Velikovsky and Modern Science
Walter D Morris
Velikovsky have admitted that an early symbol of Inanna "sometimes looks
like a comet" (Peter Huber), Keith Cochran asks: "What documentation do we
have that the 'Inanna symbol' has anything to do with Venus?"
That Inanna was the planet Venus is well-known, and inasmuch as the earliest
systems of writing were pictographic in nature it stands to reason that
the so-called Inanna-symbol (like the eight-pointed star elsewhere
associated
with the goddess) was originally a representation of the planet-goddess
herself. As to the date when Inanna became identified with Venus, the
consensus appears to be that it was at some point in prehistory. Here I
quote the leading authority on the cult of Inanna: "It is of course a
well-known fact that Inanna was identified with the planet Venus...When
and how the link between the planet and Inanna was made cannot be
ascertained. It is prehistorical." (See W. Heimpel, "Catalog of Venus
Deities," Syro-Mesopotamian Studies, 1982, pp. 10-11).
If you would question these statements Mr. Cochran, it would appear that
the burden of proof is upon you.
This post has come to you courtesy of Ev Cochrane, alter ego of Walter
Morris.
--
Walter D Morris
wdmo...@iastate.edu
Richard D Pierce
>This post has come to you courtesy of Ev Cochrane, alter ego of Walter
>Morris.
So, who was once Ev Cochrane USING the account of Walter Morris while his
is being "repaired" is now Ev Cochrane, the alter ego of Walter Morris.
Which is it, Walt, or, shall we say Ev?
You've misrepresented yourself as someone you're not, it seems just as
possible that you're misrepresenting the whole thing.
This is a scam, Walt, give it up.
--
| Dick Pierce |
| Loudspeaker and Software Consulting |
| 17 Sartelle Street Pepperell, MA 01463 |
| (508) 433-9183 (Voice and FAX) |
Tero Sand
In article <2oq7oh$7...@news.iastate.edu>,
Walter D Morris <wdmo...@iastate.edu> wrote:
[Inanna stuff squashed]
>If you would question these statements Mr. Cochran, it would appear that
>the burden of proof is upon you.
When are you going to address the science issues? Hmmm?
>This post has come to you courtesy of Ev Cochrane, alter ego of Walter
>Morris.
--
Tero Sand, 2 kyu ! Science is a process of enlarging one's
! ignorance to dizzying heights.
EMail: cus...@cc.helsinki.fi ! - D.C.Lindsay in talk.origins
cus...@cc.helsinki.fi !
Walter D Morris
advances" with regard to a possible reassessment of Velikovsky's place
in the history of science. I appreciate this offer and would like to
take this opportunity to outline some of the recent findings which
would appear to support the general thesis that the solar system has
only recently experienced wholesale changes in the order of its members.
(Mr. Thompson's various objections to Velikovsky's thesis - several of
which I agree with - will be addressed in a future post).
While my expertise is in the area of comparative mythology - where the
evidence in support of the cataclysmic recent history of Saturn, Venus,
and Mars is both abundant and unequivocal - I will refrain from discussing
it here as you have specifically requested "unambiguous physical evidence
relating to these catastrophes." Since this is a forum for the discussion
of issues relating to astronomy, I trust you will accept evidence from
the burgeoning field of archaeoastronomy. Here I have done a great deal
of research, especially with regards to the collection and analysis of
ancient traditions associated with the various planets. Research of this
sort confirms that Venus is everywhere described in terminology otherwise
associated with comets (although Velikovsky addressed this phenomenon in
Worlds in Collision it must be said that the evidence is far more
substantial than he recognized). Thus, of the most common terms for
comet - "smoking star", "hairy star", "bearded star", "dragon star",
"tailed star", etc. - all are applied to Venus throughout the ancient world
(see E. Cochrane, "On Comets and Kings," Aeon, 1990, pp. 53-76; D. Talbott
"The Great Comet Venus," Aeon, 1994). Here I will focus on the testimony
from Mesopotamia, not only because it is the most familiar, but because
it has a direct link with the earliest astronomical traditions.
That Inanna was identified with the planet Venus no one will contest.
