mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================

Immanuel Velikovsky

On August 25, 1972, three years elapsed since the death of Professor Harry
Hammond Hess.  He died of a heart attack while presiding over a meeting
(convened at Woods Hole, Massachusettes) of the Space Science Board of the
National Academy of Sciences.  The Board had the task of over-seeing the
activities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administrator, with its
multi-billion dollar spending.  At the Woods Hole meeting Hess had intended to
discuss the role of thermoluminescence (TL) tests in the lunar programs, an
issue I had discussed with him.

When I moved from Manhattan to Princeton in the early summer of 1952, I became 
steeped in library work for Earth in Upheaval, and the library of Guyot Hall 
(Princeton's geology department) was a place I frequented.  Already known for
my Worlds in Collision and the discussion it provoked, I caused some curiosity
among the numerous faculty members of the department.  I do not remember my
first contact with Hess, but from our first meeting something in both of us
attracted each other.

Hess was the chairman of the department.  Once when I mentioned the Vening 
Meinesz submarine expedition for gravitational measurements in the Caribbean 
in the 1930's, during which paradoxically, a positive anomaly was regularly 
detected and the greater it was the deeper was the sea, or the less mass there
was, Hess surprised me by telling that he participated in that expedition.

Another highlight of his career took place during World War II.  In command of 
a naval vessel in the Pacific with certain exploratory assignments, he
utilized the opportunity to explore the bottom of the ocean in a certain area.
Under the water he discovered flat- topped mountains, which he named "guyots,"
honoring the late Princeton professor of geology, Arnold Henry Guyot
(1807-84.)

By the end of the war, Hess was retired from active duty with the rank of a 
rear admiral.  In the university he taught mineralogy and crystallography, but
marine geology remained his favorite subject.

In November 1955, Earth in Upheaval was published.  Soon it was made required 
reading in paleontology under Professor van Houten at Princeton-along with an 
antidote: Loren Eisley's "The Firmament of TIme."  Hess several times during
those years gave me the opportunity to address the faculty and graduate
students of his department.  Since from 1953 (when I spoke before the Graduate
College Forum of Princeton University) to 1963 practically no college or
university or scientific society extended to me an invitation to speak, those
appearances at the behest of Hess meant much to me.

He gave me his published paper on guyots.  Upon reading it I wrote a rather 
merciless criticism of his idea that the accumulation of sediment caused the 
submergence of the sea bottom and with it the submergence of the flat-topped 
guyots.  In his response he showed graciousness.

By mid-1956 preparations for the International Geophysical Year were gaining 
momentum.  On December 5, 1956, I gave to Hess a memo describing, in brevity, 
several projects for inclusion in the IGY.  (The Year, due to start July 1, 
1957, would continue until the end of 1958.)  There was not yet a Space 
Science Board, so I gave the memo to Hess in his capacity as chairman of the 
geology department.  Hess sent the memo to Dr.  Joseph Kaplan, one of the 
scientific organizers of the Year.  The answer came from Edward O. Hulburt, 
another scientist in charge of the program, and it was addressed to the 
"chairman of the department of physics" at Princeton.  The first of the
suggested projects-to investigate the earth's magnetic field above the
ionosphere-had been, according to Hulburt, considered by the planning
committee. (In my Forum Lecture [October 14, 1953) I had already claimed the
existence of a magnetosphere above the ionosphere-the lecture was printed as a
supplement to Earth in Upheaval.)

Three months after the beginning of the IGY the Russians startled the world by
launching the first Sputnik (October 4, 1957) opening the Space Age.  I was
then on a visit to Israel, my second since I came to the States in July, 1939.

Although Hulburt referred to the plan of measuring the strength of the 
magnetic field above the ionosphere as considered for the program, the fact is 
that the discovery of the van Allen belts, the main achievement of IGY, was 
not anticipated or considered: when no charged particles were registered at a
certain altitude, can Allen of the University of Iowa was startled, but one of
his co-workers suggested that possibly the recording apparatus was jammed by
too many charged particles; the apparatus was modified and the belts were
discovered.  At the beginning they were featured in the form of two halves of
a doughnut; only much later was it recognized that the half on the anti-solar
side is stretched far out.  But in my memo as also in the Forum lecture, I
visualized a magnetosphere reaching as far as the lunar orbit.

Another claim made in my Forum Lecture of 1953-namely, that Jupiter could be a 
source of radio signals- was already confirmed in the spring of 1955.  I never
came out with "claims confirmed" until I read in the New York Times that
nobody every thought of Jupiter as a source of radio noises before they were
discovered by chance.  I turned to Lloyd Motz, Columbia University astronomer,
and V. Bargmann, Princeton University physicist, none of whom were entrusted
by me with the script of my Forum Lecture soon after its delivery.  They wrote
a joint letter to Science, which published it in the December 21, 1962 issue,
concurrent with the yearly convention of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, publisher of Science.  It almost coincided with the
first reports of Mariner II, which had passed its rendezvous with Venus a week
earlier, on December 14.  The high temperature of Venus was confirmed.

