mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================
Venus Data is being routinely "fixed", "patched-up", and otherwise
falsified in numerous disciplines to keep it in line with astronomical
dogma.

Copyright Ted Holden

Students of archeology, paleontology, and other disciplines appear to
have been had by the astronomers and by one of their vendettas which
has, until now, succeeded. The emerging science of catastrophism is
the one thing in the world which could shed any light on numerous
major facets of a number of sciences, but has nevertheless been pretty
much driven underground by the Sagans, Shapeley's et. al.

In the absence of the new discipline and its explainatory power, Venus
has become a sort of a breaking point for both astronomy and natural
sciences. Raw data in all areas involving Venus is routinely falsified
to make it fit standard views as to cosmology, and this ranges from
the Pioneer probes to the Dresden codices.

Gerry Palo recently noted (talk.origins) that:

>I believe that there are serious scientists today who advocate the
>screening of all observed evidence and the a priori discarding of
>anything that appears to contradict known physical principles. Sort
of a
>return to the Middle Ages. No Grand Inquisitor, but a Peer Review
>Committe instead. No bookburning pyre, of course, but the observation
>half of science becomes "purified" nonetheless. What would Galileo
think
>of all this progress?

Venus data of all sorts is the most glaring example.

If our system is actually 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, old printing) 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.

Again, Venus figures heavily in all mesoAmerican religious systems
which I am aware of. Is there anything there indicating an unusual
role for Venus in recent prehistoric times?

From Dennis Tedlock's translation of the Popol Vuh, p 86.

"[Seven Macaw speaking] 'I am great. My place is now higher than
that of the human work, the human design. I am their sun and I am
their light, and I am also their months [they should begin to
figure time by me]. So be it: my light is great. I am the walkway
and I am the foothold of the people, because my eyes are of
metal... And this nose of mine shines white into the distance like
the moon. Since my nest is metal, it lights up the face of the
earth. When I come forth before my nest, I am like the sun and moon
for those who are born in the light, begotten in the light. It must
be so, because my face reaches into the distance,' says Seven
Macaw."

"It is not true that he is the sun, this Seven Macaw, yet he
magnifies himself, his wings, his metal... The faces of the sun,
moon, and stars are not yet visible, it has not yet dawned."

This is clearly something other than the sun bringing light to a world
in ash and shadow, a world ruined by catastrophe, into which the light
of the sun does not intrude, and claiming that the people should use
his light for telling time, i.e. this was going on for a protracted
period of time. That's weird.

What about actual Venus probe data?

There are two possible explainations for the 1000 F surface
temperature of Venus: Velikovsky's, which is that Venus is in a
process of cooling either from a recent creation or from heat
generated during recent catastrophic events (i.e. is natively hot),
and Carl Sagan's "super greenhouse" theory, which is standard doctrine
amongst astronomers, despite being ridiculous.

Sagan's theory would require that Venus' atmosphere be in thermal
balance, i.e. since all the heat would be derived from the sun, heat
taken in and given out should equal eachother.

I have noted that this is in sharp disagreement with with actual
findings, and that astronomers have made a habit of doctoring the
findings and have actually found themselves in the position of having
to explain AWAY 100% of the raw data. All of the probes which carried
infra-red flux (upward vs. downward readings) meters to the surface
measured a sharp upward ir flux, which is in keeping with Velikovsky's
version, but not that of Sagan. Astronomers have posted oficial
position papers (Revercomb/Suomi et. al) explaining the manner in
which each and every such probe "failed", without bothering to try to
explain why they should not all be fired for failing to oversee the
proper manufacture of so simple an instrument in even one case out of
at least four (instruments were not all the same).

And then there is the question of F.W. Taylor's description of massive
thermal imbalance as measured from outside the atmosphere (from the
article on thermal balance by F.W. Taylor in "VENUS", Hunton, Colin,
Donahue, Moroz, Univ. of Ariz. Press, 1983, ISBN 0-8165-0788-0, pp
657-658).

"Measurements of albedo are more difficult to calibrate than those
of thermal flux, because of the problem of obtaining an accurate
reference source. Using earth-based measurements, Irvine (1968)
calculated a value for A [albedo] of 0.77 ñ 0.07, which was later
revised upward to 0.80 ñ 0.07 by Travis (1975). The Pioneer Venus
infrared radiometer had a 0.4 to 4.0 m channel calibrated by a lamp
from which Tomasko et al. (1980b) obtained a preliminary albedo for
Venus of 0.80 ñ 0.02.

