writes:
>William Sommerwerck <will...@nwlink.com> writes:
>> I promised I wasn't going to say anything else, but I have to.
>> "Catastrophes" don't fit in very well with science. A single, isolated event
>> does not lend itself to mathematical description, and may not fit in very
>> well with broader theories.
[Holden ... ]
> I'm sure the good people of Pompei, Hiroshima, and any number of similar
> places will be tremendously reassured to hear that they didn't really die
> in mathematically indescribable events...
Lest this lead to some intellectual misunderstandings, allow me to elaborate.
Holden's point is well taken, but so is Sommerwerck's. Individual catastrophic
events are in general unpredictable, but they are predictable statistically.
For instance, one can examine the known population of Earth-crossing asteroids,
and from this knowledge derive the probability that some member of that
population will strike the Earth over a given period of time. This does not
predict which individual asteroid will be the guilty party, but it does
identify the liklihood that something may ruin your whole day.
Here is an example from the recent literature ...
=================================================================================
COLLISIONS IN THE SOLAR-SYSTEM .6. TERRESTRIAL IMPACT PROBABILITIES FOR THE
KNOWN ASTEROID POPULATION
Article (Refs:38)
by Steel-DI (*R)
Anglo Australian Observ/Coonabarabran/Nsw 2357/AUSTRALIA/
MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY v273 (4) : pp1091-1096
(1995 Apr 15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The probability of a collision with the Earth is calculated for each of
the 152 Apollo and 17 Aten asteroids known as at 1994 June 30. For the Apollos
the mean impact probability (P-c) is 9.3 per billion (10(9)) years; for the
Atens, 24.3 per billion years; and, for all 169 Earth-crossers, the mean is
10.8 per billion years. The mean impact speeds, individual values being
weighted by their collision probabilities, are 15.7, 15.1 and 15.5 km s(-1)
respectively. 1991 VG was assumed to be a returned spacecraft, and therefore
excluded from these averages; due to its very Earth-like orbit its P-c is
extremely high, and its inclusion would more than quadruple the mean P-c
derived for all Earth-crossers. Since the first Apollo was found in 1932 the
mean P-c has varied significantly as our inventory has grown, currently having
its highest-ever value. The present large value is largely due to the operation
over the past five years of the Spacewatch telescope of the University of
Arizona, which has added to the discovered population a number of small
(< 100 m) asteroids with low eccentricities and inclinations, these having
high values of P-c. Using only the 99 Earth-crossers with absolute magnitude
H < 18 (sizes greater than or similar to 1 km), the mean P-c is 4.9 per billion
years, with a weighted mean impact speed of 18.0 km s(-1) The 'real' mean
collision probability and speed are highly dependent upon the distribution
of orbits amongst the near-Earth population, such as the relative numbers
of Apollos and Atens, the fraction of Amors that evolve into Earth-crossing
orbits, and in particular the number of e < 0.2 objects.
=================================================================================
My point is that onje can indeed put reasonable physical constraints on
impact probability, as well as the more basic physics of the impacts themselves.
The major weakness of the Velikovksian approach is its reliance on the very
subjective interpretation of mythology rather than a more sound reliance
on fundamental knowledge.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Thompson, Timothy.J...@jpl.nasa.gov
California Institute of Technology, Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer.
Atmospheric Corrections Team - Scientific Programmer.
Andrew MacRae
In article <btd.83...@pv7440.vincent.iastate.edu> b...@iastate.edu
> [Posted for C. Leroy Ellenberger, received by fax 2 July 1996]
> [Despite CLE's request, I have removed sci.astro from the newsgroups
> line.]
>
> On Tuesday, June 25, Dave Tablott defended the notion that planet Venus
> once sported a cometary tail. In response, herewith:
>
> 16 Reason Refuting the "Saturn Myth"
I can not comment on the validity of these others.
> 7. Due to parallax, in the "polar configuration" (PC) Venus would NEVER
> be centered on Saturn as seen from latitude 45 degrees, but would be
> distinctly off center, unlike the sun-in-circle symbols which resemble
> ordinary lunar and solar halos.
Not necessarily correct with respect to the "never". There are
situations which could conceivably accomplish an alignment at 45 degrees
latitude. For example, by introducing axial tilt to the Earth with
respect to the alignment of planets, which could produce a visual
alignment at particular times of the year. However, this would introduce
other obvious problems (e.g., the parallax would be worse at some times of
the year), and would either solve or create problems (distinct
seasonality), depending upon whether you accept the actual geological
evidence for seasonality, or whether you are relying on invalid claims
that the Earth used to have no seasonality in the past (see below). It
would also be more complicated, and make tidal effects radically
different.
The other issue is whether advocates of this model actually claim
that the visual alignment must be perfect. It is my understanding that
they do not, and that they also point to other images with a variety of
crescent shapes, so I am not sure Leroy's objection is valid in the first
place. However, it depends greatly upon the paleogeographic location of
the supposedly displaced rotational pole of the Earth. If the localities
with the artistic images are at 45 degrees or so, and if the rotational
axis is aligned with the planetary alignment, then, yes, only crescentic
and off-centre shapes would be seen due to parallax. If the locations
were closer to "90 degrees" paleolatitude, then the alignment would
improve.
*Theoretically* this would make it possible to determine the
"paleolatitude" of a site depending upon the degree of parallax displayed
in the images from the area, assuming that these images were not
transported large geographic distances due to cultural processes. The
images from a culture located near the "paleopole" should be more aligned,
while those further away should be consistently off centre or crescentic,
assuming the rotational axis is not tilted. If you find more than one
image (aligned and crescentic forms) at one locality supposedly close to
the "paleopole", then I suggest that either the Earth's rotational axis
was tilted with respect to the planetary alignment, or the whole model is
simply wrong. :-)
Anyway, if we could get a more definitive answer from the
advocates of this model, perhaps we could sort out whether it is truly a
valid objection or not.
..
> 13. No physical evidence exists to support the alleged absence of
> seasons in some "Golden Age", while records of seasonal changes in ice
> and tree rings go back continuosly many thousands of years.
And there is also considerable evidence for seasonality going back
even further in the geologic record -- for almost as far back as trees
which grew incremental wood have existed. There is evidence for
variations in degree of seasonality (e.g., much of the Mesozoic had *LESS*
seasonality), but there is absolutely no evidence for a time when it did
not exist at all, or was not pronounced enough that trees halted their
growth periodically.
For example:
Creber, G.T. and Chaloner, W.G., 1984. Chapter 4. Climatic indications
from growth rings in fossil woods. IN: Brenchley, P. (ed.), Fossils and
Climate. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd, p.49-74.
Even the Permian, during which Pangaea had been accumulated and
supposedly (e.g., according to Lynn Rose), the "world mountain" existed,
there is evidence for seasonality in wood, *IF*, as should be obvious, you
move out of the tropics and into temperate and polar areas where
seasonality has a greater effect. In fact, the variation in the
development of growth rings depending upon geographic
location/paleolatitude is support for the Earth's axis being approximately
where it is now during this same time (although, obviously the continents
have moved with respect to eachother), and the equatorial region was *not*
at the orientation claimed for some models of the Earth's rotational pole
and its illumination (e.g., with a pole located in the Middle East, which
would place the "equator" nearly perpendicular to what is actually
observed from climatic indicators).
This latter issue -- the evidence for paleolatitude-related
climate bands being at different orientation from what has been proposed
by advocates of the "polar configuration" -- consists of more than just
tree fossils. There is substantial amounts of other evidence (e.g.,
general vegetation distribution, the distribution of corals, the
distribution of evaporite mineral deposits, and other warm climate
indicators; and the distribution of glacial evidence, permafrost polygons,
and other cold climate indicators) saying effectively the same thing.
This evidence is, however, consistent with the interpretations of
continental position in the past as derived from paleomagnetic work, which
is largely ignored by advocates of the "polar configuration", other than
using simplistic, outdated models of Pangaea. There appears to be little
consideration of continental positions prior to Pangaea, or of the
refinements to models of continental positions developed since about the
1970s.
There is also considerable evidence for lunar tidal processes with
similar periodicity to today. If the Moon was absent, something else was
modulating daily tidal frequencies with a 14 or 28 day cycle. As far as I
know, no valid attempt has been made by Velikovskian advocates to address
this tidal evidence. It provides evidence for the Moon's existence in a
similar orbital configuration as today for as far back as the Precambrian.