This last announcement was made by Dr. Homer Newell for NASA in February, 
1963.  The presence of hydrocarbons in the clouds surrounding Venus was also 
announced as confirmed-this on the basis of the work of Dr. L. D. Kaplan (Jet 
Propulsion Laboratory); only compounds containing the radical CH polymerized) 
could lend to the 15-mile thick cloud the same properties at the -25  F 
temperature at the top of the cloud and at the +200  F temperature at the 
bottom of the cloud separated by 45 kilometers of lower atmosphere from the 
sizzlingly hot ground surface of the planet.

I wrote an article, "Venus-A Youthful Planet," and sent it to the editor of 
Science.  I found it back in my mailbox less than 48 hours later, returned
unread.

I discussed the case with Hess, and he decided to offer it for publication in
the American Philosophical Society Proceedings.  As a member of the society he
was entitled to sponsor a paper by a non-member.  The paper was submitted, and
its fate was related by Yale Scientific Magazine (April, 1967, p. 8):

"The paper was discussed at the editorial board meeting of the Society and 
caused prolonged and emotional deliberations, with the Board split between
those favoring the publication and those opposed to it.  For several months a
decision could not be reached...the decision was made, in order to safeguard
the very existence of the Board, to delegate the decision on the article to
three members of the society, not members of the Board.  Their names were not
disclosed but on January 20, 1964, Dr. George W. Corner, Executive Officer of
the Society and the editor of the Proceedings, informed Dr. Hess that the
decision had been made to reject the article.

Subsequently it was also rejected by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.  In 
that magazine in April, 1964, an abusive article was published by a Mr. Howard 
Margolis, attacking Velikovsky and his work.  The editor of the Bulletin, Dr.
Eugene Rabinowitch, in a letter to Professor Alfred de Grazia, editor of the
American Behavioral Scientist, offered Velikovsky an opportunity to reply with
an article 'not more abusive' than that of Margolis, or, instead, to have some
of his views presented in the Bulletin by some scientist of repute.  Then
Professor H. Hess submitted the article "Venus-A Youthful Planet," to Dr.
Rabinowitch.  The latter returned it with the statement that he did not read
Velikovsky's book, nor the article."

In July Harper's printed an article by Eric Larrabee calling for an "agonizing 
reappraisal" of my work.  Menzel of Harvard College Observatory, who not so 
long ago previously had revoked his earlier estimate of Venus' temperature as 
much too high, now wrote in Harper's that "hot" is a relative term and liquid 
helium is hot in relation to liquid hydrogen.  As to my claim concerning the 
magnetosphere, Menzel argued that since I claimed that the magnetosphere 
reaches as far as the lunar orbit, I made a wrong prediction.  The 
magnetosphere, he said, does not reach more than a few terrestrial radii, 
whereas the moon is 60 terrestrial radii distant.

Hess was adversely impressed by the attitude of the scientific community 
toward me and my work; still subscribing to the accepted uniformitarian 
doctrine, he had sympathy for my independent stand.  He wrote a letter that
was intended for public record and which Doubleday incorporated in its "Report
on the Velikovsky Controversy," printed in the Book Review Section of the New
York Times (August 2, 1964).

While a debate was going on in several issues of Harper's, the Australian 
physicist/cosmologist, V. A. Bailey, joined the fracas and accused Menzel of
pre-space age thinking.

Hess, now president of the American Geoloical Society and chairman of the 
Space Science Board, suggested that I put together a program for space
investigation.  I responded without delay; the memo of September, 1963,
resulted.

About that time de Grazia published a special issue of the American Behavioral 
Scientist dealing with the reception of my work.  When he came to see me, Hess
came too.

Once or twice I asked Hess to organize a panel of members of various faculties 
of Princeton University that would investigate what was right and what was 
wrong in my theory and what was proper or improper in the attitude of my
critics.  Before he decided whether to follow this course (perhaps, expecting
a negative attitude by faculty members, he tarried), an initiative came from
Dr. Franklin Murphy, at that time chancellor of the University of California
at Los Angeles.  He asked UCLA's geophysicist, Professor Louis Slichter, to
organize a committee for the same kind of inquiry I had proposed to Hess.
Murphy's initiative, however, foundered and the story needs to be told
separately.  It embraced the period from January to November, 1964.

In January, 1965, Hess took the initiative to organize the Cosmos and Chronos
Study and Discussion Group, and he placed in the Bulletin of the University an
announcement of the first open discussion.  Originally we planned a debate on
evolution based on the uniformitarian principle vs. evolution based mainly on
cataclysmic events.  My opponent was to have been Princeton professor of
biology, Colin Pitendrigh.  There was a mutual respect between us (earlier he
had visited me and also inscribed to me a biology text which he co-authored
with G. G. Simpson, my early antagonist), but Pittendrigh insisted that the
problem of extinction in the animal kingdon should not be a part of the
debate.  I could not see how the two parts of the evolutionary problem-the
evolution of new species and the extinction of the old-could be separated in a
meaningful debate.  It appeared that the friendly relations between us were in
jeopardy.  Hess, without fanfare, offered to be my opponent.

The debate took place in the auditorium of Guyot Hall and fared well.  Next, 
Professor Lloyd Motz came from Columbia University to debate me on 
astronomical subjects.  The third open debate was between me and philosopher 
Walter Kaufmann of the Princeton faculty.  Other study groups spontaneously 
organized themselves on various campuses.  The story of the first four or five 
years of Cosmos and Chronos and what changes in the structure of the 
organization I had to demand is a story by itself.

