Another Velikovsky perspective (long) I am posting this for a friend, John Godowski (godow

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Another Velikovsky perspective (long) Organization: Industrial Research Lab - Univ. of Florida From: greg@irl.ise.ufl.edu (Greg O'Rear) Message-ID: <23b5ni$3kk@bigguy.eng.ufl.edu> Reply-To: godowski@ise.ufl.edu Newsgroups: talk.origins I am posting this for a friend, John Godowski (godowski@ise.ufl.edu). Please direct follow-ups to him. This is a long post, so you might want to download it for later perusal. This is offered for serious consideration, not merely flame-bait, so of you take exception to what he writes, please answer with specifics. John's message follows: This is my first contribution to Talk.Origins, so a few words about myself and my perspective are in order. (the rest may not be) In 1981 I was working at McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Division, Titusville FL, near the Kennedy Space Center. I was in the design engineering section and my drafting team was working on a detonator assembly for a modified Israeli shoulder mounted rocket launcher. On my own time, I was developing the foundation of my work in legged robotic locomotion in the dynamic range. I had interest in astronomy, geology, ancient history, languages, flight, military science, music and especially robotics. I really enjoyed Carl Sagan's Cosmos series. He brought the subjects to life and invited all to dream, speculate and begin to consider the vastness of time and space. His friendly hypnotic "Billions and Billions..." had an strong evocative appeal, and I found him to say many things I would have said myself If I had a show like that - - I even entertained thoughts of visiting Cornell to hear him lecture! * * * While at a weekend flea market, I saw a book that caught my eye. Its title, WORLDS IN COLLISION, evoked thoughts of Saganistic speculations on planetary formation processes billions and billions of years ago - something I could really enjoy reading! Skipping the introductory formalities, I wanted to catch a glimpse of the heart of the book to see how interesting it might be, intending to go back to the beginning and see how the thesis developed in detail if I found it interesting. (This might mean I would have to buy the book, of course... a big $0.50 decision to be made here ... ) I opened the book to somewhere in the middle, read about half a paragraph, and I was stunned, astonished, and violently angered! No book had ever before or since provoked such a violent response from me - I was furious! Something about the planet Venus popping out of Jupiter in Recent Time! - Like some warped version of a Greek myth gone literally mad -- written in a scholarly tone no less! With Footnotes! That was even worse! How could anyone with even the intelligence to put a decent sentence together actually stoop so low as to write such a thing? Was he a Crackpot? Out of his mind? Didn't he know about the billions and billions of years and the nebular theory of solar system formation? He couldn't have had an eighth grade education and not known! Therefore he must have known this was Totally False and Impossible before he ever put pen to paper. He could not be excused for ignorance. Therefore he was Malicious! Think of the damage to Science he is doing! By writing such horribly absurd things - in a seemingly scholarly text - as though he meant to be taken seriously - what will happen when people who are not scientists (or engineering majors like me) read works like this - the work of a silver tongued scientific sounding Charlatan! He will take us back to the Dark Ages - He's trying to undermine Science! No regard at all for Truth! What kind of character could someone have to do a thing like that? How did he ever get published? This book shouldn't even exist! Who wrote this anyway? I noted the Author's name and burned it into first place in my mental file of intellectual infamy. I actually threw the book back down in anger and disgust. I walked away incensed at the thought that something like that in the intellectual world could ever have been done at all. I told myself I would never read anything else written by that man. * * * Work went well, and my abilities were attracting the attention from people beyond my immediate supervisors. * * * At home on the Robotics Front, things were not so well. I knew enough fluid mechanics to model the performance of the inner ear vestibular system, and was astonished to find established medical authorities flagrantly contradicting the laws of physics in their published accounts of the workings of the inner ear. Didn't these doctors know Fluid Mechanics? These are the authorities in their discipline - how could they be wrong? I checked my own calculations again, even making some crude fluid models. My understanding was correct, after all, and apparently these doctors actually did not know what a Reynolds number was. Rather than be happy that I had the correct concept after all, I was disturbed, uneasy. I had trusted these authorities - I KNEW they would be correct when I consulted their work - and they were not. Don't Doctors ever talk with Engineers? The is no Interdisciplinary Review Board that synthesizes all theories in each discipline into a consistent