mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ For complete access to all the files of this collection see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php ========================================================== The following is Charles Ginenthal's response to the most recent work of Sean Mewhinney related to ice core evidence and the basis theories of Immanuel Velikovsky. Thus, as opposed to the talk.origins "Velikovsky FAQ" which nobody in the neo catastrophism movement regards as worthy of any sort of a response (at least to my knowledge), we do reply to serious challenges. _________________________________________________________________ MINDS IN DENIAL PART I SEAN MEWHINNEY'S CRITIQUE BASED ON BOMBASTIC SUBTERFUGE, EVASION AND DENIAL By Charles Ginenthal A "group ... only becomes a true conspiracy in the legal sense when it creates 'lies that look like the truth.'" Robert Anton Wilson Cosmic Trigger II (1995), p.150 "He's a wonderful talker, who has the art of telling you nothing in a great harangue". Jean Batiste Moliere Le Misanthrope (1666) Act II, Scene 5 HYPOCRISY Some time ago, Sean Mewhinney presented a critique of both Velikovsky's and my work entitled "Minds in Ablation" henceforth "Minds", which has been posted on the Internet. It is a paper in five parts made up of many other lesser parts, and single spaced runs to 47 pages with many additional pages of diagrams and tables, etc. In all it would be about the length of one issue of this Journal. Since this work is well written and footnoted, I felt it was of great enough importance, touching on certain fundamental questions related to Velikovskian research in a provocative way, that it should be put complete and uncensored on the record. I therefore offered Mewhinney the opportunity to publish it in full in The Velikovskian. This offer he refused. Rereading his work, I noted that Mewhinney himself stated of his earlier work: "I hoped it [my work would]... reach at least some of the people who read Velikovskian journal with reason...(1) In essence Mewhinney claimed that he wanted to reach people in the Velikovsky movement with his various researches but, given the chance to do so, refused. This seemed strange enough, but then I learned that he had offered the entire work to AEON, a Velikovskian journal. Duardu Cardona, its editor, after reading it, also felt "Minds" should be published in The Velikovskian. I once again offered Mewhinney the chance to publish all that he had sent to AEON, but he then offered another reason for refusing publication; he claimed he had more to write. If that was indeed his reason in the case of The Velikovskian, then why had he sent this same material to AEON in the first place? The work he was willing to expose in AEON somehow was not the work he was willing to expose in this journal. I do still have his papers in full and have made photocopies which I will sell (for the same price which I paid to get them, ten dollars. Send a check or money order made out to Charles Ginenthal and send it to this journal requesting "Minds"). In this way Mewhinney's papers will reach as many Velikovskians as possible who desire an original copy of his work. ICE CORES OR CRYSTALLINE SPHERES Several former critics of Velikovsky have raised the spectra of ancient eclipses, especially solar eclipses, as a clear indication that the earth's orbit and axial tilt have never changed. If as they claimed, the orbit or axial tilt were different prior to about 776 B.C., then it would be impossible to find eclipses earlier than that time that follow the present orbital motions and axial position of the Earth. And so they pointed to eclipses prior to that time that they claimed, were a disproof of Velikovsky's theory. Some of these individuals held prestigious positions in various well known universities, but as Velikovsky pointed out to them, neither the precise times, nor the precise areas of the Earth for these eclipses were known. Before any of their assertions regarding these eclipses could be employed as a disproof, these critical points of time and location had to be fully verified, but they simply were not. Similarly, other records of the past have been called upon to perform the very same type of unsupported debunking of Velikovsky. In particular ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica and tree rings could do the same job only if they were corroborated by solid supporting evidence. That is, all dating systems require , or better yet demand independent corroboration by other processes or phenomena. That, in fact, is the heart of good science. If a dating system is contradicted by other dating systems, then it cannot be employed as unqualified disproof of Velikovsky nor a proof of uniformitarian gradual climate change during these same ancient times. Sean Mewhinney, to his credit, has diligently researched and presented ice core evidence as a fundamental objection and contradiction to Velikovsky's thesis. (2) This kind of ice core evidence was also presented in KRONOS (3) What Mewhinney produced in his long analysis appeared, on the surface at least, to show that the ice core evidence was a definitive indication that Velikovsky's thesis was finally and fully destroyed. Thereafter, I responded in this journal(4) to Mewhinney's opus by outlining a number of fundamental contradictions to his evidence and showed that what at first looked like an excellent case against Velikovsky was no different than the case made by eclipse data. Mewhinney responded in part 1 of his newest criticism entitled "Ice Cores and Ideology." Here, I anticipated that he would take up the various challenges and disprove or try to disprove each phenomena I had presented with evidence and citations from the scientific literature, nonetheless, this is not what transpired. Mewhinney in fact ignored each and every one of the specific points I had raised, choosing instead to attack the messenger. For example, Mewhinney in his original Internet paper wrote about my statement regarding vegetation growing on Greenland during the hipsithermal. "Well yes, in fact, that is precisely what his own sources tell me. I have referred several times to a passage Ginenthal quoted from Charlesworth, mentioning, among other things, 'peats and relics in Greenland.' At the point where Ginenthal's quotation stops, in the very next sentence, Charlesworth makes this statement; 'this optimum in Greenland was only slightly warmer and had no plant formation or species that does not now live there'... This blows his whole case out of the water from the start, so Ginenthal suppresses it. The whole thing is an exercise in perversity."(5) What Mewhinney in his desire to discredit me as well as my work called an "exercise in perversity," was namely the suppression of this one sentence by Charlesworth, "this optimum in Greenland was only slightly warmer and had no plant formation or species that does not now live there". This only shows he read my paper in extreme haste and angrily, because he failed to notice the very sentence with which I opened the entire discussion in "ICE," page 78 wherein I wrote: "But it is assumed Greenland was glaciated all this time and had no plants that do not grow there now ever lived there during the hipsithermal." This is almost exactly what Charlesworth had written on this matter. So, in fact, I left out nothing and pointed out Mewhinney's misrepresentation of my work to him on the E-Mail Internet discussion group and, for my efforts, was told "You [Ginenthal] can't get away with that." But even in this characterization Mewhinney understood he was simply wrong and dropped that material from the paper he thereafter circulated. Nevertheless, he never demurred nor disavowed the position he has taken, that to fail to deal with or to suppress a sentence made by one's critic is an act of "perversity." This gives us an insight into the working of Mewhinney's thought processes and the standards of evidence by which we shall evaluate Mewhinney criticisms. The aim of this paper is twofold: (1) I wish to explain the concepts involved vis a vis, uniformitarianism verses Velikovskian catastrophism to see if the evidence truly suggests that Velikovsky's hypothesis is wrong as Mewhinney wishes to present. (2) I want to see how well much of Mewhinney's evidence stands up to an analysis of it strictly in terms of the evidence. Hence, the question for this first unit is: has Mewhinney really presented a case in defense of his ice core data or are the ice cores, in reality, crystalline spheres performing the same function that Aristotle employed when over 2000 years ago, they were invented to create a world in which cataclysms could never occur? The title of this paper contains the provocative subtitle "Sean Mewhinney's Critique Based on Bombastic Subterfuge, Evasion and Denial." This is a very strong accusation and that is what I will now prove, namely that Mewhinney does not face contrary evidence to his ice cores but rather, that he employs various subterfuges, evasions and denials as escape mechanisms. The first form of proof of subterfuge and evasion can be found in the very title of Part 1 of "Minds", as is presented by Mewhinney namely "Ice Cores and Ideology." Thus, he informs us in the title he will be dealing with my "ICE" article by disposing of the evidence I raised regarding his ice core papers. Interestingly, the way he disposes of it is by never discussing the germane points I did in fact raise and acting as though they do not exist. This approach exhibits and requires a great deal of denial by Mewhinney not only to his readers but also to himself. Moliere cited at the beginning of this paper "He is a wonderful talker, who has the art of telling you nothing in a great harangue." Let us therefore, examine the mechanisms of Mewhinney's art, his great harangue. If anyone thinks I am well satisfied over what I am about to present they are quite right. I feel even as a ethnic Jew like the statement attributed to Mark Twain, "the calm confidence of a Christian with four aces." OXYGEN ISOTOPE LAYERS SNOW LAYERING OR DIFFUSION LAYERING The basis assumption underlying the ice cores as indicators of climate on Earth is based on the process of oxygen isotopes in snow layers. However, there are other processes well outlined in the scientific literature that are a direct contradiction to the process accepted by glaciologists as the cause for such layers. Mewhinney explained this snow layering process in his first paper in Catastrophism And Ancient History: "Except for losses from ablation [melting], snow falling on most land in the polar regions of this planet is locked into ice caps for many thousands of years. There is sinks beneath the weight of succeeding snows is compacted into ice, and slowly flows downhill. Preserved in the ice is a wealth of information about past climatic conditions... In 1954 Willi Dansgaard proposed using oxygen isotope ratios to study the climatic history of the Greenland ice cap. This is the basis tool of ice core research today. "Condensation [by cooling] preferentially removes the heavier isotopes of oxygen and hydrogen from water vapor. As more and more moisture condenses out of a mass of water vapor, it becomes progressively further depleted in these heavier isotopes. Usually it is the ratio of 180 to 160 that is measured. Since 180 comprises only about 0.2 percent of oxygen occurring in nature, instead of giving the actual ratio scientists express their results in terms of the depletion of 180 relative to standard means ocean water in parts per thousand (0/00. It is denoted [delta] 180. The 180 value of precipitation is always a negative number (If we were measuring enrichment it would be positive). "Since cooling promotes condensation, the cooler the rain or snow the more negative its 180 value. The relation is not so simple that ancient temperatures can be read off from an ice sample, but a change in temperatures will be reflected in a change in oxygen isotope ratios." (6) In essence, Mewhinney accepted as fully established the process that Oxygen 18 to Oxygen 16 isotope ratios are caused by snow derived from ocean water leaving layers in the ice caps of polar regions. Velikovsky's theory suggests that the ice sheets were not built up over millions of years but only over a year or so during a stupendous catastrophe which caused areas of the ocean to boil(7) while at the same period a "shower of meteorites flew toward the earth"(8) both processes would have evaporated and hurled enormous amounts of water vapor into the atmosphere. Immense hurricanes(9) would have carried this water vapor to various regions of the Earth, and in the polar regions this would have fallen as snow(10) to form the great ice sheet of today. This totally different interpretation of the build up of the ice sheets would not create a series of annual 180 layers in terms of the gradualistic method outlined by Mewhinney. The layering of 180 had to be created, in terms of Velikovsky's hypothesis, by a very different process. Therefore, to show how this other process worked, I discussed (in my "ICE" paper) the findings presented by Fred Hall who cited a paper in Science that showed the variations of the oxygen isotope ratios in the ice layers are not related to climate at all, wherein he wrote in AEON that a, "Vastly different picture is presented by specialists who actually have to deal with the subtleties of the ice cores. To begin with, there is far too much mixing of gases over time to allow for Ellenberger's [and Mewhinney's] simplistic assumption. I refer the reader, for example, to the December 23, 1988 issue of Science and the article "Gravitational Separation of Gases and Isotopes in Polar Ice" by H. Craig, Y. Horibe and T. Sower, pp. 1675ff. "What will be absolutely clear to the objective reader of this article is that the atmospheric gases left in deposited layers [of snow] do not remain in those layers. Rather, due to gravity, they are diffused downward, tending to accumulate on top of more dense layers of ice below. "The accumulating firm [ice-snow granules] acts like a giant columnar sieve through which the gravitational enrichment can be maintained by molecular diffusion. At a given borehole, the time between the fresh fall of new snow and its conversion to nascent ice is roughly the height of the firn layers in [meters] divided by the annual accumulation of new ice in meters per year. This results in conversion times of centuries for firn layers inside the Arctic and Antarctic circles, and millennium for those well inside [the] same, which is to say during these long spans of time, a continuing gas-filtering process is going on eliminating any possibility of using the presence of such gases to count annual layers over thousands of year."(Emphasis added)(11) Here then was a totally different process of layering of oxygen isotopes in ice sheets which Hall had outlined that was in complete contradiction to what Mewhinney had presented, and was presented several years prior to Mewhinney's first published paper on this matter. Therefore, one would naturally expect him to explain away this contradictory process when he had the first opportunity to do so in his 1990 articles in Catastrophism And Ancient History six years later. In Part II of his "Ice Cores and Common Sense" paper he does in fact deal with Hall's work (pp. 135-137) but search as one may for any discussion of this filtration process analysis of the oxygen isotope layering one will not find a single word that deals with it. Why? One would ask. Isn't this an important question especially since the journal Science felt it was significant enough to publish? Mewhinney does deal with other materials presented by Hall and is very severe about Hall's work saying, "Recently in the course of his "Solar System Studies" (Part 2, AEON, vol I, No. 4, p.34), another Velikovskian, Fred Hall, has given us his thoughts on ice cores. These thoughts are extremely confused, and he manages to crowd a number of foolish absurdities into a few lines [Mewhinney, "Common Sense... Part II,"op. cit., p. 135] As far as Mewhinney is concerned, the omitting the evidence presented by Hall in AEON regarding the filtration process discussed in Science is not confused. While he manages to crowd into his criticism of Hall several alleged errors, in giving his thoughts, Mewhinney apparently forgot or perhaps evaded this matter. Let us nevertheless be generous with Mewhinney for the moment and allow that he had somehow overlooked Hall's discussion of this Science article. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said when it comes to my "ICE" paper in which I specifically repeated Hall's citation of this filtration process(12) but I then went further into that Science article and stated: "According to the cited article, the percentage of gases in the pores at the base of the firn layer, where ice becomes solid, were much higher than those obtained in atmospheric gases. One of these gases turned out to be oxygen-18. The oxygen-18 had diffused downward and condensed at the bottom. The maximum enrichment of the heavy isotopes (nitrogen-15 and oxygen-18) observed followed patterns predicted for gravitational equilibrium at the base of the firn layer, as calculated from the depth of the transition layer and the temperature of the firn. (H. Craig, Y. Horibe and T. Sowers "Gravitational Separation of gases and isotopes in Polar Ice Caps," Science, Dec 23, 1988) p.1675. "The authors then showed examples where oxygen measurements are totally inconsistent with present-day atmospheric content in temperature regimes expected. to be almost exactly the same as at the present: 02 trapped in 2,000 year-old ice from Camp Century, Greenland has an 180/160 enrichment given by (180) = 0.61 per [millimeter] versus present-day atmospheric 02. (Ibid.) "They claimed that this evidence supports the concept that the layer of oxygen-16 and oxygen-18 relate to filtration and condensation in the pores of the firn and not to accumulation of oxygen-16 and oxygen-18 layers from snow containing different amounts of these isotopes. The past 2,000 year-old record should not be so different from the present-day record if the climate layering concept is correct. "If this is the process responsible for oxygen isotope layers, the entire argument presented by Ellenberger and Mewhinney is wrong. How do they explain away this evidence? To date, they have simply ignored it! Warm and cold snaps occur repeatedly over the Greenland ice cap and therefore, rapid meltings and freezings will leave several deposits of oxygen16 or oxygen-18 in the ice, based on the gas diffusion processes attested to by Craig, Horibe and Sowers. That is, instead of having one layer of oxygen-16 or oxygen-18 per year, three or four layers may be produced by this method each year, thus, the record is actually a reflection of this diffusion process and not of the climate... The age of the ice based on this concept could be quite different from what we are led to believe." (13) Now it is specifically pointed out that Mewhinney had ignored this material. Here there can be no doubt that Mewhinney read Halls as well as my citation, and analysis of the Science article. One would expect that in his "Minds in Ablation," papers especially in the "Ice Cores and Ideology" section there would be an attempt at a careful discussion and analysis of this basis dichotomy in the scientific literature of the layering methodology in ice cores. This is what I expected as would any observer. Since this was such a fundamental negation of the process he had presented, I thought that he would have taken up the challenge and lay to rest this matter of what he had presented in "Common Sense About Ice Cores." Although I read all five of his papers in "Minds in Ablation" and especially "Ice Cores and Ideology" from the beginning to the end with much interest regarding this matter, there is no mention of these facts. Mewhinney attacked my work for omitting a single sentence which I had actually introduced the entire discussion of that matter as an "exercise in perversity." Based on his own standard, if omitting one sentence of evidence is an exercise in perversity, what is omitting entire paragraphs and pages of evidence? Has Mewhinney not by his own behavior displayed your own perversity? What is one to do with such work when one employs such subterfuge, such massive evasion and wholesale denial of these facts? I say Mewhinney's failure to cite this evidence is dishonest. Though I had specifically challenged him to deal with this evidence, Mewhinney once again deftly ignored this matter as if it did not exist either in Hall's or in my work. This is not honest scholarship. In fact, he is being false. Furthermore, along these same lines of research into the mechanism by which the oxygen isotope layers are produced, Zbigniew Jaworowski, who has long been involved in ice core research, has presented a very similar point regarding oxygen isotope layers in ice cores. "The short-term peaks of 180 in the ice sheets have been ascribed to annual summer/winter layering of snow formed at higher or lower temperatures. These peaks have been used for dating glacial ice, assuming that the sample increments of ice cores represent the original mean isotropic composition of precipitation and that the increments are in a steady-state closed system. "EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, SUGGESTED THAT THIS ASSUMPTION IS NOT VALID, because of dramatic metamorphosis of snow and ice in ice sheets as a result of changing temperature and pressure... "Important isotopic changes were found experimentally in firn (partially compacted snow that forms the glacier surface) exposed to even 10 times lower thermal gradients [as those found in the ice caps]. Such changes may occur several times a year, reflecting sunny and overcast period would lead to false age estimates of ice." (Capitalization and Emphasis added)(14) Based on the two processes, namely, gas filtration and that of recrystalization and sublimation, the layers accepted as being one year old may be only a few months old. That is, the age of all the layers that can be seen in the ice cores may reflect thousands of years and hot tens of thousands of years, or that the ice may date back to 3,500 years ago rather than over 100,000 years in Greenland and Antarctica. Here it is made clear as Jaworowski directly proved, that after snow is laid down on the ice cap, processes of sub-surface recrystalization of melted snow to form new ice, and sublimation of ice directly from a solid to a gas in the ice cap releases oxygen isotopes which can migrate to other levels in the firn, as well as melting of ice flows to different levels where it recrystalizes. This makes a sorry mess of the original isotopic distribution laid down with the snow. He has told us that in laboratories such "isotopic changes were found experimentally in firn exposed to even 10 times lower thermal gradients" as those found in glaciers. Taken together with the evidence of filtration of gases downward in the ice cap described by Hall there is clear evidence that Mewhinney simply will not deal with facts that contradict his assertions. CORROBORATION OR DISCONFIRMATION OF ICE CORES FROM VOLCANIC MATERIAL IN ICE Nevertheless if Mewhinney's view of how the ice cores are formed over long periods of time is valid, then the various signals in the ice should correlate with various dated events outside the ice caps. That is, for ice cores to be true indications of climate they must be corroborated by other evidence similar to the eclipse data. Volcanoes, discharge dust and sulfur gases high into the atmosphere. These should be found in the proper ice layers if Mewhinney is correct, and the dating of these eruptions should be unequivocal as support. Mewhinney does discuss such volcanic products in the ice.(15) He further discusses volcanic acid signals as well associated with volcanic eruptions. "Explosive volcanic eruptions eject great volumes of ash and sulfates, some of which reach the stratosphere. The eruption of Tambora in 1815 was the most violent in modern times. Ash from Tambora was so thick that 'In many spots within 600 km of the volcano, the sky remained pitch dark for 1 or 2 days.... "Most of this ash settled out within a couple of weeks, but a haze of particles high in the stratosphere strong enough to substantially reduce the direct transmission of sunlight persisted for as long as two years afterward. "Aerosols from any eruption within 15 or 20 degrees of the equator will show up in the opposite hemisphere and gradually be dispersed around the globe, eventually reaching the poles. As particles descend to the troposphere they are washed out by precipitation. Sulfates form major eruptions, raise the acidity of the ice in which they a redeposited far above background level. This in turn raises the electrical conductivity of the ice, or of its meltwater. Major individual eruptions raise the acidity above normal levels for many months, and are easily detectible if one is sampling for conductivity with a time interval of one year or less."(16) Ellenberger also presented this corroborating view of volcanic dust and acid as evidence of their uniformitarian nature of how ice caps form. "Extreme acidity peaks are produced by major volcanic eruptions which inject volcanic acid gases into the stratosphere. These gases travel to the high latitudes, being converted en route, and are incorporated into the ice through snowfall. This disposition can be detected either as elevated specific conductivities measured on melted ice samples, or as elevated acidities revealed by an electric current through the solid ice. Every major known historically-dated eruption since A.D. 536 is attested to in the Greenland ice cores at the correct level...."(17) Therefore, based on their research, Mewhinney and Ellenberger claim to know that volcanic eruptions in the past, especially dated to the time of Velikovsky's catastrophe, are charted in the ice cores. Nevertheless, after citing Mewhinney on this question, I pointed out directly that dating past eruptions by their acid signals in the ice suffered from a major obstacle, namely the dating of the tephra or clastic material found near volcanoes by which their eruptions are in fact dated: "Of great importance is the accurate dating of Tephra, clastic material ejected from volcanoes, so as to definitively date volcanic eruptions. These are dated by ther- moluminence and by other methods. According to Glen W. Berger, 'no single reliable physical dating technique has been available for the time range from a few hundred years up to several hundred thousand years for distal and proximal tephra layers.' (Glen W. Berger, "Dating volcanic Ash by Use of Thermoluminescence," Geology, Vol 20, (Jan 1992), p. 11) "As late as 1992 [two years after Mewhinney claimed volcanic eruptions could be dated], the dating of volcanic eruptions was not known to be completely reliable. Despite what Ellenberger and Mewhinney claim, approximate dates given by different methods do not legitimize the methods; unreliable methods remain unreliable even when their results tend to agree" [Ginenthal, "Ice Core Evidence," op. cit., p. 69] Now here, once again Mewhinney was offered a statement from the scientific literature ,which I directly pointed out these acid signals to him. Here was yet another opportunity for Mewhinney to explain how volcanic eruptions could be used to corroborate the dust and acid signals in the ice cores. Again as I perused his papers searching to find his coming to grips with this. I began to wonder. I could not find a word regarding this because as the reader has probably guessed by now, there is not any mention of it. Isn't this again an exercise in perversity? What is the basis for Mewhinney's omission of this evidence that challenged his views? Mewhinney likes to cite M.G.L. Baillie in his criticisms of us in his "Minds" article. Yet here is what Baillie of the science Paleocology Centre School of Geosciences, Queen's University at Belfast, Northern Ireland has to say on this same subject: "In 1988 a series of environmental downturns, indicated by "narrowest ring events in Irish oak tree-rings, were found to occur in the proximity of large acid anomalies in the Camp Century and Dye 3 ice cores from Summit, Greenland. The original suggestion that these events were caused directly by large explosive volcanic eruptions has continued to cause controversy. ...the inability of volcanologists to date volcanoes with high temporal precision limits all such discussions" (Emphasis added).(18) But even such admissions have not penetrated Mewhinney's mind. When we compare the forthrightness of Baillie in facing this fundamental issue respecting the dating of past volcanic eruptions with that of Mewhinney in suppressing this evidence, it becomes clear that Mewhinney does not share the same standards for evidence as Baillie. There is yet a further problem with dating volcanic signals in the ice cores which is also relevant to finding corroboration of ice dating precision. The question is, even if the dating of the volcanic tephra was correct, how can one be sure the particular volcanic signal in the Greenland or Antarctic ice is truly that of the particular volcano said to be the one that erupted at that particular time? This I also presented as an issue for Mewhinney's interpretation of the relevance of this data. "This point is made specifically clear by Walter Sullivan in a New York Times article: 'fifty-seven of 69 [volcanic] events recorded [in the Greenland ice core] for the last 2,000 years were matched with known eruptions' (Walter Sullivan, "Santorini Volcano Ash Traced Afar, Gives A Date of 1623 B.C." The New York Times, (June 7, 1994), p. C8) This means that over 18% of the eruptions are traced to unknown volcanic events. However, in the deeper ice, from 2,000 to 7,000 years ago, during the events of Velikovsky's scenario where this evidence is supposedly crucial, the correlation of acid signals with known volcanic eruptions was "only [30%] of the older record to 7,000 B.C." (Ibid) That is, 70% of the volcanic signals are of unknown origin. When seven out of ten signals are of unknown origin, there is a clear probability that the signals found in the ice may have originated from one of the seven unknown volcanic events. The entire case reflects circular reasoning. "Sullivan is very careful to use terms which indicate that the precision related to the correlations is not truly known. "Ash believed to have come... A prominent ash layer at a depth corresponding to 4083 B.C. may have come from ...[T]he one believed to have come occurred at Santorini...[T]here are exceptions to know acid signals in the ice core... The earliest exactly dated eruption was that of Vesuvius... in A.D. 79." (Ibid)... Sullivan has told us that, between 2,000 and 7,000 years ago -- when Velikovsky's catastrophes had to have occurred, 70% of the volcanic acid signals cannot be matched with anything! Yet... Mewhinney suggest[s] that such a record can clearly disprove Velikovsky hypothesis."(19) Here was a fundamental correlation problem that existed in the Greenland ice cores. And here once more was a new opportunity presented to Mewhinney to refute and explain away this data with evidence. Look as one might through the length and breath of Mewhinney "Minds", for a response to my criticism of this work, and one will seek in vain for a mention of this evidence. Isn't this further omission perversity Sean? What words would you employ to characterize your failure to deal with these facts? Mewhinney turns to one well known volcanic eruption as a correlation and support for ice cores, namely Thera: "A prominent [volcanic acid] peak stood out at 1390 +/- 50 B.C. with no other comparable peak within hundreds of years on either side, they identified it as the signature of the Thera eruption. This was in 1980." (20) Mewhinney next turns to how corroboration then came from tree ring dating related to climate and new evidence from the Greenland ice sheet which supposedly confirmed the validity of the uniformitarian analysis of Thera. He goes on to cite the dendrochronological work of Valmore La Marche and Katherine Hirschboeck that Thera caused a severe cold spell which is found in the American Southwest's bristlecone pines dated to about 1627 B.C. (21) He also explains how a similar date was also found in the Greenland ice which would corroborate Thera's eruption date of 1645 B.C. with an estimated standard deviation of plus or minus 7 years and an estimated error limit of plus or minus 20 years (22) And as final corroboration of the Thera event he cites Baillie and Monro who found very narrow tree rings from Irish oak trees beginning in 1627 B.C. (23) To all this he adds: "These developments do not seem to have been properly digested as yet by those whose comments have appeared in Velikovskian organs."(24) What Mewhinney has failed to report is that I presented direct statements by M.G.L. Baillie in the ADDENDA to my paper wherein Mewhinney's criticism was answered. "At this juncture, I wish to emphasize that the points I raised regarding the volcanic acid signal found in the Greenland ice core are not matters of conjecture but matters of fact. Mike G.L. Baillie ... made these same points in the Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum (1990-1991 issue). Here are the points he specifically raised as I noted them: "Concerning Thera... "1. The exact date of the eruptions is not known. "2. The nature of any environmental effects due to the eruption are by no means fully quantified. "3. The eruption is virtually certain to have taken place between 1700 B.C. and 1520 B.C. "4. 