In the fall of 1966 I spoke in the new auditorium of the Wilson School of 
Princeton University, under the aegis of the Princeton chapter of the American 
Institute of Aeronautics.  The lecture was described by Walter Sullivan, 
science editor of the New York Times, in his column of October 2, 1966.  As he 
described it, he first visited Hess to find out whether Velikovsky is a person 
of integrity.  Hess assured him of my complete integrity and added something
about my memory, ascribing to me more than I deserve.

An unusual memory was actually one of Hess' own characteristics.  Things 
spoken or letters read were remembered by him years later.  Once, when I 
exhorted him to reread a chapter in Earth in Upheaval, he replied that he knew
the book by heart.  His many very large tables that served him as desks were
covered with stacks of papers, but it seemed that he could always find the
necessary document; he was helped by a devoted secretary, Mrs. Knapp, who, it
seems, also relied on memory.

Despite his heavy schedule (he never stopped teaching crystallography), Hess 
was available for many a demand on his time.  I remember the case of an 
uneducated but dedicated man who, living in Michigan, collected many rocks,
obviously burned, and wrote me regularly of his belief that the lake was
scooped out by an asteroid impact.  He mailed one, at intervals, boxes with
stones.  I sent some of them to a scientists at the University of Pittsburgh
whom I knew, and brought some others to Hess.  The former did not answer; the
latter took a few of them to investigate their possible meteoritic nature.

Hess ascribed the reversal of the rocks' magnetic orientation to a spontaneous 
process in the minerals, as he had claimed in debate with me at my occasional
lectures at the geology department.  But when he finally realized that such
spontaneous reversals could not occur simultaneously in rocks of various
compositions, he volunteered to tell me that he was wrong.

When, years after my first memo of December 5, 1956, he read or heard of a 
paper concerning the reversal of the direction of winding in fossil vines and 
shells from both southern and northern hemispheres, he was pleased to let me
know that the claims the IGY would not investigate were confirmed by
independent research.

In 1967 I gave him a memorandum on radioactivity hazards for astronauts in 
several localized areas of the moon and Mars, results of interplanetary 
discharges.  Dr. Homer Newell of NASA sent the memo to scientists on the staff 
who he thought would be the one to consider the subject.  By that time Hess 
and I started to call one another by our first names.

In 1968 Hess was named by the Italian government and Academy of Sciences the 
recipient of a major prize (in monetary value, approaching the Nobel prize) 
for his old work on the guyots.  Despite all the distinctions he received, he 
remained a quiet and humble man.  I never heard him speak in a loud voice.  He 
did not pull or push and, which was unusual in the academic atmosphere of the
time, he was sought out for his fairness.

Not long before his death he purchased a new home.  Until then he had lived in 
a university house on Fitzrandolph Street.  The house, built with its gables 
like a chalet, was occupied by Woodrow Wilson when he was president of
Princeton University.  At one of my rare visits, Hess drew my attention to the
book cases built at Wilson's behest.

The last and possibly the most exciting event was quickly approaching.  Hess, 
usually shy of publicity, made himself available to the press to state his
belief that water in quantity would be found under the lunar surface.  I
remember how he showed me a winding rill or rift photographed on the moon and
wished me to agree with him that it was caused by running water.  I discussed
with him my views, namely that the moon was once showered by water of the
universal Deluge, but that all of it or almost all of it dissociated before
the later cosmic catastrophes.  The face of the moon we see was formed in
those later catastrophes.

On May 19 I wrote down a few of my advanced claims concerning the moon and 
handed it to Hess research assistant, who strongly supported the view that 
large water reservoirs lay under the moon's surface.  Hess said to me, "this
time you will be wrong."  Until then, closely following my record, he found
that all my expectations ("predictions" turned out to be true.  Once, on our
way from Guyot Hall to our respective homes, he ascribed my record to
intuition.  When I asked which of my claims does not follow from my thesis, he
replied, "noises from Jupiter."  He was right, but only to the extent that I
have not yet published the story of the earlier cataclysms, promised in the
final chapter of Worlds in Collision.

The events surrounding the first manned landing on the moon had a dramatic 
urgency, and they, too, need to be recorded separately.  My two telephone 
conversations in which I tried to obtain Hess' support for thermoluminescence
tests of lunar core extracts, as also envisioned in the New York Times on the
evening of the first lunar manned landing, can be read in the correspondence.

I saw Hess once more- he was with his secretaries and assistants, preparing 
for the Woods Hole meeting.  He was not in a cheerful mood- that morning the 
news came the hydrocarbons (petroleum derivatives) were discovered on the 
moon, but no water yet.  (Now, almost three years later, signs of the one-time 
presence of water have been detected.)  He was, it appeared to me, gloomy.

About half a year earlier he had suffered a heart attack.  He was always a 
chain smoker.  The load of work, the excitement of the last few weeks, and 
possibly a discouragement, but quite probably his premonition that he would 
not be able to witness the entire lunar program of many landings, must have 
weighed heavily on him.

On the morning of August 26, 1969, I picked up a newspaper at the Princeton
Junction railway station and saw Hess' friendly face on a page carrying a
eulogy.

