Velikovsky, Cochrane, and Ellenberger in Skeptic
Ev Cochrane
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.
Ken Cox
>This past month, the journal Skeptic devoted several articles to
>a discussion of Velikovsky's place in the history of science. [...]
>Tomorrow I will type up my article and post it.
Before doing this you should check the copyright situation carefully.
I don't know what _Skeptic_'s policy is, or what copyright transfer
forms you may have signed, but if it's anything like IEEE or ACM you
may not have the right to distribute the original article anymore.
If _Skeptic_ does hold the copyright, you are still free to present
your original arguments, as long as you do not re-use the text of the
article. Short quotes from your article are permitted, by the usual
fair-use doctrine.
>I suggest that someone do the same with Leroy's article.
Now *this* is most definitely not allowed, without either Leroy's
or _Skeptic_'s permission -- depending who holds the copyright.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.att.com
Tim Thompson
Ev Cochrane <ecoc...@delphi.com> writes:
> 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.
I did not come across this when it was posted, thanks to the
installation of a new computer system, and the subsequent
de-bugging of same. I have been asked by the redoubtable
Ellenberger to paraphrase his remarks for a short reply.
Basically, Ellenberger does not wish to, as Ev put it, "continue
the debate within these hallowed halls. He prefers to do so in the
hallowed halls of Skeptic, where it started. If I understand a-right,
Ellenberger does not intend to reply until Cochrane sends in a
response to Skeptic. Remember, this is me paraphrasing what Leroy
told me in a phone call earlier today (Thursday 25 Jan 96).
I also note that Ev has evidently not posted a copy of his article,
not surprising since it is copyrighted by Skeptic. I would suggest that
anyone who might be considering typing Ellenberger's article (not I)
consider the copyright issue as well.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Ev Cochrane
The most recent issue of Skeptic magazine included a trilogy of
invited articles examining Immanuel Velikovsky's place in the
history of science (Vol 3:4, 1995). Michael Shermer, the editor
of Skeptic, has kindly granted me permission to post the following
article by your's truly.
Title: "Velikovsky Still in Collision"
"If you have had your attention directed to the novelties of thought
in your own lifetime, you will have observed that almost all really
new ideas have a certain amount of foolishness when they are first
produced." Alfred North Whitehead
The theories of maverick scholar Immanuel Velikovsky sparked a
virulent debate upon publication of his Worlds in Collision in 1950.
The central thesis of the book--that spectacular cataclysms involving
various planets recently wracked the solar system, being witnessed
by man the world over and commemorated in countless myths and
sacred rites--was deemed so unpalatable by the academic community
that a Harvard astronomer organized a boycott of the publisher in
an attempt to suppress the book (the most complete account of this
shoddy episode is that of Vorhees, 1993). While this blatant attempt
to subvert academic freedom succeeded in the short term--Velikovsky's
reputation was forever tarnished and Macmillan was forced to give
up the rights to the book despite the fact that it was a bestseller at the
time--it would appear to have failed in the long run, as more and more
readers came to be attracted to Velikovsky's work as a result of the
controversy itself and as various space probes began to report data
predicted by the heretical scholar (radio noises emanating from Jupiter,
remnant magnetism in lunar rocks, the existence of a terrestrial
magnetosphere extending to the Moon, etc.)
How does one summarize the career of a man whose eight published
volumes span the fields of ancient history, astronomy, paleontology,
evolutionary theory, abnormal psychology, comparative religion,
geology, and a host of others? This is a difficult task under any
circumstances, much less in the limited-space available in a forum
such as this. So I will present only a brief summary of Velikovsky's
theory of planetary catastrophism.
Born in Russia in 1895 and educated at some of the finest universities
in Europe, Velikovsky eventually emigrated to Palestine, where he
practiced medicine and psychoanalysis for the better part of two
decades. In 1939, Velikovsky came to America to pursue research
for a book on Freud's heroes. It was while contemplating various
passages in the Old Testament--such as the sun standing still for
Joshua--that Velikovsky arrived at the crucial insight that the Earth
had been brought to the brink of destruction as a result of the near
passage of a celestial body.
In Worlds in Collision, Velikovsky challenged orthodox science and
history by claiming that: (1) Great cataclysms have distinguished the
recent history of the Earth; (2) These cataclysms were caused by
extraterrestrial agents; (3) The agents of catastrophe can be identified
with the specific planets in the solar system (Velikovsky, 1950, p. ix)
In addition to these general claims, Velikovsky also offered the
following, more specific, claims: (1) The planet Saturn only recently
loomed large in the heavens, an indication, apparently, of the Earth's
former close proximity to the gas giant; (2) The planet Venus assumed
a comet-like appearance during a particularly spectacular episode in
the not-too-distant past; (3) The planet Mars recently participated in
epoch-ending cataclysms, inspiring its reputation as a war-god and
agent of destruction. The latter three claims are entirely without
precedent in the annals of human thought and underscore the profoundly
unique nature of Velikovsky's vision of the recent history of the
solar system.
Velikovsky's most famous claim--and the one which most drew the
ire of the astronomical community--was that Venus once presented
a comet-like form while threatening the Earth, only settling into
its current orbit well within the historical period. Can there be any
truth to this admittedly bizarre scenario?
A wealth of evidence confirms that Velikovsky's hypothesis is not
as far-fetched as might at first appear. Indeed, the truth of the matter
is that the evidence in favor of Venus' comet-like past is far more
pervasive than Velikovsky himself ever imagined. Thus, in a series
of articles exploring Venus' role in ancient myth and religion, Dave
Talbott and I documented that ancient terms for "comet"--including
"hair-star," "serpent-star", "bearded-star", "tailed-star", "torch-
star", "smoking-star", etc.--were each specifically applied to
Venus! (Talbott & Cochrane, 1984, 1985, 1987). From ancient
Mesopotamia to Mesoamerica, Venus was described as a "hairy"
star, "smoking" star, "bearded" star, "serpent" star, etc. Such
terminology, as we documented, was not only common among most
ancient cultures, but surprisingly prominent in the earliest religious
and mythical traditions, thereby attesting, it would appear, to the
importance accorded Venus/comets in ancient thought.
In addition to this shared terminology, Venus and comets also
shared a similar reputation in ancient tradition. Thus, comets
were universally associated with the following themes: (1)
Disaster (i.e., the appearance of a comet heralded a great epidemic,
earthquakes, a terrifying eclipse of the sun, etc.); (2) The end
of the world (end of a world age or kingdom, etc.); (3) The
death of a great king; (4) The transmigration of a great king's
soul.
Strange to say, and wholly inexplicable from the vantage point
of orthodox modern astronomy, the very same themes are also
associated with Venus. In the New World as well as the Old,
from the most ancient times to the advent of the modern age,
Venus was widely regarded as an omen of disaster, a harbinger
of the end of a world age, the agent of a great eclipse at the
dawn of time, a sign that a prominent king was about to die,
and explicitly associated with the departing "soul" of a dying
king (Cochrane, 1989; Talbott, 1994). Given this striking
correspondence between the ancient lore surrounding Venus
and comets, it is difficult to deny Velikovsky's thesis that
Venus recently presented a comet-like appearance, however
the phenomenon is to be understood in astronomical terms.
According to archaeoastronomical traditions of peoples the
world over, Mars and Saturn were also associated with
spectacular cataclysms in very recent times. And each of these
planets was described in terms which are impossible to reconcile
with their current, relatively staid appearances. Mars, for
example, was associated with prodigious eclipses of the sun
throughout the ancient world (Cochrane, 1993). Saturn was
identified as the ancient sun-god by the Babylonians, Indians,
and Greeks. Helios, for example, was originally a name for
the planet Saturn rather than the current Sun (Talbott, 1980).
Here it may well be asked, "Granted that Velikovsky might
have been on the right track with regard to the presence of
cometary imagery in ancient traditions surrounding Venus,
of what significance is this finding for modern science?"
It is the far-reaching ramifications of this finding for ancient
history and modern astronomy, of course, which have long
intrigued Velikovsky's admirers and incensed his detractors.
Stated simply, if the spectacle of Venus as a comet-like body
threatening the Earth was actually witnessed by ancient humans
the world over, our entire conception of the recent history of
the solar system--not to mention our understanding of celestial
mechanics and a score of other sciences--is destined to be turned
upside down.
It would thus appear that the controversy surrounding Velikovsky's
ideas is far from settled. Is he fated to go down in history as the
epitome of a crank, as Carl Sagan and the astronomical community
would have it? Or is he to be regarded as the decisive catalyst in
a scientific revolution the likes of which has yet to be seen? In my
opinion, the answer hinges on the scientific validity of recent
planetary catastrophism. Should Velikovsky be vindicated on this
score--and I believe he will--its stands to reason that he will be
granted a prominent place in intellectual history.
Like Darwin, Freud and other intellectual catalysts throughout
history, Velikovsky is not only important for what he added to
the storehouse of knowledge, but for the bold new questions
he posed and hitherto unimagined horizons he exposed. To
read Velikovsky is to be catapulted into an entirely new way of
viewing the world and its history. Just as, after On the Origin of
Species, few can contemplate one of Nature's myriad of life
forms without seeing evidence of its evolutionary history in
every feature; and just as, after The Interpretation of Dreams,
few can afford to overlook unconscious determinants of behavior;
so too, after Worlds in Collision, one can never again look at
myth--nay the entire intellectual heritage bequethed to us by
ancient man in the form of sacred literature, heroic epics,
folklore, rock art, etc.--without seeing unequivocal evidence
of the Earth's cataclysmic recent history.
Bibliography
E. Cochrane, "On Comets and Kings," Aeon, 1989, pp. 53-75.
E. Cochrane, "On Mars and Pestilence," Aeon 1993, pp. 59-79.
D. Talbott, The Saturn Myth (New York, 1980).
D. Talbott, "The Great Comet Venus," Aeon, 1994, pp. 5-51.
D. Talbott & E. Cochrane, "The Origin of Velikovsky's Comet,"
"On the Nature of Cometary Symbolism," and "When Venus
was a Comet," in Kronos, 1984, 1985, and 1987 respectively.
I. Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision (New York, 1950).
D. Vorhees, "Velikovsky in America," Aeon, 1993, pp. 32-58.
Ev Cochrane
of articles devoted to examining Immanuel Velikovsky's place
in the history of science (Vol. 3:4, 1995). Included therein was
an article by Leroy Ellenberger, entitled "An Antidote to
Velikovskian Delusions." This article was vintage Leroy:
several pages of rambling and, at times, incoherent polemics coupled
with scattered references to otherwise obscure and unpublished
sources. All in all, it was very entertaining. Having just now
received permission to post Leroy's article from the editor
himself--Michael Shermer--I am hereby requesting that one of
Leroy's lackeys on talk.origins type it up and submit it. Here's
your big chance, fellas: Leroy's article is *really* devastating.
Ev Cochrane
of articles devoted to examining Immanuel Velikovsky's place
case for recent episodes of planet-induced catastrophe, while
Leroy Ellenberger took a critical position. The following post
examines some of Ellenberger's claims in the aforementioned
article.]
Throughout his long career as a Velikovsky watcher--first as
an enthusiastic (some would say fanatic) supporter of Velikovsky's,
and now as an equally fanatic critic--Leroy Ellenberger has practiced
what might be described as a shotgun approach to polemics: Throw
out several dozen categorical statements together with a handful of
references to otherwise obscure sources and then, when these
statements/sources are criticized or debunked, throw out a dozen
more. Leroy's recent article in Skeptic is no different in this
regard.
While I am prepared to debate any of the arguments raised by
Leroy against the possibility/reality of recent episodes of planet-
induced catastrophism, I would much prefer to concentrate on
issues most amenable to critical analysis--ideally those of some
interest to the readers on talk.origins. The history of the signs
of the zodiac, for example, has formed a subject in several recent
threads on talk.origins, and inasmuch as Leroy has advanced the
extreme antiquity of such signs against the views of Velikovsky,
Talbott and myself, perhaps it would be of interest to examine the
evidence for this claim.
In the article in question, Leroy wrote as follows:
"In the Velikovskian worldview, typified by Mr. Cochrane, the
zodiac has no meaning until Earth's present tilt was achieved.
But, in fact, the earliest signs of the zodiac date from 5500 B.C.,
long before Velikovskians believe the present order began
(Gurshtein, 1993 and 1995)."
This statement is confused in several respects. In the first place,
I hardly "typify" the Velikovskian worldview. Not only do I
not consider myself a "Velikovskian", I have repeatedly stressed
that I do not accept Velikovsky's particular chronology of the
respective planetary catastrophes nor do I accept his evidence
for Mars-events in the 7th century B.C., the period to which
he would refer the establishment of the present tilt of the Earth's
axis. Indeed, Talbott and I have never presented a detailed
chronology of the catastrophic events associated with the
establishment, evolution, and eventual breakup of the polar
configuration associated with Saturn. Inasmuch as such events
were apparently prehistoric, they are naturally difficult to date.
Thus it is entirely possible that the present tilt of the Earth's
axis *was* established before 5500 B.C. (although I very
much doubt it). If so, Leroy's argument--should it prove
valid--would tend to undermine Velikovsky's particular
chronology advanced in Worlds in Collision. But it is of
very little relevance for the thesis defended by Talbott and
myself. The all-important question, however, is whether
Leroy's argument/evidence is valid?
In point of fact, there is no evidence whatsoever for Leroy's
statement that the earliest signs of the zodiac date from
5500 B.C. Not only are there no examples of written texts
from this period which mention any signs of the zodiac, there
aren't any examples of artwork from this period which
provide unequivocal (or even suggestive) references to the
signs of the zodiac. What kind of evidence is Leroy referring
to? The same kind, I dare say, as existed for his equally
unfounded statement that already in the third millennium B.C.
the Sumerians were practicing a sophisticated form of
astronomical observation and reckoning (Leroy made this
claim on talk.origins some time back)?
Equally baseless is Leroy's more recent claim that "B.G.
Sidharth recently showed that part of the Rig Veda dates from
ca. 7300 B.C., when a solar eclipse at the vernal equinox
occurred in the lunar asterism Pushya, located in Cancer; see
Griffith Observer, Nov. 1995." Once again, Leroy offers
no critical analysis of Sidharth's claim, nor does he bother
to provide those of us more critically minded with a reference
from the Rig Veda so we can check it out for ourselves. This
was most fortunate for Leroy. For had he done so, we could
have promptly shown him that there is not a single sentence
in the Rig Veda which dates before 2000 B.C. (and probably
much later than that); there is not the slightest evidence that
the prehistoric Indians were practicing any kind of astronomical
reckoning in 7300 B.C; and there is no absolutely no basis
for Sidharth's claim. Having myself studied the Rig Veda
quite carefully for references to celestial goings-on, I can say
with great confidence that what references there are have
nothing to do with prehistoric preoccupation with the signs
of the zodiac and everything to do with prehistoric catastrophes
involving the respective planets (Mars in particular. See here
E. Cochrane, "Indra...." Aeon, 1991, pp. 49-76; "Indra's
Theft of the Sun-God's Wheel," Aeon, 1993, pp. 71-85.
Complimentary copies of said articles available upon request
by email).
I would close with the following challenge to Leroy: Give
us your most compelling evidence for prehistoric references
to any sign of the zodiac from either Gurshtein or Sidharth.
Tim Thompson
Ev Cochrane <ecoc...@delphi.com> writes:
[ ... ]
> I would close with the following challenge to Leroy: Give
> us your most compelling evidence for prehistoric references
> to any sign of the zodiac from either Gurshtein or Sidharth.
As I did in an earlier note, so I would like to do once more.
I believe that the redoubtable Ellenberger is busily crafting a
*short* response of his own. However, he has once again expressed
to me considerable irritation tha Cochrane has chosen to move the
debate from the pages of Skeptic to the internet. I suspect that
Ellenberger has no intention of replying at all until Cochrane has
submitted a rebuttal to Skeptic for publication.
--
Speaking only for myself ...
Ev Cochrane
has suddenly lost his nerve:
"As I did in an earlier note, so I would like to do once more.
I believe that the redoubtable Ellenberger is busily crafting a
*short* response of his own. However, he has once again expressed
to me considerable irritation tha Cochrane has chosen to move the
debate from the pages of Skeptic to the internet. I suspect that
Ellenberger has no intention of replying at all until Cochrane has
submitted a rebuttal to Skeptic for publication."
talk.origins more than a little amusing. Is this the same guy
who daily besieges me with faxes bragging about how he's
going to expose me as an ignoramus on talk.origins for all
to see? Consider the following fax which Leroy sent me on
12-31: "Your perfidy shall be displayed on talk.origins and
all will have their suspicions confirmed that you are clueless
in the mythosphere and deluded beyond all redemption."
Here's your big chance, Leroy. Tell us about those Vedic
scribes recording eclipses in 7300 B.C. And do tell us about
those mysterious zodiac signs dating from 5500 B.C.
For the record, here's my previous post outlining Leroy's
peculiar brand of archaeoastronomy
Ev Cochrane
[The most recent issue of Skeptic magazine included a trilogy of
invited articles examining Immanuel Velikovsky's place in the
history of science (Vol 3:4, 1995). Michael Shermer, the editor
of Skeptic, has kindly granted me permission to post the following
it should be remembered that he had my article before him. I, on
the other hand, did not see his article until it appeared in Skeptic.
The next issue of Skeptic will include a short rebuttal to Leroy's
article. Inasmuch as the editor requested that I keep my published
rebuttal short, I intend to examine each and every paragraph of
Leroy's article right here on talk.origins in the days and weeks
ahead. Although I can well understand that Leroy would be
justifiably horrified at such a prospect, I can see no more
appropriate forum for this kind of debate.]
"An Antidote to Velikovskian Delusions" by Leroy Ellenberger
"The fact is that the whole of the ramshackle edifice of nonsense
to be found scattered throughout the Velikovskian corpus is
purported to have a historical... foundation, but that it has none."
John David North
"The philosopher David Hume urged that one should always
hold it more likely that one had been deceived than that the laws
of nature should stand suspended." Frank Close
I am privileged to have this opportunity to provide a counterbalance
to the Velikovskian mindset expressed by Mr. Cochrane. Our
viewpoints could hardly be more divergent, as our respective essays
for a forum in the British Velikovskian journal showed. Whereas
he believes "the ancient traditions (mostly mythological) are our
best guide to the appearance and arrangement of the earliest
remembered Solar System, not some fancy computer's retro-
calculations based upon current understandings of astronomical
principles" (1992, pp. 40-41), my position is that "while myth
may *inform* natural history (e.g., Phaethon's fall), its capacity to
*reform* physics is vanishingly small. Phaethon was almost
certainly a comet, not Venus or the Sun" (1992a, pp. 41-44), as
Bob Kobres has ingeniously shown (1995). In the Velikovskian
worldview, typified by Mr. Cochrane, the zodiac has no meaning
until Earth's present tilt was achieved. But, in fact, the earliest
signs of the zodiac date from 5500 B.C., long before Velikovskians
special interest to Velikovskians is the fact that the near-miss
trajectory for Phaethon *behind* Earth, deduced by Kobres,
produces the illusion of a sun-like body standing still due to the
relative motion as seen from certain longitudes--perhaps the
inspiration for the "Day the Sun Stood Still" for Joshua.
Mr. Cochrane presents his case for Velikovsky's genius. Velikovsky
*was* a brilliant man whose speculations, unfortunately, were
invalidated by his assumptions about his source materials. However,
he was no scientist (see Bauer, 1992, Friedlander, 1995, and Grove,
1989). According to Lloyd Motz (1992, pp. 85-92), whose advice
Velikovsky often sought, "Velikovsky's credentials were not those
of a scientist...he had only the vaguest understanding of such basic
principles as conservation of angular momentum, gravity, and
entropy." My personal experience with Velikovsky regarding
escape velocity (1979) and the relation between Jupiter's surface
temperature and the hot plasma temperatures in its magnetosphere,
verifies Henry Bauer's conclusion that in physics Velikovsky was
"an ignoramus masquerading as a sage" (1984, p. 94).
The "profoundly original nature of Velikovsky's vision of the
recent history of the solar system," praised by Mr. Cochrane, is
belied by the earlier work of Whiston, Radlof, and Donnelly
whose writings prefigured the major themes in Worlds in Collision
(see Clube and Napier, 1990; Bauer, 1984). Velikovsky probably
came to his conclusions independently, but he was by no means
"profoundly original." One interprets myths literally at great risk
because the deeds of gods do not necessarily apply to the action
of the planets named after them. The events in Worlds in Collision
are disproved by the complete absence of relevant physical
evidence on Earth (such as characteristic debris in the world's ice
caps deposited during and after Earth's near collisions with Venus
and Mars 3500 and 2700 years ago, respectively; Ellenberger, 1984).
If the debris Venus deposited in Earth's atmosphere was so massive
it caused 40 years of darkness after the Exodus, where is it today?
There is no sign of it in the world's ice caps or on the ocean
bottoms.
In retrospect, we can see that scientists (and other experts) easily
perceived how wrong Velikovsky was, but they were ineffective
in setting forth a valid refutation that was convincing to Velikovsky
partisans (Ellenberger, 1986 and 1992b).
Although Velikovsky's mythological interpretation and methodology
have been widely criticized (Forrest, 1983/84; Fitton, 1974;
Mewhinney, 1986; Sachs, 1965; and Stiebing, 1992), his followers
are unimpressed and blindly follow their exemplar as naive, literal
interpreters of myth who fail to provide, much less even look for,
independent physical, as opposed to textual or iconographic,
evidence supporting their model. They ignore George Talbott's
sage counsel in Kronos V:3, "The basis of any historical inference
must be physical evidence." As literalists, they do not allow mere
metaphors to becloud their research.
The "ancient lore surrounding Venus" in most cases relates to a
deity associated with Venus such as Inanna or Ishtar. Since Venus
is far too massive *ever* to have had a tail, it is not, contrary to
Mr. Cochrane, "difficult to deny Velikovsky's thesis that Venus
only recently presented a comet-like appearance." The "wealth of
evidence" for a cometary Venus, lauded by Mr. Cochrane, confirms
nothing because it is textual and iconographic, making it susceptible
to the vagaries of interpretation. Any tail ascribed to, say, Ishtar
(Mr. Cochrane would render it as "Venus"), almost certainly was
inspired by a conventional short period comet that has since
disappeared or become inactive. The British astronomers Victor
Clube and Bill Napier (1990), propose that the lore associated with
the progenitor to Comet Encke, which would have been a spectacular
morning and evening object at perihelion, would have been assimilated
to Venus when it disappeared. If the identification of Venus is
defective, how trustworthy can the other mythological equations be?
Velikovsky's notion, mentioned by Mr. Cochrane, that "planet Saturn
only recently loomed large in the heavens" because of "Earth's former
proximity" is a red herring. To the ancients, as the classicist Harald
Reiche explained to me, a planet's name referred both to orb and orbit.
As the most distant visible planet, Saturn's orbit, indeed, can be said
to have "encompassed the whole sky," a phrase used in Aeon's
promotional material in 1988. Interestingly, our ancestors developed
a complex, complementary relationship between the Sun and Saturn.
But it is fallacious to believe, as Mr. Cochrane, does, that the Sun in
a very radical way was subordinate to Saturn in some bygone "Golden
Age" (cf., Boll, 19919; Jastrow, 1910; Krupp, 1994).
Concerning Mars, Mr. Cochrane unjustifiably projects his own
expectations on his sources when he refers to Mars having been
"associated with prodigious eclipses of the sun..." His references
in Aeon to Gossmann and Tallqvist give no warrant for either
"prodigious" or "eclipses." However, we know, from the ancients'
claims about Sirius causing the summer to be hot by heating the
Sun, they were capable of fanciful associations (Ceragioli, 1992).
By virtue of its drastic changes in direction and brightness, Mars
was a perfect subject for exercising our ancestors' imagination.
We have reason to believe our ancestors viewed a sky different
even from that contemplated by Mr. Cochrane. Such terms as
are rendered "morning star" and "eclipse" in translations may
very well refer to phenomena that are no longer present because
the accounts of their activity do not conform to what we observe
today (Clube and Napier, 1990; Mandelkehr, 1994).
Contrary to Mr. Cochrane, the furious reaction to Velikovsky in
1950 was not due to suggestions that were unpalatable to scientists.
According to Henry Bauer, "The absurd gap between Velikovsky's
pretensions and ambitions on the one hand, and his lack of
qualifications and evidence for his views on the other, could well
explain the sarcastic outrage of some members of the scientific
community" (1985, p. 184). This "absurd gap" is even greater in
the pretensions of those neo-Velikovskians like Mr. Cochrane
himself. They are untutored, self-proclaimed experts, who
promulgate the "polar configuration" derived from the "Saturn
myth" (which is the hidden agenda behind Mr. Cochrane's
allusions to recent, drastic changes in the behavior of Venus,
Saturn and Mars.).
They actually believe, because of its alleged vast explanatory power,
that their literal interpretation of certain myths gives results superior
to those of modern science. But explanatory power is no gauge of
validity because incorrect theories can give correct predictions.
Scientism aside, their notions are consciously unconstrained by
the laws of physics. The ad on the back cover of Aeon 4:1 for
"When the Gods were Planets," the first video in a series on
"The New Science of World Mythology," claims it "not only
challenges long-held beliefs, but suggests that the most cherished
assumptions of twentieth century science must give way to a
new understanding of planetary evolution." Do these pretensions
give the appearance of delusions of grandeur?
The "polar configuration" is claimed to have been a self-gravitating
in-line "stack" of Jupiter-Saturn-Venus-Mars-Earth (sans Moon),
that orbited the Sun as a unit in synchronous motion, with Earth
tilted 90 degrees so its axis pointed down the "stack" toward
Saturn. Although this scheme was contrived to satisfy certain
mytho-religious themes and motifs, it is neither as necessary nor
as comprehensive as its proponents claim. Moe Mandelkehr
(1994) has shown that these myths can all be accounted for in
practical terms if Earth acquired a temporary, highly inclined
ring of meteor dust about 2300 B.C. The scheme is also not
as comprehensive as claimed because it does not explain the
sacred number names of the gods in the Sumero-Babylonian
pantheon which Ernest McClain has shown correspond to
harmonic ratios of the octave (1976, 1994).
Contrary to Mr. Cochrane, there is no "debate over the possibility
of recent planetary catastrophism," as conceived by the neo-
Velikovskians. The notion of errant planets in the recent past is
preposterous in the extreme, being decisively contradicted by all
the locked, spin-orbit circular satellite resonances at Earth, Mars,
Jupiter and Saturn, that take far longer to attain than the few
thousand years since the Solar System supposedly settled down.
The synchronous orbits required by the polar configuration are
dynamically impossible, and the present solar system cannot be
derived from them. Mr. Cochrane deludes himself if he actually
believes there is any chance for Velikovsky to be vindicated on
this score.
The recent catastrophism espoused by Clube and Napier,
although based on scientific evidence (Asher, 1994; Clube 1992;
Clube and Napier, 1990), is eschewed by neo-Velikovskians.
Their work is not embraced by astronomers either, in no small
part because of the bad name given catastrophism by Velikovsky.
According to Clube and Napier, the Holocene has been punctuated
by energetic, episodic interaction with the dense portion of the
Taurid-Encke complex, providing an astronomically sound
explanation for the sky-combat myths that concerned Velikovsky
in Worlds in Collision. As Clube and Napier once observed,
"Velikovsky is not so much the first of the new catastrophists...;
he is the last in a line of traditional catastrophists going back to
mediaeval times and probably earlier" (1984). There is, as Mr.
Cochrane states, "unequivocal evidence of the Earth's cataclysmic
recent history," but careening planets have nothing to do with it.
The mythological *and* physical evidence are best explained by
the work of Kobres, Mandelkehr, Clube and his co-workers.
Having parried with Mr. Cochrane on Usenet's talk.origins
newsgroup between May and December of 1994, I have no
illusion that my remarks here will dent his deeply internalized
and hermetically sealed worldview. However, since the limited
space for this exchange precludes detailed replies to Mr.
Cochrane's points, the interested reader is encouraged to pursue
the full analyses cited in the references.
Bibliography
D. Asher et al, "Coherent Catastrophism," Vistas in Astronomy,
38, 1994, pp. 1-27.
H. Bauer, Beyond Velikovsky: The History of a Public
Controversy (Urbana, 1984); "Inside the Velikovsky
Affair," Skeptical Inquirer 9:3 (1985), pp. 284-288.
"The Velikovsky Affair," Aeon 2:6 (1992), pp. 75-84.
F. Boll, "Kronos-Helios," Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft
(1919), pp. 342-346.
R. Ceragioli, "Behind the 'Red Sirius' Myth," Sky and Telescope
(June, 1992), pp. 613-615.
S. Clube, "The Countdown to a New Celestial Hazard," Aeon
2:6 (1992), pp. 94-99.
S. Clube & W. Napier, "Velikovskians in Collision," Kronos
IX:3 (1984), pp. 44-49.
idem, The Cosmic Winter (Oxford, 1990).
E. Cochrane, "Deploring the 'Star-crossed' Marriage," Chronology
& Catastrophism Review XIV (1992).
C.L. Ellenberger, "To Escape or Not to Escape: The 71% Factor,"
Kronos V:1 (1979), pp. 92-93; "Still Facing Many Problems,
Pt. 1," Kronos X:1 (1984), pp. 87-102; "A lesson from
Velikovsky," Skeptical Inquirer 10:4 (1986), pp. 380-381.
"Celestial Hazard vs. Celestial Fantasy," Chronology &
Catastrophism Review XIV (1992), pp. 41-44. A Clube &
Napier primer. "Of Lessons, Legacies and Litmus Tests:
A Velikovsky Potpourri, Pt. 1," Aeon 3:1 (1992b), pp.
86-105.
J. Fitton, "Velikovsky Mythohistoricus," Chiron I:1&2 (1974),
pp. 29-36.
B. Forrest, "Venus and Velikovsky: The Original Sources," Skeptical
Inquirer 8:2 (1983/84), pp. 154-164.
idem, Guide to Velikovsky's Sources (Santa Barbara, 1987).
M. Friedlander, At the Fringes of Science (Boulder, 1995).
J. Grove, In Defence of Science (Toronto, 1989).
A. Gurshtein, "On the Origin of the Zodiacal Constellations,"
Vistas in Astronomy 36 (1993), pp. 171-190; "When the
Zodiac Climbed into the Sky," Sky & Telescope (Oct.