non-contradictory body of authoritative knowledge. When it comes to investigating a matter of concern to you, you may find, after sifting through the published material, that you have a background or perspective that the authors of the material did not have, and that you may actually have the "outsider" expertise from another discipline that enables you to recognize an inconsistency and actually correct it, making you the latest authority! I guess there's a tendency to assume the authorities are correct in their respective fields ALL the time, and that we are the only ones to whom the established rationale does not make sense, therefore the problem must be with us. There is even a tendency to supress the mental beginnings of inconsistency recognition in established theories taught in school as authoritative. Even the authorities themselves suffer from this tendency when relying on the work of those in other disciplines. In the years since I was to find this to be the case many times in Robotics. My work has enabled me to envision legged robotic locomotion in the dynamic range as a technical and computational feasability, and I am currently pursuing that at the University of Florida. The consensus of authority in this area is that it is virtually impossible, and therefore not worth actively pursuing. Nonetheless, I am GETTING IT DONE. More on this later. * * * Back at the weapons design facility... I was doing well, enjoying my work and the recognition I was getting for my sincerity, enthusiasm and most satisfying to me, superior and unprecedented zero rejection rate in a tolerance study I had performed. I had recognized that this particular assembly did not have to have inevitable rejections of adverse tolerance parts as is commonly considered acceptable. In some cases RMS analysis can do no better and still yield a functional result, but this was not such a case, as my method of analysis showed, and the run confirmed. Late one afternoon, the head of Engineering Design for the company came to my desk. Everyone had gone home. He said there was a favor he would ask of me. He was very serious, and I could tell it was important. Here was a senior design Engineer in the Astronautics division, the kind of person I envisioned myself becoming in the future , and I could really learn something from the experience this project would give. It involved a lot of reading and some extra work and research. Would I be willing? Career minded and genuinely interested in engineering, I was willing, imagining a thick technical manual and hours of specs referencing - not a problem! Whatever it was, I would do it. He then proceded to place said reading material on my desk. It was not a technical manual or a Military Standard. It was not a government document or project history. It was simply a book. The title of the book was, to my shock - WORLDS IN COLLISION! * * * That was thirteen years ago. I did read the book, many, many times since then, and have done many hours of research on my own and in long time collaboration with an engineer in Jacksonville. I have read all of Velikovsky's published works and own multiple copies of nearly everything I am aware of written by or about his work and related subjects. I have conversed and corresponded with several of these authors, as well as faculty at the University who regularly provide me with late breaking scholarly news that impinges on what now must be called the debate. I am preparing several articles for publication in CATASTROPHISM AND ANCIENT HISTORY and THE VELIKOVSKIAN. I intend to give T.O readers an advance preview of my works for informal criticism and who knows - possibly even some support and encouragement and the possibility of collaboration in the future. I have been monitoring the interaction on T.O for a short while, and I enjoy watching the fur fly now and then! I have found even the most scathing criticisms entertaining and very well done - very creative! I even enjoy reading Carl Sagan - for different reasons than before - now I am still overcome by wonder and awe when I read his works - (Broca's Brain, Cosmos, etc.) especially as they talk about Velikovskian issues. This time though, the wonder and awe are not for the vast expanses of billions of stars and billions of years, but for the wild flights of fantasy and unfounded assertion piled on contradiction compounded with the self assured inerrancy that can be fostered when your clique is in authority and the press reviews are orchestrated ahead of time. [even if after twenty years you still haven't learned how to spell 'pharaoh'] Sagan professes very wonderful ethics and values for truth and I believe there is some sincerity there. I really do. Some. But when it comes to Velikovsky these professions of values only seem to set the stage for the kind of poetic straw bashing that only Sagan is capable of. [Not to say that some don't come close - some of those on T.O. are really very good -- I am filled with wonder and awe! Really!] Nonetheless, Sagan, like everyone else, is a human being. I understand him. I do like him still - I remember my moment with WORLDS IN COLLISION at the flea market, and if not for my Boss at Astronautics Div. I probably would have followed in Sagan's shoes, at least as far as Velikovsky's ideas are concerned. Now, my