From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Falsifying Data
Date: 12 Apr 92 00:25:46 GMT
Organization: HTE




Sue Bishop, Bill (Piled Higher and Deeper) Hyde, and others claim I am
ignoring facts (i.e. their bullshit ice-core and varve interpretations) in
these posts.  I claim they are not only ignoring a solid ton of
historical evidence, but that establishment science routinely falsifies
evidence which might otherwise tend to overthrow the entire doctrine of
uniformity upon which almost all natural science is based.

Evidence involving the planet Venus is especially in danger.

Venus is a very complex system.  The one thing which for sure is not
going on on Venus is Sagan's bullshit Super-Greenhouse effect.  Images
which we've now all seen show Venus' entire surface to be a sea of lava,
most of it recent.  That says new planet, ala Velikovsky.  The heat at
the surface is native, due to the planet's recent formation;  what
greenhouse effect does exist due to the thick CO2 layers holds the heat
and restrains it from escaping as rapidly as it otherwise might.

By nobody's account does any more than 2% of solar energy get to Venus'
surface, and since the middle cloud layers absorb the vast bulk of any
solar energy, any theory (including SGH) trying to explain the heat of
Venus as an affect of solar energy must predict the middle cloud layer
to be hotter than the surface, which it is not.  Super Greenhouse is
thus seen to involve a gross violation of the second law of
thermodynamics.

NASA scientists and other astronomers aren't all liars, but the effect
of their interpretations of Venus data aren't easily distinguishable
from propaganda and lies.  NOTHING coming from Venus matches up with
their standard theories, i.e. the Astronomer's Dogma (thanks to McCanney):

1.      The solar system formed from a swirling gas and dust cloud 4.5 B
        years ago, and the order of the planets has not changed since.

2.      The Universe began in a big bang 10 B years ago, and has been
        expanding since then.

3.      Newtonian gravitation is the sole force that governs the cosmos
        and electromagnetic forces have little or no effect on the
        motions of the planets.

4.      Comets are dirty balls of ice which sublimate when near the sun.


The implications of these tenets as regards Venus include the notion
that Venus should be in thermal equilibrium after all those billions
of years.  It isn't.  Emperical data confirms this, both in the low
atmosphere and in the high.  Both figures have been bent to conform to
the astronomers dogma.

If you fix everything to conform to your theory, then everything will
match up and the whole support each litle part, as establishment likes
to point out.

My own best guess as to what is going on on Venus is more or less as
follows.  You've got a layer near the surface which is more or less
translucent.  Heat radiates from the surface through this layer to the
middle cloud layer as the probes indicated and then the heat must seek
other ways upwards, including the concentric waves mentioned by
Ginenthal.  Somewhere near the top, the heat again radiates off into
space.

Albedo is the main element on which the measurement of thermal flux near
the top of Venus' atmosphere depends, and is acknowledged to be
difficult to measure.  As it was measured in the late 70's, Venus
appeared to have a net 15% outwards thermal flux.  Later corrections in
all likelihood were inspired mostly be a perceived need to eliminate
this undesireable finding.  Even the official measurements given out
today have Venus showing a net outward thermal flux within error bounds
of no effect.  A thermal outflux of 10 - 15% at the top would be
ballpark for matching the upward IR flux measured by the probes
mentioned in the text following, i.e. the empirical data more or less
matches without the benefit of being doctored to suit the astronomer's
dogma.


......................................................................
......................................................................


The Nov. 13 1980 issue of New Scientist contained an article
entitled "The mystery of Venus' internal heat", which read as
follows:

     "Two years surveillance by the Pioneer Venus orbiter seems to
     show that Venus is radiating away more energy than it receives
     from the sun.  If this surprising result is confirmed, it
     means that the planet itself is producing far more heat than
     the earth does.

     F.W. Taylor of the Clarendon Laboratory at Oxford presented
     these measurements at a Royal Society meeting last week. 
     Venus surface temperature is higher than any other in the
     solar system, at 480 C.  The generally accepted theory is that
     sunlight is absorbed at Venus' surface, and re-radiated as
     infrared.  The later is absorbed in the atmosphere, which thus
     acts as a blanket, keeping the planet hot.  It is similar to
     the way a greenhouse keeps warm.

