Replies

NASA Searches for a Snowball in Hell
Why Velikovsky Matters...Today More Than Ever
By MARK GAFFNEY

On January 12, 2005 NASA launched its latest space probe, Deep Impact, named after the recent Hollywood science fiction film. Recall, in the cliffhanger a team of courageous astronauts (led by tough guy, Robert Duvall) sacrifice their lives to deflect a speeding comet from its collision course with earth, thus saving human civilization from catastrophe. NASA’s newest mission is also a last-ditch gambit, of sorts: an attempt to save the current comet model.

Open any astronomy book and you will read that comets are dirty snowballsconglomerates of ancient rock and ice left over from the creation of the solar system. And it must be true, right? After all, it says so in the textbooks, and surely the university professors can’t be wrong. The problem is that over the five decades since Fred Whipple first proposed the snowball model in 1950, neither NASA nor anyone has proved that comets are actually made of ice. Every time NASA scientists focus their instruments on the surface of comets, they see only rocky stuff. Comets look like asteroids. So, where’s the ice? After failing repeatedly to find it, NASA has concluded that the ice must be hidden by surface dust, or is buried out of sight. Deep Impact will attempt to resolve this question by looking below the surface.

Next July, if all goes well, the unmanned Deep Impact spacecraft will rendezvous with a small comet named Tempel 1, not to avert a collision, but for the purpose of causing one. Once in position, the craft will send a 300+ pound “impactor”essentially a 3 foot diameter copper projectiledirectly into the speeding comet’s path. No nuke or explosive charge will be needed to blast a hole in the comet’s surface. The comet’s tremendous kinetic energy will do that. Tempel 1 is clipping along at an estimated 12 miles a second.

The plan is to study the 100-300-foot crater excavated by the collision. During its fly-by, the spacecraft will also gather spectroscopic data from the ejected gas, dust and debris. Much planning has gone into the selection of the impact site, to (hopefully) assure that the crater will be in full sunlight, instead of shadow. Comet Tempel 1 has an irregular shapeit is only about 5 miles in diameter. With a bit of luck, NASA’s cameras will obtain a good look at the comet’s freshly excavated surface. It will be the first time that NASA has actually probed the interior of a comet. NASA expects to confirm the presence of ice.

Will they find it?

For the answer we will have to wait until next summer. When the rendezvous happensassuming things go according to planearth bound folks with binoculars will be treated to a show of celestial fireworks; although exactly how bright and visible the collision will be is open to question. The event will take placebelieve it or noton the fourth of July, independence day. One wonders if the neocons in Washington had something to do with this. At very least, the date shows the extent to which science has been politicized.

Snowball in Hell

But, somewhere, God must be laughing at us silly humans, because NASA has about as much chance of finding ice in Tempel 1 as the proverbial snowball in hell. It just ain’t going to happen. There’s too much contrarian evidence. It’s been accumulating for years, and should have melted the ice model, long ago. Yet, NASA stolidly presses onward. The agency greets every new anomaly with ad hoc improvisations, and has gone to increasingly outlandish lengths to preserve its ice theory. Why? Answer: because so much hangs in the balance. The stakes are very high. More is involved than simply comets. At issue is the Red Shift, the expanding universe, the theory of black holes, and yes, even the big bangall at risk if NASA’s cometary house of cards comes crashing down.

To see why the ice model is wrong, let us look at several anomalies:

In 1991 Halley’s Comet caused a stir by announcing itself from so far awayit was then between the orbits of Saturn and Uranus. Halley’s is one of the smaller comets, yet it became visible at fourteen times the distance of the earth from the sun, a fact that solar heating cannot explain. The standard explanation is that the sun’s warmth is responsible for the cometary coma and tail. But at that enormous distance the sun was simply too faint.

Evidence of an even more remarkable phenomenon, the sunward spikepreviously unknownwas first documented in a 1957 photograph of the Comet Arend-Roland. This stunning feature must be seen to be believed. (For a look at a spike go to http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/)

Over the years since the first sunward spike was photographed, dozens of other comets have been shown, at times, to display this amazing phenomenon. The spikes always point toward the sun. Yet, NASA has dismissed the photographic evidencehowever compellingas nothing but an optical illusion, an artifact, a play of light, etc. Obviously, NASA is in robust denial. Why? Sunward spikes are incompatible with the current ice model.