Significantly, the pictograph for this planet-goddess is comet-like in
appearance as even critics of Velikovsky have acknowledged (thus Peter
Huber has stated: "the Inanna-symbol sometimes looks like a comet." See
the discussion in L. Rose, "Just Plainly Wrong: A Critique of Peter Huber,"
in Kronos 1977, p. 108ff). The same planet goddess was also described in
very early literature as a great fire-breathing dragon: "Like a dragon you have
deposited venom on the land...Oh foremost one, you are Inanna of heaven
and earth! Raining the fanned fire down upon the nation...Devastatrix of
the lands, you are lent wings by the storm... you fly about the nation."
(See W. Hallo & J. van Dijk, The Exaltation of Inanna, 1968, pp. 15-17)
Babylonian astronomical texts, similarly, described Venus as "bearded".
(See P. Gossman, Planetarium Babylonicum, 1950, p. 41). That such
traditions are objective in nature is confirmed by the fact that analogous
traditions surround the planet Venus in Mesoamerica (See E. Thompson,
Maya Hieroglyphic Writing, 1971, p. 218 for the bearded Venus; p. 233
for the Venus-dragon; and E. Cochrane & D. Talbott, "When Venus was a
Comet," Kronos, 1987, pp. 2-24 for further documentation of Venus'
association with cometary-motives in Mesoamerica).
In both the Old and New Worlds, Venus was consistently described as a
warrior and agent of death and destruction. Thus in one hymn Inanna
is made to announce: "I was the conflagration which shone forth in the
heavens, when the heavens shook back and forth and the earth trembled
and quaked." (See J. Wilson, The Rebel Lands, 1979, pp. 17ff) In
Mesoamerica similar conceptions prevailed: "It is curious that the
Mesoamerican peoples thought of the Morning Star so consistently as
malign. He was to them, whether they were the Aztecs or Mayans, the
very father of calamity. The dates of his heliacal rising were forecast
so that the dooms ahead could be adequately read and prepared for."
(See B. Brundage, The Phoenix of the Western World, 1982, p. 177.)
The oldest astronomical texts in the world, the so-called Ammizaduqa
texts (c. 16th century BCE), are also concerned with the ominous
portents associated with the appearances and disappearances of the planet
Venus. It is a matter of common knowledge that these records of Venus'
period do not agree with the current values. Scholars such as Huber have
attempted to explain away this lack of accord by invoking faulty records,
bad weather, and scribal error (See Huber's "Early Cuneiform Evidence for
the existence of the Planet Venus," in Scientists Confront Velikovsky,
1977). It is significant to note, however, that Maya records of Venus'
cycle likewise reveal discrepancies with modern values. Thus, of the
Maya records the astronomer Aveni was forced to admit: "It is puzzling
that the 90-day interval in the table is so different from the true
disappearance interval [about 50 days] and that the morning and evening
star intervals are represented as being unequal." Aveni elsewhere added:
"It is curious that the Babylonians also counted a three-month disappearance
interval." (See A. Aveni, Skywatchers of Ancient Mexico, 1981, pp. 187,
327).
Can it be coincidence alone that the greatest astronomers of all antiquity,
the Babylonians and the Mayans, each miscalculated the period of
disappearance for Venus, a planet they observed and worshipped with
obsessive zeal? It is such glaring anomalies in the ancient records,
routinely dismissed as "curious" or scribal errors, which presage a
revolution in our understanding of the ancient cosmos. Hundreds of other
such anomalies could be brought forward had I the time. Together they
constitute solid physical evidence that Venus has moved upon a radically
different orbit within recent history.
In addition to this evidence from archaeoastronomy and ancient literature,
equally compelling testimony comes from prehistoric rock art. Not unlike
fossilized bones, which offer an objective record against which to check
the deductions of paleontologists, rock art represents an objective record
of mankind's enduring interest in the celestial bodies and offers a
check against the conclusions deduced from archaeoastronomy and comparative
mythology. Relevant here are early representations of the sun, which
typically show a circular orb with a smaller orb set in the middle, much
like the modern astronomical symbol for the sun. This sign can be found
upon all inhabited continents. That it bears little resemblance to the
current solar orb constitutes a glaring anomaly, of course, a fact which,
taken in conjunction with the widespread tradition of world ages and
"fallen suns", supports the hypothesis that this sign depicts a body
separate from the current solar orb (See the discussion in E. Cochrane,
"Suns and Planets in Neolithic Rock Art," Aeon 1993, pp. 51-63).
