From lippard@PrimeNet.Com Sat Aug 13 14:48:57 1994 Date: Thu, 11 Aug 1994 16:59:38 -0700 (MST) From: "James J. Lippard" To: lippard@rtd.com Subject: add to ftp stuff Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Ev Cochrane: Philistine, Anti-Scholar & Reductionist, I [CLE] Date: 8 Aug 94 20:29:50 GMT Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa Lines: 283 Message-ID: [posted for CLE by btd.] Everett Cochrane: Philistine, Anti-Scholar & Redustionist, Part I For Everett Cochrane, herinafter EC, to take leave of the debate with Ellenberer, herinafter CLE, with three posts unanswered (1: 20 Jun, a "magnum opus: specifically demanded by EC with two repostings of his challenge as though CLE has no reply, 2: 7 Jul, "Ducks Again!", the no seasons in the Golden Age bit, and 3: 22 Jul, "The Folly of Interplanetary Catastrophism") is most disingeneous. EC's failure to engage CLE's rejoinders and challenges runs counter to the canons of debate of which Sean Mewhinney once noted, "In an honest debate, when one's opponent scores a point, you concede it, assess the damage to your case, and go on to discuss other points. A dishonest debater denies any error or misrepresentation and draws attention away from the issue by making countercharges" (KRONOS XI:2, 1986; when CLE was "Sr. Ed." and EC, a mere "Assoc. Ed."). The following comments are based on EC's 20 Jul, 312 line, "Re: Cochrane Answers Ellenberger," which provides very little that qualifies as an "answer," although it is well written. The keen observer will realize that EC uses every debater's trick in the book to mischaracterize and trivialize his opposition and to place his own dubious claims in a rosy light. EC repeats slanders against CLE's scholar- ship and mental health originally made by Rose and Greenberg. Rose and EC are wrong that CLE has made no original scholarly contribution because as an investigator CLE corrected the "myth of the 'science' listing" (KRONOS IX:2, 1983) and refuted Rose's notion that no chapter in _Worlds in Collision_ is so erroneous that it needs to be retracted in "Altered Temple Axes," a section in Part 2 of the invited memoir that EC cancelled in June 1993, but which had been circulated on a postcard in June 1990. Greenberg's report, elaborated by EC, that Griffard considered CLE "clinical" (EC says "certifiably bonkers") is probably a pun and certainly is less serious than the various neurotic pathologies affliciting certain other Kronoi Griffard shared with CLE in '83-'84 over drinks at the Airport Days Inn, Krueger's and McGurk's in St. Louis. Since psychological well-being is culturally defined, that the intellectual turncoat CLE does not fit EC's definition of sanity can be taken as a compliment because CLE certainly does not share EC's warped mytho- historico-astronomical cultural framework. Whistleblowers in organizations are typically and quickly labelled "crazy." Soviet dissidents were placed in psychological sanitariums. Griffard had no sympathy whatsoever for the "Saturn myth" delusion; but as a behaviorist, i.e., believer in the stimulus-response model, he thought something in the sky determined our ancestors' behavior in formu- lating rituals and religion, etc. Contrary to EC's obtuseness on the point, anyone who knows what behaviorism is about (and EC claims to be "trained in psychology") understands why "God is an intermittent reinforcer." In not respecting the continuity of the argument, EC reveals himself as a dishonest debater. For example, 1) his challenge to CLE on the antiquity of Sumerian configurational astronomy was answered in spades on 20 Jun along with a critique of Dave Talbott's work. Talbott's 3 Jul reply was answered 14 Jul. In commenting on CLE's reply to Talbott, EC pointed out that the Sumerian issue was dropped -- but it was irrelevant to Talbott's issues and had been conclusively dealt with 20 Jun, as Lippard has already noted in his 20 Jul annotation of an EC post. 2) Talbott denied ever discussing Earth swapping moons when he did so on 12 Jun; but EC defends Talbott by saying the discussion was brief, not major, thereby changing the point at issue from actuality to extent. 