On May 1, 1996 the Ulysses spacecraft documented another previously unknown feature of comets, when it crossed the tail of Comet Hyakutake at a point more than 350 million miles from the comet’s nucleus. The ephemeral tail, in other words, stretched across the equivalent of three and a half times Earth’s distance from the suna number that is astonishing. The discovery was accidentaland wholly unexpected. Scientists had never guessed that comet tails were so long. Ulysses had been studying the solar wind, and so, had the necessary equipment on board to detect the ions typically associated with comets. The satellite also recorded the magnetic field directional changes that are associated with comet tails. Detailed analysis showed that both kinds of data were in agreement. For most scientists, this was enough to confirm the discovery. Notice, the remarkable tail length means that when Comet Hyakutake moved around the sun toward its minimum point (perihelion), the invisible portion of its tail arced across a vast reach of the solar system. The fact that the tail maintained its integrity at such extreme distance is incompatible with the standard view that the tail is composed of materials blown away from the nucleus. Something more is going on, here. The question is: What?

But the big event, also in 1996, was the discovery of X-rays coming from the head of Hyakutake. This discovery set the scientific world on its ear, because naturally occurring X-rays are associated with extreme temperatures: in the range of millions of degrees Kelvin. Yet, here they were coming from a supposed ball of ice. There was no immediate word from NASA about how or why an icy cold comet could produce X-rays. The discovery was the work of the German ROSAT satellite, and no mistake about it. During the next few years X-radiation was detected in half a dozen other cases, including the Comet Hale-Bopp.

Four years passed before NASA finally announced a solution to the puzzling anomaly. In April 2000, NASA conceded that extreme conditions are necessary for X-ray emission to occur. But, rather than call into question its own theory that comets are cold, NASA attempted to square the circle. The agency explained that the X-rays had been produced by the solar wind, whichit assertedwas merely an extension of the extremely hot solar corona. NASA’s explanation explained nothing, and amounted to a contradiction, as any intelligent high school science student should have been able to judge. The official word showed that NASA was fumbling with a mystery it did not understand, grasping at air like a blind man trying to steady himself. (For NASA’s official word go to http://spacescience.com/)

Next summer, when NASA fails to confirm the presence of ice in the nucleus of Tempel 1, the question that the space agency should have been asking in 1996 will become paramount. (Of course, this does not mean that NASA will come clean. Indeed, it will be interesting to see how far NASA is prepared to go to defend its ice model. Probably the contortions will continue. Not for no reason the agency acronym has been subject to redux: NASA Never A Straight Answer.)

Everyone agrees that comets have an atmosphere. It is known as the coma, and has been shown to include significant amounts of water vapor, along with hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur, gaseous hydrocarbons, and various other compounds. The proportions vary from comet to comet. The present model holds that the water comes from the cometary nucleus. The thinking is that the sun’s warmth causes the icy head to sublimate, or out gas, and the solar wind pushes the vapors away in the amazing tail that has always been a source of wonderment and inspiration here on earth. No question, comets are beautiful to behold on a starry night. But neither NASA nor anyone has shown that the water actually comes from the nucleus. Such a deduction is understandable, but it remains unsupported by evidence, and it is almost certainly wrong. I have already cited the puzzling case of Halley’s Comet, whose visibility at extreme distance was incompatible with solar warming. Here’s the key question: If the head is NOT made of ice, how then to account for the known presence of water in the coma and tail? It’s a safe bet that, next summer, NASA will have no answer to this simple question. After all, they couldn’t explain the X-rays.

Not everyone was surprised by the discovery of X-rays. One astronomer named Jim McCanney actually predicted them. He did so as early as 1981 in a scientific paper first published in the journal Kronos. McCanney even urged NASA officials to look for X-rays when the agency was preparing a fly-by of Comet Giacobini-Zinner in 1985. At the time, NASA’s ISEE-3 satellite had already completed its original mission, and was being reprogrammed for comet study. The spacecraft had X-ray equipment on board, and McCanney urged NASA to use it. Instead, NASA shut down the equipment to conserve power. NASA’s experts concluded that there was no point in leaving the X-ray detector on, since there couldn’t possibly be X-rays coming from a cube of ice.

