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

Charles Ginenthal

Good afternoon.  It's a great pleasure to be here and I'm not so much only
going to speak about Venus.  I also want to speak about science and
scientists and how they deal with evidence that does not fit their theories. 
I appreciate Tom Van Flandern's remark about whether or not we're fooling
ourselves and really practicing science.  I have a good deal of admiration
for Dr. Van Flandern because he has had the courage to follow the evidence
related to recent solar system catastrophism, and for this he's paid a price
as has Victor Clube, and others for going outside mainstream astronomical
theory.  He told me an interesting story about his having no more reputation
left since he advocated a planet exploded three million years ago, and I asked
the question, "What kind of response do you get from you colleagues when you
explain to them that so many bodies in the solar system are all either dark
on one side or cratered mostly on one side?" continuing "This makes an
incredibly difficult problem to explain in terms of each one having a unique
way in which they became cratered predominantly on one side or darkened on
one side."  Dr. Van Flandern replied, "One of my colleagues said to me, 'If
your theory turns out to be correct, I'll go out into the middle of NASA's
complex and take off my clothes'. I think that on a psychological level he
was saying that the emperor has no clothes, that many of the modern ideas
about the solar system, or theories about the solar system, are really
emperors without clothes."

Velikovsky wrote his theory in 1950 long before the Space Age began.  At that
time there were many, many theories about what we would find at the various
planets and what they were like.  Copernicus, died just after he wrote his
Revolution of the Planets  and along came a man named Galileo, who used the
telescope to look at the planets and suddenly, as with the Space Age, there
was all kinds of new evidence.  The evidence showed that Venus went through
phases as did the Moon, and so did Mercury.  The Moon had mountains on it,
and it was, therefore, not perfect in form as the scholars claimed.  The Sun
had spots on its surface; it too wasn't perfect.  Jupiter had four little
worlds going around it, the Earth, Venus and Mercury around the Sun and four
worlds were going around Jupiter.  Instead of one center to the Universe
believed to be the Earth here was clear evidence that there were three
centers.

What was the response of the establishment at that time?  They used
vilifications of all kinds aimed at Galileo and we all know what happened to
Galileo.  they had to invent ad hoc hypothesis after ad hoc hypothesis in
order to support their Earth-centered theory.  The Moon suddenly not only had
mountains on it; over the mountains was a layer of pure glass so that the
Moon then became a perfect body, perfectly round, a; world wrapped in glass. 
This was one of the ad hoc explanations to save their theory.

They then abandoned the Ptolemaic theory and took on the theory of Tycho Brahe
that the Earth was still the unmoving center of the Universe.  The Moon went
around the Earth.  The Sun went around the Earth, and all the planets went
around the Sun.  They would cling to any theory so that the Earth was not
allowed to move.

What I am suggesting before I begin talking about Venus, that many of the
scientific explanations of the new evidence that was brought out during the
Space Age after 1950 to explain what was found on that planet was handled in
the same manner as Galileo's critics handled the new telescopic discoveries of
the Universe.  The established theory has acted in the same manner to create
anything like a layer of glass covering the Moon to save their theory.

VENUS

In 1950 Velikovsky claimed in Worlds ln Collision based on the testimony of
ancient peoples from all parts of the globe that Venus appeared in the
heavens as a giant, brilliant comet.  From his analysis of this mythological
evidence Velikovsky drew the conclusion that Venus was a newborn planet in the
early cool-down stage of its development.  Therefore, if his understanding of
the evidence was correct, then Venus should exhibit all the conditions of a
world that was very recently molten over its entire surface.  It should be
stupendously volcanic and display immense   volcanic structures over every
region of the planet.

In 1983 Lawrence Colin of NASA's Ames Research Center stated in a highly
regarded volume Venus published by the University of Arizona with 69
collaborating scientists:

"Let us now consider a survey of Venus concerning the available facts and
theories existing in 1961, prior to the first spacecraft launch one year
later ... The prevailing theories led to qualitative descriptions of Venus
which may be gathered into seven broad categories:

1.   Moist, swampy, teeming with life or, 2. Warm, enveloped by a
global carbonic acid ocean, or, 3. Cool, Earth-like, surface water, dense
ionosphere, or, 4.  Warm, massive precipitating clouds of water droplets,
intense
lightning, or, 5.   Cold, polar regions with 10 km-thick ice caps,
hot equatorial region
far above H20 boiling point, or, 6.     Hot, dusty, dry, windy, global
desert, or, 7. Extremely hot, cloudy, molten lead and zinc puddles at
equators, seas of
bromine, sulfuric acid, phenols at the poles.