time at the flea market was followed not long after by my conversation with my boss, and I was able to read WORLDS IN COLLISION with different eyes. Each of us has a boss, if ultimately only our own conscience. Perhaps Sagan will yet have that conversation... I know how difficult that can be, to actually consider restructuring the basis for so much of what you like to think you actually KNOW already... yet the effort is worth it, and I invite everyone on T.O. to begin... I do enjoy a good wrestling match for its entertainment value - the hype - the posturing, the preorchestrated bouts - the big falls, the screams of the crowd, the press coverage, etc. But it's not REAL, it's done to entertain and amuse. Enjoy it, but recognize it for what it is - a pursuit of mock sparring for fun.. I see a lot of that here on T.O. and I do enjoy it. Straw men don't feel pain..... ? But... I have seen much that actually inspires me on T.O. Acker is willing to check Talbott Burns has some good questions Holden is holding out alone for Dr.Velikovsky (M.D. if you didn't know) and Merritt and Thompson and others have been kind enough in their own style to explicitly delineate every single conceivable objection or obstacle to Dr. V's theory - a valuable service to Pro V's - to whom such thoughts might not always occur, not that honest Pro V's don't look for possible problems and address them, but that some Pro S(agan)'s really have a talent for pointing out problems of all kinds (real and perhaps imaginary) especially with Dr. V's theory. This talent for agressive skepticism is something I take note of, and it has its value. What happens when every last concern so enumerated is addressed in favor of Velikovsky? After winning such a fight, it would be an astounding triumph especially considering the talent of the opposition. Sometimes the peasants are right though... - (remember the meteor fall at L'Aigle {SP?} France ... I would invite the Aggressively Skeptic to consider mentally reversing roles, just for fun, and applying that same skepticism to Sagan and the Non Velikovskian scenarios that are so prevalent. That would be exciting reading! And, of course, to be good sports, the Pro V's might consider writing their own scathing criticism of Dr. V's theory, just to see how the other shoe fits for a minute. Having worn both shoes, I can promise everyone it would be worthwhile! And an interesting proof of objectivity! Even a test of creativity! In school debates, we would switch sides and argue convincingly from the oponent's point of view - and win both ways! As a final introductory note, by taking part in the T.O. debate, each party is willing to be exposed to ideas that may change her mind {where are the women?} and has the thrill of seeing how well her ideas thrive on their own in the arena before the pressures of publication and career consequences enter in as factors on what is said. Treasure the opportunity. On T.O. count me as someone willing to consider Velikovsky's scenario and all its implications. Consider, and keep checking... always! If you had to ask me now, I would have to say I do believe Velikovsky to be correct, original, and profoundly significant. Having said that I ask - Where are those who can at least mentally stand on the mountain of material Dr. V has presented, as though true, and see what is on the farther horizon brought thus into view? Count me, if you will, among these. JOHN GODOWSKI ------------------------------------------------------------ Some items on the farther horizon I hope to address... JUPITER: STELLAR IGNITION REACTION A critical mass (accretionary or impact triggered) begins the thermonuclear reaction in the dense Jovian core. The reaction proceeds without limit in this dense medium until its energy exceeds Jovian gravitational containment and a conic section of overlying Jovian atmosphere with attending petrochemicals (perhaps even Sagans blimp sized 'floaters' who knows?) is ejected along with a molten portion of Jupiter's possible rocky and metallic core. Plasma states reached, radioactive decay, parent daughter ratios affected by differential volatility in space, these molten plasma to vapor to droplets to 'tesimals to protoplanet coalesce en route to the inner solar system as the protoplanet Venus (veni, vidi, vici Latin : I arrived, I viewed; I became the victor --I came I saw I conquered;- Venus=newcomer) The protoplanet is truly a comet of massive proportions. Note that a comet is defined from the Greek (hair). Even this comma, the punctuation mark that looks like a period but has a tail hanging down, is named for hair and can be seen as a pictograph of a comet, if you are willing and imaginitive. How can I say a planet the size of Venus was a comet? Any substellar celestial object with a stream of particles and gases or plasma in its train is a comet, irrespective of the size of the nucleus, or the composition of the particles, gases and plasma. Of course, a protoplanet like this, trailing an immense shroud of Jovian gases expelled with it but not captured by it creates quite a show. It would not be correct to say that because the particles were not made of ice, like the tiny ice comets we are familiar with, that it was not a comet, or that because its nucleus is planetary in size and