The day the university arranged a memorial service in its chapel, I was 
delivering a lecture to the faculty of the Ocean County College.  I spoke of
Hess.

On October 21, exactly three months after the first landing on the moon, at my 
initiative, the geophysical department (the new name for the geology 
department), together with the Cosmos and Chronos Study Group, arranged a
memorial lecture at the auditorium of Guyot Hall.  The opening part of my
lecture, "From Sputnik to Apollo XI," was dedicated to Hess.

In Hess' passing I lost the only member of the scientific elite who demanded a 
fair treatment for me and my work.  When in November the assistant to the
president of the university came to see me, I spoke of Hess and could not hide
the tears in my eyes.  For the rest of 1969 I felt depressed.

Of people who were prominent in their fields and who, since the beginning of 
my work and through the years showed me more than casual interest and 
sympathy, I name Robert Pfeiffer, orientalist and Biblibal scholar (d. 1958);
Horace M. Kallen, philosopher and educator; Walter S. Adams, astronomer (d.
1956); Albert Einstein (d. 1955); and Harry Hess, who died in his sixty-fourth
year, three years ago.  Kallen alone of all of them is alive, having these
days reached the venerable age of ninety, still active as writer and lecturer,
with time having dimmed none of his mental abilities.

They were few, but each of them was great as a human being.

December 5, 1956

Dear Professor Hess:

I have read with vivid interest your paper on the guyots in the Pacific: I 
will continue here to think aloud.  The size of the guyots is no argument 
against their volcanic nature.  The truncated upper surface of a guyot nine 
miles wide is larger than the widest know crater on earth, yet certainly 
smaller than Mauna Loa in cross-section measured half way from the bottom of 
the ocean.  I would not shrink even from thinking of them as gigantic mesas: 
some of the shapes in your drawings have this form.  A great volcanic activity 
took place in the Pacific at an early age.  Large stretches of lava in its 
bottom (Pettersson), and huge quantities of ashes indicate this.  The moon 
with its large craters and dried seas of lava comes into mid (without agreeing 
with the theory of the origin of the moon from the bed of the Pacific).

Your idea of the guyots being islands submerged ca. 500 fathoms (3,000 feet) 
is well supported by the findings of M. Ewing in the Atlantic (sand beaches 
submerged 3 miles, or 15,000 feet).

The explanation of isostatic subsidence of the oceanic floor weighed with 
accruing sediment requires enormous amounts of this sediment and, I asked
myself, whether the figures would hold this portion of the theory.  You assume
that the oceanic area would decrease because of submergence of the bottom
loaded with the sediment and prisms of it along continental margins.  Would
not the oceanic area increase in such circumstances?  The submergence would be
more than compensated by the accrued sediment and the displaced water would
encroach on the coasts.

I am not familiar with the calculations concerning loads in relation to 
isostatic subsidence.  I assume that a layer of ten feet of sediment would not
lower the bottom by the same amount of ten feet, and probably not even by a
single one.  An earth crust that is neither elastic (resilient) nor rigid, but
only plastic, with magma underneath exerting only a minimal opposition to the
pressure from above, would submerge a foot for a foot of load of the specific
weight 2.5 (if the ocean does not change its horizontal area).  Therefore
2,000 feet of sediment since pre-Cambrian time (Kuenen's figure) appear to me
not enough to account for the rise of the sea level relative to the upper
surface of the guyots by ca. 3,000 feet (p. 296).

Also the land on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean cannot be accounted for by
isostatic movement; Ewing found very thin layers of sediment where he expected
hundreds or thousands of feet deposited.  All of which indicates that some
other causes lifted the crust in some places and depressed in it others.

I offer here those thoughts for whatever they are worth.  Since 1947, when 
your paper was written, you may have thought of the guyots in the light of
certain facts made known by Petterson's expedition.  I assume that his finds
support your ideas of volcanic origin and submergence of these formations
discovered by you in 1942.

I accompany this letter with a list including seven questions which I would 
like to see included in the program of the International Geophysical Year.  I 
shall be grateful to you if you will consent to offer their inclusion in the 
program (a carbon copy is for your files.) Should you wish first to discuss 
them with me, please give me a ring.

I liked the friendly atmosphere last Friday when I spoke at Guyot Hall.

Very sincerely,
(signed) I. Velikovsky

December 5, 1956

Tests and Measurements Proposed for Inclusion in the Program of the
International Geophysical Year.

Tests an Measurements Proposed for Inclusion in the Program of the
International Geophysical Year Immanuel Velikovsky

1. Measurement of the strength of the terrestrial magnetic field above the 
upper layers of the ionosphere.  It is accepted that the terrestrial magnetic
field- about one-quarter of a Gauss at the surface of the earth- decreases
with the distance from the ground; yet the possibility should not be
discounted that the magnetic field above the ionosphere is stronger than at
the earth's surface.

2. An investigation as to whether the unexplained lunar vibrations, or rocking 
movements, in latitude and longitude coincide with the revolutions of the 
terrestrial magnetic poles around the geophysical poles.

3. An inquiry into the magnetic orientation of the lavas erupted in the middle
of the second millennium before the present era (e.g. in Thera-Santorin) may
establish the recentness of the reversal of the magnetic field of the earth.