3) In an attempt at denigration, EC refers to "Mo Mandelkehr" [sic, Moe] as "the author of at least one short article on ancient catastrophism in SISR" followed by more disparaging remarks while ignoring CLE's having cited Mandelkehr's THREE MAJOR PAPERS in SISR which, incidentally, its editor considers three of the ten best papers ever published by them. Since EC chides Mandelkehr for supposedly never publishing "anything of significance on myth," neither has EC done so in the peer-reviewed literature. 4) EC closes his diatribe saying CLE "is simply incapable of offering an objective assessment of The Saturn Myth" which ignores the *devastating* criticism CLE quoted from book reviews in Pub. Weekly and Lib. J. EC refers often to the postcards CLE sends to Velikovskians and other interested parties from time to time and says he's "seen several hundred" and "read literally hundreds" of them. This cannot be true because EC was not on the mailing list until 1991 and because between the demise of KRONOS in mid-1988 and June 1994 only 171 postcard mailings have been made: average, 2.31 cards per month with a std. dev. of 2.17 cards. The monthly volume ranged from zero (16 mos.) to twelve (3/90). This allegation must be more Velikovskian hyperbole, as with the "thousands of footnotes" often ascribed to _Worlds in Collision_ when the number is ca. 700. They have mastered hyperbole but metaphor eludes them! Naturally, if CLE had as ready access to AEON as he did to KRONOS between 1979 and 1985 and was able to publish 30+ page articles at will as EC, Talbott, and Cardona do, there'd be no need of postcard campaigns. Also, it can be categorically denied that CLE ever sold "Velikvosky's Was Right!" t-shirts on the street corner. The logo was "Velikovsky's right!" and the shirts were sold exclusively by mail order and at KRONOS seminars at Holiday Inns in Princeton and San Jose. EC cannot be taken at his word on even simple factual matters. EC fancies himself a "scholar," but there is more to scholarship than using footnotes with Latin abbreviations. For example, scholars follow the literature in their field and stay current. We have seen EC is either unaware or ignores key ideas in KRONOS. A draft essay sent to EC in March for comment cited Wolfgang Heimpel, "The Sun at Night and the Gates of Heaven in Babylonian Texts," _J. Cuneiform Studies_ 38, 1986, 127-151. This stimulated EC to phone CLE for a copy of the paper which deals with a topic on which he was preparing an article for AEON and he was unaware of this JCS paper despite having corresponded with Heimpel recently. When EC sent CLE $5.00 in reimbursement, a note said, "Thanks, I owe you." What EC owes CLE is an apology for all the slanderous remarks on talk.origins and some honest replies when EC's position is shown to be wrong. More on EC as anti-scholar in the conclusion. EC says "we're unaware of any evidence raised by Leroy which presents a significant problem for our theory." This is nothing but egegious chutzpah and unadulterated b.s. because the ice core evidence for uninterrupted seasons refutes their version of the Golden Age with no seasons. Also, the Moon's circular, resonant orbit refutes the former existence of any "polar configuration" such as modelled by Grubaugh. If they are unaware of negative evidence, then they have departed the world of reality for cloud cuckooland and points beyond. If the quoted remark is intended to apply to mythical evidence, then another quote from KRONOS that EC and his "Saturnists" should ponder is George Robert Talbott's dictum: "The basis of any historical inference must be physical evidence" (KRONOS V:3, 1980). This is a fitting companion to the 'oft cited quote: "But it is not possible to understand the relation of myth to reality without some independant knowledge of the reality" (TLS, 4-14-72). Naturally, EC and his "Saturnists" never discuss physical evidence that affects their model. However, the biggest problem with EC's delusion, as anyone familiar with Wolfgang Pauli's attitude towards meshugga ideas knows, is that "it is not even wrong." The highly-touted explanatory power of the "Saturn myth" (ignoring the fact that explanatory power says nothing about a theory's