Significantly, the same sign appears in the earliest hieroglyphic systems
of writing as a pictograph for "sun" (the Egyptian and Chinese systems,
for example), an indication that a certain continuity exists between
prehistoric images of rock art and pictographic systems of writing, a
conclusion reached by scholars on other grounds. Some of the most
conclusive evidence for wholesale changes in the solar system, in fact,
comes upon analysis of ancient language, a process well underway (See
E. Cochrane, "Venus in Ancient Myth and Language," Aeon, 1988, pp. 37-
52).
A wealth of evidence supports the conclusion that one of these previous
"suns" was the planet Saturn, a suggestion original with Velikovsky and
since supported by the researches of David Talbott, Dwardu Cardona, and
myself. In ancient Mesopotamia, for example, an early name for the
sun-god was Shamash. In Babylonian astronomical texts, however, the
name Shamash was applied to the planet Saturn, a fact which came as a
surprise to scholars (See M. Jastrow, "Sun and Saturn," Revue d'
Assyriologie et d'Archeologie Orientale, 1909, pp. 163-178). The Greek
word Helios likewise originally had reference to the planet Saturn as
Plato knew (Epinomis 987c). Here is a question for modern astronomers
to ponder: Why would the greatest astronomers of the ancient world
refer to Saturn as a "sun"?
Mr. Thompson also states: "It is very difficult to imagine the physical
circumstances under which we might expect Saturn, Venus, or Mars, to
interfere with the Earth physically...Have these problems been solved,
or has any more detailed model been forthcoming?"
Although it is my personal belief that the issue of the recent cataclysmic
history of the solar system is an exercise in historical reconstruction,
and thus must succeed or fail upon the basis of the historical evidence,
it goes without saying that such history must be made to conform with
physical reality. During the course of the past 20 years, Talbott,
Cardona and myself have struggled to make sense of the ancient traditions
and we have toyed with several models which would account for the mythical
record. Robert Grubaugh (formerly a structural dynamicist with TRW
concerned with launching satellites into space), has recently developed
a detailed physical model whereby Saturn, Venus, Mars and the Earth are
locked in axial alignment, the four bodies orbiting Jupiter in unison
as Jupiter orbits the Sun. The mechanics of the system are such that
as the terrestrial observer looks overhead he sees the smaller Venusian
orb set squarely within the larger Saturn, not unlike the prehistoric
sign of the sun noted earlier (See R. Grubaugh, "A Proposed Model for
the Polar Configuration," Aeon 1993, pp. 39-48). While I regard Grubaugh's
model as preliminary in nature, it does provide a forum for further debate
and fine-tuning, and contradicts the oft-cited objection that such
interactions among the various planetary bodies must needs be impossible.
It is important to note, moreover, that the thesis outlined above is
susceptible of verification or rejection on literally hundreds of fronts.
To take just the astronomical evidence, we would expect there to be clear
evidence that Venus and Mars have only recently suffered tremendous
stresses to their bodies and surfaces. This would include great episodes
of volcanism and rifting, not to mention wholesale flooding and the sudden
loss of oceans. Rocks on Mars must show signs of recent heating (certainly
/home/wdmorris/.article (Modified) Hit Ctrl-K H for
help
within the last 5-10,000 years), and remnant magnetism should be abundant
on the Martian surface. Saturn's rings are apparently of recent and
cataclysmic origin. On the off-chance that Mars and Venus had some forms
of life prior to these spectacular cataclysms, one would expect to find
plentiful evidence of recent cataclysmic episodes of extinction. All of
these planets should betray clear signs of their recent close proximity
to each other and to the Earth, including telling vestiges of previous
resonance, similarity of spin rates and spin-axis tilt orientation, and
characteristic signs of recent stresses (such as the pear-shaped forms
of the Earth and Mars, due to the northward pull of Saturn, See F. Hall,
"Solar System Studies," Aeon 1988, pp. 88-107). With any luck, we should
know the answers to many of these questions within our lifetime.
In conclusion, I am not naive enough to think that I could convince
anyone of the significance of our research in so brief a forum as this.
I simply offer these observations as food for thought and further
investigation should anyone care to pursue the matter (as always, I will
gladly provide complementary copies of the articles cited in this post
to anyone upon request, simply write me at e...@eai.com). In the meantime
I will continue to offer alternative explanations of the various anomalies
surrounding the current state of the various planets.
Special thanks to Walter Morris for the temporary loan of his account.
Ev Cochrane
once and for all.
Richard D Pierce
> This is a test post to silence mindless critics like Dick Pierce
>once and for all.
Didn't work Walt, uh, Ev.
