buylotrogold

Pete Stapleton comments:  I have made the point several times here that it is necessary to understand Velikovsky before you can understand the true history of astrology and how it has been distorted by the historical revisionists tropical astronomers.  Just as Ptolemy denied the precession of the Equinoxs - so do tropical astronomers deny the Catostrophic proof of the history of our solar system.  Note, there are 13 or fourteen of these articles, so I will post them as time permits, as follows: The following was posted on Sci.Astrono From: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it            Refer#: NONE   To: ALL                           Recvd: NO   Subj: Re: Sagan vs. Velikovsky       Conf: (31) SCIAstrono the following article should help sort out the scientific integrity question of our media talking head, Carl Sagan: 15 Jul 93 02:32 news: Ginenthal's Sagan and Velikovsky / The AAAS inquisition The following very long quote is from Charles Ginenthal's Sagan and Velikovsky , with the author's permission.  I'd like for readers to get a flavor for some of what the book contains, and particularly what it has to say about Sagan's greenhouse theory, and about the AAAS meeting in 1974 which became the basis for Scientists Confront Velikovsky , which I presume is the basis for at least some of the contents of the Meritt FAQ. A CASE OF PROFESSIONAL HYSTERIA Even before Worlds in Collision had reached the bookstore it was enveloped in controversy. In 1950. after more than a dozen publishing houses had rejected Velikovsky's manu_script_, it was accepted by Macmillan. Having announced forthcoming release of the book, Macmillan was soon caught in what appeared to be an organized boycott, initiated by the well-known astronomer Harlow Shapley, then director of the Harvard College Observatory. In a personal letter to the publisher, Shapley sought to block the book's release, threatening to cut off his relations with Macmillan.  Letters from other authors of Macmillan books followed, along with threats from professors who could not imagine using the company's textbooks any longer if the publisher were to discredit itself in the rumored fashion. Though the book had already been reviewed by several critics at Macmillan's request, and though it was now on the presses, the company hastily submitted the manu_script_ to three additional reviewers. These too recommended publication by a two-to-one vote. So, in April, 1950, Macmillan decided to go ahead with publication of the already controversial book. Despite the immediate furor, one of those who saw merit in Velikovsky's ideas was Gordon Atwater, chairman and curator of the Hayden Planetarium of the American Museum of Natural History.  In a preface to a 1950 article by Fulton Oursler in Reader's Digest Atwater contended that, in light of the Velikovsky thesis, the underpinnings of modern science can now be re-examined.  In fact, Atwater himself planned to mount a star show at the planetarium illustrating the new possibilities opened up by Worlds in Collision.  And in This Week magazine, a cover story by Atwater called for an open mind on Velikovsky's theory. But the day before the article appeared. and in a move that seemed to set the tenor of the events to follow, Atwater was, without explanation, dismissed from the museum.  Under growing pressure to abandon Worlds in Collision, Macmillan fired the editor who contracted the book, then, eight weeks after its publication, transferred its rights to Doubleday