1995), pp. 28-33.
M. Jastrow Jr, "Sun and Saturn," Revue d' Assyriologie VII (1910),
pp. 163-178.
B. Kobres, "The Path of a Comet and Phaethon's Ride," The World
and I (Feb. 1995), pp. 394-405.
E. Krupp, "The Heart of Saturday Night," Sky & Telescope (Sept.
1994), pp. 60-61.
M. Mandelkehr, The Answered Riddle: A Thesis on the Meaning
of Myth (1994). Unpublished.
E. McClain, The Myth of Invariance (York Beach, 1976)
idem, "Musical Theory & Ancient Cosmology," The World
& I (Feb. 1994), pp. 370-393.
S. Mewhinney, "El-Arish Revisited," Kronos XI:2 (1986), pp. 41-61.
L. Motz, "A Personal Reminiscence," Aeon 2:6 (1992), pp. 85-92.
A. Sachs, "Address at Brown University," in Ellenberger, 1992b,
pp. 103-105.
W. Stiebing Jr., "Cosmic Catastrophism," Aeon 2:6 (1992), pp. 58-74.
Paul J. Gans
: The most recent issue of Skeptic Magazine contained a trilogy
: of articles devoted to examining Immanuel Velikovsky's place
: in the history of science (Vol. 3:4, 1995). Included therein was
: an article by Leroy Ellenberger, entitled "An Antidote to
: Velikovskian Delusions." This article was vintage Leroy:
: several pages of rambling and, at times, incoherent polemics coupled
: with scattered references to otherwise obscure and unpublished
: sources. All in all, it was very entertaining. Having just now
: received permission to post Leroy's article from the editor
: himself--Michael Shermer--I am hereby requesting that one of
: your big chance, fellas: Leroy's article is *really* devastating.
I would think that a discussion, started in Skeptic Magazine, should
be continued in Skeptic Magazine. I assume that they would publish
an article by you rebutting Ellenberger. Why do you want to do it
here?
------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Tim Thompson
Ev Cochrane <ecoc...@delphi.com> writes:
> The most recent issue of Skeptic Magazine contained a trilogy
> of articles devoted to examining Immanuel Velikovsky's place
> in the history of science (Vol. 3:4, 1995). Included therein was
> an article by Leroy Ellenberger, entitled "An Antidote to
> Velikovskian Delusions." This article was vintage Leroy:
> several pages of rambling and, at times, incoherent polemics coupled
> with scattered references to otherwise obscure and unpublished
> sources. All in all, it was very entertaining. Having just now
> received permission to post Leroy's article from the editor
> himself--Michael Shermer--I am hereby requesting that one of
> Leroy's lackeys on talk.origins type it up and submit it. Here's
> your big chance, fellas: Leroy's article is *really* devastating.
After making this slightly-less-than-civil remark about "lackey's",
it seems that Cochrane had a change of heart - he posted a copy of
Ellenberger's article himself. Ellenberger has asked me to post a
response for him, and I expect to receive it by FAX sometime today
(1/29/96). However, I don't want to wait until then to register a
couple of opinions of my own.
First, I have been known to post messages for Ellenberger in the
past, and will (I presume) do so again. Cochrane's reference to "lackey's"
could easily be construed so as to refer to me, and to that extent I object.
I certainly am not a "lackey" of Ellenberger's, and I don't know anybody
around the net for whom such an epithet would be valid.
Second, I think the "moving the debate" to the internet, and away from
the pages of Skeptic is unfair. Ellenberger does not have net access, and
relies on the good will of others to tell him what is posted, and to post
for him. This puts Cochrane in an advantageous position, since he can post
at will, and in much more timely fashion. It should also be pointed out
that the internet is a "free-wheeling" forum for discussion, where the
"your mother wears combat boots" style of argumentation often comes to
the fore. That kind of conduct can be effective on the net, and it's not
as if both Cochrane and Ellenberger have not used it. However, that
particular style won't get past the editor of Skeptic. In that forum
the participants will be forced to deal with reality in a more-or-less
objective and civil fashion, and on terms of equal access.
I do note that in another post Cochrane did say that he was preparing
a rebuttal for publication in Skeptic, and that is a step in the right
direction.
--
Speaking only for myself (and lackey's around the world) ...
Paul J. Gans
: [The most recent issue of Skeptic Magazine contained a trilogy
: of articles devoted to examining Immanuel Velikovsky's place
: in the history of science (Vol. 3:4, 1995). I presented the
: case for recent episodes of planet-induced catastrophe, while
: Leroy Ellenberger took a critical position. The following post
: examines some of Ellenberger's claims in the aforementioned
: article.]
:
: Throughout his long career as a Velikovsky watcher--first as
: an enthusiastic (some would say fanatic) supporter of Velikovsky's,
: and now as an equally fanatic critic--Leroy Ellenberger has practiced
: what might be described as a shotgun approach to polemics: Throw
: out several dozen categorical statements together with a handful of
: references to otherwise obscure sources and then, when these
: statements/sources are criticized or debunked, throw out a dozen
: more. Leroy's recent article in Skeptic is no different in this
: regard.
[deleted]
What do we call a person who rebuts a printed article by posting
in a newsgroup -- which has never seen the articles in question?
Perhaps Peter Nyikos has a list for such folks... :-)
------- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Benjamin T. Dehner
>The most recent issue of Skeptic Magazine contained a trilogy
>of articles devoted to examining Immanuel Velikovsky's place
>in the history of science (Vol. 3:4, 1995). Included therein was
>an article by Leroy Ellenberger, entitled "An Antidote to
>Velikovskian Delusions." This article was vintage Leroy:
>several pages of rambling and, at times, incoherent polemics coupled
>with scattered references to otherwise obscure and unpublished
>sources. All in all, it was very entertaining. Having just now
>received permission to post Leroy's article from the editor
>himself--Michael Shermer--I am hereby requesting that one of
>Leroy's lackeys on talk.origins type it up and submit it. Here's
>your big chance, fellas: Leroy's article is *really* devastating.
Well, while I don't speak for Leroy -- he is quite capable of
speaking for himself -- I occasionally speak with Leroy, and here's a
couple of points: (A longer article from Leroy is being posted by Tim
Thompson, I think.)
1) The discussion started in the pages of Skeptic magazine, and Leroy would
really like to keep it there. Re-posts on t.o are, for the most part, fine
with him, but the discussion should not be moved their.
2) As everyone -- especially Ev -- knows, Leroy does not have real net
access. He receives aricles en mass via a friend's account, and must
fax/mail his articles to someone to type in and post. Trying to hold a
discussion on t.o is a real inconvenience for him and many other people.
3) The explanation I got from Leroy -- who claimed to be in agreement
with Shermer -- was that Ev was to post *both* his and Leroy's articles,
since Ev has the access and facilities to do so. This is in further implied
from Ev's own statement above, "Having just now received permission to post
Leroy's article from the editor himself ..."
It appears that Ev is trying to present his arguments in this forum
to deliberately inconvenience Leroy. Further, his "request" is stated in
such a way as to preclude the possibility of intellectual debate. "I am
hereby requesting that one of Leroy's lackeys on talk.origins type it up and
submit it." Actually, Ev expects us to be HIS lackeys, doing the work that
he implicitly accepted when he decided to move his discussion with Leroy to
t.o. Further, if Ev has no respect for the populace of talk.origins, or
"Leroy's lackeys", then he is not here to debate, but to prosthelytize. Very
well, Ev. Here's your pulpit. I'll get my killfile warmed up.
Ben
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner Dept. of Physics and Astronomy PGP public key
b...@iastate.edu Iowa State University available on request
Ames, IA 50011
scharle
--
Tom Scharle sch...@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu
G003 CC/MB, Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA "standard disclaimer"
Tim Thompson
This is a repost, this time cross-posted to both talk.origins (again) and
to alt.catastrophism.
In article <btd.82...@pv7457.vincent.iastate.edu>,
b...@iastate.edu (Benjamin T. Dehner) writes:
>
> Well, while I don't speak for Leroy -- he is quite capable of
> speaking for himself -- I occasionally speak with Leroy, and here's a
> couple of points: (A longer article from Leroy is being posted by Tim
> Thompson, I think.)
Indeed so.
Here, at long last, is what you have all been waiting for, breathlessly
no doubt. This is Ellenberger's reply to Cochrane, faxed to me this morning.
Be it noted by all readers that when Ellenberger wrote this he was not aware
that Cochrane had posted a copy of his article along with Cochrane's own, nor
was he aware that Cochrane had said that he would send a rebuttal to Skeptic.
I have informed Ellenberger of these developments. Nevertheless, I shall post
Ellenberger's message for him, now that I have taken on the mantle of "lackey",
in addition to my other onerous scholarly duties in the Ivory Towers of the
World Wide University of Ediacara. I note in passing that Ellenberger has not
chosen to make a "short" response, as I had expected yesterday. This is long,
but talk.origins has a proud tradition of long posts, and why should Alter and
Holden have all the fun anyway?
As for substance, Ellenberger's words can speak well enough for him, and I
have already made my own relevant opinions known in an earlier post. However,
a comment about form. Ellenberger knows how to punctuate, and dutifully put
the commas and periods at the end of a quote inside the quotation marks. I,
however, took them out. I hate that rule, I think it is an abomination on
the holy sepulcher of the English language, and I do have my limits. I will
*never* post anything with the ending punctuation imprisoned inside the
jail-bars of quotation marks. Blame me, not Ellenberger, and don't start
yelling for pedant points.
Well, OK, since I am posting this, I will make a comment about substance.
I think paragraph 11 is more-or-less "right on", and I really love that
stuff in paragraph 12 about the "distinguished record" of talk.origins.
We do have a distinguished record, and are home to the first virtual university
to hit the internet (as was attested to by Lippard sometime ago, no?). All
of the real geniuses hang out around talk.origins, and the rest of the world
drops by for lessons occasionally.
I have tried to avoid typos and spelling errors, etc. but nobody's perfect.
And now, without further ado, I present for your edification the manifesto of
Leroy Ellenberger.
================================================================================
BEGIN ELLENBERGER POST
================================================================================
A MANIFESTO
Ellenberger's Policy on Engaging Cochrane
(with background)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Ellenberger (hereafter "E") favors Cochrane's (hereafter "C") idea of
posting on talk.origins the pro and con articles on Velikovsky in SKEPTIC
3:4 *solely* because it would give the exchange a wider audience and help
neutralize Gresham's Law as it pertains to the market of ideas.
2) E's article/rebuttal to C in SKEPTIC made it clear implicitly that he
did not suffer fools gladly. It was written with relish and in full
anticipation of a vigorous rejoinder from C for publication in SKEPTIC,
as is standard scholarly practice. E is prepared to reply to C in SKEPTIC.
N.B.: C is a self-professed scholar.
3) Since the idea to post the articles originated with C, it is his
responsibility to effect the postings, as Shermer, the editor, also
understands. An attempt to avoid this duty would not be inconsistent
with the character C has consistently displayed on talk.origins, which
belies is scholar-like affectation. He is a convincing anti-scholar.
4) If C refuses to post E's article after he posts his own (planned for
Jan. 26), perhaps some good samaritan with a scanner might volunteer;
else, in the event E's article fails to get into cyberspace, a copy can
be obtained by sending a SASE (or US $1.00 for foreign mail) to Leroy
Ellenberger, 3929A Utah St., St. Louis, MO 63116.
5) However, with respect to "debate" on talk.origins with C, SKEPTIC is
the proper forum of record for *this* discussion since it started at C's
initiative (and then his insistence when Shermer's initial impulse upon
reading C's article was rejection). His surrebuttal would be welcome in
SKEPTIC. There is no legitimate reason why the debate C started in SKEPTIC
cannot continue there unless he does not feel comfortable presenting
ideas -- and defending them -- in a neutral forum with equal access.
6) Therefore, E will not engage C on talk.origins, or any other newsgroup,
until his surrebuttal has been submitted to SKEPTIC for publication. The
issue is not courage or lack thereof. The issue is priority vis-a-vis the
canons of scholarship.
7) After the virtual flamewar with C in 1994 on talk.origins between May
and September, E has no interest in another cockfight, and he therefore
will not indulge C's penchant for shabby, devious, and evasive "debate"
tactics, well known to readers of talk.origins. His perfidy is
unconscionable. As noted in a 1994 post, in contrast C makes Jon Lovitz's
"Pathological Liar" look like George Washington. (The donnybrook with C
began when he took exception to four of the 15 points Lippard posted for
E criticizing Godowski's breathless July 1993 panegyric to Velikovsky,
which had been reposted by one Radtke posing as Alter, and C never
conceded a thing. The tenor of the C-E volleys was presaged by C's
belligerent exchanges with Day and Lippard (among others) over matters
of verifiable fact which no honest broker of ideas would dispute or
misrepresent, e.g., whether or not AEON had accepted E's invited memoir
for publication and whether E's position on KRONOS staff was "secretary"
or "Senior Editor & Executive Secretary".) In brief, C's behavior on
talk.origins has been ethically repugnant; in the words of Lenny Bruce,
"the antithesis of everything right and proper intellectually".
8) C's ability to clean up his act is suspect in light of his Dec 23
and Jan 20 posts dealing with the age of the oldest constellations in
the ecliptic. First, he quotes E improperly and fails to distinguish
between the age of the Gemini quartet of constellations and the age of
the perfected zodiac (a technical point) against E. E's Jan 3 reply
emphasized this distinction, which Michalowski later affirmed to E in
a telecon. E faxed this news to C on Jan 4. Then, instead of verifying
Michalowski's opinion, C chose to reply with a gratuitous insult on Jan
20, reasserting his erroneous point and implying E was a liar because
an authority such as Michalowski could never agree with a dunce such as
E. Behavior such as this is simply not satisfactory and it will not be
countenanced. (Regardless how heated private oral and written messages
may be, they are no excuse for continuing such tone and lack of
circumspection in publications in any formal, or quasi-formal medium).
Neither will referring to such scholars as McClain, Kobres, Gurshtein,
and Mandelkehr as "clowns" (1-26-96 fax to E) be countenanced. A
documented record of clown-like behavior can justify the label "clown",
but unadulterated name-calling, which is second-nature with C, is
intolerable.
9) Since C's favorite response is to reject something out-of-hand
simply because he holds another view, a fruitful debate/discussion is
not likely (though not impossible in principle), especially because
what C usually espouses in terms of physical models is incommensurable
with the laws of physics. Since his beliefs belong to the disjoint set,
he is, more often than not, as Wolfgang Pauli would say "not even wrong".
10) Hans Hoerbiger, one of Velikovsky's precursors, once said to Willy
Ley, later one of Velikovsky's critics, "Either you believe me and learn,
or you must be treated as an enemy". This attitude is reminiscent of C's
comportment on talk.origins. In the event that C disowns this parallel,
as a self-professed psychologist he is exhorted to ponder one of Stuart
Smalley's quips on Saturday Night Live!: "Ev, De-nial ain't just a river
in Egypt". Hopefully, this is easier to appreciate than the elementary
behaviorist precept that an intermittent reinforcer is as good as God,
one of many ideas C twice refused to credit in summer 1994.
11) lest anyone think scientists and their allies assume a Hoerbigeran
role, it is important to distinguish between the relativism entailed by
"social reality" as discussed by John Searle and the absolutism entailed
by "physical reality" as described by the laws of physics below light
velocity. The hard collision between A and B is a fact immune to
interpretation. Some ideas are wrong, and can be shown to be wrong, by
rational, intelligent analysis -- and such findings should be made
known. However, this approach is not credited by those who believe the
best evidence is eye-witness testimony, even as incorporated in myth (!?),
and who have no confidence in conclusions that are not based on the
analysis of in-situ measurements and samples. In other words, they believe
scientists cannot know the rheology of the mantle and crust of Venus
until samples retrieved from Venus are studied in the laboratory. To a
scientist, such notions are balderdash, or worse. True, they cannot know
with certainty; but the degree of probability increases with every new
datum and a-priori assumptions can be quite accurate. In the real world
decisions need to be made with imperfect and incomplete information.
Science has a good record on this score despite its failure in some famous
cases of making vary poor starting assumptions with very little or no data,
e.g., failing to anticipate the extreme surface temperature and pressure
at Venus; but myth would not have been any help on that one. The
Velikovskian standard of "beyond all reasonable doubt", implied by their
writings (esp. that of Lynn Rose), is far too severe; "competitive
plausibility", suggested by Martin Bernal, is more useful in science.
12) Talk.origins has a distinguished track record handling scientific
issues. The contributors are to be commended for their willingness to
evaluate the possibilities in myth as presented by Cochrane, Talbott,
Cardona, and Grubaugh, for example. However, there is no dishonor
suffering culture shock dealing with materials that properly belong on
alt.fantasy and other non-scheduled groups.
13) Velikovskians are fond of Seneca's question quoted at the beginning
of Worlds in Collision: 'Quota pars operis tanti nobis committitur?'. The
behavior of Velikovskians on talk.origins suggests they should also give
attention, in their self-proclaimed "Age of Velikovsky", to the motto:
'Mundus vult decipi ergo decipiatur'. The maxim 'ignotium per ignotius'
governs their research. Since E is neither "clueless in the mythosphere"
nor "deluded beyond redemption", and because the Holocene has only one
"history", he has no interest in allowing Velikovskians to perpetrate
their deception on the world to the detriment of Clube & Napier's
sensible and astronomically feasible alternative to Velikovskian
delusions about the origin of religion and the development of
civilization. As a group Velikovskians are as Kingsley Amis' Lucky
Jim, revelling in pseudo-research, throwing new light on a non-subject.
Leroy Ellenberger, chemical engineer, student of Russell Ackoff,
and member of Pataya '59, AYF; who understands the consequences
of a player's defection in "Prisoner's Dilemma", as C defected
when he cancelled publication of the conclusion to E's invited
memoir in Aeon on 1 June 1993.
St. Louis, Missouri, 28 Jan '96
Vivre est vincre
Question of the day: Why is the word of the day "sociopath"?
Hint: Read M. Scott peck, "People of the Lie" (New York, 1983)
================================================================================
END ELLENBERGER POST
================================================================================
--
Tim Thompson
Ev Cochrane
language was on display once again:
In article <btd.82...@pv7457.vincent.iastate.edu>,
Benjamin T. Dehner <b...@iastate.edu> wrote:
>
> It appears that Ev is trying to present his arguments in this forum
>to deliberately inconvenience Leroy. Further, his "request" is stated in
>such a way as to preclude the possibility of intellectual debate. "I am
>hereby requesting that one of Leroy's lackeys on talk.origins type it up and
>submit it." Actually, Ev expects us to be HIS lackeys, doing the work that
>he implicitly accepted when he decided to move his discussion with Leroy to
>t.o. Further, if Ev has no respect for the populace of talk.origins, or
>"Leroy's lackeys", then he is not here to debate, but to prosthelytize. Very
>well, Ev. Here's your pulpit. I'll get my killfile warmed up.
sense into his head with a wooden leg?"
Ben's feigned whining on behalf of a whining Leroy is enough to turn
John Rambo's stomach. When Leroy was calling me every name in the
books several months back, Ben was more than willing to serve as
his designated typist and submit it to talk.origins. Whenever Leroy
wanted to impress us with his knowledge of archaeoastronomy, Ben
was there to type in several pages of pseudoscience. Indeed, I see
no evidence that Leroy has had any trouble getting his views submitted
to talk.origins. But now that Leroy has suddenly lost his nerve for
debate--now that someone has exposed his pseudoscience for what it is
and told him to put up or shut up--Ben is there to yell "Foul Play!"
(Recall further that it was Leroy who instigated this debate, challenging
me as follows on Dec. 31: "Your perfidy will be displayed on talk.origins
and all will have their suspicions confirmed that you are clueless in the
Leroy advertised his blockbuster article as follows--"see what
Cochrane is so reluctant to deal with forthrightly.")
Ben's post continued as follows:
">1) The discussion started in the pages of Skeptic magazine, and Leroy would
>really like to keep it there. Re-posts on t.o are, for the most part, fine
>with him, but the discussion should not be moved their."
pages of Nature and Science in addition to the Skeptic, but there
doesn't seem to be the interest. The fact is that I am amazed that
Skeptic has accommodated us to this point. Michael Shermer granted
us each about two pages for an article and slightly less for a short
rebuttal. But two pages is hardly adequate to fully present the evidence
for Velikovsky theories, as buttressed by the findings of Talbott and
myself. Nor is a brief letter to the editor sufficient to answer each of
the dozen or so objections Leroy raised to the thesis of recent planet-
induced catastrophes. Indeed, in trying to satisfy Shermer's requests
for brevity--but also to avoid appearing like a nut for discussing such
nonsense--I intentionally overlooked some of Leroy's more nonsensical
pronouncements in my rebuttal. Hence my intention to continue the
debate on talk.origins, the designated Velikovsky-forum on the net.
That said, I have a question for Leroy: Tell us about those nomadic
Indians from 7300 B.C. whose advanced astronomical knowledge
later found its way into the Rig Veda? Inquiring minds want to
know.
Benjamin T. Dehner
Leroy called me and asked me to mention something about the
following:
In <hvJLINH....@delphi.com> Ev Cochrane <ecoc...@delphi.com> writes:
>The most recent issue of Skeptic Magazine contained a trilogy
>of articles devoted to examining Immanuel Velikovsky's place
>in the history of science (Vol. 3:4, 1995). Included therein was
>an article by Leroy Ellenberger, entitled "An Antidote to
>Velikovskian Delusions."
Pardon my re-formatting, but the following was the statement that
really got his attention.
>This article was vintage Leroy:
>several pages of rambling and, at times, incoherent polemics coupled
>with scattered references to otherwise obscure and unpublished
>sources.
>All in all, it was very entertaining. Having just now
>received permission to post Leroy's article from the editor
>himself--Michael Shermer--I am hereby requesting that one of
>Leroy's lackeys on talk.origins type it up and submit it. Here's
>your big chance, fellas: Leroy's article is *really* devastating.
>
Below is Leroy's article, as posted by Ev. I have cut out the
actual text, leaving only the references. If one looks through the
references, we have, out of 31 references, the following distribution:
(I marked up the included article below for easier counting.)
Velikovskian (eg., Aeon, Kronos): 13
Popular/Scientific (eg, Skeptical
Inquirer, Sky & Telescope): 7
Books: 6
Assyriology: 4
Unpublished: 1
As we can see, more than one third of the articles come from
Velikovskian sources -- Aeon, Kronus, C&C review, mostly. Is this what Ev
mean by "otherwise obscure sources"? Then there are the 7 articles from
"popular" sources, such as SI, Sky & Tele., Vistas in Astronomy, etc.
Perhaps, given the Velikovskian proclivity to avoid real scientific data
and research, these references are obscure to Ev?
Further, there are 6 books. While I don't claim to own any of
those listed, a few hundred yards from where I now sit there is the large
edifice called a "library". Doind a quick online check, they have 3 of
these texts available. (Though they do not have the Clube reference, they
do have the earlier "Cosmic Serpent" book.) I'm quite sure the others are
easily availabe via interlibrary loan. (The available books below are
also marked with an "x".)
Finally, there are 4 references to what might be considered
"obscure" references in Assyriology. However, these are commonly quoted by
the Velikovskians themself, so if anything, Leroy is guilty of doing the
same thing the Velikovskians are doing. Perhaps Ev was right to take him
to task.
This leaves 1 solitary unpublished reference. Out of 31. Naughty,
naughty Leroy. Go to bed without your dinner.
Perhaps if we were to see Ev address the substance of Leroy's
claims, instead of simply demeaning Leroy and his sources, this may get
somewhere. I, for one, am not holding my breath.
Ben
******** begin include
From talk.origins Wed Jan 31 10:34:59 1996
Path: news.iastate.edu!newsrelay.iastate.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news-feed.mci.newscorp.com!news.delphi.com!usenet
From: Ev Cochrane <ecoc...@delphi.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Velikovsky, Cochrane, and Ellenberger in Skeptic
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 96 20:32:23 -0500
Organization: Delphi (in...@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)
Lines: 304
Message-ID: <xXOJQrf....@delphi.com>
References: <htMJwwO....@delphi.com> <RXNIYHQ....@delphi.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bos1f.delphi.com
X-To: Ev Cochrane <ecoc...@delphi.com>
[... massive snip -- only wanted references ]
Bibliography
D. Asher et al, "Coherent Catastrophism," Vistas in Astronomy, 1 P
38, 1994, pp. 1-27.
H. Bauer, Beyond Velikovsky: The History of a Public 1 Bx
Controversy (Urbana, 1984); "Inside the Velikovsky 1 P
Affair," Skeptical Inquirer 9:3 (1985), pp. 284-288. 1 V
"The Velikovsky Affair," Aeon 2:6 (1992), pp. 75-84.
F. Boll, "Kronos-Helios," Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft 1 A
(1919), pp. 342-346.
R. Ceragioli, "Behind the 'Red Sirius' Myth," Sky and Telescope 1 P
(June, 1992), pp. 613-615.
S. Clube, "The Countdown to a New Celestial Hazard," Aeon 1 V
2:6 (1992), pp. 94-99.
S. Clube & W. Napier, "Velikovskians in Collision," Kronos 1 V
IX:3 (1984), pp. 44-49. 1 B
idem, The Cosmic Winter (Oxford, 1990).
E. Cochrane, "Deploring the 'Star-crossed' Marriage," Chronology 1 V
& Catastrophism Review XIV (1992).
C.L. Ellenberger, "To Escape or Not to Escape: The 71% Factor," 4 V
Kronos V:1 (1979), pp. 92-93; "Still Facing Many Problems, 1 P
Pt. 1," Kronos X:1 (1984), pp. 87-102; "A lesson from
Velikovsky," Skeptical Inquirer 10:4 (1986), pp. 380-381.
"Celestial Hazard vs. Celestial Fantasy," Chronology &
Catastrophism Review XIV (1992), pp. 41-44. A Clube &
Napier primer. "Of Lessons, Legacies and Litmus Tests:
A Velikovsky Potpourri, Pt. 1," Aeon 3:1 (1992b), pp.
86-105.
J. Fitton, "Velikovsky Mythohistoricus," Chiron I:1&2 (1974), 1 V
pp. 29-36.
B. Forrest, "Venus and Velikovsky: The Original Sources," Skeptical 1 P
Inquirer 8:2 (1983/84), pp. 154-164. 1 B
idem, Guide to Velikovsky's Sources (Santa Barbara, 1987).
M. Friedlander, At the Fringes of Science (Boulder, 1995). 1 B
J. Grove, In Defence of Science (Toronto, 1989). 1 Bx
A. Gurshtein, "On the Origin of the Zodiacal Constellations," 1 P
Vistas in Astronomy 36 (1993), pp. 171-190; "When the
Zodiac Climbed into the Sky," Sky & Telescope (Oct.
1995), pp. 28-33.
M. Jastrow Jr, "Sun and Saturn," Revue d' Assyriologie VII (1910), 1 A
pp. 163-178.
B. Kobres, "The Path of a Comet and Phaethon's Ride," The World 1 A
and I (Feb. 1995), pp. 394-405.
E. Krupp, "The Heart of Saturday Night," Sky & Telescope (Sept. 1 P
1994), pp. 60-61.
M. Mandelkehr, The Answered Riddle: A Thesis on the Meaning 1 U
of Myth (1994). Unpublished.
E. McClain, The Myth of Invariance (York Beach, 1976) 1 A
idem, "Musical Theory & Ancient Cosmology," The World 1 Bx
& I (Feb. 1994), pp. 370-393.
S. Mewhinney, "El-Arish Revisited," Kronos XI:2 (1986), pp. 41-61. 1 V
L. Motz, "A Personal Reminiscence," Aeon 2:6 (1992), pp. 85-92. 1 V
A. Sachs, "Address at Brown University," in Ellenberger, 1992b, 1 V
pp. 103-105.
W. Stiebing Jr., "Cosmic Catastrophism," Aeon 2:6 (1992), pp. 58-74. 1 V
************* end include
Tim Thompson
only a couple of days ago, here is another Ellenberger missive. I should
point out that Ellenberger's lack of access to the internet creates a time-lag
phenomenon - he can't reply to posts he hasn't seen, and he does not see them
until somebody tells him. If nobody does that, he never sees them at all.
Hence, now that he has seen Cochrane's post from last Friday he is able to
respond at long last. As before, I have "corrected" the unfortunately
uniformitarian punctuation practices with respect to periods and quotation
marks.
I am also posting this message to both alt.catastrophism and talk.origins.
Of course, alt.catastrophism is where it really belongs, but since so few
people can see the alt group, I guess it will just have to cross post between
them, like most everything else does.
================================================================================
BEGIN ELLENBERGER POST
================================================================================
Ellenberger Responds to Cochrane
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Friday, 26 Jan, Mr. Cochrane began this thread with a post containing 12
lines of text. Now that I have read it, I shall comment on it, even at the risk
of violating the policy set forth in my "manifesto" posted Monday, Jan 29 by
Tim Thompson.
Consider Mr. Cochrane's sentence: "This article [referring to my 'An Antidote
to Velikovskian Delusions'] is vintage Leroy: several pages of rambling and, at
times, incoherent polemics coupled with scattered references to otherwise
obscure and unpublished sources."
This sentence is vintage Cochrane. It is a travesty of exposition, i.e.,
assert, support, committing several infelicities to which freshmen E. Comp. &
Rhetoric 101 (or its equivalent) is intended to cure budding scholars. It
contains bald assertions giving no examples to support the use of "rambling",
"incoherent", and "obscure".
What does Mr. Cochrane mean by "obscure"? That he does not read, e.g., "The
World & I" which is widely available at newsstands and libraries? That they
cite four publications in the Velikovsky literature [Aeon(6), Kronos(4), and
other(3)] that are/were available by subscription only? (N.B.: *All* nine of
Mr. Cochrane's references are to the Velikovsky literature). That they are
from early 20th century journals in Near Eastern Studies? (N.B.: Both of my
references (Boll and Jastrow) are widely cited by Mr. Cochrane and his fellow
'Saturnists'). He gives no indication what he means. It seems to me that anyone
writing on Velikovskian themes that deal with Assyriology is inevitably forced
to cite "obscure" sources. What is so wrong with that? Such references are
unavoidable in such a discussion.