"From this list it is not obvious that scientists were even talking about the
same planet in 1961. For those who are impatient for the outcome, speculation
(6) appears to represent most closely what we now think Venus ls like . 
(emphasis added)

That is, in 1983 and beyond, the scientific establishment maintained that
Venus was a hot dusty, dry windy desert.  Reinforcing this sixth option,
Ernest J. Opik, the internationally known astronomer of Armagh Observatory in
Northern Ireland stated, "The modern picture of Venus ... [is] a borderless
desert extending over an area one hundred times that of the Sahara ... [The]
Sahara itself would appear a paradise compared with the dry suffocating dust
storms raging behind the brilliant deceitful face of the Evening Star."

Nowhere was it ever suggested by establishment scientists that Venus would be
found to be immensely volcanic covered by immense lava flows.  In fact as
recent as 1989, Isaac Asimov, the late popular science writer, admitted:

"For years astronomers had believed that Venus was a geologically dead place.
Although quakes, volcanoes and other activity surely wracked the planet at
one time, it seemed certain that Venus was quiet today."

Therefore, if Velikovsky's analysis of the ancient testimony is correct, the
observations by the Magellan spacecraft should not only contradict the
previous models of the Venusian surface, but should also show overwhelming
evidence of recent stupendous volcanism on a surface that appears to be
pristine.

David Harry Grinspoon describes what Magellan spacecraft observations of Venus
actually revealed:

"Perhaps the most striking feature of the Venusian landscape in the prevalence
of volcanism.  About 80 percent of the surface is made up of volcanic terrain
ranging from the curiously familiar to the downright bizarre.  Hundred-mile
wide, gently sloping volcanoes, similar in appearance to the shield volcanoes
of Hawaii abound on Venus; their flanks are covered with numerous overlapping
lava flows, the most recent of which appear to have erupted only yesterday. 
Smaller, flat-topped 'pancake domes' have formed where more viscous lava has
been squeezed up through the crust.  Huge areas of the planet are covered
with flat voluminous and almost featureless lava flows. Thin meandering
channels are visible, some extending for thousands of miles ... The channels
on Venus, however, are thought to be volcanic in origin ...

"But there are also many other kinds of terrain on Venus-apparently volcanic
in origin that seem to have no terrestrial counterparts.  Among them are the
so-called coronae, (depressed bowl-like) circular regions of disrupted
terrain ranging from thirty to more than 1,200 miles across, as well as other
features named for the terrestrial fauna they resemble, tics and other
arachnids and anemones. Most such land forms are thought to be surface
manifestations of mantle plumes, upward flowing currents of hot magma in the
mantle that carry heat toward the surface ... Except for a few zones of
concentrated volcanic activity, the various forms of volcanic terrain are
widely dispersed across the surface of Venus."

According to J. Eberhart the number of small volcanic domes on Venus runs into
the "tens of thousands". .

One research investigator with the team analyzing Magellan observations of
Venus remarked "Everyone says Olympus Mons on Mars is the biggest volcano in
the solar system ... It isn't.  Venus is.  The entire planet is one big
volcano."    Nigel Henbest displays radar images enhanced to show Venusian
topography of "mountain ranges and volcanoes [that] contort the surface of
Venus where a giant plateau, Lakshmi Planum, drops down to the plains ...
[from which] Magellan spacecraft shows solidified 'waterfalls of lava'."    He
further remarks:

"Magma can well up all over to create a planet-wide scattering of at least
100,000 volcanoes of all sizes.

"The radar images cannot show if the Venusian volcanoes are still erupting but
geologists are convinced that many must be currently active.  Detailed radar
images show parts of Venus so rough that they resemble very fresh lavas on
the Earth, including the peak of Venus' highest volcano, the 8,500 meter (28,
000 foot or 5 mile high) Maat Mons.  In addition, Soviet orbiting craft have
found spots on Venus so hot that they can be active volcanic vents."

