From: kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Jim M., Ted H., and the big V.
Date: 8 Apr 92 05:49:00 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

> From: jwm@sun4.uucp (James W. Meritt)
> Subject: Re: Was Velikovsky deliberately lying, or was he just insane?
> Date: 30 Mar 92 20:20:11 GMT
> 
> By the way, since I presented evidence of things that he either DID
> know (by his own claims) or SHOULD have known (either due to it being
> within his field of training or easily derivable) AND things which he
> reverses his position to comply with his theory when the tests he claims
> should support him when they do not, AND deliberate misquotes, I suspect 
> the former i.e. a capitalistic liar in in for the bucks.

As much as I think V's theories are a load of horse manure, I disagree. I
think V.'s problem was that once he had an idea he would read his sources
within the framework of that idea, rather than using the sources to judge
the idea. A classic example of this is in RAMSES II AND HIS TIMES, where
he says

> "But in one detail Berosus and other later sources were wrong, and it is
> possible to check and correct it now, after more than two thousand years. It
> concerns the question of who sent Nebuchadnezzar against the rebels, his
> father or his brother." 

In other words, the autobiography of Hattusilis has his brother sending him
to put down a rebellion; Berosus has Nebuchadnezzar's father sending him to
put down a rebellion; and somehow this is support for the identity of
Hattusilis and Nebuchadnezzar and it is Berosus who is to be corrected, not
Velikovsky's assertion of identity which is to be proven wrong by this
information. The way he reads the Ipuwer papyrus and Punt reliefs shows the
same characteristic. 

It's as if someone never quite got the trick of writing "compare and
contrast" essays, and could only write "compare" essays. Velikovsky is a
very engaging writer, so it's easy to get sucked into his style of
interpretation. In the case of the Ipuwer papyrus, he only quotes phrases
and lines out of context, requiring a trip to the library to find the entire
text to see just what kinds of shenanigans he's playing with it.

Also, human cognition isn't that black and white. V. sank enormous amounts
of time into his reading, and most people in that situation would be
reluctant to admit to the tremendous waste implied by admitting they were
wrong. Much easier to rationalize away the evidence producing the cognitive
dissonance.

> Subject: Ignoring Facts
> From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
> Date: 5 Apr 92 15:56:43 GMT
> 
> Sue Bishop and a few others continue to accuse me of ignoring "facts"
> in these posts.

A fair enough accusation, since you have repeatedly declined to address any
of the objections that have been leveled at V's (and your own) use of
history and legends.

> Part III.  The view from Egypt
> 
> From Samuel Noah Kramer's "Mythologies of the Ancient World",
> Doubleday Anchor, pp 89-90, we read the following concerning the
> Egyptian conception of the so-called "Eye of Ra", which we read
> much of in Egyptian mythology:
> 
>      "Only the eye of Re is identified as a heavenly body in a few 
>      sentences in the pyramid texts.  We used to understand them as
>      though the eye of Re was identified as the sun, but a careful
>      interpretation of them has unmistakably shown that the eye of
>      Re was the morning star..."
> 
> i.e. this is common knowledge amongst Egyptologists.  Those who
> might doubt Kramer as a source can check pages 37 - 40 of the
> latest version of LaRousse's popular mythological encyclopedia
> (Pierre Grimal, I believe I'm remembering the name correctly,
> editor).  You'll find the same identification of Sekhet, the Eye of
> Ra, and Venus.

Velikovsky claimed that the myth of the birth of Athena corresponded to the
ejection of Venus from Jupiter, and cited Augustine and Julius Africanus to
establish that this occured at the time of the Exodus. Now you present this
evidence indicating that Venus was visible (and in an inner Solar System
orbit to boot) hundreds of years earlier. Mountains of evidence don't count
for much if the "evidence" isn't internally consistent.

> The attendant gods counseled sending the eye of Ra to punish
> mankind:
> 
>      "... let thine eye be upon those who blaspheme thee.  ...Let
>      go forth thine eye, let it destroy for thee those who
>      blaspheme with  wickedness, not an eye can proceed it in
>      resistance, when it goeth  down in the form of Hathor
>      [Venus]...  Went forth then goddess this, she slew mankind on
>      the mountain...  Said goddess this, when I had power over
>      mankind, it was pleasing to my heart...  It came to pass that
>      Sekhet [again, Venus] of the offerings of the night waded
>      about in their blood, beginning in Suten-henen...