validity) is illusory because all contradictory data are ignored. Ed krupp's column in the Sept. 1994 _Sky & Telescope_, pp. 60-61, captures the essence of Saturn lore. Since EC repeatedly asserts words to the effect that "The earliest gods were indeed planets," let us examine this naive notion. Admittedly, this is a popular misconception arising from astrologically based impressions of Greek and Roman religion, such as presented in the movies; but this notion simply does not survive scrutiny. G.A. Wainwright, _The Sky-Religion in Egypt_, flatly contradicts it in examining the religion of pre-dynastic Egyptians before they entered the Nile valley. EC and his fellow "Saturnists" ignore Wainwright in favor of the Book of the Dead and the Pyramid Texts, rooted firmly in early dynastic times (ca. mid-3rd millennium B.C.), which is "old," but not "early" and which they interpret in terms of the "p.c." Contrary to EC, the Sumerian Gilgamesh Epic predates the Egyptian Book of the Dead. These texts refer to the "thigh of the bull," the Egyptian name for Ursa Major, the Big Dipper, which has no significance in the "p.c." Not to worry: the Egyptologists are wrong in this identification since the "thigh of the bull" did not refer to the Big Dipper in "p.c." times, as Talbott deflected the point once in a telecon. Robert Ashton's much maligned "Bedrock of Myth" (reportedly rejected by EC in his 1994 reading, *was accepted* for publication in AEON by Talbott in 1987) traces certain religious themes and imagery used by the "Saturnists" to Catal Huyuk (ca. 6000 B.C.) and earlier to the caves of Neolithic Europe with no obvious astronomical association. The earliest Sumerian pantheon contained no planets: An (sky), Enlil (storm), Ninhursaga (fertility), Enki (unerground water), Nanna (moon), Utu (Sun), Ereshkigal (underworld), Ezen (grain), etc. Much later, five planets were named after gods whose origin had nothing to do with planets, three of whom were borrowed from local solar deities: Nergal (Mars), Marduk (Jupiter), and Ninurta (Saturn). Inanna was a rival to Ninhursaga who eventually became dominant and associated with Venus. Acording to T. Jacobsen in _The Encyclopedia of Religion_ [ER] (NY, 1987) v. 9, "At Uruk -- in antiquity as today a center of date culture -- there was Amaushumgalana, the power for animal growth and new life of the date palm, and his consort Inanna, earlier Ninana ("mistress of the date clusters")...(p.451). Jastrow's many discussions make clear the association of gods with planets was essentially arbitrary and a late development. This is borne out by W. J. Fulco in ER, v. 7, "Comparative Semitic evidence suggests that the Akkadian Venus deity was originally masculine but became completely feminized when identified with the female Sumerian deity Inanna. Because of the eventual syncretism of the Sumerian and Akkadian pantheons, the traditions concerning Inanna-Ishtar are exteremely complicated. By one such tradition she is the daughter of the sky god An, by another the daughter of the moon god Nanna-Sin (and thereby siter of the sun god Utu-Shamash), and by still another, the daughter of Enlil or Ashur" (p.145). Jastrow (1911) is qutie unequivocal: "The Conception of a god of heaven [i.e., Anu] fits in, moreover, with the comparatively advanced period when the seats of the gods were placed in the skies, and the gods identified with the stars. Such an astral theology, however, is not a part of the earlier religious beliefs of the Babylonians ..." (p. 82). By the mid-3rd millennium B.C., the Sumerian pantheon, later adopted by the Babylonians, was structured with two superior triads over the body of lesser gods dominated by those with planetary associations (due to their importance in astrology). These are listed as follows with the sacred harmonic number (often uses as the god's name) when known in parentheses: 1: An (60), Enlil (50), Enki (40); 2: Nanna (30), Utu (20), Inanna (15); and 3: Ninurta (50), Marduk (10 -- changed to 50 by Babylonians), Neral (12, later 14), Nabu (?), Adad (10), etc. To the Babylonians, the two superior triads were 1: Anu, Enlil, and Ea, and 2: Sin, Shamash, and Ishtar. While An-Anu was the