1628 B.C. (or one or two years earlier) cannot be ruled out as a possible date for the eruption." (Mike G. L. Baillie, "Dendrochronology and Thera: The Scientific case," Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum Vol. 4, (1990-1991), p. 24)(25) I further cited Baillie that for Thera "none of the lines of evidence for the environmental effects could specify which volcano was responsible. This was self-evident and all the relevant workers known this." (ibid. p. 23)(26) Baille emphasizes that "despite all the controversy about the dating of Thera, no one knows the correct answer." (Ibid., p.24)(27) I also pointed out Baillie's citation of the paper by J.S.Vogel, et al., who "have now suggested at least three other eruptions [from other volcanos] which, on the basis of radiocarbon evidence, may have taken place at about the same time as Thera" (Ibid for Bailley: Also see J.S. Vogel, et al., "Vesuvius/Aviello: One Possible source of 17th Century B.C. Climatic Disturbances," Nature, Vol. 344, (1990), pp. 534-537)(28) As a final point on the Thera issue, I presented this statement by Baillie: "Just how reliable are the ice core estimates of global acid fallout [on the Greenland icecap]? On this latter point, I agree with Dr. [Bernard] Newgrosh. THE FAILURE OF HAMMER ET AL. TO DUPLICATE EITHER THE 1390+/- 50 B.C. EVENT OR THE 1645 +/- 20 B.C. [ACID SIGNAL] EVENT IN PARALLEL (ICE) CORES RADICALLY DENTS THE CREDIBILITY OF THEIR ESTIMATES OF GLOBAL ACID FALLOUT FOR THESE PREHISTORIC ERUPTIONS." (Capitalization added) (Baillie ibid)(29) In the most fundamental terms, ice cores drilled parallel to the one from which the Thera acid signal was supposedly derived show absolutely no acid signal at the level required for Thera or for that [matter] of any other volcano(30) All these citations from Baillie or the scientific literature were in my paper for Mewhinney to discuss, analyze, criticize in any way he chose to deal with them respecting his position on Thera. What he chose to do was not discuss this evidence, nor analyze the data, nor even criticize a word of it. What he chose to do was act as though not a word of it existed. The unreality of such behavior speaks volumes of Mewhinney's character. Mewhinney cites Baillie and others on the validity of tree-rings as they relate to the ice core data. When I specifically quote Baillie in my "ICE" criticism of Mewhinney's analysis which is a full debunking of his position by the very authority he cites, what does he do? He not only ignores my work, but that of the very same authority he had originally relied upon. Thus, when it suits Mewhinney, Baillie's work is employed as a source to support the validity of ice cores. However when Baillie's work does not suit him, because it denies the validity of the ice cores, Mewhinney simply escapes the dilemma this causes for him by acting as if none of Baillie's evidence exists. This is irresponsible scholarship, manipulation but above all, disingenuousness. For anyone who may think Baillie has in any way changed his views respecting or that new evidence has been uncovered to change the data, I cannot but recommend his 1998 paper in Natural Catastrophes During Bronze Age Civilization (Oxford Eng. 1998), especially page 110. There one will learn about the extreme weakness of the ice cores, radio carbon, and other evidence as precise markers of past climates. Therefore, the deeper ice cores cannot be corroborated by acid signal dates as Mewhinney would have us believe with specific ancient volcanic eruptions. Mewhinney's failure to come squarely to grips with his own authority indicates that the proper rules of scholarship and evidence have been cast to the winds and the cards he holds in his hands are there to mislead and bluff his way regarding this matter. VARVES AS CORROBORATION OR DISCONFIMATION OF ICE CORES Certainly there are other relevant forms of evidence Mewhinney could have turned to that corroborate the ice cores as markers of time and climate. For example, he could have turned to the evidence from the varve record. In one of his new "Minds" papers he, in fact, points to varve dating as a very good way to record and date past climates. I looked at this dating-climate archive precisely as it relates to ice cores in my "ICE" paper citing Scott Lehman who wrote: "[In September, 1992] came the first report from one of two teams drilling on Greenland, confirming that much of the period 8,000 [to] 40,000 years ago was marked by sudden [5 to 10C] switches in temperature over the ice sheet. In February came news from other teams that the switches were in fact jittery, embracing large oscillations in climate dating in some cases less than [five] years. And then in July, came the further discovery that the past 8,000 years of relatively stable climate have been an oddity-the last time that there was as little ice on Earth as today (the last inter-glacial period), temperatures over Greenland varied even more wildly than during the glacial period shifting as much as [10 to 12 C] in just decades and remaining in place for as little as 70 years. Although climate modelers and geologists are racing to understand and test the implication of the new ice core data, one thing seems certain - the heat carrying capacity of the Atlantic Ocean must somehow be involved in producing the sudden climate changes around Greenland." (Scott Lehman, "Ice Sheets, Wayward Winds and Sea Change," Nature, Vol. 365, (Sept 9, 1993), p. 108)(31) Here then was a clear and unmistakable series of violent temperature oscillation signals in the Greenland ice sheet and naturally one would expect the varve record of North America, at least, to reflect these many great temperature swings. However, if as Velikovsky claimed the ice was laid down in about a year, then there would be absolutely no correlation of the varve record with that of Greenland's ice core archive. On this question I cited Hans Oeschger who has been deeply involved in ice core analysis of climate whom I quoted directly regarding these temperature oscillations in the varve record: "such pronounced correlations are not found in climate records from the North American continent." (Hans Oeschger, "Long-Term Climate Stability: Environmental System Studies," The Ocean in Human Affairs, S. Fred Singer ed., (New York 1990), p. 65)(32) The insufficiency of the validity of the ice core evidence could not be more pronounced. All through the ice, except for supposedly about the past 8,000 years, evidence suggested tremendous temperature oscillations. In essence, the vast historical ice core record of Greenland exhibited these oscillations but the North American varve record showed that these swings did not occur. Now might I add that the North American varve record is not a record of only one area. Numerous varve cores going back into the great past are found in lakes and bogs all over the continent but these do not exhibit these major climatic swings. Is it possible that the oceans cooled and then heated up so greatly but did not affect the temperature regime across North America? This is simply not reasonable because land heats up and cools down more rapidly than oceans.(33) Surely these many, many temperature swings had to affect the North American climate and cause plants to grow in various regions of the continent to shed pollen into lakes and bogs that reflected these climatic oscillations. But Oeschger tells us the ice cap oscillations are not found in the many varve records. The varve record contradicts the ice core record for thousands upon thousands of years. This is contradiction not corroboration. Naturally, one would expect Mewhinney to explain this negation of the record with which he has criticized Velikovsky. Yet, if one looks through every page, and every word he has written, no mention of this is presented by Mewhinney. Again, when it suits Mewhinney's purpose, he cites the validity of varve records to discredit Velikovsky. However, when the varve record contradicts the validity of the ice cores Mewhinney feigns, and acts as if they were never presented by me, and therefore that the varve contradiction to the ice cores does not exist. If this was not enough, about a year prior to his presenting his critique via electronic media and the mail service, I had presented in my book The Extinction of the Mammoth direct evidence that these many temperature oscillations were also not found in the Devils Hole cores taken from a cave filled with ground water in Nevada. According to Walter S. Broecker whom I cited, this archive of climate "is more firm than any other available isotopic age in this [time] range" (Walter S. Broecker, "Upset for Milankovitch Theory, Nature Vol 359, (1992), p. 180)(34) Therefore, since the varve record of North America contradicts the Greenland ice core data respecting these large temperature oscillations, one would expect at least this evidence to show up in the Devils Hole data. The Devils Hole waters are derived from a broad area of sources. It is not a local record as we will see below. Wind currents from the north Pacific off Canada and Alaska and the Pacific south of the United States carry water vapor to the Great Basis in which Devils Hole is located. These rain waters pass through the ground as ground water from all across the Great Basin and collect in Devils Hole cavern. The waters thus reflect the temperature of a vast region namely, much of the Pacific Ocean of the northern hemisphere and the western portion of North America. Since these waters build up calcium carbonate layers in Devils Hole, they are an excellent record of this hemisphere's climate over about the last half million years. But as Isaac J. Winograd pointed out in EOS Vol 77, (April 23, 1996), Supp., p. F169, once again not a single temperature oscillation reported in the Greenland ice cap was found.(35) Therefore, there are now two major climate records (the varve record of North America and the Devils Hole record of the Great Basin) that contradict the view presented by Mewhinney that the ice cores are a valid record of climate change through thousands upon thousands of years. HEINRICH LAYERS AND THE GREENLAND ICE CORES What would cause the Greenland ice cores to exhibit these great temperature swings but not the North American continent as exemplified by varves or Devils Hole. In my book on the mammoth extinction I pointed out that there are layers of detritus found all across the North Atlantic sea bed. These are called Heinrich layers and were caused by immense flotillas of icebergs. About seven such layers exist in the sediments of the North Atlantic as far south as Spain.(36) The release of such armadas of icebergs must naturally cool down the Atlantic Ocean abruptly and should leave a powerful signature of snow oscillation in the Greenland ice cap from which its snow is derived. Thus the question is: Does the timing of these Heinrich events correlate in a powerful way with these dated periods when the North Atlantic was suddenly filled with perhaps hundreds of thousands of icebergs at once? This could be a powerful documented correlation to establish the correctness of the ice cores as a reliable record of past climate. Unfortunately, such is not the case, as Gerald Bend, et al, state: "Sediments in the North Atlantic Ocean contain a series of layers that are rich in ice-rafted debris and usually poor in foraminifera . Here we present evidence... [of a ] record marked decrease in sea surface temperature and salinity, decreases in flux of plantonic foraminifera to the sediments and short-lived massive discharges of icebergs, clearly marked by the presence of ice-rafted detrital carbonate [which] can be traced for more than 3,000 km, [1,900 miles] a remarkable distance, attesting to extreme cooling of surface waters and enormous amounts of drifting ice. The cause of these events is puzzling. They may reflect repeated rapid advances in the Lauren-tide ice sheet, perhaps associated with reduction in air temperature, yet temperature records from Greenland ice cores appear to exhibit only a weak corresponding signal...."(37) The North Atlantic Ocean during these Heinrich events became so cool that the innumerable foraminifera that lived there prior to and after these events could not do so, but only those few adapted to extremely cold water. Thus, the North Atlantic Ocean water had to be, as the researchers pointed out, an indication of "extreme cooling of surface waters." This of course, is the area from which Greenland derives its moisture to generate the snow falling on the island. Why then does this "extreme cooling of surface waters," show no strong signals with the extreme temperature swings in the ice caps? The entire basis of the ice core layering is based on the assumption that if the ocean water become extremely cold these will evaporate and create atmospheric moisture which in the cold atmosphere is further depleted of oxygen-18 and precipitates on the ice sheet of Greenland. Thus, here we have with the Heinrich layers an ideal condition for the deep cooling of the Atlantic Ocean and this should be exhibited by extremely strong cold signals in the ice cap. However, this is not the case. So if the extraordinary cold water created by Heinrich events make the ocean so cold that few foraminifera can live in these waters but cannot produce outstandingly strong indications in the ice cores, then the entire process by which the oxygen isotope layers were created is again called into question. Add this to the filtration, sublimation processed outlined by H. Craige et al, in Science and Jaworowski in 21st Century and the entire concept exhibits little or no substance. In retrospect we find that the large temperature oscillations in the Greenland ice cap show no corresponding oscillations in the North American varve record which is a basic contradiction to the ice core evidence , or in the Devils Hole core. Then we have clear evidence that the Atlantic Ocean, during Heinrich events, became extremely cold, but these cold snaps are only weakly reflected in the Greenland ice cap. Yet if these Heinrich events are related to the large temperature swings in the Greenland ice cap they would correlate directly with the large temperature oscillations in the Greenland cores, but this is not found. Thus both land based and ocean based climate signals fail to give the ice cores any substantial support. DENDROCHRONOLOGY AND VARVES AND GREENLAND ICE CORES VIS A VIS THE YOUNGER DRYAS The strongest confirmation for the Greenland ice core record is that of tree rings. Tree ring dating is believed to be an absolute chronology not subject to the vagaries of other dating methods. Therefore if, the Greenland ice core record receives strong confirmation from the tree ring dating method, it will have some basis for dating climate change. The tree ring chronology supposedly goes back almost to the end of the last Ice Age and should give basic support for the period after the Ice Age. There was, of course, a period after the Ice Age ended when the Earth went into a very cold period for hundreds of years. Grayson describes it thus: "The Younger Dryas takes its name from a herbaceous tundra plant, the mountain axens, genus Dryas. This plant is a marker for the apparently rapid replacement of forest by tundra that took place in northwestern Europe shortly after 11,000 years ago. Not only did forest give way to arctic grasses, herbs and shrubs here, but glaciers expanded in Norway and Scotland and temperatures, at least as inferred from studies of the Greenland ice cap, fell nearly 11[degrees] F. This North Atlantic cold snap lasted about 800 years; by 10,000 years ago it was over. Similar events seem to have occurred in northeastern North America and in the Southern Hemisphere....One thing, however, is clear: the Younger Dryas occurred at almost exactly the same time as the rise of Lake Bonneville to the [Lake] Gilbert level."(38) Grayson reported this in 1993. However, G. Landmann et al in 1996 found a large discrepancy with this dating in the Greenland ice cap.(39) According to Zbigniew Jaworowski writing in 1997: "Dating of such important climatic events as the termination of the Younger Dryas period BASED ON DENDROCHRONOLOGY (examination of tree ring growth) AND LAKE SEDIMENTS, [varves] differ from recent ice core data from Greenland by up to about 900 years." (Capitalization added)(40) Now Mewhinney and Ellenberger have made substantial claims regarding the validity of the tree-ring dating as an absolute record of past climates. But as we can see, regarding this evidence, these same tree rings categorically call into question the validity of the ice cores. Is Mewhinney now going to say that when the tree ring discredit the validity of the ice cores, that this is not a negation to the ice core record? Of course, at this point it is rather clear that Mewhinney has developed a scotoma, a blind spot, to any evidence that discredits his ice cores. Therefore, since dendrochronology is supposed to be the best absolute chronology of the past (41) we have yet another fundamental contradiction to the validity of the Greenland ice cores. Furthermore, the varves in lakes, like the tree-ring chronology is also in disagreement with these ice cores, also by about up to 900 years. Mewhinney made a great deal in his Common Sense Part II article criticizing those who challenged an 18 year discrepancy between the Greenland ice core data and that of dendrochronology for the eruption of Thera. "Why should anyone insist on attributing absolute accuracy to the data of the Dye 3 core, contrary to the explicit statements of the glaciologists. We are talking about a discrepancy of 18 years at most between the ice-core and tree-ring dates.... An error of 18 years in the course of counting back 3,600 [years] is one half of 1 percent"(42) However, a discrepancy between the ice-core and tree-ring and also the varve dates of about 900 years in 11,000 years is 8 to 9 percent and that is a tremendous discrepancy. This is especially so since it is found that varves and tree ring records (two records) fail to corroborate the Greenland ice core archive. Why was it colder in two climate temperature systems of analysis but differed in that of the Greenland ice record, if these records corroborate ice cores? Thus not only during the last Ice Age do two climate temperature records North American varves and Devils Hole core contradict the deep Greenland ice core record, but even after the Ice Age ended, the Younger Dryas a period of 900 years is also contradicted by two land climate temperature records dendrochronology and varves. Now in my mammoth book, I did make a mistake when I cited Jaworowski on page 281. Instead of copying Jaworowski's citation number 16 re Landmann et al., I copied citation number 17, re Dansgaard. This Mewhinney will of course raise to a capital offense. I do apologize for the error in the mammoth book but not for the information re the discrepancy between tree-ring and ice core in that book and have presented it here where it is corrected. ICE MODELING VS. REALITY The entire validity of ice cores as archives of past climates is based on the assumption that the rate of snow buildup and burial and compaction to ice occurs at a rate that is measured today and thus retrocalculated into the past. This, too, is similar to eclipse data based on similar uniformitarian assumptions. The upper snow and firn layers and the upper few hundred feet of solid ice layers on the Greenland ice sheet are the most accessible for study and therefore should directly reflect the glaciologist's model of how the great ice sheet flows, but much more importantly, when the dated layers in the ice actually formed. Both the flow patterns the layering age depth patterns should conform with the glaciologist's model and expectations they attribute to the ice if their model is realistic. If this model of ice flow pattern and the ice's age based on depth should prove to be directly contradicted by clear-cut, objective evidence found in the Greenland ice sheet then the validity of the entire model becomes doubtful. The theoretical ice model predictions meticulously worked out by the glaciologists must stand up to fundamental artifacts found directly in the ice or the model is baseless and all that it presumes to explain is brought into question. The experiment that fully determined the validity of theoretical ice model was carried out between July 1942 and 1989-1990 by the recovery of an American P-38 war plane from the Greenland ice cap. On July 15, 1942 a squadron of six P-38 Lightnings with two B-17 Flying Fortress bombers ran into a blizzard as it flew from Greenland to Iceland. The storm was so violent that the commander of the squadron ordered the planes to return to their Greenland base. When they arrived at Greenland the airfield was experiencing blizzard conditions and landing there was simply too dangerous to attempt. Running out of fuel, the bombers and fighter planes all crash-landed on the ice cap 13.4 miles from the edge of the ice sheet. The difficulty and cost of getting these war machines off the ice cap was just too expensive and the planes were therefore deserted to be covered over year by year with snow. Thus, the evidence of the flow patterns and age-depth pattern expected by the glaciologist's model of the ice cap could be fully examined and tested. Based on this model, the glaciologists made very specific predictions about how far the planes would be carried toward the Greenland coast and how deeply they would be buried in the ice cap. As Pat Epp's leader of the final expeditions that removed a plane informed me on December 23, 1998 over the telephone, the glaciologist's predictions were an utter disaster, greater than the one that befell this squadron. Both the glaciologist's ice flow model and age-depth expectation were firmly and conclusively destroyed by what was ultimately found when these plans were finally and correctly located. A retelling of these events is found in David Hayes', The Lost Squadron, (Toronto Canada 1994). However, the glaciologist's model and predictions will be attested to below. Let us begin. According to Burt Avedon, who was on some of these expeditions which searched for and found the location of the squadron, an actual test was unwittingly conducted which told just how rapid the rate of ice flow was. He informs us that for the 1983 expedition, "When the money ran out and weather closed in, the group erected a 25-foot metal tower over the site of the relocated B-17 and abandoned the operation."(43) Based on ice modeling of Greenland's continental glacier when the party returned two years later to attempt a recovery, they had expected that the tower, which marked the squadron's position, to have moved only slightly. However, its position did not conform with the ice flow model because when they checked the "latitude and longitude measurements [it] said it couldn't be. The site was 410 feet from where the tower was sunk. Mountain glaciers might possibly drift that much, but not continental ones." (44) The rate of drift was 205 feet (61.5m) per year. Avedon, using the glaciologists flow pattern model in fact showed that the ice flow rate was actually greater than that of the tower because he pointed out that "We know the planes must have drifted in their snow-bound tomb over two miles in 42 years."(45) At that rate the squadron was moving about 251 feet per year in the ice. This was still a greater distance than the ice flow model allowed for a continental glacier. He went on to say "At that [251 foot per year] rate in another 240 years an iceberg would calve off the glacier into the sea with a B-17 or a P-38 on top for a hood ornament or bow- spit."(46) Since 251 feet per year over 240 years is 60,240 feet or 11.4 miles, with 2 miles covered by 42 previous years of flow and we know the squadron landed about 13.4 miles from the edge of the ice cap. Thus, the flow rate model stated the ice moved much less than 205 feet per year but the planes carried in the ice and the tower indicated that the ice was flowing much more rapidly than the model allowed. But much more significant for our purposes is the question of depth-age modeling. Remember the glaciologists maintain that their counts of layers much like that of tree rings give a fairly precise count of years into the past. Therefore, how deeply should the planes have been buried beneath the succeeding 40-plus years of ice and snow based on the model employed by glaciologists. On one of the expeditions "almost 30 experts spent months on the ice-cap to locate the planes."(47) According to Avedon: "Glaciologists using ice scopes from the University of Iceland at Reykjavik tried to calculate the depth of the mass [of metal found in the ice] "Men were lowered into crevasses to confirm the ice scope findings on the annual snowfall melt and buildup. Using long-wave equipment rather than short waves (that won't go through water) the group again confirmed the positive magnetic reading but were unable to determine the depth. "The expedition of 1983 picked up from there. After spending a week trying to relocate the aircraft, they drilled down to 80 feet [24m], which was the median depth [for the planes] forecast by the glaciologists." (Emphasis added)(48) The glaciologists had, based on their model of depth-age, claimed that in about 40 years the planes would be buried beneath 80 feet (24m) of snow and ice. As Avedon states elsewhere "THE GLACIOLOGIST SAID THAT THE PLANES WERE AT 80 FEET." (Capitalization added)(49) In no uncertain terms, Avedon reports that the glaciologists who came along on the earlier expeditions using their models of the rate of snow accumulation and ice build up were convinced that at most the planes lay some 80 feet below the surface. This was the basis for seeking them at that depth. The glaciologists told the rescuers this. They had put their model to a test. According to B. Fristrup ice buildup averages 15 centimeters about six inches in the far north of Greenland, which receive very little snowfall, and 90 centimeters 36 inches or three feet per year in the southern most part of the island, which receives much more snow. (50) With the planes a few hundred miles north of the southern tip of the island the glaciologist's model required that the snow ice accumulation was 67.5 centimeters, about two feet per year. Thus the correct extrapolation from their model after about 40 years, at two feet per year placed the planes at 80 feet below the surface. The planes were indeed located a few years after these extrapolations by the glaciologists were made. One P-38 warplane was removed but not at about 80 to 90 feet depth. Even if we use a 90 centimeter, three foot per year buildup of ice and snow accumulation after 46 years when contact was finally made, the planes would be at a depth of 138 feet. Therefore, it is quite clear that the ice modeling of the Greenland ice cap indicated a depth of 80 feet for the planes but this analysis failed to even come near the actual depth at which the squadron was ultimately located. According to David Hayes who wrote about the various expeditions, William Thuma, a geophysicist, in September 1985 who after the 80 foot level was reached failed to reveal the planes, using magnetic signals, and "having had time to run his data through computers and review the findings patiently, Thuma was able to draw a tentative conclusion about what they called site number four, the B-17 tower, which put the plane at a far greater depth than any one [glaciologists] had imagined. In the report he submitted... Thuma wrote 'it seems plausible that the aircraft at site #4 is at a depth of 258' (feet) (78.6m).'" (51) This was an immense departure from what was expected. Using a steam probe to melt the snow and ice "At 10:30 p.m. on Saturday, July 2, [1988] Thuma was operating the probe when he made contact with something at 250 feet. Two more contacts were made that night within a radius of ten feet. Two days later, having marked several more hits with flags, the approximate outline of an airplane wing took shape... "The Icelanders, using the first site as a reference point, located seven more objects with the ice scope. With mounting excitement [Pat] Epps and [Richard] Taylor compared the Icelanders' markers with the configuration of the squadron. They matched. 'They might not be the planes', Taylor pointed out, sounding uncharacteristically cautious. 'They might be behemoths [mammoths], for all we know. But if so, the behemoths died in a pattern that corresponds to how the planes landed in '42'"(52) In 1990, two years later, the salvage job was attempted and on June 6, they again made contact with their probe. At "256 feet," (53) which turned out to be a piece of the plane that was brought to the surface. In May 1992, two years later, at below 257 feet the P-38 was struck(54) and removed from the ice in sections over that summer. The planes were at a median depth of about 260 feet (78m) below the surface while the glaciologists earlier had maintained they would be found at a depth of only 80 feet ten years later at 100 feet. They were over two and one half times deeper than their ice age-depth model predicted! Thus, it becomes rather obvious that the modeling assumption of the glaciologists respecting the flow rate model and the depth-age correlation in the Greenland ice cap is contradicted by evidence of these direct measurements. Neither the distance the war planes and the iron tower moved fit their extrapolations from the model, but more significantly the depth-age correlation expected from their model was off by two and one half times. If the depth-age model is in such flagrant contradiction to the real depth-age then on what basis can anyone trust the rest of the readings regarding depth-ages which are promulgated as disproof of Velikovsky vis a vis Greenland ice cores. The model has simply failed this most crucial test of its validity. Of course, post hoc ergo propter hoc models can be substituted to make these contradictions fit the glaciologists' ice model, but such reevaluations to save the paradigm are merely exercises in wishful thinking especially in view of all the foregoing evidence that contradicts their model. CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT ICE CORES Baillie pointed out above that the acid signal supposedly associated with the Thera eruption found in one ice core was missing altogether in a core drilled parallel to it. Thus we encounter a significant contradiction between cores which as we have seen Mewhinney did not answer. However, in my "ICE" paper I presented yet another much larger contradiction between ice cores, explained to me by Winograd (personal communication) where I showed temperature swings found in pre-Holocene ice cores were contradicted by another one, I stated: "The most disturbing problem... is that for the last Interglacial period, climate swings were found in one core and were missing in another, a fundamental contradiction to the accuracy of the cores. "In order to explain away these temperature swings a three day conference was held by the European and American ice core teams to present papers that these swings may not have existed during the last interglacial Although this could not be proven definitively, one can see that the desire to remove this major contradiction to the uniformitarian interpretation of the ice core and climate is quite strong."(55) Here again Mewhinney had yet another chance to deal with this contradiction. Again, he simply omitted any discussion of this material from "Ice Cores and Idealogy" work. GAS EVIDENCE CULLED BY GLACIOLOGISTS There are also other problems related to sampling evidence in the ice cores which show directly how the evidence is actually culled in order to give only the results the glaciologists expect. Mewhinney has argued that gases in the Greenland ice show no unusually high concentrations of argon left by Venus or Mars as a disproof of Velikovsky's thesis.(56) What we now know as a result of Jaworowski's work shows us that only the gases expected in the amounts expected are presented by the glaciologists. "Until 1985 the published CO2 readings from air bubbles in pre-industrial ice ranged from 160 to about 700 ppmv, and occasionally even up to 2,450 ppmv. After 1985 high readings disappeared from the publications! To fit such a wide range of results to the anthropogenic climate warming theory, which was based on low pre-industrial CO2 levels, three methods were used: (1) rejection of high readings from sets of pre-industrial samples based on the credo: 'The lowest CO2 values best represent the CO2 concentrations in the originally trapped ice; (A Neftel, et al., Nature, Vol 295, (1982), p. 220)(2) rejection of low readings from sets of 20th century samples; and (3) interpretation of high readings from pre-industrial samples as representing the contemporary atmosphere rather than the pre-industrial one. "Publications on greenhouse gases in ice often exhibit similar symptoms to those of G.S. Callendar, cited above. [who claimed industrial CO2 would generate a modern greenhouse effect] But the most important deficiency of these studies is the ice matrix itself, which does not fulfill the absolutely essential closed-system criterion. This is because liquid water is present in ice even at low temperatures and because many chemical and physical processes occur in situ, in ice sheets and in recovered ice cores. These factors discussed in [five] References..., change the original composition of air entrapped in ice, making the ice core results unrepresentative of the original chemical composition of the ancient atmosphere." (Emphasis added) (57) Therefore, to find any of the gases in the ice core we require a "closed system". In a system in which physical and chemical processes make the gas results unrepresentative of the original atmosphere we cannot expect as Mewhinney has told us that argon gas amounts would be significantly higher in ice core samples. The various processes operating guarantee that the results are either wrong or culled out of existence. This is one of the major problems with all complex systems. One cannot know with certainty whether or not the results reflect atmospheric gases or physical-chemical processes operating in the ice. CONCLUSION TO ICE CORES One can plainly see the ice cores are not strong evidence of ancient climates. This was attested to not only by Jaworowski but also Baillie. Neither of these researchers are Velikovskians. Here is the conclusion reached by Zbigniew Jaworowski, Tom Segalstad, Nobuo Ono, in the journal The Science of the Total Environment. They specifically claim that glaciological studies were, "NOT ABLE TO PROVIDE A RELIABLE RECONSTRUCTION OF...PALEO-CLIMATES." (Capitalization Added)(58) Here one can see that ice cores are really crystalline spheres instead of reliable archives of ancient climate and that Mewhinney's work to discredit Velikovsky on the basis of such evidence is without support. Particularly disturbing is Mewhinney's selective disregard for all the ice core evidence I presented in "ICE" as it relates to the many specific cases outlined above. Is there any possible or conceivable way that Mewhinney was not thoroughly aware of what he was doing when he systematically omitted from his discussion of ice cores every single piece of evidence related directly to these matters which I had presented? Did Mewhinney in his heart of hearts really believe he could answer all this evidence with these bombastic evasions, subterfuges and denials which are really lies. Yet Mewhinney's first paper is titled "Ice Cores and Ideology," giving the impression that he had honestly responded to my "ICE" evidence. It could have better been titled "Ideology For Not Dealing With Ginenthal's Ice Core Evidence," "An Ice Core Paper That Only Deals in Bombastic Evasion, Denial And Subterfuge," or just what it is, "Anti-Velikovskian Ideology." What ever it is, it is not a paper that deals with the relevant facts presented in my "ICE" article. In the final analysis, Mewhinney has ended up exposing himself as irrational. I could rent my case here having shown that Mewhinney exhibits all the faults he accuses Velikovsky and me of but there are other facets of his work that also deserve attention. Interestingly, Mewhinney was able to criticize Velikovsky's view of a universal deluge based on ice core evidence in AEON as if all the critical issues I raised in "ICE" to expose Mewhinney's inept ice core work does not exist. As long as such wholesale denial of evidence operates , he will be able to continue presenting ice core criticisms.