He also tells us, "The radar maps from Magellan show that Venus has a tortured
volcanic surface.  Covering practically every square kilometer are volcano
(formations) of all sizes, enormous lava flows."    In fact, the
International Ultraviolet Explorer, between 1979 and 1987, and other Earth-
based observations showed both sulfur dioxide and haze in Venus' atmosphere
have been gradually disappearing to about 10 percent of their original 1978
levels which was consistent with the actual measurements made during this
period by Pioneer Venus and Venera landers.  According to Larry Esposito:

"The best explanation right now for the decrease is that from time to time
major volcanic eruptions inject sulfur dioxide gas to high altitudes.  The
haze comes from particles of sulfuric acid, which is created by the action of
sunlight on sulfur dioxide ... Being heavy the particles gradually fall out of
the upper atmosphere, letting conditions return to normal between eruptions.

"My (Esposito's) calculations show that this eruption of the late 1970's was
at lest as large as the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa.  The explosion equal to a
500-megaton H-bomb was the most violent of the last century..."

According to Richard A. Kerr, editor of Science:

"The expanded view (by Magellan) reveals four nearly continent-sized areas,
ranging from a few million to 5 million square kilometers, that have no
impact craters at all.  According to Magellan team member Roger Phillips of
Southern Methodist University in Dallas, the absence of impact craters-
despite a steady rain of asteroids and comets onto the Venusian surface-means
that in the recent geologic past the craters (if they are impacts) were wiped
out either by lava flooding across these areas or by tectonic faulting,
stretching, and compression.

"The volcanic activity required to resurface the crater-free regions would be
impressive by any standards, Phillips says.  For example, it took at least a
million cubic kilometers of lava over a few million years to produce the 66-
million-year-old Deccan Traps of India ... But the lava-covered areas already
uncovered on a small part of Venus by Magellan must have all formed within the
past few tens of millions of years to have escaped being marked by impact
craters."

On the plains of Venus researchers have found small vents which oozed lava but
"without forming volcanic cones".  The researchers say "The large number and
wide distribution of vents in the lowlands strongly suggest plains volcanism
is an important aspect of surface evolution ..."

What is clearly implied is that either immense outpourings of lava have flowed
over and covered huge areas of Venus' surface or the areas the size of
continents like scum floating on a pond which moved about removed the
craters.  And some scientists have suggests large areas of the surface
topography of Venus actually looks like floating scum on a pond that has been
moved about.  There can be no doubt whatever that Venus' surface topography
is in full accord with Velikovsky's prediction of a new highly volcanic
planet.  Again and again the scientists say the surface lavas appear to be
"fresh".  Here is what Richard A. Kerr states in an article titled, "Venus is
looking too pristine":

"The planetary geologists who are studying the radar images streaming back
from Magellan find they have an enigma on their hands.  When they read the
geological clock that tells them how old the Venusian surface is they find a
planet on the brink of adolescence.  But when they look at the surface itself
they see a newborn babe ... (emphasis added)  Magellan scientists have been
struck by the newly minted appearance of the craters formed ... Only one of
the 75 craters identified on the 5 percent of the planet mapped show any of
the typical signs of aging.

"But by geologists usual measure these fresh looking craters had plenty of
time to fall prey to the ravages of geological change."

After Magellan completed its mapping of Venus' surface the pristine condition
of Venus' surface topography told the very same story appearing to be brand
new, as Grispoon explains:

"But there is something quite strange, almost unnatural about the Venusian
craters.  Nearly all of them appear pristine as if planted there recently. 
Indeed, VIRTUALLY EVERY GEOLOGICAL FEATURE OF THE PLANET APPEARS BRAND-NEW ..
. (Capitalization added).

