Velikovsky:
"In 1953 while addressing graduate students at Princeton University, Velikovsky suggested two further testable phenomena: that the Earth's magnetic field reaches as far out into space as the Moon's orbit and is responsible for the vibratory or rocking movements of the moon. And he suggested that the planet Jupiter (from which he said the Venus-comet had originated) radiates in the radio frequency range of the electromagnetic spectrum.
These predictions were taken by scientists of the 1950s as being tantamount to proof of Velikovsky's ignorance, insanity or both. {We will see him ripping Egyptology apart in the Ramessides issue and mentioning the older alphabet as well.} Harlow Shapley refused to become involved in any experimental research to confirm his ideas. When, for instance, it was suggested that Shapley might use the Harvard observatory to search for evidence of hydrocarbons in the Venusian atmosphere. Shapley replied that he wasn't interested in Velikovsky's 'sensational claims' because they violate the laws of mechanics and 'if Dr Velikovsky is right, the rest of us are crazy'.
Within little more than a decade of publication, 'all' of Velikovsky's key predictions were confirmed by experiment. The 'Mariner' spacecraft of 1963 determined by experiment that the surface temperature of Venus is in the region of 800 degrees Fahrenheit and that the planet's fifteen-mile thick atmosphere is composed of heavy hydrocarbon molecules and possibly more complex organic compounds as well. {My father told me as I was growing up the methane type atmosphere could be changed to an earth type atmosphere with the explosion of hydrogen bombs in the atmosphere of Venus.}
In April 1955, Drs. B. F. Burke and K. L. Franklin announced to the American Astronomical Society their accidental discovery of radio noise broadcast by Jupiter. In 1962, the US Naval Research Laboratory in Washington and the Goldstone Tracking Station in southern California announced that radiometric observations showed Venus to have a slow retrograde motion. In the same year, the 'Explorer' satellite detected the Earth's magnetic field at a distance of at least twenty-two Earth radii, while in 1965 it was reported that the tail extends 'at least as far as the moon'. (3)
Considering that the main thrust of science's attack on Velikovsky was a personal attack on his integrity, the behavior of some of his most vociferous critics in the scientific community makes interesting reading. In August 1963, 'Harper's Magazine' which had carried the original announcement of Velikovsky's theories, now did a retrospective piece pointing out how all his main predictions had been borne out. The author of both articles, Eric Larrabee, made a reference which drew a thunderous response from Donald Menzel, director of Harvard College Observatory. At the height of the controversy a decade earlier, Menzel had tried to shoot Velikovsky down by calculating that for his astronomical theory to be right, the Sun would have to have a surface potential of 10 billion billion volts. Obviously, said Menzel, this is impossible so Velikovsky must be wrong. By an extraordinary chance, in 1960, V. A. Bailey, emeritus professor of physics at Sydney University (who knew nothing of the Velikovsky controversy) claimed to have discovered that the Sun is electrically charged and has a surface potential of 10 billion billion volts - exactly the value calculated by Menzel.
Feeling that Bailey's discovery made him look foolish, Menzel now sent off a strongly worded response to 'Harper's' and a letter to Bailey in Australia asking him to revoke his theory of the electric charge on the Sun as it was assisting the enemy.
According to Ralph Juergens:
Professor Bailey, taking exception to the idea that his own work should be abandoned to accomodate the anti-Velikovsky forces, prepared an article in rebuttal to Menzel's piece and submitted it to 'Harper's' for publication in the same issue with Menzel's. Bailey had discovered a simple arithmetical error in Menzel's calculations, which invalidated his argument.
It is equally interesting to see how the Harvard astronomer dealt with the fact that most of Velikovsky's predictions had been confirmed. On the radio emissions from Jupiter, he wrote that, since most scientists do not accept Velikovsky's theory then it follows that 'any seeming verification of Velikovsky's prediction is pure chance'. As far as the high surface temperature of Venus is concerned, Menzel argued that 'hot is only a relative term'. Later in the article he referred back to this statement saying 'I have already disposed of the question of the temperature of Venus'. Actually, in 1950, Menzel had estimated the temperature of Venus to be about 120 degrees Fahrenheit when it is really more like 800 degrees. On the extent of the Earth's magnetic field, Menzel wrote that Velikovsky 'said it would extend as far as the moon; actually the field suddenly breaks off at a distance of several earth diameters'. In fact, Menzel was wrong; the field had been detected as extending at least {Emphasis} twenty-two Earth radii a year earlier by the 'Explorer' satellite.
To their credit, a few scientists did support Velikovsky against the climate of hysteria and intimidation including Princeton's Professor H. H. Hess, who was later chairman of the National Academy of Science's space board. In 1962, Princeton physicist Valentin Bargmann and Columbia astronomer Lloyd Motz wrote a joint letter to the editor of 'Science' magazine calling attention to Velikovsky's priority in predicting Venus's high surface temperature, Jupiter's radio emissions and the great extent of the Earth's magnetosphere, but 'Science's' editor Dr Philip Abelson, was not interested in Velikovsky. Instead, he printed a letter from science fiction writer Paul Anderson satirising Velikovsky on the grounds that science fiction writers and hoaxers also made fantastic predictions that were sometimes verified. When the editor of 'Horizon' magazine wrote to Abelson protesting at the exclusion of an article by Velikovsky, Abelson replied:
‘Velikovsky is a controversial figure. Many of the ideas that he expressed are not accepted by serious students of earth science. Since my prejudices happen to agree with this majority, I strained my sense of fair play to accept the letter by Bargmann and Motz, and thought that the books were nicely balanced with the rejoinder of Anderson.’ (4)
'Scientific American' showed that it had not moved on editorially since it ridiculed the Wright Brothers fifty years earlier. The magazine had refused to carry advertising for 'Worlds in Collision' {Forwarded by Einstein I believe} and in 1956 it carried a strongly critical article by physicist Harrison Brown." (5)
One of the reasons for this is the fact that Velikovsky's Egyptian chronologies directly refute Biblical history. In fact he destroys the whole time or calendrical premises of most history and shows how it is based on three pillars of ignorance. Errors accepted in one branch of academics are picked up by others and the whole fiasco is a 'house of cards' with propaganda in mind. When I found his book 'Peoples of the Sea' it was in the fiction section of my local library while the other stories and theories which have been proven false over and over again, are in the reference or science sections.

Velikovsky, Immanuel Dr. (1983). Stargazers and Gravediggers: Memoirs to Worlds
in Collision. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc.

Velikovsky, Immanuel Dr. (1950). Worlds in Collision. New York: Buccaneer Books.

How is Velikovsky's research viewed today I wander? As I was reading these novels, it struck me that his interpretation of universal events seemed extremely valid and believable. What direction would society have taken if Velikovsky's research illicted a more positive social response?

While I was reading 'Worlds in Collision', I often thought "Is this the inklings of a new world order and is it representative of a modern Quantum paradigm?

Was Velikovsky on to something or not?

Velikovsky:


"In 1953 while addressing graduate students at Princeton University, Velikovsky suggested two further testable phenomena: that the Earth's magnetic field reaches as far out into space as the Moon's orbit and is responsible for the vibratory or rocking movements of the moon. And he suggested that the planet Jupiter (from which he said the Venus-comet had originated) radiates in the radio frequency range of the electromagnetic spectrum.


These predictions were taken by scientists of the 1950s as being tantamount to proof of Velikovsky's ignorance, insanity or both. {We will see him ripping Egyptology apart in the Ramessides issue and mentioning the older alphabet as well.} Harlow Shapley refused to become involved in any experimental research to confirm his ideas. When, for instance, it was suggested that Shapley might use the Harvard observatory to search for evidence of hydrocarbons in the Venusian atmosphere. Shapley replied that he wasn't interested in Velikovsky's 'sensational claims' because they violate the laws of mechanics and 'if Dr Velikovsky is right, the rest of us are crazy'.


Within little more than a decade of publication, 'all' of Velikovsky's key predictions were confirmed by experiment. The 'Mariner' spacecraft of 1963 determined by experiment that the surface temperature of Venus is in the region of 800 degrees Fahrenheit and that the planet's fifteen-mile thick atmosphere is composed of heavy hydrocarbon molecules and possibly more complex organic compounds as well. {My father told me as I was growing up the methane type atmosphere could be changed to an earth type atmosphere with the explosion of hydrogen bombs in the atmosphere of Venus.}


In April 1955, Drs. B. F. Burke and K. L. Franklin announced to the American Astronomical Society their accidental discovery of radio noise broadcast by Jupiter. In 1962, the US Naval Research Laboratory in Washington and the Goldstone Tracking Station in southern California announced that radiometric observations showed Venus to have a slow retrograde motion. In the same year, the 'Explorer' satellite detected the Earth's magnetic field at a distance of at least twenty-two Earth radii, while in 1965 it was reported that the tail extends 'at least as far as the moon'. (3)


Considering that the main thrust of science's attack on Velikovsky was a personal attack on his integrity, the behavior of some of his most vociferous critics in the scientific community makes interesting reading. In August 1963, 'Harper's Magazine' which had carried the original announcement of Velikovsky's theories, now did a retrospective piece pointing out how all his main predictions had been borne out. The author of both articles, Eric Larrabee, made a reference which drew a thunderous response from Donald Menzel, director of Harvard College Observatory. At the height of the controversy a decade earlier, Menzel had tried to shoot Velikovsky down by calculating that for his astronomical theory to be right, the Sun would have to have a surface potential of 10 billion billion volts. Obviously, said Menzel, this is impossible so Velikovsky must be wrong. By an extraordinary chance, in 1960, V. A. Bailey, emeritus professor of physics at Sydney University (who knew nothing of the Velikovsky controversy) claimed to have discovered that the Sun is electrically charged and has a surface potential of 10 billion billion volts - exactly the value calculated by Menzel.


Feeling that Bailey's discovery made him look foolish, Menzel now sent off a strongly worded response to 'Harper's' and a letter to Bailey in Australia asking him to revoke his theory of the electric charge on the Sun as it was assisting the enemy.


According to Ralph Juergens:


Professor Bailey, taking exception to the idea that his own work should be abandoned to accomodate the anti-Velikovsky forces, prepared an article in rebuttal to Menzel's piece and submitted it to 'Harper's' for publication in the same issue with Menzel's. Bailey had discovered a simple arithmetical error in Menzel's calculations, which invalidated his argument.


It is equally interesting to see how the Harvard astronomer dealt with the fact that most of Velikovsky's predictions had been confirmed. On the radio emissions from Jupiter, he wrote that, since most scientists do not accept Velikovsky's theory then it follows that 'any seeming verification of Velikovsky's prediction is pure chance'. As far as the high surface temperature of Venus is concerned, Menzel argued that 'hot is only a relative term'. Later in the article he referred back to this statement saying 'I have already disposed of the question of the temperature of Venus'. Actually, in 1950, Menzel had estimated the temperature of Venus to be about 120 degrees Fahrenheit when it is really more like 800 degrees. On the extent of the Earth's magnetic field, Menzel wrote that Velikovsky 'said it would extend as far as the moon; actually the field suddenly breaks off at a distance of several earth diameters'. In fact, Menzel was wrong; the field had been detected as extending at least {Emphasis} twenty-two Earth radii a year earlier by the 'Explorer' satellite.


To their credit, a few scientists did support Velikovsky against the climate of hysteria and intimidation including Princeton's Professor H. H. Hess, who was later chairman of the National Academy of Science's space board. In 1962, Princeton physicist Valentin Bargmann and Columbia astronomer Lloyd Motz wrote a joint letter to the editor of 'Science' magazine calling attention to Velikovsky's priority in predicting Venus's high surface temperature, Jupiter's radio emissions and the great extent of the Earth's magnetosphere, but 'Science's' editor Dr Philip Abelson, was not interested in Velikovsky. Instead, he printed a letter from science fiction writer Paul Anderson satirising Velikovsky on the grounds that science fiction writers and hoaxers also made fantastic predictions that were sometimes verified. When the editor of 'Horizon' magazine wrote to Abelson protesting at the exclusion of an article by Velikovsky, Abelson replied:


‘Velikovsky is a controversial figure. Many of the ideas that he expressed are not accepted by serious students of earth science. Since my prejudices happen to agree with this majority, I strained my sense of fair play to accept the letter by Bargmann and Motz, and thought that the books were nicely balanced with the rejoinder of Anderson.’ (4)


'Scientific American' showed that it had not moved on editorially since it ridiculed the Wright Brothers fifty years earlier. The magazine had refused to carry advertising for 'Worlds in Collision' {Forwarded by Einstein I believe} and in 1956 it carried a strongly critical article by physicist Harrison Brown." (5)


One of the reasons for this is the fact that Velikovsky's Egyptian chronologies directly refute Biblical history. In fact he destroys the whole time or calendrical premises of most history and shows how it is based on three pillars of ignorance. Errors accepted in one branch of academics are picked up by others and the whole fiasco is a 'house of cards' with propaganda in mind. When I found his book 'Peoples of the Sea' it was in the fiction section of my local library while the other stories and theories which have been proven false over and over again, are in the reference or science sections.

Are you simply reiterating what you initially stated? I was hoping you could provide info on what you personally thought about 'Worlds in Collision'.

I think I make it clear that I do not think it was fiction and I know that his insights threatened the religious paradigm. That paradigm includes people in close concert doing all the things you wish to change. Do you know what a Luciferian or Hibernian is and whether there is any real difference today when compared to the Divine Kings and Holy Roman Emperors? Actually the corporate plutocracy has been large and in charge for a long time before Christ (an amalgam character). Velikovsky (as far as I know) did not clue in to who he was up against.

Well, what is it they say about the cyclical nature of the universe..
Expansion/Contraction.

I get the jist of what a Luciferian is, however i've not come across the term Hiberian before.

Maybe you could elaborate (expand) on these terms and i will digest (contract) them before I compare contemporary society vs. the Divine Kings and Holy Roman
Emperors.

Elaborate - sure in ten books.

Here are some clues.

Nostradamus was an Hibernian (see David Ovason) and a founding member of the Jesuits along with those BEES the Borgias De Medicis who were Popes before they chose to simply stay running the economy through the name Rothschild.

St. Bernard is a double-agent Cistercian and Hibernian. Lanz (Hitler and FOGC) is a probable suspect and definately was a Cistercian.

The Basilidae to Basilians takes the Eastern Church hegemony under their wing along with the Nestorians who are in China according to archaeology in the 6th C. and still a political force when Temujin arrives.

BEES are Stuarts and Merovingian/Benjaminites,

Heliopolitans are Luciferians above the Masonic 'octopus' as the Rosicrucian Thomas Paine admits posthumously. They were Druids who sold out but played both ends against the middle.

Cistercians - order of Roman Catholic monks founded (1098) by St. Stephen Harding in Citeaux, France (hence the name); the white Monks (from their white habit). The greatness of the order came with their second founder, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, under whom it expanded phenomenally. In attempting to restore the early simplicity of the Benedictines, they stressed love of God, cheerful practice of austerities, and practice of manual labour, especially farming. The order became less prominent after 1400. Of later Cisterian reforms most important was that of the Trappists - Roman Catholic monks (Reformed Cistercians or Cistercians of the Stricter Observance), whose name comes from La Trappe, France, Where a monastic reform was begun c.1660. Trappists lead lives of strict seclusion, giving their hours to worship, labour, and study. There is no recreation, no meat is eaten, and silence is observed.

Hibernian - a native or inhabitant of Ireland?
Luciferian - pertaining to Lucifer, devilish.

Are you stating that the corporate plutocracy of society viewed Velokovsky as a Luciferian? I don't think he was. He was just detailing his vivid and, I believe, valid interpretation of historical reality, which is also a validation of what a Quantum reality proposes, a gestalt of everything. Was it the corporate plutocracy, as a whole, that resisted Velikovsky's views and not just the scientific community, or was it a combination of both? If I remember correctly there were alot of Velikovsky supporters during those decades of universal discovery. He was put into print after all, although I admiy it was a tremendous and enduring struggle for him to get published. Wasn't Einstein, for one, a supporter, among others? It seems that the powers that be during those decades were extremely myopic. Are their any current studies being done on Velikovsky's research or has he and his theories been all but forgotten? Of course, it might help you to know that Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky was before my time and I am only regurgitating and interpreting second hand information of others, of which, I believe you may be one, who have lived through the decades of his intellectual peakness. Would it be wrong to, if as philosophers who are trying to uncover the truth of what it means to be, take a serious look at a guy like Velikovsky and maybe ask that the powers that be, historically and presently, made a mistake and Velikovsky was on to something? And I am not trying to be a Luciferian.

I have no idea how you could come to that conclusion. I believe I said Velikovsky did not know what he was up against and I identified the paradigm and those who run it. However, it is possible he met McLuhan while working on Peoples of the Sea with the ROM curator and McLuhan did know a little about the Synarchists according to his recent biographer. But he could not write about that - if he wished to be published by a real or major publisher.

If I use the word octopus are you going to give me the dictionary definition like Dan?

The guilds like the serpent (or Dragon and Chanes) are the same and all over the world for a reason. Would you quote a dictionary definition of Serpent or Dragon rather than the Crusading Knights for the Catholic Church that included Count Vlad the Impaler? They are Dragons like Arthur Pendragon from the Troubadours (Bairds - my family name) who are agents of the Hibernians. The corporate entities of the Phoenician Kelts still run the world and they traveled it selling myth and potions for millennia. But you need to read my work and I do not have the time to do your work for you - outside of what I have already done in my books.

Luciferians and Ostro (means 'bright as in light) Goths are not devilish and the Devil was a dodge or cover-up just like Atlantis. I believe the idea of Hell and all those sins and demons that they project into people's minds has been a number one mind control device and the 'constructs' they created in the spirit world are mere myth and have no truth except for the energy that the duped sheep need to see and are giving them. We must stop these incessant fear-mongering 'constructs' or religions.

No disrespect intended (just a squirel trying to get a nut), I'm just trying to wrap (or is it warp) my head around what it is you are saying.
I am obviously not at the same level of enlightenment that you are, but I am trying to personally ascertain what the truth is, ala the Socrates way...

And I don't want you to do my research for me, for that's the best part about acquiring KNOWLEDGE (not the knowledge of 'how to'; build a house, drive a car, etc.), wisdom, truth, ENLIGHTENMENT.

Of course, I'm only at a certain stage of my mental development, and need new input like the data that you are providing and using that data as springboards for future thought.

What in the name of Hell does enlightenment have to do with it. I am giving you their own words - they call themselves en'light'ened but they are NOT! That is what Illuminati and Alumbrados means.

If you think they are enlightened and there were some who were - then tell me why the world is living this myth.

Maybe the world is just a myth left over from the remnants of the Big Bang and we are not even here having this mechanical conversation.

I've not verbalized my thoughts on Velikovsky before and honestly you are the only contemporay that I've come across who is verbalizing their thoughts as well.

Just after an outside (outside my cognitive processes) opinion, in laymens terms, of what you thought of Velikovsky now vs. when he first arrived on the intellectual scene.

Is it tough being as ornary as you are ignorantlly (or maybe not) sounding, or is it a naturally occuring phenomena, i.e. genetical factors, environmental factors, pschological factors, situational factors, etc.?

Measurement is the cornerstone of knowledge. It allows us to compare things with other things and to quantify relationships.

Mine is bigger than yours amounts to a mathematical statement (m>y).

Everything boils down to quantity, if only because everything ultimately boils down to particles and forces.

Whenever a truly original genius appears in this world, people immediately endeavor to get rid of them, Lu Xun - considered the greatest writer of modern China.

Two methods that are used are; supression - they isolate an individual, starve an individual, surround an individual with silence, they bury him alive; exaltation - they put an individual on a pedestal and they turn an individual into a god.

Velikovsky?

The particles or forces are derived from the one-dimensional harmonic (!) forces written and formulated in String Theory. It is in the Logos if you would study my work (Though I put it in a little at a time and not all in one place really). Velikovsky may well have tapped-in to these things but I have not read enough of his work or I have seen no evidence of him knowing how he garnered this knowledge we are inferring to him (mostly you but I will agree to a large extent).

An idea for you to work on in art.

Draw the line in the middle and put a pyramid on it. Then do the mirror image of the pyramid below. Have the sun above the upper Pyramid with a beam of light (make it amber for Carlos' waves) reaching from the Pyramid to the sun.

In the lower half put seven rows of blocks visible and the capstone with your Third Eye from the Eye of Horus on the US dollar bill.

Have an ghostly or lesser interior design showing the shafts of the Pyramid and the aperture that connects to the stars (Read Bauval for which one in the representation of the heavenly sphere. Have a silvery beam from the star go to the aperture in a small line unlike the major beam of the upper connection.

That might be enough but you can put a caduceus on the right of the line being in both realms above and below. And another symbol with a serpent on the left or sinister side - the Ouroborous = Infinity.

If you would direct me to a place where I might find your work I would gladly devour and digest it.

As for the one-dimensional harmonic forces, these particles and forces originate from a single point and reverberate along these multi-dimensional strings proposed by String Theory.

It sounds like we are back to the Big Bang again (dilation/contraction into infinity).

As for your advice it is well appreciated, however, I fear that there might be too much explicit iconograpy and woul visually overwhelm my audiences. I prefer my work to be more subtle and implicitly arrive at the same result less obtrusively, almost (?) subliminally George Bush.

It all sounds very structured and less playful than I am trying to achieve. Don't get me wrong, there is a tremendousssss amount of structure in my paintings but it is more implicit.

What would it achieve, if I created a piece that you dictated? It sounds like something you may want to persue and explore in a piece of your own.

I do like the IDEA (percept, recept, concept), the fundamental existence of something, of the triangle - Pythagorean 'tetraktys' a figure regarded as sacred to that earliest ancient Greek philosophical society (mathematics/geometry). A triangle cannot exist in the world of phenomena in its own right. What is happening when we percieve something as triangular is that we are looking through the imperfect, triangular-appearing object to the idea of triangularity that lies behind it. That is how we are able to make the discrimination that what we perceive is a triangle.

As for mirroring the triangle, would that not turn it into a square? Now you have two geometrical elements and throw in the circular sun makes three. Splitting the canvas in half now gives you a rectangle. Very clever.

World-Mysteries.com has about half of my books on CD now - individual ones are available as e-books. The publisher of Diverse Druids is at http://www.invispress.com/DRD and there are many links to great reviews.

As to iconography being too overwhelming you can do it one piece at a time and start with the mirrored Pyramid. The Great Pyramid taught the 'Singing of the Spheres' to Pythagoras and this is what you and I are discussing as regards to the cosmogony and QMWI. Phi and the Golden Section are important design principles in architecture that are in the Pyramid too - and are good to incorporate in your art if you wish to archetypally reach people and not try to start a new system from scratch.

Do you have reference for the one-dimensional harmonic force originating from a single point? The way I heard the research has it now - there were many dimensions and two of them were hot and cold which came in contct and started the matter universe. But these dimensions presumably also had one-dimensional harmonic force as the basic building block.

A Pyramid on the top section is mirrored by one on the lower section - thus no box.
Triangles are important aspects of astrology too.

The tetrahedra or triangles in the Pyramid were two perfect ones according to Bucky Fuller. The result is able to form energy flowing around it into Delta Wave forms which are part of the Time continuum studied and in the work of Al Bielek.

Ah, pryamids not triangles. Still, they are geometrical applications.

Alas, sleep is overwhelming this night owl, I'll catch y'all on the flippen side.

Are you under the impression there is some truth to Pythagoras inventing geometry? He got what little he did (along with many other Greek sages including Euclid and Thales - Thales and Pythagoras both with Phoenician parentage) from the Pyramid which is built long before as the last vestiges of their culture were waning.

Okay, I'll bite one last time and then its sleepy time.

Pythagoras' metaphysics of numbers.

Aristotle tells us in Metaphysics (I,5) that the Pytagoreans were the first to advance the study of mathematics and are known as the first mathematics research society. So many discoveries were made by them: the existence of prime #'s, the distinction between odd and even numbers. the graphing of a regular polyhedron, and most of the theorems of elementary geometry.

In the history of the field, the earlier number systems of the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians were more arithmatic than mathematical. The preceding systems were basically methods of practical land measurement. The Pythagoreans were the first to elevate this arithmetical geodesy to the level of mathematics and geometry.

And, Pythagoras was born on the island of Samos i believe, of the western coast of Asia Minor, the original cradle of philosophy. Not sure about his heritage though so I will take your word on it, or should I (You, sometimes, weaver of incredible thales, oops tales).

The Egyptians did not build the Pyramid and Pythagoras learned his geometry from it. Clearly it has Phi and PI and much more and it predates the Greeks who are colonized - yes - a colony. The Greeks did try to claim all manner of knowledge to themself - just as Khruschev did. This is known as Hellenizing. But there are Greek authors who tell the truth of Homer's DN or DNN (The Tuatha de Danaan) and call them 'ogygia' which means ancient ones. So you are a long way away from understanding the roots of history and science - thus anything you do will only further the propaganda of the Hellenizers and plagiarists who have created myths to separate man from his soulful purpose and part in the PURPOSE or Divine Providence.

On the matter of Babylonian math and root 60 ways of addressing infinity and zero you will find the Mayans had the system we use today. They had it BEFORE the Indians of the sub-continent and that is because they taught the Indians it. I substantiate these assertions through demonstrating numerous connections rom hard evidence in all sciences - not from propaganda or mere histories written to aggrandize Empire-builders and Popes at the Center of the Universe. (Flat Earth devotees still abound wh think there ever was a time when man thought the earth was flat.)

What about e?

As to your stupid comment about me telling tales - PLEASE! Start to read and study - don't buy the BS you are going to learn in school - it is not real history it is 'his'-story; and 'miss'-story.

Samos and Rhodes and many other islands stayed truer to the Phoenician way and Pythagoras had to leave Greece for a place called Bruttium after the Bruttii - Bruces and the founders of Rome and Britain = the BEES. You can get a lot of this through forensic analysis of Michael Grant's book The Rise of the Greeks as I quote him in large parts of my books on the subject. Jacquetta hawkes and her archaeology on Crete at the House of Mallia (ML and the Milesians) going back to the thrid millennium BC is a good place to start on the journey back to Catal Huyuk and what she called a precociously advanced culture.

Where are you finding all this debunking information. You are obviuosly looking where I am not.

By the way, you almost sound Velikovskian yourself, et tu?

I was only referring to the statement you made somewhere on this site at some time about telling tales, wink, wink.

Grant is the top historian as regarded by academia. I use Nobel Laureates and the top historians who work from the likes of Poseidonius in Herodotus and Hecateus and all that too - but archaeolgy and botany and genetics is a great confirmation that proves what cell diffusionists and linguists have long known. IN short I do REAL research! It is not debunking anymore - it is now becoming so proven that the paradigm is eating crow regularly. Do you want a Bilio of one of my books? I have posted one here - look it up.

What about e?


???????????????

Didn't Pythagoras move the city of Kroton in southeastern Italy c.530 B.C.? Which was also where he founded his school. Now, stop egging me on by hurling insults at my level of intelligence so I can get some sleep. I'll catch up on this convoy later.

Obviously, I need to broaden my intellectual horizon and incorporate more modalities of thought into my repertoire, i.e. the sources you just mentioned and the like. So much info, so little time. Focus, concentrate, narrow down (but not myopically).

e - you know, the symbolical mathematical representation.

I've just come across it myself, so that's all you get.

Apparently it is right there in stature with pi and phi.

Reading between the lines.

E is a very ancient subset of knowledge and one of my fellow researchers who is named The Fetch has some excellent work on it and the code it is central to.

The important thing about you - I think. You are asking questions - thus you have a chance to find the answers.

Croton in one language and Bruttium in another and it was located right near another city called Taras (Keltic Tara = spiritual center). But it is their destruction of Sybaris that is most telling. Archaeology confirmed the existence of Sybaris a couple of decades ago - it had been relegated to legend. The Pythagoreans (some say founders of Masonry - only partially true) re-routed a river and inundated Sybaris - the dictionary definition of Sybaritic provides a great clue. If this is the area of your interest and present doubts - you will find no one (in any book) has put together the Sybaris/Carthage and Etruscan history which led to the Battle of Alalia and the founding of Rome as I have done - again using the top available information.

Hang on a minute and I will give you a freebie (long it is) on that one all-important battle.

In the heading you stated that some scientists were frauds.

Were you inferring that Velikovsky was a fraud or that members of the scientific community who debunked him were the frauds?

I wounder what kind of fraudulant scientific endeavours are being committed in our present post-modern world ( to know that which is not possible anymore). Sounds so discouraging, may as well pack it in. There nothing left. Endless emptiness.

Each step into a new dimension appeared at first to be movement in time but it became a dimension in space.

The initial post is quite clear on the kind of attacks done in a fraudulent manner against Velikovsky as well as showing the few who backed him. Clearly the peer review process is a crock wouldn't you say?

Do you feel a bit of this backlash yourself, with some of your writing?

I get my fair shares of "who do you think you are?" warped my way.

I just finished reading the intro to 'Diverse Druids", by Robert Baird, and even the first sentence made me stop and do exactly what it said as I quickly scribbled down the quote onto my notepad.

I like ('OC' = 'not', a cult) or as in 'nut', a cult.

I reiterate that you sound Veliskvskian-like yourself - and I write that as a compliment. This new world paradigm shift has potential with intellects like yourself among us plucking an orchestra of sounds within the collective consciousness, as well as the un.

Genetics - hmmm, how do we all trace back to Adam, I'm wondering? Do I look like him or Eve? Do I have her eyes and his build?

All historical events were all carefully carried out plots by the corporate plutocracy, relatively speaking? Balderdash! May be, but not to the extent that you are purporting. I'm nobody's puppet because their are no strings on me. Theories attempt to prove otherwise.

What you are writing in your book all sounds quntifiable and I'm sure that you have all your quotes and citings real handy, however, could it be that that is simply how you've percieved all that data that your brain has collected into its consciousness and compiled over the years? Again this all sounds like the whole Velikovskian saga all over again.

Do your critics attempt to tear you a new arse?

I'll buy one of your books if and when you buy one of my paintings.

No seriously though, I will endevour to get a copy and read further.

Could be percieved as narcissistic.

One could say that but he worked very academic stuff - like Chomsky, Mc Luhan and others. I don't recall him at personal interviews or speeches and I really am not an expert on him.

I would not say that.

I defy you to say you are not a product of your inputs and the media programming. It isvery hard not to be.

As to the Synarchists or plutocrats - just read a loittel more and keep an open mind. Remember what FDR said - 'If it happened , it was planned.'

And all those who are living with their head in a dark place denying this plan get this response when they call me a Conspiracy Theorist.

IF THERE IS NO PLAN - THERE SHOULD BE.

Let's make it a 'Conspiracy of LOVE' (Teilhard).

Marilyn Fergeson, "The Aquarian Conspiricy", (1980) 5, 19, 462 - 463.

Let's make it a conspiricy of truth,' ABSOLUTE' truth.

That is the stuff that creates the problems. Someone actually thinks there is some balck and white or 'absolute' TRUTH. The more of it I know the more I find it easy to be left, right and in the middle or in the case of religion - finding the common ground on issues like Creation.

Do you think guys like Gates and Trump are or are the Medici of the 'Americas', if not at the global level?

Yes, and my message is keep an open mind and do NOT become programmed. Or 'shoot any who wish to be the guru'.

Trump is Mafia money. Gates made it honestly - no likely connection to the old money although they would be part of the same clubs and get some input.

Yes, Marilyn is a great read - and an OK speaker too. But TRUTH is relative.

Who's controlling what we, as society, are about to experience over the next two weeks in Greece, and the Olympics? There were no Medici in Greece were there? Are they not Italian?

There are conspiricies in Greece, doping, terrorism.

Who's controlling hurricane Charlie, Velikovsky?