Richard A. Schumacher
nowhere by posting Velikovskian nonsense about astronomy on sci.astro,
this person is now trying to impress everyone with achaeological
scholarship. Since his conclusions fly in the face of known
physics this will win no points with the astronomers, but it would
be nice to see whether his archaeological claims are as ridiculous
to archaeologists as they are to astronomers. Please comment on
the reputation of his sources and the reliability of his conclusions.
James R McCown
In article <schumach....@convex.com>,
Richard A. Schumacher <schu...@convex.com> wrote:
>Can any of y'all archaeologists help out with this? Having gotten
>nowhere by posting Velikovskian nonsense about astronomy on sci.astro,
>this person is now trying to impress everyone with achaeological
>scholarship. Since his conclusions fly in the face of known
>physics this will win no points with the astronomers, but it would
>be nice to see whether his archaeological claims are as ridiculous
>to archaeologists as they are to astronomers. Please comment on
>the reputation of his sources and the reliability of his conclusions.
>
>In <2osgul$o...@news.iastate.edu> wdmo...@iastate.edu (Walter D Morris) writes
>
>>In both the Old and New Worlds, Venus was consistently described as a
>> warrior and agent of death and destruction. Thus in one hymn Inanna
>>is made to announce: "I was the conflagration which shone forth in the
>>heavens, when the heavens shook back and forth and the earth trembled
>>and quaked." (See J. Wilson, The Rebel Lands, 1979, pp. 17ff) In
>>Mesoamerica similar conceptions prevailed: "It is curious that the
>>Mesoamerican peoples thought of the Morning Star so consistently as
>>malign. He was to them, whether they were the Aztecs or Mayans, the
>>very father of calamity. The dates of his heliacal rising were forecast
>>so that the dooms ahead could be adequately read and prepared for."
>>(See B. Brundage, The Phoenix of the Western World, 1982, p. 177.)
The morning star was referred to by the Aztec as Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, which
they considered to be an apparition of their god Quetzalcoatl, the feathered
serpent. Their legends state that when Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl, a Toltec king,
left this earth he became the morning star. I have never heard of the Aztec
referring to the morning star, nor Quetzalcoatl, as the "very father of
calamity" or anything of the sort.
I don't know that much about the Mayan views on the planet Venus. Perhaps
someone else who knows more can fill you in.
Donald Lindsay
In article <2osgul$o...@news.iastate.edu>,
>relating to these catastrophes."
>In both the Old and New Worlds, Venus was consistently described as a
> warrior and agent of death and destruction.
This is "unambiguous physical evidence" ??? You need a dictionary.
>a suggestion original with Velikovsky and
>since supported by the researches of David Talbott, Dwardu Cardona, and
>myself.
I noticed that Ted Holden put himself on a pedestal beside Velikovsky
and Talbott. Now you are doing the same. Does this army only have
generals?
>it goes without saying that such history must be made to conform with
>physical reality.
...
>recently developed
>a detailed physical model whereby Saturn, Venus, Mars and the Earth are
>locked in axial alignment, the four bodies orbiting Jupiter in unison
>as Jupiter orbits the Sun.
This doesn't conform to physical reality.
--
Don D.C.Lindsay Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
Boucher David
#In a recent post David Boucher chides me for suggesting that the
#universal imagery of the witch traces to the planet Venus. There
#he offered the following challenge: "The goddess Venus was supposed
#to be beautiful, not dirty and unkempt (or green). Can you cite one
#reference where the planet Venus is described as
[being dirty and unkempt, as Ev/Walter claimed and then deleted, or ]
having... a green
#body...?"
[typical Velikovskian bullshit deleted]
#Mr. Boucher, given your track record on matters relating to Venus I suggest
#that you find another quote to append to your posts as you consistently
#theorize and pontificate before viewing the facts. May I suggest the
#following: "I, David Boucher, suffer from the compulsive foot-in-mouth
#disorder."
Or how about this: "Cast not your pearls before Cochrane". Seeing
how blantantly you have misrepresented virtually every posting that you
purport to be responding to, I see no reason to infer that you would
be any less dishonest in representing the sources which you claim
support your views.
- db
--
****** "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. ******
****** Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories ******
****** instead of theories to suit facts." - Sherlock Holmes ******
*************************************************************************
Monrovia Communications
"archeoastronomy," we must first prove that the ancients had *any* idea
of what they were actually observing.