     Pioneer has shown that there is enough carbon dioxide and the
     tiny proportion of water vapor needed to make the greenhouse
     effect work -- just.  If this is the whole story, the total
     amount of radiation emitted back into space, after its journey
     up through the atmospheric blanket must be exactly equal to
     that absorbed from sunlight (otherwise the surface temperature
     would be continuously changing).

     But Taylor found that Venus radiates 15 percent more energy
     than it receives.  To keep the surface temperature constant,
     Venus must be producing this extra heat from within.

     All the inner planets, including earth, produce internal heat
     from radioactive elements within their rocks.  But Taylor's
     observations of Venus would mean that the planet is producing
     almost 10,000 times more heat than the earth, and it is
     inconceivable according to present theories of planetary
     formation, that Venus should have thousands of times more of
     the radioactive elements than Earth does.  At last weeks
     meeting, Taylor's suggestion met with skepticism - not to say
     sheer disbelief - from other planetary scientists.

     Taylor himself has no explanation for his result.  He simply
     points out that the discrepancy seemed at first to be simply
     experimental error - but with more precise measurements, it
     refused to go away.  More measurements are needed before
     astronomers accept the result, and most planetary scientists
     are obviously expecting - and hoping - that the embarrassing
     extra heat will disappear on further investigation.

     
     It would be naive to assume the astronomical community would
sit around waiting for the extra heat to go away of its own
volition.  Later explanations (from the astronomical community)
would have us believe that an error had been made in our estimate
of the albedo of Venus, and that the subsequent corrections have
put the notion of thermal equilibrium at least within the error-
bounds of what is actually observed.  Do you believe it?

.............................................................

     Consider then what happens as probes descend deep into the
atmosphere of Venus towards the surface.

     I am looking at two articles from Icarus magazine dated 1982
and 1985, the first by H.E. Revercomb, L.A. Sromovsky, and V.E.
Suomi of the Space Science and Engineering Center, Univ. of
Wisconsin at Madison, the second by the same three gentlemen along
with R.W. Boese of NASA-Ames (Icarus 52, 279-300 and Icarus 61,
521-538).  Both of these articles involve the infra-red flux
sensors on the Venus probes which landed in Dec. 1978, so that even
by the time the first article was written (82), these people had
quite awhile to think about what the probes had told them.  Three
small probes carried net flux radiometers carried externally, and
a larger probe carried an infrared radiometer internally, which
viewed the atmosphere through a window.  All of these instruments
measured the infrared flux of the Venereal atmosphere.  

     In the upper atmosphere, all of these instruments showed
infrared fluxes which the scientists could at least think about
living with; as they descended, however, all began to show very
large net fluxes UPWARDS, which is what you might expect if
(HORRORS) Velikovsky's view of Venus were the correct one:

     "Below the Venus cloud deck both LIR and SNFR flux
     measurements appear to affected by serious errors..."

     "...Although the LIR [large probe enclosed instrument]
     measurements might be correctable, using the multispectral
     information of the data to deduce the magnitude of the
     asymmetry, no reliable corrections have yet been obtained [by
     1982 three years after the fact]...  Thus we cannot at this
     time make use of the LIR results..."


     However, if the scientists lacked imagination in forcing the
large probe data into a suitable uniformitarian, Saganesque mold,
no such lack occurred with the data from the probes carried on the
three small probes:

     "The magnitudes of the corrections for both instruments are
     determined by forcing agreement with a range of calculated net
     fluxes at one altitude deep in the atmosphere, where the net
     flux must be small because of the large density of CO2.

"Must be small" based on the known facts of uniformitarianism and
"Super-Greenhouse".  The idea that four separate instruments of two
different sorts, three carried externally and one internally all
telling the same story MIGHT possibly just be correct does not even
occur to the scientists.  Religious belief overrides evidence;  the
round evidence must be pounded into the square hole.

..............................................................

     Several posters on t.o noted that such large flux
differentials (as high as 600 w/m**2) would necessarily translate
into equally large outflows at the top of the atmosphere which
CAN'T be, because our industrious astronomers have already adjusted
the figures for the top of the atmosphere right?  That's what the
little section regarding Taylor's talk was about.  Besides, how would the
planet throw off that much heat?