administrative head of the pantheon, executive power resided iwth Enlil and later Marduk, the patron deity of Babylon, when it attained political domination of the Tigris-Euphrates Valley. To the Assyrians, Ashur, patron deity of Ashur, was the executive head of the pantheon, which closely resembled that of Babylon otherwise. How arrogant of the amateur mythologists at AEON to presume to re-write the history of Meopotamian religion. Curiously, when EC mentions great storm gods, he omits the two most important in Mesopotamia: Enlil and Adad. If EC were as perspicacious as his posturing on the 'net would have us believe, he would not reject out-of-hand the Sumerian harmonic numerology, deduced by Ernest McClain, as he does. If EC were truly as perspicacious as he seems to think he is, he would not use de Santillana and von Dechend in _Hamlet's Mill_ to denigrate McClain, but would, instead, realize as a true scholar the implicit imprimatur they give McClain's approach. Ironically, de Santillana allows: "Mathematics was moving up to me from the depth of centuries; not after myth, but before it ... *Number* gave the key [emphasis added]. Way back in time, before writing was even invented, it was _measures_ and _counting_ that provided the armature, the frame on which the rich texture of real myth was to grow" (p. xi). Von Dechend assays "This is meant to be only an essay. It is a first reconnnaissance of a realm well-nigh unexplored and uncharted. From whichever way one enters it, one is caught in the same bewildering circular complexity, as in a labyrinth, for it has no deductive order in the abstract sense, but instead resenmbles an organism tightly closed in itself, or even better, a monumental 'Art of the Fuge'" (p. 1). One would not know from EC's Philistine-like reaction to McClain that the list of world-class scholars who are *interested* in McClains's insights includes: H. von Dechend (Frankfort), H.A.T. Reiche (M.I.T., d. 25 VIII 94), S. Parpola (Helsinki) and A.D. Kilmer (Berkeley). Interestingly, Bill Corliss's Jul-Aug 1994 _Science Frontiers_ features McClain's Feb. 1994 article "Musical Theory and Ancient Cosmology," _The World and I_, pp. 371-390. Unlike the "ad hoc" numerology of pseudoscience, with which EC seeks to associate McClain's work, the harmonic numerology of the Sumerians is model-drive and proceeds from 30-60 and 360-720 "octaves" to larger bases in order to achieve better whole number fraction approximations to the irrational ratios that inhabit the octave, especially the square root of two that harmonically bisects it. Thus, we see Everett Cochrane -- Philistine in his knee-jerk rejection of McClain, Ashton, Mandelkehr, and Clube and Napier (see conclusion), anti-scholar in his maladroit attempt to don the trappings of scholarship, and reductionist in his seeing Saturn everywhere in myth even where Saturn isn't -- lost in cloud cukooland and clueless in the mythosphere. Joe Canepa's recent exhortation for EC and CLE to debate forthrightly assumes the legal "rational man" model and capacity, neither of which EC has demonstrated he meets. However, it is possible that the real EC has not been making all these meshugga posts which give every appearance of having been made by some artificial intelligence program considering all of the non sequiturs and lack of connection to the real world of the debate. Will the real Everett Cochrane please step forth? The conclusion to this analysis awaits feedback from correspondents. Leroy Ellenberger, Pilgrim and spiritual comrade-in-arms with William Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, who routed the Clans at Culloden Moor, Apr. 6, 1746 St. Louis, MO: 8 Aug 1994 References: 1. N. S. Hetherington (ed.), _Encyclopedia of Cosmology_ (NY and London, 1993), entries "Mesopotamian Account of Creation," pp. 387-97, and "Mesopotamian Cosmology," pp. 398-407. 2. T. Jacobson, _The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion_ (New Haven, 1976). Frontispiece shows an anthropomorphic Ninurta, later associated with Saturn, at ca. 3000 BC. 3. T. Jacobson, _"Mesopotamian Religions," in M. Eliade (ed.-in-chief) _Encyclopedia of Relgion_ (NY, 1987), v. 10: see also headings for indi- vidual deities. 