All of this evidence is starkly and strikingly in accord with Velikovsky's
theory of Venus as a new born planet. The scientific establishment has been
forced to propose to save their theory of Venus' ancient age that some
immense catastrophe befell Venus 100 to 500 million years ago which completely
turned the planet inside out. This is surely an ad hoc explanation to make
the assumed ancient age of Venus match the new-born appearance of its surface
topography.  Even if one were to accept this resurfacing concept 100 to 500
million years ago it would still require that from that resurfacing period of
time to the present that erosional forces would break down the surface rock
into detritus to form a regolith or planetary soil.  The problem for the
establishment scientists is that there is no evidence of a regolith covering
the Venusian surface.  Moreover, in view of the highly acidic nature of the
Venusian atmosphere it becomes obvious that there would have been significant
erosion of the surface. According to Bruce Murry, et. al., "there can be
little doubt that chemical weathering must be very effective on Venus'
surface".

Venus' atmosphere is known to contain hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acid, both
of which are very corrosive. Paolo Maffei explains further that, "the
atmosphere of Venus also contains-although in small amounts-hydrogen chloride
and hydrogen fluoride, which reacting with sulfuric acid (known to exist in
Venus' atmosphere) could form fluorosulphuric acid, a very strong acid
capable of attacking and dissolving almost all common materials including
most rocks".

According to the scientists, Venus has been subjected to this intense
weathering of its surface for at least 300 million years.  Over this period
of time the planet should have developed a thick covering of weathered
material.  Grispoon admits this dilemma thus:

"In effect, Venus looks much like an Earth that is arid and devoid of erosion.

"The absence of erosion, however, goes only partway toward explaining the
strangely fresh appearance of the (undegraded) crater population.  The
problem is this:  A surface less than a billion years old is still unusually
young by planetary standards."

Venus is completely bare rock with some detritus in the cracks, although some
scientists have tried to identify tiny areas as tentatively covered with sand
dunes.  Henry S.F. Cooper, however points out that "all the bedrock (of
Venus) is exposed.  The entire planet is like a great big road cut ... what
we're looking at is total outcrop, total exposure of everything that happened
to it."

In order to explain the lack of a Venusian regolith the establishment
scientists must envisage an unknown process that has no scientific basis for
its action to reconsolidate the detritus on Venus to rock.  Nevertheless, let
us assume that Venus' erosion rate is extremely weak.  What do we find?  If we
allow a tiny erosion rate of one millimeter per hundred years, then in 100
thousand years we produce one meter (about 39.6 inches) of loose soil
material on the surface.  However, in 100 million years we would generate a
kilometer of detritus or 3,280 feet of this lose material.  In 300 million
years you get 9,844 feet of this material.  It is just as irrational as
suggesting the moon is covered by glass to suggest that hundreds of millions
of years of erosion of surface rock on Venus would leave such a pristine
surface.  But Velikovsky's supporters suggest this evidence is also fully in
accord with his picture of Venus as a newborn planet.  This lack of erosion on
Venus is very much like that found on Mars.  In both instances the scientific
community must propose that a well understood process, erosion, is not
operating as it normally would.  This, it appears, is what some .would call
irrational science-to do away with erosion.

However, Venus also suffers from the same problem of rheology found on the
Moon.  As was pointed out above, the high regions on the Moon should have
flattened to the surface billions of years ago.  Venus' surface gravity is
about six times greater than that of the Moon, and its surface temperature is
750 degrees C all the time, which is over six times greater that on the
Moon's surface at its equator during the hottest period where the Moon's
hemisphere faces the Sun.  Some scientists have drawn the analogy of the
viscous creep of Venusian rock to the flow of peanut butter.  Sean C. Solomon
et. al. have analyzed this process of rheology or viscous creep and showed
that the high topography of Venus under its present thermal and gravitational
constraints would have flattened to the surface long ago.    In 1983 George
McGill, et. al., discussing Solomon's work states:

"Creep rates of rocks are strongly temperature dependent.  If the high surface
temperature of Venus implies a much hotter crust then the entire crust of
Venus may be much less resistant to creep than the crust of the Earth ...
Cordell and Solomon, et. al., have shown that large features such as impact
basins will suffer essentially complete relaxation (or flattening to the
surface) of their topographic relief in times on the order of 1 Gy (one
billion years) even if the [Venusian] crust is dry.

"This suggests that present elevated regions are young or continuously
renewed and that (unless we illogically assume that the relief of Venus is
uncharacteristically high at present) elevated regions would have risen and
spread to oblivion many times in the history of Venus."