For a polar configuration which *must* have produced spectacular tides,
this is a glaring problem -- both the scale of the evidence for past
tides, and the frequency modulation. Here are a small selection of
relevant references:
Swie-Djin Nio and Chang-Shu Yang, 1991. Diagnostic properties of
clastic tidal deposits: a review. IN: Smith, D.G., Reinson, G.E.;
Zaitlin, B.A.; and Rahmani, R.A. (eds.). Clastic Tidal Sedimentology.
Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 16, p.3-28.
Williams, G.E., 1989a. Late Precambrian tidal rhythmites in South
Australia and the history of the Earth's rotation. Journal of the
Geological Society, London, v.146, p.97-11.
Williams, G.E., 1989b. Precambrian tidal sedimentary cycles and the
Earth's paleorotation. EOS, Transitions, Americal Geophysical Union,
v.70, no.3, p.33, 40-41
Williams, G.E., 1991. Upper Proterozoic tidal rythmites, South Australia:
Sedimentary features, deposition, and implications for the Earth's
paleorotation. IN: Smith, D.G., Reinson, G.E.; Zaitlin, B.A.; and
Rahmani, R.A. (eds.). Clastic Tidal Sedimentology. Canadian Society of
Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 16, p.161-178.
Martino, R.L., and Sanderson, D.D., Fourier and Autocorrelation Analysis
of Estaurine Tidal Rhythmites, Lower Breathitt Formation (Pennsylvanian)
Eastern Kentucky, USA : Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 63 (1),
105-119, 1993
de Boer, P.L.; van Gelder, A.; and Nio, S.D. (eds.), 1988.
Tide-influenced Sedimentary Environments and Facies. Reidel Publishing,
530pp. [Rahmani's paper on the Drumheller area is particularly
interesting, but many other examples are provided.]
Ginsburg, R.N., 1975. Tidal Deposits: A Casebook of Recent Examples and
Fossil Counterparts. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 428pp.
Visser, M.J., 1980. Neap-spring cycles reflected in Holocene subtidal
large-scale bedform deposits: a preliminary note. Geology, v.8,
p.543-546.
..
Finally, although I am not sure about the validity of the
observations, and there are more general concerns about this type of study
(see the paper for details), there have been some interesting attempts to
derive orbital parameters from the incremental growth patterns of
stromatolites:
Vanyo, J.P. and Awramik, S.M., 1985. Stromatolites and Earth-Sun-Moon
dynamics. Precambrian Research, v.29, p.121-142.
As expected due to the effects of tidal friction from the Moon,
these stromatolites appear to indicate more days in a year --
approximately 435 days in this case. This is consistent with estimates
from growth increments of geologically younger organisms, which decrease
in days/year towards the present value (this paper has references to
several examples).
---
Tim Thompson
Well, go away for a few days of astronomy & vacation, and look what happens.
The long lost Talbott has returned.
In article <dtalbott.835713408@julie>, dtal...@teleport.com
(David N. Talbott) writes:
> Seeing Tim Thompson's recent post in response to the upcoming "Velikovsky"
> symposium reminded me of the need for a summary separating fact from
> fiction on the subject of Velikovsky and modern science.
[remainder deleted ... ]
There are quite a few responses on this thread from quite a few folks,
and I am not going to try to respond to everyone. I have no reservations
about taking the position that Velikovsky's ideas, as well as Talbott's
own "Saturn myth" are a lot of hooey. Ridiculous and impossible, easily
dismissed out of hand, and hardly worth the effort to disassemble.
The planetary configuration implied by the Saturn myth is impossible.
The planetary behavior implied by Velikovsky's thesis is also impossible.
These are not tenuous statements, these are not weak constraints, and they
are not arguments lightly offered. Rather, they form a very powerful
constraint which serves to prove a-priori that both the original argument
from Velikovsky, as well as Talbott's variant, are at once impossible.
All of the mytho-historical mumbo-jumbo served up on silver-prosed
platters of literary edification provides no solace to the lost souls.
Indeed, it is so obvious that this must be impossible that, as I pointed
out once before, in nigh onto a half century of parading their wares about
the intellectual market place, the champions of Velikovsky have been
ringing up "no-sale" so much that the silence is deafening. After all
these years thhe poor folks still can't seem to drag more than a hundred
or so wanderers out of the neighborhood to populate their international
symposia. This kind of a track record should be a warning; it may well
be that people stay away in droves for a good reason.
ev.co...@ames.net
Tim seems to be under the mistaken impression that science
is a popularity contest. The history of science readily
confirms, however, that ideas long unpopular and long deemed
impossible occasionally win out. Few folks seem to have
agreed with old Aristarchus' heliocentric hypothesis; and
doubtless few people agree with Talbott and myself that
the planets used to wander about in polar alignment. In the
final analysis, of course, it is the evidence that counts.
And the evidence already in suggests that Tim's view of
the history of the solar system is on its way out, thereby
joining the geocentric view of the solar system and other once
popular opinions.
David N. Talbott
A brief follow-up with respect to the rites of denial on this talk group,
and specifically the comments of Chris Nedin.
In response to Andrew Macrae, I had written the following concerning the
use of myth as evidence--
TEXT FROM MY PREVIOUS POST:
At our symposium in November of 1994, I asked the astronomer
Tom Van Flandern if he agreed with this statement: that there is
considerable evidence to suggest ancient civilizations may have arisen in
the shadow of celestial catastrophe, and if so would he agree that ancient
myths and symbols deserve careful study and cross-cultural comparison to
see if they might point to the nature of the upheavals. I found it very
interesting that he agreed with both statements.
And what do you think the astronomers Clube and Napier have done? Do you
really want to say they would have a case for anything if they had to
exclude the great myths of the world? And is Fred Hoyle also crazy for
supporting the conclusions from this methodology?
Even Carl Sagan and Nancy Druyan, in their book, Comet, notice the
prevalence of an ancient symbol, the swastika, and propose a celestial
origin
of the symbol. It was a rotating comet spewing streams of gas into
surrounding space, they say. Now are you going to tell me that this
armchair speculation is okay, but work actually exploring the recurring
contexts of that symbol (all of the contexts ignored by Sagan and Druyan)
doesn't count as evidence? Give Velikovsky a break, big guy, and credit
him with having discerned a key to discovery. Notice that even Duncan
Steel, in his book on comets and rogue asteroids, urges scientists not to
"throw the baby out with the bath water" when it comes to Velikovsky,
calling for openness to mythical sources as possible records of
catastrophe.
END OF TEXT
To this last statement (re Duncan Steel) Chris Nedin responds,
> Actually it was more like "don't discount mythological evidence when
> you throw out Velikovsky"!
Chris then gives an extended quote from Steel suggesting two things:
1) Velikovsky's cometary Venus scenario "was a breach of various
laws of physics." and 2) Velikovsky was correct in discerning that
"the myths and records of past civilizations might contain important
information about what was happening in the sky in pre-modern times.
In fact, the ... legends of disparate human cultures are startlingly
similar."
Chris continues--
> You ask us to "credit him [Velikovsky] with having discerned a key to
> discovery." What? That ancient astronomical stories and records can be
> valid? There is nothing new about that.
This is where the rites of denial come in.
No supporter has ever suggested that Velikovsky was the _first_ to discern
the principle that world mythology reflects globally experienced,
celestial, and catastrophic events, but not a soul among leading
intellectuals _in this century_ accepted the idea until after Velikovsky
delivered his evidence. Why should we have to debate the significance of
Velikovsky's discernment here?
I'll state the point once again--
ON THE SINGLE, MOST FUNDAMENTAL PREMISE OF HIS WORK
VELIKOVSKY WAS CORRECT. THE MYTHS DESERVE TO BE
CAREFULLY CORRELATED, AS EVIDENCE FOR EVENTS SCIENCE
FAILED TO RECOGNIZE. AND THE RESULTS WILL BE
REVOLUTIONARY.
You have also implied something else, something that is blatantly untrue.
