Space Forum / Space History / April 2004

Seriously, I seem to have an extremely severe propagation problem.
Many posts take a week or so to get to me (even though I often see
replies to those same posts almost immediately), and I'm positive that
I entirely miss more than a few.

--------------
Beady's Corollary to Occam's Razor:  "The likeliest explanation of any phenomenon is almost always the most boring one imaginable."

...Good. I was hoping one day you'd come around to your senses. That's
one of the reasons I never bothered to munge up my e-mail address to
foil your killfile. I had faith you'd realize you were going a bit
overboard when you killfiled me a while back.

Of course, now that you can read my posts again, I gotta repost all
those nasty things I said about Mrs. Beady that you missed...:-P :-P

                OM

Hi John, how's your space toilet these days?

BTW; Space.com and at least a dozen other somewhat nicer places are
almost as bad off as this Borg collective that's got mother or father
GOOGLE as your own personal incest cloning incubator. Too bad there's
other ways of telling the truth besides within this cesspool.

There's still the usual updates:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/update-242.htm

There are few perfectly good number of things to say about "Immanuel
Velikovsky" and of what's seriously cooking about Venus at the
Space.com site, the topic is: There's been life on Venus in spite of
Velikovsky [by: bradguth] and it's posted in their Space Science &
Astronomy.
http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=sciastro&Number=698046&Searc
h=true&Forum=All_Forums&Words=Immanuel%20Velikovsky&Match=Entire%20Phrase&Search
page=0&Limit=25&Old=1week&Main=686151

Immanuel Velikovsky wasn't an Einstein http://www.varchive.org/

http://www.halexandria.org/dward108.htm
"According to Immanuel Velikovsky, a close encounter by the Earth with
Venus resulted in a change in the number of days in the year from 360
to 365.24.  At that point of Ages in Chaos, the five feast days were
added."

http://www.halexandria.org/dward197.htm
"Upon the publication of Worlds in Collision in 1950, Velikovsky was
nearly laughed out of science, the publisher of his book was forced
(because of its large number of academic textbooks) to sell the
best-selling publishing rights to another non-academic publisher, and
since then, the old guard has done everything in its power to
discredit the very idea of Near-Earth Objects (and thus the
possibility of collisions) and even the remote possibility of any
reconstruction of history.  In the latter vein, one history student,
Kelly Kincaid, wrote her senior thesis on the idea that if new
evidence was found which contradicted history, could the "official"
history then be changed -- only to find her history professor so
incensed by her example (one from Velikovsky) that he, by example,
proved her thesis that indeed history could not be changed from mere
evidence."

It seems the holy grail of what's opposing other life, be that of
Mars, Venus or of somewhere external (such as Sirius) to our one of a
kind solar system, of which folks opposing the likes of my research
have either directly stipulated and/or confined their supposed
knowledge as on that endless "need to know" basis, though usually it's
been their "nondisclousure" all the way, as well as for insuring that
Earth remains as representing their one and only Godly place there is
(period!). So, it clearly isn't the laws of physics nor of believable
science that's utilizing our best efforts upon honest research, and
subsequently drawing upon the works of others and thereby obtaining
for myself a broader set of rational perspectives, and of sharing
analogies to what's otherwise well accepted as undeniable fact,
because absolutely none of that matters.

After reading only a bit into Immanuel Velikovsky, it's apparent that
as good as he was (far better than myself and thereby vastly superior
to those incest intestinal "GOOGLE" and "Space.Com" freaks opposed to
absolutely everything under their one and only sun, he still wasn't an
Einstein, or at least he wasn't actually trying to be even and equal,
as it's clear that Immanuel Velikovsky looked up to the standards and
qualifications of Einstein, rather than not to piss off God No.2

Though I'll have to admit, that even the likes of Einstein were
somewhat skewed (no fault of his own) by his Jewish foundations, which
were as fanatical by any definition you'd care to imply. Though for
better than worse, Einstein managed to keep a reasonable lid on what
was by any standard an underlying Jewish cloak and dagger of great
proportions. So, when Einstein objected to some of Velikovskys'
research, at least it was accomplished with sincerely polite context
and of meaningful substance, but then it also wasn't so much
scientific as it was of the honest persuasion by his involuntary
Jewish humanity (sort of a Jewish DNA/RNA trait kicking in, much like
some antibody defending the troops), and at least I'd still consider
such as being somewhat modest though remaining quite a respectable
religious influence, but of an influence none the less, and as you
know for a fact that irregardless of whatever the truth(s) may be,
especially if it's in opposition or could potentially lead to
opposition to what's already recorded as history, you simply can't
suggest squat much less argue against another mans' religion, as that
would be like telling the Pope it wasn't such a good idea of
exterminating all those Cathars, as chances are you wouldn't leave
Vatican City alive to tell the story.

So much for honest and objective science, and for excluding humor goes
without saying, as the truth remains within either of the Catholic,
Jewish or whatever sort of Godly toilet of life, whereas the church
alone has more often than not seen fit as to endorse and/or
proliferate whatever suits their agenda, if need be until hell freezes
over, and that's another fact. So, perhaps we don't actually need
physics nor science, as you can pick and choose between almost any
religion on Earth in order to justify upon and/or refutiate nearly
anything imaginable, and even a whole lot of what's not imaginable
that simply hasn't been uncovered may easily be resolved by either
skewing the interpretations to suit or to simply switch Gods in
mid-stream.

This isn't myself nor of nice folks like Immanuel Velikovsky saying
that every soul associated with any religion is a born liar and a
dirty rotten scoundrel, as the vast majority of such folks are super
terrific in nearly every way, though no one is perfect and
unfortunately they'll more often than not follow whomever is leading,
asking few if any questions, which is another downright shame if there
ever was, as humanity has paid the ultimate price over and over
whenever the truth simply can't be told, and as a results folks simply
never learn a damn thing.

Personally, I happen to think my God can seriously kick the other
Gods' butt, though that's just my village idiot opinion that needs to
be shared from time to time.

As far as what Immanuel Velikovsky had to offer humanity, there's
certainly a great deal there to contemplate, as there are some items
suggesting along the very same lines that I've come into conclusions
upon prior to my ever reading a paragraph of his. So, chance are that
I'll draw upon a few items initially out of context from the works of
Velikovsky, with no intent of my skewing his interpretations, but
solely as to better formulate the sorts of wording and references that
might shed a little friendly light upon our moon, Venus and the likes
of what Sirius might have to offer humanity that's sharing the
brightest UV/a spectrum and sheer capacity of photosynthesis
performance anywhere to being had within range of our solar system.

If you're one of those opposed to any of this, I'd have to think that
you'd be equally opposed to absolutely anything that's against your
nonscientific beliefs, and just out of spite you'd certainly
accommodate those deeds of whatever your God expects of you, without
question and without remorse. Now which one of us is the real danger
to humanity?