4. E.O. James, _The Worship of the Sky-God: A comparative Study in Semitic and Indo-European Religion_ (London, 1963). 5. M. Jastrow, Jr., _The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_ (Boston, 1898) 6. M. Jastrow, Jr., _Aspects of Religious Belief and Practice in Babylonia and Assyria_ (Phila., 1911). 7. W. G. Lambert, "The Cosmology of Sumer and Babylon," in C. Blacker and M. Loewe (eds.) _Ancient Cosmologies_ (London, 1975). Also contains J.M. Plumley on ancient Egypt. 8. W. G. Lambert, "The Historical Development of the Mesopotamian Pantheon: A Study in Sophisticated Polytheism," in H. Goedjcke and J.J.M. Roberts (eds.), _Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History, LIterature, and Religion of the Ancient Near East_ (Balt. and London, 1975) pp. 191-200 9. J. Y. Lettvin, "The Use of Myth," _Technology Review_ (June 1976), pp. 52-57 10. G. A. Wainwright, _The Sky-Religion in Egypt_ (Cambridge, 1938 / Westport 1971). -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin T. Dehner Dept. of Physics and Astronomy PGP public key btd@iastate.edu Iowa State University available on request Jim Lippard Primenet: Arizona's Premier Internet Provider lippard@primenet.com (602) 870-1010 ext. 108 (_Skeptic_: http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/skeptics-society.html) >Path: news.iastate.edulpv7440.vincent.iastate.edu!btd >From: btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T. Dehner) >Newsgroups: talk.origins >Subject: EVERETT COCHRANE: Philistine, Anti-Scholar & Reductionist II >Date: 23 Aug 94 21:40:01 GMT >Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa >Lines: 270 Message-ID: .NNTP-Posting-Host: pv7440.vincent.iastate.edu [posted for CLE by btd] EVERETT COCHRANE: Philistine, Anti-Scholar & Reductionist, Part II Background This post will conclude the reply to "Re: Cochrane Answers Ellenberger" from 20 Jul by Everett Cochrane (EC). After "Part I" on 8 Aug, EC asked the t.o audience "Does anyone out there care about this stuff?" (9 Aug). Substantial interest was registered by such people as J.G. Acker, L.D. Davis, J. Lippard, S.H. Mullins, and D. Suess. Next EC viciously attacked Ben Dehner for making the case that Velikovsky was "A scientific ignoramous," which prompted Ellenberger (CLE) to defend Dehner with "An Open Letter to Everett Cochrane" (11 Aug) after Dehner had replied to EC 10 Aug. Four posts by EC (11 Aug, 12 Aug & 2 on 14 Aug) stimulated CLE to post "Interim Reply to Cochrane" (17 Aug), pending this conclusion. The reader is also reminded of CLE's "The Folly of Recent Interplanetary Catastrophism" (22 Jul) which distinguished between ordinary, i.e., astronomically feasible, catastrophism such as espoused by Clube & Napier, et al. and the Velikovskian heresy ignorantly promoted by EC and his "Saturnists" which is properly called "interplanetary catastrophism." EC's once disavowing being a "Velikovskian" because he does not accept either Velikovsky's revised chronology or the specific scenario in _Worlds in Collision_ rings hollow because he accepts both V.'s methodology for interpretation of myth and the general theme of V.'s work, expressed in "Cosmic Catastrophes During Human History," an unpublished essay in the series that contains "Cosmos without Gravitation," that within the last 6,000 years or so cosmic catastrophes involving all the planets occurrred "repeatedly" including a period when Earth and Saturn orbited close together. Significant problems (?) EC insists that he and Dave Talbott are "unaware of any evidence raised by [CLE] which presents a significant problem for our theory." At least five points can be raised to nullify this delusion: 1. So far he has dodged the ice core evidence against "no seasons in the Golden Age" even in the face of reposting "DUCKS, AGAIN!" (7 Jul & 12 Aug). EC may choose not to be convinced by the ice core evidence, but this is nothing but egregiously ignorant posturing that even Cardona, to his credit, eschews. EC's insistence to Mullins that critics "will need to demonstrate why 'no seasons' follows from our thesis" (12 Aug) is irrelevant since Talbott has stated this condition repeatedly in his publications in AEON. Ask Talbott, Everett. 