You are suggesting that the folks now postulating ancient cometary
catastrophes based on myth got their ideas out of the blue or somewhere other
than from Velikovsky, though Velikovsky's thesis, at least in a distorted form,
is known to every scientist. That thesis gave rise to one of the great
scientific controversies of this century. Are you telling me that the new
catastrophists were inspired by their own surveys of hieroglyphic and cuneiform
literature, Greek and Latin texts, Chinese and Mesoamerican sources? In
Clube's and Napier's work, the most significant work of the sort under
discussion, you will find not only that they use numerous sources Velikovsky
used, but use Velikovsky's own translation of a Latin text. Take that as a
clue, bro'.
But here comes the punchline. You would also have us believe that, if
Velikovsky had never written his book, with its "astronomical nonsense,"
science would have more quickly accepted the value of ancient myth in
reconstructing unusual celestial events.
Chris, Chris, Chris. The tell-tale sign of denial is _rationalization_.
How could the fact that someone had written a book constitute an obstruction
to free thought? If there was a problem for free thinkers, it was certainly
not Velikovsky but the vicious, irresponsible and unethical response of
entrenched science to Velikovsky's book--the inquisitors who forced
Macmillan to abandon the book when it was the number one best seller
and to fire senior editor James Putnam who had been with the company
for 25 years; the inquisitors who caused the firing of Gordon Atwater,
curator of the respected Hayden Planetarium, for having proposed open
discussion of Velikovsky; the inquisitors who effectively banned
Velikovsky from university campuses for years and made it impossible
for Velikovsky to answer his critics in any scholarly journal. The
inquisitors who, decades after Velikovsky book, continued to pressure his
supporters out of academic positions. Yes, that kind of thing could indeed
cause free thinkers to avoid advertising their intellectual link to
Velikovsky. It is, in fact, why those who share a kinship with Velikovsky
(several have come to prominence in recent years) will often not even mention
Velikovsky's name because they have seen the profoundly irrational scientific
response. When the guardians of truth are on a mission from God, the courage of
independent theorists to think freely could indeed be affected. To point
the finger at Velikovsky for this is the supreme rationalization.
ev.co...@ames.net
On June 26th, Mark Isaak chided Allan Beggs as follows: "Beggs is
the
only person I know who sees anything remotely celestial in flood
myths."
Isaak added: "Anybody can see for themselves that flood myths are
almost
*never* celestial." A more erroneous opinion it would be difficult
to find.
But then Mark Isaak is the very same fellow who chided Velikovsky
for
claiming that the Babylonian war-god Nergal had anything to do with
the
planet Mars! That Nergal was identified with the planet Mars is
well-known
to everybody who knows anything about ancient myth. That a favorite
weapon of Nergal/Mars was the "deluge"--while less well-known--is
most significant in light of Mark's typically cavalier and
ill-informed
rejection of Beggs' post. That Inanna/Venus was likewise intimately
associated with a flood raining from heaven would appear to be
fatal to Mark's position.
Mike Payne
Debunking the debunking of the debunkers?
I offer this to those who cry no evidence:
<http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/>
<http://www.ames.net/aeon/>
<http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/aeon/>
<http://pubweb.acns.nwu.edu/~pib/catasbib.htm>
<http://pubweb.acns.nwu.edu/~pib/catastro.htm>
<http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/sis/catneo.htm>
<http://access1.digex.net/~medved/Catastrophism.html>
<http://www.dircon.co.uk/xxx/cat/sis/review.htm>
<http://www.dircon.co.uk/xxx/cat/sis/workshop.htm>
<http://www.dircon.co.uk/xxx/cat/fingerprints/index.htm>
<http://www.dircon.co.uk/xxx/ian/>
<http://www.pacificrim.net/~nuanda/origins/>
<http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/sourcebook/index.htm>
<http://www.kronia.com/~kronia/journals.htm?28,44>
<http://www.kronia.com/~kronia/>
<http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/sis/>
<http://www.cloud9.net/~patrick/anomalist/>
<http://www.users.interport.net/~lisa/care.html>
<http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/velikovskian/>
<http://bohp03.bo.infn.it/tunguska96/>
<http://www.flash.net/~cjransom/>
<http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/earth/>
<http://www.iceonline.com/home/peters5/zoomquk4.html>
<http://www.leonardo.net/davidpb/sphinx2.html>
<http://home.earthlink.net/~boogienation/hancock.htm>
<http://www.m-m.org/~jz/sphinxlinks9.html>
<http://www.plaguescape.com/index.html>
<http://rumba.ics.uci.edu:8080/>
<http://www.wam.umd.edu/~tlaloc/archastro/>
<http://www.cityscape.co.uk/users/iy12/aaes/>
<http://www.gold.net/users/iy12/fingerp/>
<http://www.users.interport.net/~henryz/shr.html>
<http://www.jse.com/JSE_Home.html>
To all you good people at T.O. have a happy 4th of July. (except you
Brits of course) ;-)
Mike Payne
Tim Thompson
In article <dtalbott.836495659@linda>, dtal...@teleport.com
(David N. Talbott) writes:
> A brief follow-up with respect to the rites of denial on this talk group,
> and specifically the comments of Chris Nedin.
Nice idea, but wrong crowd. The "denial" around here comes from Talbott
et al., not from talk.origins. Talbott has to deny a great deal just to
rationalize his way into the Saturn myth.
[ ... ]
> TEXT FROM MY PREVIOUS POST:
>
> At our symposium in November of 1994, I asked the astronomer
> Tom Van Flandern if he agreed with this statement: that there is
> considerable evidence to suggest ancient civilizations may have arisen in
> the shadow of celestial catastrophe, and if so would he agree that ancient
> myths and symbols deserve careful study and cross-cultural comparison to
> see if they might point to the nature of the upheavals. I found it very
> interesting that he agreed with both statements.
I don't find it interesting, nor surprising. In fact, I too agree. In
fact I suspect that the vast majority of scientists would agree. In fact,
I am certain of it. In fact, I will assert it as a fact that most scientists
do in fact agree. However, don't get the wrong impression. It is one thing
to say "hey, maybe there is something interesting here, let's look and see"
(which is basically what Talbott is saying here), but quite another thing
to say "hey, I found the comet Venus!". The fact that something is worth
examining (such as ancient myths) does not necessarily imply that your
interpretation of same is the necessary consequence of such a study.
[ ... ]
> I'll state the point once again--
>
> ON THE SINGLE, MOST FUNDAMENTAL PREMISE OF HIS WORK
> VELIKOVSKY WAS CORRECT. THE MYTHS DESERVE TO BE
> CAREFULLY CORRELATED, AS EVIDENCE FOR EVENTS SCIENCE
> FAILED TO RECOGNIZE. AND THE RESULTS WILL BE
> REVOLUTIONARY.
I maintain that this is a false statement. First, Velikovsky was by
no stretch of the imagination a pioneer in trying to correlate myth
with experience. He may have approached the topic in his own unique
way, as is the case with any investigator, but people had been doing
the same general kind of study for centuries before Velikovsky came
along.
Furthermore, myths most emphatically *do not* and I mean NOT in
uppercase letters deserve to be considered at all as "evidence for
events science has failed to recognize". Even if one is able to
correlate common themes, the family of possible explanations is so
large and so arbitrary as to be useless. This is why I do not pay
much attention to the Clube & Napier theory either, I just don't
think it's worth a lot of effort.
There are far better reasons for studying common themes and
correlations in mythology, especially in relation to the history
and evolution of language and culture, both of which go hand-in-hand
with mythology. One is far more likely to make discoveries in this
arena than in any having to do with science.
James G. Acker
ev.co...@ames.net wrote:
: impossible occasionally win out. Few folks seem to have
: agreed with old Aristarchus' heliocentric hypothesis; and
: doubtless few people agree with Talbott and myself that
: the planets used to wander about in polar alignment. In the
: final analysis, of course, it is the evidence that counts.
: And the evidence already in suggests that Tim's view of
: the history of the solar system is on its way out, thereby
: joining the geocentric view of the solar system and other once
: popular opinions.
Does this wandering include Venus appearing to be
a comet-like astronomical object? If so, what geophysical causes can
be given for such an appearance?
===============================================
| James G. Acker |
| REPLY TO: jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov |
===============================================
All comments are the personal opinion of the writer
and do not constitute policy and/or opinion of government
or corporate entities.