(59) PART II ICE AGE MILANKOVITCH CYCLES OR EPICYCLES Mewhinney's next effort is to demonstrate to his readers that Ice Ages are brought about by small uniformitarian changes in the orbit and axial tilt of the Earth over long stretches of time and not by sudden recent catastrophes as theorized by: Velikovsky. After all, if Ice Ages are the gradualistic result of these small Milankovitch patterns then there can be little or no case as support for the concept of Velikovskian cataclysmic Ice Ages. However, before beginning to deal with Mewhinney's evidence, I wish to present a small discussion of this theory and how it was derived.(60) According to Robert Claiborne "the first reasonably scholarly estimate of ice-age chronologies comes from Penck and Bruckner."(61) They employed the best evidence available and, "Arrived at an educated guess for Ice Age chronology. In round figures they said each ice Age lasted 60,000 years [With interglacials added, they achieved a]... Grand total for the whole process of 600,000 years. "These figures were, by any standard, based on the most shaky kind of evidence. It was therefore something of a surprise when a second chronology, based on quite different evidence, apparently confirmed the Penke-Bruckner estimates. This time scheme was the work of many hands, but most particularly the Serbian mathematician Milan Milankovich...(62) Claiborne goes on to show: "It took Milankovich nearly twenty years to work out his radiation tables... Painstakingly, he worked out graphs for half a dozen different latitudes and then picked out one of them. (Lat. 65N.) as the rationale for his theory. Milankovitch's stated reason for picking this particular graph [as opposed to graphs of other latitudes] was that 65N was where the glacial action was; that is, the various centers from which the great ice sheets had expanded lay at about that latitude. In fact, however, this was true of only the one in Scandinavia. Another in Scotland lay at about 58 N., while the two man centers in North America (where much more ice was) were at around 55 and 70, respectively. And quite apart from this factual inaccuracy, I wonder why Milankovitch if he knew all along that 65 N. was the key latitude, my suspicion is that he worked backward; that is, having first plotted out all his graphs, he then picked out the one that best fit the traditional glacial chronology of Penck and Bruckner.(63) Claiborne adds: "Though something less than water tight, this theory seemed plausible enough. It seemed even more plausible when all the 'troughs' of Milankovich's graph the presumed cool summer, ice-building periods turned out to fall just about where Penck and Bruckner's chronology had placed the ice ages. Well, almost all. There was, as matter of fact, several troughs which did not correspond to ice ages at all; Penck and Bruckner's 'Great Interglacial' included no less than five of them. To get around this, Milankovich's partisans (of which there were by this time quite a number) introduced a second... factor: they simply disregarded all the troughs that failed to reach a certain depth assuming that these periods of cool summer had not been quite cool enough for an ice buildup. "The next difficulty was raised by Sir George Simpson... He pointed out, in effect, that Milankovich had been using still another ... factor and it was the wrong one. It isn't the drop in solar radiation itself that would produce an ice age... but the fall in summer temperatures presumably produced by the drop in radiation. Now... temperatures anywhere on earth only in part reflect the radiation at that point; they also depend heavily on how much heat is carried to, or from, the region by the atmosphere and oceans. Milankovich, said Simpson, had under weighed this factor, so that his estimates of the drop in summer temperatures were four times too large. The actual drop would have been quite insufficient to build ice sheets."(64) Claiborne also adds: "Another blow came in 1953. Forty years of astronomical observations have yielded new and more accurate figures on the irregularities of the earth's motions. Using these new figures and a computer, a Dutch-American astronomer, A.J.J. van Woerkom, recalculated Milankovich's curve and found a deep 'glacial' trough smack in the middle of the Great Interglacial. Clearly something was very wrong with either the Milankovich theory or the Penck-Bruckner chronology or both. "One of the reactions to this embarrassing fact throws an embarrassing light on the vaunted objectivity of science. The late Fredrick E. Zeuner, one of the great names in geochronology [related to varve chronology], and a strong partisan of the Penck-Bruckner time scheme, described the differences between van Woerkom's and Milankovich's curves -- including that troublesome interglacial 'glaciation' as 'negligible.' This was precisely the opposite of what van Woerdom had said. Some of the Milankovich partisans, however, were less impervious to facts than Zeuner. Recognizing that something had to give, they simply jettisoned the Penck-Bruckner chronology, at the same time restating the Milankovich theory so as to take account of Simpson's criticisms."(65) For those who wish to read a delightful expose of the fudging and unscholarly nature of how climatology actually works, read Robert Claiborne's Climate, Man and History especially pages 116-145, though dated, it is an excellent book. He also discusses the work of Walter Broecker and Cesare Emiliani, who have their own versions of why Milankovitch cycles cause Ice Ages. But he claims that Emiliani's theory also employs "many assumptions, conjectures and other types of... factors even a good climatic theory must employ."(66) He claims Broecker's "version of the Milankovitch theory which he has of course obtained by applying another set of ... factors to it."(67) So to begin with, we must be very clear that for all its popularity and acclaim, the Milankovitch theory is based on unproven "assumptions, conjectures, and other factors." These are rarely discussed in the popular literature. But what must above all first and foremost be understood is that we are not dealing with testable science but with a "climate model" in which the precise parameters cannot now be known. At this point we can begin to cite Mewhinney's criticisms in "Minds" because here at last he does discuss the evidence directly related to it: "The position that Ginenthal seems to be trying to articulate is that since there are 'discrepancies between these different [Devils Hole and ocean sediment] chronologies, we should chuck 'em all out, in favor of Immanuel Velikovsky's oracular revelations. But he is not consistent, because he is more interested in attaching Milankovitch than ice cores."(68) Now look at how Mewhinney has inverted the entire discussion. He claims that my "ICE" paper was primarily interested in attacking Milankovitch and not dealing with ice cores. This as anyone who has read my "ICE" article and the prior chapter of this paper can see is how Mewhinney has attempted to suggest that all that evidence on ice cores which he has ignored as if it does not exist. But he manages to finally say something we can at last analyze. He suggests that my position respecting the Devils Hole core contradiction with the ocean sediment cores is only a mere "discrepancy." What he has failed to be specific about, as a subterfuge, denial and evasion is the timing of these Devils Hole discrepancies with the ocean sediment cores because these are fundamental to Milankovitch. If a very cold period a bathythermal required by Milankovitch exists in the ocean sediment core is off by a number of years in the Devils Hole core (but still within a very cold period predicted by Milankovitch ) than the discrepancy would not be important. But if Milankovitch requires and directly predicts that both Devils Hole and marine cores show extremely warm periods -- hipsithermals or interglacials for a certain time and the cores contradict each other or that the ocean sediment core and Devils Hole archive both contradict Milankovitch, that would be a serious problem for that theory. In fact, if both cores contradict Milankovitch this becomes a momentous problem for the theory. Frankly, this is exactly what I pointed out to Mewhinney in "ICE" wherein I cited J. M. Landwehr, Isaac Winograd and T. B. Copen's letter in Nature. "We are puzzled by the table in the Scientific Correrspondence by Emiliani. He rejects the conventionally used (glacial, interglacial transitions) as time markers and focuses on bathythermals (the coldest portions of glacial cycles), which he deems to be sharper and therefore more precise time markers. He claims that bathy thermals in the Devils Hole 180 chronology occur at times when the orbital parameters of [the Earth's] obliquity [axial tilt] and eccentricity [to the Sun] are both low...thereby supporting the Milankovitch mechanism... "We show [in a table]... the seven astronomical 'low' events that Emiliani gives... We were puzzled as to why Emiliani omitted [from his table] two well-defined 'low' events... and note that they do not correspond to bathythermals in either the Devils Hole or the marine 180 chronologies. Indeed, the 'low' [or cold] event occurs during a peak interglacial time [when it was warmest]. We also note that Emiliani's designation of a 'low' event [for two periods] does not [even] fit the earlier stated definition. "Also show[n] in the figur are eight major 180 minima, denoting times of full glacial climate, found in the Devils Hole chronology, and the subset of six events that Emiliani gives... in his table. He does not mention the two Devils Hole isotope minima [at the time periods] which do not correspond to any astronomical 'low' event. In comparing the astronomical 'low' events predicted by the specific definition with the minimal isotope events in the Devils Hole chronology, one sees that though there are four 'matches,' there are six 'non-matches,' twice when a bathythermal would be predicted but did not happen and four times when one did occur but not during an astronomical 'low' event." (J.M. Landwehr, Isaac J. Winograd, T. B. Copen, "No Verification of Milankovitch," Nature, Vol 368, (April 14, 1994), p. 594)(69) Not only do the cores exhibit mere discrepancies with Milankovitch as Mewhinney would have us believe, but they contradict the theory. What one would have expected once Mewhinney made the admission of these discrepancies was that he would carefully explain them away by citing the scientific literature to show that they are not vital negations of Milankovitch. But this he did not do. Since he apparently could not explain these contradictions to Milankovitch, he evaded and denied their importance! He is acting precisely the way that Fredrick E. Zeuner dealt with the contradictions between van Woerkom's and Milankovitch's curves. But treating the discrepancies as "negligible' Mewhinney was being "impervious to those facts." Mewhinney adds "there is no aid or comfort from Devils Hole for diehard Velikovskians."(70) Let us see if there is any aid or comfort from Devils Hole for diehard anti-Velikovskians like Mewhinney. Let us see what scientists and others say who are "less impervious to facts" respecting the discrepancies which Mewhinney has not explained. Walter Broecker, one of the world's leading theorists of climate remarks in an article on the Devils Hole chronology as it relates to Milankovitch, entitled, "Upset for Milankovitch Theory" in Nature. "One of the fundamental tenets of paleoclimate modeling, the Milankovitch theory, is called into doubt by, isotope analyses of a calcite vein, [Devils Hole] just reported in Science Winograd and colleagues. The [Milankovitch] theory, which is backed up by a compelling bank of evidence, suggests that the ice ages are driven by periodic variations in the Earth's orbit. But the timing of the ice ages determined, with unprecedented accuracy in the new [Devils Hole] record cannot be reconciled with the planetary cyclicity."(71) Does Mewhinney really think that this statement by Broecker is without merit or substance? Broecker looked at these very same climatic discrepancies (really contradictions) between Devils Hole and Milankovitch and being impressed by the facts admitted what Mewhinney will not; the Devils Hole "record cannot be reconciled with Milankovitch." Mewhinney apparently needs to tell Broecker that he doesn't know what he is talking about with respect to the Devils Hole archive of climate as it relates to Milankovitch. Based on Devils Hole he agrees with my contention that this is not a poor little discrepancy but an irreconcilable negation of that theory. Broecker clearly needs lessons in climatology from Mewhinney. So too do the editors and referees of Nature need Mewhinney's advice who were so ignorant regarding this matter and published it. Richard A. Kerr, the editor of Science also has the temerity to disagree with Mewhinney on the importance of the Devils Hole record and Milankovitch "The Devils Hole Record traced climate swings of about the same length as the marine record, but they [sic] were out of step with the variations of Earth's orbit. Most Glaringly, these carbonates indicated a profound warming trend which appeared to signal the end of the penultimate ice age thousands of years before orbital variations could have begun to melt the ice. If the Devils Hole chronology was a true record of the world's ice ages, researchers would have to dump the astronomical mechanism and look for something new." (Emphasis added)(72) Kerr tells us that "If Devils Hole chronology is true... researchers would have to dump the [Milankovitch] astronomical mechanism," or in the words Mewhinney describes my contention "chuck 'em out." Kerr's concern regarding these contradictions to Milankovitch are well founded and admitted that Devils Hole evidence is a profound negation of that theory. Perhaps Mewhinney will be so good as to inform Kerr that he is misinformed and doesn't understand the evidence properly. Devils Hole receives its water from rainfall over a broad region and this water must seep through the ground before its oxygen isotopes will begin to register in the calcite forming on the walls of that cavern. The Devils Hole core evidence of past climate must therefore follow after the climatic changes. But while the temperature was still cold or glacial, Devils Hole was receiving rain water from the Pacific Ocean that was warm i.e., interglacial thousands of years prior to that ocean water becoming warm. Unlike Mewhinney, Kerr understood that this would be impossible and admitted the astronomical theory would have to be dumped. Mewhinney should tell Kerr he doesn't know what he is talking about. K.R. Ludwig, et al., of the U.S. Geological Survey in Colorado writing in Nature in a letter in response to N.J. Shakleton, also haven't gotten Mewhinney's message wherein they write: "The Devils Hole dates... remain a challenge to the Milankovitch hypothesis"(73) Mewhinney knows this is all untrue, and that Devils Hole is not a challenge to Milankovitch. Perhaps he will show Ludwig et al and the editors of Nature the error of their ways. Perhaps he will have a long talk with them to show that like Ginenthal, they need instruction in what real scientific evidence really indicates. In fact, Broecker was so deeply impressed and disconcerted by Devils Hole evidence that he was forced to admit "In my estimation the new Devils Hole chronology is more firm than any other available isotopic age in this range. Nowhere else has such a high degree of concordance between 234U -- 238U and 230 Th -- 234U ages been achieved. No other archive is better preserved. No other record has so many stratigraphically ordered radiometric ages..." [Though Broecker is a long time supporter of Milankovitch , he adds] "One side will have to give just to be safe climate modelers should start preparing themselves for a world without Milankovitch."(74) But Mewhinney knows Broecker is wrong, and that the poor little Devils Hole "discrepancies" mean nothing and do not pose a grave challenge to Milankovitch. According to Mewhinney, all these scientists, science writers and editors of peer reviewed science journals are ignorant about the nature of Devils Hole chronology regarding Milankovitch while he with a true understanding of the evidence will tell them all they are mistaken. After all he can show them these are only "discrepancies between these different chronologies." Naturally, it is unthinkable to scientists imbued with uniformitarianism to let Milankovitch theory as the sole agent for the onset and ending of Ice Ages be relinquished and thus have to come up with an ad hoc solution. Indeed, something drastic was needed to salvage Milankovitch and its advocates were ready to present a comedy of errors in its defense which Mewhinney has grabbed on to and rushed into the breach to save. To escape this dilemma, Mewhinney offered one of these ad hoc, post hoc, ergo propter hoc arguments, namely that, "Devils Hole ground water reflects mainly the temperature of local precipitation."(75) At this point he cites an article and a paper which appeared in Science in which the Devils Hole archive is demoted to an indicator of "local" climate from "local precipitation" as Mewhinney puts it. In one of the articles Steven Clemens of Brown University suggests "that while the marine records trace the ebb and flow of the ice ages, Devils Hole may chronicle only the climate of a region as small as southwestern North America". (Emphasis added)(76) R. Lawrence Edwards, et al., in the other paper in the same Science issue using AMS protactinium dates on corals to support Milankovitch and marine core records also grasped at this same straw. "The Devils Hole oxygen isotope signal may reflect regional temperatures, whereas, the marine isotope record largely reflects the volume of continental ice sheets ..." (Emphasis added) (77) Notice both researchers use the words "may reflect" and "may chronicle" instead of prove local rainfall. But of this "local" precipitation Mewhinney has no doubts. What is most humorous with the approach of labeling the Devils Hole chronology a product of local rainfall is that the same researchers - Edwards et al., in the same paper admit it correlates with their oceanic coral chronology.(78) The illogic in this case is stunning. The coral chronology truly reflects ice buildup and ablation of glaciers on the continents during Ice Ages but that the Devils Hole chronology which is quite similar, reflects only local climate. Since the Devils Hole climate chronology is so similar to that of the marine coral climate chronology thousands of miles removed from it, it simply cannot reflect only local climatic rainfall. Nevertheless, let us fully accept for a moment the supposition that the Devils Hole archive is, as presented, a reflection only of local weather. Will that truly save the situation? No, the logic is as convoluted and confused as ever. We are told that the marine chronology is truly indicative of ice buildup on the continents. Therefore, when the oceans of the northern hemisphere, specifically the northern pacific, was cold, it caused the land to be more greatly covered by great and small ice caps. As we pointed out above, citing Clyde Orr, Jr., in uniformitarian terms, land masses cool down more rapidly than oceans. Therefore, it would be impossible for Devils Hole situated in Nevada to become greatly warmer than the Pacific Ocean during an Ice Age. Nevada should have been covered by tundra or tundra-like conditions; its nearby mountains blanketed in snow and glaciers and local rain or snow falling on this region would be extremely cold. But let us briefly recall that Kerr has told us that there was a "profound warming trend" at Devils Hole "thousands of years before orbital variations could have begun to melt the ice..." The lamentable facts in terms of local weather at Devils Hole on a continent require that it could never exhibit warm conditions during an Ice Age! Land becomes colder than water during an Ice Age and local weather on a tundra-like environment with numerous mountain glaciers in that area, from which Katabatic - icy cold - winds would descend, make it impossible for the Devils Hole region deep inside a continent to become warmer thousands of years earlier than the oceans. The supposition that such a scenario was even submitted in the pages of Science is an index of the Milankovitch advocate's desperation to employ any form of illogical thinking to save their theory. It is at this point that Mewhinney's statements on this matter are irrational because here is what he has to say about these various climate records. "The isotope signal in the marine record reflects mainly the volume of water withdrawn from the oceans and locked in the ice sheets, while the signal in the ice cores and Devil's Hole [sic] ground water reflect mainly the record of local precipitation. It takes a long time for massive ice sheets to melt, so the marine isotope record should lag behind the other two"(79) Mewhinney claims the marine record "should lag behind" the Devils Hole record. Kerr has told us the Devils Hole record "indicates a profound warming trend... thousands of years before the orbital variations could have begun to melt the ice." Instead of following or lagging behind the melting of the ice and the warming of the ocean as Mewhinney tells us it should, the Devils Hole anticipates (comes before) these two other cores could even indicate any warming. Mewhinney's view on this matter is completely contradicted by the evidence. Having looked at Kerr's evidence, how could he believe or expect anyone who read this same evidence accept what he had presented as correct about lagging when it is in total contradiction to what Kerr states. How could Devils Hole warm up thousands of years before the Ice Age had even begun to end? How could Devils Hole have local precipitation during an Ice Age that was warm? If, as Kerr states, orbital variations could not melt the ice, how could they warm the land around Devils Hole? Doesn't Mewhinney even think about what he reads or writes? When I spoke with Winograd on the telephone of this, he was kind enough to say that although the simple logic precluded the local weather concept, he would not characterize his colleague's actions. But he did tell me that he would present a clear answer to this assertion in Quaternary Research which I presented on the Internet. Mewhinney, of course, did not realize I was only presenting, as well as I could, the information Winograd gave me. Winograd, I hasten to remind the reader, is not nor has ever been interested in Velikovsky's theories. Here then is Mewhinney's criticism of what I offered: "To my amazement, he [Ginenthal] has emphasized [on the Internet] that it [the Devils Hole chronology] 'was found to correlate with Vostoc [sic] core linearly which is 114 degrees away from it [in latitude] by 92 percent and with SPECMAP by 86 percent'."(80) Therefore to allay Mewhinney's amazement I will simply quote Winograd et al's response to the charges in Science by Edwards et al and Clemens that the Devils Hole chronology reflects local weather, or local rainfall. "Perhaps the most convincing evidence that neither local nor regional hydrologic or synoptic climatological factors are the predominant ones influencing the DH [Devils Hole] - 11 180 signal is the strong linear correlation of this record with both SPECMAP...VOSTOK... as seen in Figures 7 and 8 [of the paper]... "Local or regional hydro logic, or synoptic - climatological factors are improbable as the predominant causes..."(81) If Mewhinney is still amazed that Winograd- et. al. make it quite clear that the Devils Hole climate chronology is an excellent archive of hemispheric climate and not of local weather then let him also tell Winograd, Landwehr, Ludwig, Copen and Riggs and the editors and referees of Quaternary Research that they also don't know what they are talking about on this matter but he does. Mewhinney's criticisms on this point are a catastrophe, not a Velikovskian catastrophe, but to use an oxymoron, a uniformitarian catastrophe. THE MARINE CHRONOLOGY AND MILANKOVITCH I feel there is a second reason Mewhinney failed to deal with Landwehr, Winograd and Copen's letter in Nature is that the basis of his argument in support of Milankovitch is that given to it by marine sediment cores which these researchers pointed out "two well-defined 'low' events... do not correspond to bathythermals in either the Devils Hole 180 chronology or the marine 18 0 chronology." (Emphasis added)(82) The germane point is that Mewhinney has chosen to present the view that marine sediments do support Milankovitch when it suits his purpose. However, when I present evidence in Nature that the marine sediments contradict Milankovitch in my "ICE" article and that these cores do not support it but clearly contradict Milankovitch, Mewhinney casually ignores this evidence and tells us just the opposite! If the basis of Milankovitch does rest on marine sediment cores then the fact that two low events do not show up in the marine sediment core at the places in the core (meaning times in the past) where they should is another strong contradiction to Mewhinney's basic argument. But, of course, he may say that they are just poor little "discrepancies". Nevertheless, let us take the marine cores at their face value, do they support Milankovitch? And let us add Greenland ice core evidence into the mix; do they explain Ice Ages via Milankovitch? No, because Milankovitch cycles take thousands of years to occur; they do not happen rapidly. Regarding this point. Tjeerd H. Van Andel writes: "The study of sediment cores from the deep Atlantic and ice cores from Greenland does not confirm the gradual transition from glacial to interglacial and back again that is implied by the astronomical [Milankovitch] cycles and partly documented by the oxygen isotope record. Instead as on the land the response of the North Atlantic Ocean atmosphere system increasingly looks like a series of abrupt flip-flops from one stage to another."(83) The foraminifera (shortened to forams) shells contain 180 and tell the temperature of the ocean into the past and is the basis of how marine core analysis, as well as the types of forams is conducted. Therefore, if the Atlantic Ocean warmed up or cooled down over thousands of years as Milankovitch suggests then the 180 should clearly indicate that the temperature of the ocean water changed gradually. This water would then fall as snow on Greenland and the ice cores there would reflect the gradual heating of the ocean as well. But Van Andel says that the changes in the 180 ocean and Greenland cores show abrupt oscillation in temperature. Now if Velikovsky is correct that the Greenland ice sheet was laid down rapidly and catastrophically and that the ocean sediments were greatly stirred by this catastrophe, then the ocean and Greenland cores would show this by exhibiting many rapid temperature changes, which is precisely what they do exhibit. Again the marine cores and ice cores from Greenland give no real support for Milankovitch but strong support for Velikovsky. When we add to the mixture the fact that neither the North American varve record nor the non-local broad hemispheric Devils Hole record show none of the great temperature swings, it becomes rather clear that the stirring up of the oceans and the short time span which created the Greenland ice cap fully support Velikovsky. HEMISPHERIC NEGATION OF MILANKOVITCH In Rose's work on Milankovitch he points to another fundamental contradiction to the theory. "A major puzzle for the Milankovitch theory is the apparent fact that the onset, the peaks, and the terminations of ice ages have been roughly simultaneous in both hemispheres. Obliquity (aside from the six-month lag) would be the same for both hemispheres, but the other factors that the Milankovitch theory relies upon - the orbital eccentricity, the precession, and the advancement of perihelion - all suggest that there would be long-term differences between the two hemispheres. How, then, can the status of the two hemispheres remain virtually the same? It is as if an ice age were not a merely hemispheric or a polar phenomenon, but rather a result of factors operative on a global scale. "Broecker, "The Cause of Glacial to Interglacial Climatic Change", in Evolution des Atmospheres Planetairies et Climatologie de la Terre (1979), page 175, calls this 'a fly in the insolation ointment". Mercer, referring to Broecker, speaks of 'a Fly in the Ointment of the Milankovitch theory'; see Mercer, Simultaneously Climatic change in both Hemispheres and similar Bipolar Interglacial Warming: Evidence and Implications"in Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, (1984), pages 307-308." (84) This is a very powerful negation of the Milankovitch theory. After all when the northern hemisphere's axial pole points most greatly toward the sun, the pole of the southern hemisphere points least toward the sun. When the orbit of the Earth places the northern hemisphere closest to the sun in summer or winter the opposite occurs with the southern hemisphere. Thus, Ice Ages should not occur at the same times in both hemispheres based on the facts of Milankovitch. When the northern hemisphere exhibits an Ice Age the southern hemisphere should exhibit an interglacial period. This anti-correlation of Ice Ages in the two hemispheres is required by Milankovitch but is decidedly not found in the evidence. Both hemispheres have either glacials or interglacials at the same time. Robert Kunzig writing in Discover also outlined this contradiction. "Then there is the question of whether the waxing and waning of ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere could as the Milankovitch theory assumes drive all the other climate changes that have accompanied ice ages - the cooling and glaciation of the Southern Hemisphere, for example Glaciers in the Andes and Antarctica have advanced at roughly the same times as those in the north, that is, at times when the [Milankovitch] orbital calculations should have been getting a lot of summer sunlight. There is no generally accepted explanation of why the ice ages should be globally synchronized if they are driven by [Milankovitch] orbital fluctuations." (Emphasis added), (85) Search as one may through Mewhinney's two earlier criticisms of Rose in Catastrophism And Ancient History, or "Minds in Ablation" (the five papers sent to AEON) one will find only silence regarding this question. Isn't it simply delightful how transparent Mewhinney's actions are? VELIKOVSKY ON MILANKOVITCH AND MILANKOVITCH ON MILANKOVITCH Something I believe that has been left out of the entire discussion on whether or not Milankovitch cycles bring about Ice Ages is what Velikovsky actually stated on this matter. "More recently, M. Milankovitch introduced a third variation, the obliquity of the ecliptic to correct some of the defects of Croll's theory. In the opinion o f his critics, however, his curve of climatic changes widely upset geological dates [as pointed in Clairbourn's Climate Man and History above pp. 123-124] nor do his variables offer sufficiently effective reasons for the vigorous changes in climate. [see Clairbourn pages 122-123]. AND WHY WERE THERE NO ICE AGES DURING LONG PERIODS IN THE PAST, IF THE PROCESS RECURS AT CALCULABLE INTERVALS." (Capitalization added), (86) If Mewhinney was honestly interested in debunking this aspect of Velikovsky's work shouldn't he have answered this instead of offering nothing on what Velikovsky said on this matter? Even Milankovitch himself clearly understood that the various orbital cycles retrocalculated into the deep past of geological time like those of eclipses, and should show hundreds of or even thousands of Ice Ages prior to the Pleistocene. In 1941 Milankovitch addressed this very question in "Canon of Insolation and the Ice Age Problem," Royal Serbian Academy Special Publication, Vol 32, (1941), Section of Mathematical and Natural Sciences, vol 33, B. Benny, I. Meroz Transls., (1969), p. 481. Milankovitch presented this problem honestly hoping new research would vindicate his efforts. Plate tectonics is a partial escape for perhaps the times prior to the Cenozoic. However, by about the late Eocene 45 million years ago, the continents would have been close to their present locations and should have experienced numerous Ice Ages if Milankovitch cycles really was their cause and pacemaker. Therefore, if Mewhinney's view is correct that Milankovitch cycles create Ice Ages as observed in the marine sediment cores he points to, that is exactly what should be found. But this simple requirement fails to give the theory of Ice Ages driven by orbital fluctuation any support at all. J. E. Joyce, et al., examined this very question of marine core corroboration for Milankovitch with respect to the Pliocene 4-3.2 million years and into the present. Their work, in fact, covered from 5.35 million years ago up to the present and just as they suspected the oceans cooled and warmed in correlation with Milankovitch cycles.(87) But were there Ice Ages associated with these very same cycles as demanded by the theory? No, not in any way! According to D.E. Krantz' writing in 1991, the entire Pliocene was a period of extraordinary warm climate; so warm, that the ocean level was as much as 30 meters [100 feet] above that of the present because there were fewer glaciers.