Fortunately, German scientists do not labor under NASA’s ideological thumb. The Germans took McCanney’s recommendation seriously. In 1990 they launched a satellite of their own, the Roentgen Satellite (ROSAT), which was equipped with an X-ray telescope. ROSAT continues to search the heavens for high frequency X-rays. Earth-based X-ray telescopes are not feasible, because earth’s protective atmosphere absorbs X-radiation. This was the satellite that independently made the big discovery in 1996.

The Plasma Discharge Comet Model

McCanney is the originator of an alternative comet theory, what he calls the Plasma Discharge Comet Model. His model challenges several key assumptions current in today’s science, which, he says, must be overturned to correctly understand the nature of comets and the workings of the solar system. One of these assumptions is that space is electrically neutral. “Not so,” says McCanney. His comet model is, in fact, but a subset of a grander theory that describes the electrical nature of the sun. McCanney refers to it as the Solar Capacitor Model. He argues that most of the energy released by the sunby faris electrical, rather than in the visible spectrum. According to this view, the sunward spikes are titanic bolts of solar electricity, and comets are anything but cold. On the contrary, they are incredibly hot and fiery crucibles in which chemical and nuclear transmutations are occurring constantly.

McCanney thinks our earth and the other planets were originally comets that were drawn from their more elliptical orbits into more circular orbits. He is also quick to credit another maverick thinker who preceded him: Immanuel Velikovsky. In 1950 Velikovsky authored a controversial book, Worlds in Collision, in which he argued, among other things, that science had failed to account for the electromagnetic nature of comets. Even as the book topped the bestseller charts, several prominent figures in science, among them Carl Sagan, ridiculed Velikovsky and eventually succeeded in destroying his reputation. Velikovsky’s name became almost synonymous with wacko nonsense. How ironic this isbecause the 1996 discovery of cometary X-rays has made Velikovsky look like a prophet. If the Plasma Discharge Comet Model turns out to be correct, McCanney will earn his rightful place alongside Kepler, Galileo, and Newton; and the names Velikovsky and McCanney will be remembered long after NASA and Sagan have been forgotten.

Next time: Why it matters. How the Solar Capacitor Model could save our civilization from self-destructionnow imminent.

To be continued...

Mark Gaffney is the author of a 1989 pioneering study of the Israeli nuke program, Dimona the Third Temple. Mark’s latest book, Gnostic Secrets of the Naassenes, has just been released by Inner Traditions Press.
He can be reached at mhgaffney@aol.com.

Carl Sagan & Immanuel Velikovsky
Book announcement
Preface
Dr. Carl Sagan, a professor of astronomy from Cornell University, a well known public personality and writer of popular books of science, in 1974 at a symposium of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) delivered a paper, “An Analysis of Worlds in Collision”. This paper was later edited and presented in a book, Scientists Confront Velikovsky, published by Cornell University Press. The paper was further edited and presented in Sagan’s book Broca’s Brain, under the title “Venus and Dr. Velikovsky”. Sagan’s paper is a critique of Immanuel Velikovsky’s book Worlds in Collision.

Having read Velikovsky, I also read Sagan’s paper; I thereafter discovered that a group of scientists and scholars had written critiques of Sagan’s analysis. After reading these criticisms I began a search of the literature and over a period of time I became convinced that Sagan’s critique lacked substance. Most surprising was the number of statements made by Sagan that proved to be clearly untrue. Further reading reinforced this discovery of the glaringly unscientific and unscholarly quality of Sagan’s paper. What was much worse, was that it was difficult to imagine that even Sagan was unaware of the misrepresentation of evidence presented as scholarly criticism by him and offered to the public.

Thereafter, I encountered a colleague who, learning that I was interested in the thesis of Dr. Velikovsky, informed me that in Broca’s Brain was an essay by Professor Sagan that demolished Velikovsky and his thesis. When he informed me that he had not read any of Velikovsky’s books nor any criticisms of Sagan’s article I asked, “How can you make a proper judgment if you haven’t read both sides of the issue.” To my astonishment he replied, “I don’t have to read both sides to know which side is right!” His closed-minded attitude made discussion futile and I let the remark pass. Several days later I received a letter in which he presented citations from Sagan’s paper and posed, “What possible arguments could be raised on Velikovsky’s behalf?”