Ashland S. Henderson
In article <dtalbott.836495659@linda>,
dtal...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) wrote:
}I'll state the point once again--
}
} ON THE SINGLE, MOST FUNDAMENTAL PREMISE OF HIS WORK
} VELIKOVSKY WAS CORRECT. THE MYTHS DESERVE TO BE
} CAREFULLY CORRELATED, AS EVIDENCE FOR EVENTS SCIENCE
} FAILED TO RECOGNIZE. AND THE RESULTS WILL BE
} REVOLUTIONARY.
Speaking as one with training in anthropology, myths do deserve
to be carefully correlated and studied. However, while I would expect
the results to be interesting to some of the social sciences, I highly
doubt they would be revolutionary. And as evidence for events the
physical sciences failed to recognize, I doubt they would be of any
value whatever.
Unfortunately, in my admittedly long ago reading of Velikovsky's
work, I saw no attempt at carefull correlation. What I saw was a very
selective picking and choosing of myths to support his particular
and peculiar beliefs and theories of the physical universe.
Andrew MacRae
In article <4rd6fh$m...@doc.zippo.com> Archae Solenhofen (jmca...@gtn.net)
..
..
> >regarded so tentatively. If you were going to interpret a structure as
> >being caused by a large impact, Sudbury isn't exactly ideal.
>
> I would have to disagree with this. The deformation is not so intense
> or complex as to preclude the reconstruction of the pre-deformation
> structure (X/Z is only about 2.3 in most areas). Metamorphism is not
> that extreme either.
Oh, I was not saying it is not possible to reconstruct (after all,
it has been done), just that the Sudbury structure was not an ideal one
because it was not nicely round, fresh, and obviously "crater looking" as
many other structures of comparable age are. Yes, it is not *that* bad,
but it was one more detail that probably made people initially skeptical.
> It was more reasonable, based on the geological
> understanding at that time, to accept a volcanic origin over a meteorite
> impact.
More conservative, anyway :-)
> Although the movement toward the acceptance of occasional meteorite
> strikes was building strength in the geological community in the 1960's,
> volcanic origins were the consensus for most craters until Shoemaker
> presented his work on the Barringer Crater in the late 1950's.
>
> > I do not think it is fair to regard the reaction of Dietz's
> >hypothesis as being "laughed off the stage" either.
>
> Many considered his proposal preposterous and openly laughed during the
> presentation (or so I have been told).
Wow. I guess it was worse than I thought. I was basing my
comment on the fact that Dietz published several papers on that
interpretation in significant journals in the late 1960s and 1970s. He
was not laughed completely out of the peer-reviewed literature, although
there *are* some pretty strong "comment and reply" articles :-)
> Also Dietz was young when he
> proposed this and it was the mid-1960's after all.
Yes. Definitely early in the understanding of impact processes.
> > His hypothesis was
> >harshly criticized, but many people also said it remained a contender
> >to more conventional volcanic models.
>
> And still do to some degree, but the pendulum has swung far towards the
> meteoriticists as of late.
No doubt. Hey, I am convinced it is an impact structure.
> > I remember both models (volcanic and
> >impact) being presented in the 1970s, even in literature from Inco :-)
>
> By 1980 most of Inco was behind the meteor impact theory, at least that
> proposed by Paterson (1979). Now Falconbridge that's a different
> story:-)
:-)
Anyway, it is pretty obvious that people became convinced because
of the evidence, both at Sudbury itself, and at other impact structures
around the world. Even if the idea was initially ridiculed by some
people, it was given significant consideration in the scientific
literature, and it was eventually accepted (mostly :-)) based upon
increasing amounts of evidence. And the evidence is still pouring in. I
read another paper just a little while ago:
Spray, J.G. and Thompson, L.M., 1995. Friction melt distribution in a
multi-ring impact basin. Nature, v.373, p.130-132.
..
ev.co...@ames.net
James G. Acker wrote:
>
> ev.co...@ames.net wrote:
>
> : impossible occasionally win out. Few folks seem to have
> : agreed with old Aristarchus' heliocentric hypothesis; and
> : doubtless few people agree with Talbott and myself that
> : the planets used to wander about in polar alignment. In the
> : final analysis, of course, it is the evidence that counts.
> : And the evidence already in suggests that Tim's view of
> : the history of the solar system is on its way out, thereby
> : joining the geocentric view of the solar system and other once
> : popular opinions.
>
> Does this wandering include Venus appearing to be
> a comet-like astronomical object? If so, what geophysical causes can
> be given for such an appearance?
>
It most certainly does. That Venus once appeared as a
comet-like object spanning the skies is as near to a historical
fact as is likely to be obtainable from a study of ancient
traditions (art, myth, religion, etc.). For the evidence
supporting this conclusion, the reader is referred to the
Aeon web-site and/or the Kronia web-site. At various places
on these web-sites, there appear pictures of how Venus
looked during various stages of its comet-like history.
Dr. Acker asks for geophysical causes of such an appearance:
Briefly, Venus only recently participated in a spectacular
conjunction of various planets during which its atmosphere
(together with that of Mars) became distended in various
ways, several episodes of which appear to have persisted for a
prolonged period of time, thereby leading to universally
recurring images/symbols associated with the planet Venus.
Talbott and I will be discussing various of these images
in the days and months ahead. At that time we will be happy
to address the specific forms of the Venus-comet as well
our understanding of the geophysical details allowing
for those forms.
Andrew MacRae
In article <medved.836404755@access5> med...@access5.digex.net (Ted
> b...@iastate.edu (Benjamin T. Dehner) writes:
>
> >[Posted for C. Leroy Ellenberger, received by fax 2 July 1996]
> >[Despite CLE's request, I have removed sci.astro from the newsgroups
> > line.]
>
> >On Tuesday, June 25, Dave Tablott defended the notion that planet Venus
> >once sported a cometary tail. In response, herewith:
>
> > 16 Reason Refuting the "Saturn Myth"
>
I commend you on a reasonable post.
..
> >5. Adduce no INDEPENDENT evidence to support a wildly extravagant
> >INTERPRETATION of various myths and religious motifs.
>
> See the section denoted "Four Big Anomalies" in the catastrophism www
> site at:
>
> http://access.digex.com/~medved/Catastrophism.html
>
> As noted there, there are four gigantic anomalies which have turned up,
> which are explained by the Saturn thesis and by nothing else:
At least three of these claims are wrong either because there is
no "anomaly", the interpretation of the "anomaly" is highly questionable
and many alternative explanations remain valid (if not better), or because
you seem unaware of conventional explanations.
> the anomaly of megafauna,
You have never provided substantiation for key parts of your
claims about "megafauna". I can re-state them if you like.
> the anomaly of the super continent,
Pangaea is no anomaly (the clumping together of the continents was
not *that* effective), and it has a conventional explanation that has been
explained to you before. It also predates your "megafauna anomaly". I
leave aside the issue of the absolute time separating the two, because I
know you dispute conventional dating methods, but nothing disputes the
fact that when Pangaea existed, the "megafauna" were no where to be seen,
and when the "megafauna" existed, Pangaea was already widely dispersed.
The two are not coincident. You can not refute this fact without
destroying much of the evidence that establishes the existence of Pangaea
in the first place.
> the anomaly of language,
This one I can not comment on.
> and the anomaly of Cydonia.
Faces and interesting geometrical structures occur in the Earth's
geology too, and the Cydonia region occurs in an area of "fretted
terraine" similar to other areas of Mars which look like they were subject
to the effects of permafrost melting and slumping.
..
> >7. Due to parallax, in the "polar configuration" (PC) Venus would
> >NEVER be
> >centered on Saturn as seen from latitude 45 degrees, but would be
> >distinctly off center, unlike the sun-in-circle symbols which resemble
> >ordinary lunar and solar halos.
>
> There is no other rational explaination for the universal prevalence of
> crescent-circle symbols than the Saturn thesis. Nothing in our present
> sky suggests such a thing.
Your lack of imagination on this issue does not account for the
potential discrepancy. Yes, there is nothing in our present sky to
account for this. Nothing obvious, anyway, unless artistic license has
been used (also a possibility). Why is this relevant?
Couldn't these people draw planetary configurations accurately?