4. An analysis of the magnetic inclination (dip) in the clay of the pottery of 
the Old and Middle Kingdoms in Egypt may disclose substantial shifts, actually 
reversals of the magnetic field of the earth; similar tests could also be
performed on various neolithic pottery.

5. An investigation of the direction of the spirals of fossil snail shells and 
of the windings of fossil vines which are now usually clockwise in one
hemisphere and counter clockwise in the other, may reveal, with the help of
radiocarbon analysis, the time of changes or reversals in the direction of the
rotation of the earth.

6. Measurement of the gravitational constant within a Faraday cage with 
varying distances between the attracting bodies in order to exclude the 
influence of the atmospheric electricity on the obtained results, and thus to
verify the inverse square law.

7. Tests in comparing the velocity of fall- and of the acceleration constant- 
of charged and neutral bodies.

January 2, 1957

Dear Dr. Velikovsky:

Your comments on quyots are acute.  You have put your finger on most of the 
deficiencies of my hypothesis as it stood in 1946.  Perhaps you would like 
some further explanations.  When written Kuenen's earlier estimate of the 
thickness of oceanic sediments agreed very closely to my needed 3000 ft. of
submergence since the Proterozoic.  Now the thickness has been reduced to 1/5
of the old estimate and the age of beginning of submergence also decreased to
about 1/5.  So I was off by a factor of 25.  A more recent reprint which I am
enclosing repairs the damage.

One km. of sediment on the ocean floor would cause sea level to rise on km. 
relative to some point on the original floor.  The bottom would sink
isostatically by .4 km.  To get 1 km. of sediment on the sea floor means
eroding 2.3 km. from the continents on the average.  This looks as though the
continents would be flooded but they rise most of the 2.3 km isostatically and
repeated mountain building thickens the crust about enough to leave sea level
vs. continent level relatively in the same place it was when the process
started.

Ewing's sand at 15000 ft. is now largely explained by him as the result of
turbidity currents rather than submergence.

With regard to paleomagnetism, Runcorn is very convincing but he completely 
neglects a most important phenomenon, that is self reversal which some iron 
minerals are known to go through dependent on composition and rate of cooling.
Some or all reversals may  be due to this phenomenon.  Runcorn will lecture on
his views in Guyot [Hall, Princeton] January 11th.

I will pass your idea on to Dr. Kaplan in the IGY organization.  I take a 
rather gloomy view of IGY and doubt if anything of much interest will come of
it.  Fifty six million dollars will produce a lot of scurrying back and forth
to the South Pole and an indigestible mass of random observations on
everything.  Scientific discoveries and ideas are produced by the intuition,
creativeness and genius of a man.  Dollars of themselves don't produce this,
any more than they could be expected to produce another Mona Lisa.  This is
something which I believe you can readily understand.

I would like to thank you for coming to talk to us.  The students were most 
appreciative.

Sincerely,
(signed) H. H. Hess

January 18, 1957

The Chairman
Department of Physics
Princeton University

Dear Sir,

A Copy of a document is enclosed "Tests and Measurements Proposed for 
Inclusion in the Program of the International Geophysical Year," dated
"Princeton, Dec. 5, 1956," and with the words "From Velikovsky via H. H. Hess"
written at the end.

This document was handed to me for comment after passing through so many hands 
that its origin is completely obscure to me.

With reference to paragraph 1, the measurement of the strength of the
terrestrial magnetic field above the upper layers of the ionosphere is in the
U.S. IGY program.  At present five rockets are assigned to the experiment, and
the third earth girdling satellite will carry magnetic equipment.

With reference to paragraph 2, a study of lunar vibrations with geomagnetic
pole movements is not included in the IGY program, but may possibly be done
later after the IGY magnetic data are available.

The other paragraphs 3 to 7 give suggested experiments which are not included 
in the U.S. IGY program.  These experiments, except 6 & 7, are concerned with 
micro- magnetic analysis.  Such experiments and ideas were quite familiar to 
our Panel on geomagnetism, and as I recall were discussed to a considerable 
extent.  We decided that they could be done by individual investigators, and
did not require international cooperation.  Therefore, they did not fall
readily into the general character of work which was considered appropriate to
IGY programs.

Yours very truly,
(signed) Edward O. Hulburt
Senior Scientists, USNC-IGY,
also Chairman, USNC Technical Panel on Geomagnetism

March 15, 1963
Dear Velikovsky:

We are philosophically miles apart because basically we do not accept each 
other's form of reasoning- logic.  I am of course quite convinced of your 
sincerity and I also admire the vast fund of information which you have 
painstakingly acquired over the years.

I am not about to be converted to your form of reasoning though it certainly 
has had successes.  You have after all predicted that Jupiter would be a 
source of radio noise, that Venus would have a high surface temperature, that 
the sun and bodies of the solar system would have large electrical charges and 
several other such predictions.  Some of these predictions were said to be 
impossible when you made them.  All of them were predicted long before proof
that they were correct came to hand.  Conversely I do not know of any specific
prediction you made that has since been proven to be false.  I suspect the
merit lies in that you hare quite uninhibited by the prejudices and
probability taboos which confine the thinking of most of us.