What is wrong with "scattered" references? What would he charge had I lumped
all 32 references in one spot? You can bet it would not have been the *right*
spot.
Only *one* of my references was unpublished, the one to Mandelkehr's book on
a physical model possibly underlying the imagery in many myths worldwide. But,
shucks, folks, Mr. Cochrane's publication Aeon contains articles that often cite
unpublished material, e.g., Cardona in Aeon 4:1.
To Borrow an appropriate phrase from Carl Sagan, Mr. Cochrane's broadside
"does not survive close scrutiny". Similarly, in other recent posts, he has
cast flippant aspersions (with no specifics) on readily available publications
Gurshtein (in 'Sky and Telescope') and Sidarth (in 'Griffith Observer'). From
all appearances, Mr. Cochrane either cannot have read them (in which case he has
no right to criticize them) or else his reading comprehension is far below grade
(in which case he is heartily encouraged to indulge in an intensive Gates-
Peardon "Reading for Meaning" program).
Briefly, Gurshtein and Sidarth do almost exactly what Mr. Cochrane and his
fellow "Saturnists" do. They *all* identify certain themes in myth and ritual
whose motivation they endeavour to explain in terms of astronomical events or
scenes. The difference between Gurshtein/Sidarth and the "Saturnists" is that
the former use well-established retrocalculation to identify ancient alignments,
etc., while the latter invent totally impossible, indeed fantastical,
astronomical scenarios. Retrocalculation *is* an acceptable procedure because
there is no *independent* physical evidence to suggest even remotely that the
assumptions built into the process are invalid. The tedious quibbling of
Velikovskians against retrocalculation is just plainly misguided, fallacious,
and, yes Prof. Rose, whereever you may be, wrong - alluding to classic
Velikovskian cant, rhetoric, and baseless polemic by Rose against Peter Huber's
work on those notorious Venus Tablets of Ammisaduqa, as I explained in Aeon 3:1
(1992). {{ Obscure Reference! Obscure Reference! - editor TJT }}
To claim that retrocalculation is invalid because myths describe or refer to
the the planets (almost invariably such references are to deities with planetary
associations) having different orbits recently, as Velikovskians cum
"Saturnists" do, is to commit the fallacy of asserting the consequent, otherwise
known as "petitio principii" or circular reasoning. As a working hypothesis,
retrocalculation is just fine and certainly superior to any alternative posited
by Mr. Cochrane & Co.
Mr. Cochrane's last post Friday ended by saying "Leroy's article is *really*
devastating", which I have no doubt he meant sarcastically. However, I would
never have written it in the first place had I any doubt whatsoever that that
sentence was literally and emphatically true. With no intention of being self-
serving, I would dearly appreciate those who have read the exchange in SKEPTIC
between Mr. Cochrane and me to kindly post their assessment of our respective
effectiveness. Let the chips fall where they may. it is high time for some
neutral input to inject a dose of reality therapy into Mr. Cochrane's
mythological panglossism and my voiciferous, adamant skepticism. [I understand
both articles have been posted ; but as of this writing I have not had the
chance to authenticate/verify the posting of my article, which I shall do at the
earliest opportunity].
Finally, before I engage Mr. Cochrane in any "discussion" (I am leary of
using the term "debate" given his track record), it would behoove him to clean
up his act with respect to specificity and focus. Bald assertions, ambiguous
adjectives, and glittering generalities will elicit zero, nada, zip response.
Leroy Ellenberger
St. Louis, MO, 31 Jan 96
FAX (314) 773-9273
Ev Cochrane
reply to your's truly was finally here. Leroy's post concluded as
follows:
In article <4ek8uk$b...@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>,
Tim Thompson <t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>13) Velikovskians are fond of Seneca's question quoted at the beginning
>of Worlds in Collision: 'Quota pars operis tanti nobis committitur?'. The
>behavior of Velikovskians on talk.origins suggests they should also give
>attention, in their self-proclaimed "Age of Velikovsky", to the motto:
>'Mundus vult decipi ergo decipiatur'. The maxim 'ignotium per ignotius'
>governs their research. Since E is neither "clueless in the mythosphere"
>nor "deluded beyond redemption", and because the Holocene has only one
>"history", he has no interest in allowing Velikovskians to perpetrate
>their deception on the world to the detriment of Clube & Napier's
>sensible and astronomically feasible alternative to Velikovskian
>delusions about the origin of religion and the development of
>civilization. As a group Velikovskians are as Kingsley Amis' Lucky
>Jim, revelling in pseudo-research, throwing new light on a non-subject.
>
> Leroy Ellenberger, chemical engineer, student of Russell Ackoff,
> and member of Pataya '59, AYF; who understands the consequences
>
> Vivre est vincre
> Question of the day: Why is the word of the day "sociopath"?
> Hint: Read M. Scott peck, "People of the Lie" (New York, 1983)
>
face while you type this drivel? I mean, this stuff is hilarious. Now
you can understand why I relish being on Leroy's mailing list--His
postcards are chock full of similar examples of wit and erudition.
Indeed, inasmuch as I recognize most of these phrases, I suspect
that Leroy simply strung together about a dozen postcards in composing
this post, context and coherent discourse be damned.
Ev Cochrane
behalf of Leroy Ellenberger, who objected to my characterization
of his recent article in Skeptic as "rambling" and peppered with
otherwise obscure sources:
>really got his attention.
>
>>several pages of rambling and, at times, incoherent polemics coupled
>>with scattered references to otherwise obscure and unpublished
>>sources.
examine his latest manifesto, posted earlier that same day:[several pages of gobbledegook deleted]
>13) Velikovskians are fond of Seneca's question quoted at the beginning
>of Worlds in Collision: 'Quota pars operis tanti nobis committitur?'. The
>behavior of Velikovskians on talk.origins suggests they should also give
>attention, in their self-proclaimed "Age of Velikovsky", to the motto:
>'Mundus vult decipi ergo decipiatur'. The maxim 'ignotium per ignotius'
>governs their research. Since E is neither "clueless in the mythosphere"
>nor "deluded beyond redemption", and because the Holocene has only one
>"history", he has no interest in allowing Velikovskians to perpetrate
>sensible and astronomically feasible alternative to Velikovskian
>delusions about the origin of religion and the development of
>civilization. As a group Velikovskians are as Kingsley Amis' Lucky
>Jim, revelling in pseudo-research, throwing new light on a non-subject.
>
> Leroy Ellenberger, chemical engineer, student of Russell Ackoff,
> and member of Pataya '59, AYF; who understands the consequences
> of a player's defection in "Prisoner's Dilemma"......
>
> Vivre est vincre
> Question of the day: Why is the word of the day "sociopath"?
> Hint: Read M. Scott peck, "People of the Lie" (New York, 1983)
>
Benjamin T. Dehner
In <btd.82...@pv7457.vincent.iastate.edu> b...@iastate.edu (Benjamin T. Dehner) writes:
>In <hvJLINH....@delphi.com> Ev Cochrane <ecoc...@delphi.com> writes:
>>The most recent issue of Skeptic Magazine contained a trilogy
>>of articles devoted to examining Immanuel Velikovsky's place
>>in the history of science (Vol. 3:4, 1995). Included therein was
>>an article by Leroy Ellenberger, entitled "An Antidote to
>>Velikovskian Delusions."
> Pardon my re-formatting, but the following was the statement that
>really got his attention.
>>This article was vintage Leroy:
>>several pages of rambling and, at times, incoherent polemics coupled
>>with scattered references to otherwise obscure and unpublished
>>sources.
...
> Below is Leroy's article, as posted by Ev. I have cut out the
>actual text, leaving only the references. If one looks through the
>references, we have, out of 31 references, the following distribution:
>(I marked up the included article below for easier counting.)
>Velikovskian (eg., Aeon, Kronos): 13
>Popular/Scientific (eg, Skeptical
>Inquirer, Sky & Telescope): 7
>Books: 6
>Assyriology: 4
>Unpublished: 1
It appears I made a bit of an error in my counting: there are 2
articles by Gurshtein (both in popular/scientific), and I mis-classified "The
World and I" as an Assyriology journal, loosely based on the articles in it,
where it should be classed as popular/scientific. I hadn't heard of it, and
didn't look for it, but it is available here at ISU, and Leroy tells me he
picks it up on a news stand. (Since it is published by The Washington Times,
I think its safe to call it "popular".) This changes the above count to 32
articles, with the distribution being:
Velikovskian 13 41%
Popular/Science 10 31%
Books 6 19%
Assyriology 2 6%
Unpublished 1 1%
With this revised count, we now have 72% from Velikovskian or
Popular, and 91% including books. Which of these is "obscure"? (With 1
out of 32 being "unpublished", unless Ev has a different definition of this
word than I do.)
Ben
pim van meurs
<ecoc...@delphi.com> wrote:
> >>This article was vintage Leroy:
> >>several pages of rambling and, at times, incoherent polemics coupled
> >>with scattered references to otherwise obscure and unpublished
> >>sources.
> It is possible that Ben has a point. Perhaps I was unfair to Leroy. Let's
> examine his latest manifesto, posted earlier that same day:
Given the list of references it appears that Ev believes that catastrophic
literature are examples of 'obscure and unpublished soruces'.
I rest my case.
> >13) Velikovskians are fond of Seneca's question quoted at the beginning
> >of Worlds in Collision: 'Quota pars operis tanti nobis committitur?'. The
> >behavior of Velikovskians on talk.origins suggests they should also give
> >attention, in their self-proclaimed "Age of Velikovsky", to the motto:
> >'Mundus vult decipi ergo decipiatur'. The maxim 'ignotium per ignotius'
> >governs their research. Since E is neither "clueless in the mythosphere"
> >nor "deluded beyond redemption", and because the Holocene has only one
> >"history", he has no interest in allowing Velikovskians to perpetrate
> >their deception on the world to the detriment of Clube & Napier's
> >sensible and astronomically feasible alternative to Velikovskian
> >delusions about the origin of religion and the development of
> >civilization. As a group Velikovskians are as Kingsley Amis' Lucky
> >Jim, revelling in pseudo-research, throwing new light on a non-subject.
> I rest my case.
Well, you have no choice now have you ? After such a beautiful paragraph
most people would remain speechless.
Personally I thought this paragraph to be quite excellent.
YMMV though.
Regards
Pim
Ev Cochrane
of Leroy Ellenberger's recent article in Skeptic. Here, as elsewhere,
Leroy can be found championing the researches of one Bob Kobres.
For the record, Kobres' article on comet-induced catastrophes in
historical time was originally submitted to Aeon whereupon it was
rejected as unsuitable without significant revisions. Kobres' article
subsequently was published by SISR and The World & I. It is, by
any objective standard, grotesquely inadequate as a work of
scholarship in general or archaeoastronomy in particular. Only
a complete novice in archaeoastronomy--in short, someone like
Leroy Ellenberger--could be impressed by Kobres' "evidence" and
reasoning. And only Leroy could advance the following claim
without any evidential support as if it was self-evident and
constituted some great discovery:
"Phaethon was almost certainly a comet, not Venus or the Sun"
(1992a, pp. 41-44), as Bob Kobres has ingeniously shown (1995).
trajectory for Phaethon *behind* Earth, deduced by Kobres,
produces the illusion of a sun-like body standing still due to the
relative motion as seen from certain longitudes--perhaps the
inspiration for the "Day the Sun Stood Still" for Joshua."
Now I ask: Is there a single person reading this thread who
isn't laughing right now or who seriously believes that Kobres/
Ellenberger have solved the mystery of Joshua's Sun?
Tim Thompson
Ev Cochrane <ecoc...@delphi.com> writes:
Ev, take some friendly advice: if this is the best you can do, quit
while you still can. There is not one single word of substance in this
entire post, a fact which will probably not go un-noticed by most of
its readers. Empty ridicule will not cut it.
Personally, I don't believe that the "mystery of Joshua's Sun"
exists at all, since there is certainly no reason to believe that
there is any reality at all attached to the story. Stopping the
Sun sounds like fun, so some bright early/pre-historic wag wrote
it up in the popular format of the day.
You say that Kobres' article was rejected for publication in Aeon.
I presume that means you rejected it, since you are the editor. So,
why did you reject it? What revisions did it need? Did you check
his trajectory calculation? How close was this comet? What would a
*very nearby* comet look like, say low on the horizon opposite a
rising/setting sun? Is it just too silly to presume that a comet
could come that close (remember, Earth passed through the tail of
Halley during its 1910 apparition)?
I don't know if I would agree with Kobres or not, and I haven't
seen his paper (unless its in a pile of stuff I got in the mail from
the non-postally challenged Ellenberger and haven't completely
examined yet). Nevertheless, I do not find his argument to be so
silly as to be set aside by empty ridicule. Say something meaningful,
or just don't bother.
Ev Cochrane
Ellenberger made its appearance on talk.origins. I suspect that this day
will long be remembered as the day Leroy finally offered a detailed,
perfectly coherent rebuttal to your's truly. Several days back, it will be
remembered, I had found reason to poke fun at Leroy's understanding
of archaeoastronomy, posing the following question:
"Tell us about those nomadic Indians from 7300 B.C. whose advanced astronomical
knowledge later found its way into the Rig Veda? Inquiring
minds want to know."
In keeping with his reputation as a fellow who much prefers rational
debate to circumlocution, Leroy responded with a 13 point manifesto.
Although this important text warrants a more painstaking analysis,
the following brief comments will have to suffice:
>1) Ellenberger (hereafter "E") favors Cochrane's (hereafter "C") idea of
>posting on talk.origins the pro and con articles on Velikovsky in SKEPTIC
>3:4 *solely* because it would give the exchange a wider audience and help
>neutralize Gresham's Law as it pertains to the market of ideas.
Leroy's second point was as follows:
>2) E's article/rebuttal to C in SKEPTIC made it clear implicitly that he
>did not suffer fools gladly. It was written with relish and in full
>anticipation of a vigorous rejoinder from C for publication in SKEPTIC,
>as is standard scholarly practice. E is prepared to reply to C in SKEPTIC.
>N.B.: C is a self-professed scholar.
with himself awfully tough to bear. Seriously, though, Leroy is no
fool--he is simply a novice in archaeoastronomy prone to making
spectacularly foolish statements. Leroy's recent claim about the Rig
Veda preserving advanced astronomical knowledge stemming from
7300 B.C. is a case in point.
Leroy's third point was as follows:
>3) Since the idea to post the articles originated with C, it is his
>responsibility to effect the postings, as Shermer, the editor, also
>understands. An attempt to avoid this duty would not be inconsistent
>with the character C has consistently displayed on talk.origins, which
>belies is scholar-like affectation. He is a convincing anti-scholar.
claim like the Rig Veda preserving a detailed astronomical record stemming
from 7300 B.C. and then, when they are challenged to substantiate their
claim, does everything in their power to avoid discussing the evidence
bearing on the matter.
Leroy's 4th point was as follows:
>4) If C refuses to post E's article after he posts his own (planned for
Why would I refuse to post his article? From day one my stated purpose
has been to subject Leroy's Skeptic-piece to a paragraph by paragraph
analysis. Such an analysis is best performed, I should think, with
Leroy's article online.
Leroy's 5th point is as follows:
>5) However, with respect to "debate" on talk.origins with C, SKEPTIC is
>the proper forum of record for *this* discussion since it started at C's
>initiative (and then his insistence when Shermer's initial impulse upon
>reading C's article was rejection). His surrebuttal would be welcome in
>SKEPTIC. There is no legitimate reason why the debate C started in SKEPTIC
>cannot continue there unless he does not feel comfortable presenting
>ideas -- and defending them -- in a neutral forum with equal access.
in this debate. The idea that they would publish lengthy replies from us
ad infinitum is simply ludicrous. And while I have submitted a
short rebuttal of Leroy's article, it hardly does justice to the astounding lack
of scholarship evident in his presentation. In order to fully expose Leroy's
incompetance in this field I have decided to take the debate to talk.origins.
Leroy's sixth point was as follows:
>6) Therefore, E will not engage C on talk.origins, or any other newsgroup,
>until his surrebuttal has been submitted to SKEPTIC for publication.
Leroy's 7th point was as follows:
>7) After the virtual flamewar with C in 1994 on talk.origins between May
>and September, E has no interest in another cockfight, and he therefore
>will not indulge C's penchant for shabby, devious, and evasive "debate"
>tactics, well known to readers of talk.origins. His perfidy is
>unconscionable. As noted in a 1994 post, in contrast C makes Jon Lovitz's
To reiterate: E (that's Ellenberger, folks) is a fine, upstanding scholar
consumed by a passion for rational analysis and debate; and C (that's
me) is a mean-spirited anti-scholar intent on evasion. Understand
that in Leroy's world my asking him to substantiate his absurd claim
vis a vis the Neolithic Indian astronomers makes me a scoundrel,
while his 13 point manifesto quoting everyone *but* the Rig Veda
constitutes a forthright response to my query.
Leroy's 7th point continued as follows:
>(The donnybrook with C
>began when he took exception to four of the 15 points Lippard posted for
>E criticizing Godowski's breathless July 1993 panegyric to Velikovsky,
>which had been reposted by one Radtke posing as Alter, and C never
The donnybrook with C began when C caught E in yet another colossal
error of fact. E had claimed that the ancient "Sumerians practiced/mastered
configurational astronomy: they knew what star rose and set as each star
culminated." This claim, like so many Leroy has made, is utter nonsense.
Leroy's 8th point was as follows:
>8) C's ability to clean up his act is suspect in light of his Dec 23
>and Jan 20 posts dealing with the age of the oldest constellations in
>the ecliptic. First, he quotes E improperly and fails to distinguish
>between the age of the Gemini quartet of constellations and the age of
>the perfected zodiac (a technical point) against E. E's Jan 3 reply
>emphasized this distinction, which Michalowski later affirmed to E in
>a telecon. E faxed this news to C on Jan 4. Then, instead of verifying
>Michalowski's opinion, C chose to reply with a gratuitous insult on Jan
>20, reasserting his erroneous point and implying E was a liar because
>an authority such as Michalowski could never agree with a dunce such as
C quoted E correctly, it's just that E doesn't know his H (head) from
his A (ass) when it comes to archaeoastronomy. In fairness to E,
however, he does have a point: I really do believe that M (Michalowski--
two can play this game) is smarter than to accept Leroy's absurd statement
that "the earliest signs of the zodiac date from 5500 B.C." If M really
does share E's opinion here, then I would suggest that he is wrong
as well. Unlike E, however, I would be willing to bet that M would
be able to cite some evidence for his opinion and not shrink from
debating said evidence. On the other hand, if M does share E's opinion
vis a vis the antiquity of certain constellations, then it is entirely
possible that Q is right and that M has defected to Thrush.
Leroy's 9th point was as follows:
>9) Since C's favorite response is to reject something out-of-hand
>simply because he holds another view, a fruitful debate/discussion is
>not likely (though not impossible in principle), especially because
>what C usually espouses in terms of physical models is incommensurable
>with the laws of physics. Since his beliefs belong to the disjoint set,
>he is, more often than not, as Wolfgang Pauli would say "not even wrong".
believe is nonsense. Hence my rejection of Leroy's claim that the Rig
Veda preserves advanced astronomical knowledge stemming from
7300 B.C. I would dearly love to have a "fruitful debate" on this and
numerous other questions pertaining to archaeoastronomy. But Leroy
resolutely refuses to discuss his claim and/or the evidence behind it.
Leroy's 10th point was as follows:
>10) Hans Hoerbiger, one of Velikovsky's precursors, once said to Willy
>Ley, later one of Velikovsky's critics, "Either you believe me and learn,
>or you must be treated as an enemy". This attitude is reminiscent of C's
>comportment on talk.origins. In the event that C disowns this parallel,
>as a self-professed psychologist he is exhorted to ponder one of Stuart
>Smalley's quips on Saturday Night Live!: "Ev, De-nial ain't just a river
>in Egypt". Hopefully, this is easier to appreciate than the elementary
>behaviorist precept that an intermittent reinforcer is as good as God,
>one of many ideas C twice refused to credit in summer 1994.
Leroy's 11th point was as follows:
>11) lest anyone think scientists and their allies assume a Hoerbigeran
>role, it is important to distinguish between the relativism entailed by
>"social reality" as discussed by John Searle and the absolutism entailed
>by "physical reality" as described by the laws of physics below light
>velocity. The hard collision between A and B is a fact immune to
>interpretation. Some ideas are wrong, and can be shown to be wrong, by
>rational, intelligent analysis -- and such findings should be made
>known. However, this approach is not credited by those who believe the
>best evidence is eye-witness testimony, even as incorporated in myth (!?),
>and who have no confidence in conclusions that are not based on the
>analysis of in-situ measurements and samples. In other words, they believe
>scientists cannot know the rheology of the mantle and crust of Venus
>until samples retrieved from Venus are studied in the laboratory. To a
>scientist, such notions are balderdash, or worse. True, they cannot know
>with certainty; but the degree of probability increases with every new
>datum and a-priori assumptions can be quite accurate. In the real world
>decisions need to be made with imperfect and incomplete information.
>Science has a good record on this score despite its failure in some famous
>cases of making vary poor starting assumptions with very little or no data,
>e.g., failing to anticipate the extreme surface temperature and pressure
>at Venus; but myth would not have been any help on that one. The
>Velikovskian standard of "beyond all reasonable doubt", implied by their
>writings (esp. that of Lynn Rose), is far too severe; "competitive
>plausibility", suggested by Martin Bernal, is more useful in science.
the challenges I have posed to Leroy. Either Leroy has some evidence
to support advanced astronomical knowledge among the Neolithic
Indians, or he does not. Rambling on and on about social reality and
quoting from the cast of Saturday Night Live hardly constitutes "rational,
intelligent analysis." It is terribly entertaining, however.
Leroy's 13th point constitutes the dramatic conclusion of his Manifesto.
>13) Velikovskians are fond of Seneca's question quoted at the beginning
>of Worlds in Collision: 'Quota pars operis tanti nobis committitur?'. The
>behavior of Velikovskians on talk.origins suggests they should also give
>attention, in their self-proclaimed "Age of Velikovsky", to the motto:
>'Mundus vult decipi ergo decipiatur'. The maxim 'ignotium per ignotius'
>governs their research. Since E is neither "clueless in the mythosphere"
>nor "deluded beyond redemption", and because the Holocene has only one
>"history", he has no interest in allowing Velikovskians to perpetrate
>their deception on the world to the detriment of Clube & Napier's
>sensible and astronomically feasible alternative to Velikovskian
>delusions about the origin of religion and the development of
>civilization. As a group Velikovskians are as Kingsley Amis' Lucky
>Jim, revelling in pseudo-research, throwing new light on a non-subject.
> and member of Pataya '59, AYF; who understands the consequences
> when he cancelled publication of the conclusion to E's invited
> memoir in Aeon on 1 June 1993.
> St. Louis, Missouri, 28 Jan '96
>
> Question of the day: Why is the word of the day "sociopath"?
> Hint: Read M. Scott peck, "People of the Lie" (New York, 1983)
Manifesto, is pure gobbledegook.
Benjamin T. Dehner
>On January 28th, Ben Dehner's inimitable facility with the English
>language was on display once again:
And Ev Cochrane's ability to ignore substantive points and respond
with irrelevant insults is equally well demonstrated.
>In article <btd.82...@pv7457.vincent.iastate.edu>,
>Benjamin T. Dehner <b...@iastate.edu> wrote:
>>
>> It appears that Ev is trying to present his arguments in this forum
>>to deliberately inconvenience Leroy. Further, his "request" is stated in
>>such a way as to preclude the possibility of intellectual debate. "I am
>>hereby requesting that one of Leroy's lackeys on talk.origins type it up and
>>submit it." Actually, Ev expects us to be HIS lackeys, doing the work that
>>he implicitly accepted when he decided to move his discussion with Leroy to
>>t.o. Further, if Ev has no respect for the populace of talk.origins, or
>>"Leroy's lackeys", then he is not here to debate, but to prosthelytize. Very
>>well, Ev. Here's your pulpit. I'll get my killfile warmed up.
>
>What Ben means by "prosthelytize" I can only guess: "Try and pound some
>sense into his head with a wooden leg?"
Hmm. Temping thought.
>Ben's feigned whining on behalf of a whining Leroy is enough to turn
>John Rambo's stomach. When Leroy was calling me every name in the
>books several months back, Ben was more than willing to serve as
>his designated typist and submit it to talk.origins. Whenever Leroy
>wanted to impress us with his knowledge of archaeoastronomy, Ben
>was there to type in several pages of pseudoscience. Indeed, I see
>no evidence that Leroy has had any trouble getting his views submitted
>to talk.origins. But now that Leroy has suddenly lost his nerve for
>debate--now that someone has exposed his pseudoscience for what it is
>and told him to put up or shut up--Ben is there to yell "Foul Play!"
First of all, it is my business -- not Ev's or Leroy's -- as to what
and when I'll type or post anything. Second, it was Ev's idea to move the
debate to t.o, so it was his responsibility to see that the relevant articles
were posted. Third, Leroy was at least polite in asking for something to be
posted. Ev is automatically assuming someone is going to post because he
wants to move the debate to talk.origins. Fourth, it was the understanding of
both Leroy and Michael Shermer that Ev would post Leroy's articles. And
since Ev missed it the first time, the point was:
The debate started in Skeptical Inquirer, it should stay there.
Ev responds to this below, but up here put in the insinuation of "lost his
nerve for debate." Not surprising, since Ev's entire case is based on
insinuation and insult, with nary a substantial fact to bolster it.
>(Recall further that it was Leroy who instigated this debate, challenging
>me as follows on Dec. 31: "Your perfidy will be displayed on talk.origins
>and all will have their suspicions confirmed that you are clueless in the
>mythosphere and deluded beyond redemption." In another recent post,
>Leroy advertised his blockbuster article as follows--"see what
>Cochrane is so reluctant to deal with forthrightly.")
I am not sure who started the debate in SI (Ev wrote a short
article, Leroy responed with "An Antidote to Velikovskian Delusions), and
it took off from there. I do know that it was Ev -- not Leroy -- who
brought it to talk.origins.
>Ben's post continued as follows:
>
>">1) The discussion started in the pages of Skeptic magazine, and Leroy would
>>really like to keep it there. Re-posts on t.o are, for the most part, fine
>>with him, but the discussion should not be moved their."
>
>No doubt Leroy would like our debate to be continued within the
>pages of Nature and Science in addition to the Skeptic, but there
>doesn't seem to be the interest.
And what is the point? It currently IS in Skeptic.
> The fact is that I am amazed that
>Skeptic has accommodated us to this point. Michael Shermer granted
>us each about two pages for an article and slightly less for a short
>rebuttal. But two pages is hardly adequate to fully present the evidence
>for Velikovsky theories, as buttressed by the findings of Talbott and
>myself. Nor is a brief letter to the editor sufficient to answer each of
>the dozen or so objections Leroy raised to the thesis of recent planet-
>induced catastrophes. Indeed, in trying to satisfy Shermer's requests
>for brevity--but also to avoid appearing like a nut for discussing such
>nonsense--I intentionally overlooked some of Leroy's more nonsensical
>pronouncements in my rebuttal. Hence my intention to continue the
>debate on talk.origins, the designated Velikovsky-forum on the net.
Ev's stated intentions are nice. Ev's real intentions seem to be
to inconvenience Leroy and the people on talk.origins, since he knows that
Leroy does not have real net access. Then, if Leroy (or others) don't want
to deal with this inconvenience, Ev will count coup points, claiming Leroy
has "lost his nerve." Given Ev's condescending, high-handed tone, I would
guess these type of jeuvenile games are what constitutes real Velikovskian
debates.
Benjamin T. Dehner
>On January 31, Ben Dehner lodged the following complaint on
>behalf of Leroy Ellenberger, who objected to my characterization
>of his recent article in Skeptic as "rambling" and peppered with
>otherwise obscure sources:
>
>In article <btd.82...@pv7457.vincent.iastate.edu>,
>Benjamin T. Dehner <b...@iastate.edu> wrote:
>
>> Pardon my re-formatting, but the following was the statement that
>>really got his attention.
>>
>>>This article was vintage Leroy:
>>>several pages of rambling and, at times, incoherent polemics coupled
>>>with scattered references to otherwise obscure and unpublished
>>>sources.
>
>It is possible that Ben has a point. Perhaps I was unfair to Leroy. Let's
>examine his latest manifesto, posted earlier that same day:
That's odd. The above statement was clipped out of one of Ev's post,
where he was responding to Leroy. I went to a great deal of effort to show
that the references used by Leroy were neither obscure or, with 1 exception,
unpublished. Instead of responding to my charges, Ev instead clips something
out of a DIFFERENT post from Leroy, which has nothing to do with the
statement I was responding too. Further, given that the stuff quoted below
is out of a different thread, and Ev cuts off most of it, the context is
completely lost. Its not hard to get garbage by taking random items out of
context.
Or is this a sample of Velikovsian research when dealing with
textual sources? "Damn the context, full speed ahead!" Ev has no support
for his assertion in Leroy's article that he was responding too, so takes a
different article completely out of context to "prove" his point.
>In article <4ek8uk$b...@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>,
>Tim Thompson <t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
... snip ...
Tim Thompson
is *not* posting to alt.catastrophism. I do find it a tad peculiar that,
after all the fuss about getting a catastrophist newsgroup on the net,
this perfectly catastrophist thread is not even posted to it. Therefore,
I shall take it upon myself to spread it around. For that reason, I am
reposting this, so that the newsgroups line will carry both groups.
Sorry about that.
In article <4etlkm$3...@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>,
Ev Cochrane
invited articles examining Immanuel Velikovsky's place in the
history of science (Vol 3:4, 1995). Michael Shermer, the editor
of Skeptic, has kindly granted me permission to post the following
P.O. Box 338, Altadena, CA 91001; 818/794-3119; Fax: 818/794-1301.
skept...@aol.com
"An Antidote to Velikovskian Delusions" by Leroy Ellenberger
"The fact is that the whole of the ramshackle edifice of nonsense
to be found scattered throughout the Velikovskian corpus is
purported to have a historical... foundation, but that it has none."