..............................................................

From a journal article of Charles Ginenthal:

   A 1973 article in New Scientist noted the work of four
scientists at Caltech's Jet Propulsion Laboratory demonstrating
that Venus shows "regular changes in the spectrum of its
atmosphere," with marked variations in the carbon dioxide lines on
a four-day cycle:

Ginenthal here cites the actual New Scientist article (vol 58,
1973, page 72):


     Over 20 years ago, Gerard Kuiper noted day-to-day fluctuations
     in the infrared spectrum of Venus, but no one has yet got to
     the bottom of these changes.  In order to study the
     oscillations A.T., L.G., and J.W. Young and J.T. Gerstrahl
     obtained spectra nightly during the autumn of last year
     [1972].  Their data on the carbon dioxide line show an
     unmistakable oscillation.


     The observed variation is not periodic, but more akin to a
     relaxation oscillation in which the amplitude builds up on
     successive cycles and then suddenly collapses.  In order to
     produce the observed changes the cloud deck of Venus must be
     moving up and down as much as one kilometer, simultaneously
     over the entire surface of the planet.  Such a large
     atmosphere oscillation requires a high input of mechanical
     energy.  This condition is difficult to account for in the
     case of a slowly rotating planet heated uniformly by the suns
     rays [greenhouse effect].

     Therefore, the cycle variations point to some unexplained,
     deep-seated property of the atmospheric dynamics.

Ginenthal offers his own explanation:


     What is very apparent is that the surface heat is building up
     so strongly that it cannot be convected away as rapidly as it
     builds up.  The super-hot air therefore expands and rises,
     pushing the layers above it which also expand and rise.  The
     process goes on until the upper air layers have risen
     sufficiently high to permit heat to dissipate more rapidly in
     the freezing altitudes of space, following which the entire
     atmosphere contracts to repeat the process.   The amount of
     energy required to accomplish such a feat is far greater than
     could be produced by any "greenhouse" that lacks a cover!  It
     is thus impossible to reconcile the observed condition with a
     thermally balanced atmosphere: an ancient planet would have
     achieved a thermal equilibrium long ago.  Hence the fact that
     the Venusian atmosphere is not in equilibrium makes the
     "greenhouse" effect a charade and points to the same
     conclusion as the other considerations reviewed above.

Again, several t.o posters have insisted that the vertical waves
mentioned exist only in the upper atmosphere [an effect without a
cause].  Ginenthal correctly notes that this cannot be:

     "One cannot assume that only a small part of the upper
     atmosphere is raised because there would have to exist a layer
     in the atmosphere that is hotter than the layers beneath it. 
     The hottest layer of gas is found at the surface;  therefore,
     the point of lift occurs from that point upward.  The
     temperature of Venus falls steadily from the surface.  

i.e. the same old war between Sagan and the second law of
thermodynamics.  That law doesn't seem to LIKE Sagan does it? 
Another physical law which seems to mitigate against Sagan is the
adage of nature abhorring a vacuum...

..............................................................

     The following is also from Ginenthal's "Sagan and Velikovsky"

     "A physicist, Leopold Strabismus (his humorous pseudonym
     meaning crosseyed) at the author's request undertook to
     calculate the amount of energy necessary to raise the Venus
     atmosphere 1 kilometer over the entire planet.  What
     Strabismus found was that based on equations of state in
     thermodynamics, he could obtain the measured sea-level
     atmospheric pressure of earth as it coincides with results
     from the kinetic theory of gases.  Dr. Strabismus has taken
     this demonstration one step further by showing the total
     gravitational weight of Earth's atmosphere divided by the
     Earth's surface area yields the same result."

     "Strabismus states, 'Specific weight versus altitude figures
     were obtained for Venus, via NASA.  But when the equation was
     applied to these figures, it led to a computed surface
     pressure for Venus well in excess of the MEASURER surface
     pressure of 90 bars.  The surface pressure should be greater
     based on this equation of state analysis;  therefore, some
     force must be pushing upwards against the weight of the
     atmosphere.  That is, even without raising the atmosphere one
     inch, a force is clearly lifting up the atmosphere.  This is
     in total defiance of what is required for an atmosphere in
     thermal balance."