"Another approach to determining the albedo is simply to assume
that the atmosphere is in net radiative balance, whence the
equation:

(1-A)E
4          0
sigma * theta   = ---------
b      a^2

should apply.  Here E  is the solar constant, and a the distance
0

from the sun. This expression allows the albedo to be calculated
from thermal measurements alone.

"In this way, a value of 0.79 + 0.02 - 0.01 has been obtained from
Venera radiometry (Ksanfomality, 1977, 1980b) and [a value] of 0.76
ñ 0.006 [has been obtained] from Pioneer Venus emission
measurements (Schofield et al., 1982).

"Clearly the Pioneer measurements of emission and reflection are
not consistent with each other if net radiative balance applies.
(Emphasis added.) A source inside Venus equal in magnitude to 20%
of the solar input (i.e., accounting for the difference between A =
0.76 and A = 0.80) is very unlikely, since Venus is thought to have
an Earth-like makeup, which would imply internal heat sources
several orders of magnitude less than this. Also, even if such
sources were postulated, it is difficult to construct a model in
which these fairly large amounts of heat can be transported from
the core to the atmosphere via a rocky crust without the latter
becoming sufficiently plastic to collapse of the observed surface
relief. This could be avoided if the transport was very localized,
i.e., via a relatively small number of giant volcanoes. Although
large, fresh-looking volcanoes do appear to exist on Venus...and
the composition of the atmosphere is consistent with vigorous
output from these, a simple comparison with terrestrial volcanism
shows that the volcanic activity on Venus would have to be on an
awesome scale to account for the missing 5 X 1015 W [watts], or so,
of power. A more acceptable alternative is that the preliminary
estimate of 0.80 ñ 0.2 for the albedo from the P. V. [Pioneer
Venus] measurements is too high, since the uncertainty limit is now
known from further work to be too conservative. (J. V. Martonchik,
personal communication.) A fuller analysis of the P. V. [Pioneer
Venus] albedo data--still the best, in terms of wavelength, spacial
and phase coverage, and radiometric precision, which is likely to
be obtained for the foreseeable future--is likely to resolve this
puzzle. In conclusion, then, the best thermal measurements of Venus
WITH THE ASSUMPTION OF GLOBAL ENERGY BALANCE yield a value for the
albedo of 0.76 ñ 0.1; this is the most probable value."
_________________________________________________________________

Let's examine what Taylor is saying. The term "albedo", stripped of
the four-syllable adjectives, is a measure of reflectivity, the
percentage of light which bounces back from something.

Taylor is saying that there are two ways to measure this albedo, a
direct method, and an indirect method involving a formula which
relates albedo to thermal emissions, assuming thermal balance holds.
The direct method:

"The Pioneer Venus infrared radiometer had a 0.4 to 4.0 m channel
calibrated by a lamp from which Tomasko et al. (1980b) obtained a
preliminary albedo for Venus of 0.80 ñ 0.02."

doesn't go into detail, but makes it clear that they either did one of
the following things, or something entirely like one of them:

a. Brought the satellite to the dark side of Venus, beamed a light
towards Venus, and measured how much of that light returned.

b. Brought the satellite to the light side of Venus, and simply turned
the instrument towards the sun, and then towards Venus, and computed a
ratio of the light intensities.

Taylor also mentions the indirect method:

"Another approach to determining the albedo is simply to assume
that the atmosphere is in net radiative balance, whence the
equation:
(1-A)E
4          0
sigma * theta   = ---------
b      a^2

should apply.  Here E  is the solar constant, and a the distance
0

from the sun. This expression allows the albedo to be calculated
from thermal measurements alone.

He notes that, if thermal balance does hold, the two techniques should
produce the same number, but that they don't, and that the difference
is so great, that a massive heat source on Venus would be needed to
explain it, entirely in keeping with Velikovsky's version of the
entire thing.

He notes that further study is needed, since he sees no way for Venus
to have such a heat source given standard versions of solar-system
history, and that the .76 value derived for albedo is therefore the
"most probable" value.

He notes that the Pioneer Venus readings are the best we've had and
the best we're likely to get for a long time:

A fuller analysis of the P. V. [Pioneer Venus] albedo data--still
the best, in terms of wavelength, spacial and phase coverage, and
radiometric precision, which is likely to be obtained for the
foreseeable future--is likely to resolve this puzzle.

Thus between the infra-red flux meters of the descender probes and the
phenomena Taylor describes, all of the raw data flatly contradict
Sagan and "super-greenhouse", and scientists are left having to
explain away 100% of the raw data.