(88) The oceans had risen so high that large areas of the Atlantic coastal plain from around Boston to Florida were inundated. The fact that Milankovitch cycles do not explain the lack of Ice Ages prior to the Pleistocene, especially the Pliocene which preceded it, makes it rather clear that they do not produce significant effects on climatic change of Ice Age proportions. Furthermore, Winograd and Landwehr raised this very same contradiction as late as 1993.(89) Again, scientists of the 1990's raise the very same questions and contradictions to Milankovitch which Velikovsky raised in 1955. But of this, Mewhinney is oblivious. THE EQUITORIAL REGION AND MILANKOVITCH Now all authorities as Mewhinney has told us (and as I also pointed out) that the greatest changes in temperature occur at greater and greater distance from the torrid zone of the Earth. Cooling of the Earth even by Milankovitch standards has small effects in the tropics but large effects as one approaches the poles. Thus, if there is any lingering doubt about the efficacy of Milankovitch cycles to induce major climatic changes I will present two citations on this question. In this respect Sir Fred Hoyle wrote in 1981: "...slight changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis of spin give only negligible solar variations at equitorial latitudes; yet the last ice age produced the great glaciers on Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea in Hawaii, and Mount Elgon in Uganda. Obviously something drastic happened in the tropics for which the Milankovitch theory cannot account." (Emphasis added)(90) Here we have a foe of Milankovitch saying "something drastic happened," implying a catastrophe contrary to uniformitarian Milankovitch cycles. What then does a long time pro Milankovitch theorist such as Broecker have to say on this question. In 1997 he wrote: "An important piece of information in this regard is the state of Earth's system during the extreme cold millenniums of glacial times. At these times all of Canada and a major part of the northeastern and mid-western United States were covered by ice sheets. The snow line descended about 1Km [3280 feet] on mountains everywhere on Earth. Geomorphologists have traversed the globe comparing the elevation of the present-day mountain snowlines with those for the last glaciation... Everywhere from 40S to 40N [latitude] snowlines descended... Thus, the southern Andes and New Zealand's south Island which now have very small glaciers had quite large ones. "What this tells us is that somehow Earth was in a much colder condition during the glacial periods. To my way of thinking no one [including Milankovitch] has adequately explained how this could happen. We now have new evidence from glacial-age corals and from glacial-age ground waters ... that the tropics may have been as much as 5 C [9F] colder during glacial times. How could the climate of the Earth have changed so much in the absence of any strong external forcing."(91) Broecker makes it emphatic that he knows of no uniformitarian processes that will bring the climate in the tropics down about 5C, [9F], even during an Ice Age and that "no one", Milankovitch included, explains this except by something external (or outside the present uniformitarian system of processes). Velikovsky posits, the Earth's orbit was somewhat more distant from the sun at times and its axis of rotation more oblique during the Ice Ages which is, of course, outside the uniformitarian process system. A catastrophe of the order of magnitude Velikovsky offers will create just the conditions for why Broecker cannot find uniformitarian Milankovitch answers. But I believe Milankovitch cannot be buried by its uniformitarian advocates. To do so may open the door to catastrophic concepts as a viable alternative, and this is simply unthinkable. Nevertheless, Broecker ends his piece with this deeply moving statement regarding his uniformitarian research and understanding of major climate change. "My lifetime study of the Earth's climate system has humbled me"(92) He goes on to suggest that it is not uniformitarian doctrine that is at the heart of his dilemma, but the uniformitarian complexities of the Milankovitch theory as they impinge on the Earth's climate process. It is the complexity of the system that defies science's understanding of how Ice Ages occur and end. In this he is also supported by Mewhinney who also grasps at the straw of complexity. Uniformity with all its baggage still reigns and I believe will continue to do so for a long time. The clarion call now is to find out how this complex system works to save the appearances to save Milankovitch's theory. As I titled this part of my work "Milankovitch Cycles or Epicycles" I believe we are treading a well understood path. In ancient Greece astronomers tried to explain the motions in the heavens by certain imaginary mechanisms, crystalline spheres, epicycles and others. Epicycles were added to the system of crystalline spheres when it was found that the planets failed to behave as they should when moving along imbedded in these great crystal spheres. Over time, the system became more and more complex as epicycle upon epicycle deferent upon deferent and eccentric upon eccentric was called upon to save that ancient theory to save the appearances. But the problems still did not go away. In spite of this fact, the geocentric theory ruled for over two thousand years. At the heart of Milankovitch is the same form of geocentric thinking. The Earth is held to be fairly stable in its orbit and axial tilt for all time in the same ways the ancients held to this same dogma but based on a different set of processes. Milankovitch and his advocates along with Mewhinney will seek and find complexity where there may be none but that is their choice. Yet, I wish to point out what Hoyle also states about this escape mechanism: "One way to attempt to breath new life into an unsuccessful theory is to make it more complicated. While such a procedure is rarely successful, ultimately it may attract some notice, especially if the details are made sufficiently awkward to understand. This was the procedure followed with respect to Croll's theory by Milutin Milankovitch."(93) Now that the complexity added to Croll's theory by Milankovitch has failed to explain Ice Ages, we are being asked to seek even greater complexity to make the theory perform as it should. In the end, I believe we will end up in such a state of great complexity that like the geocentric theory even the educated layman will not believe it. Alphonso X of Castile known as "the Wise", a religious man and great supporter of astronomical research who upon becoming fully acquainted with the geocentric theory of Ptolemy with its crystalline spheres, epicycles, eccentrics and deferents, was driven to remark: "If the Lord Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I should have recommended something simpler." (94) My own view of Milankovitch which Mewhinney does not share is expressed by Arthur Koester thus, in his own view of geocentricism: "It...[is] a monumental and depressing tapestry, the product of tired philosophy and decadent science."(95) PART III POLE SHIFTS AND THE ARCTIC OCEAN ICE COVER In my book The Extinction of the Mammoths I made my position clear regarding the reasons that the mammoths could live in northern Siberia during the hipsithermal based on the concept that the pole of rotation was at about eight to nine degrees from perpendicular to the plane of the Earth's orbit.(96) I also touched on this topic in my "ICE" paper. If the pole was much more perpendicular to the plane of the Earth's orbit, for the most part, the Arctic Ocean would have been entirely or mostly ice-free in summer and have a very small ice cap, compared to the present one, in winter. Mewhinney in the part of his paper entitled "Stability of the Arctic Ice Pack" in "Minds" argues that during the hipsithermal the Arctic Ocean's ice cap was similar to that of today. Nevertheless, in "ICE", page 74 I directly pointed to the period of the 1890's to about the 1940's when there was a 1 degree Fahrenheit or 0.6 degree Celsius warming of the Earth. I cited C.E.P. Brooks who wrote that during this brief warming "The edge of the main area of Arctic ice receded toward the pole by some hundred miles"(97) I also cited Clyde Orr, Jr. in "ICE", page 73 regarding the same period, who claimed "Spitsbergen's Harbour used to be icebound from October through June [nine months and ice free for three months]; now it is open seven months a year."(98) Thus, with a 1F, 0.6C rise in temperature over about 40 years the edge of the Arctic Ocean's ice cover retreated toward the pole some hundreds of miles and the winter period of ice cover which had lasted nine months was reduced to five months but open for seven months. Mewhinney wishes us to believe that when the Earth warmed up during the hipsithermal by about 4 to 5 F, the effect of this more than quadrupling of the temperature rise had very little effect on the Arctic Ocean ice cap. What happened between the 1890's to the 1940's is never considered by him at all in dealing with this evidence. In his discussion "How Warm Was the Hipsithermal," (99) he cites my work on Newson, and Warshaw and Rapp: "Newson and Warshaw and Rapp have answered our ...question: if the pack ice could be made to disappear, how warm would the atmosphere over the Arctic become? Their answer was, quite a lot. I have no quarrel with these studies, although as Budyko points out... most of this increase comes in the winter. Ablation takes place in the summer."(100) With this in mind, let us observe the legerdemain Mewhinney employs to play with numbers. Remember, any rise in the temperature of the Earth will be expressed more greatly toward the polar regions. Here Mewhinney states: "As an illustration of hipsithermal warming Ginenthal takes this passage from Borisov: 'The vegetative zones advanced toward the pole. On the Eurasian continent this latitudinal shift amounted to 4-5 degrees in the west and to 1-2 degrees in the east... On another page he [Ginenthal] quotes Orr to the effect that 'A one-degree [Fahrenheit] shift in mean annual temperature is equivalent to roughly a hundred miles of latitude'... Let us put these two statements together and see what we get. A hundred miles is about 1.45 degrees of latitude so an average 4.5 degree latitudinal shift in the west is equivalent to 3.1 degrees F or 1.7 degrees C. And an average 1.5 degree shift in the east is equivalent to 1 degree F, or 0.6 degrees C, accepting Orr's equation as valid."(101) Mewhinney's discussion of Orr's work unfortunately left out the rest of the statement he made on the pages he cites: "A 5 [degree Fahrenheit] rise if maintained a few thousand years, [close to what occurred during the hipsithermal] would surely melt some of the six million square miles of ice and snow now collected at the poles... Such an increase would very likely bring tropical conditions to most of the earth."(102) So what Orr really suggested is something quite different than Mewhinney wishes us to believe. Based on Mewhinney's analysis, however, the ice cover over the Arctic Ocean would hardly shift at all. But Mewhinney's analysis is a contradiction to what he himself accepted when he said he had no quarrel with Newson, Warshaw and Rapp's conclusion that the greatest increase in temperature expresses itself in the polar regions. What Mewhinney has done is align the number of degrees of latitude that various trees migrated northward with the number of degrees of temperature. He suggests that since the trees migrated only a few degrees of latitude north then the temperature only rose about 3.1F to 1F at these higher latitudes during the hipsithermal. In order to do this Mewhinney simply evaded the fact that small increments of higher temperature produce larger ones toward the poles. Let us remember that Brooks pointed out that during Climate Optimum - the hipsithermal - the temperature of the Earth over all was "up to 5F [about 3C] higher than the present".(103)On the basis of this and Newson, Warshaw and Rapp's work the temperatures toward the poles would have to be much greater than 5F, not less. But Mewhinney has the temperature during the hipsithermal in the northern regions rising only 3.1F to 1F. In essence, instead of the temperature rising more greatly, as one moves northward as Mewhinney claims it should, he has the temperature actually rising less so as one moves north. Instead of rising above 5F he has it fall in one region to 3.1F, a drop of 1.9F, while in another region instead of rising above 5F he has it fall to 1F, a drop of 4F. This is marvelous stuff isn't it. Mewhinney has just proven that when the temperature of the Earth rises instead of rising more greatly in the higher latitudes, it actually falls. How long did it take him to figure this all out? Had he given this simple matter even a modicum of thought, he would have realized he had inverted the very process by which temperature rise is expressed on the Earth. No, Sean, temperatures rise in the higher latitudes more greatly when the climate of Earth warms up it does not fall in these higher latitudes. You have simply shown the world how you manipulate data to produce contradictions and thoroughly inane results. To make this even clearer, let us see what really happens as we get to higher latitudes with a 1F, O.6C rise in temperature. According to William K. Steven reporting in The New York Times about a temperature rise of this amount: "The regions permafrost... is thawing in Alaska's interior. Over thousands of miles big patches of forests are drowning and turning gray as the ground sinks under them and swamp water floods them... "About the magnitude of the warming there is little doubt. While the average surface temperature of the globe has risen over the last century by 1 degree Fahrenheit or a little more, it has increased over the last 30 years by up to about 5 degrees in Alaska, Siberia and northwestern Canada, say scientists at the University of Alaska and elsewhere..." (Emphasis added)(104) So one can clearly see that with about a 1F, 0.6C global rise in temperature, we get about a five times greater rise in temperature in Alaska, Canada and Siberia. But based on the analysis Mewhinney has offered, the temperatures should have not risen as much in Alaska, Canada and Siberia compared to the general rise in temperature. Isn't his analysis amazing? Instead of putting Borisov's statement together with that of Orr, let us complete Borisov's statement. Let us instead put Borisov's statement together with that of Borisov regarding the hipsithermal. "The vegetative zones advanced towards the pole. On the Eurasian continent this latitudinal shift amounted to 4-5 degrees in the west and 1-2 degrees in the east. Some species [of plants] advanced their northern boundaries as much as 1,000 km [620 miles]" [P. Borisov, Can Man Change the Climate? (Moscow 1973), p.36] The northward tree advance in this case of these temperatures of 4 to 5F was not a few degrees of latitude but 620 miles or almost 9 degrees of latitude for certain plants which based on Orr's work is a temperature rise of almost 9F not 3.1 or 1F. Had Mewhinney read what Borisov actually said or paid the slightest attention to the geophysical thermal facts, he would not stand before us so wanting in understanding of the evidence. The obvious question is: Why didn't Mewhinney put Borisov's statement with Borisov or Orr's statement with Orr? Had he done so, he would have had to drop his criticism. But this more rational approach to evidence seems to have eluded him and he has made a fool of himself. Based on a 1F, 0.6C rise creating a five times greater temperature in the arctic region, how much would a 4 to 5F about 3C rise in that region given a five times greater temperature melt the ocean ice cover northward? According to Newson, the rise is of 18F, 10C in southern Greenland, 36F, 20C in northern Greenland and 54F, 30C over Hudson Bay. Warshaw and Rapp found similar temperatures. These are not small increments by any stretch of the imagination and the winter ice cover would have retreated at a minimum by several hundred miles leaving much of the Arctic Ocean's broad continental shelf ice-free all year. Had Mewhinney done his homework and actually read Borisov he would have learned that Borisov did deal with the question of how much smaller the sea ice coverage of the Arctic Ocean was. What Borisov did was produce a chart of the "Dynamics of sea ice of the Valdai glaciation [equivalent to the Wisconsin Ice Age in North America] and the mean annual air temperature in the past 20,000 years [and by comparing] 1- the dynamics of sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere; [with] 2- Valdai glaciation in the Russian Plain (N.S. Chebotaryova, et al, 1965); [with] 3-variations of mean annual temperatures in Central Europe (P. Wold Stedt, 1958) [stated] "Our preliminary analysis of the glaciation of the Arctic Basin over a period of the last 20,000 years (fig. 12) has shown that it exceeded the present day glaciation amounting to 4 points over a total of 9,300 years. Twice during the Holocene [the hipsithermal being one of these times], for a total of 5,000 years the Arctic Basin was completely free of ice. And the ice sheet was unstable several times for a total of 4,000 years, that is, it melted in summer and froze up again in winter, but over a smaller area than in our time."(105) See figure below. On the basis of well established correlations Borisov showed that the Arctic Ocean ice cover had disappeared during hipsithermal. Borisov then goes on to show that there is a relationship between the climatic conditions of the Sahara Desert and the arctic region(106) and cites the work of V.Y. Vize. "The Arctic and the Antarctic, The Earth's Atmosphere," (Moscow 1953) "The well-known polar explorer GV.Y. Vize established a connection between the decrease in Arctic glaciation and the rise in the level of African Lakes. The connection is so stable that it has enabled the researcher to arrive at the very curious conclusion that by watching the level of the lakes one can estimate the ice conditions in the arctic seas." [ibid, p. 38] Vize showed that the higher the levels of the Sahara Desert lake waters the smaller and thinner the Arctic Ocean ice cover becomes. During the hipsithermal, it is well known that the level of Lake Chad was much higher(107) and of so high a level that it required 16 times greater rainfall then at present. (108) This suggests that the ice cover over the Arctic must have been extremely small if there was any ice at all during that time. MEWHINNEY: MODELS AND MOLLUSKS Mewhinney turns to discuss Brooks' model of climate and the ice cover of the Arctic Ocean: "C.E.P. Brooks believed that the ice pack was balanced on a knife edge - that a rise of as little as 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1deg.C) in the temperature of the air might be sufficient to bring about its complete dissolution in summer and that once melted away, it would not reform in winter until atmospheric temperatures fell again. In other words, the Arctic Ocean was bistable between two states, ice-covered and ice-free, and a slight shift in temperature would be enough to nudge it from one state to the other. This belief was not supported by any calculations. It was merely a conjecture. Further, he believed that the Arctic was in fact ice-free during the hipsithermal - from approximately 8,000 to 3,000 years ago."(109) In this carefully worded statement Mewhinney evaded the reason for Brooks' conclusion that the Arctic Ocean was ice-free during the hipsithermal. He was unwilling to let his readers know what that evidence is. Thus, he was able to deny its existence. The reason had nothing to do with climate modeling which Brooks did discuss on page 41ff of Climate Through the Ages. The real reason for his conclusion had to do with warm water mollusks that lived around the continental coasts and on the Arctic Ocean islands. He gave his reason quite clearly in the same book Mewhinney read but which he assiduously ignored. "The interesting question arises, has the temperature of the Arctic Ocean risen above the critical point [for its ice to melt completely away] at any stage of post-glacial times? I think there is no doubt that it has... During the 'Climatic Optimum' there was a rich flora in Spitsbergen, while the fossil marine mollusca indicate a coastal sea temperature much higher than the present in all the Arctic lands which are at present dominated by sea ice, including Iceland and Greenland." (Emphasis added)(110) On the basis of these mollusks that do not now live around all the coastal waters of the Arctic Ocean nor on the various islands in that ocean, but lived there in the past, Brooks well understood the ice-cover had to have disappeared. It was not his climate model concept that was the real basis of his conclusion but clear-cut facts related to warm water mollusks that showed the Arctic Ocean was either ice-free or mostly ice-free. This Mewhinney assiduously omitted from his discussion. However, in my "ICE" paper pages 76-77, I cited this very same evidence presented by J.K. Charlesworth, which Mewhinney also ignored: "Warm mollusks inhabited the 'raised beach sea' about the North Atlantic. Alien species no longer living in the local waters, tenanted Spitsbergen seas...marine algae...also spread as far north as these islands and Atlantic algae in the northern part of the White Sea...During the same period...other warm shells lived of f King Charles Land, Franz Joseph Land, Novaya Zemlya, North Siberia, and in the White Sea, where [temperate shelled species] today [are] restricted to its warmer parts... "The same warm sea is registered by the occupancy of [temperate type mollusks] in the raised beaches of Ellesmere [Island] and of warmer shells in Baffin [Island], Melville Peninsula and Southampton Island... "Greenland shells when the sea stood 10 [meters, 33 feet] higher than now, were then thicker and bigger and included more southerly forms. [The mollusks,] whose present northern limit is Newfoundland ranged north of the Arctic Circle and...into east Greenland, where the sea temperature was [the same as that] of a latitude [520 miles] farther south. "This general sea in the colder portion of the North Atlantic is [borne] out in other ways. The modern ice in [southwestern] and [northeastern] Greenland, and in Spitsbergen, has moraines which contain marine shells - including at Green Bay...which no longer dwells in Spitsbergen waters..."(111) Why did he also evade dealing with Charlesworth's evidence regarding the mollusks where I presented it? Now if as Mewhinney contends the Arctic Ocean was ice covered quite similarly to the conditions that exist presently then all these various algae and mollusks would still inhabit the same coasts and islands of the Arctic Ocean as they did during the hipsithermal. But, they simply do not and cannot do so because they cannot survive in waters that are ice cold. Most of the year these waters are covered by ice. MEWHINNEY: MAJORITY MODELING AND MINORITY STATUS Mewhinney then turns to climate models regarding the ice cover on the Arctic Ocean. In doing so, he cites several models which were presented over a 21 year period. The majority of the models, indeed, reflect his view that the Arctic Ocean was covered by ice. Mewhinney thus concludes that the "yeses" for ice-cover "outnumber the nos" for an ice-free Arctic Ocean.(112) Unfortunately for Mewhinney, Ronald Bailey in discussing these various computer models, cites a climatologist - Patrick Michaels - of the University of Virginia, who presents a very different picture of the "yeses" and "nos". "Attempting to predict the behavior of the earth climate [into the future or the past] some climatologists have created complicated computer models, called General Circulation Models (GCM's). Today, the leading climate models calculate that doubling carbon dioxide to 600 parts per million should increase average global temperatures between 1.5C and 4.5C degrees (2.7F. and 8.1F degrees)... However, recent projections made by German and British GCM's predicted global warming to only 1.8to 3.4F (1+1.9C) degrees [which is less than the warming that occurred during the hipsithermal.] "The models are far from perfect they must be 'tuned' in order to achieve global warming. The researchers cannot predict climate from first principles, but must instead put information in 'by hand.' Some move [as did Velikovsky] earth closer to the sun, while others change sea surface temperatures from their actual measurements to get the ... results... Nearly all the models would melt the polar ice caps, even during the last ice age.:(Emphasis added).(113) So one can see Mewhinney's majority for an ice-covered as opposed to an ice-free Arctic Ocean is a majority made by stuffing the ballot box. This again is not scholarly behavior and in fact is a distraction from the evidence because climate computer models are not really considered accurate. Remember the argument from complexity about climate modeling of Milankovitch. Well climate computer models have never made long term accurate predictions. For a powerful discussion of just how little these models have to do with reality, I cannot recommend too highly Sherwood B. Idso's "A Journey Through Caveat Land," Carbon Dioxide: Friend or Foe? (Tempe AZ 1982), pp. 15-25 and pp. 29-38. Bailey on this question points out: "The tuning adjustments to the models are greater than the effects which they are supposed to predict. The distinguished MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen pointedly notes, 'The computer climate models are a case of GIGO - garbage in, garbage out.'... Andrew Solow, a climate statistician from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, concurs: 'These models have a hard time reproducing current climate from current data. They cannot be expected to predict future [or past] climate with any precision'"(114) MEWHINNEY'S COUP DE GRACE OR COUP DE THEATRE The French term coup de grace is a well known literary phrase which is a mortal stroke which destroys one's opponent. The French term coup de theatre is a less known literary phrase which denotes "A theatrical hit; a sensational trick."(115) . This evidence is based on deep Arctic Ocean sediment cores. In Act I Mewhinney writes: "Since the 1960's several hundred sediment cores have been retrieved from the central Arctic [Ocean]. In the world's deep oceans sediments rich in biological remains normally accumulates at rates varying from 1.5 to 3 centimeters per thousand years... In contrast to this the sedimentation rate in the Arctic cores has been only about 1.5 to 2 millimeters per thousand years over the last 700,000 years or so, with the average at the low end of the range for the last 70,000 or 80,000 years. It is very poor in biological material consisting of ice-rafted gravel. Everyone who has studied these cores has agreed that the Arctic has remained ice-covered for at least 70 or 80 thousand years. If the sea had been open for several thousand years as Ginenthal claims and therefore capable of supporting large-scale photosynthesis, it would be quite obvious from the tenfold change in composition in the cores."(116) In setting the scene to suit his uniformitarian staging Mewhinney has omitted what I wrote about the Arctic Ocean titled "The Oceans" in The Velikovskian Vol IV, No. I, pages 1-41. In that paper, I claimed that the hipsithermal ended with a global catastrophe which thoroughly stirred up the Arctic Ocean sediments and therefore, I did not and do require a "tenfold increase in sedimentation and a dramatic change in composition." So in setting up his scenario Mewhinney is offering exciting uniformitarian theater but misrepresentation of the real catastrophic scenery. But some of these forams would still be found in the upper layers of the sediments. Rhodes W. Fairbridge of Columbia University in contradiction to Mewhinney informs us: "Following the report of Donn Ewing and Menzies (1959) in the Arctic [Ocean] sediments the top 5-10 cm [0.4 - 2 inches] consist of nearly 20% foraminifera , the average age of which is 9,500 years B.P. In this writer's opinion, these sediments reflect the relatively warm open sea condition...are continued into the climatic optimum but which effectively ceased during the late subboreal - subatlantic cold stages [3,000 B.P.]" [Rhodes W. Fairbridge Problems in Paleoclimatology, A.E.M. Nairmed; (London 1964), p. 465] Mewhinney, strictly on his own authority, states, "Everyone who has studied these cores has agreed that the Arctic has remained ice-covered for the last 70 to 80 thousand years." But here we have Fairbridge looking at Arctic cores from about that time and saying it was ice-free during the hipsithermal. This blows Mewhinney's whole case out of the water, doesn't it? What Mewhinney has also failed to put upon the stage is the question of the broad continental shelf that surrounds the Arctic Ocean which I do claim, during the hipsithermal, was never covered by ice.(117) I do suggest the central Arctic Ocean might have frozen over at that time but not the very broad continental shelf. So in order to set the scene we need data about the arctic continental shelf with respect to this question. Michael Hambrey and Jurg Alean point out the difficulties with sediment cores from this shelf. "One of the major problems of the continental shelf sedimentary record is that it is difficult to date because there are so few fossils. Furthermore, the record is incomplete, as successive advances [of the ice caps] have removed some of the earlier sediments." (118) During the Ice Age the Arctic Ocean continental shelf was greatly exposed because about 300 feet of water had been removed to build up the great continental ice sheets. It was only after the Pleistocene ended that the shelf was reflooded. Therefore, there would be no continuous record of ocean sediments to record the climate. The climate record then must be based on mollusks that inhabited these water during the hipsithermal. So the scenario Mewhinney portrayed is grand theater by poor science. Act II, Scene 1 - What Mewhinney next presents is the "Rabbit from the Hat Trick." It is quite entertaining but requires the slight of hand, trap doors, distractions so well employed by stage magicians. In this at last Mewhinney cites a paper by Kenneth Hunkins and Henry Kutschale, "Quaternary Sedimentation in the Arctic Ocean," from Progress in Oceanography, Vol 4, (1967), p. 94: "Sedimentation in the Arctic Ocean has continued unchanged over the last 70,000 years. In most Atlantic cores, a sharp boundary is found marking the end of the last glaciation about 11,000 years ago. This boundary is not evident in the Arctic Ocean sediments. Presumably any marked change in the ice cover would have changed the sediment regime. This implies that the ice cover has existed relatively unchanged through the last glaciation and through post-glacial time to the present."(Emphasis added) (119) Why didn't Hunkins and Kutschale say the cores "prove" the Arctic Ocean was ice covered, but used the less definite "this implies"? The reason becomes fairly obvious because Mewhinney with a few feats of distraction failed to show his audience what he had concealed under his magician's cape. It was the "Abstract" to the paper, page 89 that no one saw because he kept it well out of sight. The reason for this trick was to conceal the dating of the Arctic Ocean sediment cores. None of the marine sediment cores produced were dated to the hipsithermal. When we peer behind Mewhinney's cape and read page 89 of Hunkins and Kutschale, the elaborate contraption he devised is exposed to the glare of the spotlight for the audience to illuminate his manipulation. "Foraminifera from a zone between 7 and 10 cm have been dated by the C14 method as 25,000 + 3000 and as 30,000 years B.P. in different samples. The 10cm boundary itself has been dated as 70,000 years B.P. by a uranium series method.... A 3mm layer of dark brown foraminifera lucite occurs at the top of the Canada Abyssal Plains cores. This layer is similar to the upper layer in Alpha Rise cores and apparently represents continued pelagic deposition since the last turbidity current. foraminifera from this upper 3mm layer have been dated as 700 + 100 years B.P. by the C14 method." "Ipso Facto!" see for yourself. The cores come from the abyssal deep and not from the broad shelf of the Arctic Ocean. "Ipse Dixit!" the researchers themselves have said that the cores date to 70,000 to 25,000 and 30,000 years ago and another to about 700 years ago. "Ip Sissima Verbal!"their very words make it care they have no evidence of anything dated to the hipsithermal. "Ipso Jure!" by the laws of evidence there is no evidence. It is a surmise, an assumption, a supposition, not a fact of evidence. A rabbit pulled out of a hat. Now, Mewhinney has suggested based on Hunkin's evidence that foraminifera do not greatly form in icy water. Thus, there should be no evidence of a deep layer of foraminifera on the top of the Arctic Ocean were it similar during the hipsithermal to today. According to Walter Sullivan 16 cores were taken from the Arctic ocean bed oozes. "In all these cores there were two clearly defined layers. The top one about four inches thick, was dark in color and rich in the skeletons of foraminfera... Below was a thicker layer, lighter in color and relatively barren of skeletons."