In response I composed a long letter which dealt with merely one of Sagan’s criticisms. This posted I awaited his response-none came. A few weeks later at a monthly conference, we ran into each other. In a very friendly manner he approached me, smiling broadly, he shook my hand. “What did you think of my reply to your letter?” I asked. He admired the scholarship of my reply to Sagan and admitted frankly, “There are two sides to this Velikovsky business.” This I followed up by asking if there were any other aspects of Sagan’s criticism which he wished to clarify. He shook his head ‘no’ and I dropped the matter. However, I noted that he seemed shocked by the evidence of the rebuttal presented.

It was at that moment that the realization struck that Carl Sagan’s cnticisms had been uncritically read by a wide audience. This was soon discovered to be the case among friends and relatives. Seemingly, they had all read Sagan’s side, but not Velikovsky’s. With little or no scientific background with which to judge, they had accepted Sagan’s word on all matters. It was then that I conceived the idea for this book. It is hoped that reading the other side will permit laymen to clarify the issues.

I must admit that doing the research for this book over about an eight-year period has brought to my attention much more than I had imagined regarding Sagan’s critique. It has been a deeply saddening experience to discover again and again the crassness of Sagan’s work on Velikovsky. It has also been a deeply shocking experience to learn the political nature of the way science operates. Even if Velikovsky’s theories are completely wrong, no one deserves to be maligned as he has been. The deceit exposed in the following pages is an outrage to decency.

Publishing Details
Carl Sagan & Immanuel Velikovsky
by Charles Ginenthal. (C) 1995 New Falcon Publications
448pages. ISBN 1-56184-075-0. $16.95. Paper bound.

New Falcon Publication
1739E. Broadway Road, Suite 1-277, Tempe, AZ 85282. USA
(Add $2 shipping to US destinations)

His attempt at synthesizing all that into a coherent story was not bad. The relation of that story to reality is nonexistent.

Your attempt at discrediting Velikovsky appears more like a drive by shooting; an irresponsible ad hominem.

The more I hear of attacks from the "scientific community" on Velikovsky, the more it drives me to learn about his work and his theories. It would appear from the clip this thread is based on that Bullions and Bullions Sagan even had a change of heart. Sad day when our "scientific community" takes the position the science is settled; don't confuse me with any more theories.

Found the following bit of reading after doing a search of "Velikovsky Crazy": Introduction: The Impact Velikovsky Had:

Introduction: The Impact Velikovsky Had

Harold Tresman

Delivered at the SIS Silver Jubilee Conference,
Friday 17th - Sunday 19th September 1999