John David North
"The philosopher David Hume urged that one should always
hold it more likely that one had been deceived than that the laws
of nature should stand suspended." Frank Close
I am privileged to have this opportunity to provide a counterbalance
to the Velikovskian mindset expressed by Mr. Cochrane. Our
viewpoints could hardly be more divergent, as our respective essays
for a forum in the British Velikovskian journal showed. Whereas
he believes "the ancient traditions (mostly mythological) are our
best guide to the appearance and arrangement of the earliest
remembered Solar System, not some fancy computer's retro-
calculations based upon current understandings of astronomical
principles" (1992, pp. 40-41), my position is that "while myth
may *inform* natural history (e.g., Phaethon's fall), its capacity to
certainly a comet, not Venus or the Sun" (1992a, pp. 41-44), as
worldview, typified by Mr. Cochrane, the zodiac has no meaning
until Earth's present tilt was achieved. But, in fact, the earliest
signs of the zodiac date from 5500 B.C., long before Velikovskians
believe the present order began (Gurshtein, 1993 and 1995). (Of
trajectory for Phaethon *behind* Earth, deduced by Kobres,
produces the illusion of a sun-like body standing still due to the
relative motion as seen from certain longitudes--perhaps the
inspiration for the "Day the Sun Stood Still" for Joshua.
D. Asher et al, "Coherent Catastrophism," Vistas in Astronomy,
H. Bauer, Beyond Velikovsky: The History of a Public
F. Boll, "Kronos-Helios," Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft
R. Ceragioli, "Behind the 'Red Sirius' Myth," Sky and Telescope
S. Clube, "The Countdown to a New Celestial Hazard," Aeon
S. Clube & W. Napier, "Velikovskians in Collision," Kronos
E. Cochrane, "Deploring the 'Star-crossed' Marriage," Chronology
C.L. Ellenberger, "To Escape or Not to Escape: The 71% Factor,"
Velikovsky," Skeptical Inquirer 10:4 (1986), pp. 380-381.
"Celestial Hazard vs. Celestial Fantasy," Chronology &
Catastrophism Review XIV (1992), pp. 41-44. A Clube &
Napier primer. "Of Lessons, Legacies and Litmus Tests:
A Velikovsky Potpourri, Pt. 1," Aeon 3:1 (1992b), pp.
86-105.
J. Fitton, "Velikovsky Mythohistoricus," Chiron I:1&2 (1974),
B. Forrest, "Venus and Velikovsky: The Original Sources," Skeptical
M. Friedlander, At the Fringes of Science (Boulder, 1995).
Zodiac Climbed into the Sky," Sky & Telescope (Oct.
1995), pp. 28-33.
M. Jastrow Jr, "Sun and Saturn," Revue d' Assyriologie VII (1910),
B. Kobres, "The Path of a Comet and Phaethon's Ride," The World
E. Krupp, "The Heart of Saturday Night," Sky & Telescope (Sept.
M. Mandelkehr, The Answered Riddle: A Thesis on the Meaning
E. McClain, The Myth of Invariance (York Beach, 1976)
S. Mewhinney, "El-Arish Revisited," Kronos XI:2 (1986), pp. 41-61.
Ev Cochrane
the quality of Leroy's references cited in his recent article in
Skeptic:
In article <btd.82...@pv7457.vincent.iastate.edu>,
Benjamin T. Dehner <b...@iastate.edu> wrote:
>
> Leroy called me and asked me to mention something about the
>following:
>
>
>>The most recent issue of Skeptic Magazine contained a trilogy
>>of articles devoted to examining Immanuel Velikovsky's place
>>in the history of science (Vol. 3:4, 1995). Included therein was
>>an article by Leroy Ellenberger, entitled "An Antidote to
>>Velikovskian Delusions."
>
>really got his attention.
>
>>This article was vintage Leroy:
>>several pages of rambling and, at times, incoherent polemics coupled
>>with scattered references to otherwise obscure and unpublished
>>sources.
>
> Perhaps if we were to see Ev address the substance of Leroy's
>claims, instead of simply demeaning Leroy and his sources, this may get
>somewhere. I, for one, am not holding my breath.
weeks now. Indeed, I have suggested that most of the claims made in
his aforementioned Skeptic article were devoid of substance. To date,
Leroy has refused to discuss--much less present--the evidence for his
claims. But since you have brought up the matter of Leroy's sources,
I thought I'd include the following comments from my forthcoming
rebuttal to Leroy in Skeptic:
What, then, is the evidence put forward by Leroy in favor of
his thesis of cometary-induced catastrophism? Once again,
Leroy can be found parading forth the researches of one Moe
Mandelkehr as if he represents the final authority on such
matters, claiming that "he has shown that these myths can all
be accounted for in practical terms if Earth acquired a temporary,
myths? No discussion of myth is offered by Leroy. Nor is
any evidence presented in support of this remarkable statement.
All we have to go on is Leroy's judgment that Mandelkehr is
the man with all the answers. Having known Leroy during
the period when he was claiming that Velikovsky had all the
right answers--and disagreeing with him then as well--and having
witnessed several other "conversions" on the part of Leroy in
the meantime, I have long since learned that Leroy's judgment
in such matters is not to be trusted. After all, if he could be so
mistaken about Velikovsky's efforts in mythological exegesis--
as even he now admits--what is to assure us that his assessment
of Mandelkehr, Kobres, and Clube is any more reliable?
Ordinarily, of course, one would simply go to the evidence
presented by Mandelkehr and subject it to scrutiny. This is
how most of us have approached Velikovsky's work, retaining
that which is valid and discarding that which has been shown to be
wrong. In the case of Mandelkehr, however, this proves to be
no easy task, as the work referenced by Leroy is an unpublished
manuscript known, I dare say, only to Leroy. In other words,
as the ultimate authority on myth and the definitive rebuttal of
Velikovsky, Talbott, and Cochrane, Leroy offers an unpublished
manuscript!
Leroy's other references, upon examination, prove to be as
vaporous as that to Mandelkehr. Private conversations with one
Harold Reiche (who?) are cited against the thesis defended by
David Talbott in The Saturn Myth, a massively documented work
in which it was shown that the planet Saturn was described as
"sun-like" and located at the North Pole by peoples throughout
the ancient world. Reiche, apparently, claimed that in ancient
times a planet's name referred to both the orb itself and its orbit,
and thus it could be said of Saturn that it encompassed the whole
sky. This is certainly a novel hypothesis, one which I have yet
to encounter anywhere in the vast literature on archaeoastronomy.
I dare say that few, aside from Leroy, will accept that Mr. Reiche's
explanation will account for Saturn's prominence in ancient myth
and religion.
Jamie Schrumpf
>
>As promised, I hereby launch my paragraph by paragraph analysis
>of Leroy Ellenberger's recent article in Skeptic. Here, as elsewhere,
>Leroy can be found championing the researches of one Bob Kobres.
>For the record, Kobres' article on comet-induced catastrophes in
>historical time was originally submitted to Aeon whereupon it was
>rejected as unsuitable without significant revisions. Kobres' article
>subsequently was published by SISR and The World & I. It is, by
>any objective standard, grotesquely inadequate as a work of
>scholarship in general or archaeoastronomy in particular. Only
>a complete novice in archaeoastronomy--in short, someone like
>Leroy Ellenberger--could be impressed by Kobres' "evidence" and
>reasoning. And only Leroy could advance the following claim
>without any evidential support as if it was self-evident and
>constituted some great discovery:
>
>(1992a, pp. 41-44), as Bob Kobres has ingeniously shown (1995).
>trajectory for Phaethon *behind* Earth, deduced by Kobres,
>produces the illusion of a sun-like body standing still due to the
>relative motion as seen from certain longitudes--perhaps the
>inspiration for the "Day the Sun Stood Still" for Joshua."
>
>Now I ask: Is there a single person reading this thread who
>isn't laughing right now or who seriously believes that Kobres/
>Ellenberger have solved the mystery of Joshua's Sun?
Once again, Ev -- in the absence of any real credentialing of either you OR
Ellenberger, your opinions are equal in my eyes; and in fact, since I find
your attitude more condescending than his, you actually lose points.
And besides, there is a simple answer to Joshua's Sun: it's called "artistic
license;" hyperbole. The author was exaggerating the length of the battle to
the point that "the sun must have stood still in the sky" for it to have gone
on so (apparently) long.
Why you Velikovskians fail to allow for human nature and consider myth to be
actual history is beyond me.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Schrumpf
ja...@dcd00745.slip.digex.net
http://www.access.digex.net/~moncomm
Home of the Firesign Theatre newsletter!
L. Drew Davis
>Given Ev's condescending, high-handed tone, I would
>guess these type of jeuvenile games are what constitutes real Velikovskian
>debates.
I'd have to agree. You're lucky if the actual facts survive the first
response before they get right into the innuendo. Ev isn't even
content with mere out-of-context quoting, but has to rewrite them
to say something different. That's why he made it into the killfile
so fast. I can put up with rude people with a point, but people
that are just purely childish for the attention? Bah.
--
L. Drew Davis dr...@mindspring.com
You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment.
Tim Thompson
Ev Cochrane <ecoc...@delphi.com> writes:
[ ... ]
> Seriously, though, Leroy is no
> fool--he is simply a novice in archaeoastronomy prone to making
> spectacularly foolish statements. Leroy's recent claim about the Rig
> Veda preserving advanced astronomical knowledge stemming from
> 7300 B.C. is a case in point.
[ ... ]
> What is an anti-scholar? To me, it is someone who advances a preposterous
> claim like the Rig Veda preserving a detailed astronomical record stemming
> from 7300 B.C. and then, when they are challenged to substantiate their
> claim, does everything in their power to avoid discussing the evidence
> bearing on the matter.
[ ... ]
> My typical response is to reject something which I have good reason to
> believe is nonsense. Hence my rejection of Leroy's claim that the Rig
> Veda preserves advanced astronomical knowledge stemming from
> 7300 B.C. I would dearly love to have a "fruitful debate" on this and
> numerous other questions pertaining to archaeoastronomy. But Leroy
> resolutely refuses to discuss his claim and/or the evidence behind it.
First, according to Cochrane, Ellenberger has claimed that the Rig Veda
preserves "advanced astronomical knowledge" from 7300 B.C. Next, he says
Ellenberger claims that the Rig Veda preserves "a detailed astronomical
record" from 7300 B.C. The Cochrane repeats the "advanced astronomical
knowledge" theme. As matters of substance go, this is about all Cochrane
has had to say thus far. Much ridicule, no substance. Cochrane complains
that Ellenberger treats him with ridicule, and it it certainly true that
Ellenberger's language is direct and pointed to say the least. However,
I have yet to see Cochrane attempt to occupy the moral high-ground by
behaving any differently.
However, lets talk about this Rig Veda stuff. I bever even heard of the
"Rig Veda" before it came up here, so I am an excellent "neutral observer",
if I do say so myself. I posted Ellenberger's orignal message along those
lines for him, and I still have it laying around. Here is an extract
showing what Ellenberger actually said (hopefully I have spelled 'Sidharth'
correctly this time):
"Unfortunately for Cochrane's misbegotten, reductionist
Weltanschauung, in "Brahma's Day" Dr. B.G. Sidharth recently
showed that part of the Rig Veda dates from ca. 7300 B.C.
when a solar eclipse at the vernal equinox occurred in the
lunar asterism Pushya, located in Cancer;
see GriffithObserver, Nov 1995
Setting aside Ellenberger's opinion of Cochrane's "Weltanschauung", I see
absolutely nothing here which would in any way justify Cochrane's repeated
paraphrase of Ellenberger's claim. "Advanced astronomical knowledge" and
"detailed astronomical record" are entirely Cochranes unjustified inventions,
used in an attempt to win the argument by ridicule and insult; an indication
that it is Cochrane who is doing what he accuses Ellenberger of doing, namely
doing everything in his power to avoid discussing the matter.
What Ellenberger actually "claimed" was that a source exists, namely
something called "Bhrama's Day", in which one "Sidharth" has shown that
"part of the Rig Veda" (we don't know which part) dates from circa 7300 B.C.
We have a reference, namely the November 1995 issue of Griffith Observer,
and we have a propsed justification, namely a solar eclipse.
I suggest that Cochrane would improve his stock immeasurebly if he would
read Sidharth, apply his own wealth of archaeoastronomical knowledge, and
explain to us why "part of the Rig Veda" cannot date from 7300 B.C., and
why we should consider Sidharth's claim to be "spectacularly foolish",
"preposterous" and "nonsense".
Ted Holden
[Cochrane...]
>> What is an anti-scholar? To me, it is someone who advances a preposterous
>> claim like the Rig Veda preserving a detailed astronomical record stemming
>> from 7300 B.C. and then, when they are challenged to substantiate their
>> claim, does everything in their power to avoid discussing the evidence
>> bearing on the matter.
...
> First, according to Cochrane, Ellenberger has claimed that the Rig Veda
>preserves "advanced astronomical knowledge" from 7300 B.C. Next, he says
>Ellenberger claims that the Rig Veda preserves "a detailed astronomical
>record" from 7300 B.C. The Cochrane repeats the "advanced astronomical
>knowledge" theme. As matters of substance go, this is about all Cochrane
>has had to say thus far. Much ridicule, no substance. Cochrane complains
>that Ellenberger treats him with ridicule, and it it certainly true that
>Ellenberger's language is direct and pointed to say the least. However,
>I have yet to see Cochrane attempt to occupy the moral high-ground by
>behaving any differently.
> However, lets talk about this Rig Veda stuff. I bever even heard of the
>"Rig Veda" before it came up here, so I am an excellent "neutral observer",
>if I do say so myself.
In literature as well as astronomy it seems...
7300 Years before Christ puts you before the flood and into an age from
which we have nothing written which anybody knows anything about and,
quite possibly, into an age when hominids walked the Earth. The love
poetry of the Rig Veda would have to read like:
...
A gourd of wine, a bunch of bannannas, and thou, shrieking beside me
in the wilderness...
The thing which seems to stand out in Elloenberger's writings is an
attempt to destroy the serious scholarship and refute the findings of the
real scholars who have followed behind Velikovsky, publishing in Kronos
and Aeon, by substituting anything and everything he can get his hands
upon.
Amongst the Ellenberger postcards in my possession, is one which claims:
"Dawn Behind the Dawn" a search for the Earthly Paradise (1992) by
Goeffrey Ashe. "A lively, scholarly detective story in which Ashe turns
his inquisitive eye on the possible truth of a prehistoric golden age."
Prehistorian Ashe claims that an Indo-European people, through contact
with shamans in the Altai mountains 6000 years ago, created a hybrid
culture which exerted a profound, hitherto unrecognized influence on
western cvilization...
"This book [Ellenberger speaking again], even better than J. Godwin's
Arktos, puts the lie, albeit implicitely, to to that perverse corruption
called the "polar configuration"[Saturn hypothesis]...
But you get the idea. What is in operation here is a cause and not
anything resembling a search for truth or history or anything like that.
Readers curious as to whether anything in Western thought or culture
might stem from Mongolia as Ellenberger appears to claim are directed to
Grousset's "Empire of the Steppes".
Ted Holden
med...@digex.com
Tim Thompson
Ev Cochrane <ecoc...@delphi.com> writes:
> On January 31st, Tim Thompson announced that Leroy's long-awaited
> reply to your's truly was finally here. Leroy's post concluded as
> follows:
[ ... ]
> Now I have a question for Tim: Is it possible for you to keep a straight
> face while you type this drivel? I mean, this stuff is hilarious. Now
> you can understand why I relish being on Leroy's mailing list--His
> postcards are chock full of similar examples of wit and erudition.
> Indeed, inasmuch as I recognize most of these phrases, I suspect
> that Leroy simply strung together about a dozen postcards in composing
> this post, context and coherent discourse be damned.
You are trying hard to win by dint of superior ridicule, but I don't
think it's going to make many points for you. I find Ellenberger's style
to be eccentric, maybe even polemic at times, maybe less effective in
this forum than it could be. However, I do see substance, and I have yet
to be asked to post something I found too offensive to produce.
I must say that your own posts are certainly no more information-packed
than Ellenberger's, and in many cases less so. For instance, in the
paragraph you ridicule, and I snipped, Ellenberger made reference to
"Clube & Napier's sensible and astronomically
feasible alternative to Velikovskian delusions
about the origin of religion and the development
of civilization"
I do not believe I have seen any substantive comments about this. Are you
just going to ignore Clube & Napier? Are you going to explain why you
think Velikovsky's take on this issue is superior?
Now I have certainly been known to use the tools of persuasion
myself from time to time, and I have poked fun and used sarcasm, and
so forth, but I have always tried to build my messages around a kernel
of solid argument. Right or wrong, my posts usually speak to the substance
of the issue. When do we get to see substance from you?
Don Lowry
> I suggest that Cochrane would improve his stock immeasurebly if he would
>read Sidharth, apply his own wealth of archaeoastronomical knowledge, and
>explain to us why "part of the Rig Veda" cannot date from 7300 B.C., and
>why we should consider Sidharth's claim to be "spectacularly foolish",
>"preposterous" and "nonsense".
I suggest that the burden of proof for such a claim in on the fellow
who made it. What is the evidence that part of the Rig Veda dates
from 7300 B.C. (thousands of years before any other known literature).
Is a retrocalculation to some eclipse all he's got to back it up?
Don Lowry
jlo...@tfb.com
Tim Thompson
(Ted Holden) writes:
> 7300 Years before Christ puts you before the flood and into an age from
> which we have nothing written which anybody knows anything about and,
> quite possibly, into an age when hominids walked the Earth.
If ever we have seen "spectacularly foolish, preposterous nonsense"
around ye olde internete, this is certainly it.
> The thing which seems to stand out in Elloenberger's writings is an
> attempt to destroy the serious scholarship and refute the findings of the
> real scholars who have followed behind Velikovsky, publishing in Kronos
> and Aeon, by substituting anything and everything he can get his hands
> upon.
What does or does not stand out in Ellenberger's writing is irrelevant.
It is Cochrane's responsibility, and Holden's too, to examine the original
reference, which was Sidharth, not Ellenberger, and comment accordingly.
Of course we already know about Holden's "judgement" with respect to "real
scholars", amongst which he seems to count Charles Ginenthal. There are no
"real scholars" left to Velikovskydom, if ever there were any in the first
place, and the entire pantheon of Velikovskyism is vanishing rapidly in
the sunset. Or should I say "Venus set"?
Ev Cochrane
Tim Thompson <t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
[...]
>I find Ellenberger's style
>to be eccentric, maybe even polemic at times, maybe less effective in
>this forum than it could be. However, I do see substance, and I have yet
>to be asked to post something I found too offensive to produce.
you are fooling--actually misleading--with this nonsense? If Leroy's
13 point Manifesto was merely eccentric and "maybe polemic", then
the Unibomber's manifesto was merely impolite and impassioned.
Tim's post continued as follows:
>
> I must say that your own posts are certainly no more information-packed
>than Ellenberger's, and in many cases less so. For instance, in the
>paragraph you ridicule, and I snipped, Ellenberger made reference to
>
> "Clube & Napier's sensible and astronomically
> feasible alternative to Velikovskian delusions
> about the origin of religion and the development
> of civilization"
>
>I do not believe I have seen any substantive comments about this. Are you
>just going to ignore Clube & Napier? Are you going to explain why you
>think Velikovsky's take on this issue is superior?
In point of fact, I have discussed the theories of Clube and Napier at
some length, both on talk.origins and in published pieces. Pib Burns
and I had a fairly extensive debate some time back on this particular
subject. I have copies of this correspondence and Pib has a web-site
which discusses some of the issues. Several months back we
renewed our friendly debate, with Pib posting a lengthy challenge
followed by my response. As I understand it, Pib has yet to find
time to respond to my post. Suffice it to say, I have been very
critical of Clube and Napier and that I fully intend to discuss their
work during my analysis of Leroy's Skeptic-piece. With the latter,
I am proceeding paragraph by paragraph, and Leroy's endorsement of
Clube and Napier occurs in the second-to-last paragraph. Before
we proceed to a discussion of the relative merits of Clube & Napier's
theory of cometary-induced catastrophism, however, I think it most prudent
to wrap up this little matter of whether or not part of the Rig Veda
dates from 7300 B.C. and tells of a solar eclipse in the lunar
asterism Pushya. Frankly, I suspect that you already know how
this debate is going to turn out; hence your attempt to muddy up
the waters on behalf of Leroy with this post.
Ted Holden
[Ignorant rant deleted...]
Again, for newcomers, once I've determined that a person is fundamentally
dishonest, I waste no further time dissecting their writings for for
truth or errors; listening to them at all is an error, and such is the
case with Tim Thompson. The following item tells the entire story:
..........
There are two possible explainations for the 1000 F surface temperature
of Venus: Velikovsky's, which is that Venus is in a process of cooling
either from a recent creation or from heat generated during recent
catastrophic events (i.e. is natively hot), and Carl Sagan's "super
greenhouse" theory, which is standard doctrine amongst astronomers,
despite being ridiculous.
Sagan's theory would require that Venus' atmosphere be in thermal
balance, i.e. since all the heat would be derived from the sun, heat
taken in and given out should equal eachother.
I have noted that this is in sharp disagreement with with actual
findings, and that astronomers have made a habit of doctoring the
findings and have actually found themselves in the position of having to
explain AWAY 100% of the raw data. All of the probes which carried
infra-red flux (upward vs. downward readings) meters to the surface
measured a sharp upward ir flux, which is in keeping with Velikovsky's
version, but not that of Sagan. Astronomers have posted oficial
position papers (Revercomb/Suomi et. al) explaining the manner in which
each and every such probe "failed", without bothering to try to explain
why they should not all be fired for failing to oversee the proper
manufacture of so simple an instrument in even one case out of at least
four (instruments were not all the same).
And then there is the question of F.W. Taylor's description of massive
thermal imbalance as measured from outside the atmosphere (from the article
on thermal balance by F.W. Taylor in "VENUS", Hunton, Colin, Donahue,
Moroz, Univ. of Ariz. Press, 1983, ISBN 0-8165-0788-0, pp 657-658).
"Measurements of albedo are more difficult to calibrate than
those of thermal flux, because of the problem of obtaining an
accurate reference source. Using earth-based measurements,
Irvine (1968) calculated a value for A [albedo] of 0.77 0.07,
which was later revised upward to 0.80 0.07 by Travis (1975).
The Pioneer Venus infrared radiometer had a 0.4 to 4.0 m channel
calibrated by a lamp from which Tomasko et al. (1980b) obtained
a preliminary albedo for Venus of 0.80 0.02.
"Another approach to determining the albedo is simply to assume
that the atmosphere is in net radiative balance, whence the
equation:
(1-A)E
4 0
sigma * theta = ---------
b a^2
should apply. Here E is the solar constant, and a the distance
0
from the sun. This expression allows the albedo to be calculated
from thermal measurements alone.
"In this way, a value of 0.79 + 0.02 - 0.01 has been obtained
from Venera radiometry (Ksanfomality, 1977, 1980b) and [a value]
of 0.76 0.006 [has been obtained] from Pioneer Venus emission
measurements (Schofield et al., 1982).
"Clearly the Pioneer measurements of emission and reflection
are not consistent with each other if net radiative balance
applies. (Emphasis added.) A source inside Venus equal in
magnitude to 20% of the solar input (i.e., accounting for the
difference between A = 0.76 and A = 0.80) is very unlikely,
since Venus is thought to have an Earth-like makeup, which would
imply internal heat sources several orders of magnitude less
than this. Also, even if such sources were postulated, it is
difficult to construct a model in which these fairly large
amounts of heat can be transported from the core to the
atmosphere via a rocky crust without the latter becoming
sufficiently plastic to collapse of the observed surface relief.
This could be avoided if the transport was very localized, i.e.,
via a relatively small number of giant volcanoes. Although
large, fresh-looking volcanoes do appear to exist on Venus...and
the composition of the atmosphere is consistent with vigorous
output from these, a simple comparison with terrestrial
volcanism shows that the volcanic activity on Venus would have
to be on an awesome scale to account for the missing 5 X 1015 W
[watts], or so, of power. A more acceptable alternative is that
the preliminary estimate of 0.80 0.2 for the albedo from the
P. V. [Pioneer Venus] measurements is too high, since the
uncertainty limit is now known from further work to be too
conservative. (J. V. Martonchik, personal communication.) A
fuller analysis of the P. V. [Pioneer Venus] albedo data--still
the best, in terms of wavelength, spacial and phase coverage,
and radiometric precision, which is likely to be obtained for
the foreseeable future--is likely to resolve this puzzle. In
conclusion, then, the best thermal measurements of Venus WITH
THE ASSUMPTION OF GLOBAL ENERGY BALANCE yield a value for the
albedo of 0.76 0.1; this is the most probable value."
..................................................................
Let's examine what Taylor is saying. The term "albedo", stripped of the
four-syllable adjectives, is a measure of reflectivity, the percentage
of light which bounces back from something.
Taylor is saying that there are two ways to measure this albedo, a
direct method, and an indirect method involving a formula which relates
albedo to thermal emissions, assuming thermal balance holds. The direct
method:
"The Pioneer Venus infrared radiometer had a 0.4 to 4.0 m channel
calibrated by a lamp from which Tomasko et al. (1980b) obtained
a preliminary albedo for Venus of 0.80 0.02."
doesn't go into detail, but makes it clear that they either did one of
the following things, or something entirely like one of them:
a. Brought the satellite to the dark side of Venus, beamed a light
towards Venus, and measured how much of that light returned.
b. Brought the satellite to the light side of Venus, and simply turned
the instrument towards the sun, and then towards Venus, and computed a
ratio of the light intensities.
Taylor also mentions the indirect method:
"Another approach to determining the albedo is simply to assume
that the atmosphere is in net radiative balance, whence the
equation:
(1-A)E
4 0
sigma * theta = ---------
b a^2
should apply. Here E is the solar constant, and a the distance
0
from the sun. This expression allows the albedo to be calculated
from thermal measurements alone.
He notes that, if thermal balance does hold, the two techniques should
produce the same number, but that they don't, and that the difference is
so great, that a massive heat source on Venus would be needed to explain
it, entirely in keeping with Velikovsky's version of the entire thing.
He notes that further study is needed, since he sees no way for Venus to
have such a heat source given standard versions of solar-system history,
and that the .76 value derived for albedo is therefore the "most
probable" value.
He notes that the Pioneer Venus readings are the best we've had and the
best we're likely to get for a long time:
A fuller analysis of the P. V. [Pioneer Venus] albedo data--still
the best, in terms of wavelength, spacial and phase coverage,
and radiometric precision, which is likely to be obtained for
the foreseeable future--is likely to resolve this puzzle.
In particular, he notes that:
"Measurements of albedo are more difficult to calibrate than
those of thermal flux, because of the problem of obtaining an
accurate reference source.
and:
The Pioneer Venus infrared radiometer had a 0.4 to 4.0 m channel
calibrated by a lamp from which Tomasko et al. (1980b) obtained
a preliminary albedo for Venus of 0.80 0.02.
That means that people trying to measure albedo from Earth always had to
estimate reference sources anywhere near Venus, whereas the lamp mentioned
was right there; again, ample reason for tossing all prior albedo
measurements.
Thus between the infra-red flux meters of the descender probes and the
phenomena Taylor describes, all of the raw data flatly contradict Sagan
and "super-greenhouse", and scientists are left having to explain away
100% of the raw data.
I've noted this on talk.origins, and here the fun begins.
Tim Thompson, the astronomical guru of talk.origins, claims that I'm a
moron, and that problem vanishes if we simply average the all such values
together or somehow regard them as jointly telling an incomplete story:
> On January 9, 1994, in a response to Mark Isaak, Ted Holden said:
>"Neither you, nor anyone else on t.o has been able to refute my clear
>demonstration that all available evidence indicates Venus being badly
>out of thermal balance, and this includes the IR flux readings from the
>low level probes as well as the PV reflection and emission readings,
>which a number of t.o regulars used to claim showed Venus 'within error
>bounds' of thermal balance. I mean, we've cleared that up now, haven't
>we?"
> This statement is massively false in many ways, but I will not
>quibble over Mr. Holdens view of events. I will now provide conclusive
>refutation of Mr. Holden's claim. Save this post, and any time in the
>future, when Mr. Holden repeats this claim, then you can just re-submit
>this post.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>TABLE 1: VENUS ALBEDO DATA
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>1 ~0.80 +/- 0.07 P. 657 Derived from stellar optical comparison
>2 0.80 +/- 0.02 P. 658 "Preliminary" from PV 0.4-4.0 micron IR
>3 0.79 +0.02 -0.01 P. 658 From Venera assuming thermal balance
>4 0.76 +/- 0.006 P. 658 From PV assuming thermal balance
>5 0.836 +/- 0.017 P. 30 Ave. of 4 at 55 microns non-integrated
>6 0.74 +/- 0.04 P. 30 #5 converted to integrated by empirical fit
>7 0.76 +0.02 -0.03 P. 30 From PV assuming thermal balance (?)
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
> In table 1 above I reproduce all of the independent albedo
>measurements or calculations I found in "Venus", chapters 3 & 20, except
>Irvine's 1968 data, which was later revised to become #1 in the table.
>I have given the mean of 4 albedos, reported over a 75 year span (#5),
>as does Moroz ("Venus, ch.3), rather than the 4 individual reports.
>This average (#5) does not appear in the graph below, because it is
>a narrow band, visual albedo (at 55 microns), and we need integrated
>albedo in order to discuss thermal balance. Table 1, #6 is the visual
>data in #5 converted to an integrated value, by empirical fit using
>a color function, and this does appear in the graph
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>FIGURE 1: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF DATA IN TABLE 1
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 0.70 1 2 3 4 0.75 6 7 8 9 0.80 1 2 3 4 0.85 6 7
> +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
>1 |-------------------------- * --------------------------| (S)
>2 |------ * ------| (IR)
>3 |-- * ------| (Th)
>4 |- * -| (Th)
>6 |-------------- * --------------| (Fit)
>7 |---------- * ------| (Th)
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>(S) = Derived from stellar magnitudes by comparison with Venus
>(IR) = Derived from IR reflectance/emission
>(Th) = Derived from radiometry assuming thermal balance
>(Fit) = Empirical fit to stellar magnitude data
> In the graph above the numbers appear in the same order as they do in
>table 1; each data point is an "*", and the quoted 1-sigma error bars are
>shown graphically.
