From lippard@PrimeNet.Com Fri Sep 2 13:44:14 1994 Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 13:43:07 -0700 (MST) From: "James J. Lippard" To: lippard@rtd.com Article 96200 of talk.origins: Xref: primenet talk.origins:96200 Path: primenet!news.asu.edu!asuvax!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsrelay.iastate.edu!news.iastate.edu!pv7440.vincent.iastate.edu!btd From: btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T. Dehner) Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Cochrane the Clueless: Ellenberger Replies Date: 2 Sep 94 19:46:07 GMT Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa Lines: 196 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: pv7440.vincent.iastate.edu [posted for CLE by btd] Cochrane the Clueless: Ellenberger Replies Introduction The meeting in Haliburton, Ontario, last wekend was a success despite the boycott by Charles Ginenthal and Clark Whelton on account of Ellenberger's (CLE's) attending. Two highlights of the proceedings were 1) Gunnar Heinsohn's visible let down when Henry Zemel refuted his contention that in the ice cores inividual snowfalls cannot be distinguished from annual accumulation and 2) Lynn Rose being so unnerved by CLE's stream of trenchant questions from the audience (after saying sotto voce "I do not reply to questions from that source") that, completely out of character, he referred to such world-class scholars as Peter Huber and Richard Parker collectively as "the jerks." Irving Wolfe, as attendee, tried to quell CLE's interogatories, contrary to the seminar's established format and in distinct contrast to his posture as moderator in 1992 when he allowed Charles Ginenthal to lead two audience rebellions against CLE's refutation of Velikovsky's "youthful" Venus. To quash the unfounded rumor heard at Haliburton that CLE once accused Roger Wescott, Prof. of Anthropology and Linguistics, of being anti-Semitic, the correct scenario is as follows: 1) in remarks reprinted in a British Velikovsky organ in 1992, Irving Wolfe, Prof. of English, stated he believes Hebrew was the first language, as the Bible says, and that the Indo-European language tree (which excludes Hebrew) is a hoax perpetrated by anti-Semitic German scholars. 2) In an Oct. '92 letter to Wolfe correcting several errors of fact, CLE mentioned his linguistic infelicity and asked rhetorically if he thought Wescott was anti-Semitic because as a linguist he accepts the Indo-European language tree sans Hebrew (which is not an Indo-European language). 3) No reply was ever received except this rumor two years later. Such are the tactics of arch-Velikovskians, regardless their flavor. Anti-Scholar Reprised Everett Cochrane (EC) was identified through his comportment on the 'net as a "Philistine, Anti-Scholar and Reductionist." His continuing behavior shows he lacks the socio-intellectual necessities to participate in a scholarly debate because: 1. He does not respect the continuity of the arument as explained 8 Aug in Part I of "Everett Cochrane: Philistine, Anti-Scholar & Reductionist," Para. 6, with four particulars, e.g., denigrating Moe Mandelkehr's scholarly status by ignoring his three major papers in SIS Review after CLE cited them in the post to which EC was replying. 2. He ignores arguments that are fatal to his position such as the fact explained by Morris Jastrow in "Sun and Saturn" that Saturn was given a specific name after Jupiter and Venus were named so that for a time Saturn was lumped with Mars and Mercury as "Lu-Bat," or planet, whose specific identity was deduced from context. This is probably the most frequently cited paper in the "Saturnist" literature for examples of associations (some would say identifications) of Sun with Saturn *in astrological omens,* yet NEVER has a "Saturnist" deigned to deal with the recentness of Saturn's differentiation as a specific planet (in their model it would be expected to be first or at least singled out with Jupiter and Venus), much less acknowledged this "problem," which testifies to their collective scholarly pretentions. Is this "trivial drivel," as EC calls it? 3. He persists with the BIG LIE that the first gods were planets in the face of demonstrations that, e.g., before the Sumerian Inanna was associated with Venus, she was "mistress of the date clusters" and before Ninurta, another anthropomorphic god, whose name means "Lord Plow," was associated with Saturn he was god of the rising/east Sun, hunting, war, and agriculture whose star was Antares. Is this more "trivial drivel"? 4. He ignores the challenge to his notion that Herakles - Mars embodied in the facts that 1) Ares, half brother of Herakles, was identified with Mars and 2) Iphikles, twin brother of Herakles, is missing in EC's planetary fantasy. Since Herakles is the issue of Zeus and a mortal, he was in life a hero, not a god. Is this more "trivial drivel"? The question, as anyone familiar with the myths well knows, is not as black-and-white as EC carries on. "But only the annihilation of the human Heracles permits the apotheosis of the son of Zeus, and perhaps not enough attention has been paid to the tension which constantly sends Heracles between the death of mortals and the death which immortalizes" [N.L./d.b., "Heracles: The Valor and Destiny of the Hero," in Y. Bonnefoy (compiler), MYTHOLOGIES (Chicago, 1991), p.481]. Certainly CLE knows more of Herakles "aside from what he has read of [EC]," else how would he know about Iphikles whom EC never mentioned? But all this is ridiculous because for all of EC's empty posturing as a scholar, CLE's discussions of his work with Gerald Hawkins, Harald Reiche, Hertha von Dechend, and Wolfgang Heimpel elicit the same reaction, similar to what Einstein rendered of Velikovsky's _Worlds in Collision_, when he wrote in the margins of his German edition, "Der Torr" -- German for the fool. 5. He engages in _ad hominem_ incessantly. For example, what relevance is CLE and his friend Ellen selling "Velikovsky's right!" [EC still does not get it correct, but, then, he can't quote Anthes accurately or cite the title of Worthen's book correctly, either] paraphenalia at the 1980 Princeton Seminar unless it is some code intended to activate CLE to reveal Lew Greenberg's assessment, confided to CLE in the event of EC's indecorous behavior? How do you want it, EC? No Seasons in the Golden Age While CLE was in Haliburton, EC had no epiphany, as indicated by his several posts -- just more of the same bovine excretment. Regarding "no seasons in the Golden Age," EC quotes from p.l2 in AEON I:1 when p. 8 was specified wherein Talbott reported in the section "Golden Age": "Throught an eternal spring ... the earth produced abundantly, free from the seasonal cycles of decay and rebirth." EC is GONGED, again! EC's quote from AEON III:3, p. 9, is accurate. Sure, Talbott is reporting mythical themes, but what EC suppresses is the fact that the *context* is always one in which Talbott claims the traditions, no matter how unnatural, are true. In his interview by John Gibson, published in RCN Newsletter #3 (Oct. 15, 1977), Talbott said "...But what was the Golden Age? The myths describe it as a period of original cosmic harmony. There were no seasons, so the vegetation always flourished ... Now the experience of Saturn's Golden Age was real ..." (p.3). EC is GONGED once more! N.B.: In Kronos X:1, p. 43, Roger Wescott described the Golden Age as having no seasonal changes, a perpetual spring. When Bob Grubaugh described his polar configuration (p.c.) model to CLE over the phone from Scranton in June 1993, he took pains to emphasize the in his model the seasons do not change, just as "Davey" [Talbott] describes. The model published in AEON III:3 and defended assiduosly this summer on the 'net implicitly keeps the northern hemisphere in constant *summer,* contrary to Talbott's "spring," while winter prevails in the sourthern hemisphere. EC was reportedly so excited by Grubaugh's model when he first saw it that he commissioned Engineering Animation, Inc., to produce a video animation of the p.c. for showing at Scranton (AEON III:3, p.34) Even if the "Saturnists" never mentioned "no seasons in the Golden Age," the model they rallied around the summer of 1993 [cancelling the publication of Robert Driscoll's new model] implicitly, at least, had no seasons, or more correctly no seasonal change. Evidently EC has the sort of mind that when he reads a story about explorers going up river in May and returning in July the following year, he has no clue as to how many months they were gone because the story never says so in numbers. He embraces a model that has no seasons and denies he ever professed such a belief. Alas, the real world just does not work that way; but who ever said the "Saturnists" know how the real world really works? Conclusion Following EC's comportment these past five months on the 'net gives new meaning to the slogan "A mind is a terrible thing to waste." And "debating" with such a mind is a terrible waste of time. However, jousting can be great fun and we shall see whether or not EC will make good on his rumored boast to physically eject CLE if he tries to attend AEONS's meeting in Portland in November. Considering how often EC offers copies of his publications to t.o readers, who out there asked from some article and read it? Would anyone please post their opinion of such an experience? There is nothing new, unfortunately, in the conclusion: EC is clueless in the mythosphere as surely as he is clueless in cloud cuckooland, oblivious to the plethora of physical evidence on Earth (tree rings and ice core varves) and in the orbits of the planets and their satellites (circular and resonant) that shows unequivocally the polar configuration never happened. And if it had, no living crature with a brain would have survived the gargantuan magnetic fields required to make it work. Having invited Victor Slabinski's critique of Grubaugh's model and committed to publishing it in the next issue (AEON III:6), hopefully EC will have the integrity to keep his word despite the overwhelmingly devastating nature of Slabinski's arguments. Oh, yes, last but not least, it should not be lost on the t.o audience that EC failed to take up the challenge to explain the sacred number names of the major gods in the Mesopotamian pantheon that are a natural consequence of harmonic theory as deduced by the Sumerians and decoded by Ernest McClain. The ridicule larded by EC against McClain serves more to show EC as the arch-Philistine he is than to even scratch McClain's scholary mantle. Regardless EC's knee-jerk reaction to the Sumerian harmonic numerology, the fact remains that McClain's lifework is held in highest regard by such real scholars as Hertha von Dechend, Anne Kilmer, Siegmund Levarie, Graham Point, Herald reiche and Robert Stieglitz. Everett Cochrane? Who is he? A copy of McClain's "Musical Theory and Ancient Cosmology," _The World & I_, Feb., 1994, as well as Jastrow's "Sun and Saturn", can be obtained by sending a SASE to Leroy Ellenberger, 3929A Utah St., St. Louis, MO 63116, or $1.00 in lieu of SASE for foreign mail. ($2.00 or two stamps for both.) Leroy Ellenberger, Spiritual comrade-in-arms with John Smith who in 1602 in Transylvanian defeated three Turks in single, mortal combat, prior to founding Jamestown VA in 1607, who, in contrast to Everett Cochrane, knows the difference between "enthusiasm" and "zealotry". _"Vivere est vincere_", St. Lous, MO. 1 Sept. 1994 -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin T. Dehner Dept. of Physics and Astronomy PGP public key btd@iastate.edu Iowa State University available on request Ames, IA 50011 Jim Lippard lippard@primenet.com Web Administrator, Primenet http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/ Phoenix, Arizona (Skeptics Society Web, talk.origins FAQs)