(120) The average age of these skeletons was 9,300 years, while Hunkins took his core from the bottom inch of this layer of foraminifera which he dated as definitely older than 18,000 and probably older than 25,000 years(121) "This is perplexing, for it means that the upper layer represents the last part (if not all) of the most recent ice age, as well as the subsequent warm period"(122) The forams date from supposedly 25,000 to 9,300 years ago which on the basis of the Suess Effect explained in my book The Extinction of the Mammoth, pages 173 to 189 would be much closer to the present, in fact into the hipsithermal. So here is the problem: why is there a layer below these forams in which these skeletons are far scarcer? If as assumed when the Ice Age ended melting ice would cause sand to flow onto the broad arctic coastal shelf and then into the deeper abyssal sea, it would have covered over these skeletons. A sandy layer with fewer forams would not be beneath the richer layer. The implication is that the rich layer was laid down during the hipsithermal which settled after the sand (during the Velikovsky catastrophe) and thereafter it was far too cold to lay down a new layer over the richer one because the ocean was extremely cold. Act III, Scene 1 In order to clarify this issue, I called Hunkins at the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory, December 23, 1998 to discuss the discrepancy between what the mollusks as presented by Brooks and Charlesworth showed for the hipsithermal on the Arctic Ocean continental shelf; namely an ice-free condition and Hunkin's evidence for the deep abyssal regions. He was very cordial and open to listening to what I said and he fully admitted that warm water mollusks should not be found along the coastal Arctic Ocean and the far more northern islands on its broad continental shelf if there was an ice cover then similar to today. I further pointed out to him that his dating from marine cores from 70,000 to 25,000 and 35,000 nor his other core dated to 700 years ago relate directly to the hipsithermal which dated from about 8,500 to 3,500 or 3,000 years ago. This too he readily admitted was not direct evidence of the ice conditions of the Arctic Ocean for the hipsithermal. Thus, the researcher upon whom Mewhinney brought down the curtain was in the epilogue of that act admitting he had no direct evidence from his marine sediment cores that related directly to the hipsithermal. I had written a letter to Hunkins earlier in January 22, 1999 which he would receive soon thereafter regarding this matter. Hunkins promised to go to the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory library to resolve the matter. Act IV, Scene I Dear Dr. Hunkins: I have read your paper which claims (based on 700 y BP and 25,000 y BP foraminefera) that the Arctic Ocean has been ice covered since the Pleistocene to the present. Yet I cannot find evidence dated to the hipsithermal 8,500 to 3,000 y BP that refutes the mollusc evidence presented by C.E.P. Brooks and J.K. Charlesworth showing the Arctic Ocean on the continental shelf on which the many islands are found was frozen at that time. I can't believe warm water molluscs thrived there during the hipsithermal when it was frozen. Kindly tell me what your research into this paradox shows so that I will have a resolution of this matter. Very truly, Charles Ginenthal A week later, I called Dr. Hunkins and he was unable to explain away this discrepancy between what the deep-ocean cores showed, an ice-covered central ocean, and what the Mollusks showed, an ice-free continental shelf. He asked me how the mollusks were dated to the hipsithermal, and I explained it thus: During the hipsithermal, the ice caps had melted and the ocean had risen 10 meters about 33 feet. The mollusks lived along the shores of these islands and to the coasts of the surrounding continents. When the hipsithermal ended and the arctic and antarctic caps and glaciers of the northern and southern hemispheres grew larger the oceans fell 30 or so feet and exposed the submerged shores and the mollusks that inhabited these shores. The problem with Carbon 14 dating mollusks is that both fresh water and marine forms can obtain incorrect dates from the water lacking C14 and giving dates which are too old.(123) Radiocarbon in oceans is found in the mixing zones between the upper warmer and deeper cooler water layers, which show significant differences in carbon dioxide content. The older the specimen, under these conditions the greater the age of the mollusks appears as opposed to its true age.(124) To make matters worse, shells taken from a burial mound gave a reverse order of dates.(125) Finally dates from the same specimen sometimes give contradictory dates.(126) So that there are significant problems with the dating of these Arctic Ocean mollusks. Hunkins importantly informed me that it was next to impossible to derive sediments in the Arctic Ocean deeps for such a short period as the hipsithermal. Since there was no evidence one way or the other on this matter from Hunkins and Kutschale, the conclusion that the Arctic Ocean has been ice covered over the past 70,000 years cannot be sustained. But eleven years after the Hunkins, Kutschale paper appeared, Hubert H. Lamb, one of the world's leading climatologists in 1978, also analyzed this question of the ice-free or ice-covered Arctic Ocean during the hipsithermal: "During the [climatic] optimum, the extent of sea-ice on the Arctic Ocean was... reduced, with open water extending beyond the channels of the Canadian Archepelago."(127) Now what was the evidence upon which Lamb understood that the Arctic Ocean was ice-free as far out as the Canadian Archepelago? He tells us what it is, namely C.E.P. Brooks 2nd edition of Climate Through the Ages, page 143 where Brooks discusses warm water mollusks. In 1973, six years after Hunkins, Kutschale's paper was published, Borisov also maintained the Arctic Ocean was ice-free, and again he cites the same evidence that Lamb had turned to, namely, warm water mollusks. "The most perturbing questions of the [hipsithermal] stage under consideration are: was the Arctic Basin iceless during the culmination of the optimum and what was in relation to this the reaction of the climatic conditions on the continents? "Many scientists hold that during the climatic optimum the Arctic Basin was free of ice. C. Brooks substantiates his assertion [of an ice-free Arctic Ocean] by the fact that there was a relatively rich flora and no ice on Spitsbergen [between 600 to 800 miles north of Norway and 1000 miles north of the Arctic Circle] there were warm water molluscs and the temperature of the open Arctic Basin and its coast was higher than it is today. At the same time a 2-1.5C [3.6 - 2.7.F] rise in temperature of the surface water and of the layer of air nearest the ground (which is quite enough completely to melt the drifting ice) has been very well demonstrated by a number of independently conducted studies using different methods." (Emphasis added)(128) Here we have Borisov writing six years after Hunkins and Kutschale that as Brooks claimed warm water mollusks indicate the Arctic Ocean was ice free. But he also informs us the rise of the surface temperature over the arctic basin was sufficiently high enough to "melt the drifting ice" there. He further explains that the ice-free Arctic Ocean "was very well demonstrated by a number of independently conducted studies using different methods" outlined above. All Mewhinney had to do is report this to his readers, since he claims to have read my source materials which includes excerpts from this part of Borisov's book to see this. Either Mewhinney did not read this material which indicates he falsely reported that he had or he read it and suppressed it. Here again as with Brooks' explanation that warm water mollusks prove the Arctic Ocean was ice-free during the hipsithermal, Mewhinney simply acted as if this evidence did not exist. What then of more modern research regarding the ice cover on the Arctic Ocean during the hipsithermal. W. Blake, Jr. deals with this problem by recognizing that driftwood during post-glacial times floated into the Canadian arctic varied in amount over time.(129) This record has generally become the best-known, most cited evidence of the Holocene hipsithermal in the Canadian High Arctic. Compared to the last 2500 years, the hipsithermal saw a peak in driftwood stranded on islands. From this Blake claimed there was much less summer ice in the Arctic Ocean. However, his assumption was that this was the limit of summer ice cover. He could not nor could anyone prove that this was really the limit of winter ice cover. A study was also carried out by Arthur S. Dyke et al which attempted to explain this distribution of driftwood by various Arctic Ocean currents.(130) Here too the assumption made but unproven was that this meltback of the Arctic Ocean ice cover was its summer limit and not that of its winter limit. In an earlier paper Dyke, et al, presented evidence that Bowhead whales which live at the edge of the ice cover were found in abundance on raised beaches of the Canadian Archipelago about 1,000 km or 620 miles north of their present limit.(131) They again assumed that this was the summer limit of the ice and not its winter limit. The same current for driftwood would have also been responsible for the distribution of these whales around the high Canadian Arctic. If whales moved farther out into the Arctic Ocean when the ice cover receded in summer, their bones would not find many islands in these higher latitudes and would be deposited on the deep ocean seabed to be covered by sediments from bottom currents or dissolved in the water. In 1996 Dyke et al also presented a study of marine mollusks which again suggested that the ice cover had receded between 8,000 to 3,000 years ago.(132) In order to determine whether or not the mollusks discussed by Brooks and Charlesworth were indications that the sea ice retreat during the hipsithermal was great. I sent Dyke a copy of Charlesworth's material for his evaluation. In my letter to him I pointed out that these mollusks were found 10 meters above the present sea level indicative of the rise caused by the melt of the continental ice caps and thus could only be dated to the hipsithermal. During the Ice Age all these islands stood about 300 feet higher above the sea which had fallen to produce the great ice caps. Any mollusks at these elevations would have been destroyed by 125,000 years of weathering had they grown during the prior interglacial. If Dyke could explain these warm water mollusks away his thesis of summer sea-ice retreat as opposed to my thesis that the limits he found were really the advance of winter sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, could be resolved. In his response, Dyke claimed that nearly all the mollusks discussed by Charlesworth (save one for a short time) could live in ice covered water and therefore the Arctic Ocean could have had an ice cover similar to that found today; that is, it froze over covering about the same area every winter as it does presently. (personal communication) In my follow up letter to him I asked, if as he claims these mollusks can thrive in ice-covered waters all winter as they do today and the Arctic Ocean was indeed in a very similar condition as it is presently: Why aren't these same mollusks living in these regions? If they could live in ice-covered water all winter during the hipsithermal as he assumes existed at that time, they ought to thrive in these very same ice-covered waters now. (personal communication) At this point, he did not respond to the challenge presented. My conclusion is that the camp that holds the hipsithermal Arctic Ocean was ice covered similarly as today cannot explain away this basis mollusk negation of that thesis, so Mewhinney ignores it. Act IV So if the Arctic Ocean was frozen over every winter all this time as Mewhinney tells us it was, the warm water mollusks could not have lived in these regions. Perhaps they were warm water species that decided to take a several thousand year cold bath in the higher latitudes of the Arctic Ocean. But if they couldn't have lived there being incorrigible and acting contrary to what they as warm water mollusks do (stay in warmer generally ice-freer waters) what specie could they be? Aha! Now at last I know! They were of the species Obstreperous Velikovskians. It is extremely difficult to believe that Mewhinney does not understand the various distortions of the evidence he has presented. Once his grand theatre is exposed to the audience his analysis simply appears ridiculous. In fact, his behavior reminds me of the poem "The False Heart" by Hilaire Belloc about a girl named Matilda. "Matilda told such Dreadful Lies, It made one Gasp and Stretch one's eyes; Her aunt, who from her Earliest Youth Had kept a Strict Regard for Truth, Attempted to Believe Matilda The Effort very nearly killed her... "It happened that a few Weeks later Her aunt was off to the Theatre To see that Interesting Play the Second Mrs. Tanqueray... "For every time She shouted 'Fire!' They only answered 'Little Liar!' And therefore when her Aunt returned Matilda, and the House, were burned" The moral of the play is that analyses based on bombastic subterfuge, denial and evasion brings down the house in a heap of ashes on one's head PART IV DECADES OF DARKNESS AND DENDROCHRONOLOGY "And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not" John I:1 In Part 3 of Mewhinney's paper he raises an important issue related to Velikovsky's thesis, namely decades of darkness: "Bristle cone pines are hardy trees but there is not the slightest reason to believe that they could survive such conditions as Velikovsky describes. In any case, it is not just a question of bristle cone pines. "By cross-matching records from nearby sites, dendrochronologists in western Europe have built up a continuous overlapping master chronology of oak trees covering more than 7,000 years....Unlike bristlecone pines, oak trees cannot "shut up shop" without producing a growth ring for even a single year. Within the past 7,000 years, there never was a time when no oaks were growing in Europe. The existence of these trees forces us to conclude that there could not have been any clouds of dust or other material as thick and long-lasting as Velikovsky claimed."[Mewhinney part 3, p. 27] At this point, I expected Mewhinney to cite the work of Velikovsky where the darkness was total without end for decades. This material is found in Worlds In Collision "The Shadow of Death" 1950 edition, pp. 126-127. On page 30 he cites some of this material. In essence Mewhinney claims that the darkness did not end for the entire period and thus all the trees on the Earth would have died unable to carry on photosynthesis. First of all, Velikovsky spoke not only of darkness but "years of this gloom, when the world was covered with clouds and shrouded in mist... enveloped in a somber fog... that there was "little light on the surface of the earth."(133) He also claimed "None knoweth that midday is there, the shadow is not discerned... he [the sun] is beheld; he is in the sky like the moon".(134) Velikovsky adds: "the disc of the sun was not clearly visible, and only its diffused light made the day different from the night. The gloom gradually lifted with the passing years as the clouds became less thick; little by little the sky and the sun appeared less and less veiled."(135) Thus, it is quite clear that Velikovsky was not speaking about total darkness all the time, but periods of darkness and periods of light that are similar to very overcast days. Even during highly overcast days trees can carry on photosynthesis. Mewhinney in his excessive zeal to get Velikovsky simply failed to inform his readers of this. He left them in total darkness about what Velikovsky had actually written about "gloom", "little light", the sum "is beheld in the sky" and so forth. If that were not enough he also suppressed what I had written in Kronos regarding the ability of the atmosphere to hold dust in suspension. There, I quoted Kenneth Hsu's the Great Dying (NY 1986) pp. 190-191 where he explained that based on the physics of the atmosphere: "A large comet need not even hit the earth to produce [sufficient blackout] dust; a near miss would leave enough debris in earth's atmosphere to produce a complete blackout... "Toon figured that the dust [in the stratosphere] would settle quickly and photosynthesis could resume by about three months after the initial blackout. "Even when computations are made for larger volumes of dust trillions or tens of trillions of tons the sky would be as bright as a moonlit night three months after the impact, and bright enough for photosynthesis to resume in four months' time... If [the dust particles] should remain separate, and therefore settle more slowly, darkness might last longer than a year, but this possibility was considered highly improbable. Most likely darkness could not have lasted more than a few months no matter how massive a comet or asteroid had hit... "The ocean would indeed have boiled over the target site! "The amount of water vapor thrown into the air would supersaturate the stratosphere above an area several thousand kilometers across. The vapor would rapidly re-condense, and rain or snow out of the atmosphere..." (136) Even in Part I of Mewhinney's Common Sense paper, pages 10-11 he says "Most of the [erupted] ash [of Tambora] settles out in a couple of weeks." But he keeps dust in the atmosphere for decades to discredit Velikovsky. If this were not enough I also presented much the same citation from Hsu in my "Ice Core Evidence" paper where I also directly pointed out on the same page: "Since dust cannot remain in the atmosphere for several years, as is well known and understood, the years of darkness cannot and should never have been ascribed to atmospheric dust..."(137) No matter where any dust in the atmosphere comes from it settles out in weeks to months and thus Velikovsky's thesis will not generate permanent years of darkness. Even with volcanoes erupting at around the 1500 B.C. catastrophe or smoking thereafter. By his simple evasion of this evidence, Mewhinney again exhibits his capacity to ignore facts. Now I had earlier suggested that the traumatized survivors of the catastrophe had believed that during the early months of the catastrophe, when it was extremely dark, they had wandered through a darkness that seemed to last for years.(138) However, I now understand how the Earth should have been periodically covered in darkness and gloom for decades based strictly on Velikovsky's thesis. This has to do with the catastrophe which ended the hipsithermal which I claim occurred about 3500 years ago. In my book, The Extinction of the Mammoth, "Poleshift," pages 202 to 237 is outlined evidence from varves, trees and historical data that the deserts of the Earth blossomed from about 8500 to about 3500/3000 years ago. Thereafter there was a climate catastrophe which ended this fecund vegetative period and which rapidly ushered in the dessication of these great land masses and turned them into deserts. What no one has realized is that with the drying out of the deserts a geological process had to operate which would create long periods of darkness; not years of total darkness but days to weeks and even at times, months of either total darkness or gloomy or highly overcast days. In fact this evidence is similar to the great drought that occurred in the American Midwest during the decade of the 1930's. A severe drought at that time led to dust storms during certain seasons which blew away the topsoil and shrouded whole regions in darkness. Lawrence Svobida, a farmer who lived through this decade describes these events: "Only those who have not been caught out in a 'black [dust storm] blizzard' can have more than a faint conception of its terror. When the soil has become finely pulverized...followed by wind, when the surface is blown dirt from a previous storm, the dust begins to blow with only a slight breeze. As it continues to rise into the air, it becomes thicker and thicker, obscuring the landscape and continuing to grow in density until vision is reduced a thousand yards. [3000 feet, 900 meters] or less. If this is to be a real dust storm, a typical blizzard of the Dust Bowl, the wind increases its velocity until it is blowing at forty to fifty miles an hour. Soon everything is moving the land is blowing both farm land and pasture alike. The fine dirt is sweeping along at express train speed and when the very sun is blotted out visibility is reduced to some fifty feet; or perhaps you cannot see at all, because the dust has blinded you. "Thus it is when the observer is within the area of a storm's inception. At other times a cloud is seen to be approaching from a distance of many miles. Already it has the banked appearance of a cumulus cloud, but it is black instead of white, and it hangs down seeming to hug the earth... As it sweeps onward, the landscape is progressively blotted out."(139) Elsewhere he points out that airplanes that fly "over the Dust Bowl during a dust storm used to try to get over the rolling dust clouds, but pilots soon learned that they had to fly either around them or through them. They reported that the atmosphere two or three miles [10,560, 15,740 feet or 3 - to 4,5 kilometers] up was still laden with dust." (140) He also points out: "There have been occasions at the height of a blow season when, in the small towns, the residents have not known for days at a time when the sun rose or set. "Do you wonder that week after week during the blow season the congregation in the churches devote much of their time to imploring the Higher Power to bring an end to the dreaded dust menace."(141) Hubert H. Lamb describes these clouds: "On 12 May 1934 the New York Times reported that the cloud of dust coming from 'drought ridden states as far west as Montana, 1500 miles [2400 km] away filtered the rays of the sun for five hours yesterday'. New York was in a half-light like condition in an eclipse of the sun, and the dust-cloud was thousands of feet high."(142) How large and how dark was the area covered? According to Michael Allaby: "Inside the White House in May 1934, dust settled on the desk of... President [Franklin Roosevelt] and as fast as it was cleaned away, more settled. Outside, in New York and Baltimore as well as in Washington, the sky was so dark with clouds of dirt that in some places chickens roosted, thinking it was night. Dust settled on 'ships 300 miles out to sea. Ducks and geese fell from the sky, chocked to death by the dust through which they flew. People called the storms 'black blizzards.' At their height, a single cloud 3 miles high covered 1.35 million square miles, from Canada to Texas and Montana to Ohio."(143) These immense clouds of soil were caused by "soil blown from farmlands covering 150,000 square miles."(144) They only occurred during the spring-summer season. But this would not be the case with the desert belts after the hipsithermal ended. The Sahara desert is about as large as the United States. The dirt blowing off all the deserts of the Earth in the norther hemisphere alone would have come from an area larger than the continent of Africa. The Sahara, Sinai, Palestine, Jordan, Arabian, Thar, Tarim, Gobi and Near Eastern deserts would have been able to supply soil for dust clouds for decades, and according to Orr: "Sandstorms and dust storms are frequent in the larger deserts, notably the Sahara. Except after a rare rainstorm, low-level desert air seems to be filled perpetually with a fine haze of dust particles. On hot afternoons rising thermal currents of air create whirling pillars of sand, and when the wind is strong the ground itself seems to be in motion."(145) There can be little doubt that the ending of the hipsithermal which I date to Velikovsky's 1500 B.C. Catastrophe would have to have created the same conditions that occurred in the American Midwest and produced decades of dust storms of all sizes, periodically, blackening the sky and creating long periods of gloom. But most significantly it would have not been perpetually dark, only intermittently so. Trees could and would grow under these conditions. Furthermore, Velikovsky's thesis suggests that an Ice Age occurred at that time and also melted back quickly thereafter. This sudden melting back of the newly formed ice over the northern hemisphere would have also generated dust storms, as shown by Pielou "Where newly ice-free land was suddenly exposed to warmth and dryness, conditions were probably harsh, though not in the sense of being cold. The proximity of warm land to cold ice produced a steep temperature gradient and, consequently strong winds. Continual gales must have swept across the country before vegetation had developed to act as a brake. As long as there were no plants to diminish its force at ground level, the wind picked up quantities of loose dust, sand and grit from the quickly drying till, producing dust storms that darkened the sky for weeks at a time."(146) Again as with the dust storms from the deserts the darkness and gloom would have been periodic and trees could still grow but the ancient people who experienced these black clouds shutting out the light over days, weeks and even months, would have recalled this time as years of darkness. Trees and other vegetation were not subject to years of endless darkness. Devendra Lai states: "Dust loading of the atmosphere has been considered to be one of the important causes of global climate change , either from the impact of a large meteorite or a large explosive eruption...it must be noted here that if the duration of darkening had been as long as a few years... this would have led to drastic extinction among plants of the tropics because of their inability to remain dormant. However, no tropical plants could accommodate darkness periods of a few months." (147) In the tropics the very warm ocean water there would evaporate, rise and condense to fall as rain to clean the atmosphere in these regions much more rapidly than in other regions. In temperate regions atmospheric dust can last up to months but not several years. Again Mewhinney has failed to cast a shadow over Velikovsky's decades of darkness and gloom. In order to dispose of Velikovsky's view that there was a large climatic oscillation after Velikovsky's catastrophe Mewhinney turns to tree rings: "Another important record of past climatic fluctuations is found in the annual growth rings of trees. And in Earth in Upheaval there is a brief section on the tree-ring record, as it relates to the catastrophes of Worlds in Collision.(148) At this point, Mewhinney snips off and so his readers cannot know what this tree ring evidence cited by Velikovsky is. He gives no page number to tell his audience where it is so they would have even greater difficulty finding this material. Why would Mewhinney omit even the page number or a citation for his readers? Perhaps it is because he claims that tree ring dating is accurate and thus any such data that supports Velikovsky is to be denied, evaded and suppressed. Let us see what Mewhinney withheld: "The Carnegie Institution published in 1919 a graph drawn by A.E. Douglass, then Director of Steward Observatory, who studies tree rings in order to discover the solar activity of the past. (A.E. Douglass, Climate Cycles and Tree Growth, No. 289, (Wash., D.C. 1919), L. pp. 1118-19) The graph actually reveals a spurt of oscillations in the annual growth of the tree rings around the year 147 (the identification of the rings as to their years is approximate). There is an unusually high crest in the years of the eighth century [stimulated to grow by the increased presence of carbon dioxide in the air or invigorated by electrical discharges in the atmosphere and possibly magnetic storms or the addition of ashes to the soil]... After a record high crest of six year duration there is in - 687 a precipitate drop." (149) Even this small piece of information helpful to Velikovsky's last catastrophe, Mewhinney could not bring himself to admit fully. But what then of other tree ring chronologies? One of the most astonishing pieces of information regarding tree ring chronologies casts doubt on the entire method. In 1996 D.K.Yamaguchi discovered that tree ring patterns of different trees do not correlate in only one segment of the chronology. He found they correlated or as the terminology suggests, "wiggle matched" in several places in the sequence.(150) Thus, a series of tree-rings from a tree can be inserted into a sequence in several places and this creates a real problem. How does one determine in which place in the sequence it should be matched or wiggle matched. This was done by the use of statistics which was employed in the European Oak dendrochronologies. However, J. Lasker raised a significant problem with the t-values of the statistics.(151) A t-value is given to a correlation between two sets of tree rings on the basis of how well the rings match in several ways. This assessment is analyzed by computer which then places a t-value on how good the match is. High t-values of 3 and higher are assigned to good wiggle matches while t-values lower than 3 are assigned to those where the ring patterns match poorly. What Yamaguchi did was use the t-values for wiggle matches of a Douglas fir tree trunk dated to between 1482 and 1668AD and found that it could correlate with other tree-ring sequences with t-values of about 5 for 1504AD7 for 1647AD and 4.5 for 1763AD. Altogether he was able to find 113 significant places in the sequence which could be wiggle matched. Now how can this process be accepted as a valid analysis of past climates when it can generate such strong t-values in at least three different places in the sequence? But this is extremely important for past dates to the times of Velikovsky's scenario. P. Kuniholm who produced a dendrochronology for Turkey attempted to date wood via the tree-ring method from a gateway to the city at Tille Hoyuk.(152) What he discovered was that the t-value computer tested wiggle matches gave correlations with the sequence at three places, 1258, 1140 and 981 BC. Each of these had a t-value above 4 which to a dendrochronologist makes each 99.9 percent certain as the correct date. Now which was Kuniholm to choose? According to R.M. Porter writing in 1994, Kuniholm rejected the 981 BC date with the highest t-value of 5 and chose instead the 1140 BC date because it fit more closely his expectation for the destruction of the city and its gate.(153) In essence the method is used to support the chronology rather than test it. Instead of choosing the best statistical match for the placement of a series of tree rings, he chose one of lesser statistical value. Why? Because that was what fit his expectation. This is no different than radiocarbon dating. If the data fits the theory it is kept; if it does not fit it is rejected. Now how does this apply to the other chronologies that go back even farther into the past? Are points in these sequences accepted or rejected on the basis of their correspondence to the expectations of the dendrochronologists? Yes. Fully dated and arranged tree ring sequences that were published have had to be resequenced or removed if they did not conform with other established dendrochronologies. One was the Sweet Track chronology from southwest England which was required to be remeasured when it was found it failed to conform with published tree ring chronology of Northern Ireland around Belfast.(154) The South German Sequence had to be thrown out, in spite of its researchers' findings as to its accuracy, again because it failed to conform with that of Belfast.(155) Again the method is used to support the chronology rather than test it. So one can clearly see that when the tree ring data fulfilled the expectations of the uniformitarian chronology they are acceptable good evidence. However, when the tree ring data fails to fulfill the expectations of the uniformitarian chronology in some way or other it is resequenced to do so or to paraphrase Mewhinney, "chucked out." Under such a process one can use tree rings to prove anything desired since the negative results are simply discarded and those that confirm the desired results are retained. It is just such chronologies that Mewhinney expects Velikovsky's supporters to accept as evidence for rejecting Velikovsky's concepts. For a more technical debunking of the tree-ring method, Christian Bloss and Hans-Ullrich Niemitz have written a scathing article in (14-Crash (1997) ISBN3-928852- 15). PART V BOTANICAL FANTASIES In order to illustrate that my work is without merit and made up of fantasies Mewhinney has devoted a portion of his critique to exposing these: "Ginenthal often jump-cuts between sources as though they are talking about the same thing, when actually they are talking about something different. He then builds up to some sweeping statement which is not justified by the facts."(156) To drive home the point he adds: "Ginenthal has culled passages from several sources - Borisov, Pielou, and Charlesworth - on the northern limit reached by the tree line in Russia, Canada and Norway... He makes it sound as though there was a continuous strip of forest fronting on the Arctic Ocean right around the globe, which is not correct, and that the forest zone included such high Arctic Islands as Spitsbergen (from 76.5 to 80 degrees north latitude, which is nonsense."(157) Isn't this fascinating. In our discussion of the question of the Arctic Ocean being ice-free or ice-covered we discovered that Mewhinney "culled passages from several sources - Borisov, Orr, Brooks, Hunkins and Kutschale and Charlesworth - on the question of warm water mollusks around the shores of Russia, Canada, Alaska and Norway and on the islands of the Arctic Ocean such as Spitsbergen which turned out to be nonsense." So let us examine Mewhinney's new assault. What Mewhinney has simply failed to report is the evidence I did present in my 1995 edition of Carl Sagan & Immanuel Velikovsky (Tempe AZ), page 212 where Pursuit magazine reported: "In the New Siberian Islands, for instance, whole trees have turned up, the trees of the family that includes the plums; and with their leaves and fruits. No such hardwood trees grow today anywhere within two thousand miles of those islands. Therefore, the climate must have been very much different when they got buried; and please note they could not have been buried in frozen muck which is [as hard as] hard rock, nor could they have retained their foliage if they were washed far north by currents from warmer climates. They must have grown thereabouts, and the climate must have been not only warm enough, but have had a long enough growing period of summer sunlight for them to have leafed and fruited." Furthermore I cited this very same material in my privately published 1990 hard cover edition of Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky, page 162. Of course, Mewhinney had to evade and cover up the fact by cut-jumping between my sources and texts talking about one paper "Ice Core Evidence" when actually he omitted what I wrote elsewhere. Thus he was suggesting not only something different but something totally erroneous. But Mewhinney could not countenance this material so he denied it not only in my work but in that of Velikovsky who wrote on the very same topic in Earth in Upheaval (1950) pages 7 and 8, wherein he concludes on page 8: "Eduard von Toll repeatedly visited the New Siberian Islands from 1885 to 1902... He examined the 'woodhills' and 'found them to consist of carbonized trunks of trees with impressions of leaves and fruits'. On Maloi, one of the group of Liakhoy Islands, Toll found bones of mammoths and other animals together with the trunks of fossil trees, with leaves and cones. 