Or are the imperfections an indication there something wrong with the
"polar configuration" as proposed? Or were ancient peoples just taking a
great deal of artistic license? Or has the relationship between some of
the images and astronomical features been misinterpreted?
> >8. The annual polar tide created by the close approach of Mars would
> >have floated the Greenland ice cap which never happened.
>
> As Ginenthal notes, the Greenland ice cap is more recent than the Saturn
> system. See the section on ice caps in the catastrophism www site.
Then where is the other evidence for such a massive "tide"? Would
you like to talk about Ginenthal's claims about whales on land in North
America or the Missoula Flood? Geologists know what large tsunami
deposits look like. They are not ubiquitous, synchronous, and on a global
scale, as would be expected from this "global tide" model.
I recently received a manuscript from Sean Mewhinney called "Ice
Cores and Common Sense" that was apparently rejected from the publications
"Kronos" and "Aeon", and published by Marvin Luckerman in a volume called
"Catastrophism and Ancient History" in 1990. It is quite an interesting
discussion of the claims which were made by Velikovsky and Velikovsky
supporters (mainly Lynn Rose) about the Greenland and other ice cores up
to that time, as well as dendrochronology. It solidly refutes most of
those claims. It is this article and one by Ellenberger that Ginenthal
addresses in the article you refer to (and which you posted back in
October 1994). After seeing the original article Ginenthal is replying
to, I am quite amazed. Few of Ginenthal's objections made much sense
before, and they make even less sense now.
> >9. The assemply of the PC is impossible because no "cosmic Velcro"
> >strong enough exists to hold it together.
>
> Bass and Grubaugh say it is possible. They exceed Ellenberger/Dehner in
> astronomical knowledge by something like the measure by which the USS
> Theodore Roosavelt exceeds a gnat in weight...
Okay, so why do well-understood N-body simultations not yield
results compatible with Grubaugh's? There is certainly some controversy
there, and, as a result, few people seem convinced. I see no evidence
this is due to supposed biases, just failure to explain the physics
responsible in a convincing way (e.g., a mathematical demonstration why
N-body simulations are invalid) and with detailed, fully specified
simulations.
Even I could see some problems with Grubaugh's model. Being only
a paleontologist, it would not be surprising if I was confused. :-) But I
was far from the only one unconvinced, and people tried and tried again to
duplicate Grubaugh's results, unsuccessfully. At the time it was
presented here, Grubaugh's simulation did not even include Mars, so it was
incomplete. I do not know if this has changed subsequently.
> >10. The synchronous orbits required in the PC are impossible and the
> >ability of tidal friction or magnetism to stabilize it is a mere
> >assertion, never demonstrated by robust simulation.
>
> Same answer as above...
Same answer as above. Also, I was not aware Grubaugh's simulation
involved magnetism or tidal friction. The version presented here did not.
> >11. The transition from the PC to the present regime entails problems
> >with the conservation of angular momentum and energy that makes those
> >attending Worlds in Collision seem trivial.
>
> Bass' derivation of Bode's law invalidates that argument.
Bass's paper demonstrating this has (apparently) not been
presented for evaluation yet.
> >12. The synchronous spin-orbit resonances in the satellite systems of
> >Earth, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn (and the Kirkwood gaps in the asteroid
> >belt) cannot form in the short time since the PC supposedly collapsed.
>
> These phenomena do not occur in isolation. Bass notes that the reverse
> spin of Venus coupled with the phase lock with Earth tells us something.
This does not account for the other features Leroy describes. If
gravitational processes established patterns in the asteroid belt due to
the gravitational effect of Jupiter in its *present* orbit, then how did
they get established if Jupiter was not in that orbit X thousand years
ago? The Trojan asteriods (at Lagrange points related to Jupiter?) are
another interesting observation. How did they accumulate in those
positions in only a few thousand years? How did the Moon obtain its
current rotation/orbit relationship with the Earth so the same face is
always turned towards the Earth?
In the conventional model, it is possible the retrograde motion of
Venus was established early in its history due to large collisions,
perhaps comparable to those that are thought to have formed the Earth's
Moon. As for the "phase lock" with the Earth, it is not clear to me that
this could not form in the conventional model anyway.
> >13. No physical evidence exists to support the alleged absence of
> >seasons in some "Golden Age", while records of seasonal changes in ice
> >and tree rings go back continuosly many thousands of years.
>
> Many of these beliefs involving ice layer dating have since been
> destroyed as noted above.
There is vastly more than ice layers or tree rings, and the
majority of objections are not valid. Furthermore, there is much more
than ice and tree rings to deal with in order for your "anomaly of
Pangaea" and "anomaly of the megafauna" to have any relevance at all to
the supposed "Golden Age" climate. The dating methods responsible for
these inconsistencies have not been validly addressed, to my knowledge, by
you or anyone else.
> Tree rings are subject to more than one interpretation.
Of course. But when the obvious interpretation and other methods
closely correspond, it narrows the possibilities considerably. There are
also plenty of other indications of seasonality and other astronomical
cycles in the geologic record, for as far back as there *is* a record.
Tidal sedimentation, for example, demonstrates an orbital arrangement with
the Moon that is similar to today, including during your supposed
"megafauna" and "supercontinent" anomalies. See my other posting.
..
> > In conclusion, the "Saturn Myth" is a fairy tale with no useful
> >purpose other than to fuel the imaginations of a small number of
> >self-professed mythographers who have not one soupcan of understanding
> >of either logic or the laws of physics.
>
>
> For the uninitiated, a roundup of the last major stooging effort of
> Thompson/Dehner for LeRoy's Mongolian shaman thesis:
I think at least some of Leroy's objections may be valid. I also
think some of them may not be, or depend upon which Velikovsky-style model
is chosen. Most of them I can not really evaluate. However, calling
posting of his claims "stooging" is silly. Address the points, as you
have tried to, and leave the name-calling out of it. You did a good job
of avoiding it to this point, and for that you are to be commended.
[the usual repost]
David N. Talbott
From <4rir2n$a7k...@h96-209.ccnet.com> ash...@ccnet.com (Ashland S.
Henderson):
>In article <dtalbott.836495659@linda>,
> dtal...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) wrote:
>}I'll state the point once again--
>}
>} ON THE SINGLE, MOST FUNDAMENTAL PREMISE OF HIS WORK
>} VELIKOVSKY WAS CORRECT. THE MYTHS DESERVE TO BE
>} CAREFULLY CORRELATED, AS EVIDENCE FOR EVENTS SCIENCE
>} FAILED TO RECOGNIZE. AND THE RESULTS WILL BE
>} REVOLUTIONARY.
> Speaking as one with training in anthropology, myths do deserve
>to be carefully correlated and studied. However, while I would expect
>the results to be interesting to some of the social sciences, I highly
>doubt they would be revolutionary. And as evidence for events the
>physical sciences failed to recognize, I doubt they would be of any
>value whatever.
> Unfortunately, in my admittedly long ago reading of Velikovsky's
>work, I saw no attempt at carefull correlation. What I saw was a very
>selective picking and choosing of myths to support his particular
>and peculiar beliefs and theories of the physical universe.
Yes, there is no question Velikovsky did a fair amount of picking and
choosing, and most of the weaknesses of his work are the direct result of
this. At the same time he did discern global motifs that will never be
explained away through the typical rationalizations. Among those motifs
is the vivid ancient memory, repeated again and again, of the world
falling into tumult and darkness, a period consistently associated with
the appearance of a flaming, feathered, bearded, or long-haired serpent or
dragon n the sky. We are, in fact, so used to seeing these improbable
chaos monsters that we are easily rendered insensitive to the logical
issue. Why are these ancient ideas of cosmic catastrophe continually
juxtaposed with remarkably similar monsters--monsters whose most vivid
and distinctive attributes defy any explanation either in terms of our
uneventful sky, or in terms of terrestrial biology? It is the unique but
repeated combinations of "absurdities" that must draw our attention. And
ultimately, once a unified explanation is found, it will be these
very absurdities that will provide the most compelling evidence.
As Velikovsky correctly discerned, the chaos monster raging in the sky was
a "comet" (more accurately, the prototypical comet, the archetype, the
source of all myths and superstitions about comets) And that will explain
why, in every instance where the sources give considerable detail, the
monster wears virtually all of the ancient hieroglyphs for the _comet_,
as I have noted more than once.