As far as I know, no human on Earth at that time knew that the moving
lights in the sky were actually other planets of our solar system. Venus,
Jupiter, Mars, Saturn, and Mercury were just bright lights in the sky that
moved against the stellar background. (Not that the ancients had any idea
that *those* lights were other suns, either.)
So, without knowing a gas giant from a comet, how could any
"archeoastronomer" make any kind of evaluation as to what they were
actually viewing? In our current state of awareness, we say that they
*personified* these planets as manifestations of their various gods.
Isn't it just as likely they thought they actually WERE their gods?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Schrumpf Internet: mon...@clark.net
Monrovia Communications Phone/FAX 1-301-607-6604
11460 Archer Circle | Opinions ARE those of the company! |
Monrovia, MD USA 21770 | Mainly because I _AM_ the company. |
Monrovia Communications
: This is a test post to silence mindless critics like Dick Pierce
: once and for all.
Hey, if you're going to describe yourself as Walter D. Morris's "alter
ego" (which my Webster's defines as a "second self") then people are
naturally going to think you're one and the same.
After all, we've never actually *seen* you two together.
dold...@fox.nstn.ns.ca
I. Neill Reid <i...@eccles.caltech.edu> wrote:
> The only way that I can think of to elongate the atmosphere is
>through ram pressure - and Venus is going to have to be moving
>very, very fast (thousands of km/sec) before that can have any
>effect. The density of the solar wind is about 10 particles
>per cubic cm (or 10**-23 grams/cc). Gravity wins heavily.
Yep, and the solar wind acts directly on the atmosphere (because Venus has
such a small magnetic field). I can't think of ANY set of possible events
that would give rise to the celestial mechanics that Velikovskiy claims
occured.
--
Dave Oldridge
dold...@fox.nstn.ns.ca
Ev Cochrane
how blantantly you have misrepresented virtually every posting that you
purport to be responding to, I see no reason to infer that you would
be any less dishonest in representing the sources which you claim
support your views."
Either Mr. Boucher is too lazy to go look up the latest issue of
Archaeoastronomy or he is afraid of what he might find. This does not
seem to be an appropriate response to a matter of debate, one that is
eminently amenable to confirmation or rejection.
Ev Cochrane
Editor/Aeon
2326 Knapp
Ames, IA
50014
Keith Justified And Ancient Cochran
>Velikovsky have admitted that an early symbol of Inanna "sometimes looks
>like a comet" (Peter Huber), Keith Cochran asks: "What documentation do we
>have that the 'Inanna symbol' has anything to do with Venus?"
>
>That Inanna was the planet Venus is well-known, and inasmuch as the earliest
>systems of writing were pictographic in nature it stands to reason that
>the so-called Inanna-symbol (like the eight-pointed star elsewhere
>associated
>with the goddess) was originally a representation of the planet-goddess
>herself.
Why? If it's so "well-known" that this is true, it should be easy
for you to come up with some references as to why it's so.
>As to the date when Inanna became identified with Venus, the
>consensus appears to be that it was at some point in prehistory. Here I
>quote the leading authority on the cult of Inanna: "It is of course a
>well-known fact that Inanna was identified with the planet Venus...When
^^^^^^^^^^
>and how the link between the planet and Inanna was made cannot be
>ascertained.
Ok, so if "when and how the link" was made "cannot be ascertained", then
how can you claim it's "well-known"?
>It is prehistorical." (See W. Heimpel, "Catalog of Venus
>Deities," Syro-Mesopotamian Studies, 1982, pp. 10-11).
>
>If you would question these statements Mr. Cochran, it would appear that
>the burden of proof is upon you.
It would appear to me that before you start claiming something is
"well-known", you have some documentation to back it up.
--
=kcoc...@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza. OK???=
= "denial is unhealthy, larry" =
= james g. keegan jr in a post I'm sure Larry has in his archives... =
Tero Sand
Ev Cochrane <e...@pi.eai.iastate.edu> wrote:
[cut]
Still not interested in discussing science, eh?
>
>Ev Cochrane
Ev Cochrane
conveniently ignoring the dozens of posts and countless challenges
I have presented from the archaeoastronomical record. Mr. Sand, I
suggest that you wouldn't recognize "science" if it came up and bit
you on the ass. You and Lindsay are perfectly representative of the
thought expressed in the quote appended to your posts:
Dave Oldridge
David Iain Greig <gr...@tris.oci.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>In article <2p12df$9...@paperboy.gsfc.nasa.gov>, ets...@rs710.gsfc.nasa.gov (Eric Stone x65286) writes:
<stuff deleted>
>|> dispersed exhaust products must have condensed into solid particles by now,
>|> so we should expect to find chunks of rock spread out in orbits between
>|> Venus and Jupiter, with most of them between Mars and Jupiter, where the
>|> greatest delta-vee occurred.
