IT'S 1950 ALL OVER AGAIN -- Scientists Still as Dishonest as Then -- No Change Since Velikovsky's Day

"You're not only fighting the man in the ring, Ed.
You're also fighting the referee and the three
judges."
-- Clayton Lennon, Philospher (1900-1996)

====================================

http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/FOSSILS...HumanSkull.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/FOSSILS/HumanBrain.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/ManasOl...iscoveries.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/FOSSILS/FirstDiscovery.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Evidence/MoreFossils.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/FOSSILS/ManasOldasCoal.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/FOSSILS/TestResults.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/FOSSILS/OldestTool.jpg

Ed Conrad
http://ww.edconrad.com
Man as Old as Coal

======================

THE VELIKOVSKY AFFAIR

In 1963, the editors of American Behavioral Scientist magazine
were convinced of the merits of Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky's science
-- contained in "Worlds in Collision" and "Earth in Upheaval,"
published in the early 1950s -- and were aware of the mushroom
cloud of denial that had been generated from within the scientific
community.

The editors considered these events to be of major importance
to the history of science.

Therefore, they displayed tremendous courage by devoting their
September 1963 issue to defending Velikovsky.

It contained three papers dealing with the Velikovsky controversy --
by Ralph Juergens, Livio Stecchini and publisher Alfred de Grazia, as
well as a paper submitted by Velikovsky himself.

Three years later -- in 1966 -- this edition of American Behavioral
Scientist wound up as a hard-cover book entitled "The Velikovsky
Affair: The Warfare of Science and Scientism," edited by de Grazia
and published by University Books Inc., New Hyde Park, N.Y.

=================

"THE VELIKOVSKY AFFAIR"
Foreward
(by Alfred de Grazia)

In 1950, a book called "Worlds in Collision," by Dr. Immanuel
Velikovsky, gave rise to a controversy in scientific and intellectual
circles about scientific theories and the sociology of science.

Dr. Velikovsky's historical and cosmological concepts, bolstered by
his acknowledged scholarship, constituted a formidable assault on
certain established theories of astronomy, geology and historical
biology, and on the heroes of those sciences.

Newton, himself, and Darwin were being challenged, and indeed
the general orthodoxy of an ordered universe.

The substance of Velikovsky's ideas is briefly presented in the first
chapter of this book.

What must be called the scientific establishment rose in arms, not
only against the new Velikovsky theories but against the man himself.
Efforts were made to block dissemination of Dr. Velikovsky's ideas
and even to punish supporters of his investigations.

Universities, scientific societies, publishing houses, the popular
press were approached and threatened. Social pressures and
professional sanctions were invoked to control public opinion.

There is no doubt that in a totalitarian society, not only would Dr.
Velikovsky's reputation have been at stake, but also his right to
pursue his inquiry, and perhaps his own personal safety.

As it was, the "establishment" succeeded in building a wall of
unfavorable sentiment around him. To thousands of scholars
the name of Velikovsky bears the taint of fantasy, science-fiction
and publicity.

He could not be suppressed entirely. In the next few years
he published three more books. He carried on a large
correspondence. And he was helped by friends and by a large
general public composed of persons outside of the establishments
of science.

The probings of spacecraft tended to confirm -- never to disprove --
his arguments.

Eventually, the venomous aspects of the controversy,
the efforts at suppression, the campaign of vilification
loomed almost as large, in their consequences to science,
as the original issue.

Social scientists, who had been generally aware of Dr. Velikovsky's
work, now found themselves in the thick of the conflict.
The involvement of the social and behavioral sciences in the
scientific theories of Velikovsky was higher than had been earlier
appreciated.

The social sciences are the basis of Velikvsky's work. Despite his
proficiency in the natural sciences, it is by the use of the
methodology of social science that Velikovsky launched his challenge
to accepted cosmological theories.

No one pretends that this method is adequate. New forms of
interdisciplinary research are needed to wed, for example, the study
of myth with the study of meteorites.

Nor does one have to agree that Velikovsky is the greatest technician
of mythology, even while granting his great conceptual and
synthesizing powers.

Whatever the scientific substance, the controversy itself could not
be avoided or dismissed by behavioral science.

The problem of scence is one of the agitating problems
of the 20th century. The issues are clear: Who determines
scientific truth? Who are its high priests, and what is their
warrant? How do they establish their canons? What effects
do they have on the freedom of inquiry, and on public interest?

In the end, some judgment must be passed upon the behavior of the
scientific world and, if adverse, some remedies must be proposed . . .

It is our hope that the publication of these papers in the present
volume (a revised and enlarged version) will make it less easy for
Velikovsky's new work to be suppressed, or lightly dismissed.

We hope, too, that they will help scientists and interested laymen
everywhere to rehearse the problems and to reform the errors
of the vast enterprise of science.

====================================

"Ed Conrad" wrote in message
...


"You're not only fighting the man in the ring, Ed.
You're also fighting the referee and the three
judges."
-- Clayton Lennon, Philospher (1900-1996)

====================================

But Ed is engaged in a battle of wits, alas, he's un-armed ...

Mainstream published and institutional textbook promoted
infomercial-science and of their highly conditional laws of physics,
plus having imposed as much evidence exclusion as they can possibly get
away with, is all about sustaining these local rusemasters of politics,
religion and of their puppet governments having their strings
continually pulled until their private parts hurt. Therefore Ed
Conrad's 280 million year old human isn't worth squat, any more so than
the truth and nothing but the truth is hardly ever allowed to see the
light of day.

For example; Club/cult SETI is not only barking up those wrong trees,
but more than likely as having been barking at entirely the wrong forest
of such trees. SETI couldn't have established a more narrow mindset and
thus nearly impossible task if it were intentionally planned that way
from the very get-go, of which I happen to think it was just that.