2. He has ignored the dynamical evidence in all the circular, resonant satellite orbits at Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn that cannot have arisen in the short time since the demise of the polar configuration (p.c.). 3. He has ridiculed McClain's work which explains the harmonic numerical names of the major Mesopotamian deities while showing no interest in giving a "Saturnist" explanation for these sacred number names. 4. EC has also ridiculed, despite his oft' professed expertise in psych- ology, the idea that, to a behaviorist, God is an intermittent rein- forcer, a point that non-psychologist Dehner even understood. The p.c., as described by the "Saturnists," provides no intermittent rein- forcers, only unfailing constancy and regularity, unlike Clube & Nap- ier's Taurid Complex model in which not every apparition of proto- Encke produced calamity. In a review of _The Ancient Mind_, edited by C. Renfrew & E.B.W. Zubrow, Daniel Dennett recounts the experience of pigeons in Skinner boxes on random reinforcement schedules who develop bizarre rituals and relates this to human experience: "Random rein- forcement is still the best explanation we have for how elaborate and costly...rituals could get started in the first place, but of course once they do get started, they become highly efficacious--for the group of priests or kings or others who make a handsome living keeping the rituals going" (_New Scien._, 6 Aug 1994, 41-43). EC evidently only knows what psychology serves his ad hominem purposes. 5. Here is added a new "significant problem": according to Henri Frank- fort, KINGSHIP AND THE GODS: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society and Nature (Chicago, 1948/1978), in Egypt and Mesopotamia kingship and mankind's relation to the gods developed *differently* according to each culture's respective cli- mate. This is not a reasonable expectation from the p.c. model which would suggest a closer similarity between these two cultures. Although Talbott cites Frankfort on trivial grounds, he never reconciles, much less even acknowledges this stark contrast between Egypt and Mesopotamia. Anti-Scholar Rivisited Part I identified EC as an "anti-scholar," analogous to an anti- particle in physics which appears normal in some respects but is oppo- site in others, who does not stay current with, or ignores uncomfortable parts of, his own and related literatures. He is an anti-scholar in other respects, too; in at least seven as follows: 1. Whereas scholars publish in peer-reviewed journals, EC publishes in vanity-oriented fringe publications, Kronos and Aeon, as Acker pointed out. 2. Whereas scholars adduce independent corroboration for their hypothe- ses, EC does not. 3. Whereas scholars limit speculation in physical processes by laws of physics, EC does not. 4. Whereas scholars acknowledge evidence that is problemmatical to their hypothesis, EC does not. 5. Whereas scholars weigh the evidence, EC, in consonance wtih V'ians and other pseudo-scientists, gives all evidence at least equal weight, sometimes even giving greatest weight to the least significant evi- dence as in interpreting certain icons in pre-historic rock art. 6. Whereas scholars discuss alternative explanations, EC and his "Saturnists" do not. For example, the key symbol, the "enclosed sun," which consists of two concentric circles, R(2)/R(1)=ca. 5.5, was first identified confidently as Saturn surrounded by a doughnut-like ring, or halo, but has recently been re-imagined as Venus against Saturn in the p.c. However, the symbol quite plausibly represents a ring around the Moon or the Sun with a halo (see Robert Greenler, _Rainbows, Halos and Glories_ (1980)). Then E.A.S. Butterworth, in _The Tree at the Navel of the Earth_ (1970), argues that *in cult context* (shown in pairs) the symbols represent the omphalos, a hollow pillar in cross section, by which the shaman climbs up to heaven or down to the under- world. Trips to the underworld is a theme not predicted by the "p.c. model", giving another refutation besides the presence of seasons during the Golden Age. 7. Whereas scholars withhold criticism