mass, that it was not seen as a comet by earthbound observers. The term comet is a descriptive term anyway (it looks like it has hair, basically) and would certainly apply to a protoplanetary spectacle such as this. These attendant gases and particles might orbitally follow the protoplanet for a few centuries until the pressure of the solar wind can dissipate them. If the tail is charged, its plasma may luminesce, and magnetic forces would effect its behavior and configuration. Back on Jupiter, a hot gaping hole in the core, a thermal ejection scar continues by convective upwelling to generate the seed of a vertical vortex known as the Red Spot. It has been implied that any banded atmosphere such as that of Jupiter might tend under the laws of Fluid Mechanics and turbulence to have such a sustained vortex. This is possible, yet possibility is not proof, and further work would be needed to explain why the other gas planets do not also have their spots, if subject to the same fluid conditions (scientifically, an atmosphere can be treated as a fluid for mathematical analysis) If the turbulent dynamic model of red spot sustenance is a valid factor, it may not be the sole factor in keeping the Spot alive. It would be interesting to see such work (fluid flow models) done for the Jovian atmosphere that could take into account such a rising thermal ejection scar plume as an element in sustaining such a vortex and perhaps explaining its coloration as due to materials present lower in the Jovian atmospheric column. Also, why is there not a Red Spot in both the northern and the southern Jovian hemispheres if by symmetry the flow parameters are identical? This too appears to argue for composite cause for the Spot. Worthy of note, Mars is covered with red dust (limonite) which Dr. V. suggests may not be indigenous. The Red Nile of the Exodus implies nonindigenous pigmentation at least as a transient phenomena. The Venusian comet tail could have been a source, in this scenario. Red Spot, Red Mars, Red Nile - same material, all from same place. Not because they are all red - certainly there are at least a few things in this solar system that are red, yet not from Jupiter. I am saying that the red material could have been deposited as Mars and Earth, respectively, passed through Venus's tail (no longer extant) which may have contained red matter from Jupiter. Earth passing through this tail of varied composition experienced on a global scale the ensuing ecological features remembered in the Exodus account. The nucleus of the comet/protoplanet/-- Venus was the last to approach Earth , so we can infer that Venus in this scenario must have approachaed Earth from the sunward side. The sun tends to drive comet tails away from itself. Earth would then be 'downwind' in the solar wind sense, and the tail gases of the comet would contact earth. Arriving from the sun side, the protoplanet, tail and all, would be invisible to everyone on earth, exactly as the new moon, very close (yet not touching or overlapping the sun's disc) is in the sky all day, yet not seen, except at sunset. The electrical effects, the meteors, dust, red pigment and increased tidal flow would come from a source useen in the glare of the daytime sun. In a scenario I am developing, Venus approached from below the earth's equator to the south. As the Nucleus approached the earth entered the Umbra(shadow) and Penumbra(strong shadow) of Venus for the days of darkness reported in Exodus and Egyptian sources (Ismailia stele, or Naos of El Arish). Venus makes its closest passover or flyby (hence the name of the Easter feast - Passover means literally to pass over, and can be understood as an astronomical term, like the modern word 'flyby'. Passover and Easter are associated. Note EASTER = E'aster (Chald. for the great or terrible STAR {or planet}) The Venus and Tail spectacle would not be visible in the Northern hemisphere of earth until after its close flyby or passover. Approaching from south sunward, after flyby it must by the law of velocity be north antisunward. This would let the light of the sun reflect from the Venus & Tail comet planet and be visible around the clock, both day and night. It would, hanging over our northern hemisphere,(not stationarily hanging - impossible - but following its Keplerian orbital trajectory over the hemisphere as just one part of its elliptical path around the sun allowing for disturbances in the vicinity of Earth) be visible as are the North Star and the circumpolar constellations all night long, and being lit by the sun, visible all day as is the moon at certain times. This is the Pillar of Fire - Hand of God - Chinese Dragon or whatever you make of it - protocometplanetVenus. Its Tail pointing always away from the sun, except as it (in red and green writhing curtains) interacts with the Van Allen radiation belts and creates Auroral displays. This lasts only a week, then the planet must cross back inside Earth's orbit to continue its elliptical path. It must therefore have another close encounter or flyby, this time, on the night side , crossing from north to south, and from west to east. (single trajectory passing from above N. hemisphere to below, hence N - S, and overtaking earth from the west quickly even passing by faster than we rotate in the same