mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ For complete access to all the files of this collection see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php ========================================================== In Chronology & Catastrophism REVIEW 1997:2, in an article titled "'Worlds in Collision' after Heinsohn", William Mullen wrote: > In Velikovsky's methodology these three assumptions > 'revised chronology', 'identifiable planets', > 'reconstructible sequence' - are inseparable and this > is his innovation. Others may have claimed to date > ancient catastrophes or to name the celestial agents > but no one before him claimed that a correctly > revised chronology could yield both identifiable > agents and a sequence of causes and effects for all > the catastrophes within human memory. > Though all three assumptions are essential to _Worlds > in Collision_, that work only attempted to show the > fruitfulness of assumption (ii): identifiable planets > in datable events. His explorations of the other two > remained fragmentary, as the posthumous publication > of his manuscripts has revealed.... What is the *logical* necessity for the fixation, at this late date, on the identification of *planets* as the agents of destruction in catastrohpic scenarios? Why do catastrophists in the Velikovsky school subordinate the absolute datings from tree rings, ice cores, and other phyiscal sources to the results of their elaborate mental gymnastics in the service of chronology revision? Why does as eminent an academic scholar as the classicist William Mullen persist in perpetuating such foolish fantasies? Surely he is capable of repudiating youthful enthusiasms whose validity cannot be sustained in the light of modern, informed research and criticism. Any careful reader of Worlds in Collision will realize quite readily that Velikovsky's textual sources do not deal with *planets*, but, rather, with various *deities* that are often associated with planets. However, this identification with planets is NOT mandatory because all such deities possessed other astronomical, as well as terrestrial, associations. As Pib Burns has admonished repeatedly over the years in electonic forums, the mapping of gods to planets is not one-to-one and on-to. Since the Mesopotamian goddess Inanna/Ishtar was not identified exclusively with planet Venus, as many self-taught savants seem to think, the cometary aspects of Inanna/Ishtar (if they are valid as cometary) need not be projected on to planet Venus, but may well have originated with a real comet, such as proto-Encke, as discussed by Clube and Napier in their elucidation of the role of the Taurid Complex on the development of civilization and religion all through the Holocene. Proto-Encke would have been a brilliant morning and evening object every ca. 3.25 years at perihelion and, therefore, readily associated with whatever deity was associated with Venus, another prominent morning and evening object. (N.B.: The cuneiform symbols of Inanna that resemble a comet tail probably have nothing to do with comets since they are usually shown in pairs in cult context and ALSO resemble the reed bundles used as door posts on the birthing huts sacred to Inanna, an architectual feature that persists to this day on reed huts in the marshes of Basra in southern Iraq.) It is also significant to note that the Venus Tablets, according to the analysis of Rose & Vaughan, show Venus on its present orbit, with the deviations in the observations ascribed to a more eccentric orbit for Earth. Since Rose & Vaughan actually published the results of their investigations into the Venus Tablets, their conclusions are to be preferred over the bald assertions of other dilletantes who make more spectacular claims regarding the former orbit of Venus. No reconstruction of the recent history of the solar system, especially as viewed from Earth, that ignores the origin and evolution of the comet-born Taurid Complex all during the Holocene, including the global climate crisis at 2345 B.C. revealed by Irish oak rings, cores from the Gulf of Oman, and stratigraphy in Mesopotamia, e.g., at Tell Leilan, etc., can be taken seriously. Since Velikovsky was unaware of the Taurid Complex model and never considered any comet shower model, the validity of his approach and conclusions is seriously compromised, as should be obvious to Mullen, and other ceno-catastrophists, upon reconsideration of their assumptions. Interestingly, this event is the subject of a recent BBC production "Clues to Bronze Age Comet Strike": . While this focusses on the work of Clube and Napier as well as Baillie, others have been involved over the years, esp. Moe Mandelkehr who published on this event independently in the early 1980s in SIS Review and whose book manuscript on the event is in search of a publisher. The fact that "Saturnists" ignore the Taurid Complex is a big strike against the fecundity of their model. In light of all the recent insight into the role of real comets and the Taurid Complex during the Holocene and the insoluble problems attending intersecting planetary orbits in recent time, what possible justification can there be TODAY for perpetuating the illusion of maurading planets a la Velikovsky and the blinkered Epigoni, esp. the "Saturnists" and other hangers-on, who have more imagination than commonsense and physics can ever justify? Given the inherent ambiguity between gods and planets, such a position is intellectually abhorent and repugnant. Why does an intellect as keen as Mullen's arguably is dissipate itself revelling in pseudo-research, shedding new light on a non-subject, as it does in the latest C&C Review? Since the Forum on Clube & Napier in C&CR XIV in 1992, it is long past time for old-guard Velikovskians to undertake a drastic rethinking of their basic assumptions. The association between gods and planets, while quite old (as Saturnists often note), is by no means primordial. This is indicated by the meaning of the names of certain planetary gods. For example, "Ninurta", the name of one of the Mesopotamian gods associated with Saturn means "Lord Earth" or "Lord Plow". But before Ninurta's association with Saturn, he was the local solar deity for Nippur, later preserved in his role as god of the rising Sun in the perfected pantheon. The association between gods and planets as an *original* feature of the cult simply does not survive scrutiny. One good reason why the radical chronology revisions envisioned by such as Velikovsky and Heinsohn cannot be taken seriously is the simple fact that all such revisions move the Minoan eruption of Thera to a lower epoch during which there is no evidence for ANY eruption of that magnitude. This argument is supported by the fact that ALL, known similar eruptions since then have produced a volcanic acid signature in the world's ice caps at the correct date, an argument that is either ignored or naively discounted by the revisionists. It is also instructive to note that, with the confirmation of the 2300 B.C. date for the global climate crisis in Mesopotamia affecting civilization, we can be confident that such high dates are valid, contrary to the proposal of Heinsohn. In other words, history really happened then, in the third millennium. I look forward to the time when all varieties of Velikovskians seriously rethink their unexamined basic assumptions and free themselves from the "bonds of the past", and thereby prepare themselves to participate in the REAL work of deciphering the mysteries of the origins of religion and civilization. Leroy Ellenberger, "Per Veritatem Vis", Formerly Sr. Ed., Kronos, & Confidant to Velikovsky, 4/78 - 11/79. Author of "An Antidote to Velikovskian Delusions": and "An Antidote to Dave Talbott's 'Saturn Thesis'": and eight other analyses at .