Newsgroup: it.discussioni.misteri
Titolo: Velikovsky/Neocatastrophism Sources

This is being posted to a number of groups in which there have been recent
discussions of Immanuel Velikovsky and/or one or more versions of a
Saturn-based solar system theory such as you read about on:
http://www.thunderbolts.info
http://www.kronia.com
 
http://grazian-archive.com/Quantavol.htm
 
or 
http://saturniancosmology.org/intro.php
:
        "...Earth, Mars, and Neptune all have their axes of rotation at 24 to 25
degrees from the rotational axis of the Sun, as does the giant planet
Saturn. This should not be. We would expect all the planets in the Solar
System to have their spin axes pointing in the same up and down direction
as the Sun. And, in fact, the spin axes of the rest of the planets, and all
of the 134 satellites of all the planets, point in the same direction as
their parent planet, with only a few rare exceptions. [note 1]
        "The divergent and nearly identical inclination of the spin axes of these
four planets was one of the first clues that our Solar System is a
composite of two systems....."
The Velikovsky controversy is still going on.  What Charles Ginenthal and I
have done is to make a fairly large selection of reading materials on some
of these topics available on the web in the form of downloadable ebooks, at
prices below what people used to pay for communist literature in the old
CCCP.  As Rush would say, for those of you in Loma Linda, that's cheap. 
The download site is:
http://bearfabrique.org/books/books.html
Offerings include a two-volume collection of writings and essays
called "Cosmology Wars", and a little book dealing with the nature of
gravity and the question of whether the larger dinosaurs could live in
present gravity.
There are two elephant-in-the-living-room type problems with the accepted
idea of gravity as a property of mass and space.  
One is that there is no way to start with that and believe that gravity near
the surface of our own planet could have ever undergone any sort of a
substantial change, but it is an easy demonstration that it has.
The second involves Einsteins claim that information cannot be transmitted
faster than the speed of light, while gravity is known to propagate
instantaneously to within our abiliity to measure it.  Obviously, whenever
you take five steps, you are sending some sort of a gravitational message
out into the cosmos, a great deal faster than C.
There might be a third thing which doesn't jibe with Einstein's notion of
gravity if you count Eugene Podkletnov and the USAF/Boeing GRASP project. 
The most recent thing which a cursory Google search turned up on Podkletnov
indicates at least a claim of having working models of a gravity beam
device which, conceivably, could be used as a defensive weapon to knock
down katyusha rockets and the like.  
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2004/08/04/6900035EugenePodkletnov/
In other words, it's at least possible that some of these seemingly
harebrained ideas might actually have real consequences.  An idea of the
extent to which the Japanese are interested in these topics and their
ramifications can be glimpsed from a few slides from a program which was
shown on prime time on a Sunday in 04:
http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/sauropods/japanscreens/index.htm

 discussions of Immanuel Velikovsky [...]
As a physics graduate student (~1973) I stumbled upon 
_Worlds_in_Collision_ and was impressed by Velikovsky's breadth and use 
of diverse sources (despite the silliness of his thesis). My adviser was 
not impressed at all. I decided to spend one Saturday in the physics 
library following up his references. I started at the first reference 
and began looking up every one for which the journal or book was located 
in the physics library (at the Univ. of Illinois, which is one of the 
largest physics departments in the world, with a library to match).
By noon I had given up. I had traced several dozen references and NOT A 
SINGLE ONE checked out. As I recall, about a third were supposed to be 
articles in journals that existed, but the referenced article simply did 
not exist. For the rest, in EVERY CASE the author of the article or book 
said one thing and Velikovsky twisted it into either an unrecognizable 
statement or a diametrically opposed statement.
Years later I found _Scientists_Confront_Velikovsky_, and learned that 
Carl Sagan had done essentially the same thing in an astronomy library, 
with similar results.
Despite superficial appearances, Velikovsky is a LOUSY scholar, and his 
conclusions do not stand up under scrutiny.
Tom Roberts

 wrote in message 
news:bMc1h.2254$s6....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...

If I recall correctly Isaac Asimov did it as well.  He was a professor of 
biochemistry at one time before devoting his time to writing full time and 
was generous enough to let his statements about physics go by but when he 
made some comments that were part of biochemistry he was merciless.  He 
tracked down the sources and reached exactly the same conclusion you did and 
showed biochemically much of the stuff he postulated was downright silly.  I 
seem to recall he was editor or contributor to 'Scientists Confront 
Velikovsky'.
Thanks
Bill


 wrote in message news:bMc1h.2254$s6....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...

See also Geller, Von Daniken, Hancock, ... and less successful
but trying hard, De Meo, Van Flandern, Cahill, ...
People who work this way do not deserve the label "lousy
scholar". These people perfectly know what they are doing
and don't just fuck up their references because they are
lousy at it. They are downright charlatans, and they make
(or try hard to make) good money out of it :-)
Dirk Vdm

 This is being posted to a number of groups....
[snip garbage]
You mean you have spammed a number of groups crank.
Mike

 wrote in message news:mFw1h.56089$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Actually I find it somewhat amazing that there is no law
against this kind of activity. It is clearly maliciously fraudulent.
Perhaps it is very hard to draw the line between this and
fanatic religious writings? Same tactics, same lies, same
effect, but perhaps more sensitive.
Perhaps one could also argue that no one can get hurt by
getting fed deliberate nonsense, but then again, Holocaust
deniers regularly get confronted with such laws...
Strange? or perhaps not so strange?
Dirk Vdm


I don't agree with what they say..
But I defend their right to say it.
Censorship is giving them more attention than they deserve.
I would say yes:  strange.  
Cheers -  shevek

 wrote in message 
news:1162313077.7...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...




First sorry for the blank posting.  I too am in favor of freedom of speech. 
But there are justifiably laws about making false and misleading claims of 
products..  Without them, for example, you can sell televisions that are not 
really televisions and people would have no comeback..  Exactly where you 
draw the line on what is legitimate 'puffing' in advertising and 
deliberately misleading claims can be difficult.  I however suggest Cahill 
and his ilk make claims beyond mere puffing and into the realm of 
misrepresentation.
Thanks
Bill 


Good point Bill.  If a set of published lies winds up defrauding
someone, taking their property or freedom, then laws are justifiable to
compensate victims and prevent further injustice.
For the case of Cahill, or even the Deniers, I don't think this is the
case.  I suppose we could say we brought the books thinking they were
good physics or history, and demand our money back, but is it really
worth it?  Not unless you purchased thousands of copies for your store.
 And both do what they advertise: offer ideas about physics and
history.  If they were selling them as televisions, it would be a
different story.   
Cheers -  shevek