Therefore, if Venus was truly an ancient body all the high surface features
should have disappeared or become very low highly flattened hills, but this
is not the case.  Venus has highly rounded, but very high, topography which
should have disappeared billions of years ago.  All the deep valleys should
have had their valley walls flow together and have disappeared billions of
years ago.  The very existence of such high topography logically requires
that all the surface features of Venus are extraordinarily young in line with
the new-born character of its surface.  With such strong evidence of the
youthful nature of Venus Velikovsky's supporters suggest it is illogical to
believe the topography of Venus is in accord with its assumed ancient
history.

If Venus is a new-born planet as its topographic features suggest then the
planet itself should be generating a great deal of heat.  Velikovsky
predicted that Venus would be hot and, therefore, be giving off much more heat
than it receives from the Sun.

"Venus is hot.  The reflecting absorbing, insulating, and conducting
properties of the cloud layer of Venus modify the heating effect of the Sun
upon the body of the planet; but at the bottom ... lies this fact.  Venus
gives off heat.

"Venus experienced in quick succession its birth and expulsion under violent
conditions; an existence as a comet on an ellipse which approached the Sun
closely; two encounters with the Earth accompanied by discharges of
potentials between these two bodies and with a thermal effect caused by
conversion of momentum into heat a number of contacts with Mars, and probably
also with Jupiter. Since all this happened between the third and first
millennia before the present era, the core of the planet Venus must still be
hot."

When spacecraft took careful measurements of the temperature emitted from
Venus it became clear that Venus was extremely hot; its surface temperature
was hot enough to melt lead!  In order to circumvent Velikovsky's prediction
the scientific establishment turned to a runaway greenhouse effect theory to
provide this high surface temperature.  The scientists have claimed again and
again that the great heat emitted from Venus comes not from below its surface
but from its atmosphere via a runaway greenhouse effect.  If this is so then
the thermal balance of Venus should reflect the scientific establishment's
runaway greenhouse concept by exhibiting thermal balance.  The amount of
light entering Venus' atmosphere and converted to heat emitted should exhibit
a relationship of equality from the cloud tops to the surface.  If
Velikovsky's concept is correct and the planet itself is the source of all,
or nearly all of Venus' heat, the amount of heat in Venus' atmosphere derived
from sunlight should not exhibit equality with the amount of heat emitted by
the planet.  If the planet is the source of the heat there should be more
heat emitted at every level of the atmosphere than sunlight provides; the
planet should exhibit thermal imbalance.  And furthermore, as one measures
this relationship between sunlight absorbed and heat emitted, thermal
imbalance should increase the closer one comes to the Venusian heat source,
its surface.

This is similar to the heat of a white-hot block of metal; in that, as one
puts one's hand near the block, the temperature rises gradually and at a
certain closer distance to the block the heat rises more and more
dramatically.  Did the measurements show thermal balance as the scientific
establishment claims and still does so or did the measurements show thermal
imbalance as Velikovsky's theory requires?  I must say at the outset all sets
of readings by space probes to Venus contradict the scientific establishments
claim of thermal balance.  Instead, all sets of readings from the cloud tops
to the middle atmosphere to the surface only showed thermal imbalance as
Velikovsky's prediction requires.

When Pioneer Venus and Venera measurements measured this thermal question at
the cloud tops the scientists were forced to admit.

"Clearly the Pioneer measurements of emission and reflection are not
consistent with each other if net radiative balance occurs. (Emphasis added) 
A source inside Venus equal in magnitude of 20 percent of the solar input (i.
e., accounting for the between [readings] ... is very unlikely."

That is, the measurements showed that at the cloud tops Venus was emitting 20
percent more heat than sunlight could generate.  The scientists said that in
order to provide this additional heat immense volcanism would be required and
they do admit "fresh looking volcanoes do appear to exist on Venus ... and the
composition of the atmosphere is consistent with vigorous output from these.  
However, a re-evaluation of the readings was done to lower the level of
imbalance and all the measurements that showed thermal imbalance were
discarded and this was done as they stated "In conclusion, then the best
thermal measurements of Venus, WITH THE ASSUMPTION OF GLOBAL ENERGY BALANCE
yield a value (equaling thermal balance) is the most probable value" .
(Capitalization added)  In essence, the scientists accepted only the
measurements that corroborated the greenhouse assumption of thermal balance as
"the most probable".  This I strongly suggest is not very rational.