Whether you are right or wrong I believe you deserve a fair hearing

Kindest regards.
(signed) H. H. Hess

September 11, 1963

Dear Professor Hess:

At our conference the day before yesterday I had the impression that you would 
welcome some suggestions on my part to the program of space investigation.  
Readily I have prepared a memorandum of four pages which I submit to you in 
your capacity as Chairman of the Space Board of the National Academy of
Sciences.  I have not elaborated on the reasons that make me in some
selections, at least, follow an unexpected line of thought.  In those tests
where a condition or a fact is looked for, its finding, depending on the case,
is anticipated as not impossible, probable, or even certain.  All these
experiments and tests spring from a common concept, basic to my theory of the
structure of the universe and of its recent past.  Should your Board wish oral
or written explanations, I would gladly accept such an invitation.

Would you also think it proper to submit the proposals contained in my 
memorandum to wider circles for possible criticism or for a start in exploring 
the problems it raises and would you consider to offer the memorandum as a 
paper for an early publication in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences?  With such idea in my view, I enclose my "Propositions for Inclusion
in the Program of Space Probes for the rest of 1963 and the following years"
accompanied by a carbon copy of it.

You will find here also a Xerox copy of the recent letter by Prof. V. A. 
Bailey of the University of Sydney.  Harldy any addition to the staff of NASA 
could be of equal importance.

Cordially yours,
(signed) I. Velikovsky

September 11, 1963

Propositions for Inclusion in the Program of Space Probes for the Rest of 1963
and for the Following Years.  Prepared by Immanuel Velikovsky, Princeton,
N.J., and Submitted to H. H. Hess, Chairman, Space Board, National Academy of
Sciences, Washington, D.C.

1. Magnetosphere

A. mapping of the intensity of the magnetic field of the magnetosphere.

B. measuring the reach of the magnetosphere on the day and night sides.

C. testing as to the overall excess of positive or negative particles in the 
magnetosphere layers, and generally as to the positive or negative charge or 
neutral state of the globe with its ionosphere and magnetosphere.

D. synchronization observations as to the travel of the magnetic poles of the 
earth around the geographical poles (diurnal) and the daily latitudinal and
longitudinal lunar librations.

II. Mercury

A. the cause of the precession of the perihelion should be re-examined in the 
light of the presence of a magnetic field of solar origin and solar plasmas 
through which Mercury plows.  An artificial satellite with a perihelion close
to the sun could be tracked as to the precession of its perihelion

III. Venus

A. high-altitude spectral analysis of the ashen light for hydrocarbons and
organic compounds (especially carbohydrates.)

B. temperatures of the dayside and nightside and of the terminator compared; 
the phenomenon of a highest temperature at the terminator and the lowest on
the dayside can be verified by testing (radiometric) from the ground and from
a balloon.

C. the temperature of the clouds measured at three year intervals; it is 
conceivable that a slow drop of the temperature of the Cytherian cloud surface
will be observed.

D. the phenomenon of Venus (a planet with a weak magnetic field) shielding the 
Earth, at conjunctions, from protons of solar origin, should be evaluated as 
to a probable net charge of the planet.

IV. Mars

A. spectral analysis of the polar caps is possible at the time when they are
melting and evaporating seasonally.  Chances are that they are composed of the
same organic molecules as the envelope of Venus.

B. in space probes and by balloon spectroscopy Martian atmosphere should be 
investigated with the intent of detecting the presence of neon and argon.

V. Jupiter

A. precise calculations should be made as to the effect of the magnetic field 
permeating the solar system on the motions of the planet which is surrounded 
by a magnetosphere of [a radiating intensity], presumably, 1014 times that of 
the terrestrial magnetosphere.  This is basic to the impending re-evaluation
of electromagnetic effects in celestial mechanics.

B. the retrograde satellites of Jupiter should be compared as to their changes 
with the direct satellites.  Experiments should be performed with positively
and negatively charged metallic drop solutions revolving in a magnetic field.
C. spectroscopic analysis of the red spot should be performed as to the
presence of iron and sulfur vapors, especially over the periods of conjunction
with Saturn.

VI. Saturn

A. tests should be devised for detection of low energy cosmic rays emanating
from Saturn, especially during the weeks before and after a conjunction of
Earth-Jupiter- Saturn.

B. with Doppler effect data at hand, the velocity of revolution of the
Saturnian rings, possibly in excess of the velocity of the axial rotation of
the planet, should be plotted.

C. chlorine should be looked for in the Saturnian spectrum of absorption.

VIII. Pluto

A. the charge of this planet in relation to its mass is presumably very high, 
which would explain its perturbing power.  Calculations should be made of the 
potential difference needed to account for the unaccounted perturbations of 
Uranus and Neptune.

IX. Sun

A. solar net charge should be made the object of intense investigation.  Solar
plasmas winds should be tested as to the presence of electrons, besides
protons, and to the direction of their flow (drift), whether sunward.

B. experiments should be devised to enlarge our knowledge of the behavior of
very hot, charged, rotating bodies in a room of very rarefied atmosphere,
close in temperature to absolute zero; of the magnetic field created; of the
behavior of cold, or of graded temperature, bodies (conductors) suspended (in
a planetarium fashion) at various distances from the larger central hot body.