until reading something, EC is not inhibited by such niceties so that, like many of V.'s critics, without reading McClain, Mandelkehr, or E. Lyle he feels no compunc- tion against ridiculing their work on the basis of CLE's remarks (ironically intended to entice one to read the works). EC even ridi- cules "some guy named E. Lyle," clueless that the "E." stands for "Emily." Sadly, not once has the great, self-professed scholar Coch- rane asked CLE for additional information about any of the people he has ridiculed in CLE's posts. He has his nerve, too, ridiculing CLE's lack of publications on "the subject of planets and their role in an- cient religion" (14 Aug) when Kronos summarily rejected his writing on this topic (e.g., a letter against Cardona's "Saturn: In Myth and Religion" Kronos X:1 (1984) and CLE is barred from AEON. [Interesting- ly, also in Kronos X:1, EC and Talbott could quote Miller and Hart- mann "Instead of the old catastrophism based on speculation or ancient writings, the new catastrophism is based on *physical evidence* [emph- asis added]" (_Science Digest_, 4/84), evidently to lend credence to catastrophism, yet fail utterly to take cognizance of the need for physical evidence.] In a 10 Aug post, EC laments the possibility that he and Talbott "have wasted our efforts the past two decades," as though they cannot be wrong. But, like Velikovsky before them, they have not spent all that time doing research. They have spent all that time culling the litera- ture looking for snippits they can force-fit into their pre-conceived notion, ignoring all the discrepant data. Clube & Napier EC tries to denigrate Clube and Napier (C&N) by insinuating they stole from Velikovsky. But C&N were inspired by H.S. Bellamy, an expon- ent of Hoerbiger, and did not read _Worlds in Collision_ until their model was well along, just as Velikovsky did not read Donnelly's _Rag- narok_ until afer he had worked out WiC. Since the myths are in the public domain and many before V. connected sky-combat myths with comets, e.g., Whiston, Radlof, Donnelly, Hoerbiger, etc., V. has no special claim to originality, especially since it is now realized by all but EC and his "Saturnists" that Venus CANNOT have been a ocmet, i.e., had a tail, because it is too massive and hold its atmosphere. As for ancient references to what EC calls Venus (or other planet), often such references are to Inanna/Ishtar (or some other deity) which EC takes to be Venus (or other planet). But if a tail was associated with the goddess Inanna (who *originally* was "mistress of the date clusters"), then a real comet, not Venus, must have been intended, and proto-Encke, as the progenitor of the Taurid meteor streams, is the most likely candidate. Because proto-Encke would have been prominent and presented a morning and evening aspect, just as Venus does, at peri- helion, the two would have been associated with each other, but not necessarily confused, as EC suggests. In reply to EC's asking, there is no "unequivocal reference to the Encke-complex in historical records prior to 300 BCE or so," but Encke and Taurid complex are the most likely active agents during the Holocene and constitute a first choice working hypothesis wiht which to interpret the comet lore the ancients bequeathed us. This does not exclude the presence of other comets, such as P/Halley, etc., but the provenance of the Taurid complex today argues forcefully that in recent millennia it was a most prominent, recurring phenomenon. After all, as Neil Forsyth shows in _The Old Enemy: Satan and the Combat Myth_ (Princeton, 1987), early written descriptions of Satan are patently of a comet. EC takes exception to a quote of Clube about "the 'revolutions' of an invisible circulation in space [that] sometimes affect the Earth" from Clube's contribution in Wm. Glen (ed.), _The Mass-Extinction Debates_ (Stanford, 1994). These are the invisible circulations of which the 5th century A.D. Neo-Platonist Proclus wrote about in conjunction with the "host of fallen angels" which may be our forebears' intuition regarding the daytime beta-Taurids. Ironically, the 1952 publication by Whipple and Hamid about collis- ions in the Solar