This in itself is a revolutionary concept, but only the beginning of a
systematic re-envisioning of the past based on collective testimony. The
key, of course, will be the freedom to allow the underlying celestial
forms and event-sequences to speak for themselves, even if they suggest
things that are not seen in the sky today, even if they suggest things
that astronomers would consider implausible. The first requirement of a
reconstruction is to be true to the sources of evidence (recurring, but
unexplained themes). That is the best way to determine if the field of
data actually speaks for a unified collective memory. (And needless to
say, the methodology will not answer for physical scientists the question
of physical plausibility, it will simply raise the question. But at least
you will know you are raising the _right_ question.
I am, incidentally, interested in your anthropological training, if you
would would care to give me a brief outline by email. There might be an
item or two I could pass on to you.
Dave
David N. Talbott
Perhaps it was my use of ALL CAPS that prompted Tim Thompson to stick his
neck out to a degree that will prove embarrassing. My statement was--
>>
>> ON THE SINGLE, MOST FUNDAMENTAL PREMISE OF HIS WORK
>> VELIKOVSKY WAS CORRECT. THE MYTHS DESERVE TO BE
>> CAREFULLY CORRELATED, AS EVIDENCE FOR EVENTS SCIENCE
>> FAILED TO RECOGNIZE. AND THE RESULTS WILL BE
>> REVOLUTIONARY.
Tim starts with this rejoinder--
> I maintain that this is a false statement. First, Velikovsky was by
>no stretch of the imagination a pioneer in trying to correlate myth
>with experience. He may have approached the topic in his own unique
>way, as is the case with any investigator, but people had been doing
>the same general kind of study for centuries before Velikovsky came
>along.
The attentive reader will note that Tim has deleted my prior lines stating
the point he makes here more accurately than he has. At the time
he wrote Worlds in Collision, Velikovsky was the only influential
intellectual in this century to argue that the myths point to events
unknown to modern science.
Tim's following statement only emphasizes the gap between what Velikovsky
suggested, and the prevailing opinion of science.
> Furthermore, myths most emphatically *do not* and I mean NOT in
>uppercase letters deserve to be considered at all as "evidence for
>events science has failed to recognize". Even if one is able to
>correlate common themes, the family of possible explanations is so
>large and so arbitrary as to be useless. This is why I do not pay
>much attention to the Clube & Napier theory either, I just don't
>think it's worth a lot of effort.
Now this paragraph I am compelled to save for posterity, because it
captures so eloquently the heart of the real intellectual issue here.
I challenge the reader to simply muse for a few moments over the
implications. Tim is so certain that the myth-making age _couldn't_ have
arisen as a human response to extraordinary events, he is dismissing all
evidential value out of hand. When it comes to the ancient past he
is _certain_ there are no surprises in store for physicists and
astronomers. That is not only highly presumptous, Tim, it _will_ come
back to haunt you. I guarantee it.
And just out of curiosity, why would you want to stick your neck out so
far on the basis of a personal whim? How would you know, without rigorous
investigation, that our ancestors experienced no marvels in the sky? To
one who has done the homework, the statement flies in the face of even
the most rudimentary comparative profile of ancient civilizations. It
assumes that the collective obsession to recapture the "age of the gods"
has no answer in any natural experiences. It assumes that the incessant
glance over the shoulder, the terror that the "world-ending" catastrophe
will repeat itself, must have arisen out of nothing more unusual than
localized wind or flood or earthquakes (an explanation that is, if I can
put it bluntly, impossible, when you consider the more general
cosmic motifs repeated on every habitable continent).
HOWEVER--
Before I submit anything further concerning your statement of position,
would you care to at least qualify the comment?
Dave
ev.co...@ames.net
I should add that Dave Talbott's The Great Comet Venus,
which can be found in its entirety (I hope) on the Aeon
web-site, offers a useful introduction to the mythical
themes and artistic images associated with the Venus-comet.
I would urge folks interested in this subject to read this
article as it offers a nice summary of our joint researches
over the past 15 years or so.
--
ev.co...@ames.net
Andrew MacRae wrote:
>
[del]
>
> I recently received a manuscript from Sean Mewhinney called "Ice
> Cores and Common Sense" that was apparently rejected from the publications
> "Kronos" and "Aeon", and published by Marvin Luckerman in a volume called
> "Catastrophism and Ancient History" in 1990. It is quite an interesting
> discussion of the claims which were made by Velikovsky and Velikovsky
> supporters (mainly Lynn Rose) about the Greenland and other ice cores up
> to that time, as well as dendrochronology. It solidly refutes most of
> those claims.
A couple of observations are in order here. First and
foremost is the fact that Aeon *did not* reject Mewhinney's
article. Indeed, I found it very good and generally
shared Andrew's opinion of its effectiveness. I don't
remember the specific history of Mewhinney's manuscript,
but I do remember repeatedly approaching Sean about
submitting an article to Aeon on this or any other subject
of his choosing. Sean's various articles in Kronos are
among the best that the Velikovsky-crowd has produced.
Alas, I have not yet succeeded in getting Sean to come
out of a self-induced retirement from Velikovskian
debates.
Chris Nedin
In article <31DA0F...@ames.net>, ev.co...@ames.net wrote:
> Benjamin T. Dehner wrote:
> >
> > [Posted for C. Leroy Ellenberger, received by fax 2 July 1996]
> > [Despite CLE's request, I have removed sci.astro from the newsgroups
> > line.]
> >
> [Leroy's first 15 points deleted, for the time being]
>
> > 16. The "Saturn Myth" does not explain the number names of the major gods
> > in the Mesopotamian pantheon which are derived from Sumerian harmonic
> > cosmology as shown by Ernest McClain in the Myth of Invariance and Feb.
> > 1994 The World & I. Therefore, the "Saturn Myth" is not universal in its
> > claimed explanatory power.
> >
>
> >
> > Leroy Ellenberger, 314-772-4286
> > "Vivere est vincere"
> > 1 Jul 1996
>
> Other than Ben Dehner, is there anyone within shouting
> distance of this post who believes this numerological
> mumbo-jumbo? Is there anyone anywhere who has any idea
> what Leroy's talking about?
Oh goody! Another job for Eldrew Translational Services Pty., NL, Inc. in
Galapagos [Neither Mr. Davis nor ETS Pty., NL, Inc. in Galapagos accept any
liability for the accuracy of any translations done by the company])
This weeks job is the piece:
"16. The "Saturn Myth" does not explain the number names of the major gods
in the Mesopotamian pantheon which are derived from Sumerian harmonic
cosmology as shown by Ernest McClain in the Myth of Invariance and Feb.
1994 The World & I. Therefore, the "Saturn Myth" is not universal in its
claimed explanatory power."
Translation:
The names given, by the inhabitants of an area of the Middle East between
the Eurphrates and Tigris rivers, to some major superhuman entities with a
taste for exotic head wear, which in turn related to an earlier
rationalisation of the night sky, as detailed by one E. McClain, does not
appear to correspond to a list put forward by a separate rationalisation,
commonly called the "Saturn Myth". Given this, it would appear that a
comprehensive coverage of all ancient cellestial rationalisations suggested
for the "Saturn Myth" would appear to be called into question.
Thank you for using Eldrew Translational Services. Our bill is in the mail
(we accept most major credid cards)
I would challenge ANYONE to read
> McClain's paper and keep a straight face from start to
> finish. Suffice it to say that his credibility in
> ancient mythology/science is on par with BG Sidharth--
Unsubstantiated ad hominim.
> Leroy's other favorite source--he of the infamous claim
> that parts of the Rig Veda date from 7300 BC.
This was gone over some time ago. I believe it was suggested that some of
the *data* in the Rig Veda may be of celestial events which date back to
7300 BC, not that parts of the Rig Veda were *written* in 7300 BC
Chris
Bowen Simmons
In article <dtalbott.836168666@linda>, dtal...@teleport.com (David N.
Talbott) wrote:
> From <bowen-29069...@d26.netgate.net> bo...@netgate.net (Bowen
> Simmons):
>
> >In article <31D31D...@kent.net>, Jim Reilly <rei...@kent.net> wrote:
>
> > > I advise colleagues and friends at every opportunity to read his books.