> There are 6 data points here, derived in 4 different ways. Although
>the top 3 points are clearly offset from the bottom 3, it should be equally
>clear that the error bars over lap at 0.78, except for #4. Point #1 is not
>very strong, its error bars span the entire data set. The Venera thermal
>balance and PV IR (#2 & #3) agree quite well with each other, but the
>2 PV thermal balance (#4 & #7), along with the empirical fit to the
>stellar magnitude data (#6) also agree with each other, but show a lower
>value. It may be that #4 and #7 are actually the same point, in ch.20
>Taylor et al. do not consider this point, which Moroz credits to Taylor
>(1980) in ch.3, but Taylor et al. give #4 as Schofield (1982). Since
>both are PV, and evidently assuming thermal balance, they may in fact
>represent the same data, I don't know.
> There is clearly an inconsistency in these data, to which Taylor et
>al. allude on page 658 with the statement "Clearly, the Pioneer
>measurements of emission and reflection are inconsistent with each other
>if net radiative balance applies". Of course, you can see here that they
>are also inconsistent if net radiative balance does not apply.
> The whole point of this effort id to show that these albedo data do
>not strongly support any arguement concerning net radiative balance.
>It is not at all justified for Mr. Holden to claim that these data show
>Venus to be out of thermal balance, let alone "wildly" so. Conversely,
>it is also not justified to claim thagt these data show Venus to be
>in thermal balance either, the data are just not good enough for any
>strong claims either way. Since neither position is really supported by
>these data, Mr. Holden's claim, that "all available evidence shows Venus
>being badly out of thermal balance" stands refuted.
>------------------------------------------------------------
>Timothy J. Thompson, Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
>Secretary, Los Angeles Astronomical Society.
>Vice President, Mount Wilson Observatory Association.
Thompson is claiming that, aside from the directly measured PV albedo of .80,
the book also contains a number of older readings dating from the late
1800's, one other recent value of .80, and the values derived from
assuming thermal balance which Taylor mentioned, and that no one of
these values is really any better than any other.
If for no other reason than the stated one of avoiding what in mathematics is
called assuming a proof, you've GOT to toss the three values derived via
assuming thermal balance. Values 5 and 6 represent a non-corrected and a
corrected average of visual spectrum readings taken betwen 1893 and 1968,
i.e. before we were able to take such readings other than from Earth, and
obviously need to be tossed.
That only leaves one entirely accurate (PV), and one other modern value,
both .80, i.e. the value which causes the problem for astronomers
wishing to believe in thermal balance.
Thompson is, amongst other things, actually using the values derived via
assuming thermal balance in an effort to PROVE thermal balance, or at
least a null-hypothesis for not rejecting thermal balance.
In higher math courses, in areas involving logical proofs, if you ever use
the proposition which you are trying to prove, or anything directly
dependant upon it, as an assumption in your proof, then you incur a failing
grade and the censure of your professor.
Thus, you would think that Thompson's article would raise howls of
protest from the folk which inhabit talk.origins (the "howler-monkey"
"crew"). Not so; where Thompson refrains from claiming that you
actually need to average the values he notes (to avoid hellfire for too
gross a misrepresentation no doubt), the crew jumps straight in:
For instance:
From: howler-monkey 1
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Thermal imbalance on Venus proves Velikovsky's theory
Date: 30 Apr 1994 19:16:47 GMT
>...Unless you can find a specific error in the
>math the calculations below prove that a weighted average of the results gives
>more accurate results than just taking one measurement, regardless of the
>precision of the estimates.
For instance:
>From: howler-monkey 2
>Newsgroups: talk.origins
>Subject: Re: Albedo and bolometric temperature: what is being said
>Date: 08 May 1994 17:58:51 GMT
>*THE MORE MEASUREMENTS INCLUDED IN A WEIGHTED AVERAGE, THE BETTER*.
>This statement was *proven* mathematically in an earlier post...
>In the face of a proof, an argument from intuition is worse than
>useless - it's pathetic. The *only* answer to a complete, formal proof
>is to demonstrate that the proof has an error - not to whine
>incessently that the proof is counterintuitive.
>Ted> And as if that weren't bad enough in and of itself, Thompson is
>Ted> including in his average two values derived from an assumption of
>Ted> thermal equilibrium, this in an attempt to prove equilibrium. Do
>Ted> you really wish to be associated with anything that disingenious?
>You *really* don't have a clue, do you?
For instance:
>From: howler-monkey 3
>> The albedo of Venus: Dropped after repeatedly displaying that he
>> doesn't understand observational data reduction. [i.e. averaging]
....................................................................
I counted what seemed like about 100 such posts. Basically, no treatise
on the efficacy of weighted averages has anything to say about averaging
albedo readings for Venus taken from Earth in the 1890's with values taken
with good modern instruments from Venus orbit by the Pioneer probes (which
is in fact part of what Thompson is actually doing). That's nonsense.
If Thompson ever had any qualms about the notion of averaging the
values derived via assuming thermal balance with the actual direct (.80)
value in order to demonstrate thermal balance, he had ample opportunity
to tell all of these people they were out of line; he never did.
Worse, this basic article of Thompsons has now been enshrined as some
sort of an official position paper on the Ediacara/talk.origins WWW
server for people of all nations to read as they surf the net, the
assumption being that all such papers on the server are devine truth.
It seems obvious to me that, at some point, intelligent people will
begin to notice that sort of thing, and it may well cause embarassment
for the internet generally, rather than merely for t.o./Ediacara.
Mark Isaak
I find I must apologize to Ted Holden for doubting his policy of ignoring
articles that being with personal attacks, and I must thank Ev Cochrane for
enlightening me to his reasons. I think I shall adopt such a policy myself.
In article <JdEKpu4....@delphi.com> Ev Cochrane <ecoc...@delphi.com> writes:
[. . .]
Ignored.
--
Mark Isaak "It is impossible for anyone to learn that
is...@aurora.com which he thinks he already knows." - Plutarch
Tim
(Ted Holden) writes:
> t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) writes:
>
> [Ignorant rant deleted...]
>
> Again, for newcomers, once I've determined that a person is fundamentally
> dishonest, I waste no further time dissecting their writings for for
> truth or errors; listening to them at all is an error, and such is the
> case with Tim Thompson. The following item tells the entire story:
So much for Velikovsky, Cochrane and Ellenberger, as the subject line
would have it. Now it's Tricky Tim versus Air Hed Ted, 12 rounds, and
no hitting below the belt! Normally, I suppose I would simply ignore
anyone as stupid as Holden. However, like Genghis Khan, I have no sense
of "chivalry", and I hit below the belt, above the belt, and anyplace
else that's handy. I know that if I keep responding, Holden will keep
re-posting the same thing over and over again. Now, you may find that
real boring, but I have a stake in this. I have to goad Holden into
posting this so often that I can reasonably argue that he posted it
at least 100 times during calendar year 1996, since I have lost count
of the number of times he has re-posted.
You see, each time he does this, he just re-broadcasts my message for
me. People read that, realize whatta dunce Air Hed really is, and he
sinks his own ship, so to speak. So, is this shameless exploitation of
another person's inate stupidity "hitting below the belt"? If so, I plead
guilty. Go ahead Ted, Ignore me again, and post that post, I have a bet
to win.
Tim Thompson
Ev Cochrane <ecoc...@delphi.com> writes:
>On Feb. 3rd, Tim Thompson came to the defense of Leroy Ellenberger,
>writing as follows:
>In article <4f14s8$2...@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>,
>Tim Thompson <t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>[...]
>> I suggest that Cochrane would improve his stock immeasurebly if he would
>>read Sidharth, apply his own wealth of archaeoastronomical knowledge, and
>>explain to us why "part of the Rig Veda" cannot date from 7300 B.C., and
>>why we should consider Sidharth's claim to be "spectacularly foolish",
>>"preposterous" and "nonsense".
[Cocjhrane ... ]
> When debating with Tim Thompson I've found it necessary to keep good
> records as Tim apparently has difficulty remembering what he reads, even when
> he has typed it up himself. With regards to Leroy's claim vis a vis Sidharth
> and the Rig Veda, it would appear that Tim has conveniently overlooked the
> following post from Jan. 26th.
Ah, yes. Let's all see what I 'overlooked':
[ ... ]
> Equally baseless is Leroy's more recent claim that "B.G.
> Sidharth recently showed that part of the Rig Veda dates from
> ca. 7300 B.C., when a solar eclipse at the vernal equinox
> occurred in the lunar asterism Pushya, located in Cancer; see
> Griffith Observer, Nov. 1995." Once again, Leroy offers
> no critical analysis of Sidharth's claim, nor does he bother
> to provide those of us more critically minded with a reference
> from the Rig Veda so we can check it out for ourselves. This
> was most fortunate for Leroy. For had he done so, we could
> have promptly shown him that there is not a single sentence
> in the Rig Veda which dates before 2000 B.C. (and probably
> much later than that); there is not the slightest evidence that
> the prehistoric Indians were practicing any kind of astronomical
> reckoning in 7300 B.C; and there is absolutely no basis
> for Sidharth's claim. Having myself studied the Rig Veda
> quite carefully for references to celestial goings-on, I can say
> with great confidence that what references there are have
> nothing to do with prehistoric preoccupation with the signs
> of the zodiac and everything to do with prehistoric catastrophes
> involving the respective planets (Mars in particular. See here
> E. Cochrane, "Indra...." Aeon, 1991, pp. 49-76; "Indra's
> Theft of the Sun-God's Wheel," Aeon, 1993, pp. 71-85.
> Complimentary copies of said articles available upon request
> by email).
[ ... ]
> No doubt Tim will see fit to repeat his phoney claim that
> on the matter of astronomical knowledge in the Rig Veda
> I have offered "much ridicule, no substance". In fact,
> I am the only one offering substantive comments based upon an
> intimate familiarity with the sources.
I hereby, and officially, in writing, and in defence of myself,
not Ellenberger, repeat my "phoney" claim. If this is 'substance',
I am unimpressed. What I did say was that Cochrane should read
Sidharth and reply to Sidharth. Did he do that? Not only did he
not do that, he has the incredible nerve to come here and tell
us that anything Sidharth might have to say must be irrelevant,
because Cochrane already knows better.
The whole point at issue is that maybe Sidharth has discovered
something new! That's what scholarship, and science, and study, and
history are all about! If Cochrane is not willing to face whatever
Sidharth has to say, and I have not even read the Sidharth piece
myself yet, then he has no argument at all. Remember that Cochrane
specifically called this claim "preposterous" and "nonsense". Is it
"scholarly" to call do that before even bothering to read the
argument in question?
I will also re-iterate another point that Cochrane has ignored
altogether. The one thing that most bothered me about what Cochrane
had said before was his characterization of Ellenberger's claim.
Cochrane said that Ellenberger had claimed that the Rig Veda recorded
"detailed astronomical records" and "advanced astronomical knowledge".
Those are extreme exaggerations of what Ellenberger actually said,
and could easily be construed as a deliberate attempt to deceive
the reader. After all, this would put Cochrane in the advantageous
position of destroying a "preposterous" argument that was actually
his own invention.
There is only one tack for Cochrane to take, anything else is not
worthy. Read Sidharth, reply to Sidharth, and explain why Sidharth
must be wrong. None of this "I already know better". Get on the ball
and get the job done.
Peter Nyikos
>In article <medved.823440948@access5>, med...@access5.digex.net
>(Ted Holden) writes:
>> 7300 Years before Christ puts you before the flood and into an age from
>> which we have nothing written which anybody knows anything about and,
>> quite possibly, into an age when hominids walked the Earth.
> If ever we have seen "spectacularly foolish, preposterous nonsense"
>around ye olde internete, this is certainly it.
For "flood" read the Mesopotamian flood for which there is
strong evidence in the form of a ~10 foot layer of silt, and
Ted's sentence makes perfect sense.
We haven't even got much of a clue where the people whose
descendants wrote most/all of the Rig Veda were at that time.
Hell, we haven't got any solid information on where ANY people
whose descendants can be traced were living at the time, at
least not on the Eurasian continent.
>> The thing which seems to stand out in Elloenberger's writings is an
>> attempt to destroy the serious scholarship and refute the findings of the
>> real scholars who have followed behind Velikovsky, publishing in Kronos
>> and Aeon, by substituting anything and everything he can get his hands
>> upon.
> What does or does not stand out in Ellenberger's writing is irrelevant.
>It is Cochrane's responsibility, and Holden's too, to examine the original
>reference, which was Sidharth,
Given the above information, and given the lack of DETAILED posted
information about Sidharth's sources and arguments, I think
one would have a better chance of bagging a dozen snipes in
your average snipe hunt, than in finding solid evidence in
anything Sidharth wrote that any
part of ANY extant piece of world literature was written between
10,000 BC and 5,000 BC.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
Peter Nyikos
>nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) writes:
>>>In article <medved.823440948@access5>, med...@access5.digex.net
>>>(Ted Holden) writes:
>>>> 7300 Years before Christ puts you before the flood and into an age from
>>>> which we have nothing written which anybody knows anything about and,
>>>> quite possibly, into an age when hominids walked the Earth.
>>> If ever we have seen "spectacularly foolish, preposterous nonsense"
>>>around ye olde internete, this is certainly it.
>>For "flood" read the Mesopotamian flood for which there is
>>strong evidence in the form of a ~10 foot layer of silt, and
>>Ted's sentence makes perfect sense.
And note, we are hominids, so Ted left himself with a perfect
escape hatch, and Tim Thompson slammed the hatch door on
his own fingers. ;-)
>>We haven't even got much of a clue where the people whose
>>descendants wrote most/all of the Rig Veda were at that time.
>>Hell, we haven't got any solid information on where ANY people
>>whose descendants can be traced were living at the time, at
>>least not on the Eurasian continent.
[...]
>>Given the above information, and given the lack of DETAILED posted
>>information about Sidharth's sources and arguments, I think
>>one would have a better chance of bagging a dozen snipes in
>>your average snipe hunt, than in finding solid evidence in
>>anything Sidharth wrote that any
>>part of ANY extant piece of world literature was written between
>>10,000 BC and 5,000 BC.
>Whoa!!! The man (Nyikos) has figured it out!!
I do my best.
--Glaucon to Socrates in Plato's _Republic_,
in response to a vaguely similar comment
by Socrates.
>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,
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"? :-)
that this obviously put the lie to
>the Saturn hypothesis, and that all of this (information wrt Mongolian
>shamen) was to be found in a new book by a noted "prehistorian".
Shirley MacLaine? :-)
By the way, Ted, please don't ask me to defend the Saturn hypothesis,
whatever it is. Whatever kooks made that up didn't even have
the good sense to substitute Jupiter for Saturn.
And if you were one of those kooks, sorry to burst your bubble
again.
>This I take as compensation for not having one of the "Never send to know
>for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee!" postcards. "Prehistorian"
>strikes me as one of the world's ultimate jobs, sort of like a friend of mine's
>sister who used to be a professional dance-therapist at the psych-lockup ward
>of one of DC's major hospitals; almost like looking in the classified ads
>of the Sunday Post and actually finding something under "Philosopher"...
You got it right. There is an idiot named Charles Don Hall who
intermittently posts to talk.abortion and calls himself
a "Licensed Philosopher" in his .sig. There's no such thing,
and if there were, he'd never get a license at the rate he
is going, and I've told him as much publicly many times.
Give him credit, though: he sits there and takes it. He is
one of the few pro-choice fanatics in talk.abortion who
can take it as well as he dishes it out, and that is
one of the reasons he has never made it to "pro-choice Yahoo",
the talk.abortion counterpart (roughly speaking) of
talk.origins's own Bandar-log.
>Splifford the bat says: Always remember
Paste a "kick me" sign on my back, Ted. :-) It's taken
me all this time to figure out where the alt.fan.splifford
newsgroup gets its name.
Now, where does Splifford the bat get its name?
Ted Holden
>t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) writes:
>>In article <medved.823440948@access5>, med...@access5.digex.net
>>(Ted Holden) writes:
>>> 7300 Years before Christ puts you before the flood and into an age from
>>> which we have nothing written which anybody knows anything about and,
>>> quite possibly, into an age when hominids walked the Earth.
>> If ever we have seen "spectacularly foolish, preposterous nonsense"
>>around ye olde internete, this is certainly it.
>For "flood" read the Mesopotamian flood for which there is
>strong evidence in the form of a ~10 foot layer of silt, and
>Ted's sentence makes perfect sense.
>We haven't even got much of a clue where the people whose
>descendants wrote most/all of the Rig Veda were at that time.
>Hell, we haven't got any solid information on where ANY people
>whose descendants can be traced were living at the time, at
>least not on the Eurasian continent.
>>> The thing which seems to stand out in Elloenberger's writings is an
>>> attempt to destroy the serious scholarship and refute the findings of the
>>> real scholars who have followed behind Velikovsky, publishing in Kronos
>>> and Aeon, by substituting anything and everything he can get his hands
>>> upon.
>> What does or does not stand out in Ellenberger's writing is irrelevant.
>>It is Cochrane's responsibility, and Holden's too, to examine the original
>>reference, which was Sidharth,
>Given the above information, and given the lack of DETAILED posted
>information about Sidharth's sources and arguments, I think
>one would have a better chance of bagging a dozen snipes in
>your average snipe hunt, than in finding solid evidence in
>anything Sidharth wrote that any
>part of ANY extant piece of world literature was written between
>10,000 BC and 5,000 BC.
Whoa!!! The man (Nyikos) has figured it out!!
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, that this obviously put the lie to
the Saturn hypothesis, and that all of this (information wrt Mongolian
shamen) was to be found in a new book by a noted "prehistorian".
This I take as compensation for not having one of the "Never send to know
for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee!" postcards. "Prehistorian"
strikes me as one of the world's ultimate jobs, sort of like a friend of mine's
sister who used to be a professional dance-therapist at the psych-lockup ward
of one of DC's major hospitals; almost like looking in the classified ads
of the Sunday Post and actually finding something under "Philosopher"...
Again, such are Tim (Hey Boy) Thompson's allies, and scholarly ideals...
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.
Evan Steeg
Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>med...@access5.digex.net (Ted Holden) writes:
> ....
>>Whoa!!! The man (Nyikos) has figured it out!!
>
> I do my best.
> --Glaucon to Socrates in Plato's _Republic_,
> in response to a vaguely similar comment
> by Socrates.
>>Splifford the bat says: Always remember
>
>Paste a "kick me" sign on my back, Ted. :-) It's taken
>me all this time to figure out where the alt.fan.splifford
>newsgroup gets its name.
>
>Now, where does Splifford the bat get its name?
Hey, you two -- break it up. This is a *family* newsgroup.
No kissing in front of the kids.
By the way, only 6 more shopping days 'til Valentine's Day!
(Peter, I hear Ted's fave color is blue -- it really brings out
his eyes).
- Evan "So, which of you's the shill and which the net.lap-dog?" Steeg
Evan W. Steeg
Department of Computing and Information Science
Queen's University
Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6
CANADA
Phone: (613) 545-6000 -1-5710
FAX (613) 545-6513
Email: st...@qucis.queensu.ca
Ted Holden
>>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,
>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"? :-)
I'll post the source for this one this evening; I don't have it in front of
me now...
> that this obviously put the lie to
>>the Saturn hypothesis, and that all of this (information wrt Mongolian
>>shamen) was to be found in a new book by a noted "prehistorian".
>Shirley MacLaine? :-)
>By the way, Ted, please don't ask me to defend the Saturn hypothesis,
>whatever it is. Whatever kooks made that up didn't even have
>the good sense to substitute Jupiter for Saturn.
>And if you were one of those kooks, sorry to burst your bubble
>again.
The Saturn hypothesis takes awhile to get used to, but the answer is
that I am one of "those kooks", and that the natural tendency to lump
everything more than 10 degrees off the beaten trail together will
occasionally steer you wrong. Again, a reasonable picture of the Saturn system
is available at:
http://access.digex.com/~medved/Catastrophism.html
>>Splifford the bat says: Always remember
>Paste a "kick me" sign on my back, Ted. :-) It's taken
>me all this time to figure out where the alt.fan.splifford
>newsgroup gets its name.
>Now, where does Splifford the bat get its name?
Splifford Genesis
Evolution requires an essentially infinite number of zero-probability
events, in which a more complex life form arises from a less complex,
and in which new organs, new life plans, and all of the systems
integration which the new organs require with OLD organs either arise
overnight (a miracle), or develop during a multi-thousand-generational
process during which the creature involved is rendered disfunctional for
at least a thousand such generations BY the evolutional process itself,
and survives during that time on food stamps, AFDC, and other such
programs. You'd not think such a belief system could possibly be made
more stupid than that, but in actual fact the doctrine calls for natural
selection, which the fossil record clearly shows to be a gaurantor of
statis rather than change, to be the agency of all all the changes
involved.
Consider the "proto-bird" (TM), a favorite amongst evolutionists.
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 in the skies above us???
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 flying bird, once having
escaped, and then the progeny of those few should very quickly fill the
skies.
But the sky holds no wild chickens. In real life, against real settings,
real predators, real conditions, the imperfect flight features 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.
Proto-bird (TM) is supposed to have evolved into birdhood via a process
which lasted 10,000 generations during which, of course, he had front
appendages which were not useful for running, jumping, flying, grasping
prey, or anything else since they were in a process of transition while,
presumably, living on welfare for 10,000 generations in the days of
Alley Oop.
The brilliant t.o./Ediacara/Toromanura crew would have you believe that
arms are really not all that necessary, and that having arms be disfunctional
for ten thousand generations or so is really no big deal.
What about having your BRAIN be 100% disfunctional for a thousand
generations or more?
Rick Lanier notes:
...........................................................................
Some of the problems of Whales evolving from Land "urchins":
The cochleal bones of whales are made up of three membranes. This leads
to great dexterity in the acoustic deciphering needed for low frequency
navigation. The spriral formation of these 'ears' creates acoustic sensory
organs much more sophisticated than any land mammal. The US Navy during
the 60's - 80's conducted research using pilot whales and dolphins, for
among other things, position tracking of torpedos and submarines. The findings
were more astounding that seemed possible. The marine mammals could locate
torpedos 5 times faster than navy divers using the most advanced
acoustics the Navy had.
Why is low frequency important ? Low frequency only makes sense when
used over longer distances, which take advantage of a perculiar
characteristic of deep water,
Deep Sound Channels. Deep sound channels form because warm water above
reflects down, cold water below reflects up. DSC's in between can carry
sound great distances by use of these channels. The US Navy has been
protecting your country for years by utilizing this fact, along with the
triangulation effect of the SOSUS underwater 'hydrophones'. Now to the
point, How could whales 'evolve' deep water frequencies while staying in
shore? And the paradox, how could they survive in deep water without
the echolocation mentioned. The documentary "Deaf Whale, Dead Whale"
recently shown on Science Frontiers (Discovery) bring out the point of whale
dependance on echolocation for its survival. In this documenatry they
discuss how a whale was tracked througout the Atlantic using the SOSUS
network. They were surprised to see how this particular whale was using the
island of Bermuda as a navigation beacon., from great distances. The use
of these frequencies by whales was the main reason that enviromental groups
protested the planned use of Acoustic Termo Measurement (Using low frequency
sound waves to measure temperature) in the Atlantic. The tests were cancelled.
Some would say that whales just went from shallow to deep water. Yet
they have the acoustics for both. The high frequency 'clicks' used for
in close sonar, and communication, and the deep water low frequency echolation
used for navigation.
Remember, the sperm whale has been seen at depths up to 20,000 feet.
Whales need this echolocation for their survival, how could this have evolved
from creatures not possessing the hybrids of these mechanisms, while it
was in the water.
The possibility of mammals in the sea without coming from land would cause
evolutions to take a powder, they need something that could possibly be
an anscestor to be found on land....... Yes, that's it the Herbasaurus, er,
Basilosaurus..................
...........................................................................
I.e., during any period of evolving the mental functions which whales
absolutely require for their day-to-day existence, their brains would be
disfunctional.
Likewise, any rational person watching insects fly can understand that on
the day that the first bat ever snagged the first insect using echo-location,
the echo-location had to work perfectly, and that such a capability
could not possibly evolve.
Consider what life must have been like for the evolutionists'
"proto-bat", attempting to develop echo-location over a multi-thousand-
generation span:
This creature's life would almost certainly have been one
continual, bad hallucination, from dawn to dusk and then back again,
from the day he was born to the day he died.
Picture being stoned out of your mind on every hallucinatory drug at the
same time, and then trying to watch and make sense of the very worst
television broadcast you've ever seen, you know, the sort
of thing you see for about 20 seconds before the "Technical
Difficulties" screen comes up. That's all that that poor little
evolving bat ever knew of our world.
And yet, the brilliant Ediacara crew, along with their brilliant FAQ
system, would have you believe that this fatally afflicted little
creature prospered and thrived and survived for thousands of generations,
in such a state.
Whenever you see or hear somebody expounding upon evolution, or trying to
indoctrinate kids in the "fact" of evolution, think about this poor
little dinged-out bat flying around in circles, flying into walls,
trees, the ground, his mind trashed either because he met up with Raoul
Jose-Domingo Tokovar and they toked down a box of Columbian spliffs, or
(effectively the same thing) because he was trying to EVOLVE
echo-location, and was only 80% there...
Let's call this little bat <Splifford>. Some years ago, somebody
rescued a little bear from a forest fire, and that little bear became a
metaphor for the national effort to preserve our forests from careless
acts and the tragedy of large-scale fires.
Similarly, Splifford should become a symbol of the national will to save
American culture, American society, and the youth of America from the
mind-destroying evil of the corrupt ideological doctrine of evolutionism.
______
[ \ ^^^^^^^^^^ / ]
\ \ / /---
| \ \ / / |
_..-'( / _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.
Ted Holden
med...@digex.com
Peter Nyikos
about their opposition: claims that are easily refuted but
put a drain on the time and resources of the people they are
making the claims about.
Since they run with the dominant pack in their respective
newsgroups, it makes little difference to them when their
mendacity is exposed.
Here, Evan Steeg insulges in a slight variant, the nuisance
innuendo.
st...@qucis.queensu.ca (Evan Steeg) writes:
>In article <4fb3ib$k...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>,
>Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>>med...@access5.digex.net (Ted Holden) writes:
>> ....
>>>Whoa!!! The man (Nyikos) has figured it out!!
>>
>> I do my best.
>> --Glaucon to Socrates in Plato's _Republic_,
>> in response to a vaguely similar comment
>> by Socrates.
>>>.....
======================== repost of deleted material
By the way, Ted, please don't ask me to defend the Saturn hypothesis,
whatever it is. Whatever kooks made that up didn't even have
the good sense to substitute Jupiter for Saturn.
And if you were one of those kooks, sorry to burst your bubble
again.
========================= end of repost
>>>Splifford the bat says: Always remember
>>
>>Paste a "kick me" sign on my back, Ted. :-) It's taken
>>me all this time to figure out where the alt.fan.splifford
>>newsgroup gets its name.
>>
>>Now, where does Splifford the bat get its name?
[Evan Steeg joins in with some good-natured banter:]
> Hey, you two -- break it up. This is a *family* newsgroup.
>No kissing in front of the kids.
The banter gets a little less good natured with:
> By the way, only 6 more shopping days 'til Valentine's Day!
>(Peter, I hear Ted's fave color is blue -- it really brings out
>his eyes).
And now comes the nuisance innuendo:
> - Evan "So, which of you's the shill and which the net.lap-dog?" Steeg
Neither. I've never seen either kind of person say anything even
one tenth as critical of the other in the kinds of relationships
I have categorized that way.
Critical, that is, in a part which you conveniently deleted.
Can you say "sneaky selective deletia"?
>Evan W. Steeg
>Department of Computing and Information Science
Soon to be renamed "Department of Calculating Rogues and
Disinformation Science" :-)
Ev Cochrane
In article <4f8bv3$3...@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>,
Tim Thompson <t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>In article <BfDIxK-....@delphi.com>,
>Ev Cochrane <ecoc...@delphi.com> writes:
>>>> Equally baseless is Leroy's more recent claim that "B.G.
>> Sidharth recently showed that part of the Rig Veda dates from
>> occurred in the lunar asterism Pushya, located in Cancer; see
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. This said, I would add my
prediction that Sidharth makes no such claim--that, in fact, Leroy
has misunderstood and/or misrepresented his position, something
he's infamous for.
Tim writes:
> There is only one tack for Cochrane to take, anything else is not
>worthy. Read Sidharth, reply to Sidharth, and explain why Sidharth
>must be wrong. None of this "I already know better". Get on the ball
>and get the job done.
does not have either one, so I have ordered them via interlibrary loan.
Once I receive them, I'll let everyone know what I find. In the meantime,
why do you suppose it is that Leroy won't share with us the passage
from the Rig Veda which supposedly supports a 7300 B.C. date? Surely
it is incumbent upon the fellow making an extraordinary claim--in this
case Leroy--to provide a reference in response to repeated requests.
If he had the courage of his convictions--as some of us have--he'd
fax me a copy of Sidharth's momentous article so we could get on with
our debate. But as long as he's got Tim Thompson and Ben Dehner to
stonewall and offer up excuses why he fails to produce or even discuss
his "evidence", I guess he thinks he can "ostrachize" forever.
Benjamin T. Dehner
threads he was involved in had to do with details of evolutionary biology.
Since I don't know much about that field, I wasn't going to get involved.
Obviously, Peter does not feel so constrained.
In the following, Peter includes an article just to add a couple
gratuitous insults of his own. If there was some OTHER point to this post,
I certainly failed to find it. Or is he "hinting" about something again?
In <4f5u4h$f...@redwood.cs.sc.edu> nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>I tuned in late to this argument, so I am confining myself to
>clarifying a bit of Usenet terminology.
>Ev Cochrane <ecoc...@delphi.com> writes:
...
>>In article <btd.82...@pv7457.vincent.iastate.edu>,
>>Benjamin T. Dehner <b...@iastate.edu> wrote:
[I say Ev is being rude by trying to move the debate to t.o, and his
phrasing implies he is not interested in debate.]
>Not necessarily, as Ev explains:
Like, no shit? You mean the following does NOT agree with me? I'm
SO glad all of this crap has to be included so Peter could explain that.