'This striking discovery [Toll wrote] proves that in the days when the mammoth and rhinoceroses lived in northern Siberia, these desolate islands were covered with great forests, and bore a luxuriant vegetation.'" All Mewhinney had to do to know these facts was not to cut-jump from source to source. But Mewhinney cannot deal with these facts and makes sure that his readers are protected from them. However, to get around the fact that he knew trees grew in the high Arctic, Mewhinney writes the following: "'The point to stress,' according to Ginenthal, 'is that large trees should never be able to grow on islands north of the Arctic Circle. As explained by Ivan T. Sanderson, 'pieces of large tree trunks of the types [found] do not and cannot live at those latitudes today for purely biological reasons. The same goes for huge areas of Siberia.' Why does Ginenthal say 'never'? The earth is several billion years old, and in that time it has experienced many periods of climate warmer than today's. To find trees growing in the Arctic, you just have to go back far enough - upwards of three quarters of a million years"... (Emphasis added)(158) What is the basis for Mewhinney's conclusion that all you need is warmth in the high latitudes above the Arctic Circle in order for tall trees to grow there? He cites no authorities or anything else as support for this bald statement as if he is the authority. Mewhinney does describe large trees there that are buried which are hundreds of thousands of years old. But could they have done so, as he has informed us, simply because it was warmer and all you need are "periods of climate warmer than today?" This is unfortunately "hot air." First, Mewhinney wants to know why I employ the word "never" with respect to this fact. Well, Sanderson, a naturalist, told us just that didn't he? They "cannot live at those latitudes for purely biological reasons". (Interestingly, Mewhinney actually had Sanderson's statement in my "Ice Core Evidence" paper but dealt with it to suggest no evidence existed respecting large trees on Arctic Ocean Islands). Second, Mewhinney claims to have read E.C. Pielou. But in his rash desire to attack my work, he completely left out the fact that even she explained why tall trees cannot grow far north of the Arctic Circle, even with hot air. "An apparent obstacle to long, northward and southward migration of plants is the phenomenon of photoperiodism. As is well known, many species of plants are genetically programmed to flower only when there are appropriate daylight [night-time] hours during a twenty-four hour day. There are so-called long-day plants and short-day plants... They cannot flower until spring advances into summer, the length of the 'day' (that is, the number of daylight hours) has reached the required minimum.... Even when the spring is abnormally warm, they cannot be hurried." (Emphasis added)(159) Now why did Pielou say in complete contradiction to Mewhinney that all that is required is a "climate warmer than today" for large trees to grow far north of their present latitudes when she tells us in no uncertain terms that the phenomena of photoperiodism is an "obstacle to long northward and southward migration of plants." Apparently Pielou is in urgent need of lessons in botany and climatology from Mewhinney who can explain to her that she simply is out of touch with the deep understanding of Sean Mewhinney. Mewhinney will correct her and tell her she doesn't know what she is talking about on this matter but that he does! Then there is Edith Taylor, a paleobotanist at Ohio State University, who makes the same point a bit more strongly and emphatically that an ancient forest growing in these high northern latitudes in the distant past, not those Mewhinney discussed, shows: "The first thing we paleobotanists do is look for something in the modern records that is comparable and there are no forests growing at that latitude today. We can go to the tropics and find trees growing in a warm environment, but we can't find trees growing in a warm environment with the light regime these trees had: 24 hours of light in summer and 24 hours of dark in winter." (Emphasis added)(160) Here again a well respected authority on the regions in which tall trees can grow claims even "in a warm environment" trees will not grow with 24 hours of light in summer and 24 hours of darkness in winter. But Mewhinney has told us all you need is warmth to accomplish this. Mewhinney apparently understands botany and paleobotany more deeply than Dr. Taylor and perhaps he will also correct her ignorance on this matter. Paul S. Sears of Yale University has written: "no single species of plant or animal ... can transgress very far beyond its characteristic climatic range [which includes its photoperiodic range] unless it undergoes evolutionary changes that in turn sets new limits. For this phenomenon, there are good and sufficient reasons to be found in physiology which finds for each species its [climatic and photoperiodic] range of tolerance in respect to the several factors of climate [photoperiodism being one of these factors], but their combinations and rhythmic patterns."(161) Sears, according to Mewhinney, also doesn't seem to understand that all you need is warmth to permit trees to migrate beyond their photoperiodic range. Sears says that all the various phenomena of climate-photoperiodism included in combination and their rhythmic patterns must change for this migration to occur. In spite of the fact that Mewhinney read Pielou who pointed out the overriding importance of photoperiodism, for tree migration: then there is Taylor's statement that tall trees do not grow in a "warm" regime where there are 24 hours of light in summer and 24 hours of darkness in winter, Mewhinney tells us all one needs is a "climate warmer than today." No Sean, what you have presented is your own fantasy created out of nothing substantiated by anything, a production of your own imagination. The importance of this material lies in the concept of a pole shift which would allow tall trees to migrate far north of their present locations because all the various phenomena of climate, photoperiodism, rainfall, seasonality, etc. would create the conditions for this migration. In order to deny any possibility that tall trees -- temperate types grew in the high arctic latitudes Mewhinney must attack this evidence with his strongest weapons. That of course is contained in his view that the evidence for my position on this matter is fantasy. But as we will see, like the warm water mollusks, living in these high arctic latitudes the evidence for tall trees is also rather unequivocal. Mewhinney has told us my view that forests grew fronting the Arctic Ocean all around the continents facing it is wrong. Again this is based simply on his own authority, without any citations from the scientific literature to support his claim. Like his authoritative statement on warmth being the factor which would allow trees to grow well north of their present ranges, his statement is based on nothing. What I presented in The Extinction of the Mammoth were innumerable citations of tall trees and forests growing all around the Arctic Ocean during the hipsithermal. On page 133 I cited Pielou that on the Seward Peninsula birch and spruce forests of tall trees grew facing the Arctic Ocean.(162) On page 134 I cited Pielou that there was a spruce forest on the Tuktoyaktuk Peninula(163) and that H.H. Lamb photographed a spruce trunk still standing facing the Arctic Ocean C14 dated to 4940 years ago (+ 140 years)(164) I cited Pielou on page 136 that a forest grew about 3,500 years ago, 170 miles north of the tree line near Dubawt Lake, west of Hudan Bay(165) I cited G..H. Denton that a trunk of a tree"thicker than a man's body" was found standing erect some "200 miles north of the Arctic Circle."(166) On page 241 I cited Howorth that trunks of tall birch trees were standing upright at the mouth of the Indiga River facing the Arctic Ocean.(167) On page 137 I cited Borisov that "forests extended right up to the Barents Coast and oak, linden and filbert reached the shores of the White Sea" the Barents Coast and White Sea are ranches of the Arctic Ocean. On page 137l I cited N.V. Kind that spruce, birch, white birch were abundant on the lower Malaya Kheta River in Siberia.(168) On page 138 I cited A.P. Yaskovskiy that in the Lena River Delta facing the Arctic Ocean larch was found with other tree types that only grow much farther south.(169) On the same page I cited Chester S. Chard that "trunks of birch trees of normal size...have been found in peat deposits" on the lower Lena" with spruce and pine pollen. (170) On page 123 I cite Howorth that "probably forests [migrated] to the very borders of the Arctic Ocean"(171) All this is related to the hipsithermal period. After a massive catastrophe, most of the evidence would have been destroyed by immense tidal waves, fires, etc. Yet there is a great deal of evidence that did survive that supports the view that forests grew all around the edges of the Arctic Ocean. Mewhinney, of course, interprets all evidence only in terms of uniformity. The evidence that northern forests were buried suddenly all across the northern hemisphere I presented in The Velikovskian, Vol IV, No. 1, pages 59-75. All we have is bombast from Mewhinney regarding this question. EVIDENCE OF A POLE SHIFT FROM THE BLACK CROWBERRY BUSH One of the questions related to all this material is whether tall trees grew on the Arctic Ocean Islands, say for instance, Spitsbergen or the New Siberian Islands. Based on photoperiodism this is simply impossible in terms of the present tilt of the Earth's axis. It is here we now turn to confront Mewhinney's argument on this question of trees growing on these islands. I have claimed trees grew on these islands during the Climate Optimum and cited Charlesworth on the fact that Empetrum nigrum, the black crowberry bush is proof of this, citing his work in "ICE", p. 77 but not naming the plant and pointing out Charlesworth said these plaints "no longer ripen in these northern lands".(172) Mewhinney challenges this, pointing out Empetrum nigrum is the black or common crowberry "not a tree, but a low Arctic shrub."(173) What is the basis of Mewhinney's assertion again that Empetrum nigrum is an Arctic shrub? He cites nothing and authoritatively tells us this plant grows in the "Arctic" based once again solely on his own authority. Where is the "Arctic"? According to the Dictionary of Geological Terms, 3 ed. "Arctic... The area within the Arctic Circle."(174) According to The New Century Dictionary, Vol. I (N.Y. 1959), page 68 "arctic... at or near the North Pole; frigid; the arctic circle (the southern boundary of the north frigid zone." Thus, a geological dictionary and an authoritative basic dictionary inform us that the "arctic" is the region north of the Arctic Circle, and Mewhinney informs us E. nigrum is an "Arctic shrub," that it grows exclusively inside the Arctic Circle. He says trust me on this point because he knows the truth. Unfortunately, Mewhinney is simply wrong on this point and on several others related to it. According to J.N.B. Bell and J.H. Tallis' discussion of "Empetrum nigrum L." in the Journal of Ecology this flowering plant only grows in one small area slightly above the Arctic Circle but over 99 percent of its habitat is south of the Arctic Circle. See Figure below.(175) The range is in black. Flowering E. Nigrum does not reach the Spitsbergen Islands in the upper right area of the map. Unless one is blind this flowering and berry forming plant grows almost exclusively in the "Temperate zone." The Arctic Circle is at 66.5 degrees north latitude, and Bell and Tallis inform us that its habitat is: "Common on mountains and moorlands throughout Scotland, Wales, northern England and western parts of Ireland; present in suitable habitats on the higher ground of Dartmoor and Exmoor; absent South-east of a line from the Humber to the Severn, with the exception of two recently discovered sites on the Norfolk coast..., although formerly presented in Dorset and Sussex... "Almost circumpolar in distribution... Extending south in Europe to the Pyrenees, the Auvergne, the northern Apennines [in Italy], and the Alps of Italy, France, Switzerland, Austria and Germany; present throughout the lowlands of Holland, Denmark, Germany and Poland, and extending north in Scandinavia to a general limit of 60 30' N, but with isolated sites as far as at least 68 23' N...; Also present in Iceland and the Faeros. In Eastern Europe E. nigrum occurs in the Carpathians, Montenegro, and Bulgaria and thence across Russia to the southern limit of c. 65N... Hulten... shows E. nigrum extending across the Aleutian Islands and along the Alaskian coast southward to c. 40 in California, with further occurrences in eastern Quebec and the maritime provinces of Canada. "In the British Isles the altitudinal range of E. nigrum is from sea-level to at least 1010 m [330 feet]. The upper limit in Scotland is somewhat uncertain... but is probably c.750m [2450 feet]; the upper limit in England is over 910m [3000 feet]...in Wales 1010m [3,300 feet] on Carnedd Dafydd; and in Ireland 1004m [2990 feet] "On the continent E. nigrum becomes restricted to progressively higher altitudes southwards, it is recorded down to sea-level in Scandinavia, north Germany and Poland..."(176) Does Mewhinney think that all these regions are "Arctic"? Apparently he does. Earlier Mewhinney claimed that the omission of a single sentence is an "exercise in perversity." How then is his bald misrepresentation of black crowberry being an arctic plant to be characterized? This I leave to the reader and Mewhinney to describe. It certainly goes well beyond perversity doesn't it Sean?. The question is: Why doesn't it grow, flower and develop berries far above the Arctic Circle? The reason Sean is photoperiodism. Like nearly all flowering plants, except those that are day neutral to photoperiodic signals, it flowers only in the very early spring and it takes months of seasonal warmth to grow ripe seeds that require temperate zone warmth, photoperiodic signals and seasonality. "In Britain flowering occurs from late March to May, according to latitude and altitude... In England growth continues until September or October before the formation of winter buds. Fruits are usually ripe by early July, and may persist on the plant until the following spring. Seeds are mature in August..." (Emphasis added) (177) Furthermore, E. nigrum is intolerant of snow-cover prolonged into spring, on account of early commencement of growth and flowering,"(178) Snow stays well into spring in the Arctic Zone. All this discussion is about the flowering, fruit and seed form of black crowberry. This is the plant Charlesworth discussed, that grew on Spitsbergen during the hipsithermal. He was not discussing asexual development of the plant which when its leaves "touch the ground adventitious roots may be produced."(179) And, "Vegetative propagation is much more important than reproduction by seed, which seems to take place only on isolated occasions..."(180) This plant produces flowers, fruits and seeds in temperate environments not in the very high arctic where Spitsbergen is located. What this plant requires is a cool temperate zone environment to grow photoperiodically getting early spring (March to May) day-night signals to flower and taking months up to (August) for the berries to produce seeds. This cannot and does not happen for this plant on Spitsbergen when it grew flowered, produced berries and seeds there during the hipsithermal. In order for it to do so Spitsbergen would have had to be situated in the temperate zone. This, of course, requires either a recent pole shift or sudden plate tectonic shift. As Pielou has told us trees cannot migrate far northward unless the photoperiodic conditions permit this to occur and thus, we need a sudden recent pole shift or plate tectonic excurion to allow for this temperate zone plant, to grow, flower and produce ripened berries on Spitsbergen. There is yet another aspect of this phenomenon that relates to the vegetation that I claim suggests that trees grew on Spitsbergen with E. nigrum. What other vegetation grows in the very same broad regions along with black crowberry in the temperate zone? The answer is that forests made up of tall deciduous trees tall pine trees or a mixture of these two temperate tree types grow in the very same broad regions with this bush. These forests grow nearby or in the same area as this plant. According to the map on the "Natural Vegetation of the World," (181) this is confirmed. In England, Ireland and Scotland the dominant natural vegetation where E. nigrum grows is also inhabited by "Broad-leaved forest mainly deciduous"(182) or "Needle-leaved forest."(183) In the Pyrenees the dominant vegetation is "Needle-leaved forest" and "Mixed needle-leaved and broad-leaved forests.(184) In Auvergne, central France there grows "Mixed needle-leaved and broad-leaved forest" and "Needle-leaved forest."(185) In the Alps of Italy, Germany and France at the lower altitudes where E. nigrum grows is "Needle-leaved forest." In the Apenines of Italy we find "Mixed needle-leaved and broad-leaved forest."(186) In the lowlands of Holland, Germany, Poland and Denmark, we find "Broad-leaved forest mainly deciduous,"(187) where E. nigrum is found. In Iceland is needle-leaved forest."(188) In Scandinavia is "Needle-leaved forest."(189) In western Russia is "Mixed Needle-leaved and Broad-leaved forest" and "Needle-leaved forest."(190) In Montenegro, the Carpathians and Bulgaria is "Mixed Needle-leaved and Broad-leaved forest" and "Needle-leaved forest." In southern Siberia is "taiga forest."(191) Only on the Aleutian Islands at the opposite side of the world does E. nigrum grow on tundra.(192) But it grows there on rich grasslands with sedges and few trees. (193) In western Canada and northern California it grows near "Needle-leaved forest," while in eastern Canada and the Maritime Provinces, it grows near "broad-leaved" and Needle-leaved forest.(194) Only in the Aleutians does it grow on tundra. But even there we do find trees. But Borisov claims that there was no ice on Spitsbergen during the hipsithermal(195)and that the "permafrost which covers the Arctic Basin deteriorated greatly during the period of warming... in... Siberia melting [to]...a depth of 200-300 meters]. "(196) Thus, Spitsbergen had no tundra conditions, the permafrost had greatly deteriorated, it had no ice and E. nigrum flowered there. The significance of the fact that E. Nigrum was flowering, growing berries with ripe seeds on Spitsbergen is this: With the present 23.5 degree tilt of the Earth's axis these photo periodic processes necessary for flowers, berries and ripe seeds to occur at Spitsbergen's high latitude requires not as Mewhinney would have us believe only greater warmth, but a much less oblique axial tilt of the Earth, just as Velikovsky suggested. Thus, in the temperate latitudes where black crowberry does in fact flower and grow fruits with ripe seeds requires that Spitsbergen present the same photo periodic conditions that pertain to the temperate zone. That is Spitsbergen had to be at a latitude that placed it inside the temperate zone. But as pointed out, the dominant vegetation in the temperate zone without permafrost where black crowberry flowers bears berries with ripe seeds are temperate type forests. Spitsbergen, with a much smaller tilt of the Earth's axis would also have had to grow this same dominant vegetation. And this condition is basically attested to by the ecological relationships that exist in terms of the sociology of plants. In every region where E. nigrum presently grows without tundra the dominant vegetation that grows in that region is forests of deciduous, needle or mixed-needle and broad-leaved trees. Paul Colinvaux in his Chapter "The Social Lives of Plants," points out the connection of plants that grow in association with certain other plants that share the same or similar climatic-photoperiodic and other environmental conditions. "Plants grow up in communities. They grow up together in complex patterns. All plants have neighbors with whom there must be some accommodation or none would survive... plants grow up and share the living space. The lives of plants in communities do not seem to be chance affairs, for we can see the same patterns of life repeating themselves over and over again. It is as if we are looking at the working of a social process: the social lives of plants. "Any forest of a temperate land is made up mostly of just one or two kinds of trees that are overwhelmingly predominant; we can justly say that the forest is dominated by them. Other kinds of trees exist there, but they are likely to be scarce. There is also likely to be a host of other kinds of plants, creepers, and bushes, and spring plants."(197) This is exactly what we encounter with the broad habitat non-tundra areas in which black crowberry grows. Always the environment is dominated by pine, deciduous, hardwood forests or mixtures of these two types of forest. This is one of the most well understood principles of ecology. Tundra can in rare places have trees but these are the great exception and the trees that grow on tundra are generally extremely close to the ground. But below the Arctic Circle the dominant vegetation found is forest. In the broad areas without tundra where black crowberry presently grows the dominant plants associated with these regions are forests. In order to deny that forests grew on Spitsbergen when E. nigrum grew there, for Mewhinney, it is to chuck out the basic findings of ecology and create a nonsensical view of ecology that this pattern in which plants always form associations with other dominant plant communities, is wrong. This is throwing out science in favor of fantasy, the thing that Mewhinney implies is a problem for my work. No, plant geography and plant communities are facts of ecological reality. Presently, black crowberry which flowers and bares fruits only grows in regions of the Earth without tundra where the dominant forms of vegetation are forests deciduous and pine trees. The other question is how could black crowberry flower, produce fruits with ripe seeds with the present tilt of the Earth's axis? This is a fundamental fact that indicates quite conclusively that the Earth's axis was of a much smaller obliquity to allow all these photoperiodically-induced behaviors in E. nigrum to occur on Spitsbergen. It grows in regions where the soil conditions allow forests to grow. It grows in regions with long enough periods of spring, summer and fall that permit forests to grow. It grows in regions where rainfall is plentiful enough to permit forests to grow. It grows in regions where the ph (acid-base) conditions of the soil permit forests to grow. It grows in regions where the annual temperature range permits forests to grow. This is not to suggest that E. nigrum grows in exactly the same places as these forests because it is found predominantly in heaths, bogs and grasslands while nearby, grow forests. (198) It also grows among "open pine and birch woodland."(199) I claim that basic ecology requires that since E. nigrum presently grows in regions (without tundra) in which the predominant vegetation is broad-leaf deciduous, needle pine or mixed forest, that when it grew flowered and produced fruit on Spitsbergen (which was without tundra during the hipsithermal) all the same conditions of the temperate zone including photoperiodic seasonal periodicities existed on Spitsbergen. For this to occur requires not, as Mewhinney would have us believe is "warmer" conditions "than today" but a different tilt of the Earth's axis. If E. nigrum was an "arctic shrub" it would presently be growing all over the arctic well north of the Arctic Circle, and also flowering, producing berries and ripe seeds; this it does not do because to do so the region above the present Arctic Circle would have to be south of the Arctic Circle. No Mewhinney, E. nigrum is a temperate zone plant where it grows, flowers, produces berries and ripe seeds and in all the vast regions without tundra where it is found today there are forests as there had to be when it grew on Spitsbergen. The rules of ecology require this. Spitsbergen's ice had melted away during the hipsithermal; it was not a tundra. The only question that remains with respect to this discussion is: Did trees grow on the Arctic Ocean islands during the hipsithermal and have they been found? This, of course, we pointed out with respect to New Siberian islands which Mewhinney has ignored cited in Pursuit and Velikovsky's citation of Toll's work which he also evaded. But there is more. PEAT BOGS, TREES AND E. NIGRUM Mewhinney next turns to peat bogs to argue: "Ginenthal makes a great deal of peat in Greenland and other Arctic Islands. He quotes a Britannica article... This is followed up with a quote from Brooks... peat bogs require a rainfall of at least 40 inches a year and a mean temperature above 32 F. This quote seems to be made to order for Ginenthal's thesis. In the passage from which this was taken, Brooks was describing the Mediterranean climate/vegetative zone. The full sentence reads as follows: 'This zone is the peculiar home of peat bogs, which require a rainfall of at least 40 inches a year and a mean temperature above 32 [degrees] F."(200) He then goes on for several paragraphs to explain the differences between temperate and arctic type bogs to show how little I understand of these matters. However, he did not know the type of plant that grows in the northern areas of the Mediterranean. What plant was that? It was Empetrum nigrum, his fantasized "Arctic" shrub. Where did the authorities say it grows? It grows in the Pyrenees Mountains between Spain and France, which is on the northern side of the Mediterranean. It grows in the Apennines Mountains of Italy which is also on the northern side of the Mediterranean. It grows in Montenegro near the Adriatic Sea which is a part of the Mediterranean. It grows in Bulgaria which is also on the northern side of the Mediterranean Sea. These regions have a rainfall of 40 inches per year and a mean annual temperature above 32 F. So if this plant presently grows on the northern side of the Mediterranean Sea and during the hipsithermal on Spitsbergen, then it is quite apparent that Spitsbergen experienced similar conditions as these southern lands at higher altitudes. Were there trees growing during the hipsithermal on islands of the Arctic Ocean? Velikovsky has informed us, citing D. Gath Whitley's "the Ivory Islands in the Arctic Ocean," in the Journal of the Philosophical Society of Great Britain XII, (1910) p. 50, that on these islands, "neither trees, nor shrubs, nor bushes, exist." These islands are polar deserts which is mostly bare ground with a few herbs, etc. growing in patches here and there. Tall trees cannot grow there because as is well understood, they need photoperiodic rhythms of rainfall, and fairly long seasonal warmth, etc., to grow. For trees to grow there all these elements must be present. Charlesworth states: of the hipsithermal: "In north Siberia (including the New Siberian Islands)... trees ranged 250 km. [150 miles] farther north than now; peats in the treeless Karsk tundra near the Kara Sea enclose remains of fir, pine, larch, birch and alder..." (Emphasis added) [Charlesworth, The Quaternary Era, Vol. II, op. cit., p. 1488] Thus, Charlesworth tells us trees grew on the New Siberian Island as well as near the Kara Sea. The New Siberian Islands range from about 500 to 650 miles north of the Arctic Circle. The Karsk tundra near the Kara Sea; a branch of the Arctic Ocean, is 200 to 300 miles north of the Arctic Circle. How could trees grow on the New Siberian Islands as Charlesworth tells us during the hipsithermal which is 500 to 650 miles north of the Arctic Circle unless the pole was tilted more perpendicularly to allow photoperiodic signals for their various biological processes, unless they had sufficient rainfall, unless the permafrost had melted deeply, unless the seasonal warmth allowed them to grow? Ecology describes the interrelationships necessary for different elements of an environment to allow trees to grow. It is much like paleontology as devised by Cuvier. From one bone or tooth he could construct the entire animal from which it came. The same exists in the paleoecological setting. If an animal or plant only lives in a temperate environment today, in the recent past several thousand years it would also require the same environmental conditions to live. In this respect there is evidence of pigmy mammoths living on Wrangel Island up to about 3500 years ago. (201) It is well known that mammoths cannot live on tundra as I cited several authorities and evidence in The Extinction of the Mammoth, pages 75 to 89, nor did they live on an arctic steppe as I also cited several authorities and evidence in the same book pages 89 to 109. Mammoths require rich grasslands and trees upon which they can feed. For these small mammoths to thrive on Wrangle Island, 350 miles north of the Arctic Circle, the island had to be not only warm enough for grasses and canes to grow but receive photoperiodic signals to allow for the growth of trees. On the basis of all this evidence and the ecological conclusions drawn from it, it seems that the axis of the Earth was tilted during the hipsithermal much more perpendicularly to the plane of its orbit and that temperate conditions existed which permitted temperate trees, and shrubs such as E. nigrum to grow on the islands of the Arctic Ocean. Mewhinney, of course, knows all this is not true and that flowering E. nigrum which does not presently grow above the Arctic Circle except at one point, grew on Spitsbergen is not evidence for anything. Finally, if the Earth's axis did not change and these various plants, E. nigrum flowered, etc. and trees could grow in these far northern latitudes during the hipsithermal without all these required environmental conditions, they would still be growing and flowering there. The reason they do not and cannot grow and flower there now is that a pole shift changed all these necessary conditions for them to grow, flower and produce berries where they did a few to several thousand years ago. There is an old psychological saying about fantasy which goes as follows: "The only people without fantasies are found in the graveyard." All Mewhinney's work about fantasy indicates that he is certainly alive. Now why doesn't E. nigrum grow, flower and produce ripe seed on Spitsbergen today with the present tilt of the Earth's axis? Perhaps as some suggest plants have minds of their own and it no longer wishes to grow there. Perhaps flowering E. nigrum during the hipsithermal had a fantasy that Spitsbergen's photoperiodic conditions did not apply to it so it paid no attention to these conditions to flourish there. Or perhaps having a mind of its own, it didn't care about photoperiodic conditions and like the incorrigible mollusks that grew around the Arctic Ocean islands it followed the genius of Obstreperous Velikovskians up there. Perhaps at that time E. nigrum lost its mind altogether and thought it too was an Obstreperous Velikovskian. These are fascinating fantasies, of course, worthy of the understanding of Sean Mewhinney whose insights into ecology and paleoecology are unique to say the least! PART VI MAPPING BOMBASTIC EVASION, DENIAL AND SUBTERFUGE In his fifth paper, Mewhinney presents evidence in order to debunk the ancient maps of Greenland and Antarctica presented in the works of Arlington Mallery and Charles Hapgood. He claims "the maps in existence are neither ancient nor accurate."(202) He adds: "There is something sober and scientific about maps, something that lends solidity to the world of imagination. Robert Louis Stevenson drew the map of Treasure Island before he wrote the story. 'The shape of it took my fancy beyond expression; it contained harbours that pleased me like sonnets...... As I paused upon my map of Treasure Island, the future characters of the book began to appear there visibly... they passed to and fro... on these few square inches of a flat projection. The next thing I know I had some paper before me and was writing a list of chapters'... There are maps of Middle Earth, but you can travel there only in the mind... Comyns Beaumont mapped biblical Jerusalem to Edinburgh, and Memphis to Glastonbury.... In the same way that a butterfly's wing can be mapped to an ink blot, one stretch of coastline can be mapped to another. Which is pretty much what Mallery and Hapgood were doing."(203) Now I also have written a paper titled "Common Sense about Ancient Maps," in The Velikovskian, Vol I, No. 2, pages 7 through 17 in which I outlined some of what is the most basic facts and evidence respecting these maps. I specifically referred to this paper in "ICE" which Mewhinney has read. Yet he never once cites this work nor anything from it. Again, subterfuge, evasion and denial are at work. In it at page 16 I discussed the work of David C. Jolly of Brookline, Massachusetts, who publishes an annual handbook for the rare map trade, and who also raised questions regarding the validity of the Piri Réis and Oronteus Fineus maps of Antarctica in the Skeptical Inquirer, Vol II for the Fall of 1986. Here i wrote, page 16, "to begin with, Jolley omits from his discussion of the maps any of the facts [which I] brought out... "Thus, I expected Mewhinney to take up the challenge and address these basic points but as I perused this final installment of his five part paper, I must admit, I had to laugh. The reader by now can guess the reason for my mirth. Again Mewhinney true to form denied nearly all of this evidence to himself and to his readers by fully omitting this evidence. Now, even if he was unaware of my paper which is extraordinarily difficult to accept , the statements I presented are also found in the very literature presented by Mallery and Hapgood which Mewhinney presented. At the outset of my paper on these maps, I wrote: "If... Mewhinney's evidence, derived from ice cores of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps is truly correct, it would be impossible for ancient man to have mapped these large land masses accurately especially the topography. Ancient man could not have done so because Greenland and Antarctica had to have been buried beneath ice thousands of feet thick; there would have been no way to see this topography since ice and snow covered it and had given it somewhat the form of a mesa... mountain ranges, valleys, bays, etc., would have all been covered under thousands of feet of ice and snow."