C. the solar system should be investigated as to the existence of magnetic
shells, especially at the orbital distances from the sun.  Radar echoes may
help to establish their presence, in matter of minutes or hours.

X. Moon

A. the reason for repeated failures in directing projectiles with moon as 
target should be explored also as to the deflecting action of the magnetic
fields (terrestrial and solar) with magnetopause and solar winds intervening.

B. laboratory experiments with terrestrial rocks as to splintering and erosion 
should be performed, duplicating the thermal conditions of the moon suddenly 
immersed, when hot, into coolness of space, as it happens during lunar
eclipses; the sharp outlines of lunar formations should be subsequently
evaluated as to their age.

XI. General Relativity Theory

A. the influence of the moon (lunar tides in the upper atmosphere) on the 
rectilinear propagation of stellar light as observed from the earth should be 
checked at different positions, especially when the moon is new and at lunar
eclipses; in the solar eclipses investigated as to the bending of rays of
light passing near the sun, the role of the moon and of atmospheric tides
caused by it is neglected.  The bending of the rays  by even stronger solar
tides in the atmosphere should be reduced to a minimum by balloon examination
of solar eclipses.

B. the influence of Jupiter on the rectilinear propagation of stellar light
should be investigated; if found, a re-examination of a possible bending of
light by a strong magnetic field should be instituted, and laboratorial
100,000 gauss strong fields applied.

C. bending of stellar light rays by solar plasmas (in the corona) must be 
evaluated and taken into account.

XII. Special Relativity Theory

A. a direct comparison of velocity of light in relation to an observer in 
motion and in state of rest in relation to the source of light can be executed 
by comparing the velocity of light from a terrestrial source with that from 
the sun in the morning and in the afternoon.  Details of the experiment upon
request.  (signed) I. Velikovsky

Monday, January 18, 1965

"Cosmos and Chronos" study and discussion group of Velikovsky's theories, 
their implication and reception.  Founding meeting convoked by H. H. Hess.  
"Catastrophes and Earth History".  Discussed by H. H. Hess and I. Velikovsky.  
8 p.m., 321 Guyot Hall.

Entry in The Weekly Bulletin of Princeton University

March 14, 1967

Memorandum to the Space Board of the National Academy of Science.  Submitted
to H. H. Hess, Chairman.  On Radioactivity Hazards on Moon and Mars.

In view of the fact that landing of astronauts on moon is planned for only a 
few years from now, I submit this memorandum to draw the attention of the
Board and also of NASA to a special condition the astronauts most certainly
will meet on the Moon that may to a great danger invalidate the effort and its
usefulness, and endanger the lives of the astronauts even if the succeed in
returning.  The cosmic rays hitting the Moon, solar plasmas, and other
incoming radiation are thought of, but one more source of radioactive hazard
needs to be met.

Because of the intensity and multiplicity of the interplanetary bolts to which 
the Moon was subjected only 27 and 35 centuries ago (as described in Worlds in
Collision) radioactivity must still be present on the surface of the Moon in
quantity damaging to unprotected man or animal and by far exceeding any
exposure regarded as safe.

Although the heat in the Moon's subsurface is mostly a residue of the effects 
of disturbance in the Moon's motions that occurred in the same historical 
periods, some of the heat is also of radioactive origin.  The half-life of
radium being 1580 years, enough radiation could be present on the Moon of this
and other radioactive decays to prompt me to express this warning.

About four years ago, I drew the attention of Professor C. Pittendrigh to the 
danger of back-contamination, whereas then only the problem of micro-organic 
contamination of planetary bodies occupied the scientific advisers to space 
probes; not long thereafter the problem of back-contamination was discussed by 
Pittendrigh and others in committees and became a vital issue.

Everything that is said above of the radioactive perils to unprotected life on 
the Moon is applicable in the same degree to the future efforts to place man 
on Mars.  Only on Mars, one should reckon with the probability of the presence
of pathogenic, to man, micro- organisms, as well.

Of the many "craters" on the Moon, some- with raised rims and with no rills 
radiating from them- were in my understanding formed while, in cosmic 
disturbances, the surface of the Moon became molten and boiled (Worlds in
Collision, p. 361).  The subsequent discovery of domes or unburst bubbles
confirms this understanding of the processes that created many of the craters.

"Craters" with rills radiating from them could be caused by infall of
asteroids; granted that such a process also took place, I wish to stress that
interplanetary discharges must have created a large number of formations.

A landing of man on the Moon must be preceded well in advance by careful 
examination of the radioactivity on the Moon's surface.  The source described 
here is of equal importance, or possibly even of greater, than the effect of 
cosmic or other incurrent radiation's on unprotected organic life.  The
required measurements must be made, not from orbiting the space probes but by
landing vehicles with instrumentation designed to detect various forms of
localized sources of radiation.  (signed) I. Velikovksy

May 19, 1969

Memorandum Submitted to H. H. Hess, Chairman, Space Board, National Academy of
Sciences, Washington, D.C., Concerning the Forthcoming Landings on the Moon
the First of Which is Scheduled for the Summer of this Year

The Moon was repeatedly heated and its entire surface melted less than 35 and 
27 centuries ago.  At the times the Moon's surface was molten in near 
approaches with other celestial bodies, it was enveloped in powerful magnetic
fields; if the surface cooled down below the Curie point before the magnetic
fields were weakened and removed, then it is to expect that lavas on the moon
(most of its rock is lava) still possess a high magnetic remanence.