>|>
>|> This theory may not get the attention it deserves from the narrow-minded
>|> uniformitarian establishment, but I'd stake my reputation as a hydraulics
>|> engineer on its plausibility.
>|>
>|> Eric Stoneking, Engineer
>
>A *serious* contender for *MAJOR* Loki points. I'm already waiting for this
>beauty to be cited. Bravo! Bravissimo!
Well, at least he got it UP to speed. Now, if only someone can decelerate
it!
--
Dave Oldridge
dold...@fox.nstn.ns.ca
Keith Justified And Ancient Cochran
>of the witch-image as an old crone flying about the sky with disheveled
>hair, Mr. Keith Cochran challenged me to document this claim and listed
>a half dozen ancient cultures from which to choose my materials.
Yep. I would suggest you find out about these cultures before making
any more "universal" claims.
Oh, let's add one more to the list:
Alaskan Indians.
>Frankly,
>I don't have the time to comply with this request at this time.
Can't, or won't? talk.origins has suffered for years and years
with people who say "let me research that", and then disappear
for a month or two, only to have them show back up still spouting
off the same old arguments, and apparantly having forgotten their
promise to do some research.
>In the
>interests of saving time I'll cite evidence at my disposal, which features
>examples from both Old World Europe and Mesoamerica.
Ok. Let's see it.
>In "The Language
>of the Goddess," Marija Gimbutas documents the widespread nature of the
>witch as a flying goddess with disheveled hair. A wealth of evidence on
>the matter is provided by Jacob Grimm in his Teutonic Mythology. There
>it is possible to read of the witches flying about the night (p. 1045),
>riding a broomstick (p. 1049), and shining like fire (1078). Grimm also
>calls attention to the witches' terrible, disheveled hair (464).
>Summarizing his discussion, Grimm emphasizes that the archetype of the
>witch is intimately related to that of the mother goddess, a point made
>by numerous scholars, including Gimbutas and Neumann (the Great Mother):
>"The witches are of the retinue of former goddesses, who, hurled from
>their thrones, transformed from gracious adored beings into malign and
>dreaded ones, roam restless at night." (p. 1055) Grimm identifies the
>witch with the goddess Holde, noting that "the identity of Holde and
>Venus is placed beyond question." (p. 935)
Note that I didn't ask you about Teutonic mythology. There are many,
many cultures that have images of witches flying through the air on
brooms and spreading evil. I want you to document this in the
cultures I've already mentioned.
>In ancient Mexico similar conceptions prevailed. Thus Lewis Spence
>wrote as follows (The History of Atlantis, 1930, p. 224): "The Mexican
>witch, like her European sister, carried a broom on which she rode through
>the air...Indeed, the queen of witches, Tlagoltiotl, is depicted as riding
>on a broom and as wearing the witch's peaked hat."
Note, of course, that the mexicans have a large influx into their society
from the spanish and other european peoples. It stands to reason that
their cultural idioms would have some similarities. Please document
that the Mayan and Atzec felt that witches "flew through the air
on brooms, spreading evil".
>If for some reason Mr. Cochran is not satisfied with this response to
>his question, perhaps he could cite one culture where the archetype of
>the witch is absent and I'll respond again.
I have. They were all the cultures I listed in my last post. If you
can find some evidence that these peoples believe in the type of
"witch" you're proposing, please post it, because I haven't seen it.
--
=kcoc...@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza. OK???=
=Craig Shergold can have my business cards when he pries them from my cold, =
=dead fingers. =
Tero Sand
Ev Cochrane <e...@pi.eai.iastate.edu> wrote:
>In a recent post Mr. Sand chides me for not discussing science,
>conveniently ignoring the dozens of posts and countless challenges
>I have presented from the archaeoastronomical record. Mr. Sand, I
>suggest that you wouldn't recognize "science" if it came up and bit
>you on the ass.
Maybe the issue here is that I don't recognize archaeoastronomy as
science. Well, I'm not willing to argue about that point, instead, could
you discuss the areas that we both agree are science? Or is it your
opinion that nothing else but archaeoastronomy is science, or that it takes
precedence over everything else?