[Ev thinks I'm being hypocritcal.]
>Could you give some more details here? I think some precision
>in terminology is called for here. :-)
>If Leroy sat there preening himself, absenting himself from
>the thread while Ben picked up the ball for him, presenting
>everything he posted as though it were something Leroy knew
>very well, then Ben was functioning as Leroy's net.stooge.
>If Leroy was participating regularly in the thread himself,
>then Ben was acting as Leroy's net.gofer.
Oh. So that's the point of all of this. I'm either a "net.stooge"
or a "net.gofer". Wow. What profunditity. What perception. What a
twit. Even if this is true, I'd rather one of these labels than being a
self-styled net.bufoon, which Peter has demonstrated quite nicely.
And as I pointed out before, when, where, and if I post anything
for Leroy is my business, not Peter's or Ev's.
[Ev still thinks I'm being hypocritcaly.]
>In other words, Ev, you are saying that Ben is now acting as Leroy's
>net.lap-dog, by barking furiously at his net.master's attackers rather than
>supporting the substance of what Leroy posted.
Speaking of substance, I haven't seen ANY so far from Peter in this
thread. Seems to be mostly Peter re-phrasing Ev's post just to add his own
insults. And as for substance, Peter hasn't been paying attention to Ev's
posts either, where:
1) Ev refered to Leroy's post as "obscure and otherwise unpublished
sources"
2) I responded by COUNTING the references in Leroy's post, showing that, by
and large, they were neither. (Counting is an advanced mathematical
procedure undoubtably beyond Peter.)
3) Ev responds by including on paragraph from a complete different Leroy
post, losing context.
4) Ev attacks Leroy by claiming Leroy's sources are worthless.
5) Tim Thompson responds by pointing out this is personal attack and not
substantive debate
6) one of the authors attacked (Bob Kobres) has responded to Ev's attack.
[Ev says Leroy started it ...]
>Leroy certainly seems like a net.kook, but I'll just sit
>back and watch the evidence roll in before I commit myself
>to any firm conclusions.
Obviously, Peter has already made his opinions. I insulted his
precious "bandar-log", and now I am on Peter's bad boy list. Since I
occaisionally have posted for Leroy, Leroy has been caught with guilt by
association. Oh, the shame.
Leroy called me and told me about this post by Peter, so I had to
take him out of my killfile to find it. That appears to have been a
mistake.
Walter D Morris
On February 9th, Ben Dehner wrote as follows:
In article <btd.82...@pv7440.vincent.iastate.edu>,
Benjamin T. Dehner <b...@iastate.edu> wrote:
[del]
>[Ev still thinks I'm being hypocritcaly.]
Here I must object. I have never accused Ben of being hypocritcaly.
I have occasionally used the word dyslexic, however.
Ben's post continues as follows:
[del]
> Leroy called me and told me about this post by Peter, so I had to
>take him out of my killfile to find it.
Ben, I predict that you're going to lament the day that you ever
gave Leroy your number.
Ev Cochrane (aka Walter Morris)
--
Walter D Morris
wdmo...@iastate.edu
GRMorton
Glenn R. Morton
This post Copyright 1996 G.R. Morton It can be freely distributed
anywhere if unaltered and no charge is made.
This is going to be posted in three parts due to stupid limitations by
AOL.
There are two areas of the hydrology of Genesis 2 which are
utterly bizarre when compared to present realities. The first is
the mists which used to rise up out of the ground. This implies
artesian type of activity which means that the "land"
(mistranslated earth) was in a topographically low area where
rainfall on the highlands seeped into the ground and emerged from
the ground at a lower elevation.
<pre>
rain
--------
\
\water oozing out
\
\
\_________
<\pre>
The second bizarre hydrological situation is the splitting of
the 4 rivers out of Eden. Rivers don't split into 4 except at two
places - a delta, and where a river flows from a steep gradient out
onto a broad plain at a lower level. At the place where the
gradient lessens, the flow is more easily split into numerous
channels. Once again this implies a topographically low area.
<pre>
stream splits at change of slope
******* |
* |
* |
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
<\pre>
I will make a suggestion that the place Genesis 2 is talking
about is the Mediterranean basin when it was emptied 5.5 million
years ago. There are several reasons for this. 1. When it was dry,
there would be very little rainfall on that land. In all
directions it would be in the rain shadow of 15,000 foot tall
mountains. 2. Subterranean water in the rocks of the surrounding
continental sediments (Africa, Asia, and Europe) would ooze out of
the ground along what we now call the continental slope of the
Mediterranean basin, thus explaining the "mist" or "streams" spoken
of in Genesis 2:6.
When the Mediterranean was dry, the Nile River flowing out onto the
basin would split into numerous channels much as the modern rivers
in the Kalahari desert do today. 3. All the minerals described in
Genesis 2:10-17 are found in the region I am describing. 4. This
makes an excellent place for the Flood to have occurred because it
fits the Biblical description of the Flood covering high mountains
and provides a mechanism for the massive rainfall described. As that
basin filled with water, the air would be forced upward. Air,
containing any moisture which rises, cools and condenses to form
rain fall.
Was the Mediterranean dry?
This is the currently accepted view of the geologic history of the
Mediterranean region. (Hsu, 1972, 1974; Hsu et al, 1977; Hsu, 1983).
The evaporation of the Mediterranean region is such that if you
built a dam across the Strait of Gibraltar today, the entire sea
would evaporate in 1000-4000 years. The evidence Hsu cites are many.
Caves are eroded into the limestones which form Malta down to a
depth of 2000 meters and deep karsts are found in Yugoslavia (Hsu,
et al, 1974, p. 140; Hsu, 1983, p. 175). Rivers cut canyons as deep
as 3,000 meters below sea level along the Rhone in southern France,
the Nile, in Italy, Corsica, Sardinia, and Libya.(Hsu, et al, 1973,
p. 243) Desert deposited alluvial fans were drilled into at the base
of the Miocene (Hsu, 1983, p. 149). Desiccation cracks filled with
salt were found (Hsu et al, 1974, p. 139) The fauna below the desert
deposits were deep ocean sediments. These were overlain by salt,
anhydrite, limestone and other desert-like deposits with animals
indicating a hypersaline environment. (Hsu et al, 1977, p. 401).
These in turn are overlain once again by animals which could only
have lived in excess of 1000 m of water (Hsu et al, 1973, p. 240;
see also Robertson et al, 1995, p. 233). The European fauna from
the time of the Mediterranean desiccation changed from a
Jamie Schrumpf
>
[deletions]
>
>>Now, where does Splifford the bat get its name?
>
>
>
> Splifford Genesis
>
["FAQ" lovingly deleted]
Ted, you've let me down. I was SURE you'd post your poem. You know the one I
mean...
Jamie Schrumpf
>
[deletions]
>You got it right. There is an idiot named Charles Don Hall who
>intermittently posts to talk.abortion and calls himself
>a "Licensed Philosopher" in his .sig. There's no such thing,
>and if there were, he'd never get a license at the rate he
>is going, and I've told him as much publicly many times.
>
>Give him credit, though: he sits there and takes it. He is
>one of the few pro-choice fanatics in talk.abortion who
>can take it as well as he dishes it out, and that is
>one of the reasons he has never made it to "pro-choice Yahoo",
>the talk.abortion counterpart (roughly speaking) of
>talk.origins's own Bandar-log.
Actually, Peter -- it's YOUR Bandar-log, not t.o.'s. But we get your point.
>
>
>>Splifford the bat says: Always remember
>
>Paste a "kick me" sign on my back, Ted. :-) It's taken
>me all this time to figure out where the alt.fan.splifford
>newsgroup gets its name.
>
>Now, where does Splifford the bat get its name?
Stand back, newbie -- you're about to be deluged with Ted's Vogon poetry...
Tim Thompson
> t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) wrote:
>
>> I suggest that Cochrane would improve his stock immeasurebly if he would
>> read Sidharth, apply his own wealth of archaeoastronomical knowledge, and
>> explain to us why "part of the Rig Veda" cannot date from 7300 B.C., and
>> why we should consider Sidharth's claim to be "spectacularly foolish",
>> "preposterous" and "nonsense".
> I suggest that the burden of proof for such a claim in on the fellow
> who made it. What is the evidence that part of the Rig Veda dates
> from 7300 B.C. (thousands of years before any other known literature).
> Is a retrocalculation to some eclipse all he's got to back it up?
Of course the "burden of proof" is on Sidharth, however you have missed
both the point and the context of my statements. Ev Cochrane specifically
called this argument "preposterous" and "nonsense" before he even knew
what the argument was. Don't you think he should at least read it first?
David Iain Greig
: In article <medved.823793414@access5>, med...@access5.digex.net says...
: >
: [deletions]
: >
: >>Now, where does Splifford the bat get its name?
: >
: >
: >
: > Splifford Genesis
: >
: ["FAQ" lovingly deleted]
: Ted, you've let me down. I was SURE you'd post your poem. You know the
: one I mean...
Tidying up some papers, I found the original of my parody. If anyone
wants it, email me. But get Rennie to post it, he seems to be my agent.
(Yes, I'm being obscure, to avoid another poetry debate.)
=]
--D.
Ev Cochrane
correctly observed that the person who claimed that part of the
Rig Veda dates from 7300 B.C. has the burden of proof, Tim comes
back with: "Of course the burden of proof is on Sidharth." Baloney.
The burden of proof is on Leroy Ellenberger, the fellow who made
this claim, citing Sidharth. We still don't know what Sidharth or
the Rig Veda have to say on the matter because he won't discuss
the passages/evidence in question.
Tim Thompson
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. I do this
even while admitting that I have yet to read Sidharth's paper myself. Such
a statement as this *cannot ever* be made in the absence of a specific
argument. There is nothing about human civilization which creates a
prima-facie argument that any part of the Rig Veda, or any other
contemporary document, cannot date from 7300 BC.
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.
Tim Thompson
Ev Cochrane <ecoc...@delphi.com> writes:
Ev Cochrane still doesn't get it. Ev Cochrane specifically called
Sidharth's claims both "preposterous" and "nonsense" without even
knowing what the argument was! How can anybody be more arrogant?
The burden of proof, such as it is, lies squarely on the shoulders
of *Cochrane* and nobody else. Cochrane specifically criticized an
argument he had not even read. If he can't back that criticism up,
then he has no business making it in the first place. There is nothing
happening here at all except Cochrane trying hard to survive by pure
chutzpah. I want to knw what Cochrane thinks of the practice of calling
somebody elses work "preposterous nonsense" without even bothering to
read it first.
Graham Kendall
the historical and geographic aspects of the Genesis
stories. It shows the 4 rivers on a map. The Mediterranian
filling events would not have been remembered by the
simple primates who could have witnessed it and they could
not have passed the story on through language or writing.
It is more likely to represent one of the major local
floods in the Tigris-Euphrates valley. THE BIBLE AS
HISTORY discusses one which occurred about 4000 BC and
shows on a map the extent of this event. Wooley about 1925
dug through some thick local sediments in this region.
Ev Cochrane
debating the merits of our respective approaches to archaeoastronomy.
What follows is a summary of that debate, together with my comments
upon reading Leroy's definitive source--B.G. Sidharth's "Brahma's
Day".
On January 3rd, Leroy submitted a post wherein he cited the researches
of one B.G. Sidharth in support of his claim that various signs of the zodiac
date from 5500 B.C., a claim I have reason to question. There Leroy
can be found writing as follows:
"> "Unfortunately for Cochrane's misbegotten, reductionist
> Weltanschauung, in "Brahma's Day" Dr. B.G. Sidharth recently
> showed that part of the Rig Veda dates from ca. 7300 B.C.
> when a solar eclipse at the vernal equinox occurred in the
> lunar asterism Pushya, located in Cancer; see Griffith Observer,
> deduced by Cochrane and his merry band of self-proclaimed
> mythologists...Ev is... a philistine, anti-scholar and reductionist,
> who is clueless in the mythosphere and deluded beyond
> redemption. Despite all his ersatz savior fair and phoney erudition,
> underneath the veneer Cochrane is just another variation on the
> theme of that great pseudo-scientist Charles Ginenthal..."
Leroy/Sidharth raise three issues worth considering here:
(1) Parts of the Rig Veda date from 7300, an absurd claim which
no credible scholar could possibly accept.
(2) Neolithic nomads who subsequently became the Indians of
Vedic fame were practicing advanced astronomical reckoning
already in 7300 BC, an absurd claim which no credible scholar
could possibly accept.
(3) Parts of the Rig Veda, although written much later, preserve
memory of advanced astronomical practices going back to 7300
B.C., a slightly less absurd claim which no credible scholar
could possibly accept.
Let's start with issue (1):
It is my opinion that the Rig Veda is not nearly this old--probably no
earlier than 1500 B.C. or so--and that there is no evidence whatsoever
for Leroy/Sidharth's claim. Here I would cite the Cambridge Ancient
History: "The Vedic literature... is not demonstrably older than c. 1000
B.C., although it is often said to be." (R. Crossland, "Immigrants from
the North," CAD I:2, 1980, p. 851). Jaan Puhvel, a leading scholar
of Indo-European lore, dates it to c. 550 B.C. (Comparative Mythology,
1989, p. 42). There Puhvel writes: "When Vedic literature was finally
consigned to written form (sixth century BCE), at least its older parts
were in fact faithfully preserved linguistic petrifacts of perhaps 1200
BCE." Wendy O'Flaherty dates the Rig Veda to the period between 1200
and 900 BCE. (The Rig Veda, 1983).
How, then, is it possible that Leroy/Sidharth are off by some 6000 years?
Upon examination, it can be shown that Sidharth's argument rests upon
an unholy mix of faulty assumptions, fallacious reasoning, and errors
of fact and history. The first part of "Brahma's Day" is devoted to
a discussion of the significance of large numbers in Indian astronomy.
The number 4,320,000, for example, is a mahayuga and according to Sidharth
is intimately related to the Saros eclipse cycle of 18 years and the
precessional
cycle of 25,867 years, knowledge of which is encoded somehow in
various Indian texts, including the Rig Veda.
It is here that the stampede of errors begins. Sidharth makes several
claims that are untenable. For example, he states that: "The ancient
Hindus knew that an eclipse pattern repeats itself after roughly 18 years,
what is popularly called the Chaldean Saros." Says who? No authorities
are cited in favor of this bizarre claim, nor am I aware of *any* evidence
supporting it. 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).
These are not the only outlandish claims advanced by Sidharth regarding
advanced astronomical knowledge among the ancient Hindus. Consider
the following claim, presented--as usual--with virtually no discussion
or analysis: "The physical concepts in ancient Hindu literature seem
advanced. These may include the heliocentric model and a very accurate
knowledge of positional astronomy." (p. 14). Sidharth goes on to
suggest that the ancient Hindus anticipated various concepts in modern
particle physics!
Compare this with the opinion offered by David Pingree, an acknowledged
authority on Indian astronomical history:
"The earliest Indian texts which are known--the Vedas, the Brahmanas,
and the Upanishads--are seldom concerned with any but the most
obvious of astronomical phenomena; and when they are so concerned,
they speak with an obscurity of language and thought that renders
impossible an adequate exposition of the notions regarding celestial
matters to which their authors subscribed." ("Astronomy and Astrology
in India and Iran," Isis, 54:2, 1963, p. 229)
At no time does Pingree mention a supposed knowledge of the Saros cycle
or precession, a striking omission if Sidharth's thesis has any validity.
Sidharth writes: "It has come to be realized that the Rig Veda was certainly
composed prior to 2000 B.C." By who, one might ask? Certainly not
by any credible scholars. As we have seen, leading scholars typically
date the composition of the Rig Veda to the period between 1200 and
500 B.C.
How does Sidharth arrive at the date of 7300 B.C. for the origin of the
Rig Veda? By "interpreting" an obscure hymn from the Rig Veda:
"We now come to an astronomical date for the Rig Veda based on the
interpretation of the mahayuga in the previous section. This refers to
a period in which the nodes of the moon, a fixed point on the ecliptic,
and the sun and the moon return to the same lunar asterism, namely
Tisya, or equivalently Pushya, when Rudra releases his arrow. The
Rig Veda (10-64-8) states: 'Krisanu (the archer), Tisya, archers to our
gathering place and Rudra strong amid Rudras, we invoke.'" (p. 15)
Is everything clear now? I'm not kidding folks, this is as good as
it gets with Sidharth/Leroy.
Sidharth's reasoning continues as follows:
"In fact, the lunar asterism Tisya is traditionally considered to be arrow-
shaped. As a new yuga,....has usually begun with the sun at the vernal
equinox, this reference in the Rig Veda refers to an epoch when the vernal
equinox was in Tisya or Pushya....[discussion of Tisya's role in the end
of a particular world age deleted] As the vernal equinox was in Pushya
or delta Cancer around 7300 B.C., the Rig Veda could be as old as
that date or refers to an earlier mythic era." (p. 15)
Now I ask: Is there anyone reading this other than Leroy who is
persuaded by this argument that the Rig Veda is some six thousand
years older than most scholars assume? Sidharth's argument
boils down to little more than a guess on his part. There is no clear
reference to the sun, moon, or vernal equinoxes in this passage, so
far as I can determine. There is certainly no reference to a Mahayuga,
as claimed by Sidharth. Indeed, according to Pingree, such conceptions
belong to a relatively recent (Achemenid) period and ultimately derive from
Babylonian influence (432,000 years was the span of time given to
the Babylonian kingdom before the flood in the histories of Berossos
and Abydenus--see the discussion in Pingree, op. cit., pp. 229-240).
That Sidharth's argument is little more than a guess on his part is
confirmed by the rest of his discussion. Thus, he continues as follows:
"For completeness, however, all other possibilities should be considered.
Tisya could have been at the summer solstice. This was the case around
800 B.C., a date too low for the Rig Veda, going even by the lowest
limit. The other possibility of Tisya being at the winter solstice gives the
Rig Veda a date near 14,000 B.C., which is much too early to be
acceptable." (p. 15)
In short, it is by no means clear that Tisya was to be found at the vernal
equinox. With this admission, Sidharth's claim falls to the ground. Of
course, the very same could be said of the rest of his conjectures. It is
far from obvious, needless to say, that this passage has anything to do with a
solar eclipse at *any* point in time. And it is far from clear that Tisya
has *anything* to do with a lunar mansion or Cancer in this passage.
Indeed, it is known that Tisya was originally
identified with Rudra himself before becoming associated with a lunar
mansion (see the Taittiriya Samhita 2.2.10.1-2), and thus Sidharth's
claim that Rudra represents one celestial body and Tisya a constellation also
falls to the ground. Nor does Rudra have anything to do with the sun, as
Sidharth seems to hold (Rudra is clearly identifiable with the planet Mars.
See the discussion in E. Cochrane, "Martian Meteorites in Ancient Myth
and Modern Science," Aeon 1995, pp. 70-72).
What, then, does this particular verse mean? Frankly, we may never
know. The context of the hymn, however, is quite clear: Dozens of
gods are invoked to attend the all-important sacrifice, Sidharth's
singling out of Krisanu, Tisya and Rudra being entirely arbitrary. Indeed,
all that seems to be involved in this particular verse is that various
celebrated celestial archers--Krisanu, Tisya, and Rudra--are invited
to the sacrifice. No deep astronomical knowledge encoded here.
I trust that by this point the reader understands why Leroy Ellenberger
has steadfastly refused to discuss the evidence for advanced astronomical
notions among Neolithic nomads despite being challenged repeatedly
during the course of the past several weeks. Such evidence, to put it
bluntly, is not to be had.
Here I am reminded of the judgment offered by a former close colleague
of Leroy's at Kronos who, like myself, was struck by Leroy's
penchant for citing the most bizarre sources as evidence against the
thesis of recent episodes of planetary catastrophism:
"Except for a few bibliographical findings and an
occasional error spotted in the work of someone else,
Ellenberger has never made a significant contribution to
any field of study. This is unfortunate, because he could
have made significant contributions, if only he had been so
inclined...It is now becoming evident that Ellenberger
simply parrots whatever he finds in the
scientific literature, especially if he thinks that it
presents some problem for Velikovsky. If some of the
sources do not seem to present enough of a problem for
Velikovsky, then he sometimes grossly misrepresents and
distorts those sources in order to bolster his own case.
He reports as cut-and-dried and as thoroughly established
those views that even his own sources present as tentative
and as speculative and as fraught with difficulties. He
typically presumes that whatever the scientific literature
says is correct, and he never even tries to imagine how
such viewpoints might be vulnerable, much less to determine
what the realities are." (KRONOS, 1987, pp. 50-51)
Sadly, Dr. Rose's description of Ellenberger remains valid today,
over nine years later.
Don Lowry
>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. I do this
>even while admitting that I have yet to read Sidharth's paper myself. Such
>a statement as this *cannot ever* be made in the absence of a specific
>argument. There is nothing about human civilization which creates a
>prima-facie argument that any part of the Rig Veda, or any other
>contemporary document, cannot date from 7300 BC.
> 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.
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.
Don Lowry
jlo...@tfb.com
L. Drew Davis
>I want to know what Cochrane thinks of the practice of calling
>somebody elses work "preposterous nonsense" without even bothering to
>read it first.
Standard Operating Procedure.
Anything else I can help you with?
--
L. Drew Davis dr...@mindspring.com
You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment.
Philip R. Burns
I am posting the response below from Leroy Ellenberger to Ev Cochrane
as a courtesy to Mssrs. Ellenberger and Cochrane. My posting this
reply should not be construed as an endorsement of its contents.
Comments on the points below should be directed to the principals
in this debate, not to me.
-- Phil "Pib" Burns
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. USA
p...@nwu.edu
http://pubweb.acns.nwu.edu/~pib/
===== Begin Ellenberger reply to Cochrane =================================
I am sorry, but I fail to see how preserving the memory of a particularly
meaningful solar eclipse at the vernal equinox, as Sidharth suggests
for a passage in the Rig Veda, which can be dated to 7300 BCE, requires
"advanced astronomical reckoning," as Mr. Cochrane claims in his 14 Feb.
posting. The antiquity of our ancestors' organizing the night sky into
Gestalten (formalizing groups of stars) is constantly being pushed back.
The recognition of Ursa Major has been reasonably placed no later than
15,000 BP by Geoffrey Ashe and Owen Gingerich, for example.
Mr. Cochrane's capacity for meaningful discussion is nil, as I noted
in my 12 Feb. posting, quoting Sean Mewhinney. My views in these
exchanges with Mr. Cochrane do not present solely my assessment of his
qualities. Consider me a spokesman for several others whose experiences
with Aeon and its principals share many common themes. This posting
is by no means exhaustive, merely exemplary.
Mr. Cochrane's stance on Sidharth (and let us not forget Gurshtein's
primacy in this forum) is ludicrous. For 46 years now, Velikovskians
like Mr. Cochrane and many others, such as Lynn Rose and Lewis Greenberg,
have been defending _Worlds in Collision_ against criticism by
establishment scholars and scientists using the logic that "revolutionary"
ideas, such as Velikovsky's, cannot be validly refuted by citing all the
establishment "dogma" contradicting it. The fact that Velikovsky's
physical model, involving intersecting orbits among Venus, Mars, and
Earth in the past 3500 years, is utterly impossible, bothers them not
one iota.
Now here we have the absurd spectacle of Mr. Cochrane, neo-Velikovskian
and major theoretician for the "polar configuration" (an outlandish
cock-and-bull story that puts Velikovsky's model relatively close to
center), purporting to refute the revolutionary ideas of Sidharth on
the antiquity of Vedic lore (not texts), which violate no laws of physics,
using the opinions of such establishment scholars as Pingree,
O'Flaherty and Dicks.
What is so incredibly ironic is that scholars of that calibre would not
give one soupcon of credence to the "polar configuration," if my
experience discussing with and sending copies of Mr. Cochrane's articles
to such scholars as Von Dechend, Reiche, Worthen, Hawkins and Huber
is a valid indicator. When I merely mentioned the name Cochrane to
Heimpel at Berkeley, his reaction was chilling, to say the least.
Regarding our ancestors' recognition of the fact of precession,
Mr. Cochrane's rap is completely off point. He fails to distinguish
between the awareness of it happening and being able to explain it correctly.
Hipparchus did not discover precession; rather, he discovered its correct
mechanism. Anyone who has read _Hamlet's Mill_ for meaning, or Reiche's
paper in Friedlander, et al., (eds.), cited in my 20 Jun 1994 and 12 Feb 1996
postings, will appreciate how easily our ancestors would have detected
the fact of precession.
In his Nov 1969 review of _H. Mill_ in Sci. Amer., (reprinted in his
recent "best of" anthology), Philip Morrison remarked all it took
was a tree on the horizon and trust in the veracity of one's grandfather
saying "When I was a youngster, that star rose over this tree in the
spring and now it does not." All of the evidence cited by Velikovsky
in "Temples and Obelisks" in _Worlds in Collision_ can plausibly be
explained by precession, as I explained in my June 13, 1990 postcard
and the section "Altered Temple Axes" in my invited memoir, Part 2,
cancelled by Mr. Cochrane on June 1, 1993.
Temple axes in Mesopotamia, Egypt and Greece were repeatedly changed
to keep them pointing at the heliacal rising of a particular star.
In the first issue of _Architectura_ in 1933, Gunter Martiny explained
this for certain 2nd millenium Mesopotamian temples which had been
rebuilt, whose dedicatory inscriptions stated the temple axis was
intended to align with the heliacal rising of a certain star. Somehow
in his ten year sojourn in the New York Public Library and then
Columbia University Libraries, Velikovsky either missed Martiny or ...(?).
Deploring my *alleged* lack of scholarly contributions when he has
censored and cancelled my writing for Aeon is another example of
Mr. Cochrane's insufferable and egregious chutzpah. Contrary to the
thrust of his quoting Lynn Rose from Kronos XII:1, evidence for my
"significant contribution" to Velikovskian studies can be found in
Kronos IX:2, X:1, X:3, and XI:1, Cat. and Anc. Hist. XII:1 and XII:2 (1990),
and Aeon 3:1, esp. the section "Ignotum per Ignotius." These
contributions are featured in the entry for "Velikovsky" in the
Encyclopedia of the Paranormal (1996), edited by Gordon Stein. When
Mr. Cochrane quoted Rose against me in 1994, my response was posted on
20 Jun and 14 Jul by Jim Lippard; see ftp.rtd.com in
/pub/lippard/cle-contra-cochrane .
Mr. Cochrane's information on the age of the Rig Veda, "probably no
earlier than 1500 B.C. or so" is out-dated by recent discoveries.
According to Subhash C. Kak, writing in Vistas in Astronomy 36, 1993:
"...the hydrological evidence that indicates that the Sarasvati river,
the pre-eminent river of the Vedic era, dried up around 1900 B.C.E. ...
makes this epoch the _terminus ad quem_ for the early Vedic age" (p. 118).
Similar statements may be found in Q.J.R. astr. Soc.36, 1995, p. 387,
and the Quest, Winter 1995, pp. 82-83.
Mr. Cochrane's position is pathetically naive and hopelessly out-of-date.
He's just "Lucky Jim" Cochrane, "revelling in pseudo-research,
throwing new light on a non-subject" and evidently having trouble
sending his reply to me to SKEPTIC, contrary to the impression his
postings make; but SKEPTIC comes first. His dissembling on talk.origins
cannot conceal the impotence of his bluster. His rantings on t.o. will
be ignored until he delivers to SKEPTIC.
Leroy Ellenberger, Mongoose to Cochrane's Cobra and formerly Sr. Ed. &
Exec. Sec'y, Kronos: "Vivere est vincere"
St. Louis, MO, 15 Feb. '96
===== End Ellenberger reply to Cochrane ===================================
Paul J. Gans
: t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) wrote:
: >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. I do this
: >even while admitting that I have yet to read Sidharth's paper myself. Such
: >a statement as this *cannot ever* be made in the absence of a specific
: >argument. There is nothing about human civilization which creates a
: >prima-facie argument that any part of the Rig Veda, or any other
: >contemporary document, cannot date from 7300 BC.
: > 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.
: 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.
Actually, I don't think that the claim was that the Rig Veda was
*written* in 7300 BC. I believe the claim was that it preserved
an *oral tradition* that can be (approximately) dated to 7300 BC.
Not quite the same thing.
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
PS: I believe that many people feel that the Bible, in a similar
manner, contains material handed down orally over a great
period of time.
Ted Holden
>t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) wrote:
>>I want to know what Cochrane thinks of the practice of calling
>>somebody elses work "preposterous nonsense" without even bothering to
>>read it first.
> Standard Operating Procedure.
> Anything else I can help you with?
Translation: Eldrew believes we owe it all to Mongolian shamen too...
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.
Ev Cochrane
the Rig Veda dated from 7300 B.C. In support of that claim, he
cited B.G. Sidharth's "Brahma's Day". On February 14th, I
offered a detailed critique of Sidharth's methods and argument,
showing that it rested upon a mishmash of errors and fallacies.
Particularly unfounded was Sidharth's claim that the ancient
Hindus were already familiar with various advanced astronomical
concepts, including the Saros cycle, precession, the heliocentric
solar system and others. Indeed, Sidharth's absurd date of 7300 B.C.
for parts of the Rig Veda rests squarely upon his equally
absurd claims of advanced astronomy in ancient Hindu times.
Thus it is that Sidharth titled one of his articles "Glimpses of
the Amazing Astronomy of the Rig Veda." Here's a quote from
another article which provided the starting point for the analysis
offered in "Brahma's Day":
"One of the objections that may be raised is that all of this requires
the ancients to have had knowledge of comparatively advanced
concepts, including the rotundity of the earth, the rotation of the
earth, the heliocentric theory, and so on. I have already shown,
however, that all of these concepts are already to be found in the
Rig Veda..." ("The Unsymmetrical Puranas: A study in Reverse
Symbolism," Griffith Observer, April, 1989).
Imagine my surprise then, when Leroy Ellenberger offered up
the following objection to my detailed critique:
In article <4fv119$2...@news.acns.nwu.edu>,
Philip R. Burns <p...@merle.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
>I am sorry, but I fail to see how preserving the memory of a particularly
>meaningful solar eclipse at the vernal equinox, as Sidharth suggests
>for a passage in the Rig Veda, which can be dated to 7300 BCE, requires
>"advanced astronomical reckoning," as Mr. Cochrane claims in his 14 Feb.