But, what about the readings below the cloud tops, did they exhibit thermal
balance?  Again the answer is categorically no!  According to Richard A.
Kerr:

"When [4] Pioneer Venus probes looked at the temperature, each one found more
energy being radiated up from the lower atmosphere then enters it as sunlight
... To further complicate the situation, the size of the apparent upward flow
of energy varies from place to place by a factor of 2 which was a disturbing
discovery.

What Velikovskians suggest is that the runaway greenhouse effect in an
atmosphere as heavy as a 3,000 foot deep ocean would not have tremendous hot
spots in its middle regions, but that areas of Venus surface are more
volcanic and hotter than other areas which would surely agree with these
readings and with Velikovsky's view point.

How much more heat was being generated than could be provided by sunlight? 
According to NASA's Pioneer Venus publication:

"The measured infra red (heat) fluxes (upward from Venus) show several
anomalies, the origin of which is still being debated.  Taken at face value,
the anomalies suggest that parts of the atmosphere are transmitting about
twice the energy upward than is available from solar radiation at the same
level."

That is, all the Pioneer Venus probes measured thermal imbalance. "Among the
most accurate measurements of the temperature-pressure structure of the lower
atmosphere of Venus (were) those made by the four Pioneer Venus (P.V.)
probes".    What was to be done about these most accurate readings?  All the
readings were changed "by adjusting the (heat) fluxes to reasonable values,
at low altitudes, they have derived corrected (heat) fluxes."    As at the
cloud tops the readings of thermal imbalance were changed to thermal balance.
From a 20 percent thermal imbalance at the cloud tops, Pioneer Venus probes
found a 50 percent thermal imbalance down to seven miles above the surface.

And finally what did the Venera 9, 10, 11 and 12 probes find with regard to
this question at the surface?  Did they at least measure thermal balance as
the establishment runaway greenhouse theory requires or thermal imbalance as
Velikovsky's theory requires?  Again they measured even greater thermal
imbalance in accord with Velikovsky's prediction. ] "Venera 9, integrated
over altitude ... (showed) 45 times the midday solar heat absorbed ... This is
also true for the Venera 10, 11 and 12 data ... integrated over altitude are .
... (somewhat less than) 40 times the mean dayside solar input ..."

This set of reading showed Venus is emitting at its surface about 40 times
more heat than sunlight could provide. What was to be done with these
measurements? The scientists admit that "it is clear that the Venera q Day
probe differences cannot be induced by solar heating and must be ascribed to
other processes or the measurement uncertainties."

Velikovskians suggest it is completely inappropriate and even irrational to
suggest that every single set of thermal imbalance readings which support
Velikovsky's prediction regarding Venus' heat source should be thrown out,
changed or ignored to satisfy the predominantly favored runaway greenhouse
theory.  It is sheer hypocrisy to suggest that this evidence does not support
Velikovsky completely.

What we have shown again and again is that the scientific establishment has to
invent one ad hoc explanation after another (as did Galileo's critics) to
explain away the evidence fully concordant with Velikovsky's theory and
discordant with its own.  According to philosopher of science Karl Popper, a
true science can be devised which creates experiments and makes predictions
which would refute the theory.  Pseudoscientific theory he claims, can never
be refuted by experiment or by predictions because some other explanation for
incomparable results or finding can always be proposed.  This, I suggest is
the true nature of the evidence as it is being employed by the scientists to
save the concept of a stable solar system. Each of the findings fully
supportive of Velikovsky's theory have been and are being explained away by ad
hoc explanations.  As for the measured evidence regarding Venus' runaway
greenhouse effect, I do not feel it is amiss to say it was dishonest to
handle this evidence in the manner it was.  To change, correct, or discard
measurements again and again that contradict a favored concept is
unscientific, unscholarly, unethical and just plain wrong!

I further emphasize that each of the phenomena found on Venus are not only
singely in congruence with Velikovsky concept but support each other.  They
are consistently in accord with his catastrophic explanation and create in
this a sense of demonstrable certainty.