(204) Having specifically pointed out this question to Mewhinney and his having seen this paper cited in my "ICE" paper, I expected him to explain away the evidence but this was not to be. One of the major arguments raised by Mewhinney is that there are islands and positions on these maps that do not correspond with the maps of the present day. This is merely a slight of hand trick because if as Velikovsky contended a global cataclysm occurred after the source maps were made, then many islands would sink beneath the sea in the great past or even after as the Earth settled and certain areas of the Earth surface would rise and fall as well as be distorted as the poles tilted or the plates suddenly moved. As is usually the case with Velikovsky's and our critics they cannot see outside their uniformitarian paradigm as does Mewhinney. Let us once again examine the strategic evidence that Mewhinney could not bring himself to face or report it to his readers. After admitting that "Mallery did influence a few other people, including several officers of the U.S. Navy Hydrographic Office who came forward to endorse his reconstruction", Mewhinney turns to discuss Mallery's work regarding Greenland. What he failed to inform his readers was that this section of the U.S. Navy is its map-making department and that the officers were professional cartographers with years of experience in making maps. But what is most interesting is Mewhinney's casual denial, and evasion of a most fundamental piece of evidence presented by Mallery who wrote: "The Greenland depicted differs from the Greenland known to the modern world. The land surface is shown free of ice, almost covered by mountains, crossed by open rivers and divided into three islands. "Sooner than I would have thought possible, confirmation of my analysis of the map (at least the portion showing Greenland) came from an authority in the science of determining subglacial topography by seismic soundings. The authority was Paul Emile Victor, whose French Polar expedition explored Greenland from 1948 to 1951. An Associated Press news dispatch announced on October 26, 1951, months after I had published my analysis of the map, the following discovery of the Victor expedition: 'A French expedition reported that Greenland is really three islands bridged by an ocean...' In a letter to me dated October 22, 1953, Victor said: 'The analysis of our sounding confirms the preliminary announcement that Greenland is really three islands...' "Victor's sounding revealed a passage westward across Greenland, corresponding to a flat area between the mountains which I had pointed out as a strait, dividing the land. They also showed... a large fiord in a location corresponding to [that] on one version of the Zeno map of a fiord marked Ollum Lengri-Lengri, longest of all "In confirming my analysis of the Greenland portion of the Zeno map, Victor accomplished something of magnitude for cartographers, historians and scholars in general: [H]e restored to the Zeno map its original reputation for authenticity... Coming almost as an anticlimax to Victor's confirmation of the accuracy of the Zeno map, a later development strengthened this confirmation. When I asked Victor to explain the presence of a single mountain in the flat area crossing Greenland, he showed me his soundings, which proved the 'mountain' to be an island."(205) Greenland because of the great mass of ice is submerged in the center of the island and is now an island in the form of a reversed letter C []. This does not detract from Victor's findings across the portions of Greenland he explored of which he made seismic soundings. Therefore, every accusation brought by Mewhinney to discredit this map of Greenland fails. Even if Mallery "doctored" the Zeno maps as he charges from which he produced his final map to the nth degree, he could never have known and placed the topography beneath the ice accurately. That would require that the map he platted was accurate. This evidence of the topographic accuracy of the Zeno map and also of its latitude and longitude by Mallery is fully confirmed but Mewhinney says of Mallery "I cannot regard his attempts as anything but self-delusion."(206) Of course, Mewhinney's assiduous omission of the Victor expedition's evidence is undoubtedly more than self-delusion. Again is it possible that Mewhinney left out this categorical contradiction to everything he was presenting regarding the Greenland map? I suggest this is much more than denial and evasion. It is subterfuge on an unprecedented scale. When we turn to Antarctica we again run into the same massive evasion and subterfuge which again makes his evidence a shameful declaration. Mewhinney does mention Mallery's work with respect to the Palmer Peninsula and Queen Maud Land of Antarctica and passes on as if there is nothing on the Piri Réis map Mallery employed which indicates it is an accurate delineation of these regions.(207) Why? What Mewhinney once again failed to inform his readers was that this was one map (not four as Mallery used with Greenland). He also failed to inform them that Mallery brought that old map to the U.S. Navy Hydrographic Office and that the professional cartographers analyzed it. "The Hydrographic Office checked the old map as I suggested and they did much more. They constructed a Mecator chart of the Atlantic Ocean south of 45' north latitude and, bringing the Piri Réis fragment to a common scale with it, placed the Piri Réis coastline on the chart. In general, the two maps were in substantial agreement, particularly in regard to rockbound harbors and headlands. Most of the discrepancies between the old map and the chart can be reasonably attributed to changes in the coastline caused by silt moving down to the coastline from the interior [or, based on Velikovsky's hypothesis, such changes would have been created by the catastrophes he described.] "My associates [at the Hydrographic Office] and I were astonished several times while working on the old map at evidence of a superior level of technical capabilities in remote time. Some of the discrepancies between the old map and modern maps were due to errors on the modern maps. One such case involved two bays on the Piri Réis map in a location where modern maps show land. I persuaded several experts to check the seismic soundings in that location. They found the bays were there. Modern cartographers had erred. The ancient map was accurate!"(208) What Mewhinney has failed to tell us is that Mallery was not the sole person who worked with the Peri Réis map, but that the analysis of that map was carried out by professional cartographers. It was they who came to the conclusion that the derivation of the position and outline of the Palmer-Peninsula was accurate in terms of its cartography and also in terms of its subglacial topography. This evidence that the cartography and subglacial topography of the Palmer Peninsula matched the Piri Réis map topography is the same type Victor presented for the Zeno map of Greenland. Yet in both cases Mewhinney failed to inform his readers of this fundamental contradictory evidence. Can this further omission be a mere coincidence?. And did he believe he could pass off his work as honest scholarship while leaving out such basic evidence? Apparently, he must believe this is so. But again, this is merely subterfuge. What then of Queen Maud Land in Antarctica on the Piri Réis map? What did the Piri Réis map show that Mewhinney was loath to report? Mallery learned of a Norwegian-Britiish-Swedish expedition to Antarctica headed by John Viers in 1949 which had like Victor in Greenland, made a seismic profile of the topography beneath the ice cap of Queen Maud Land. Mallery reports: "Specialists in the science of seismology and I, working together, were able to prove that geographical details on the map agree with that seismic profile: [T]he topography (under the ice) of that part of Queen Maud Land agrees with the outline of the area on the map. The seismic soundings show that islands placed off the coast on the Piri Réis map and bays placed between the islands on the old map agree with the location of the mountain tops that, according to the seismic profile, exist under the ice today; and the bays are in locations where the profile shows below-sea-level areas today." (209) Here once again Mewhinney decided not to confront this fundamental evidence. Thus, three times he omitted the evidence that invalidates what he is advocating. Here is what I.M. Walters of the U.S. Navy Hydrographic Office said of Antarctica and the Piri Réis map: " We have taken the old charts and the new charts that the Hydrographic Office produces today and made comparisons of the sounding of salient peaks and mountains. We have found them to be in astonishing agreement. In this way, we have checked the old work very closely. We put very much confidence in what Captain Mallery has disclosed."(210) This statement was supported by the Reverend Daniel L. Linehan, Director of the Western Observatory of Boston College, who is himself an astronomer and a seismologist, and by the Reverend Francis Heyden, Director of the Georgetown University Observatory in Washington, D.C. who is an astronomer. (211) Linehan after discussing his own seismic studies in Antarctica, stated "Jan Viers" of the Norwegian-Swedish-British Expedition ran quite a [long] seismic line in Queen Maud Land and that seismic line agrees very well, exceptionally well with the maps that Captain Mallery is speaking about".(212) When experts show conclusive evidence that the Piri Réis map of the Palmer Peninsula and Queen Maud Land is correct in terms of its cartographic and topographic features Mewhinney goes into his usual bombastic denial, evasion and subterfuge. Mewhinney then turns to show that Charles Hapgood employed an array of unscholarly methods in his work on the Oronteus Fineus map of Antarctica published in 1531. As with Greenland which is mostly submerged below sea level the same condition also exists with the Antarctic Continent. As Walter Sullivan in 1961 points out about Marie Byrd Land and several other areas, their floors lie "well below the level of the sea even allowing for 'rebound' after removal of the ice"(213) There were several traverses of Antarctica made by groups of seismologists. (214) In spite of this as with Greenland, Hapgood's map, as that of those of Mallery, would never reflect even a semblance of the subglacial topography with all the various manipulative methods ascribed to his work by Mewhinney. It is to these very self-same maps of Antarctica that I.M. Walter, Linehan and Heyden had turned to with respect to the subglacial topography. But once again if this was true could Hapgood fool the professional map makers of its validity of the Cartographic Section of the Strategic Air Command at Westover Air Force Base in Massachusetts? They too examined the Oronteus Fineus map in terms of cartographic features and its topographic features. Here is what the Chief of the section wrote in 1966, which Mewhinney assiduously omitted from his discussion: "It is our opinion that the accuracy of the cartographic features shown on the Oronteus Fineus map (153l) suggest beyond a doubt that it also was compiled from accurate source maps of Antarctica... in this case of the entire continent. Close examination has proved [that] the original source maps must have been compiled at a time when the land mass and inland waterways of the continent were relatively free of ice. THE CONCLUSION IS FURTHER SUPPORTED BY INTERNATIONAL TEAMS IN THEIR MEASUREMENTS OF THE SUBGLACIAL TOPOGRAPHY. [Capitalization added] The comparison also suggests that the original source maps (compiled in antiquity) were prepared when Antarctica was presumably free of ice. The Cordiform Projection used by Oronteus Fineus suggests the use of advanced mathematics.... "We are convinced that the findings made by you [Hapgood] and your associates are valid and that they raise extremely important questions affecting geology and ancient history."(215) Just as David Jolley omitted all this evidence, so too did Mewhinney! "To begin with, Jolley [and Mewhinney] omit... from discussion of the maps any of the facts brought out above. He never mentions that professional cartographers from the U.S. Navy Hydrographic Office, who examined and analyzed the maps, concluded that the Piri Réis map, which shows the Palmer Peninsula and Queen Maud Land, is an accurate depiction of these land areas. Jolley [and Mewhinney have]... also left out of discussion the Norwegian-British-Swedish Expedition to Antarctica, headed by John Viers, that made a seismic study of these regions and proved not only that the topography of the Piri Réis map was accurate, but that in some cases, it was even more accurate than the modern maps of the same areas and that this information was also attested to by the cartographers of the United States Navy. He further omits from his discussion of the Oronteus Fineus map that the cartographers of the Cartographic Section of the Strategic Air Command, U.S. Air Force, wrote, after examination and analysis of this chart: "It is our opinion that the accuracy of the cartographic features shown on the Oronteus Fineus map (1513) suggest[s] beyond a doubt that it was compiled from source maps of Antarctica, but in this case the entire continent [and we] are convinced that the finding b you [Hapgood] and your associates are valid' (Charles Hapgood, Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, revised ed., (NY 1966), p. 224-225). "Jolley [and Mewhinney] also ... [do] not discuss the fact that these cartographers based their conclusion on the accuracy of the Oronteus Fineus map "further supported by the International Geophysical Year teams in their measurements of the subglacial topography."(216) Mewhinney, further omitted the research carried out by Paul Emile Victor's French Polar expedition to Greenland which made seismic soundings of the subglacial topography of Greenland and confirmed that it matched the Zeno map analyzed by Mallery. The subglacial topography of all these maps are correct because the maps themselves are basically valid? As I pointed out above, if these lands were buried beneath immense continental glaciers neither Mallery nor Hapgood's maps with every sin attributed to their construction would never show one iota of agreement with the subglacial topography. But there is a great deal of agreement. Yes, not everything fits, but a Velikovskian catastrophe would change even whole areas of Greenland and Antarctica. Nevertheless, in large measure the subglacial topography does fit the maps which greatly enhances their validity. No matter what artful dodges Mewhinney has offered to deny and evade the validity of these maps, the simple facts is that much of the subglacial topography matches them. There can be no possibility that Hapgood and Mallery or any one else for that matter, could have known and drawn subglacial topographical features on these maps discussed above unless the land was free of ice and the topography could be observed. Are we to assume that Hapgood and Mallery and the compilers of these old maps somehow by the sheerest of coincidences placed subglacial topographic features in the correct places on these maps? This is so bazaar a probability that it boggles the mind. Mewhinney cannot explain away any of this evidence so he denies, evades and offers manipulative, bombastic subterfuge to escape this evidence. It is all dissimilation and legerdemain. Basically, Mewhinney is saying that Mallery fooled the U.S. Navy's professional cartographers, and the topographic evidence of Paul Emile Victor is not valid with respect to the Zeno map of Greenland. But somehow Mewhinney was more astute and could not be fooled. Then the same cartographers were again fooled by the Piri Réis map of the Palmer Peninsula and Queen Maud Land of Antarctica (especially when it was they who analyzed the map) and claimed that both the cartographic and topographic features as analyzed by the Norwegian, British, Swedish expedition were accurate. But Mewhinney was too adroit to be fooled by these facts. Then, of course, the professional cartographers of the U. S. Air force were also fooled by Hapgood and the Oronteus Fineus map when it was also they that went over the ancient map and Hapgood's analysis of it. Surely they had to be fooled by the seismic evidence that conformed with the map as analyzed by the International Geophysical teams during the Geophysical Year. But, of course, none of these experts understands how they had been duped but not Mewhinney. Does Mewhinney think they were all incompetent and could be so easily taken in by fabricated nonsense. Or is Mewhinney the one who presented fabricated illusions to fool his readers? One would have to be blind to be taken in by such a performance. As a final negation of the maps, Mewhinney deals with the Ross Sea sediments to show they cannot be evidence that the temperate material in the ocean oozes off Antarctica during the recent period when temperate river water carried this detritus to the sea. But there is other evidence as well that supports the recent deglaciation of Antarctica presented by Arthur Holmes as presented by Regional Daly who informs us that "Carbon-14 dating has shown that Antarctica's ice is less than 6,000 years old. Holmes writes: 'Algal remains dating at 6,000 B.P. [Before Present] have been found in the latest terminal moraines.'"(217) (Emphasis added) Now there was also another great author who created a map with great detail of an unknown land which unlike Robert Louis Stevenson's map in his book, Treasure Island, which is a children's story, this author's land has a history with a mature theme. The author, a Nobel Laureate for literature, William Faulkner wrote a cycle of novels about Yoknapatawpha County in Mississippi. Although there are imaginary topographic land- marks in this region there is also of greater importance the topography he presented of human character. Therein he exposed the hatred, violence, cruelty that lies in the heart of humanity along with the courage, kindness and sacrifice that is the opposite side of the coin. What in large measure Faulkner was concerned with is human cruelty and madness found at the heart of certain people, especially the established gentry and those who aspired to become gentry. In his map of humanity he explored the violence and deep hatred that lay at the core of people who felt the need to act out abusive behavior on others they perceived as beneath contempt and below their station in life. This, in fact, is what generations of anti-Velikovskians have been doing such as Carl Sagan, Henry H. Bauer and others. But in order to carry out their assaults they have also exposed themselves as well. The basis of all their actions is precisely what we find at the heart of Mewhinney's critique bombastic denial, evasion and subterfuge, the same behavior that has always plagued Velikovsky's critics. But beneath the facade of Mewhinney's openness he was unable to restrain his anger when he labeled my reading as "abnormal psychology." Here he betrays the entire objectivity of his approach to my work because this remark has no place in any balanced or objective discussion of the merits of my work.(218) That is his map, his land. Mewhinney has claimed in his introductory remarks that his criticisms were not presented "with the hope of dissuading Velikovskians from their beliefs. The prospects for doing so are essentially nil. The most one can hope for is to temporarily cause them some embarrassment."(219) To this I would respond, "look at your own behavior, are you not embarrassed by such insincere and manipulative dissimulation?" This I doubt because Mewhinney as with all that is exposed of his own actions and work above, has a very simple mechanism which he can answer as was constantly done by evasion, denial and subterfuge. As Thomas Jefferson wrote: "He who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and third time, till at length, it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world believing him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good dispositions." (Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 19, 1985) It is not only Mewhinney's criticisms that are his ethical problem but the fact that his criticisms have so little to do with reality and reflect more the rage he feels toward Velikovsky and those of us who support Velikovsky's thesis. In this respect he is no different than the long ignominious line of Velikovsky's critics who, as Irving Wolfe, pointed out do what they do in a "Rage to Deny"(220) recent global catastrophism. Mewhinney's supporters may shout foul because I have not dealt with every issue he has raised. But I would ask them was it fair or foul for Mewhinney to evade so much of my own evidence especially with respect to ice cores, his strongest argument. This evidence he has steadfastly evaded. Furthermore, Mewhinney promises more along these lines. In order to answer all his work, I would be tied down for years and have to devote an inordinate amount of effort, producing several issues of this journal to deal with Mewhinney who characterizes my reading as "Abnormal psychology". Mewhinney's paper is a not very subtle piece of manipulation which makes a whole series of false accusations. His private rage directed at those of us who support Velikovsky cannot be hidden and like nearly all those who have preceded him his behavior exhibits the same dismal symptoms critics like Carl Sagan used to defame Velikovsky. The behavior of Velikovsky's critics from the start of the Velikovsky Affair has never changed. After over half a century the third generation are at it, as vile and enraged as ever. And so the Velikovsky Affair rolls on. The tragic and pathetic behavior of Velikovsky's and our critics is as virulent today as it was 50 years ago. PART VII ELLENBERGER AND THE INTERNET DEBUNKERS Closely associated with Mewhinney and behind many of the present-day efforts to destroy Velikovsky and those of us who stand by his work is a former Velikovskian, C. Leroy Ellenberger, and a group of Internet debunkers. In a sense he and they represent the epitome of enraged anti-Velikovskian thought and behavior today. Many of us in the Velikovsky movement have long been familiar with his and their methods of trying to completely demolish anything and everything positive related to Velikovsky. He and they maintain that they are only acting as objective, honest critics and are only working in the best interests of science an truth, with diligence employing ethical scholarship. But this is directly denied by his and their behavior when they perceive that no one expose their less public expressions. Typical of this, are the many private communications to Velikovskians with which Ellenberger has give free reign to vent his anger for several years. The figure below is a modest sample of the level of communication Ellenberger in his more candid moments has presented as part of his criticisms. In spite of the low level of this material and as distasteful as it is to present in this journal, it is important as a matter of the history of the Velikovsky Affair that it be documented for future generations that may investigate these matters. Having warned the reader of this, Ellenberger is now exposed for all to see. The character of these communications by Ellenberger is nothing less than obscenity, the obscene thoughts of a man out of control. These kinds of communications are not only crude, but indicate that Ellenberger is incapable of maintaining his equilibrium when dealing with Velikovskians. In fact, he has sent such missives in postcard form even to some of us at our places of employment where colleagues could see them. Naturally no one with any sense of decency who receives such materials will have anything to do with one so completely out of touch with normal behavior. Yet some of those who have been closely associated with Ellenberger such as Henry H. Bauer, Sean Mewhinney and those associated with Ellenberger's efforts on the Internet have never published a word of public condemnation regarding this behavior. Their silence on this matter, I regard as a tacit approval of his hurling filth at Velikovsky and at us. On this matter they have been decidedly quiet. When I sent copies of Ellenberger's cards to Michael Schermer, the Editor-in-chief of Skeptic Magazine (not the Skeptical Inquirer) who had been involved in communications with and had published Ellenberger's criticisms, he phoned me to ask what was wrong with Leroy? I told him I don't like to talk about people behind their backs, but that he could plainly see, Ellenberger has a serious problem with anger. His coarse and highly inappropriate behavior has made Ellenberger persona non grata to me and several others in the Velikovsky movement. Others however, who have never been the target of his abusive communications have not understood our strong determination to have nothing to do with Ellenberger, (not because of his criticisms but because of his obscene communications). They think it is only right for us to continue to deal with him in spite of these outrageous insults. They really remind me of a principal I once served under at a technical school where I first worked during my early teaching career. One particular teenager was disrupting one class repeatedly and flinging filthy language at me. When all my efforts failed to get him to control himself, in exasperation, I took the pupil to the dean who said several other teachers had the same problem, but that only the principal could expel the boy and he would not. Out of desperation, I decided to take the pupil to the principal and confront him with the obscenities I and others were enduring while attempting to teach our classes. He informed me; We all have to learn to get along together and that this behavior was not really all that disruptive or important. I was very hurt by his clear indifference and lack of appropriate action to resolve this matter. Of course the boy, who felt he had gotten away with it made my classroom more difficult than ever. But after about three weeks, he stopped coming to class and the learning curve as well as my emotional equilibrium improved. I anticipated that he would, nevertheless, return to class and later spoke with one of my colleagues who shared the same experience with the boy. "Didn't you know," he told me, "the principal expelled him a few weeks ago." When I breathed a sigh of relief saying the principal had finally come to his senses, my associate informed me this was in no way the case. Apparently, he told me, the principal had met the boy in the school yard one morning while coming into the building and had innocently asked in a friendly way how he was getting along with his teachers and Mr. Ginenthal. The boy replied to the principal that he could "go-expletive deleted-himself." The principal somehow did not feel that this was unimportant and immediately went to his office, had the school secretary pull the boy's file and expelled him from school that day. What was perfectly fine, in the mind of that principal, for his staff to endure day after day in class he was unwilling to endure for a brief moment outside the school. As long as he was not the one being abused it was perfectly fine. Those who ask us (who have been the long-term target of Ellenberger's obscenities) to deal with him and communicate with him are no different than that principal. By their lack of understanding of how such behavior affects the feelings of those on the receiving end of that behavior, they show a very poor regard for us. They, like that principal, would never tolerate such "mean and miserable" actions enacted on themselves by Ellenberger or anyone else. As long as it is not they who are being hurt by his outrageous conduct they cannot feel what such deliberate assaults evoke, especially when the nastiness is interlaced with criticisms. Never having walked in our shoes they can be quite charitable toward Ellenberger, and then condemn us for having nothing to do with someone who gets pleasure out of inflicting personal insults upon us when presenting criticisms in his private communications. As Mark Twain said in his Autobiography, Volume II, page 7: "Of all the creatures that were made he [man] is the most detestable. Of the entire brood he is the only one the solitary one that possesses malice. That is the basest of all instincts, passions, vices the most hateful.... He is the only creature that inflicts pain for sport, knowing it to be pain.... Also in all the list he is the only creature that has a nasty mind." This is the characteristic of nearly all of Velikovsky's critics from the beginning. Ellenberger, Mewhinney and their associates on the Internet are determined to inflict as much pain on us knowing it to be pain. It is difficult, under such circumstances for us to not respond in like manner, though we try. Of course, in his public communications Ellenberger never informs his readers that when he is done he will send such disgusting communications to those bad Velikovskians. Were he to do so his objectivity would quickly come into question and his readers would understand that he is not interested in "science" nor "scholarship" nor "a search for the truth". They would rather quickly learn that he is really interested in inflicting pain on those of us with whom he disagrees. That is the entire nature of such communications. Years later when I was involved in teaching "emotionally disturbed" children, I learned to distinguish between what my pupils were saying by the "affect" of their communication. I discounted their words, such as "I've learned a lot and I will change" when expressed without feeling "the affect" between when they told me something similar, but with feeling behind it I did listen, because at those moments their thoughts and feelings were together and they were speaking "their truth" from the depths of their being. The truth that constantly comes from Ellenberger where what he says is connected to his feelings occurs when he is attempting to inflict pain on someone. I think there is nothing wrong with expressing oneself with passion because the passion proves that what is being communicated is real. What I denounce with the firmest resolve is what Ellenberger does vent rage as a means of attempting to control us and to cower us by that rage. If he thinks our silence toward him is a sign of his having overawed us, he is profoundly out of touch with what is going on. The truth is that decent people know that to be involved with Ellenberger's scientific criticisms they ultimately will be personally assaulted by Ellenberger's anger if he finds that that is a way to win the argument. No one wants or needs that. In order to make clear my resolve not to be associated with Ellenberger because of his vile behavior, I and Clark Whelton some years ago decided not to attend the Canadian Society for Interdisciplinary Studies summer conference, to which Milton Zysman had invited Ellenberger and paid the costs for his attendance at which conference he was to speak. Learning of my refusal to take part in such a gathering, Ellenberger, apparently feeling he had frightened me off, wrote one of his postcards to me saying that if I ever came to a meeting where he attended he would "tear me to pieces." [Ellenberger to Ginenthal personal communication] Thus, in his communication, he said he would "tear me to pieces" while elsewhere below he threatened me with the words, "How will you [Ginenthal] face eternity. See figure below. A year or so later Professor Lewis M. Greenberg organized a summer conference in Deerfield Beach, Florida and again Ellenberger threatened me with "See you in FLA in July, S.F.B! No lie, Pilgrim. Prepare to me[et] your vanquisher!" See figure above. This unmitigated attempt at intimidation failed. I did go to Florida while Ellenberger failed to show up. But his emotional violence reinforced my desire not to attend any function at which he would also attend. Those who don't understand my feelings on this matter I fear will never understand. However, knowing that I would attend the KRONIA group conference held in Portland, Oregon to celebrate the Velikovsky Centennial, Ellenberger made arrangements with Skeptic Magazine to attend as a reporter, correspondent and questioner from the audience. This gathering was one of many convocations organized to celebrate the life and work of Immanuel Velikovsky. Ellenberger had somehow convinced Michael Schermer, Skeptic Magazine's editor that as a former Velikovskian he was fully knowledgeable of the matters to be discussed there, and objective about the position of those who would speak. I was one whom Ellenberger threatened, and Professor Lynn E. Rose was another whom Ellenberger was later to call a "putz". This would be similar to asking a member of the KKK to report objectively on the merits of the life and work of Martin Luther King, Jr. I therefore informed David Talbott the organizer of that conference, that as an editor of a journal devoted to exploring the work of Velikovsky, I could not attend a centennial celebration of Velikovsky with Ellenberger whose abusive behavior in his correspondence was an insult to Velikovsky, and those of us associated with his work. Talbott told me that I was not alone in the stand I was taking. Several others also felt it was an insult to have a deeply biased hateful correspondent and questioner who had overstepped the bounds of decency, attend the meeting, and attack us with obscenities thereafter. Talbott asked if I minded attending with Henry H. Bauer, an severe critic of Velikovsky who would also speak. Although I harbor an extremely negative view of Bauer's anti-Velikovskian work,(221) I found his work much less vitriolic and abusive than that of Ellenberger and had no qualms regarding his attendance. Talbott attempted to dissuade the Skeptic from sending Ellenberger to the conference, saying anyone other than Ellenberger would be welcome. But the desire was to create the impression that Velikovskians are suppressors of critics, and Ellenberger, in spite of being fully aware that he would not be admitted to the gathering, felt that he could pull off a coup by nevertheless coming and then claiming we were suppressors, so he came to do just that. Thereafter he wrote an article in DIO, a journal, edited by Dennis Rawlins where he was to present the case that he was banned because Velikovskians were suppressors. I therefore sent some of Ellenberger's communications to Rawlins to make him aware that beneath Ellenberger's facade of objectivity, was a deeply angry and extremely biased correspondent. The