>posting. The antiquity of our ancestors' organizing the night sky into
>Gestalten (formalizing groups of stars) is constantly being pushed back.
>The recognition of Ursa Major has been reasonably placed no later than
>15,000 BP by Geoffrey Ashe and Owen Gingerich, for example.
>
>Mr. Cochrane's capacity for meaningful discussion is nil,
misunderstanding *his own sources*, something we've
encountered again and again on talk.origins.
Don Lowry
>t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) wrote:
>>I want to know what Cochrane thinks of the practice of calling
>>somebody elses work "preposterous nonsense" without even bothering to
>>read it first.
> Standard Operating Procedure.
> Anything else I can help you with?
Standard, at least, for those who want to disprove Velikovsky's
theories without ever having read Velikovsky's books.
Don Lowry
jlo...@tfb.com
L. Drew Davis
>>t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) wrote:
The usual lame claim. I've read WiC and EiU. Crap.
Anybody can string words together into a book; that is not
in itself proof of anything. In fact, V had to make most
of it up as he went along. Hey, he even admits up front
that he has to "borrow credence" for his "synchronic
history" so vital to his "proof" that all the catastrophes
supposedly described in myth co-occured. Too bad his
disciples don't actually read the book themselves, or they
might notice the preface. Still have WiC about, I think but I
mailed EiU on to another t.o'er. They're not worth keeping.
I've debated Ev here. He didn't know what he was talking
about, his references didn't point to actual papers, demonstrating
that he hadn't actually read them, he had no real comprehension
of the issues, but instead relied on stock quotes and rapid escalation
into sneers and personal insults. You can see him continue to
do so to this day. Thus, Cochrane's SOP.
If you think you can do better than Cochrane, I'm up for it.
We can start with an explanation of why greenhouse is supposed
to be inadequate to explain the heat of Venus, that being the topic
Cochrane completely muffed, and apparently a fundamental
article of faith for Velikovskians. Please try and come up with
some references later than 1970 while you're at it; Ev had
a tough time with that one.
Robert Grumbine
>dr...@mindspring.com (L. Drew Davis) wrote:
>
>>t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) wrote:
>
>>>I want to know what Cochrane thinks of the practice of calling
>>>somebody elses work "preposterous nonsense" without even bothering to
>>>read it first.
>
>> Standard Operating Procedure.
>
>> Anything else I can help you with?
>
>Standard, at least, for those who want to disprove Velikovsky's
>theories without ever having read Velikovsky's books.
The person you are responding to, L. Drew Davis, _has_ read Velikovsky's
books. As have I and a number of other people commenting on Velikovsky.
It is indeed possible to have read Velikovsky and find his work shoddy
and inaccurate, even where it isn't outright ludicrous.
But, since you raise the point, have _you_ read, at least, Worlds
in Collision?
If so, have you also read and gained proficiency in any of : celestial
mechanics, glaciology, paleontology, astronomy, astrophysics,
oceanography, meteorology, mythology, middle eastern history (howlers
feel free to add to the list)?
If you haven't done both, cease casting stones.
Robert Grumbine
Ted Holden <med...@access5.digex.net> wrote:
>rm...@access5.digex.net (Robert Grumbine) writes:
>
>> The person you are responding to, L. Drew Davis, _has_ read Velikovsky's
>>books. As have I and a number of other people commenting on Velikovsky.
>>It is indeed possible to have read Velikovsky and find his work shoddy
>>and inaccurate, even where it isn't outright ludicrous.
>
>the books on separate shelves, and see if that helps.
:-)
Actually, I read Velikovsky about 5 years ago. He is now shelved
with the UFO books, 'The coming great earthquake' book (predicted for
early 80's), 'Chariots of the Gods', and other like intellectual endeavors.
Darwin, I haven't finished reading yet.
Since we're on the subject, though, have you ever read - start to
finish - Origin of the Species?
Ted Holden
> The usual lame claim. I've read WiC and EiU. Crap.
Newcomers are invited to peruse the catastrophism page at:
http://access.digex.com/~medved/Catastrophism.html
along with the SIS pages and other pages on related subjects in the link
section of the catastrophism page for a real and legitimate picture of
neo-catastrophism in its present state.
Nobody can please everybody. Some guys don't like food, others don't like women,
and Eldrew Davis doesn't like Velikovsky...
Ted Holden
med...@digex.com
Ted Holden
> The person you are responding to, L. Drew Davis, _has_ read Velikovsky's
>books. As have I and a number of other people commenting on Velikovsky.
>It is indeed possible to have read Velikovsky and find his work shoddy
>and inaccurate, even where it isn't outright ludicrous.
You're confusing Velikovsky with Charles Darwin again. Try keeping
the books on separate shelves, and see if that helps.
Ted Holden
med...@digex.com
Tim Thompson
> t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) wrote:
>> 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.
First, you are evading the question: was it or was it not a due and
proper action for Cochrane to ridicule Sidharth's work without even
bothering to read it? A yes or no answer would suffice.
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).
The fact that Sidharth or anyone else always carries the burden of
proof for their own arguments is both obvious and irrelevant. My point
is that Cochrane clearly railed that no "serious scholar" would ever
consider such an argument even before he knew what the argument was,
and I am asking you whether or not you personally think that is an OK
thing to do. I do not.
Paul J. Gans
: >t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) wrote:
: >>I want to know what Cochrane thinks of the practice of calling
: >>somebody elses work "preposterous nonsense" without even bothering to
: >>read it first.
: > Standard Operating Procedure.
: > Anything else I can help you with?
: Standard, at least, for those who want to disprove Velikovsky's
: theories without ever having read Velikovsky's books.
You think Ellenberger hasn't read Velikovsky?
Dweeb.
------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Tim Thompson
> 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.
Walt Cunningham
>In article <4ft4f3$4...@news2.cts.com>, jlo...@tfb.com (Don Lowry) writes:
>> t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) wrote:
>>> 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.
(snip)
> 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).
Now, wait a minute! All these ancient writings are to be considered
mythical fairy tales, aren't they? There is no basis in fact, is
there?
(snip)
--
Walt Cunningham
* Lawyers get you out'n the kinda trouble
you'd never get in if there was no lawyers.
Ted Holden
> 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).
> The fact that Sidharth or anyone else always carries the burden of
>proof for their own arguments is both obvious and irrelevant. My point
>is that Cochrane clearly railed that no "serious scholar" would ever
>consider such an argument even before he knew what the argument was,
>and I am asking you whether or not you personally think that is an OK
>thing to do. I do not.
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.
Ted Holden
med...@digex.com
Alan Scott
Tim Thompson <t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>In article <4ft4f3$4...@news2.cts.com>, jlo...@tfb.com (Don Lowry) writes:
>> t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) wrote:
>>> 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.
>
>proper action for Cochrane to ridicule Sidharth's work without even
>bothering to read it? A yes or no answer would suffice.
>
>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).
I find it quite ironic and amusing that a person in Cochrane's position
finds himself ridiculing the basic postulate of the Saturnists' theories.
That of course being that astronomical events of prehistory can be
preserved in myths. Go Ev go! (I think you're right Ev. It is ridiculous
to believe that these ancient events could be preserved accurately.)
> The fact that Sidharth or anyone else always carries the burden of
>proof for their own arguments is both obvious and irrelevant. My point
>is that Cochrane clearly railed that no "serious scholar" would ever
>consider such an argument even before he knew what the argument was,
>and I am asking you whether or not you personally think that is an OK
>thing to do. I do not.
>
>--
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>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.
>
--
Clay Pryor on ignorance for God: Blessed are those who don't compromise
without even having to study the subject.[..] They are right and don't even
have to prove it to themselves. Blessed are they!
--Keep an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out-- Al Scott
Don Lowry
>In article <4ft4f3$4...@news2.cts.com>, jlo...@tfb.com (Don Lowry) writes:
>> t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) wrote:
>>> 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.
> First, you are evading the question: was it or was it not a due and
>proper action for Cochrane to ridicule Sidharth's work without even
>bothering to read it? A yes or no answer would suffice.
IF he did that, it was not. I don't believe I have seen the post to
which you refer. I will point out that a great many of the detractors
of Velikovsky's works see fit to ridicule them without ever having
read them (some even so far as to threaten his publisher).
> 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.
And hundreds of myths, legends and works of literature from around the
world could "possibly" preserve some knowledge of catastrophes that
have occured within the past few thousand years, at least some of
which were related to unusual events in the sky.
>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.
Which assumes that the motions of the Earth and other components of
the Solar system have not been influenced by any unknown factors in
all that time, for which there is no direct evidence, while there is a
large body of eye-witness testimony to the contrary.
> 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).
Details, please.
> The fact that Sidharth or anyone else always carries the burden of
>proof for their own arguments is both obvious and irrelevant.
It didn't seem to be accepted as obvious and it is certainly not
irrelevant. Before his dating of the Rig Vega can be used as evidence
in another dispute it must first be proven in its own right.
> My point
>is that Cochrane clearly railed that no "serious scholar" would ever
>consider such an argument even before he knew what the argument was,
>and I am asking you whether or not you personally think that is an OK
>thing to do. I do not.
If that's what he did, I do not personally think it is OK. But what
is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Don Lowry
jlo...@tfb.com
Don Lowry
>In article <4gcuvd$7...@news2.cts.com>, Don Lowry <jlo...@tfb.com> wrote:
>>dr...@mindspring.com (L. Drew Davis) wrote:
>>
>>>t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) wrote:
>>
>>>>I want to know what Cochrane thinks of the practice of calling
>>>>somebody elses work "preposterous nonsense" without even bothering to
>>>>read it first.
>>
>>> Standard Operating Procedure.
>>
>>> Anything else I can help you with?
>>
>>Standard, at least, for those who want to disprove Velikovsky's
>>theories without ever having read Velikovsky's books.
> The person you are responding to, L. Drew Davis, _has_ read Velikovsky's
>books. As have I and a number of other people commenting on Velikovsky.
>It is indeed possible to have read Velikovsky and find his work shoddy
>and inaccurate, even where it isn't outright ludicrous.
> But, since you raise the point, have _you_ read, at least, Worlds
>in Collision?
Yes. Also Earth in Upheaval, Oedipus and Ahknaton, Ages in Chaos,
Peoples of the Sea, Ramses II and His Times, Mankind in Amnesia,
Stargazers and Gravediggers, and Velikovsky Reconsidered.
> If so, have you also read and gained proficiency in any of : celestial
>mechanics, glaciology, paleontology, astronomy, astrophysics,
>oceanography, meteorology, mythology, middle eastern history (howlers
>feel free to add to the list)?
> If you haven't done both, cease casting stones.
I see, only the big boys are allowed to talk. All others must keep
silent in their presence.
Don Lowry
jlo...@tfb.com
Tim
(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.
Benjamin T. Dehner
>rm...@access5.digex.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote:
... stuff about criticizing without reading the material ...
>> If so, have you also read and gained proficiency in any of : celestial
>>mechanics, glaciology, paleontology, astronomy, astrophysics,
>>oceanography, meteorology, mythology, middle eastern history (howlers
>>feel free to add to the list)?
>> If you haven't done both, cease casting stones.
>I see, only the big boys are allowed to talk. All others must keep
>silent in their presence.
Well, understanding that this may sound elitist and arrogant, yes.
In the preface to WIC, Velikovsky states (Following from Bauer (1982),
since I don't have a copy of WIC handy):
"This book is written for the instructed and uninstructed alike.
No formula and no heiroglyphic will stand in the way of those who
set out to read it."
In other words, WIC is written so that any (fool?) can understand
it. Science, however, makes no such promises. Many areas of science are
difficult and complicated. It takes years of training and experience to
become an "expert" at these areas.
One may be tempted to point at this complexity and invoke Occam's
Razor, and imply that such complexity must be wrong. As a counter-example, I
would point out celestial dynamics. At the heart of celestial dynamics are
Newton's laws of motion, and his law of gravity. The complexity is NOT in
the basic formulation of the interactions and laws, but in the fact that these
interactions are calculated amongst numerous particles.
Blatantly clear in Vevlikovsky's writings is an ignorance of some of
the most fundamental aspects of physics and chemistry, among other fields.
Again, I point to Cosmos Without Gravitation as an example. (And will
continue to do so, because such absolute stupidity as inexcusable.) He
completely ignores the most basic of knowledge; yet we are suppose to take
him seriously?
Ben
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner Dept. of Physics and Astronomy PGP public key
b...@iastate.edu Iowa State University available on request
Ames, IA 50011
Benjamin T. Dehner
In <btd.82...@pv7440.vincent.iastate.edu> b...@iastate.edu (Benjamin T. Dehner) writes:
...
> Well, understanding that this may sound elitist and arrogant, yes.
>In the preface to WIC, Velikovsky states (Following from Bauer (1982),
>since I don't have a copy of WIC handy):
> "This book is written for the instructed and uninstructed alike.
> No formula and no heiroglyphic will stand in the way of those who
> set out to read it."
This should be Bauer (1984), and I forgot to include the entire
reference, which is:
Bauer, Henry H. 1984, Beyond Velikovsky: The History of a Public
Controversy, (Urbana: University of Chicago Press) ISBN 0-252-01104-X
I suppose that comes from composing posts just after lunch at the
bar^H^H^Hfaculty lounge.
Robert Grumbine
>rm...@access5.digex.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote:
>
>>In article <4gcuvd$7...@news2.cts.com>, Don Lowry <jlo...@tfb.com> wrote:
>>>dr...@mindspring.com (L. Drew Davis) wrote:
>>>
>>>>t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>I want to know what Cochrane thinks of the practice of calling
>>>>>somebody elses work "preposterous nonsense" without even bothering to
>>>>>read it first.
>>>
>>>> Standard Operating Procedure.
>>>
>>>> Anything else I can help you with?
>>>
>>>Standard, at least, for those who want to disprove Velikovsky's
>>>theories without ever having read Velikovsky's books.
>
>> The person you are responding to, L. Drew Davis, _has_ read Velikovsky's
>>books. As have I and a number of other people commenting on Velikovsky.
>>It is indeed possible to have read Velikovsky and find his work shoddy
>>and inaccurate, even where it isn't outright ludicrous.
>
>> But, since you raise the point, have _you_ read, at least, Worlds
>>in Collision?
>
>Yes. Also Earth in Upheaval, Oedipus and Ahknaton, Ages in Chaos,
>Peoples of the Sea, Ramses II and His Times, Mankind in Amnesia,
>Stargazers and Gravediggers, and Velikovsky Reconsidered.
>
>>mechanics, glaciology, paleontology, astronomy, astrophysics,
>>oceanography, meteorology, mythology, middle eastern history (howlers
>>feel free to add to the list)?
>
>> If you haven't done both, cease casting stones.
>
>I see, only the big boys are allowed to talk. All others must keep
>silent in their presence.
I would have liked to trim the included material. It seemed that
I should either cut everything except for Mr. Lowry's last two
sentences, or keep it all. I'm keeping it all, but apologize for it.
Mr. Lowry,
You accused Mr. Davis and the entire community of people who criticize
Velikovsky's work with having not read it. Mr. Davis and I, and many
of those who criticize Velikovsky, have read Velikovsky, so your assertion
is false. You have yet to retract it.
The converse question is whether you, as a supporter of Velikovsky,
are familiar with _any_ area of science that Velikovsky 'challenges'
the 'orthodoxy' in. By your non-answer, I gather that you aren't.
Why should you be exempt from the requirement of familiarity with the
'opposing' camp's position?
If saying that you should know something about what you're criticizing
means that 'only the big boys' can talk', so be it. You too can be
a 'big boy' -- learn something. Name a subject in science and any number
of regulars can recommend books for you to learn from.
Ev Cochrane
dissembling evident in Tim Thompson's most recent post. Here's
what Tim had to say with respect to the ongoing debate between
Leroy Ellenberger and myself regarding the antiquity of the
Rig Veda:[del]
>nobody ever claimed that the Rig Veda dates from 7300 BC."
when debating with Tim Thompson. He has a marked tendency
to "forget" who really said what. Here's what Leroy wrote several
weeks back:
"> "Unfortunately for Cochrane's misbegotten, reductionist
> Weltanschauung, in "Brahma's Day" Dr. B.G. Sidharth recently
> showed that part of the Rig Veda dates from ca. 7300 B.C.
> when a solar eclipse at the vernal equinox occurred in the
> lunar asterism Pushya, located in Cancer; see Griffith Observer,
> Nov 1995. This deduction is on far firmer ground than anything
> deduced by Cochrane and his merry band of self-proclaimed
> mythologists...Ev is... a philistine, anti-scholar and reductionist,
> who is clueless in the mythosphere and deluded beyond
> redemption. Despite all his ersatz savior fair and phoney erudition,
> underneath the veneer Cochrane is just another variation on the
> theme of that great pseudo-scientist Charles Ginenthal..."
was defending the published views of B.G. Sidharth, who made the
same claim. Just for the record, here's what Sidharth wrote, posted
here for at least the second time:
"We now come to an astronomical date for the Rig Veda based on the
interpretation of the mahayuga in the previous section. This refers to
a period in which the nodes of the moon, a fixed point on the ecliptic,
and the sun and the moon return to the same lunar asterism, namely
Tisya, or equivalently Pushya, when Rudra releases his arrow. The
Rig Veda (10-64-8) states: 'Krisanu (the archer), Tisya, archers to our
gathering place and Rudra strong amid Rudras, we invoke.'
shaped. As a new yuga,....has usually begun with the sun at the vernal
equinox, this reference in the Rig Veda refers to an epoch when the vernal
equinox was in Tisya or Pushya....[discussion of Tisya's role in the end
of a particular world age deleted] As the vernal equinox was in Pushya
or delta Cancer around 7300 B.C., the Rig Veda could be as old as
Observer, Nov. 1995, p. 15)
Here I would draw the reader's attention to the last sentence, where
Sidharth states that the Rig Veda could be as old as 7300 B.C.
Now I ask: Is there any question about Sidharth/Ellenberger's
position?
When I first learned of Sidharth/Ellenberger's claim several weeks
back, I knew it was an obvious error and thus I challenged Leroy
to produce a shred of evidence in support of such an early date
for the Veda. Such evidence has not been forthcoming. Nor did
I have any doubt that Leroy would eventually attempt to weasel
out of his statement, despite his grandiose pronouncement that
Sidharth's "deduction is on far firmer ground than anything
deduced by Cochrane and his merry band of self-proclaimed
have Thompson do his weaseling for him. I assumed this job would
fall to Paul Gans and/or Ben Dehner.
Ev Cochrane
"In article <4gg9q4$4...@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>,
Tim Thompson <t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
[del]
>Sidharth's claim, such as it is, is that the astronomical content of
>the Rig Veda could *possibly* preserve some knowledge that dates from
>astronomical events that can be dated by running the solar system, or
>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)."
blatantly false. What, then, are we to make of his claim that it is
"well known that some of the Rig Veda contents can be clearly dated
evidence (actually Leroy's, since Tim's information comes straight
from the horse's mouth in St. Louis). Hopefully it will prove to
more reliable than Leroy's claim that the Rig Veda dates from
7300 BC. But I very much doubt it. Tim Thompson, it will be
remembered, was the guy who just last week told us he had never heard
of the Rig Veda. And some time back he told us that the Mayan
and Babylonian astronomical records were approximately
contemporaneous. Perhaps Tim has been doing his homework
in the meantime. OK, I'll bite: Just what is the evidence for dating
anything in the Rig Veda to 2400 B.C., much less anything having
to do with astronomical matters?
Tim's post concluded as follows:
"> The fact that Sidharth or anyone else always carries the burden of
>is that Cochrane clearly railed that no "serious scholar" would ever
>consider such an argument even before he knew what the argument was,
>and I am asking you whether or not you personally think that is an OK
>thing to do. I do not."
no matter how absurd stems, I suspect, from the fact that he is a
complete novice in the study of the Rig Veda in particular and
archaeoastronomy in general. As someone who has studied both
subjects quite extensively, I have no problem stating for the record
that Sidharth/Ellenberger's claim that part of the Rig Veda dates from
7300 B.C. is tantamount to someone claiming George Washington
assumed the presidency in 5000 B.C. Leroy Ellenberger may well
believe that Sidharth's "evidence" is conclusive, and Tim Thompson
has every right to defend Leroy's absurd pronouncements. But
I suspect that critical thinkers will not follow them, particularly
when they adamantly refuse to discuss their "evidence".
Tim Thompson
(Don Lowry) writes:
>t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) wrote:
>> First, you are evading the question: was it or was it not a due and
>> proper action for Cochrane to ridicule Sidharth's work without even
>> bothering to read it? A yes or no answer would suffice.
[Lowry ... ]
> IF he did that, it was not. I don't believe I have seen the post to
> which you refer. I will point out that a great many of the detractors
> of Velikovsky's works see fit to ridicule them without ever having
> read them (some even so far as to threaten his publisher).
Indeed, and those who have done so are equally to be chastised.
Fair enough.
[Thompson ... ]
>> 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.
[Lowry ... ]
> And hundreds of myths, legends and works of literature from around the
> world could "possibly" preserve some knowledge of catastrophes that
> have occured within the past few thousand years, at least some of
> which were related to unusual events in the sky.
Herein lies the meat of the matter. Yes, all manner of legends and
literature no doubt retain or conceal information of historic value.
But how to find it? In this particular case, the Rig Veda contains
descriptions of astronomical events which can be correlated with
events we can reconstruct. That fact alone lends some credence to the
argument that they actually happened. After all, if they were simply
"made up", how would their inventors know to consistently "make up"
things which really could and did happen? On the other hand, much of
what Velikovsky did in World's In Collision (the only one of the
series that I have actually read) is strictly metaphoric interpretation,
and therefore much less dependable.
[Thompson ... ]
>> 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.
[Lowry ... ]
> Which assumes that the motions of the Earth and other components of
> the Solar system have not been influenced by any unknown factors in
> all that time, for which there is no direct evidence, while there is a
> large body of eye-witness testimony to the contrary.
Correct, and very important too. Suppose that the motion of the Earth
had in fact been disturbed by some outside force, so as to produce such
effects as Velikovsky describes. In that case it would be extremely
difficult, if possible, to reproduce the astronomical descriptions found
in the Rig Veda and elsewhere.
For instance, one way to date the Rig Veda is to note that it shows
an occasion when the plieades rose heliacally on the celestial equator [1b].
A change in the motion of the Earth would not just change the date, it
would prevent the phenomenon from ever happening at all. Likewise, if one
figures the seasons by observing the heliacal rising of stars, as the
Vedic people, and many others did, any change in the motion of the Earth,
especially of the Velikovskian variety, would produce major changes. The
fact that we can run the solar system backwards, and recreate a described
heliacal rising at all, shows that such major changes could not have
happened.
[Thompson ... ]
>> 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).
[Lowry ... ]
> Details, please.
See the Proceedings of the IAU Colloquium number 91 (1985) [1],
specifically the papers by Shkula [1a], Chakravarty [1b] and Sarkar [1c].
They concentrate mostly on the identifications of asterisms and their
described motions and heliacal rise phenomena. These events are then
reconstructed by simple precession, nothing more than that. Various
described phenomena from the Rig Veda all reproduce the same date,
roughly 2400 BC (Chakravarty give 3000 BC). The last paragraph of
Chakravarty's paper reads, in part (I believe I left off the last
sentence):
" We have considered so long only such astronomical
references from the Vedic literature which are stated
in explicit terms and have carefully avoided statements
having doubtful or ambiguous meaning, and our finding is
that the convention of asterism system was developed
before birth of Aryan civilisation in India. This was
handed down to Indian Aryans who in turn recorded it in
Vedic literature as unquestionable truth. Vedic social
life was also adjusted to this convention. We are,
however, unable to trace or even to make a guess-work as
to how Aryan India received this system of asterism; what
we know is that the antiquity of this convention has been
faithfully preserved in Vedic literature."
From the conclusion of Ramatosh Sarkar:
" The results stemming from the aforesaid analysis and
calculations are somewhat astonishing. For modern scholars,
by and large, do not associate Vedic literature with the
third millenium BC, which is considered rather to be the
flourishing period of the Indus Valley civilization. Also,
Vedic people are geographically associated with lower
northern latitudes.
" A plausible conclusion is that the relevant astronomical
observations were made much earlier and their narration in
literary form took place later. The Aryans probably observed
while they were still in the process of emigration, or they
carried the information from their earlier settlements, or
else they got it from the Harappan people."
REFERENCES
[1] "History of Oriental Astronomy"
Proceedings of IAU Colloquium no. 91
New Dehli, India, 13-16 November 1985
Cambridge University Press, 1987
ISBN 0-521-34659-2 QB33.A78 [Caltech uses QB18.H58]
Edited by G. Swarup, A.K. Bog and KK.S. Shkula
[1a] Chapter 2.1
"Main Characteristics and Achievements of Ancient Indian Astronomy
in Historical Perspective", pages 9-22, by K.S. Shkula
[1b] Chapter 2.2
"The Asterisms", pages 23-28, by A.K. Chakravarty
(Shows that the Vedic tradition of the Plieades dates from circa
3000 BC, because their motion as described requires that the cluster
lie on the celestial equator, which is not now the case.)
[1c] chapter 2.3
"Vedic Literature vis-a-vis Mathematical Astronomy", pages 29-32,
by Ramatosh Sarkar
Ted Holden
>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.
No reason to single Ev and myself out. Propagandists such as yourself
are an embarassment to the whole world and the human race generally.
Ted Holden
med...@digex.com
Ian Tresman
> Herein lies the meat of the matter. Yes, all manner of legends and
>literature no doubt retain or conceal information of historic value.
>But how to find it? In this particular case, the Rig Veda contains
>descriptions of astronomical events which can be correlated with
>events we can reconstruct. That fact alone lends some credence to the
>argument that they actually happened. After all, if they were simply
>"made up", how would their inventors know to consistently "make up"
>things which really could and did happen? On the other hand, much of
>what Velikovsky did in World's In Collision (the only one of the
>series that I have actually read) is strictly metaphoric interpretation,
>and therefore much less dependable.
Tim, I completely agree with this paragraph. Would you agree that
metaphoric interpretations are more dependable if legends from
different cultures corroborate one another?
Ian Tresman
Ian Tresman
> For instance, one way to date the Rig Veda is to note that it shows
>an occasion when the plieades rose heliacally on the celestial equator [1b].
>A change in the motion of the Earth would not just change the date, it
>would prevent the phenomenon from ever happening at all. Likewise, if one
>figures the seasons by observing the heliacal rising of stars, as the
>Vedic people, and many others did, any change in the motion of the Earth,
>especially of the Velikovskian variety, would produce major changes. The
>fact that we can run the solar system backwards, and recreate a described
>heliacal rising at all, shows that such major changes could not have
>happened.
If the Earth experienced a change in its motion (eg. axis change),
then calculated dates may also be incorrect. You are a quite correct
that after a change in the Earth's motion, some astronomical
observations may not be reproducible at all, but some changes in
motion may only affect calculated dates.
Ian Tresman
Jamie Schrumpf
>
[deletions]
>And hundreds of myths, legends and works of literature from around the
>world could "possibly" preserve some knowledge of catastrophes that
>have occured within the past few thousand years, at least some of
>which were related to unusual events in the sky.
Yes, they could refer to unusual events no doubt -- but not necessarily to
"global floods" or near-flybys of Mars or Venus. It's only when you start
tying otherwise unsubstantiated myths and legends to specific occurrences --
for which there is no _physical_ evidence -- that you get into trouble.
>
>>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.
>
>Which assumes that the motions of the Earth and other components of
>the Solar system have not been influenced by any unknown factors in
>all that time, for which there is no direct evidence, while there is a
>large body of eye-witness testimony to the contrary.
There is excellent evidence for a uniformatarian explanation of the solar
system: all of the orbits of the major planets are extremely close to being
circular; remember, it took Tycho Brahe's massive collection of planetary
observations for astronomers to determine that the planets were indeed in
elliptical, rather than circular, orbits. The fact that they are undisturbed
in any major way is good proof that they have been unaffected by other large
bodies -- as is the tidal lock that Earth has with Venus, which could only
have been established in the first place over a very long period of time, and
secondly, in the absence of disturbing forces.
It's also a fact that Venus's orbit is the least eccentric of all the planets;
ironic in the face of the V'ists preference for Venus to be the culprit in all
of their solar pinball games.
>
[remainder deleted]
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Schrumpf
ja...@dcd00745.slip.digex.net
http://www.access.digex.net/~moncomm
Home of the Firesign Theatre newsletter!
Tim Thompson
the editor, I would like to point out that there is considerable
variation across sources in the spelling of "Rig Veda", the most
common variations of which are "Rg Veda" and "Rgveda". I have chosen
"Rig Veda" as my standard, but will not alter the spelling found in
cited sources.
My apologies for the length, but this is a difficult task to perform
briefly, and I hope the content will make it worth while.
[ From Ev Cochrane <ecoc...@delphi.com> ]
[ Newsgroups: talk.origins ]
[ Subject: Re: Velikovsky, Cochrane, and Ellenberger in Skeptic ]
[ Date: Tue Feb 13 22:07:46 PST 1996 ]
[ Organization: Delphi (in...@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) ]
First, let us consider Cochrane's introductory remarks,
shown here
> Leroy/Sidharth raise three issues worth considering here:
> (1) Parts of the Rig Veda date from 7300, an absurd claim which
> no credible scholar could possibly accept.
> (2) Neolithic nomads who subsequently became the Indians of
> Vedic fame were practicing advanced astronomical reckoning
> already in 7300 BC, an absurd claim which no credible scholar
> could possibly accept.
> (3) Parts of the Rig Veda, although written much later, preserve
> memory of advanced astronomical practices going back to 7300
> B.C., a slightly less absurd claim which no credible scholar
> could possibly accept.
The language alone is sufficient to instantly identify their
author as a diletante. This is easily seen in the forceful use
of such terms as "no credible scholar could possibly accept".