If Venus is a new planet it should exhibit an immensely volcanic surface
topography which it does possess.  If Venus is a new planet it should have
practically no erosion and no regolith which it does not possess.  If Venus
is a new planet its lavas should appear "fresh", its craters should be
undegraded and it should look like a new-born babe which it does.  If Venus
is a new planet its high topography should be extremely young.  If Venus is a
new planet all sets of thermal readings should show pronounced thermal
imbalance from the cloud tops to the surface which the measurements
undoubtedly show.  Each of these phenomena specifically corroborate each
other and Velikovsky's theory.  To invent an ad hoc hypotheses for each of
these is failing to see the overall totality of the evidence and what it
clearly demonstrates.  The same, I strongly suggest, applies to the Moon and
Mars.  'The overall totality of the evidence points undeniably to Venus as a
new-born planet which is why supporters of Velikovsky's theory suggest it is
the established theories of the uniformitarian scientists that fail to pass
this test of demonstrable overall unity for their hypotheses.  Each phenomenon
must be taken out of context to all or many of the other ones and receive a
gerry built, while extremely little pleading is required by the catastrophic
theory of Velikovsky.  The scientists who refuse to face this overall thrust
of the evidence, I suggest, are simply in an irrational state of denial about
what this evidence is clearly showing them about Venus.  In this sense they
are following in the footsteps of Galileo's critics.

Lawrence Colin, Basic Facts About Venus  Venus, D.M. Hunten, et. al., eds.,
(Tucson AZ, 1983), pp. 12-13].
Ernest J. Opik, The Oscillating Universe, (Ny 1960), p. 63]
Isaac Asimov, "The Unknown Solar System", Discover, Oct 1989, p. 40.
David Harry Grinspoon, "Venus Unveiled", The Sciences, (July/Aug 1993), p.
23.
J. Eberhart, "The Diminutive Domes of Venus", Science News, Vol. 137, June
23, 1990, p. 392.
Henry S.F. Cooper, The Evening Star Venus Observed, NY 1993, p. 180
Nigel Henbest, The Planets, New York, 1992, p. 47.
ibid, pp. 45-48.
ibid, p. 41.
Larry Esposito, "Does Venus Have Active Volcanoes?" Astronomy, (July 1990),
p. 45.
Richard A. Kerr, "Volcanoes: old, New and-Perhaps-Yet to Be", Science, Vol.
250, (Dec 24, 1990), p. 1660.
New Scientist, (Nov 4, 1989), p. 34.
Richard A. Kerr, "Venus is Looking Too Pristine" Science, Vol. 250, Nov 16,
1990, p. 912.
Grispoon,op, cit., p. 24. A
Bruce Murry, Earthlike Planets, op. cit., p. 70.
Paolo Maffei, Beyond the Moon, Cambridge, Eng 1978, p. 44.
Grispoon, op. cit., p.24.
Cooper, op. cit., p. 120.
Sean C. Solomon, et. al., "On Venus' Impact Basins, Viscous Relaxation of
Topographic Relief", Journal of Geophysical Research , Vol. 87, 1962, p.
7763-7771.
George E. McGill, et. al., "Topography Surface Properties, and Tectonic
Evolution", Venus, ed. D.M. Hunten, et. al., Tucson, AZ, 1983, pp. 95-96.
Immanuel Velikovsky, op. cit., p. 371.
F.W. Taylor, et. al., "The Thermal Balance of the Middle and Upper
Atmosphere of Venus", Venus, ed. D.M. Hunten, et. al., Tucson, AZ, 1983), p.
658.
ibid.
ibid.
Richard A. Kerr, "Venus: Not Simple or Familiar, but Interesting", Science,
Vol. 207, 1980, p. 289.
Pioneer Venus, NASA sp 461, ed. Richard O. Fimmel, et. al., Washington DC
1983, p. 127.
G,M. Tomasko, "The Thermal Balance of the Lower Atmosphere of Venus", Venus,
ed. D.M. Hunten, et. al., Tucson AZ, 1983, p. 606.
ibid, p. 613.
A. Seiff, "Thermal Structure of the Atmosphere of Venus", Venus, ed. D.M.
Hunten, et. al. Tucson AZ, 1983, p. 226.
ibid.