The scientists describing the "failure" modes of all of the various
infrared flux meters carried by the descender probes appear to have
taken cues directly from the translater of the codices:

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

The surface of Venus is so new, so pristine, that a "global
resurfacing event" is required to describe it. This event is typically
dated at 300 million to 500 million years in the past.

James W. Head Ill from the Department of Geological Sciences, Brown
University, writes in the Dec/94 issue of "Nature":

"Attempts to break the chains of narrow, religiously based
interpretations dominated the early history of geological thought
on the Earth. Natural events and features were interpreted to be
the result of acts by a divine creator, and most observed
geological deposits were linked to the Noachian flood. Slowly, an
appreciation of the great age of the Earth melded with an
increasing awareness that present geological processes, operating
at relatively constant rates over extended geological time, could
produce the range of features seen in the rock record.
Catastrophism, as an explanation for geological events, fell out of
favour, and uniformitarianism, the idea that the past history of
the Earth could be interpreted by observing present processes and
their rates and extending them back in time, came to dominate
geological thinking.

Had such thinking arisen on Venus instead of the Earth, the
situation might have been different. On the basis of global images
and topography from NASA's spectacularly successful Magellan
mission to Venus, it appears that there is no surface terrain
dating from the first 85 per cent of the history of Venus.
Planetary scientists have observed terrain that is largely volcanic
plains, and the impact cratering record has been interpreted to
indicate that a near-global tec- tonic deformation and volcanic
flooding event occurred some 300 - 500 million years ago.

And that's not all. Apparently, not much has happened geologically
since then. Neither the style nor the rates of geological processes
are the same now as they were at the time of this global flooding
event...

...As the Magellan high-resolution images rolled in strip by strip,
a global picture emerged. The highly deformed and high-standing
tessera terrain made up a little less than 10 per cent of the
planet and was embayed by volcanic plains making up most of the
rest of the surface. One might surmise that the ancient tessera
dated from the first half of Venus's history and the plains
represented subsequent long-term resurfacing either by vertical
build-up (as on the Moon and Mars) or by lateral crustal spreading,
as on the Earth.

But initial analysis of impact craters, their number, distribution
and characteristics, told a different story5,6. Instead of
different crater densities for the tessera and various volcanic
plains units, the crater distribution could not be distinguished
from a spatially random population.

Using the estimated flux of impactors in the environs of Venus,
observers interpreted the frequency distribution of crater sizes to
mean that the crater retention age of the surface of Venus was
about 300 - 500 million years. Even more intriguing was the fact
that only a small percentage of the observed impact craters had
been modified by subsequent volcanic and tectonic activity. Schaber
and Strom and their colleagues interpreted this to mean that a
catastrophic resurfacing event had erased all pre-existing craters
some 300 - 500 million years ago, creating a new surface dominated
by volcanic plains7.

Following the catastrophic event, geological activity in the form
of volcanism must have declined sharply, and this tabula rasa
simply accumulated craters which remain largely unmodified to this
day, hundreds of millions of years later.

We thus see that the 300 - 500 m year age estimate for the grand
resurfacing event is based on present cratering rates and would be
enormously shortened by using an estimate of cratering rates for a
solar system which was undergoing a cycle of catastrophes within the
last 10000 years.

Consider the argument which several of the t.o regulars have used
against my own demonstration that the astronomical literature itself
flatly states that all raw data show Venus seriously out of thermal
balance, basically that there is no way to get the required amounts of
heat through the assumed thick surface.

What one notes from Head's article though, is that heat in enormous
quantities DID get to the surface at least once, and that all which
remains is a choice as to WHEN. It would be every bit as impossible
for heat to get to the surface of Venus 300 M years ago as it is now,
according to standard dogma, and for all of the same reasons. In fact,
Head notes several proposed explainations, all equally inane and
without visible cause:

"In one explanation for such a catas trophic event, periods of
rapid plate tectonics are episodically interleaved with periods of
lithospheric stability and relative quiescence, such as we see
today9. In another explanation, the key lies in vertical crustal
growth over geological time10.

My question to anybody is why should you prefer to believe that
something like this for which there is no basis in theory or
experience should have happened 300 - 500 million years ago for no
real reason, to believing that it happened 3500 - 10000 years ago as
described by a totally coherent theory with vast explainatory and
predictive power, and in keeping with a huge and growing body of
evidence from the realms of mythology and iconography, all of which
indicates that our ancesters witnessed these events, particularly when
all raw data bearing on thermal balance supports the later version?