Credible scholars understand the need to leave no stone unturned
in the search for knowledge. In my own experience as a chess
player, for instance, I have found a number of very surprising
attacks to use against the opposition, simply because I was
willing to exam moves that appeared on the surface to be "absurd",
but in reality constituted the introduction of a new idea. Real
scholars simply do not use this kind of language. But diletante's
do, because the have an intellectual territory to protect, and are
not willing to consider even the possibility of alternatives. This
habit of building intellectual walls around themselves is what
traps Velikovskians, Satrunists, and others, in hopeless, dead
end pursuits.
> Let's start with issue (1):
> It is my opinion that the Rig Veda is not nearly this old --
> probably no earlier than 1500 B.C. or so--and that there is no
> evidence whatsoever for Leroy/Sidharth's claim.
Cochrane goes on to cite his own favorite authorities on the
subject, The Cambridge Ancient History (1980), Wendy O'Flaherty
(1983), and Jaan Puhvel (1989). It is not at all clear to me that
these sources are not talking about the physical age of the
document, which is not in question here; what is in question is
the assigning of dates to information found in the document.
And later on Cochrane tells us ...
> Sidharth writes: "It has come to be realized that the Rig Veda was
> certainly composed prior to 2000 B.C." By who, [by 'whom' - TJT] one
> might ask? Certainly not by any credible scholars. As we have seen,
> leading scholars typically date the composition of the Rig Veda to
> the period between 1200 and 500 B.C.
Let's start with David Frawley (1994) [1] ...
" We will not go into the controversial issue of the
dating of the Vedic texts. The most conservative estimates
place them in the pre-Buddhist era from the Rg Veda to the
Brahmanas about 1500 - 700 BC. The most liberal estimates,
including those done in light of recent archaeological
evidence of the Sarasvati river in India, pushes the earlier
texts before 1900 BC, when the Sarasvati river which they
prominently mention ceased to exist as a perennial stream.
This agrees with the astronomy of the texts also. The
Brahmanas place the Krttikas (Pleiades in Taurus) in the
easterly direction (Satapatha Brahmana II.1.2.3), the
direction of the vernal equinox. The Atharva Veda (XIX.7.2)
places the solstice (ayana) in Magha (Leo). Such data
reflects a period around 2500-2000 BC. For information on
this subject one can examine my book 'Gods, Sages and Kings:
Vedic Secrets of Ancient Civilization' [2]."
We could look to Frawley's book, or we could go back to Colloquium
number 91 of the International Astronomical Union (IAU), held in
New Dehli India, 13-16 November 1985 [3]. Here we find the detailed
demonstration of ages for the astronomical alignments found in the
Rig Veda. The relevant papers are those by Shkula [3a], Chakravarty
[3b], and Sarkar [3c]. Before you dismiss this as more of the same
deeply subjective interpretation the field is heavy with, consider
this passage from Chakravarty [3b] (I am not certain I have the whole
paragraph, I might have chopped off trailing sentence(s)):
" We have considered so long only such astronomical
references from the Vedic literature which are stated
in explicit terms and have carefully avoided statements
having doubtful or ambiguous meaning, and our finding is
that the convention of asterism system was developed
before birth of Aryan civilisation in India. This was
handed down to Indian Aryans who in turn recorded it in
Vedic literature as unquestionable truth. Vedic social
life was also adjusted to this convention. We are,
however, unable to trace or even to make a guess-work as
to how Aryan India received this system of asterism; what
we know is that the antiquity of this convention has been
faithfully preserved in Vedic literature."
That these results do not necessarily agree with the earlier sources
cited by Cochrane is not too surprising; new discoveries usually do
not agree with standard interpretations. Hence, Sarkar [3c] tells us:
" The results stemming from the aforesaid analysis and
calculations are somewhat astonishing. For modern scholars,
by and large, do not associate Vedic literature with the
third millenium BC, which is considered rather to be the
flourishing period of the Indus Valley civilization. Also,
Vedic people are geographically associated with lower
northern latitudes.
" A plausible conclusion is that the relevant astronomical
observations were made much earlier and their narration in
literary form took place later. The Aryans probably observed
while they were still in the process of emigration, or they
carried the information from their earlier settlements, or
else they got it from the Harappan people."
In all three cases, using explicit astronomical descriptions, the
authors produce period dates for the observations that range from
circa 2300 BC to circa 3000 BC., results clearly accepted by
Frawley and Sidharth, and others no doubt.
At this point it should be clear, that if one examines sources
that are current, there is a *great deal* of 'evidence' that the
information in the Rig Veda can be dated much further back than the
"conservative" dates Frawley mentions, and which Cochrane favors.
Note that the point is not to try to prove that Cochrane is wrong
on the date, but to show that his confident "no evidence" is not
a supportable position. Furthermore, this evidence is found in
sources that should be as accessible to Cochrane as they were to
me, and I found them in less than a day's work at the library.
Cochrane's comment that "no credible scholar" has dated the
Rig Veda before 2000 BC is shown to be incredible.
Cochrane continues ...
> It is here that the stampede of errors begins. Sidharth makes
> several claims that are untenable. For example, he states that:
> "The ancient Hindus knew that an eclipse pattern repeats itself
> after roughly 18 years, what is popularly called the Chaldean
> Saros." Says who? No authorities are cited in favor of this
> bizarre claim, nor am I aware of *any* evidence supporting it.
I cannot make specific points about the Chaldean Saros, and
whether or not the most ancient Hindus might have known of
it. However, I do want to respond the the rather petulant "says
who?". Since when is authoritative approval required for every
remark one might make in print? And who besides Cochrane thinks
this is a "bizarre" claim? Sidharth, for that matter *is* an
authority, and quite able to make his own claims without the approval
of someone else.
> 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."
How it is that Dicks did not know what Taton knew 13 years earlier I can't
say. In any case, Dicks's remark that it is "out of the question" that
earlier astronomers might notice precessional motion is itself quite out
of the question. Precessional motion amounts to about 1 degree in 72 years
(as opposed to Hipparchus's original estimate of 1 degree in 100 years).
One degree is twice the width of a full Moon, and if we then let this
motion represent one full-moon's width in 36 years, we can see that this
kind of motion could easily be detected in a single lifetime, by a single
person. All one would need to do is observe some "fixed location" event,
such as the helical rising of a star, in reference to a fixed landmark,
and the motion over time will become obvious in a fairly short time,
certainly to any dedicated or experienced observer.
Shubash Kak [5] disagrees that precession could be discovered over
such a short period. However, he does agree that the effect of precession
must have been observed before Hipparchus actually quantified the effect.
" It is generally accepted that Hipparchus discovered precession
in 127 BC. The magnitude calculated by Hipparchus and accepted by
Ptolemy was 1 degree in 100 years. The true value of this precession
is about 1 degree in 72 years. Clearly the discovery of precession
could not have been made based on observations made in one lifetime.
The ancient world marked seasons with the heliacal rising of stars.
So Hipparchus must have based his theory regarding precession on an
old tradition. That the ancients were aware of the shift in heliacal
rising of stars with age was demonstrated by Giorgio de Santillana
and Hertha von Dechend (1969) in their famous book 'Hamlet's Mill'
which appeared more than twenty five years ago."
I think that the effect of precession is clearly observable over a single
lifetime, but in any case it seems reasonable that an accurate, quantitative
description, something that puts a firm number on the amount of motion, will
as Kak suggests, take a longer set of observations to achieve.
The point here is that both Taton in 1957, and later de Santillana and
von Dechend (1969) showed that knowledge of precessional effects existed
well before Hipparchus, and so Cochrane's criticism stands refuted.
COULD THE RIG VEDA DATE FROM 7300 BC?
-------------------------------------
The Rig Veda speaks of the end of a great age, when the God Siva lets
loose an arrow of destruction from the constellation of Pushya (or Tisya)
in modern Cancer. Sidharth's justification for interpreting this as a total
solar eclipse is given in his earlier paper [6]. The arrow of destruction
wipes out three cities, which Sidharth interprets as metaphors for the
Earth, Sun and Moon, all of which "disappear" during a total solar eclipse.
Sidharth further interprets that the vernal equinox was in Pushya or Tisya
at the time, for linguistic reasons, since Tisya is invoked in the same
manner as Krttika in the later Satapatha Brahmana, where it was known that
the vernal equinox was in Krttika. This would place the date period around
14,000 BC, 7300 BC, or 800 BC. Sidharth then dismisses 14,000 BC as being
just a bit too old, and 800 BC as being much too young. All that's left is
7300 BC.
Now, 800 BC is easily dismissed in light of the astronomical analyses that
have already been described. So, one is left with the simple(?) task of
deciding whether or not one accepts Sidharth's interpretation of the
total solar eclipse, in Pushya or Tisya, while that constellation sits at
the vernal equinox. If that really is an issue for anyone reading this,
then you really need to consult Sidharth's own papers [6,7,8,9] and decide
the old fashioned way.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
------------------
I make no pretense at being a scholar of vedic astronomy, nor of
archaeoastronomy in general. But, I can read, and I know where the library is.
I have no vested interest in whether or not the Rig Veda dates from 7300 BC
or from last Tuesday. My real purpose here is to provide a balance against
Cochrane's very poorly considered positions.
Cochrane approaches this as a black-and-white, yes-or-no affair, an
attitude that is not justified in this discipline. Cochrane says that Sidharth's
claim for an unusually early age of the Rig Veda is "an absurd claim which no
credible scholar could possibly accept", yet his statement is itself absurd,
since nobody knows how far back these documents might really be traced.
Finally, let me draw your attention to an interesting, and related passage,
from Thurston's "Early Astronomy" [10], page 135, the section entitled "A
Possible Origin of the Constellations" ...
" Precession plays an important part in an interesting theory
proposed by E.W. Maunder [11], and investigated further by Michael
Ovendon [12]: that the Greek constellations were devised, not as pretty
pictures, but as a system of coordinates in the sky. Moreover, they
were originally devised somewhere between 2000 BC and 3000 BC by
people who lived about 36 degrees north. There are several pieces
of evidence for this."
Thurston goes on to describe the evidence in some detail, but most of it
amounts to a number of criticisms by Hipparchus, directed towards an earlier
work by Aratus. The criticisms all disappear if proper precession is applied
to the Greek sky, and some peculiarities of Aratus' work become understood.
The point I want to make is that the dates arrived at by Maunder and Ovendon
just happen to coincide nicely with the dates assigned to the Rig Veda by
astronomical calculation. Also, the range of latitudes (34.5 - 37.5), while
marginally including the Babylon region, cuts across Kashmir and northern
Afghanistan, the regions through which migrating Aryans came to India. This
idea lends credence to the notion that astronomical information found in the
Rig Veda could date at least to the 2000 - 3000 BC era.
I could write more, but I think you get the idea.
==========
REFERENCES
==========
[1] "Planets in the Vedic Literature"
by David Frawley, American Institute of Vedic Studies,
Indian Journal of History of Science 29(4): 495-506 (1994)
See Page 496, bottom paragraph.
Acknowledgements to Leroy Ellenberger, who brought this paper
to my attention.
[2] "Gods, Sages and Kings: Vedic Secrets of Ancient Civilization"
by David Frawley,
Passage Press, Salt lake City, 1991
[3] "History of Oriental Astronomy"
Proceedings of the IAU Colloquium no. 91,
New Dehli, India, 13-16 November 1985
Editors G. Swarup, A.K. Bag and K.S. Shkula
Cambridge University Press, 1987
ISBN 0-521-34659-2 QB33.A78 [QB18.H58 in the Caltech library]
[3a] Chapter 2.1 in [3]
"Main Characteristics and Achievements of Ancient Indian Astronomy
in Historical Perspective", pages 9-22, by K.S. Shkula
[3b] Chapter 2.2 in [3]
"The Asterisms", pages 23-28, by A.K. Chakravarty
(Shows that the Vedic tradition of the Plieades dates from circa
3000 BC, because their motion as described requires that the cluster
lie on the celestial equator, which is not now the case.)
[3c] chapter 2.3 in [3]
"Vedic Literature vis-a-vis Mathematical Astronomy", pages 29-32,
by Ramatosh Sarkar (see the conclusion)
[4] "Ancient and Medieval Science - From the Beginning to 1450"
edited by Rene Taton (translated by A.J. Pomerans)
Basic Books, NY, 1963 (Presses Universitaires France, 1957)
Chapter 4, "Ancient Indian Science", see page 144, "The Motion of
the Equinoxes".
[5] "The Astronomy of the Age of Geometric Altars"
by Shubash Kak
Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 36, 385-395 (1995)
See page 385
[6] "The Unmythical Puranas - A Study in Reverse Symbolism"
by B.G Sidharth
Griffith Observer 53(4): 10-18 (April 1989)
[7] "Brahma's Day"
by B.G. Sidharth
Griffith Observer 59(11): 10-18 (November 1995)
[8] "Glimpses of the Amazing Astronomy of the Rig Veda"
by B.G. Sidharth
Indologica Taurinensia (Torino), Vol IV (1978)
[9] "Treasures of Ancient Indian Astronomy"
by K.D. Abhayankar and B.G. Sidharth
Delhi-Ajaita Publications, 1993
[10] "Early Astronomy"
by Hugh Thurston
Springer-Verlag, 1994; QB16.T48 ISBN 0-387-94107-X
[11] "The Astronomy of the Bible"
by E. Walter Maunder, 1908
[12] "The Origin of the Constellations"
by Michael Ovendon
Philosphical Journal (1966), pages 1-18
(according to Peter Doig, "A Concise History of Astronomy", NY, 1951,
the idea really originated with Carl Schwartz, the Swedish consul in
Baku, in 1807!)
===
END
===
Philip R. Burns
Ev Cochrane <ecoc...@delphi.com> wrote:
>George Washington must be rolling over in the grave over the
>dissembling evident in Tim Thompson's most recent post. Here's
>what Tim had to say with respect to the ongoing debate between
>Leroy Ellenberger and myself regarding the antiquity of the
>Rig Veda:
>
>Tim Thompson <t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>[del]
I suspect Mr. Cochrane and Mr. Ellenberger are talking past each other here.
Perhaps I can clarify the point about the early dating of the Rig Veda as
I understand it.
Mr. Cochrane and other Saturnists have repeatedly stated that they do not
know when the polar configuration collapsed, or the Mars events occurred,
except that it was sometime before recorded history began (at least, that is
how I understand their position). At the same time, the Saturnists believe
that much ancient mythology -- such as that passed on by the Rig Veda --
refers to the polar configuration. We only need to read some of
Mr. Cochrane's own papers (e.g., on Rudra or Indra) to see this.
Since Mr. Cochrane believes that the Rig Veda contains elements
which date back at least several millenia B.C.E., and possibly much further,
it is therefore illogical for him to state that "there is not a shred of
evidence in support of such an early date for the Veda." If so, then there
is not a shred of evidence for the polar configuration in Vedic texts either.
-- Phil "Pib" Burns
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. USA
p...@nwu.edu
http://pubweb.acns.nwu.edu/~pib/
Don Lowry
> Mr. Lowry,
I too apologize for not snipping some of the above but left it in
order to show where I came in. I did not accuse any specific person
or persons of not having read V., but made a sarcastic remark (in
reply to a sarcastic remark) that it seems to be standard operating
procedure for V.'s detractors to jump him without having read him
first. Whether this situation applies to any particular poster on
this or other threads I don't know. In some recent post around here I
observed a poster who obviously did not know the difference between
Cochrane's Saturn theory and V.s works who was blaming V. (none too
politely, as I recall) for what he perceived as errors in C.'s
argument. Had he read V. he would have known that the Saturn
configuration was no part of V.'s theories. There are also the
numerous documented cases when V.'s original publisher was threatened
by detractors who had not bothered to read his work. If I ruffled
anybody's feathers I apologize. And I am glad to hear that some of
V's detractors actually read some of the man's work. If nothing else,
it lends more credence to your arguments.
> The converse question is whether you, as a supporter of Velikovsky,
I'm not necessarily a supporter of V., if by that you mean that I
believe he was absolutely right about everything he said. As you
point out, I am not qualified to judge much of his argument. I am a
supporter of his right to say it and the right of others, including
myself, to read what he wrote and weigh it in our own minds without
being condemned for heresy, often by people who have not read it.
>are familiar with _any_ area of science that Velikovsky 'challenges'
>the 'orthodoxy' in. By your non-answer, I gather that you aren't.
>Why should you be exempt from the requirement of familiarity with the
>'opposing' camp's position?
I do not consider myself a scientist, my degree is in history (and my
interest in V. is primarily in his reconstruction of the chronology of
the ancient Near East--which, unfortunately seems to be ignored in
this group. That time period isn't really my field either, but I find
it very interesting.) That doesn't mean I never heard of science or
never read anything about it.
> If saying that you should know something about what you're criticizing
>means that 'only the big boys' can talk', so be it. You too can be
>a 'big boy' -- learn something. Name a subject in science and any number
>of regulars can recommend books for you to learn from.
Why science in particular? Much of V.s work pertains to history,
which is the part I'm more interested in, nor does that part
necessarily depend on the validity or non-validity of his theories of
moving planets.
Don Lowry
jlo...@tfb.com
Tim Thompson
Ev Cochrane <ecoc...@delphi.com> writes:
> George Washington must be rolling over in the grave over the
> dissembling evident in Tim Thompson's most recent post. Here's
> what Tim had to say with respect to the ongoing debate between
> Leroy Ellenberger and myself regarding the antiquity of the
> Rig Veda:
>
> "In article <4gg9q4$4...@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>,
> Tim Thompson <t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> [del]
>> nobody ever claimed that the Rig Veda dates from 7300 BC."
> But I certainly never anticipated that Leroy would
> have Thompson do his weaseling for him. I assumed this job would
> fall to Paul Gans and/or Ben Dehner.
Someday Cochhrane might actually turn into a real person and stlop acting
like an automaton designed to insult people. I was, in my earlier statement,
merely trying to draw a distinction between the ability to assign a date to
the information contained in the Rig Veda, versus the physical date of the
actiual written document. I would have that that should be clear from the
context in which I spoke. Nobody, neither I, nor Ellenberger, nor Sidharth,
nor anyone else has suggested that the document was actually written down
in or near 7300 BC, and that is what I meant.
In article <hFAqiJk....@delphi.com>,
Ev Cochrane <ecoc...@delphi.com> writes:
[ ... ]
> We have already examined Tim's second claim and found it to be
> blatantly false.
As noted above, this is only because Cochrane failed to understand
the context in which I was speaking.
> What, then, are we to make of his claim that it is
> "well known that some of the Rig Veda contents can be clearly dated
> to circa 2400 B.C?" I, for one, would be very interested to see Tim's
> evidence (actually Leroy's, since Tim's information comes straight
> from the horse's mouth in St. Louis).
I did not get into this so I could spend the rest of my life
putting up with menial insults from Cochrane or anybody else. It
just so Happens that my sources, for the most part, are and were
unknown to Ellenberger, who does his own research in quite a
different manner than I do, and uses different sources.
> Hopefully it will prove to
> more reliable than Leroy's claim that the Rig Veda dates from
> 7300 BC. But I very much doubt it. Tim Thompson, it will be
> remembered, was the guy who just last week told us he had never heard
> of the Rig Veda.
I had indeed never heard of the Rig Veda until I saw the reference
to Sidharth's paper. However, I can and will confidently state for
the record that I now know more about the age of the Rig Veda than
Cochrane has been able to learn in all his "years of research". I
normally would not say anything like this, but I will now, simply
because it seems to be the only way to deal with someone like
Cochrane, who seems to be unable to carry on any level of discourse
without lacing everything he says with insult and derision. The man
is clearly a tyro who dreams of being a "scholar", but never quite
made it. I have no use for his ugly attitude.
> Perhaps Tim has been doing his homework
> in the meantime. OK, I'll bite: Just what is the evidence for dating
> anything in the Rig Veda to 2400 B.C., much less anything having
> to do with astronomical matters?
I have already produced a detailed, and fairly long post, pointing
to my own sources, and demonstrating that the age of information found
in the Rig Veda can be confidently placed at circa 2400 BC. Indeed,
all of the current sources I could find agree with this dating. I will
be only too happy to accept Cochrane's admission that he is in error.
Buut I won't hold my breath.
Tim Thompson
In article <4gt160$o...@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>,
t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) writes:
> In article <pjHJ6Hv....@delphi.com>,
> Ev Cochrane <ecoc...@delphi.com> writes:
>
>> George Washington must be rolling over in the grave over the
>> dissembling evident in Tim Thompson's most recent post. Here's
>> what Tim had to say with respect to the ongoing debate between
>> Leroy Ellenberger and myself regarding the antiquity of the
>> Rig Veda:
>>
>> "In article <4gg9q4$4...@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>,
>> Tim Thompson <t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>> [del]
>>> nobody ever claimed that the Rig Veda dates from 7300 BC."
>
>> But I certainly never anticipated that Leroy would
>> have Thompson do his weaseling for him. I assumed this job would
>> fall to Paul Gans and/or Ben Dehner.
[Me, correctly typed this time ... ]
> Someday Cochhrane might actually turn into a real person and stop acting
> like an automaton designed to insult people. I was, in my earlier statement,
> merely trying to draw a distinction between the ability to assign a date to
> the information contained in the Rig Veda, versus the physical date of the
> actual written document. I would have thought that should be clear from the
> context in which I spoke. Nobody, neither I, nor Ellenberger, nor Sidharth,
> nor anyone else, has suggested that the document was actually written down
> in or near 7300 BC, and that is what I meant to say.
Jamie Schrumpf
says...
>
>t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) wrote:
>
>> Herein lies the meat of the matter. Yes, all manner of legends and
>>literature no doubt retain or conceal information of historic value.
>>But how to find it? In this particular case, the Rig Veda contains
>>descriptions of astronomical events which can be correlated with
>>events we can reconstruct. That fact alone lends some credence to the
>>argument that they actually happened. After all, if they were simply
>>"made up", how would their inventors know to consistently "make up"
>>things which really could and did happen? On the other hand, much of
>>what Velikovsky did in World's In Collision (the only one of the
>>series that I have actually read) is strictly metaphoric interpretation,
>>and therefore much less dependable.
>
>metaphoric interpretations are more dependable if legends from
>different cultures corroborate one another?
>
>Ian Tresman
I can't speak for Tim, but I know I would agree they were more dependable if
many of them contained "descriptions of astronomical events which can be
correlated with events we can reconstruct," and not events which we know to be
contrary to the laws of physics.
Paul J. Gans
to this posting. It demonstrates a debating style that
guarantees a sure victory over one's opponent. Mr. Cochrane
is a master of various variants of this technique.
As a public service I shall point out these techniques below.
Ev Cochrane (ecoc...@delphi.com) wrote:
: George Washington must be rolling over in the grave over the
: dissembling evident in Tim Thompson's most recent post.
This is known as the "Invoking of Unwilling Allies" ploy. Rest
assured, dear newbies, that George Washington knows nothing of
this internet "debate". Nor was he invoked by any previous
participant to this "discussion". Neat, insn't it?
: Here's
: what Tim had to say with respect to the ongoing debate between
: Leroy Ellenberger and myself regarding the antiquity of the
: Rig Veda:
This is the "Change of Venue" technique. Mr. Cochrane and Mr.
Ellenberger had some sort of exchange in the pages of _Skeptic_
magazine. Mr. Cochrane decided not to continue the discussion
there. He moved it to talk.origins. Mr. Ellenberger is not
on the internet and cannot post directly to talk.origins.
The technique is very effective unless the reader thinks about
it. It is very much like having a discussion in a bar and then
watching while one of the participants goes home, stands in his
back yard, and calls the other participant names.
: "In article <4gg9q4$4...@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>,
: Tim Thompson <t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
: [del]
: >nobody ever claimed that the Rig Veda dates from 7300 BC."
:
This is poor and not worthy of Mr. Cochrane. I cite it only
as an example of what to avoid.. It is an example of the
well-known "Selective Quoting" technique used by many people
on the internet. For example, Ted Holden (familiar to many of
you) is a past master of this one. For real newbies I note that
Mr. Thompson has posted about a dozen articles on this topic,
all of them relatively long. We've got a one line quote from one
of them with all context removed.
: As I noted some time back, it is necessary to keep records
: when debating with Tim Thompson. He has a marked tendency
: to "forget" who really said what. Here's what Leroy wrote several
: weeks back:
This is the famous "Cochrane Subject Shift". Note how smoothly
he goes from a one line quote from Mr. Thompson and a free insult
of Mr. Thompson to Mr. Leroy Ellenberger. I hardly need remind
anyone that Mr. Thompson and Mr. Ellenberger are two distinct
individuals, though the lines above might make one think that
one is a pseudonym for the other.
: "> "Unfortunately for Cochrane's misbegotten, reductionist
: > Weltanschauung, in "Brahma's Day" Dr. B.G. Sidharth recently
: > showed that part of the Rig Veda dates from ca. 7300 B.C.
: > when a solar eclipse at the vernal equinox occurred in the
: > lunar asterism Pushya, located in Cancer; see Griffith Observer,
: > Nov 1995. This deduction is on far firmer ground than anything
: > deduced by Cochrane and his merry band of self-proclaimed
: > mythologists...Ev is... a philistine, anti-scholar and reductionist,
: > who is clueless in the mythosphere and deluded beyond
: > redemption. Despite all his ersatz savior fair and phoney erudition,
: > underneath the veneer Cochrane is just another variation on the
: > theme of that great pseudo-scientist Charles Ginenthal..."
Now this is vintage Ellenberger -- a hard style to duplicate.
One could study Mr. Ellenberger's posts too, but that's a job for
another occasion. I'd only note here that Mr. Cochrane is using
the "Ellipsis Insertion" technique to smooth over the fact that
there is a moderate amount of material missing from the quotation
above, thus leading to the impression that the last part of the
quotation immediately follows the first part.
: Notice the phrase "dates from ca. 7300 BC." Note further that Leroy
: was defending the published views of B.G. Sidharth, who made the
: same claim.
Pay close attention, dear newbies. This is a technique in which
Mr. Cochrane is a recognized master. Mr. Sidharth wrote an article.
All Mr. Ellenberger ever did was to cite that article. Citing an
article is, of course, not *defending the views* of the writer of
an article, even if one agrees with those views. This technique
of confusing citation with defense is called "Claim Inflation".
: Just for the record, here's what Sidharth wrote, posted
: here for at least the second time:
:
: "We now come to an astronomical date for the Rig Veda based on the
: interpretation of the mahayuga in the previous section. This refers to
: a period in which the nodes of the moon, a fixed point on the ecliptic,
: and the sun and the moon return to the same lunar asterism, namely
: Tisya, or equivalently Pushya, when Rudra releases his arrow. The
: Rig Veda (10-64-8) states: 'Krisanu (the archer), Tisya, archers to our
: gathering place and Rudra strong amid Rudras, we invoke.'
: In fact, the lunar asterism Tisya is traditionally considered to be arrow-
: shaped. As a new yuga,....has usually begun with the sun at the vernal
: equinox, this reference in the Rig Veda refers to an epoch when the vernal
: equinox was in Tisya or Pushya....[discussion of Tisya's role in the end
: of a particular world age deleted] As the vernal equinox was in Pushya
: or delta Cancer around 7300 B.C., the Rig Veda could be as old as
: that date or refers to an earlier mythic era." ("Brahma's Day", Griffith
: Observer, Nov. 1995, p. 15)
:
: Here I would draw the reader's attention to the last sentence, where
: Sidharth states that the Rig Veda could be as old as 7300 B.C.
: Now I ask: Is there any question about Sidharth/Ellenberger's
: position?
This is a classic. Those of you who are doing term papers on Mr.
Cochrane's techniques would do well to pay close attention. To
start with the "Personality Conflation" technique, note how cleverly
Mr. Sidharth and Mr. Ellenberger are joined by juxtuposition.
But more important is the "Extraction of Text" technique also
demonstrated above. Mr. Cochrane has seized on the line he's
quoted from Sidharth: "... the Rig Veda *could* be as old as
that date [7300 BC]..." (Emphasis and square brackets added.)
What the newbie may not know is that *nobody* ever claimed that
the Rig Veda was WRITTEN DOWN in 7300 BC. Mr. Cochrane has kept
that information from you. He's allowed you to *infer* that Mr.
Thompson (whom, you will notice, has disappeared from Mr. Cochrane's
text) and Mr. Ellenberger have *claimed* that it was. This, of
course, is exactly what "Extraction of Text" is supposed to do:
make the reader think that the contents of the extracted text
exactly match other author's opinions.
Neat, isn't it?
: When I first learned of Sidharth/Ellenberger's claim several weeks
: back, I knew it was an obvious error and thus I challenged Leroy
: to produce a shred of evidence in support of such an early date
: for the Veda.
This, of course is the "Attack on the Unstated Hypothesis" ploy.
The statement above is perfectly correct. It is what he does NOT tell
you that is important. These minor fact are (1) that at that
point he'd never read Sidharth, yet he *knew* that it was an
"obvious error". What was an obvious error? Context from
previous posts (as well as this one) tells us that he's implicitly
accusing Mr. Sidharth (and through him, Mr. Cochrane) of stating
that the Rig Veda was WRITTEN in 7300 BC, which, of course,
neither of them has said. And (2) that it is somewhat unusual
to ask the a person who cites an article to PROVE that article
is correct. Why not ask the author?
: Such evidence has not been forthcoming. Nor did
: I have any doubt that Leroy would eventually attempt to weasel
: out of his statement, despite his grandiose pronouncement that
: Sidharth's "deduction is on far firmer ground than anything
: deduced by Cochrane and his merry band of self-proclaimed
: mythologists."
Here we have the "Conviction by Length" technique. By now the
reader has forgotten all about Mr. Thompson and Mr. Thompson's
posts. And the reader has forgotten that Mr. Cochrane promised
to show us how Mr. Thompson was untruthful. Having accused
Mr. Ellenberger of saying something he did not say, and then
demanding that Mr. Ellenberger prove something in someone
else's article, Mr. Cochrane now condemns Mr. Ellenberger for
failing in these tasks.
: But I certainly never anticipated that Leroy would
: have Thompson do his weaseling for him. I assumed this job would
: fall to Paul Gans and/or Ben Dehner.
The "False Collaborators" argument. This isn't unique to Mr.
Cochrane. At least one other currently prominent poster to
talk.origins also seems to assume that if you agree with someone
you must thus be in cahoots with that person.
I trust, dear newbies, that you have taken good notes. There will
be a quiz in the morning.