From lippard@PrimeNet.Com Wed Aug 17 10:47:39 1994 Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 10:45:31 -0700 (MST) From: "James J. Lippard" To: lippard@rtd.com Subject: another CLE Article 93428 of talk.origins: Xref: primenet talk.origins:93428 Path: primenet!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!yeshua.marcam.com!usc!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: Interim Reply to Cochrane [CLE] Date: 17 Aug 94 16:40:55 GMT Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa Lines: 172 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: pv7440.vincent.iastate.edu [posted for CLE by btd] Interim Reply to Cochrane Recently, Everett Cochrane (EC) has posted remarks that cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged pending the conclusion to "EC: Philistine, Anti-Scholar & Reductionist." Herewith are pertinent rebuttals: As an example of how discombobulated EC's statements are, consider his comments Fri. 12 Aug, on the ice core evidence: "Others far more knowledgeable than myself on the ice core data (Lynn Rose and Charles Ginenthal) have addressed this evidence and have claimed to have found flaws in the ice core argument as put forth by Sean Mewhinney and parroted by Ellenberger." Note the weasel phrase "have claimed to have found." Did they or did they not? They most certainly did not, as Mewhinney makes clear. Besides having laid bare Rose's and Ginenthal's pathetic performance and intellectual malfeasance in previous posts (20 Jun & 14 Jul/20 Jul, respectively), for the record, here are the facts on ice cores in Velikovskian forums: 1) Rose had never commented on Mewhinney's ice core writings (C&AH XII:1 & XII:2, 1990). Rose has ignored them. 2) The ice core arguement was first set forth by R.G.A. Dolby in SIS review in 1977 with no major reactions. 3) Ellenberger (CLE) resurrected Dolby's (not Mewhinney's) ideas in 1983, which were later published in SIS Workshop 5:4 and then KRONOS X:I (1984). 4) Rose criticized CLE's reporting on the ice cores in a KRONOS XII:1 (1987) article. 5) Ginenthal criticized CLE in a letter in KRONOS XII:3 (1988). 6) Mewhinney corrected Rose's and Ginenthal's many errors in his mongraph "Ice Cores and Common Sense" distrubted in April 1989 to 110 people and later published in C&AH (see above) after AEON declined the opotunity (both Talbott and Cochrane have denied this in private; but Mewhinney's files are irrefutable.) Neither Rose nor Ginenthal have identified valid objections to the ice core evidence. EC was so highly regarded as a KRONOS staffer that he did not make the 110 cut, but Dave Talbott did by virtue of his role at AEON. This episode is the subject of "Litmus Tests in the Ice," the first section of Part 2 of CLE's memoir for AEON that EC cancelled in Jne 1993 after Part 1 appeared in AEON III:1. Contrary to EC, 1) CLE has never "parroted" Mewhinney; rather Mewhinney validated CLE's presentation in KRONOS; and 2) Rose and Ginenthal have criticized CLE's ice core reporting, not Mewhinney's. In the next paragraph EC writes "Certainly I am unaware of any Saturnian ... who has takin this position [i.e., no seasons in the Golden Age] ...." Then EC is unaware of the contents of his own occasional publication in which Talbott has proclamied this position at least twice, in AEON I:1, p.8 and again in AEON III:3, p. 9. With this lapse, can EC be considered a *competent* discussant? Of course not; see DUCKS, AGAIN! posted 7 Jul and 12 Aug. In response to EC's 11 Aug invitation to "debate over the original identity of Gilgamesh and the significance of the mythology surrounding this great hero." this would be a waste of time under the present circumstances for at least five reasons: 1) in private debate in 1992 counterarguments were dismissed *because* they contradicted the Saturnists' position. 2) On the 'net, EC has ignored the arguments raised against Herakles = Mars, namely i) Mars = Ares, half-brother to Herakles, and ii) Herakles' twin brother Iphikles is ignored in EC's rendition. 3) On the 'net, EC has ducked Inanna's origin, independant of any association with Venus, as "mistress of the date clusters." His citing Heimpel's 1982 "Catalog of Near Eastern Venus Deities" (which pre-dates CLE's reference to Jacobsen and Fulco, 1987) is without force because his concern was not the origin of Inanna, but the male-female aspects of planet Venus. Heimpel's paper is irrelevant to Innana's *origin.* Again, EC betrays his lack of competence. 