     "However when this pressure is driven through an atmospheric
     shell of one kilometer, thickness at the topopause of Venus,
     it yields an energy of 2.96 E+23 foot pounds, each time the
     cloud layer is raised.  The energy is over 29 trillion,
     trillion foot pounds.  The raising of the Venus atmosphere
     occurs about 80 times a year.  Thus, the 29 trillion must be
     multiplied by 80, yielding 2.32 trillion quadrillion foot
     pounds of energy per year.  The sun's radiation produces
     nothing like that amount of energy in the Venus atmosphere,
     but a hot volcanic surface can provide the necessary energy. 
     [which is precisely what the Magellan probes are showing]

     "An atmosphere in thermal equilibrium does not behave as
     described above.  Of this oscillation, Sagan breathes not a
     word.


..............................................................


     If Sagan is correct and our system is billions of years old,
and Venus has been in its present place for billions of years, then
ancient astronomical charts and observations MUST show Venus in its
present orbit.  Indeed, scientists claim that they DO;  they used
some of this evidence at the AAAS meeting in 1974 which produced
"Scientists Confront Velikovsky", claiming that the well-known
"Venus Tablets" of the Babylonian king Ammizaduga showed Venus
entirely in its present orbit in the middle of the second
millennium BC i.e. during the period when, according to Velikovsky,
it would have perforce been unstable.

     But then, a number of real scholars began to take a harder
look at the Venus Tablets.  The following is from an article by
Lynn E. Rose from the Winter 73 issue (#III) of the Pensee Journal,
the old Student Academic Freedom Forum.  This is a long article
which I could not quote in its entirety.  The article treated
mostly with the manner in which the tablets involved have been
translated in the past.

The key paragraph of the article read as follows:


     "Unfortunately, nearly all treatments of groups one and three
     on K. 160, and of the genuinely observational material on the
     other Venus tablets that supplement K. 160, have been based on
     what I call the "astronomer's dogma".  The "astronomer's
     dogma" is the uniformatarian attitude that the solar system
     has for untold years been just as it is now, and that Venus
     and Earth in particular have always been on the same orbits
     they are on now, except for certain very minor perturbations
     that are for most purposes entirely negligible.  This means
     that we can look at the present motions of Earth and Venus and
     then judge on that basis how accurate the ancient observations
     were.  If the ancient observations do not conform to what
     would be expected from the present state of affairs, then the
     ancient records were defective, and were either fictions or
     errors, but could not have been accurate observations of what
     was going on in the sky; accordingly, it is up to us to
     rewrite those ancient records so that they WILL conform to
     what we see in the sky today."

     Rose notes the nature of Venus as it appears to us first as
evening star, disappears for a few days of inferior conjunction,
reappears as morning star West of the sun for some months and then
disappears during superior conjunction.  He notes that one of the
Babylonian tablet fragments (K. 160 from the library of
Ashurbanipal, now in the British Museum) appears to be a record of
these comings and goings:


  "Let me give some typical passages from the tablet:

 
     "In the month of Sivan, on the twenty fifth day, Ninsianna
     [that is, Venus] disappeared in the east; she remained absent
     from the sky for two months, six days; in the month Ulul on
     the 24'th day, Ninsianna appeared in the West - the heart of
     the land is happy. In the month Nisan on the 27'th day,
     Ninsianna disappeared in the West; she remained absent from
     the sky for seven days; in the month Ayar on the third day,
     Ninsianna appeared in the east - hostilities occur in the
     land, the harvest of the land is successful.


     "The first invisibility mentioned in these lines involves a
     disappearance in the east, an invisibility of two months, six
     days, and a reappearance in the west.  This seems to be a
     superior conjunction. The second invisibility involves a
     disappearance in the west, an invisibility of seven days, and
     a reappearance in the east.  This seems to be an inferior
     conjunction.  Most of the data in groups one and three on the 
     tablet are of this form.  But the lengths and spacings of
     these invisibilities have a certain irregularity about them,
     and they do not conform to the manner in which Venus moves at
     present.

     "The data given in the second group on the tablet do have
     regularity - even too much regularity to be believable, - but
     they do not conform to the present state of affairs
     either.....