Specifically:
1) Was Venus ejected from Jupiter? If so,
a) why/how?
b) why is the composition of Venus totally different from Jupiter?
2) How did Venus end up in a nearly circular orbit?
3) Why wasn't Venus vaporized?
4) If Venus has been molten in the last few thousand years, explain how
it got a solid crust 30-70 km thick?
This will do for starters. Of course, if you feel that Newtonian
mechanics, thermodynamics and geology are not science, just say so and
we can all go home.
> You and Lindsay are perfectly representative of the
>thought expressed in the quote appended to your posts:
>
>"Science is a process of enlarging one's
> ! ignorance to dizzying heights."
I've been waiting 'till someone (deliberately or not) misunderstands
that. You're the first one - congratulations!
--
Tero Sand, 2 kyu ! Science is a process of enlarging one's
! ignorance to dizzying heights.
Tim Thompson
something. Anyway, network problems have kept me in the 'dark",
so to speak, since then. I now post, on the presumption that the
matter is still of current interest. ...
In article o...@news.iastate.edu, wdmo...@iastate.edu (Walter D Morris) writes:
[Ev Cochrane writing from Morris's account ...]
[ ... ]
>
>While my expertise is in the area of comparative mythology - where the
>evidence in support of the cataclysmic recent history of Saturn, Venus,
>and Mars is both abundant and unequivocal - I will refrain from discussing
>it here as you have specifically requested "unambiguous physical evidence
>relating to these catastrophes."
I will simply point out that much of the "archeoastronomy" which follows
looks supiciously like caomparative mythology, but then I guess it's just
a matter of interpretation after all ...
>Thus, of the most common terms for
>comet - "smoking star", "hairy star", "bearded star", "dragon star",
>"tailed star", etc. - all are applied to Venus throughout the ancient world
>(see E. Cochrane, "On Comets and Kings," Aeon, 1990, pp. 53-76; D. Talbott
>"The Great Comet Venus," Aeon, 1994).
>
Since interpretation seems to be so central to the Velikovskian
hypothesis, I want to interject an interpretation of my own. Venus is
always seen relatively low in the sky, since it never ventures so far from
the sun. And, at the times when the ancients were most interested in Venus,
thos of its helical rising and setting, it would be literally on the
horizon. Under such circumstances, even under good conditions, the planet
will appear to shimmer, and it will be out of focus, because of the large
airmass it is observed through. All of the descriptive names sited above
are perfectly consistent with the interpretation that ancient astronomers
saw Venus under these conditions, and were used to looking at/for it under
these conditions, and so they adopted the appropriate name. No cometary
nature required. Seems OK to me, is there something wrong here?
[ ... ]
>
>It is such glaring anomalies in the ancient records,
>routinely dismissed as "curious" or scribal errors, which presage a
>revolution in our understanding of the ancient cosmos. Hundreds of other
>such anomalies could be brought forward had I the time. Together they
>constitute solid physical evidence that Venus has moved upon a radically
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>different orbit within recent history.
>
With all due respect, this is a bit of an overstatement. I do not accept
any of this as physical evidence of any kind. It is anecdotal evidence at best,
some of which is legitimately archaeoastronomical in nature, much of which is
thinly disguised interpretive mythology. To me, physical evidence means rocks,
or fields, or orbits, or some such other physical phenomenon that I might
go out and look at myself, even to this very day.
Another interesting point is how much faith you place in the external
validity of these documents. How do you know you didn't dig up the 3000
year old equivalent of Tolkein's Lord of the Rings triliogy (no need for
JRRT fans to complain if I spelled his name wrong)? How are you able to
assign an appropriate level of "reality" to any given document? Granted,
the purported observations of planetary motions may be of the more reliable
nature, but, for instance, assigning the necessity that Venus was a comet
to the observation that hairy names were used for it, or that some god
identified with the planet did some firey thing, seems to me to be a leap
of faith far beyond any that could be justified.
>In addition to this evidence from archaeoastronomy and ancient literature,
>equally compelling testimony comes from prehistoric rock art. Not unlike
>fossilized bones, which offer an objective record against which to check
>the deductions of paleontologists, rock art represents an objective record
>of mankind's enduring interest in the celestial bodies and offers a
>check against the conclusions deduced from archaeoastronomy and comparative
>mythology.