Of the lunar ringforming formations a larger number resulted from bubbling 
activity; but some of the craters (especially with rays extending) resulted 
from interplanetary electrical discharges.  Near such craters a strong, 
decidedly harmful, radioactivity must still linger and magnetic anomaly could 
exist.  Large meteorites caused a third group of craters.  Rocks removed by 
astronauts should be marked as to their position in relation to cardinal 
points and not pulverized.

In the mid-second millennium before the present era, Earth was drenched in 
hydrocarbons of exogenous origin.  The Moon may well have hydrocarbons in the
form of dried naphtha, bituminous rocks, asphalt, or waxes.

"River beds" on the surface of the Moon resulted not from water streams but 
from local flows of lava after the crust cooled off to a semi-viscous
consistency, following the last in the series of paroxysms (27 centuries ago).

(Signed) Immanuel Velikovsky

July 2, 1969

Dear Harry:

In April I read to you my short memo concerning the Moon; on May 19 I left a
copy with Dr. Otalara, your scientific assistant; next you assured me that
this time I would be proven mistaken.

The future landings, not necessarily the first one, will bring the answers.

When I maintain (see the way I expressed myself in my memo) that the rocks on
the moon may be magnetic though the moon possesses hardly any magnetic field
of its own, I suggest something that is not expected.  Yet should the rocks be
found magnetic, the explanation will be immediately forthcoming that this
proves their meteroric nature.  Therefore I have urgently  advised -and I
repeat it here- that the orientation of the rocks before their removal should
be noticed and marked.  Meteorites would fall at random and would not be all
similarly oriented.  You said to me that this simple task of marking the
orientation is not included in the program; if it will be omitted you will
have a question instead of an answer.

You expect ice under the upper layer of the crust.  Some nine thousand years 
ago water was showered on Earth and Moon alike (deluge).  But on the Moon all
of it dissociated, hydrogen escaping; the rocks will be found rich in oxygen,
chlorine, sulfur and iron.

Moon has no oceans and no marine life; water covered it only for a very 
limited time (following the deluge) counted in hundred of years.  Nevertheless 
I maintain bitumen and other hydrocarbon residues and derivatives will be 
discovered on the Moon, though not necessarily on the first landing; such 
discovery will be followed by the chain that rich marine life once existed on 
the moon.  But my claim is based on the occurrence 34 centuries ago described 
in Worlds in Collision.  Since the moon was heated and its surface became 
molten only a few thousand year ago, the temperature gradient under the 
surface crust will show, to some depth, a mounting curve.  In friendship, 
(Signed) I. Velikovsky

August 7, 1969

Dear Harry:

Yesterday evening I called in connection with the long telephone conversation
we had the day before, in the morning about 10 a.m., when I call you at your
office.  At that time I told you of my article that thermoluminescence tests
should be performed.  You told me that age testing of the lunar rocks is
scheduled; I asked by what methods, you answered, for instance, by the
potassium-argon method; to this I replied that I definitely expect neon and
argon as inclusions in lunar rocks but their origin is from near contacts with
mars in the eighth and beginning of the seventh century before the present era
and I was concerned that the presence of argon next to neon in the rocks of
the moon would cause wrong deductions as to the time when the lunar surface
was molten for the last time.  You told me that when a rock is molten an argon
inclusion would escape; I asked in reply whether the softening of the rock
would suffice for the escape of neon and argon or a higher heat would be
required; you have considered the problem and it was left undecided in your
mind whether the duration and the temperature of the process as I visualize in
these catastrophic events would have sufficed for the inert gases to
completely escape.

I also reminded you at that conversation in the morning of Aug. 5, that in 
Worlds in Collision (1950) I claimed that neon and argon are chief
constituents of the Martian atmosphere' that already in 1945 or 1946 I
registered a lecture copyright on "Neon and Argon in Mars' atmosphere"; that I
corresponded on the subject with H. Shapley and Walter S. Adams in 1946; in my
book I also explained that Venus, earth, moon, and Mars had been at various
times in near contacts; that Mars and the moon disturbed each other greatly,
exchanged electrical discharges, and that Mars left some of its gases on earth
and the moon.

When yesterday afternoon I read Wilford's dispatch from Houston in the morning 
NY Times concerning the find of neon and argon by Dr. Oliver A. Schaeffer who 
heated lunar dirt to 3,000 F any by this released radioactive neon and argon
(besides helium, krypton, and xenon) I called you and reached you by phone at
supper time at your home.

About twelve days ago I wrote to Prof. A.W. Burgstahler, Chemistry Department, 
University of Kansas, the same concern of what will be the verdict concerning 
the time the lunar rock was lastly molten because of the inclusions of argon
and neon in lunar rocks, the gases being of Martian origin.  Dr. Schaeffer
ascribes them to solar wind but admits that their participation in solar wind
was not expected.

Next, I expect that neon and argon will be found as main ingredients of 
Martian atmosphere as I claimed for almost quarter of a century.

Cordially,
(signed) Immanuel