Not only is the recently published "SETI Requires a Skeptical
Reappraisal" by; PETER SCHENKEL
http://www.csicop.org/si/2006-03/seti.htmloffering a perfectly fair
and balanced report, but unfortunately it clearly doesn't go nearly far
enough as to the evil root of the problem(s) within the SETI cultism
that has clearly a hidden agenda as well as ulterior motives, that seem
to relate primarily to protecting their offshore bank accounts, or
otherwise towards sustaining their tax avoidance status quo.

"But SETI activities so far do not justify this hope. They recommend a
more realistic and sober view. Considering the negative search results,
the creation of excessive expectations is only grist to the mill of the
naysayers-for instance, members of Congress who question the scientific
standing of SETI, imputing to it wishful thinking, and denying it
financial support. This absolutely negative approach to SETI is
certainly wrong, because contrary to the UFO hoax, SETI (as UCLA space
scientist Mark Moldwin [2004] stressed in a recent issue of this
magazine) is based on solid scientific premises and considerations. But
exaggerated estimates fail to conform to realities, as they are seen
today, tending to backfire and create disappointment and a turning away
from this fascinating scientific endeavor. The dream of mankind to find
brethren in space may yet be fulfilled. If it is not, man should not
feel sorry for his uniqueness. Rather that circumstance should boost the
gratitude for his existence and his sense of responsibility for making
the most of it."

How about instead of continually going for those multi-thousand
lightyear wire-tapping efforts (thus representing essentially no
possible hope in sight), as currently performed by the majority of SETI
types, there's nearby Venus that's perfectly capable of hosting life
that isn't at all about how terribly hot and nasty that Venusian
environment has been, whereas it's actually all about the ongoing greed,
arrogance and highly institutionalized bigotry of what's represented by
our mainstream status quo incest of the worse possible mutated forms of
life that exist upon Earth, as being opposed to any such other life
regardless of the evidence, the physics, of whatever's hard-science or
the consequences of banishing such knowledge of other life.

Just because Venus has been a tad bit geothermally active and thus
unavoidably hot and/or somewhat humanly toasty isn't such an
insurmountable reason as for having prevented the natural emergence of
other life, as having originally existed and/or as having merely
somewhat recently coexisted, as to such other life having been
automatically excluded or otherwise banished from the Venusian
environment seems rather unlikely, that which the newish Venusian
environment seems otherwise as having so much to offer. Of course my
observationology of interpreting as to what looks so
artificial/intelligent and otherwise infrastructure rational is most
likely just what it is. Sorry about that.

If the ESA's Venus EXPRESS PFS instrument is not viable, then perhaps
we/SETI can devote some local efforts as to interplanetary laser (ABL if
need be) communication efforts, especially whenever Venus is so nearby
every 19 months. Though it's too bad we still haven't established that
LL-1 science platform to work from, much less of and VL2/TRACE science
platform as halo station-keeping within the Venusian L2 zone. Perhaps
China will soon enough accomplish the first and thereby having
established this one and only such LL-1 science station on our behalf,
and then so much other improvements should follow suit.

"dkomo" wrote in message
news
Why haven't they found *us*? Let's see, our galaxy has about 300
billion stars. The latest estimate I've seen is that 90% of them could
have planets. That's 270 billion planets (assuming only one planet per
star system) to search in order to find intelligent species. That's a
tall order even for a very advanced alien civilization. And our own
planet has been lit up at night only since about the late 1800's when
gas lightning in the streets of cities became commonplace, while
widespread use of radio waves didn't come along until the 1920's.

Unfortunately, we're also still into using those easily distorted and
otherwise badly interstellar attinuated microwaves and/or of wussy radar
signals that are still terribly interstellar inefficient (especially if
having been originated from the surface of Earth, and not otherwise
generated external to our magnetosphere), and even at that there's been
no serious beacon efforts honestly applied towards the most nearby of
the most viable other star/solar systems.

On our global warming Earth is a realm where human greed, arrogance and
bigotry has been policy, thus being status quo snookered and/or
dumbfounded (to death if need be) is also a requirement. Unfortunately,
Most of our talents and resources thus far have been devoted as to
exterminating our own kind over the limited energy and rare element
resources of this magnetosphere failing planet. Go figure.

I'm thinking that other ET life could be much like right here on Earth,
whereas certain islands that have been teaming with complex plant and
animal life, yet never once having evolved with an original species of
human as to contaminate, pillage and rape everything to death, whereas I
tend to believe there are a few such other worlds (possibly nearby)
without a human infestation.

I also believe with conviction that we're within a 105,000 (+/- 5,000)
year orbital cycle with our parent Sirius star/solar system. I have to
say this because of the available science and also because the regular
laws of physics is what makes it impossible to not be the case.

Gravity sucks, as in regardless of whatever big-bang or the many
little-bangs of happenstance, whereas everything remains unavoidably in
orbit around something. We are not biologically, intellectually nor
otherwise physically alone, just having been rather badly snookered and
otherwise having been dumbfounded to death for most of our pathetically
bigoted lives.

Why the heck do you suppose our SETI is looking only for those
remainders of other such arrogant, greedy, dumbfounded and terribly
bigoted humans (apparently looking primarily as for those Jewish ETs
none the less)?

By the time we've detected their multi-thousand light year old message,
arnt those folks rather dead, as may will be the whole incest lot of
humanity upon this magnetosphere failing Earth within the next thousand
years. So what's the difference?

I still have a few perfectly serious physics and hard-science related
questions about Venus, of which I'll gladly share and share alike by way
of paying the likes of yourself big-time loot if you'll help my research
along, or otherwise merely for contributiing as for kicking a few of
those mainstream butts that are in a bad way in need of their status quo
mindsets of naysayism getting kicked to hell.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG