[ Science/Technology ] [ Main Menu ]
4389
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: i've begun to re-read "Worlds in Collision" updates as time permits
|
the following is a quotation in the preface to the paperback edition (1977) of "Worlds in Collision" from the man who introduced the world to the term "sea-floor spreading" in his "geopoetry" paper published in 1960 Velikovsky writes, "Professor H. H. [Harry Hammond] Hess ... volunteered to write me a letter for publication: '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.'" |
Responses:
[4409] [4411] [4478] [4405] [4407] [4408] [4410] [4412] [4413] [4414] [4415] [4416] [4418] [4417] [4420] [4421] [4422] [4423] [4419] [4404] [4402] [4400] [4397] [4396] [4399] [4391] [4403]
4409
From: marja, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: i've begun to re-read "Worlds in Collision" updates as...
|
I'm not too familiar with his books but you guys discussing his writings here have peaked my curiosity ...I'll most definitely will read the " worlds in collision ".... since I've experienced some incredible phenomena IRL as well as in the dreaming it's all very familiar territory..... |
4411
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: what's astounding is that so-called scientists ignore written records
|
from ancient times and oral traditions around the globe and pass it off ... as they continue to do to this very day ... as "anecdotal" and once it's so labeled is ignored it passes understanding of how they can ignore the testimony of human beings who claim to have seen these events happen ... and not just isolated instances ... but again ... testimony for around the world can you imagine this arrogance in a court of law where "death bed" testimony is held as sacrosanct? it's almost beyond belief how these "quackademics" put themselves on pedestals and say "thus and so" and manage ... so far ... to make it stick with most people perhaps the only thing that could possibly sway the self-righteous certitude of these individuals would be for them to look up in the sky and witness similar events ... oh to have a front row seat at that event and watch the consumption of crow |
Responses:
[4478]
4478
From: marja, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: what's astounding is that so-called scientists ignore written...
|
I put it all in the same category as the dentists who still think fluoride is OK .....craziness.... it's important to have an open mind cuz the reality is much more complex/fascinating what anyone could even imagine.... many indigenous tribes believe this reality in fact is the dreaming and the dreaming is the reality.... totally logical.... |
Responses:
None
4405
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Wegener and Velikovsky living proof of failure of "quackademics"
|
Wegener's ideas ... not the mechanism ... but the ideas ... were vindicated first by Harry Hammond Hess ... who posited a mechanism for continents to move away from each other as Wegener had suggested his critics attached him viciously ... and even used the "straw man" tactic of suggesting that he ... Wegener ... was suggesting that the continents were "plowing through the oceans" how appropriate then for the same Harry Hammond Hess to come to the aide of the beleaguered Velikovsky with the assertion that, "... I do not know of any specific prediction you made that has since been proven to be false." Hess should be enshrined in the halls of science ... but i doubt he's even remembered ... and then ... possibly ... with animosity for his support of Velikovsky in the end ... both men's ideas stand on the evidence ... Wegener's ... on the record of identical fossils in the rocks on both sides of the Atlantic ... and Velikovsky's ... on ancient written records and verbal traditions handed down from father to son for millennia both men were scientists ... because both men looked at the evidence and extrapolated from that evidence the critics did then what critics continue to do to this day ... bray their astonishment to anyone who will listen ... and that loudly Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how it's done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves. -- Brendan Behan |
Responses:
[4407] [4408] [4410] [4412] [4413] [4414] [4415] [4416] [4418] [4417] [4420] [4421] [4422] [4423] [4419]
4407
From: Moho, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Nope
URL: http://honors.agu.org/medals-awards/harry-h-hess-medal/
|
#1 horst graben wrote: his critics attached him viciously ... and even used the "straw man" tactic of suggesting that he ... Wegener ... was suggesting that the continents were "plowing through the oceans" No "straw man". Wegener wrote: “… it seems an inevitable deduction that we are dealing with two different layers in the crust when we refer to the continents and the oceans. To put it in rather picturesque terms, the two layers behave like open water and large ice floes.” Reference: Wegener, Alfred, The origin of continents and oceans, translated from the 4th revised German edition by John Biram, Dover Publications, New York, 1966, p. 37. #2 horst graben wrote: Hess should be enshrined in the halls of science ... but i doubt he's even remembered ... and then ... possibly ... with animosity for his support of Velikovsky Actually, one of the highest honors awarded by the American Geophysical Union is the Harry Hess Medal, "for outstanding achievements in research on the constitution and evolution of the Earth and other planets". See link. |
Responses:
[4408] [4410] [4412] [4413] [4414] [4415] [4416] [4418] [4417] [4420] [4421] [4422] [4423] [4419]
4408
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Nope
|
Hi Moho, Thanks for your input. Our friend Horst Graben (David) is into against the mainstream type thinking so to his mind the out of context quote makes Harry Hess a target of animosity. In reality Harry Hess didn't agree with Velikovsky but supported him due to his sense of fair play. And as you point out Harry Hess's memory is still honored to this day through the AGU medal. Cheers Jim |
Responses:
[4410] [4412] [4413] [4414] [4415] [4416] [4418] [4417] [4420] [4421] [4422] [4423] [4419]
4410
From: dib, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Nope
|
You've demolished HG's unsupported opinion about Velikovsky's theory of a youthful Venice, but you will never get him to change his mind, so why bother? I'm curious how you can be so thoroughly scientific on astronomy matters, but so dogmatic about your opinion that the scientists who warn of the risk of global warming are alarmists, frauds, ignorant, or just in it for the money. I would guess that at least 97% of scientists are as convinced as you are that Velikovsky was wrong, and you support that view, yet you reject the alleged 97% of scientists who believe that we have a serious problem with our carbon emissions. Why do you reject that overwhelming scientific opinion? Do you really think that you know more about that subject than they do? |
Responses:
[4412] [4413] [4414] [4415] [4416] [4418] [4417] [4420] [4421] [4422] [4423] [4419]
4412
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Nope
|
Hi dib, > You've demolished HG's unsupported opinion about Velikovsky's theory of a youthful Venice, but you will > never get him to change his mind, so why bother? Velikovsky has always been an interesting character and while HG will never change his opinion he does provide opportunity to demonstrate the faults in Velikovsky and offshoots such as the electric universe/comet things. > I'm curious how you can be so thoroughly scientific on astronomy matters, but so dogmatic about your > opinion that the scientists who warn of the risk of global warming are alarmists, frauds, ignorant, or > just in it for the money. But I don't believe that dib. I'm sure the alarmists are sincere in their beliefs. > I would guess that at least 97% of scientists are as convinced as you are that Velikovsky was wrong, and > you support that view, yet you reject the alleged 97% of scientists who believe that we have a serious > problem with our carbon emissions. Why do you reject that overwhelming scientific opinion? Well I was say it's 99% plus who realize the evidence shows Velikovsky is wrong. But what of the 97% of climate scientists claim? Well that comes from a study, Doran and Zimmerman 2009. They sent out 10,000 invitations to answer their 2 question survey, received 3,000 responses and of this they determined 79 were from climate scientists who are actively publishing and 97% of them agreed "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures". And I don't disagree with that. But how sensitive is Earth's climate to changes in CO2? Climate models use a very high sensitivity to come up with their catastrophic results but Earth's climate isn't following climate models. That's what the evidence says. In the past 15 years fully 1/3 of the increase in atmospheric CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution has occurred, yet there has not been a significant increases in global temperatures. That doesn't mean humans are not impacting climate, just that climate isn't as sensitive to changes in CO2 has had been thought. Instead of OMG we need to act now! I believe we should look to a clean energy future in a smart, but not panic driven way. Cheers Jim |
Responses:
[4413] [4414] [4415] [4416] [4418] [4417] [4420] [4421] [4422] [4423] [4419]
4413
From: dib, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Nope
|
Ok, but for you to waste three(?) posts on a moot theory amounts to overkill when compared to your lack of interest in a thorough evaluation of both sides of the climate issue. I would challenge your statement that you haven't dissed climate scientists in an insulting manner, but I don't want to reread all your prior posts. >But how sensitive is Earth's climate to changes in CO2? Don't you think that those 97 percenters would be in a better position to answer that question? The fact that you are questioning their judgement smacks of self-serving motivation that puts your interests ahead of that of the rest of civilization. >Climate models use a very high sensitivity to come up with their catastrophic results but Earth's climate isn't following climate models. That's what the evidence says. In the past 15 years fully 1/3 of the increase in atmospheric CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution has occurred, yet there has not been a significant increases in global temperatures. That doesn't mean humans are not impacting climate, just that climate isn't as sensitive to changes in CO2 has had been thought. That seems to me to be disingenuous of you. I'm sure you are aware that the general trend of that graph shows an alarming rise in temperatures during the last century. Why would you expect a straight upward trend when you know that there are many factors involved in Earth's temperature. A 15-year dip is interesting, but no proof that the threat has abated. >Instead of OMG we need to act now! I believe we should look to a clean energy future in a smart, but not panic driven way. And what if you're wrong? Clean energy isn't going to work unless we moderate our consumption. Our capitalistic system is based primarily on greed, and that requires continued growth in population and production. We are already well past the capacity of our planet to support the current population, so how are we going to solve the problem if we can't even control our own emissions? |
Responses:
[4414] [4415] [4416] [4418] [4417] [4420] [4421] [4422] [4423] [4419]
4414
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Nope
|
Hi dib, > Ok, but for you to waste three(?) posts on a moot theory amounts to overkill when compared to your lack of > interest in a thorough evaluation of both sides of the climate issue. Well.. it's been more than 3 posts and as you know all this pseudoscience/catastrophism is a moot theory. But it's something I've long had an interest in. I first read Velikovsky's World's in Collision more than 30 years ago and while it was obviously wrong I found the story and the following it received very interesting. As far as the climate issue... that's a bit disingenuous. I've looked at all sides of the climate issue and follow the latest research. >>But how sensitive is Earth's climate to changes in CO2? > Don't you think that those 97 percenters would be in a better position to answer that question? Actually the 97% said that humans were significantly impacting global temperature. The poll that achieved that 97% figure didn't discuss climate sensitivity. There have been quite a few studies in the past few years looking at climate sensitivity in light of recent climate trends. > That seems to me to be disingenuous of you. I'm sure you are aware that the general trend of that graph > shows an alarming rise in temperatures during the last century. Uhh... nope. During the last century there were 2 periods of warming. From about 1910 to 1940 there was a warming of warming which is thought to be natural, part of the warming following the Little Ice Age. Then in the late century there was another period of warming, roughly 1979 to 1998. It is this last period of warming that is thought to been driven by human causes and in the mid to late 1990's there was much alarm as climate scientists said that rising CO2 would continue this trend. Of course that didn't happen, since 1998 there has been no statistical warming trend. See for yourself.  > Why would you expect a straight upward trend when you know that there are many factors involved in > Earth's temperature. A 15-year dip is interesting, but no proof that the threat has abated. While year over year variability will create a lot of noise in the climate record the trend of late 20th century warming was only 20 years and we now have 15 years without a warming trend. Actual global temperatures are at or below the 95% confidence range of climate models. It's not that the threat is abated, it's that the threat is overstated. > And what if you're wrong? Clean energy isn't going to work unless we moderate our consumption. Our > capitalistic system is based primarily on greed, and that requires continued growth in population and > production. And there is the problem. You as a liberal look at this science based subject as a fight against greed and capitalism while the majority of CO2 emissions come from non-capitalist countries. As the people of China and India use energy to move their combined 2.5 billion out of poverty their emissions are growing dramatically. These political beliefs get in the way of many people who think that are supported by science. For example in a recent Garden State Poll by the Hoover people were asked how California AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act would impact global temperatures. Those identifying themselves as Democrats split with 21% no change, 20% fall less than 1 degree and 33% unsure. Republicans and Independents were much more sure with 65% of Republicans and 53% of Independents answering no change. And of course the correct answer is no change since California is only a tiny piece of global emissions and California regulations will only make a slight change to their small piece of overall emissions. Cheers Jim |
Responses:
[4415] [4416] [4418] [4417] [4420] [4421] [4422] [4423] [4419]
4415
From: dib, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Nope
|
>I'm sure you are aware that the general trend of that graph during the last century is upward. >>Uhh... nope. During the last century there were 2 periods of warming. From about 1910 to 1940 there was a warming of warming which is thought to be natural, part of the warming following the Little Ice Age. Then in the late century there was another period of warming, roughly 1979 to 1998. It is this last period of warming that is thought to been driven by human causes and in the mid to late 1990's there was much alarm as climate scientists said that rising CO2 would continue this trend. This is where you seem to be intentionally distorting the evidence shown by your graph. The actual rise in the last warming cycle began around 1905, roughly coincident with the beginning of the industrial revolution. The average trend has generally been upward from that point until the current 15-year dip which I suspect is unlikely to continue much longer. |
Responses:
[4416] [4418] [4417] [4420] [4421] [4422] [4423] [4419]
4416
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: climate science 101
|
Hi dib, > This is where you seem to be intentionally distorting the evidence shown by your graph. The actual rise in the > last warming cycle began around 1905, roughly coincident with the beginning of the industrial > revolution. The average trend has generally been upward from that point until the current 15-year dip > which I suspect is unlikely to continue much longer. Your dates are a little bit off. The Industrial Revolution is said to have occurred between 1760 and 1840. The Little Ice Age between roughly 1550 to 1850 is thought to have been the coldest period in the last few thousand years. So about the start of the Industrial Revolution temperatures did start warming but climate science doesn't attribute this warming to the Industrial Revolution. The reason is that atmospheric levels of CO2 rose very slowly at that time.  Notice CO2 start to rise, but from 1850 to 1900 the rise was only ~10 ppm. During the 1800's global CO2 emissions were around 3 to 7 million tons per year. Today they are about 8,000 million tons per year. Science doesn't support the correlation between the Industrial Revolution and the early warming. Earth's climate does have natural shifts and this is agreed to be one of them. Even the pre-1940 warming is thought to have been driven by increases in solar activity combined with low volcanic activity. More recently the Mauna Loa CO2 record shows atmospheric CO2 increased from ~315 ppm to ~395 ppm since 1961. And certainly the 1979-1998 warming trend seemed to correlate nicely with that increase in atmospheric CO2. But after 20 years of warming we have 15 years of roughly level temperatures despite rapidly rising CO2. Climate models that looked pretty good up to the end of the 20th century aren't looking good now as their predicted warming has failed to occur. dib this is science and should be evidence based. Cheers Jim |
4418
From: dib, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: climate science 101
|
>Your dates are a little bit off. The Industrial Revolution is said to have occurred between 1760 and 1840. Lol. Maybe I was thinking of the Roaring 20s. My comment concerned the rise in temperature indicated on the graph. You have posted that graph at least five times on these boards as evidence that warming has ceased. I don't believe you can draw that conclusion from the graph. If you take the lowest point on that graph and draw a straight line up to the highest point on the graph, you get a slope that indicates an alarming rise in temperature over the past 100 or so years. The dip just past the peak does not do much to negate that trend. Some scientists believe that it would take 30 years to know whether that dip indicates a significant turning point. I am, was rather, a scientist. I am well aware that science should be evidence based. |
Responses:
None
4417
From: dib, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: climate science 101
|
>Your dates are a little bit off. Thanks for the understatement. I should have looked that up. Perhaps I was thinking of the Roaring 20s. In any case, I was speaking solely of the rise in temperature as shown by your graph in connection with your interpretation of the graph. You have posted it at least five times that I have noted as evidence of a break in warming. I object to that interpretation. If you take the lowest point on that graph and connect it with a straight line to the highest point of the graph, you get an alarming increase in temperature since 1900. As for your science instructions, I was a scientist in my past life. I am well aware that science should be evidence based. |
4420
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: climate science 101
|
Hi dib, > Thanks for the understatement. I should have looked that up. Perhaps I was thinking of the Roaring 20s. Not a problem. I'm used to you doing this in regards to climate. You haven't put much time into the subject and tend to make these mistakes when you attempt to make a point regarding climate change. > In any case, I was speaking solely of the rise in temperature as shown by your graph in connection with > your interpretation of the graph. You have posted it at least five times that I have noted as evidence of a > break in warming. That's what the science says. "Humanity is also responsible for the most recent period of warming from 1976 to 2010. Internal climate variability is primarily responsible for the early 20th century warming from 1904 to 1944 and the subsequent cooling from 1944 to 1976." Causes of the Global Warming Observed since the 19th Century > I object to that interpretation. If you take the lowest point on that graph and connect it with a > straight line to the highest point of the graph, you get an alarming increase in temperature since 1900. It really depends on what you are wanting to demonstrate. If you want to see the total temperature change during the 20th century that works. However 20th century climate change was in 2 distinct periods (that's not my interpretation, that is the determination of climate science) and climate science sees different causes for each of these periods. There was very little human contribution to early 20th century global warming. Most studies point to increasing solar activity, low volcanic activity and/or mulitdecadal ocean shifts. But if you take the lowest point on that graph and connect it with a straight line to the highest point of the graph you really don't get any information about AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming or human caused warming). You really end up drawing a line between 2 periods of warming with different causes. > As for your science instructions, I was a scientist in my past life. I am well aware that science should be evidence based. I realize that dib, however you don't seem to look at the evidence and instead seem to take your lead from liberal articles in the mainstream media. Cheers Jim |
4421
From: dib, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: climate science 101
|
> Thanks for the understatement. I should have looked that up. Perhaps I was thinking of the Roaring 20s. >>Not a problem. I'm used to you doing this in regards to climate. You haven't put much time into the subject and tend to make these mistakes when you attempt to make a point regarding climate change. FYI, I was not trying to make a point about climate change, I was making a point about reading graphs. I leave the decision of whether climate change is a serious threat or not to the consensus of the scientists who study the problem. My issue with you is that you tend to disregard that consensus and put your own personal spin on the evidence. My objection to your interpretation of the graph is that it is misleading, and certainly not proof that GW is over, or less of a threat. Perhaps if you would show a lot less bias in your argument, and a little more respect for the scientists who study the problem, we wouldn't be having this discussion. >If you take the lowest point on that graph and connect it with a straight line to the highest point of the graph, you get an alarming increase in temperature since 1900. >>It really depends on what you are wanting to demonstrate. If you want to see the total temperature change during the 20th century that works. And that was precisely what and all I was trying to show. You leaped to the conclusion that I was pushing GW. I have told you repeatedly that I don't have a stand on GW, I leave that complex issue up to the scientists who do study it. My only objection to your argument is that you dispute the consensus of climate scientists. >>However 20th century climate change was in 2 distinct periods (that's not my interpretation, that is the determination of climate science) and climate science sees different causes for each of these periods. There was very little human contribution to early 20th century global warming. Most studies point to increasing solar activity, low volcanic activity and/or mulitdecadal ocean shifts. That doesn't affect my argument, which is, that regardless of the cause, there was a significant increase in world temperature during the last 100 or so years which could become a serious problem if it continues to increase at the same rate. > As for your science instructions, I was a scientist in my past life. I am well aware that science should be evidence based. >>I realize that dib, however you don't seem to look at the evidence and instead seem to take your lead from liberal articles in the mainstream media. I say again, I leave that up to the experts. Perhaps you should do the same? |
4422
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: climate science 101
|
Hi dib, > My objection to your interpretation of the graph is that it is misleading, and certainly not proof that GW > is over, or less of a threat. What is misleading? The current pause in global warming is relevant to the subject of climate change. Climate models are failing and the pause highlights our incomplete understanding of all the factors in Earth's changing climate. > That doesn't affect my argument, which is, that regardless of the cause, there was a significant > increase in world temperature during the last 100 or so years which could become a serious problem if it > continues to increase at the same rate. Sure, all the graphs show there has been an increase in temperature over the past 100 years. But looking at warming over 100 years that consisted of 2 different periods of warming certainly doesn't imply that warming will continue to increase at the same rate. That is the importance of attribution. The early 20th century warming isn't attributed to human causes. What is misleading is that it is often stated that since the industrial revolution global temperature has risen by X degrees. You think it's important to look at the entire warming of the past 100 years. Yet climate science doesn't attribute the early warming to human causes so including climate warming that isn't attributed to human causes presents a skewed view of temperature history in the context of Anthropogenic Global Warming. If we are discussing AGW the important period is the late 20th century to today. And that shows us that there was roughly a 20 year period of warming from 1979 to 1998 that is attributed primarily to human causes followed by a 15 year period of level temperatures. This is the evidence and this evidence is a problem for climate models which predict continued warming as atmospheric CO2 continues to rise. You do realize I didn't create those temperature graphics? This one is from the UK Climate Research unit: And this one is from NASA's GISS:  And this one is from NOAA:  Cheers Jim |
Responses:
[4423]
4423
From: dib, [DNS_Address]
Subject: By chance, is Engish not your native tongue?(NT)
| (NT) |
Responses:
None
4419
From: dib, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Oops. Thought I had forgot to post the first msg. (NT)
| (NT) |
Responses:
None
4404
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: btw ... anyone know meaning of "obsessive-compulsive disorder"?
URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defeating_personality_disorder
| i think it refers to compulsive behavior for which there is no reward ... except for the occassional kick ... so maybe it's actually self-defeating (masochistic) behavior i'm thinking of |
Responses:
None
4402
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re:those who have questions about "Worlds in Collision"
| should stop asking stupid questions and read the book ... otherwise ... how are you ever going to know what he actually wrote about |
Responses:
None
4400
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: how about the full context?
|
Hi HG, How about the full context for that quote? HH Hess was not a Velikovsky supporter, although he and Velikovsky were friends. That quote is from a letter from Hess to Velikovsky: 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 have a good basic background in the natural sciences and you are 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 HH Hess is quoted by the NY Times as saying he didn't agree with Velikovsky's theories but defended his based on his sense of "fair play". Cheers Jim |
Responses:
None
4397
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: and you can bet Carl Sagan never quoted Harry Hess either (NT)
| (NT) |
Responses:
None
4396
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: i would suggest that the H.H. Hess quote is a stunning admission
| and ... by then ... 1977 ... Hess had probably had his fill of the scientific dogma that circulated as "proven fact" before his "geo-poetry" paper vindicated Alfred Wegener and his theories ... ha ha ... plate tectonics was born ... and the vicious "scathers" that plagued Wegener soon jumped on the band wagon without a word of public apology or a guilty look back |
Responses:
[4399]
4399
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: I doubt that
|
Hi HG, > and ... by then ... 1977 ... Hess had probably had his fill of the scientific dogma that circulated as "proven fact" I doubt that since Harry Hess died in 1969. Cheers Jim |
Responses:
None
4391
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: in the original preface (September, 1949) Velikovsky writes
| "... one day ... he may perchance, by initiating a chain reaction, take this planet out of the struggle for survival among the members of the celestial sphere." |
Responses:
[4403]
4403
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: TEPCO began operation to remove fuel from unit no. 4 today
| and the first rods were removed without a hitch |
Responses:
None
[ Science/Technology ] [ Main Menu ]