>
Here I am going to object strenuously. Art, of any kind, is never, ever,
an "objective" record of anything. That's why art is art. You don't suppose
some cave guy just painted a little abstract art? If a modern painter
created a picture of Jupiter passing through Ursa Major, would you
automatically presume that it must indeed have done so? If not, then why
do you assign ancient painters such a high level of objectivity?
My cousin is an art/art-history instructor at a community college. A few
years ago I attended a showing of his paintings (complete with yuppie wine
and cheese). One of these paintings featured a house next to a fence, both
of which had single, dark shadows, but pointed in opposite directions. When
I asked him why this physical ridiculosity was there, he said simply that the
fence "looks better" with this shadow instead of the "real" one. So, in a few
thousand years, if his painting is dug up by some enthusiastic historian,
should they decide we lived on a strange world of multiple suns represented
by these weird, but obviously objective, shadows?
[ ... ]
>
>Mr. Thompson also states: "It is very difficult to imagine the physical
>circumstances under which we might expect Saturn, Venus, or Mars, to
>interfere with the Earth physically...Have these problems been solved,
>or has any more detailed model been forthcoming?"
>
Indeed, I did ...
>Although it is my personal belief that the issue of the recent cataclysmic
>history of the solar system is an exercise in historical reconstruction,
>and thus must succeed or fail upon the basis of the historical evidence,
>it goes without saying that such history must be made to conform with
>physical reality. During the course of the past 20 years, Talbott,
>Cardona and myself have struggled to make sense of the ancient traditions
>and we have toyed with several models which would account for the mythical
>record. Robert Grubaugh (formerly a structural dynamicist with TRW
>concerned with launching satellites into space), has recently developed
>a detailed physical model whereby Saturn, Venus, Mars and the Earth are
>locked in axial alignment, the four bodies orbiting Jupiter in unison
>as Jupiter orbits the Sun. The mechanics of the system are such that
>as the terrestrial observer looks overhead he sees the smaller Venusian
>orb set squarely within the larger Saturn, not unlike the prehistoric
>sign of the sun noted earlier (See R. Grubaugh, "A Proposed Model for
>the Polar Configuration," Aeon 1993, pp. 39-48). While I regard Grubaugh's
>model as preliminary in nature, it does provide a forum for further debate
>and fine-tuning, and contradicts the oft-cited objection that such
>interactions among the various planetary bodies must needs be impossible.
>
I have asked Mr. Cochrane to send me a copy of Grubaugh's article, and he
says he will send it. Meanwhile, I regard Grubaugh's hypothesis as
fundamentally impossible, pending some strange revelation in his own
writing. Orbiting systems just don't behave that way.
However, more revealing, is the comment that this question should be settled
by historical means. I object, because history is a "soft" science, heavily
dependent on interpretation of incomplete information. Are we really expected
to ignore well understood principles of physics because some cave-man
painted Venus in the wrong place, or because some 3000 year old astronomer
botched his observations of Venus? Are we really supposed to presume, that
because some ancient tale of godly woe referred to some god, who is in turn
assigned some planet in the sky, that the planet did what the god in the
story did? Is this kind of reasoning supposed to take precedence over everything
we have since learned? I don't think so.
[ ... ]
>To take just the astronomical evidence, we would expect there to be clear
>evidence that Venus and Mars have only recently suffered tremendous
>stresses to their bodies and surfaces. This would include great episodes
>of volcanism and rifting, not to mention wholesale flooding and the sudden
>loss of oceans. Rocks on Mars must show signs of recent heating (certainly
>within the last 5-10,000 years), and remnant magnetism should be abundant
>on the Martian surface.Saturn's rings are apparently of recent and cataclysmic
>origin.
Except, perhaps, for the "sudden" loss of a Martian ocean (there does
appear to have been one at one time), all of these can be equally easily
explained and understood within the traditional framework, which is why,
way back at the top, I suggested "unambiguous" physical evidence.
---
---------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Thompson, Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Earth & Space Sciences Division ...
Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflectance Radiometer
Board of Directors, Los Angeles Astronomical Society ...
Vice President, Mount Wilson Observatory Association ...
INTERnet/BITnet: t...@lithos.jpl.nasa.gov
NSI/DECnet: jplsc8::tim
SCREAMnet: YO!! TIM!!
GPSnet: 118:10:22.85 W by 34:11:58.27 N
David Johnston
early observers. Unless I'm mistaken, isn't it the brightest object
short of the moon? It sounds like the kind of misconception that led to
the idea that worms chirp, or that bats are fowl.