>
> >Let's pretend I am a friend or a colleague of yours and that following
> >your advice, I read WinC. Now I have some questions. How do you answer
> >them?
>
> Here Bowen proceeds to show that he has no familiariy with any of the
> research done since Velikovksy wrote 45 years ago. He talks about Venus
> erupting from Jupiter, though I do not know of any researcher who found
> support for that idea in ancient testimony.
I infer that you mean by this: no researcher other than Velikovsky.
Obviously, Velikovsky thought he had.
> Comprehensive analysis of the
> Venus-birth or Venus-departure motif shows that it means the departure of
> the mythical "Great Star" appearing in the center of the universal sun
> pictograph. Neither the depicted "sun" nor the "Great Star," nor the
> transformation of the departing star into a fiery serpent have any
> explanation in natural phenomena occurring today.
I'm sorry. I thought that the subject was Velikovsky.
> Take it from someone who has explored the Velikovsky question for more
> than two decades: not one question you raise will help you determine
> whether Velikovsky was the idiot Paul Gans likes to claim, or the pioneer
> of a new way of seeing human history and the history of the solar system.
> Obviously, if Velikovsky was wrong about Venus' birth from Jupiter, he
> would not likely be right on derivative claims.
So we both agree the underpinning hypothesis of WinC is full of shit, but
you think I shouldn't use its full-of-shitness in evaluating Velikovsky.
Well, that seems a bit of a stretch to me, but what the hey. How about
this: WinC is built on a ridiculous central premise and contains mistakes
that would have embarrassed an above-average high-school student, and even
though Velikovsky never realized it, even decades later, that doesn't
necessarily mean that he wasn't really a genius. Was that the sort of
thing you had in mind? Probably not.
Now, about this "Green Star" business. Apart from the vague stuff on
Ted's page, you're right. I don't know much about it. So here are some
basic questions:
(1) How big was the "green star"?
(2) How distant was it from Earth?
(4) Where was the Sun with respect to the "green star"? Was the "green
star" in orbit around it? At what distance?
Since there have been, as you say, decades of scholarship on this point,
I'm sure there will be no difficulty in giving me quantitative answers to
these simple and fundamental questions. Once we get past these, I do have
others, of course, but there isn't much point in them until these are
addressed.
--
Bowen Simmons
bo...@netgate.net
Tim Thompson
In article <dtalbott.836618049@julie>, dtal...@teleport.com
(David N. Talbott) writes:
> Perhaps it was my use of ALL CAPS that prompted Tim Thompson to stick his
> neck out to a degree that will prove embarrassing. My statement was --
I love to stick my neck out, moderation is for cowards :-) Besides, wishy
washy equivocation usually does not draw much of a response. However, strong
and definitive statements usually do. part of my reason for adopting a no
nonsense approach is to force you to respond in a substantive manner. Another
reason for my taking this kind of stance is that I believe what I say, and
I am not shy about making my own opinions known. You may accept or reject my
ideas as you wish, but you will know what they are in either case.
[Talbott quotes Thompson quoting Talbott with the "capslock" on ... ]
>>> ON THE SINGLE, MOST FUNDAMENTAL PREMISE OF HIS WORK
>>> VELIKOVSKY WAS CORRECT. THE MYTHS DESERVE TO BE
>>> CAREFULLY CORRELATED, AS EVIDENCE FOR EVENTS SCIENCE
>>> FAILED TO RECOGNIZE. AND THE RESULTS WILL BE
>>> REVOLUTIONARY.
> Tim starts with this rejoinder--
[Thompson ... ]
>> I maintain that this is a false statement. First, Velikovsky was by
>> no stretch of the imagination a pioneer in trying to correlate myth
>> with experience. He may have approached the topic in his own unique
>> way, as is the case with any investigator, but people had been doing
>> the same general kind of study for centuries before Velikovsky came
>> along.
[Talbott ... ]
> The attentive reader will note that Tim has deleted my prior lines stating
> the point he makes here more accurately than he has. At the time
> he wrote Worlds in Collision, Velikovsky was the only influential
> intellectual in this century to argue that the myths point to events
> unknown to modern science.
I am unaware of having deleted anything of great relevance, and I do
like to avoid truly overlong posts. However, feel free to criticize if it
appears that I am trying to "pull a fast one".
> Tim's following statement only emphasizes the gap between what Velikovsky
> suggested, and the prevailing opinion of science.
[More Thompson ... ]
>> Furthermore, myths most emphatically *do not* and I mean NOT in
>> uppercase letters deserve to be considered at all as "evidence for
>> events science has failed to recognize". Even if one is able to
>> correlate common themes, the family of possible explanations is so
>> large and so arbitrary as to be useless. This is why I do not pay
>> much attention to the Clube & Napier theory either, I just don't
>> think it's worth a lot of effort.
[Talbott ... ]
> Now this paragraph I am compelled to save for posterity, because it
> captures so eloquently the heart of the real intellectual issue here.
Sounds great. I have no objections to my words being saved for
posterity. it's like being immortal!
> I challenge the reader to simply muse for a few moments over the
> implications. Tim is so certain that the myth-making age _couldn't_ have
> arisen as a human response to extraordinary events, he is dismissing all
> evidential value out of hand.
Serious misinterpretation, I am not at all convinvced of any such thing.
> When it comes to the ancient past he
> is _certain_ there are no surprises in store for physicists and
> astronomers.
No I am not. However, I do have certain convictions about the nature of
the surprises that are in store for physicists and astronomers, and that's
the real issue here.
> That is not only highly presumptous, Tim, it _will_ come back to haunt you.
> I guarantee it.
Yeah, right; my nre car came with a guarantee too, wanna talk about that?
> And just out of curiosity, why would you want to stick your neck out so
> far on the basis of a personal whim?
Why shouldn't I? I like my personal whims. Besides, you do exactly the
same thing, your Saturn Myth is every bit as much of a personal whim as
anything I have had to say, maybe more so. Sticking your neck out doesn't
seem to scare you all that much, why should it scare me. I think I am right.
> How would you know, without rigorous
> investigation, that our ancestors experienced no marvels in the sky?
I do not know that they didn't; au contraire, I think they almost certainly
did "experience marvels in the sky". In fact, I have experienced a few myself
in my last 30 years or so of astronomy.
> To one who has done the homework, the statement flies in the face of even
> the most rudimentary comparative profile of ancient civilizations. It
> assumes that the collective obsession to recapture the "age of the gods"
> has no answer in any natural experiences.
> It assumes that the incessant
> glance over the shoulder, the terror that the "world-ending" catastrophe
> will repeat itself, must have arisen out of nothing more unusual than
> localized wind or flood or earthquakes (an explanation that is, if I can
> put it bluntly, impossible, when you consider the more general
> cosmic motifs repeated on every habitable continent).
This is all entirely wrong, It and I make no such assumptions at all.
The issue at question is NOT whether or not ancient civilizations were
terrorized by asteroids, meteors, comets, or anything else. In all probability
they were, it seems rather an obvious point that hardly needs a Velikovsky
to point out. The issue IS our ability to derive a detailed description of
the events in question from mythology, and I maintain without any reservation
that it is wholly impossible to do any such thing. This too should be very
obvious to anyone who bothers too, as you say "do their homework".
> HOWEVER--
> Before I submit anything further concerning your statement of position,
> would you care to at least qualify the comment?
What I said was "Furthermore, myths most emphatically *do not* and I mean
NOT in uppercase letters deserve to be considered at all as 'evidence for
events science has failed to recognize'."
What exactly is an "event that science has failed to recognize" (those
were your words, remember, not mine)? During the last few decades, we have
seen some pretty impressive comets, but pay particular attention to comet
Ikea-Seki, which was visible in the still-daylight evening sky during the
mid 1960's. If such a comet were visible to ancient people, at time when
Venus is also in the evening sky (which is itself fairly common), then the
association of comet with Venus could hardly be avoided. If the comet crossed
Venus, it would give Venus the appearance in our own skies of a full comet
tail. This is by no means an unreasonable scenario. This could easily give
rise to tales about tails that pre-date any known myths, and could even be
a source for other comet-Venus stories. How do you know that never happened?
Would you call this an "event science failed to recognize"?