postcards made it clear to Rawlins that Ellenberger was out to inflict damage on the Velikovskians. As editor and publisher of that journal, he had prima facie evidence of the extremity of Ellenberger's vindictive attitude towards me, Rose and others. It was his editorial obligation to make sure that in terms of fairness Ellenberger's obscene communications be presented as well as his accusations. Yes, Ellenberger was banned. But this fact was not the real truth. As William Blake in The Smile, stanza 3, line 53 explains: "A truth told with bad intent Beats all the lies you can invent." By suppressing the evidence of Ellenberger's obscene communications, Rawlin's journal failed to be objective, but was subjective and deeply biased and also attempted to inflict a wound on us. The bad intent of his actions was undeniable. He held in his hands evidence that would cause any decent editor to either withdraw the story or allow the accused side to answer in the same journal. But Rawlins was perfectly willing to propagate one side of the issue at the expense of any opposing views. In spite of this, Rawlins went forward with the article. When I telephoned him to request that I be permitted to respond in his journal to the serious charges being presented, he called me a "suppressor" and said he would not permit me or anyone charged to write a reply in his journal. When I asked how his readers would learn about the other side he said he would inform them where they could write to hear the other side of the matter. This rather settled matters as far as he was concerned. Of course, Ellenberger's obscenities were never exposed to DIO's readers nor is there any hope at all that this will ever be presented. Nevertheless, I did want to obtain the issue of that journal in which the article would appear and wrote to ask Rawlins to inform one of the cost to order that particular issue. To my surprise there was no response and I wrote a second letter requesting billing data to obtain that issue; again no response. After writing four or five additional letters of request and receiving no reply, it became clear that Rawlins was not only unwilling to allow me to respond to the serious charges in his journal but he was determined that I not even be allowed to see what had been written about me and others. Although my letters to him were not sent certified mail and my allegations in this respect are now based solely on my word, I do have copies of the letters in my possession. Whatever reason Rawlins has for refusing to sell his journal to me is simply beyond understanding or perhaps, there is another reason. Fortunately, Ev Cochrane, the editor of AEON had received an issue and after a time kindly sent me a photocopy of Ellenberger's article. What was most interesting was that I realized why Rawlins did not wish me to see what he had done. Rawlins placed my address in Cochrane's issue, though I cannot be sure it existed in the other issues, buried deep among the footnotes in the latter part of the article. This maneuver was quite successful in its aim. Not one subscriber of DIO has in over two years made any inquiry to this journal to learn about the other side. Thus, in the journal where we are accused of suppression our defense has never appeared and its readers know nothing of Ellenberger's obscene communications. However, this journal extends an offer to Dennis Rawlins to explain in this journal why he will not allow our response to be published in his own, or why he has refused to sell me the issue in which I am incriminated. As one can see The Velikovskian is not afraid to have Rawlins reply here while he has suppressed what we wish to communicate to his readers in his publication about the serious accusation presented there. Ellenberger has now enlisted himself with a group of debunkers on the Internet who are in the vanguard of attacking new theories that undermine the status quo of the scientific establishment's theoretical systems. Their methods of attack, as we will see are quite similar to those employed by Ellenberger, namely criticisms liberally salted with ad hominem comments. Richard Milton, a freelance, science writer and reporter who has been briefly involved with one of these groups has discovered the great damage that they attempt to inflict on anyone, professional scientist to amateur scientist and their anti-establishment ideas. In his book, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, he devotes a few pages to such groups who have set themselves up as the defenders of good science as opposed to those who would introduce new scientific concepts which to them must be bad science. "One group of Darwinian vigilantes who are found regularly on the Internet are referred to and, indeed, proudly refer to themselves, in Internet jargon, as 'howler monkeys.' Readers will recall that howler monkeys gather in groups; have very loud voices that can carry as much as two or three miles; and enforce the boundaries of their territory by engaging in shouting matches with their enemies. Howlers also drive away their enemies by hurling handfuls of their own excrement at them. "The effects of the howler monkeys of the Internet are profoundly damaging to academic freedom of expression, whoever their current victim happens to be. In 1996, for instance, Dr. Peter Nyikos, Professor of Mathematics at the University of South Carolina, was rash enough to post some highly perceptive observations regarding the attempts by 'cladists' to draw up family trees of ancestors and descendants along Darwinian lines. Nyikos, who is not a creationist, infuriated Internet Darwinists by pointing out that devotees of cladistics actually use a language with which creationists should be quite comfortable. "Despite his academic standing, Nyikos was not even accorded the civility of a hearing. He was immediately barraged with abuse and buried under tons of technical 'objections' which kept him busy and unable to discuss publicly the flaws in Darwinism. "The fact that Nyikos is not a creationist but an evolutionist himself does not save him from such treatment. Indeed, Dr. Nyikos told me, 'even fellow believers in evolution, like myself, get flamed without mercy if they aren't good 'team players' for the "howler monkey" side. "Needless to say, if dissenting senior academics and scientists get this kind of treatment on the Internet, outsiders like myself and other non-academic critics are routinely howled down without even a pretense of courtesy an unexpected outcome of the information super highway that many hoped would bring about global freedom of expression, led by the example of the academic community. "It would be encouraging to think that the forces of academic censorship and the suppression of dissent were a thing of the past in today's open, multi-media communications-linked world. Sadly, the malign influence of those who appoint themselves scientific vigilantes is becoming, if anything, even more widespread."(222) I had no knowledge (at the time I too became involved with Ellenberger and his associates on the Internet) of the nature of their behavior which was quite foolish on my part. In the discussion group I raised the point that on Mars, in the Hellas basin there was no evidence of craters, although the source I cited said it was extremely unlikely that such a large region should not be impacted. Thus, if Mars' topography was billions of years old this would not be the case. Billions of years of erosion should have removed ancient craters. In response, a Mr. Tim Thompson, who holds a responsible position at NASA in California, wrote that the dust storms that cover Mars generally begin in that basin and therefore, there was nothing anomalous about this basin's lack of craters. His response made it clear he had little or no respect for what I had said nor for me as well. Foolishly, I pointed out to him and the Internet group that there are well observed river valleys in the Hellas basin and if wind erosion removed the ancient craters, because, as Thompson claimed, dust storms start there and are most frequent there, they should also have removed these supposedly ancient river valleys as well. In answer to this I was told to see a "good shrink."(223) This made it quite clear to me that any debate or discussion with these defenders of the establishment was as with Ellenberger an exercise in futility and ignominy. It is to this group with its hostility toward new ideas and advocates of new ideas that Ellenberger has enlisted himself in his determination to discredit Velikovsky and those of us involved with Velikovsky's ideas. As his communications outlined above indicate, no prisoners are to be taken. What clearly infuriates Ellenberger most is that I have sometimes responded in The Velikovskian to some of his or his associates' comments. For example in Vol IV, No. 2, I criticized Henry Bauer's work [pp 77-81] and Ellenberger's [pp 93-95]. Soon after the issue was released, I received phone messages from Dr. Robert Talbott and Professor Lewis M. Greenberg to ask me what I had done to inflame Ellenberger. I called these gentlemen back and told them about what I had written and asked what caused them to notify me about this matter? Each reported the same story; they had received angry phone messages from Ellenberger on their answering machines in which he flamed me and asked them why they allowed their names to be associated with this journal as editors. That is, behind my back Ellenberger had instigated a move to harm this journal and destroy cordial relationships I had with two men I greatly respect. This once again indicates his rage toward me and this journal and his incapacity to refrain from acting out his rage on those of us he perceives as his enemies, which we are not. This is yet another of Ellenberger's actions that are indefensible. Related to this is his constant barrage of E-mail messages to me and others in which he raises various and sundry criticisms laced liberally with insulting barbs. One of his threats is that he or Mewhinney or an Internet associate are going to answer our work on the Internet, with the implication that this will tear us and our work to pieces. These criticisms are just like that exhibited above by Mewhinney. They are full of bombastic denial, evasion and subterfuge and liberally laced with demeaning and degrading comments about us and our research. Ellenberger and his Internet group regard anyone with whom they strongly disagree in the Velikovsky movement as not deserving of anything resembling courtesy or respect. Some of them do point out that they at least never sink to that level of ad hominem. But to be involved with these individuals one is also subjected to their colleagues' taunts, jibes, smears, assaults and general mayhem who inject themselves into the discussion. In this, just as with Ellenberger, one doesn't get criticism without a slew of nasty remarks. Those few in this group who refrain from such comments never chastize their associates for such behavior and so they have set up their rivals in their discourse such that while they engage him in debate, the others pour venom on the outsider. Decent people understand what is taking place rather quickly. If they truly allowed an environment to exist aimed at exploration and discussion of dissonant scientific viewpoints instead of one created for the vilification and humiliation of outsiders, none of these practices would be tolerated. So those in this group who regard their lack of ad hominem as proof of their honesty are fooling no one. Their willingness to be engaged with others who act so repugnantly along side of them indicates the real character of their motivations. Ellenberger, in his desire to humiliate us, has decided to inflict himself not only upon me, but on several other supporters of Velikovsky, with an endless stream of criticisms liberally coated with obscene or inappropriate ad hominem remarks. Person after person subjected to his intrusions have repeatedly requested that he stop communicating with them. Among these are Vine Deloria, Professor of History at the University of Colorado. William Mullen, Classics Professor at Bard College, Dr. Robert Talbott, Professor of Physics, retired. Duardu Cardona, editor of AEON and Wade Frazier who though not a Velikovskian is appalled by the treatment accorded to him and to us by Velikovsky's critics and there are several others. Once Ellenberger determines anyone is in need of his insights into Velikovsky or supporters of Velikovsky, he will flood them with his vituperative criticism, whether they request it or not. And when they do earnestly request he halt his communications, he simply harasses them with further E-mail messages. One can only imagine the depth of his rage at Velikovsky and at us to be so engrossed in this personal campaign of victimization. If one reads his communications to me above one will find him addressing me as a "Golem". This term comes from a Jewish legend being "a figure constructed to represent a human being and endowed with life, by human agency; hence... an automation, a blockhead." (224) A Golem is not really a human being and thus, may be subjected to the vilest and crudest of treatment. This is how Ellenberger and his new associates on the Internet have conducted themselves toward us. On the other hand, Ellenberger in one of his communications has requested that I behave like a "mensch". A "mensch" is also of Jewish lineage referring to a person who behaves with "great decency" and "humanity" toward others. Ellenberger apparently believes he understands the value of "menschlichkeit humanity" and "great decency", but he understands nothing of this and will respond to this as well with his special form of "menschlichkeit." Whatever that response is it will not remain rational nor "menschlich" for very long, if at all. What will Ellenberger do now, draw new obscenities about me or us to send to the world, write a billion enraged E-mail letters to everyone for years to come, fling at us all the angry and loathsome names he can think of? Ellenberger must, of course, do something to retaliate, perhaps even with more vileness. Whatever antics he turns to in his arsenal of revenge, should surprise no one. It is clear that Ellenberger himself doesn't care; as Joel Canepa, a lawyer who likes Ellenberger and has represented him in court, told me over dinner, a year or so ago. He related a telephone conversation he had with Leroy who told me that he thought that Henrietta Lo's article on Velikovsky about China in the Skeptical Inquirer was simply miserable but then touted it to the world in AEON later as if it was worthy criticism deserving of consideration. As Canepa said "Leroy just doesn't care." To which I would add he exhibits no evidence of caring or "menschlichkeit" and deserves only silence. We have and probably will continue to be afflicted by his and Mewhinney's and his Internet associates' outrageous and insufferable behavior, but I will have nothing to do any longer with him, or some of his close associates who regard us as "Golem," upon whom they feel they have an obligation to inflict their personal abuse. Their actions are more reminiscent of the "brown shirts" who acted out their own rage in the political arena of Nazi Germany. These "Sturmabteilung" or "Storm Troppers" were used at Nazi mass meetings to beat up anyone who challenged their authority, just as Ellenberger and his associates do on the Internet. There is far too little kindness in the world to be associated with people who have such an agenda and can act on it with such alacrity and enthusiasm. We are human beings, not golem, but that thought seems never to have occurred to these people. With all of Ellenberger's insulting comments and behavior, with Sean Mewhinney calling my reading "abnormal psychology," with Tim Thompson suggesting I see a "good shrink," I feel it not amiss to suggest that they and their associates have their hearts as well as their heads examined by a good ethicist. Involvement with such people is crawling into a "Cess Pool." As H.M. Tomlinson said, "Bad and indifferent criticism of books is just as serious as a city's careless drainage." [H.M. Tomlinson, Between the Lines, (1930)] As disagreeable as all this has been for me to write and as distasteful as it must be for many of our subscribers to read, it is nevertheless important that this new ugly phase of the Velikovsky Affair be presented. In time perhaps sociologists and psychologists as well as historians of science may decide to investigate this sorry and sordid episode of the Velikovsky Affair. As one can see its demeanor never changes. Those who have employed these mendacious approaches to Velikovsky and to us will continue to do so. The reason for this is that propaganda works. Of course, only those who hear their side may be influenced but decent people will see through their indecent behavior. Meanwhile, the research into Velikovskian ideas and evidence will progress. This they cannot stop. Part of their aim, of course, is to divert us from this research and to become enmeshed and embroiled with them. That too will fail. They cannot control the future and are not the future. As I said once before citing William Faulkner's Nobel address that if Velikovskianism is able to endure a long period of vilification, misrepresentation, and denial, it may in the future prevail. We are certainly still in the throes of the Velikovsky Affair. For fifty years scientists, academics and science writers have each attempted to annihilate the name and work of Immanuel Velikovsky because of their great uniformitarian biases. Like all the rest this new generation of destroyers will continue their work of devastation ad nauseam. As Velikovsky wrote a quarter of a century ago: "Those who prefer name calling to argument, wit to deliberation, or those who point a triumphant finger at some detail that they misinterpret, yet claim that my entire work ought to collapse, and boast of their own exclusiveness as a cast of specialists... - are not first in their art. I shall quote Giordano Bruno, and one of the organizers of this symposium... well familiar with Bruno's description of his contemporaries used to conduct a dispute: "'With a sneer, a smile, a certain discrete malice, that which they have not succeeded in proving by argument - nor indeed can be understood by themselves nevertheless by these tricks of courteous disdain they pretend to have proven, endeavoring not only to conceal their own patently obvious ignorance but to cast it on to the back of their adversary. For they dispute not in order to find or even to seek truth, but for victory, and to appear the more learned and strenuous upholders of a contrary opinion. Such persons should be avoided by all who have not a good breastplate of patience.'"(225) In this respect Velikovsky was a very great man. As Elbert Hubbard wrote: "The man who is anybody and who does anything is surely going to be criticized, vilified and misunderstood. This is part of the penalty for greatness, and every great man understands it; and understands too, that it is no proof of greatness. The final proof of greatness lies in being able to endure contumely without resentment." In this respect, Velikovsky has been ideal. His critics have been the antithesis to his decency. As Wentworth Dillion said: "Immodest words admit of no defense, For want of decency is want of sense."(226) 1. Mewhinney "Minds in Ablation," Part 1 "Ice Cores and Ideology," page 2. The pagination is set in the papers of Mewhinney by me. Hence forth Minds In Ablation will be "Minds", pt 1.p. 2. Sean Mewhinney, "Ice Cores and Common Sense, Part I" Catastrophism And Ancient History (Jan. 1990) pp. 5-33; and "Ice Cores and Common Sense, Part II", Catastrophism And Ancient History (July 1990), pp. 117-146 3. C. Leroy Ellenberger, "Still Facing many Problems, Part I" KRONOS, Vol X, No. I, (Fall 1984), pp. 97-102 4. Charles Ginenthal, Ice Core Evidence," (henceforth "ICE") The Velikovskian, Vol II, No. 4 (1994), pp. 53-90 plus a 3 page "Addenda" at the end unpaginated 5. E-Mail communication 6. Sean Mewhinney, j"Ice Cores and Common Sense, Part I,"Catastrophism And Ancient History, Vol XII, Part 1, (Jan 1990), pp. 5-6: see also Leroy Ellenberger, "Still Facing Many Problems, Part I," KRONOS, Vol X, No. 1, (1984), p. 97 7. I. Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision, (NY 1950), pp. 91-92 8. Ibid., p. 51 9. Ibid., pp. 67ff 10. I. Velikovsky, Earth in Upheaval, (NY 1955), p. 174 11. Fred Hall, "Ice Cores Not That Simple," AEON, Vol. II, No. 1, (1984), p. 119 12. Ginenthal "ICE" p. 63 13. ibid., pp. 63-64 14. Zbigniew Jaworowski, "Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase," 21st Century, (Spring 1997), pp. 44-45 15. Mewhinney, "Common Sense... Part I," op cit., pp. 10-11 16. ibid., p. 12 17. Ellenberger "Still Facing Many Problems part I," op. cit., p. 98 18. M.G.L. Baillie, "Hints that Cometary Debris Played Some role in Several Tree-Ring Dated Environmental Downturns in the Bronze Age," Natural Catastrophes during Bronze Age Civilization, Benny J. Peiser, Trevor Palmer, Mark E. Bailey eds., (Oxford, Eng. 1998), p. 109 19. Ginenthal, "Ice Cores Evidence," op. cit., pp. 69-70 20. Mewhinney, "Common Sense Part II", op. cit., p. 141 21. ibid., pp. 141-142 22. ibid., p. 142 23. Ibid. 24. Ibid. 25. Ginenthal, "Ice Core Evidence." op. cit., first page of ADDENDA was not paginated. Material in the ADDENDA will be paginated as first, second, third page 26. Ibid. 27. Ibid. 28. Ginenthal, "Ice Core Evidence," ; loc cit 29. Ibid. 30. Ibid. 31. ibid., p. 88 32. Ibid., p. 89 33. Clyde Orr, Jr., Between the Earth and Space (NY 1961) p. 157 34. Charles Ginenthal, The Extinction of the Mammoth, (N.Y. 1997), p. 286 35. Ibid., p. 186 36. Ibid., p. 265 37. Gerald Bend, et al, "Evidence of massive discharges of icebergs into the North Atlantic Ocean during the last glacial period" Nature. Vol 360, (Nov 19, 1992) p. 245 38. Donald K. Grayson, The Desert's Past, (Washington and London 1993) pp. 91-92 39. G. Landmann, et al., Paleogeorg. Paleoclimat. Paleoecology. Vol. 122, p. 107 40. Zbigniew Jaworowski, "Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase," 21st Century, (Spring 1997), p. 43 41. Baillie, "Hints that Cometary Debris,...," op. cit., pp. 112-113 42. Mewhinney "Common Sense Part II," op. cit., p. 143 43. Burt Avedon, "Plane Search on the Greenland Ice Cap", The Explorers Journal, Vol 65, No2, (June 1987), p. 60 44. Ibid., p. 62 45. ibid., p. 63 46. ibid. 47. ibid., p. 60 48. Ibid. 49. Ibid., p.63 50. B. Fristrup, The Greenland Ice cap (Seattle WA 1966), p. 234 51. David hayes, The Last Squadron, (NY 1994), p. 83 52. Ibid., p. 101 53. Ibid., p. 136 54. ibid., p. 164 55. Ginenthal "ICE," op. cit., p. 88 56. Mewhinney, "Common Sense. Part I", op.cit., pp. 25-27 57. Jaworowski, 21st Century op. cit., p. 45 58. Zbigneiw Jaworowski, Tom Segalstad, Nobuo Ono, "Do Glaciers Tell a True Atmospheric CO2 Story? Prepublication manuscript accepted for publication in the journal,The Science of the Total Environment (Aug 18 1991), p.55 59. S. Mewhinney "Saturn and The Flood: The Ice-Core Evidence" AEON, Vol V, No. 2 (April 1998), pp. 38-41 60. For a good overview see Lynn E. Rose, "the Milankovitch Theory of the Ice Ages," KRONOS Vol XII, No. 2, (Spring 1987) 61. Robert Claiborne, Climate, Man and History, (NY 1970), p. 117 62. ibid. pp. 119-120 63. ibid., pp. 121-122 64. ibid., pp. 122-123: see also Charles Ginenthal, The Extinction of the Mammoth; The Velikovskian Vol III, Nos. 2-3 (1997) pp. 252-263 which shows modern evidence still shows an Ice Age based on Milankovich cycles is without support 65. ibid., pp. 123-124 66. ibid., p. 124 67. ibid., p. 140 68. Mewhinney, "Minds" Part I, p. 4; (the pagination used is that of the form of Mewhinney's paper circulated by Leroy Ellenberger upon which I have placed page numbers 69. Ginenthal, "ICE", op. cit., p. 58 70. Mewhinney, "Minds", op. cit., p. 5 71. Walter S. Broecker, "Upset for Milankovitch Theory." Nature, Vol 359, (Oct 29, 1992), p. 779 72. Richard A. Kerr, "second clock Supports Orbital Pacing of the Ice Ages" Science, Vol 276, (May 2, 1997), p. 680 73. K.R. Ludwig et al., "Last interglacial in Devils Hole." Nature, Vol 362, (April 15, 1993), p. 596 74. Broecker, "Upset for Milankovitch theory," op. cit., p. 780 75. Mewhinney "Minds" op. cit. p.5 76. Kerr, "Second Clock Supports Orbital Pacing of the Ice Ages," op. cit., p. 680 77. R. Lawrence Edwards. H. Cheng, M.T. Murrell, S.J. Goldstein, "Protactinum - 231 Dating of Carbonates by Thermal Ionization Mass spectrometry: Implications for Quaternary Climate Change" Science, Vol 276, (May 2, 1997) p. 785 78. ibid., pp. 782-785 79. Mewhinney, "Minds", op.cit., p. 5 80. Mewhinney, Minds op. cit., p. 4 81. Isaac J. W inograd, Jurate M. Landwehr, Kenneth R. Ludwig, Tyler B. Copen, Alan C. Riggs, "Duration and Structure of the Past Four Interglacials" Quaternary Research, Vol 48, (1997), p. 145 82. Landwehr, Winograd, Copen, "No Verification of Milankovitch," op. cit., p. 594 83. Tjeed H. Van Andel, New Views of an Old Plant, 2 ed., (Cambridge, Eng 1994), p. 97 84. Lynn E. Rose, "the Milankovitch Theory of the Ice Ages", KRONOS, Vol XII, No. 2, (Spring 1987), p. 67 85. Robert Kunzig, "Ice Cycles," Discover, (May 1989), p. 78 86. Immanuel Velikovsky, Earth in Upheaval, (NY 1955), p. 124 87. J.E. Joyce, R.C. Tjalsma, J. M. Prutzman, "High-resolution plankaic stable isotope record and spectral analysis for the last 5.35 M.Y.: ocean drilling program site 625 northeast Gulf of Mexico," Paleoceanography, Vol 5, (1990), pp. 507-529 88. D.E. Krantz, "A Chronology of Sea Level Fluctuations" the U.S. Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain record," Quaternary Science Reviews, Vol 10, (1991), pp. 163-174 89. Isaac Winograd, Zjarate Maciunas Landwehr, "A Response To Milankovitch Theory Viewed From Devils Hole by J. Imbrie, A.C. Mix and D. G. Martinson," U.S. Geological Survey: Open-File Report 93-357, (Reston VA 1993), p.5 90. Sir Fred Hoyle, Ice, (NY 1981), p. 70 91. Walter S. Broecker, GSA Today, (May 1997), pp. 4-5 92. ibid., p. 6 93. Hoyle, Ice, op. cit., 65 94. Arthur Koestler, The Sleepwalkers, (N.Y. 1963), p. 69 95. Ibid. 96. Charles Ginenthal The Extinction of the Mammoth (NY 1997), pp. 202-250 97. C.E.P. Brooks Climate Through the Ages, 2ed. (NY 1949) p. 376 98. Clyde Orr, Jr., Between Earth and Space. (NY 1961) p. 161 99. Mewhinney, "Minds", Part II, p. 12 100. Ibid. 101. ibid., p. 13 102. Clyde Orr, Jr., Between Earth and Sky op. cit., p. 161 103. Brooks, Climate Through the Ages op. cit., p.297 104. William K. Steven, "Dead Trees and Shriveling Glaciers, as Alaska Melts," The New York Times (Tuesday, Aug. 18, 1998), pp. F1-F5 105. Borisov, Can Man Change the Climate?, op. cit., pp. 63-64 106. ibid., p. 37 107. H.H. Lamb, Climate, History and the World, (London 1982), p. 120 108. A.J. Sutcliffe, On the Track of Ice Age Mammals, (Cambridge Mass, 1985), p.22 109. Mewhinney, "Minds" op.cit., p. 10 110. Brooks, Climate Through the Ages, op. cit., p. 142 111. Charlesworth, The Quaternary Era, Vol II, op. cit. p. 1483-1484 112. Mewhinney "Minds", op. cit., p. 12 113. Ronald Bailey, Eco-Scam (N.Y.1993), p. 145 114. Ibid. 115. Funk & Wagnalls New College Standard Dictionary (1947), p.27 116. Mewhinney "Minds" op. cit., p. 14 117. Charles Ginenthal, The Extinction of the Mammoth, op. cit., p. 239 118. Michael Hambrey, Jurg Alean, Glaciers (Cambridge, Eng. 1994), pp. 178-179 119. Mewhinney, "Minds", op. cit., p. 14 120. Walter Sullivan, Assault on the Unknown. The International Geophysical Year, (NY 1961), p. 262 121. ibid., pp. 262-263 122. ibid.,p. 263 123. R.B. Morrison, "The Pleistocene Boundary: an evaluation of the various criteria for determining it on a provincial basis, and establishing it worldwide," Geol. Mijnb, Vol. 48, pp. 353-371 124. ibid. 125. G.F. Carter, "Physical Geography," Geogr. Rev., Vol 43, (1953), pp. 121-124 126. Radiocarbon, Vol. 7, (1965), p. 34 127. H.H. Lamb, et al., Climate Change, J. Gribbin ed., (Cambridge Eng. 1978), p.69 128. P. Borisov, Can Man Change the Climate? (Moscow 1973), pp. 35-36 129. W. Blake, Jr. "Climatic implications of radiocarbon - dated driftwood in the Queen Elizabeth Islands, Arctic Canada, Climate changes in Arctic areas during the last 10,000 years. Acta Universtatis Ouluensis, (1972) Y Vasari, et al., eds. Series A, Geologica No. 1, pp. 77-104: and W. Blake, Jr., "Radiocarbon age determinations and post-glacial emergene at Cape Store, southern Ellesmere Island, Arctic Canada," Geografiska Annaler, Vol 57A, (1975), pp. 1-71 130. Arthur S. Dyke et al, Changes in Driftwood Delivery to the Canadian Arctic Archipelago: The Hypothesis of Post-glacial Oscillations of the Transpolar Drift," Arctic Journal of the Arctic Institute of North America, Vol 50, No. 1 (Mar 1997), pp. 1-16 131. Arthur S. Dyke et al, "A History of Sea Ice in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago Based on Postglacial Remains of the Bowhead Whale (Balaena mysticetus) Arctic,(Journal of the Arctic Institute of North America), Vol 49, No. 3, (Sept 1996), pp. 235-255 132. Arthur S. Dyke et al "Marine Molluscs as Indicators of Environmental Change in Glaciated North America and Greenland During the Last 18,000 years," Geographic physique et Quaternaire, Vol. 50, No. 2 (1996), pp. 225-184 133. W in C p. 128 134. ibid. 135. ibid., pp. 128-129 136. Charles Ginenthal "Cosmic Dust And Greenland Ice," Kronos, Vol XII, No 3, (Spring 1988) 137. Ginenthal "Ice Core Evidence" op. cit.. p. 83 138. ibid ., p. 82 139. Lawrence Svobida, Farming the Dust Bowl, (Lawrence KS 1968), pp. 123-124 140. ibid., p. 134 141. ibid, p. 144 142. H.H. Lamb, Climate History and the Modern World (Landon 1982), p. 300 143. Michael Allaby Dangerous Weather Droughts, (NY 1998), pp. 76-77 144. ibid., p. 77 145. Clyde Orr, Jr., Between Earth and Sky, op. cit., p. 156 146. E.C. Pielou, After the Ice Age op.cit., p. 271 147. Devendra Lai, "Global Effects of Meteorite Impacts and Volcanism," Global Climate Change, (NY 1989, p. 346 148. "Minds in Ablation", p.27 149. Velikovsky, Earth in Upheaval op.cit., p. 176 150. D.K. Yamaguchi, "Interpretation of Cross Correlation Between Tree Ring Series," Tree Ring Bulletin. Vol. 46, (1996) pp. 47-54 151. J. Lasker, "Should the European Oak Dendrochronology be Reexamined," C&C Review Vol XIII, (1991) p.30 152. P. Kuniholm, "Appendix" in G. Summers, Tille Huyuk, Vol 4, pp. 179-90 153. R.M. Porter, "Tree Rings from Tille Huyak," C&C Workshop, Vol I, (1994), p. 20 154. New Scientist, (June 16, 1990), p. 30 155. J. Lasker, loc cit and B. Newgrosch, "Living with Radiocarbon Dates: A Response to Mike Baillie, JACF, Vol 5, (1992), pp. 59-67 156. Mewhinney "Minds" op.cit., p. 17 157. ibid. 158. Mewhinney, "Minds" op. cit., Part 3, p. 18 159. Pielou, After the Ice Age op. cit., p. 10 160. Discover the World of Science, (Feb. 1993), p. 17 161. Paul S. Sears, Climate and Civilization, H. Shapley, ed., (Cambridge, MA 1960), p. 36 162. Pielou, After the Ice Age, op. cit., pp. 272-273 163. ibid.,p. 273 164. H.H. Lamb, Climate History and the Future, (Princeton, N.J. 1977) plate IV 165. Pielou, After the Ice Age, op. cit., pp. 273-275. On page 136 166. G.H. Denton, The Last Great Ice Sheet, (N.Y.1981) as cited in D.S. Delair, J.B. Allen When the Earth Nearly Died, (Bath, Eng. 1995), p. 248 167. Howorth, The Mammoth and the Flood, (London 18), p. 67 168. N. V. Kind "Radio Carbon Chronology in Siberia," The Bering Land Bridge, D. Hopkins ed., (Stamford, CA 1967), pp. 177-178 169. A.P. Vaskovsky, "A Brief Outline of Vegetation..." The Archaeology and geomorphology of Northeastern Asia, H N Michael ed., (Toronto 1964) , p. 492 170. Chester S. Chard, Northeast Asia in Pre-history, (Madison, WI 1974), p. 57 171. H. Howorth, "the Climate of Siberia in the Mammoth Age," Nature, Vol. 39, (1889), p. 294 172. Charlesworth, The Quaternary Era, Vol. II, pp. 1484-1487 173. Mewhinney , "Minds" op. cit., p. 18 174. Dictionary of Geological Terms, 3 ed., R. L. Bates, Julia A. Jackson eds., (N.Y. 1984), p. 27 175. J.V.B. Bell, J.H. Tallis, "Biological Flora of the British Isles," Journal of Ecology, Vol 61, No. 1 (1973) p. 291 176. ibid., p. 290-291 177. ibid., pp. 300-301 178. ibid., p. 299 179. ibid., p. 299 180. ibid., p. 302 181. Rand McNally World Atlas, (Chicago 1964), pages 278-279 182. Ibid. 183. Ibid. 184. Ibid. 185. Ibid. 186. Ibid. 187. Ibid. 188. Ibid. 189. Ibid. 190. Ibid. 191. Ibid. 192. Ibid. 193. Encyclopedia Britannica Micropedia, Vol. I, (Chicago, 1982), p. 220 194. Rand Mc. Nally... op. cit. 195. Borisov, Can Man Change the Climate op. cit., p. 53 196. Ibid., p. 36 197. Colinvaux, Why Big Fierce Animals Are Rare, op. cit. p. 63 198. Bell and Tallis, "Biological Flora of the British Isles," op. cit., p. 296 199. ibid. 200. Mewhinney, "Minds" op. cit., p. 18 201. B. Bower, "Swarf Mammoths Outlive Ice Age" Science News, (March 27, 1993), p. 197; see also Discover (Jan. 1994), p. 54 202. Mewhinney, "Minds", op. cit., Part 5, p. 35 203. ibid. 204. Charles Ginenthal, "Common Sense About Ancient Maps," The Velikovskian, Vol. I, No 2, (1993), pp. 7-8 205. Arlington Mallery, Mary Roberts Harrison, The Discovery of Lost America, (NY 1979), pp. 196, 198 206. Mewhinney "Minds", Part 5, op. cit., p. 37 207. ibid., p. 37 208. Mallery, Harrison The Rediscovery of Lost America, op. cit., p. 205 209. Ibid. 210. John White, Pole Shift, (Virginia Beach, VA. 1988), p. 43 211. Ibid., p. 40 and Sullivan, Assault on the Unknown, op. cit., p. 324 212. White, Poleshift op.cit.,p. 45 213. Walter Sullivan, Assault on the Unknown (NY 1961), p. 311 214. ibid., p. 308 215. Charles Hapgood, Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, revised ed. (NY 1966), pp. 224-225 216. Charles Ginenthal, "Common Sense About Ancient Maps," op. cit., pp. 16-17 217. Reginal Daly, Earth's Most Challenging Mysteries, (Nutley, NJ 1975), pp. 227; 264 218. Mewhinney, "Minds," op. cit., p. 22 219. ibid., p. 3 220. Irving Wolfe, "A Rage to Deny" Stephen J. Gould and Immanuel Velikovsky, (NY 1995), pp. 591-662 221. See Charles Ginenthal, "Henry H. Bauer And Immanuel Velikovsky," Stephen J. Gould And Immanuel Velikovsky (Forest Hills NY 1996) 186-256 and Irving Wolfe, "Beneath Bauer" , Stephen J. Gould And Immanuel Velikovsky, (Forest Hills, NY 1996), 257-351 222. Richard Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, (Rochester VT 1997), pp. 270-271 223. E-mail communication 224. The New Century Dictionary, (NY 1959), p. 668 225. Immanuel Velikovsky, "My Challenge to conventional View of Science," Velikovsky and Establishment Science, KRONOS, (Nov 1977), p. 17 226. Wentworth Dillon, Earl of Roscomma. Essay on Translated Verse (1684), line 113