Why not tell everyone the end of the story? Sekhet gets a little over
enthusiastic, so thousands of cups of beer stained red with pomegranate
juice (to resemble blood) and drugged with mandrake are set out on the
field. Sekhet drinks them and falls asleep. Magellan find any evidence of
pools of beer on Venus? Did analysis of the atmosphere reveal that it was
less filling, but tastes great?

Also, while on the subject of facts you ignore, the Exodus and the events in
Joshua took place in the spring, while the staying of Sekhet was
commemorated on the 12th day of the first month of winter. Or is this some
third passage of Venus not mentioned in WIC?

> Now, all of this is what I view as a new and correct approach to very
> ancient history, but Sue Bishop claims that in believing in this,
> 
>                        I AM IGNORING FACTS
> 
> i.e. I am ignoring the fact that certains types of
> evidence such as that from ice cores, when interpreted as they presently
> are by a generation of scientists who ASSUME the uniformitarian
> hypothesis, shows a very long uniformitarian past for our earth.

That's true, but you also ignore evidence relating to the supposed
historical evidence on which you hang your theories. What, for instance, do
you have to say about Stiebing's criticism of Velikovsky's use of the Amarna
letters? Let me guess, you don't know anything about the Amarna letters, and
you don't care. Too bad that if Stiebing is right, then the whole edifice of
Velikovsky's attempt to reconstruct Near Eastern history collapses, along
with the supposed synchrony of much of his "evidence" for the WIC scenario.

> I've got news for you, Bishop, Hyde, and all the rest.  I am PROUD of
> the fact that I am able to make valid judgements as to what to ignore in
> a situation such as this, and I shall CONTINUE to ignore your bullshit
> evidence involving ice-cores and varves.
> 
> In fact, I've even got an admission to make.  I don't know what a varve
> is and I don't even care.  

Yeah, just like you don't know who the Hittites are and don't care. Anything
that threatens to unravel Velikovsky's theories gets relegated to the list
of things you don't know and don't care about. I'm not impressed. "Bishop,
Hyde, and all the rest" also have other things to do with their time than
critically examine your claims. They take the time, even if they don't agree
with your conclusions. What's your excuse?

> Subject: Falsifying Data
> From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
> Date: 5 Apr 92 15:58:17 GMT
> 
> 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):
> 
> 2.      The Universe began in a big bang 10 B years ago, and has been
>         expanding since then.

What does Venus have to do with the Big Bang?

> 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.

What evidence from Venus probes contradicts this? To say "V. predicted a hot
Venus; Venus is hot; therefore the rest of V.'s claims must be true" doesn't
work. 

In fact, the ability of NASA (using that nasty old Newtonian gravitation) to
guide their probes as accurately as they do is pretty good proof that it is
V.'s claim of significant electromagnetic influence which is bogus. To
remind everyone of just what V.'s views on the subject were:  (from the
opening paragraph of a pamphlet Velikovsky wrote called COSMOS WITHOUT
GRAVITATION)

> "The fundamental theory of this paper is: Gravitation is an electromagnetic
> phenomenon. There is no primary motion inherent in planets and satellites.
> Electric attraction, repulsion and electromagnetic circumduction govern
> their movements. The moon does not 'fall,' attracted to the earth from an
> assumed inertial motion along a straight line, nor is the phenomena of
> objects falling in the terrestrial atmosphere comparable to the 'falling
> effect' in the movement of the moon, a conjecture which is the basic element
> of the Newtonian theory of gravitation."

I'll ask you once again, what exactly are you willing to commit to as
essential to Velikovsky's theory? The reversal of east and west at the time
of the Venus encounters? The 360 day year prior to the Venus encounters?

By the way, if the city that was recently found in S. Arabia really is Irem,
then I expect evidence will be forthcoming to establish that Punt was also
located in S. Arabia. This would blow away the identification of Hatshupset
with the Queen of Sheba made by Velikovsky. The Punt reliefs mention the
elders of Irem as among those who returned to Egypt to present tribute to
Hatshupset. V. cites a source which identified the trees depicted in the
Punt reliefs as S. Arabian frankincense trees, which grow in the coastal
region near Ubar/Irem. 

Karl Kluge

(we now return to our regularly scheduled thesis writing...)