4) In HAMLET'S MILL, von Dechend dispatches the naive identification of Gilgamesh with Nergal/Mars as a failure, in effect, to read for meaning and appreciate metaphor (pp. 448-451). Just as every long object, such as a cigar, is not necessarily a phallic symbol, every figure in myth associated with the "underworld" is not necessarily Nergal. If Nergal is not Marduk in "Nergal is the Marduk of Battle," then Gilgamesh is not Nergal in "Gilgamesh is the Nergal of Ersetu;" n.b., Nergals's own "underworld" is _Arallu_. "Thus," von Dechend concluded, "it would be the very confidence in the custom of giving many names to the same topos -- and in 'synonyms' in general -- which enforces, so to speak, distorted translations" (p. 449). Furthermore, in the Gilgamesh Epic, one of the unwelcome subtenants in Inanna's huluppu-tree is the Zu-bird, confidently identified as the planet Mars (p. 443), which in context is distinct from Gilgamesh. 5) In 1992 when G.S. Hawkins read EC's "Herakles and the Planet Mars" (AEON I:4), he told CLE it was "unbelievable" and totally lacking in concrete connections, e.g., numerical rates of travel along the ecliptic, between the hero and the planet. Just because all hero myths have similar themes does not mean that all heroes are reducible to a single exemplar; i.e., all heroes are not Herakles. This informal "peer review" with Hawkins poins up that all 19 articles listed by EC in his Sun, 14 Aug, post appeared in publications that were subject to no meaningful peer review, especially those in AEON where the contributors more often than not are the editors with no independant reviewers in evidence. EC's publications cannot be taken seriously, and there is not need to debate this topic or the one in point 4. In a short post Sun, 14 Aug, "The Threee Faces of Leroy," EC stoops to new levels of ad hominem revealing his true nature and ignorance. EC questions the validity of CLE being a "confidant to Velikovsky," as if he had any basis for knowing considering he did not show up on the scene (5/80) until after Velikovsky died (11/79). Velikovsky consulted with CLE frequently on what CLE thought about various scientific subjects and how he should deal with certain critics and publishing opportunities. CLE was never a "gopher," which was the role for Jan Sammer and Warner Sizemore. EC takes exception to CLE assuming the persona of HUWAWA, therby showing he does not appreciate poetic conceits along with metaphor. CLE adopted the HUWAWA alter-ego for the August 1992 Haliburton, Ontario meeting where he explained that HUWAWA is "a hitherto unknown immortal like the Highlander. Most scholars agree that HUWAWA was the monster who guarded the sacred cedar forest and who was slain by Gilgamesh. But in [his] euhermistic revision of Gilgamesh, HUWAWA did not die; he rose from the dead, as is attested by the glove amaranth and acacia seyal motifs on [his] shirt which symbolize immortality." N.B; Contrary to EC, Enkidu, Gilgamesh's companion, was slain by HUWAWA. Other vanquishers have been invoked besides the revisioned HUWAWA: the mongoose to Greenberg's cobra, Herman to Greenberg's and Grubaugh's Varus Quintilus (who lost three legions and his head to the Germans under Herman in the Teutobergwald in A.D. 9) and John Smith who defeated three Turks in single, mortal combat in Transylvania fighting for the Magyars in 1602, and, of course, William Augustus who routed Bonnie Prince Chrlie at Culloden Moor in April 1746. EC claimed he's part "trained psychologist," evidently on the basis of some college psych course work. This is typical of Velikovskhy and his minions to don the cloak of analyst on the flimsiest of ground. Velikovsky had three months of training under Stekal, Freud's first pupil, which he ended because he decided he had learned enough. EC has invoked David Griffard, a PhD professor of psychology at a community college, but by no means a clinician. Greenberg is famous for his amateur analyses of his enemies. Now EC joins the crowd of V'ian analysts who don't even know where the cuckoo's nest is! At the end of a second, long past Sun, 14 Aug, EC quotes CLE's August 13,1993 poastcard to Grubaugh: "The planets were never worshipped as gods." as though this is all that was said. This sentence is the *conclusion* to a longer argument given on the reverse side, another instance of taking something out of context in order to ridicule it in isolation. Great scholarship, again, Everett. At least you are consistent, even against criticism intended to motivate you to change your abysmal behavior. Leroy Ellenberger FAX: 314-773-9273 16 Aug 94 ****************** Ben -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Primenet: Arizona's Premier Internet Provider lippard@primenet.com (602) 870-1010 ext. 108 (_Skeptic_: http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/skeptics-society.html)