We are actually a little premature in celebrating this special anniversary and I am feeling quietly confident that we will survive the few months needed to make twenty five years. In all honesty, and I am sure Brian Moore will agree, that none of the founders ever dreamt that we would survive so long. I know that two of our late founder members, Derek Shelley-Pierce and Clarice Morgan, with their optimistic enthusiasm, had no doubts that we would last forever and I wish they were here to enjoy this Jubilee, even though they would be saying 'we told you so'.
You will all remember that in the 'dark ages' of the sixties and seventies we had only a couple of books by a rather unusual author with some unusual ideas that seemed to stand all accepted scientific knowledge on its head. The author was Immanuel Velikovsky. His presentation was, to say the least, impressive so the reader could not be sure whether he was right or wrong... either he was presenting a completely new and radical way of thinking or else he was misleading us. It seemed either / or, and with no half way approach. In those early days each of us had to make our own way towards truth, for that was the real goal, and we had to find the paths on our own... the more so for those of us outside the USA. Communications with our inspirer, were, to say the least of it, invariably counter productive. 'seek for yourself ', 'find your own way' I'm too busy preparing future books' was the only help we had.
Until recently those of us over here hadn't the advantage of even a peep at part two on Worlds in Collision to let us know his thoughts on earlier events. This isn't sour grapes on our, or my, part because it compelled us to find out for ourselves whether he was right. Time has shown to so many of us that he was indeed correct. He wasn't perfect by any means. Some of his sources were suspect, some of his interpretations a bit dubious, but his main thrusts were there. In fact, hardly a week goes by without some additional discovery giving more credibility to his original hypothesis.
In the seventies there was Pensée... and there were other like minded people... we isolated Brits were not the only ones. I contacted Steve Talbott, he gave me British addresses... and the rest is history... culminating with the birth of the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies (SIS). The main aims, instilled from its inception, was the production of a top grade journal supplemented, and by a more speculative publication to stimulate ideas, and the organisation and presentations of conferences. In 1978 we held our first conference at Glasgow, an event welcomed by Velikovskyy. There was no response to the invitation that we sent, other than a short note, or telegram, advising us that 'the eyes of the world press will be upon you'. Without Velikovsky we were ignored by the press! That he didn't attend was a great disappointment to us all. Now I readily agree that the timing between the first and second conferences were just a teeny weeny bit attenuated, but I think that you will agree that the SIS has more than made amends since the second... well I think they have.... and they should be commended for that.
Ever since the first SIS conference at Glasgow, all those years ago, I am always surprised at the distances that people travel to attend a conference involving a little known and unimportant psycho analyst, Immanuel Velikovsky... at least, we are led to believe that this is fair assessment of his work.
Let me ask you a few questions, to see where we stand. How many of you here today haven't heard of Immanuel Velikovsky? How many of you have? Any 'don't knows'? How many of you believe him to be right in principle? Wrong? How many are not sure? Would it be fair to say that your lives changed as a direct result of discovering his work?
A discussion I attended a short time ago, considering the main outcome of Velikovsky's work, arrived at the conclusion that 'it made us more aware of the imminent likelihood of future cosmic impacts on this planet'. That's it. Forget the countless hours that most of us have invested in researching and hunting for the clues that the past is concealing. Ignore the incomprehensible events recorded in the history of our modern species, ignore paradigm shift that is a direct outcome of his original approach... Velikovsky's contribution has only shown that we should only be aware of impending doom... soon.
Which brings me neatly to 'that' past... and the proto Saturnian scenario... and another question. How many of you accept the previous proto-Saturn hypothesis? How many don't? How many do not understand it?
Just forty to fifty years ago there was virtually no challenge to the conventional overview of science that could easily be found, studied or used as a comparison, in fact, everything was so certain that there was no need to search for alternatives. At that time everything scientific was read and admired...we knew and understood every single process. With the publication of Worlds in Collision, followed by Earth in Upheaval, this cosy, uncritical acceptance changed. In my own case these publications struck the chord that had been niggling at me since my school day and changed my life. I'm not going to repeat all the details of my conversion, given at the Cambridge Conference... other than to highlight, what to me, were the most important factors that influenced me.
If Worlds in Collision was to be viewed seriously how could two major planets run riot in the inner part of the solar system, seemingly make close contact with our planet, without invoking Roche's Law. If, as Velikovsky insisted, this did happen then something was wrong with Roche's Law. If Earth in Upheaval was correct in showing that geological events, the time scales and the causes of depositions and upheavals were suspect then conventional geological interpretation had to be suspect. There was a linkage between both weaknesses. Velikovsky's paper, Cosmos without Gravitation, provided an alternative. and a dramatic new way of understanding the message contained in his other publications. This could be simply expressed... if gravity/mass hypothesis was correct, he was wrong... if the solar system functioned electrically, he was right. There could be no fudging, no weird combination of both, it was either / or. This I found very difficult to say the least. In his first two books, one challenging astronomy, and the other geology, how could science have got it so wrong. At that time I hadn't realised that History (mythology) was the third prong of his attack. This just couldn't be right. But I felt that I had to find out.
It was fortunate that I had a very cooperative library, and this was in the days when British libraries had resources, for it was several years, and so many books later [my wife will confirm that she was my main reader, finding the chapters, even paragraphs, that helped us find the way] that I had to admit that Velikovsky, on balance, had to be right in his main proposals. What was more, catastrophism could not function within the prevailing scientific doctrine. There was no common ground. Worse, I realised, was that the disasters referred to in Worlds in Collision were not just isolated incidents but the part-finale of a major event, the separation from proto-Saturn about which this planet had orbited. Even worse, was the realisation that this happened within the memory of man, our forebears, who had left a record of our history, during the time of peaceful existence orbiting proto-Saturn, mankind's 'Golden Age, and who survived the cataclysmic separation perhaps no more than twenty thousand 'years' ago. Perhaps, what was the worse discovery, was that all this is impossible... impossible unless we have an electric universe... and this was a 'difficulty that, back in the early sixties, I didn't expect the possibility of an 'electric universe' to be resolved in my lifetime
That was then. With the advent of Pensée, with Ralph Juergens showing that an electric universe is practical and with all our many other publications since there is less doubt. With Wal Thornhill's' The Electric Universe', with Ralph Sansbury's theories, and Halton Arp's researches time is now on our side. Indeed UK TV is now full of programmes highlighting 'unexpected electric influences' in the solar system and on this planet. Who, thirty or forty years ago, would have imagined a TV special dealing with 'charged plasma ejections from sun-spots' wreaking havoc with electronics here on Earth. OK, they haven't got all the theory together yet, but at least they are making almost the right observations and it should only be a short time before they develop the correct theories and true explanations....or am I being just a bit optimistic?
I must confess to being an admirer of the late Howard Shapley, the Professor of Astronomy at Harvard at the time Velikovsky was first published. He alone, it seems, had the foresight to realise that what Velikovsky was proposing was the biggest threat that the scientific establishment would ever have to face. His apocryphal statement that 'if Velikovsky is right then we are all crazy' was to say the least prophetic . For somebody, who allegedly, had not even read the book to have this insight into the paradigm shift that was being published adds stature to his ability. Because he was quite right...almost every field of science is suspect, as we are continually finding out.
As an aside, one of the interesting things that I have noticed in the course of the many hundreds of conversations I have had with learned experts who have expressed their admiration, interest and support for Velikovsky, always in specialities other than their own, and wax quite lyrical at his revolutionary and original discussions. However, in their particular field, they are dogmatic, he doesn't know what he is talking about. Yet Howard Shapley recognised the threat that Velikovsky posed and we are here to show that Shapley was correct in his prognosis, as our presence here this weekend illustrates.
Let me give you a resume of main directions that Velikovsky, in my view, has postulated...