Myths are made-up stories, all of them. They might be made-up for any number
of reasons, and might include material from any number of sources. In the case
of genuine, recognized historical documents, even if they are made-up stories,
we can sometimes trace the elements to known sources. This is in virtually all
cases impossible for myths. This makes the myth a useless source. I might just
as well ask you how you could possibly believe that myths would contain any
information about "events science had failed to recognize", since the
impossibility of such a thing should be glaringly obvious.
As an example of glaringly obvious, let me point to the business about how
Venus allegedly once looked like a comet. I already touched on that with the
story of comet Ikea-Seki above, but here is an even bigger problem. Look at
Venus today, now. It is in the morning sky. It is very bright. Close to the
horizon, through a lot of atmosphere, it can take on a strongly shimmering
appearance, complete with chromatic aberation (colors), just like a fire.
This is especially likely if Venus is viewed over a hot desert landscape,
either in the morning or evening. Higher above the horizon, it takes a hairy,
spikey image due to refraction and various imperfections inside the eye, caused
by its rather severe brightness. I maintain that Venus, as it looks today, is
completely consistent with all of the linguistic evidence used to argue that
Venus must have had a tail. If you cannot distinguish with certainty the
difference between Venus with a tail, and Venus as it looks today, then your
exercise it the interprative manipulation of ancient language is of no value.
As another example of glaringly obvious, let me repair to Mars. As I
understand it, a consistent set of tales about warriors growing and shrinking
is supposed to reflect the observed behavior of the planet Mars, moving back
and forth between Saturn and the Earth. But where does the connection between
warrior and Mars come from? The interpreation that this reflects the motion of
planet Mars is purely arbitrary; there is no such information in the myth, you
had to make it up in order for your own interpretation to work. How do you know
where the story came from?
Finally, the laws of celestial mechanics reign unabashadly over any
interpretation of myth. The "polar configuration" of the Saturn Myth, for
instance, is clearly impossible. Therefore, it could never have happened,
and the Saturn Myth stands instantly refuted. All manner of evidence derived
from myth or history is irelevant. Your presumption that your interpretation of
myth is superior to the basic and well known laws of physics is remarkably
arrogant, and exceedingly wrong.
Andrew MacRae
In article <31DD6D...@intersurf.com> Heinrich <hein...@intersurf.com>
writes:
> Andrew MacRae wrote:
> >In article <4r4rh3$1...@doc.zippo.com>
> >Archae Solenhofen (jmca...@gtn.net) writes:
> >>In article <1996062820...@mp4747.batnet.com>,
> >>mp4...@batnet.com says...
> >>>
> >>>Chris Camfield <ccam...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>wrote:
> >>>>struck the earth and hurled huge amounts of dust etc into the
> >>>>atmosphere, than to think that (for instance) a comet struck
> >>>>the earth in such a way that the earth stopped rotating, and
..
> The amount of physical evidence that any catastrophic comet
> impact would leave would be enormous. Given the extent that
[it should be seen, somewhere]
> This evidence would include
>
> 1. A large crater (to young to have been subducted)
> 2. Ejecta Layer
> 3. Impact melts and breccias
> 4. Tektites, microtektites and impact glasses
> 5. Iridium anomaly (for a large meteorite)
> 6. Tsunami deposits (if ocean / sea impact)
> 7. abrupt changes in regional fauna flora (which would be
> detectable in the Holocene and Late Pleistocene)
And all of which would be:
8. Global
9. Synchronous, on a geological scale (even leaving out the issue of
absolute date, relative position would make it possible to recognize this)
But even without involving an impact mechanism, and just resorting
to the mechanism (such as it is) described by Velikovsky, there should be
many similarly distinctive effects. There should still be a global,
synchronous layer with unusual sedimentology (interplanetary-derived dust,
meteorites, the products of the burning of petroleum in the atmosphere,
etc.) and composition. If not in glacial ice, then it should be in ocean
sediments and lakes, virtually everywhere. The bigger and more dramatic
the event, the more distinctive and extensive it should be.
..
> > Only if it were offered without evidence and
> >without ways to test it.
>
> This is the problem with many catastrophists. They claim that
> certain world-wide catastrophes occurred. Then they claim that
> by some miracle of physics it left no physical evidence which
> leaves the existence of the event a matter of faith, not science.
Or evidence is offered, but it obviously invalid. It is rather
paradoxical, isn't it? Supposedly an event occurred a few thousand years
ago like nothing the Earth has ever experienced since, that marked a
radical change from earlier "Golden Age" conditions. This event was
supposed to be spectacular enough in effect that it left impressions in
cultural history over the entire globe. Yet where is the physical
evidence of it? This thing should be in every DSDP and ODP drill hole in
every ocean basin of the world.
..
> A big problem is that the Holocene and Last Pleistocene deposits are
> far more accessible and studied that significant anomalies in the
> geological record that a couple of impacts would certainly have
> would have now been recognized.
True. That is the other paradoxical part. Supposedly much
smaller "catastrophes", like the eruption of Thera or Mt. Mazama, did
leave obvious evidence in the Holocene geological record that can be
traced over continent-sized areas. These are obvious, but a much greater
global event is not?
> Unlike the Sudbury basin, a
> person can study what has happened over the last 20,000 years
> with Giddings Soil Corers, vibracores, backhoe trenches, examining
> streambanks, construction excavations, and many other places.
> Also, many thousands of cores
Probably tens or hundreds of thousands.
> from lakes, floodplains, deltas, and
> the ocean bottom have been studied for their microfossils, pollen,
> sedimentology, stable isotopes, the presence of ash beds, etc. that it
> highly unlike that the evidence for a major catastrophic impact
> to have escaped unnoticed.
Yes. Even "minor" regional "catastrophes" leave an obvious
record.
> There is such a lack of evidence, that D. S. Allen and J. B. Delair
> in their 1995 book, _When the Earth Nearly Died_ have to claim
> that 1. all Pleistocene glacial deposits are the result of a single
> impact generated flood, 2. compress the entire 2.8 million
> history of the Pleistocene into the time between 11, 400 to
..
> Tertiary artifacts in California, Alaskan muck, bonebeds
> formed by global flooding, and so on in order to create the
> appearence of evidence for a 11,500 B.P. catastrophic
Ah, yes. When evidence fails, spin-doctor what you have. From
mammoths and trees in permafrost formed in environments not greatly unlike
today, to mammoths and trees "flash frozen" and deposited in a huge tidal
wave with "buttercups not found in the area today" (paraphrased, and
categorically wrong). To do this, ignore all the details of the local
sedimentology and what is known about the results of modern depositional
processes (of course it is a jumble of trees -- that is the way most wood
is deposited today on river banks and beaches).
> impact. When catastrophists have to condense 2.8 million
> years of Earth history into a hundred years
The time scale *must* go "out the window". Never mind the many
independent checks and normally consistent results, just emphasize the
inevitable occasions when the methods do not work perfectly, cast some
doubt on all methods, wave your hands, and "poof", not only can absolute
dating methods be ignored, but even the relative sequence of events
becomes questionable (e.g., the nonsense about events a few thousand years
ago having something to do with the existence of megafauna and Pangaea --
even leaving aside the numerical age difference, these events could not be
coincident, because Pangaea pre-dates, in a relative sense, the existence
of the megafaunas being referred to).
> and misrepresent
> the origin of glacial deposits in order to create the needed
> evidence for a catastrophic meteorite or comet impact within
> the last 20,000 years, I get the feeling that the lack of any
> evidence for such event is real. Thus, they are desperate for
> anything, no matter how silly, that they can use for proof.
> The desperation of these authors to find any evidence for a
> catastrophic impact has to be read to be believed.
If you want a perfect example, look up "Worzel's Ash". Some
people initially had high hopes this would be just the sort of global
indication of astronomical effect they were looking for. It was not a bad
idea. A bed of the right composition and with a global distribution would
be the sort of evidence expected. If it were found, it would certainly
start me wondering.
Unfortunately, it is just a volcanic ash of local (although large)
extent. There is nothing astronomical about it, and it is not global.
This was demonstrated by subsequent study. There were caveats expressed
even in the original paper. Of course, these rarely get mentioned in the
Velikovsky-related literature that cited it as unambiguous "evidence", and
it still turns up from time to time, as if it still had current validity.
The initial papers get cited, but the subsequent ones usually get
neglected.