     These kinds of things are well-known to scholars who have
actually studied the tablets.  Rose mentions numerous translators,
Boseanquet & Sayce, Schiaperelli, Langdon and Fotheringham...  He
notes [as an example], that:

     "The next major study of the Venus tablets was by Langdon and 
     Fotheringham in 1928.  Their book is important for the student
     of the tablets in that they bring together a great deal of
     material that is not available in any one other place; 
     unfortunately, however, their book is dominated and severely
     handicapped by the astronomer's dogma, and they find it
     necessary to scoff at much of what the tablets say was
     actually seen, simply because such things are not seen today."


He cites also the case of Van der Waerden:

     "Further attempts to deal with the tablets along
     uniformitarian lines were made by Ungnad in 1940 and van der
     Waerden in 1946.  Van der Waerden plays the uniformitarian
     game much better than some of his predecessors, but the main
     reason I want to mention him here is that he is the clearest
     example I have found of an unfortunate way of talking and
     thinking that is characteristic of uniformitarians.  He says
     at one point, after either rejecting or radically rewriting
     about three out of four of the recorded observations, that: 

        "All I have done is to remove inner contradictions from the
        text."

.............................................
..............................................


     Charles Ginenthal (Sagan and Velikovsky) has a great deal to
say about the Ammizaduga tablets, pp 281 - 284, quoting Livio C.
Stecchini's "The Velikovsky Affair":

     "The Venus tablets of Ammizaduga is the most striking document
     of early Babylonian astronomy.  These tablets, of which we
     possess several copies of different origin, report the dates
     of the helical rising and setting of the planet Venus during
     a period of 21 years...

     "Since the first effort at explanation of Archibald Henry
     Sayce in 1874, these figures have challenged the wit of a
     score of experts of astronomy and cuneiform philology. 
     (Father Franz Xavier) Kugler (1862 - 1929), a recognized major
     authority on Babylonian and biblical astronomy, chronology and
     mythology, opposed the contention of those who claim that
     these documents must be dismissed as nonsense."  [because they
     do not conform to present orbital patterns for Venus]


     Indian and Central American records also show Venus moving on
an orbit other than its present one.  Ginenthal cites Evan
Hadingham ("Early Man and the Cosmos):

     "The Venus pages [of the Dresden Codex] bear little
     resemblance to a modern astronomical table."

     Ginenthal goes on to say:

     "Since Hadingham, like the astronomers who dealt with the
     Babylonian tables cannot conceive nor accept this evidence
     that Venus' orbit was different in the past, an analysis is
     created to dispose of this information.  This is so in spite
     of Hadingham's asserting the following regarding Mayan
     astronomy:

     'The precision of the observations documented in the few
     surviving hieroglyphic books is astonishing.  For instance,
     one book contains a scheme for the correction of Venus
     observations [present variety as opposed to the distant past] 
     which ensures an accuracy of approximately two hours in five 
     hundred years...  How were they able to score such phenomenal 
     success in their observations?'"

     Again, Ginenthal:

     "Astronomers, in attempting to deal with this evidence
     respecting Venus, either ignore the data or invent systems to 
     explain it away so that it will conform to their
     uniformitarian view.  By employing a sledge hammer, they smash
     the tablets of Ammizaduga to bits and then reassemble the
     fragments to prove that Venus' orbit has never changed. 
     Although Velikovsky does not explain the precise cause for the
     circularization of Venus' orbit except to invoke
     electromagnetic forces, the plain evidence of the ancient
     astronomers shows that Venus' orbit was different, and
     therefore, more elliptical than its present, almost circular
     orbit and thus, there must exist a force that circularized it.


     This is a bona-fide example of circular reasoning.  The
tablets are changed in translation to conform with what everybody
KNOWS to be reality i.e. uniformitarianism.  Then these same
mis-translated tablets are used by the typical yuppie "scientist"
to refute Velikovsky.  


And the funny thing is that, at bottom, all of the evidence which
Bishop, Hyde, Meritt, and these others keep accusing me of ignoring is
of this same nature, i.e. falsified evidence, and the act of
falsification, i.e. of causing all such evidence to conform to
uniformity, has become as second nature to these "scientists" as using a
stick shift.  They no longer even realize they're doing it and get
incensed when accused of doing it.


Ted Holden
HTE





-- 
HTE
bear