direction, hence W - E) The pillar of Fire was not visible immediately after this second flyby. The second flyby occasioned the crossing of the Sea by Moses. ( The physical dynamics and location of the Sea Crossing are my next topic.) On my envisioning of Velikovsky's Jovian Expulsion Scenario--- Critical Questions to be addressed: - heavy core for Jupiter? - radioactive ? critical mass possible? - behavior of nuclear reaction in dense core ? Will it dissipate as do our underground tests - or propagate due to density, radioactivity? - critical mass possible by accretion? - subcritical mass to critical by impact? -Convective Red Spot Thermal Expulsion Scar plausible? Fluid Simulation? Note on Antarctic meteors from Mars[?] they may not be from Mars proper, but from Venus directly, same source for Mars'red rocks, or Maruts, see WinC. - artificial detonation? We could contemplate this ourselves, to 'induce labor' so to speak, and generate new earth sized protoplanets at will under controlled conditions. --the Godowski Project-- I should write a novel? - earth produced by same process? Note White Spot also on Jupiter Red Spot = New Venus birth scar, White Spot=Old Earth birth Scar hence, Red Spot transient, will turn white- just watch! time interval red to white as clock on earth age since birth in this scenario. Many other factors - localized core property as red source, atmosphere band distribution of Red, etc. But Red to White with age (also smaller) appears consistent with diminishing thermal scar convective activity. Wait and see, you heard it here first!? (at least I believe I am first to say this, let me keep checking - as always) - Diminishing mass of successive ejecta - mass to be ejected a function of gravitational containance, hence of remaining host planet mass. Host planet mass diminished by successive expulsions, hence successive ejecta smaller. (Venus smaller than Earth) calculation check on this: is (massEarth-massVenus)/(massEarth)=MassJupiter/(MassJupiter+massVenus) or explainably close based on reaction dynamics? Do you follow any of this? Do I explain too much? not enough? I hope the way I described this scenario will help answer some of the questions posted on T.O. that I have read recently. Such as how can venus be a comet - its not small and not made of ice? If you still have a question \ on that let me know how I can make it more clear... I've found a reading of WORLDS IN COLLISION is a new experience each time... ... first you get through the violent rejection ridicule anger stage I.(me at the flea market) then, should you choose to progress, you get to the gee I see people who really should know taking this stuff seriously - lemme read it stage II.(me after talking with my boss at McD Astro) then you get an initial familiarity, stage III.(ok lemme see he says Jupiter popped out of .. no wait Venus was an asteroi... no wait What?? Huh? the Bible says what? no way! lemme read that again) then you move on and read it again and get it straight, but it doesn't sink in (yeah got it Jupiter>Venus bumps into Earth and Mars gets into the act wild stuff Moses Joshua Hezekiah Tirhakah Tiamat Rahab Hobab Aminadab Anat it's almost poetry you get it down) then it hits you it almost sneaks up on you yes, its W in C stage V(five) or is it V for the Dr? You start seeing the celestial spectacle, feeling the earth rumble, feeling the terror, your hair stands on end, you see the darkeness the low shrouded sky, you hear the wail of the dying and shrieks of the bereaved drowned beneath the deafening din of barad at reentry thundering sonic booms and a chorus of Terrestrial Theremin tumbling mountains smoking ruins feeble futility of sacrifice in vain displaced destitutes trudge beneath low gray clouds through lifeless grain and huddle helpless against the hurricane the ground breaks open and sends flame to the skies and flaming stones are heaven's replies -you tremble and you begin to realize - I recognize this - I recognize this! --in some crazy inexplicable way this resonates with something deep in the core of your being - it is Familiar! Note: when you hit stage V you're ready for MANKIND IN AMNESIA - interesting, for me stage V hit before I knew of MANKIND IN AMNESIA I began working out the salient points myself when I found the book - I could nearly have written it! Which brings me to stage VI you read it AGAIN, this time integrating everything at your disposal to envision the physical mechanisms involved, you go out of your way mentally to see it, to inhabit that universe, look around, see it happening, and come back and check for consistency, for evidence of what you saw, in addition to what was written, you go back and forth between the WORLDS IN COLLISION scenario in your mind, which by now is like a familiar dreamworld the redding sky the wandering hordes, and the printed and video record of everything scientific you have ever learned and you find, time after time the most learned in each profession even against their very will and persistent training admitting between the lines that the evidence is too much to escape from by scientific means so denial, culling, the bell, book and candle, the academic inquisition must be called in to play, with economic boycotts of the company that published the book (doesn't this sound a bit like the fundamentalists boycotting P & G a few years back?) calling for and securing the dismissal of any who dared use their profession to advance the new view e.g. Atwater at the Planetarium.. Orchestrated false reviews and scathing criticisms of a book admittedly unread (doesn't this sound a bit like the fundamentalists berating the unseen Last Temptation of Christ a few years back?