Ancient mythology is a graphic history based on the experiences of the observers.
Cataclysmic events involving planetary bodies occurred in 'ancient' historical times.
Venus was a comet observed and recorded by our ancestors.
A nova-type disruption of proto-Saturn, the binary of our Sun, initiated the sequence of major catastrophes
The Universe is driven, governed and controlled electrically.

What we Saturnists have extrapolated, over a period of 30-35 years, can be summarised as follows: The age of our planet, even the Solar System, should not be measured in billions, nor even millions of years. Indeed, how can we measure a system of time based on earth's rotations and the orbital time around the Sun, neither of which has been historically constant. [I would refer you to the recent book by Prof. Lynn E. Rose Sun, Moon, and Sothis: A Study of Calendars and Calendar Reforms in Ancient Egypt , dealing with the history of measuring time] Even using these variables I would be surprised if we are measuring more than 'single' millions. Our planet and others existed and orbited proto-Saturn, during which time the Earth became inhabitable and life evolved.
During the Earth's development at that time, its pole was located in what is now the Middle East in the centre of the single super continent. This planet was 'stretched' along its poles and far from being spherical. Earth during this time had stability. This was ended with the disruption!
We Saturnists have now reached a point in our evolution where we can virtually present our own scenario. There are a number of later speakers capable of presenting their understanding of events based on their own carefully researched ideas that, when combined with specialists in similar disciplines, have resulted in a cogent presentation of a not-so-far-in-the-past catastrophic history. None of these ideas fit the mould of current scientific thought. Perhaps Wal Thornhill will refer to the 'Smoking Gun' that he and Dave Talbott discussed at the Portland Conference way back 1996. Those of you who expect, for example, an explanation of the electric universe within the gravity / mass framework will be disappointed not to have such a link explained... there simply isn't any common ground. This really is the continuation and realisation of Velikovksy's paradigm shift.
Present day Neo-catastrophists struggle to fit their hesitancy within conventional theory...and are failing. It is strange that most 'innovative' thought comes from unshackled, unblinkered, thinkers who are not influenced by the everlasting battle between the Theorists and Observers.
Finally, Velikovsky may not have been the first catastrophist but he certainly has been the most influential in this century. I wonder what we would all be doing this week end but for his insight

Thoughts?