System within the past 4700 years, that has been cited in the Velikovskian literature to legitimize the idea of collisions, concerns retrocalculated events in the Taurid-Encke complex! Carlinsky/Talbott EC really went over the top about CLE's account of Talbott's pre- occupation with the possibility that CLE would show up at Aeon's meet- ing at Thanksgiving, as Carlinsky related to CLE by phone in June. Since EC's rejection of this account, Carlinsky has written that when he visited Talbott in May, "he expressed concern that Leroy Ellenberger might show up at the upcoming conference or use it as the occasion for an attack. I thought his concern excessive and probably unwarranted" (Carlinsky to Ellenberger, 8 Aug 94). Such an attitude on Talbott's part, despite EC's denial, is given credence by the fact that in August 1992 at Haliburton, Ontario, Charles Ginenthal was a "nervous wreck," according to his host, anticipating CLE's arrival the next day. What is "so laughable and obviously delusional" in EC's reaction to this anecdote is that he would *still* think CLE would invent such a story. McClain Once More The importance of music in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia is largely unappreciated today. When the Assyrians sacked a city killing all the residents, the booty they took back to Assur included gold, silver, jewels, and musicians. The cover of the Sept. 1994 _Scientific American_ also supports this importance. A principle in Egyptian art is that pharaoh dominate the scene, according to Frankfort in KINGSHIP AND THE GODS. Yet the tomb painting of Ramses III on the cover shows a 21-string harp bigger than pharaoh. The text contains a second picture in which an 11-string harp is bigger than pharaoh. Finally, since EC asked, Mayan cosmology has many resonances with Sumerian numerology, as McClain describes in _The Myth of Invariance_, pp. 152-155. Conclusion EC has tried to dismiss CLE's posts as "drivel," "jibberish," and "Gobbledegook," but such tactics only underscore EC's penchant for deflecting criticisms, bobbing and weaving, and ducking the hard issues. EC has distinguished himself as a Philistine with his ornery, mean- spirited rejection of all new ideas from Ashton, Mandelkehr, Lyle, Hawkins and McClain. His devotion to the canons of scholarship show him to be an anti-scholar, fully adapted to his closed, "Saturnian" system of thinking. In reducing much of the world's mythology to aspects of Saturn he is a reductionist _par excellence_ who in the process makes a mockery of the interdisciplinary synthesis that was the avowed methodology at Kronos. As all "Fire-heads" (fans of Firesign Theatre) know, we're all bozos on this bus; but some bozos are better than others at telling the difference between gumdrops and the true fruit of reason--and using the gong when necessary. CLE knows from his work as a chemical engineer at Monsanto and financial analyst at American Airlines that problems *can* be solved, and are. EC knows from his experience on the tennis court that matches get won instead of getting stuck in interminable rallies. There is no reason why the validity of the Saturn myth/p.c. cannot be decided and agreed upon by all parties. After all, as statisticians well know, "the data swamp prior belief." When CLE returns from a holiday in Haliburton, Ontario, August 31st, hopefully EC will have shown that he's learned how to be a real scholar instead of a tunnel-visioned zealot. Will he at least admit that Herakles was a hero and not a god, as he said erroneously in a recent post? Leroy Ellenberger, student of Russell Ackoff and formerly confidant to Velikovsky (4/78-11/79) FAX: 314-773-9273 23 August 1994 ------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin T. Dehner Dept. of Physics and Astronomy PGP public key btd@iastate.edu Iowa State University available on request Ames, IA 50011 The content and opinions expressed on this Web page do not necessarily r eflect the views of nor are they endorsed by the University of

The content and opinions expressed on this Web page do not necessarily reflect the views of nor are they endorsed by the University of Georgia or the University System of Georgia.