{saw it - beautiful - not sacreligious at all a must see - Jesus makes execution stakes for the Romans in his fathers shop and has nightmares about being forced to die on one of his own products - Mary Magdalene turns to prostitution after He rejects her - He blames Himself - a human novel! On the cross in delerium he imagines.. no he 's THERE .. back with Mary before she went bad... Like Jimmy Stewart in Wonderful life he sees how things would have been IF.......}) and continual omissions and denials of evidence that could be construed as confirming the Dr. V scenario, while the Rev. Sagan still is on the preaching circuit warning women and children to beware the evils of Velikovsky will this ever end? When does truth prevail? It has ever been thus.. Noah no one listened.. the prophets killed rather than heeded, imprisoned, lied about, Jesus - not met with official sanction by the religious officials, Copernicus, Galileo imprisoned "but it moves" still! Torquemada in '92 all Jews out! Pogroms, Nazi Science, Holocaust Hibakusha(survivors of Hiroshima, Nagasaki) Martin Luther King, the Kennedys Ukranian Winter of Stalin Korea VietNam Bosnia China still... still .. there is hope.. the Soviet Union is no more, somehow in history America came to exist, we've walked the moon & seen the farthest stars and landed craft on Venus & Mars (" are allright.. TONIGHT,.. sleep tight child, sleep tight" Lyrics Beatles Venus & Mars Album) Einstein couldn't see how helicopters would be controlled --Lord Kelvin called Konrad Roentgen a Charlatan .. and so it goes So is all of this anything unusual? Not really. What do we do? Get all the data you can, see what EVERYONE says (authorities AND peasants) recognize that notions contrary to established Dogma will not be printed or supported directly and evidence will be supressed and even well meaning people help to conceal and are deceived themselves and this is nothing new and our time is not special and we are no better than our forbears and if you want to see what is really going on you are just going to have to honestly look into it yourself and not take someone else's word for it and not fool yourself into thinking you've done that already and so convince yourself that you can stop checking... you can never stop checking if the price of freedom is eternal vigilance the price of knowledge is continual questioning If you are among the YOUNG AND IMAGINATIVE WHO DARE (chronological age irrelevant here) then you too may notice something new, or question where others pass by sure of their way, and from the wisdom thereby gained , yet change the world and advance human knowledge. Don't expect to be recognized or compensated though, even by your friends here at T.O. necessarily at first... as Charles Fair said of Velikovsky , his ideas may all prove correct, but SCIENCE WILL NEVER LET HIM GET AWAY WITH IT --"IT WILL SEE HIM DEAD FIRST" so Charles was not Fair after all BUT as Velikovsky was fond of saying ....DARE! I've got to go..future discussion MOSES AND THE RED SEA YES, THE WATER REALLY SPLIT, TWO WALLS OF WATER PILLAR OF FIRE, EAST WIND AND EVERYTHING! (I'm an engineer, not just a mystic) I explained it to a Rabbi in Jacksonville FL who is familiar with all the related midrash (extrabiblical legendary material) he did not mention any conflicts withthe midrashim and said that "it's BETTER THAN CECIL B. DE MILLE - ITS BELIEVABLE" why the other explanations don't work LOCATION OF THE CROSSING SITE - Until I can write, I recommend you read The Mountain of Moses - Larry Williams Noah's Ark: read The Ark of Noah - David Fasold The VELIKOVSKY CHRONOLOGY Just wait till I get Adam Stuart on the Network; we've been proofing Velikovsky's chronology for the past three and a half years - so in the meantime, if you have any chronology questions ask we-re into it heavily (don't dwell only on astronomy, as though every last detail must be proven there before moving on to chronology, if ever. Actually, the INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH is best - findings in chronology may have great bearing on the astronomy (Martian meteors in Antarctica - remember? ) Pursue Velikovsky on all fronts at once! How did Velikovsky ever come to do this stuff anyway? He was checking up on Freud - and disagreed with everything he said - but developed this scenario as a result of what he learned in the process - so whether you agree or disagree check it out - who knows what you'll come up with? I must close - keep 'holden' on Ted - there's another Pro V on the net! more later - you have no idea!!!!! 'till next time I'll let you know when I get the Robot Running.. literally.. ---------JOHN GODOWSKI--------- -- Greg O'Rear (orear@ise.ufl.edu) Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Florida ==================================================================

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank