Replies

It has been many years since I followed Velikovsky.
Did you dump core, or do you have a synopsis of all you posted?

I've often speculated, but have not tried to demonstrate, that the "crime" that the Establishment science community saw in Velikovsky's theses, were his choices of sources. I think it obvious that Velikovsky's use of biblical stories as one of several bits of evidence supporting his ideas ran into conflict with Establishment science's running feud with bible defending adversaries. After WWII, that adversarial argument was about to be firmly swinging to scientism's side, especially in the schools. I suspect that Establishment science feared that were Velikovsky taken seriously at that juncture, scientism's advance would have been hit with a very untimely setback.

So, starting with Harlow Shapely's unprescendented vehement displeasure in 1950, one after another of those with influence were either recruited to Shapely's side of the dispute or discredited. Were they given an ultimatum such as: "you're either with us or against us?" I'd like to know. It certainly seems to be likely.

Do you know if anyone has gone to the effort to follow up on facts that support a hypothesis such as mine? I'd like to read it.

McClannan (in my previous link to the Millenium Group) states that Cornell dumped him immediately after he tried to publish his plasma comet model, and eventually turned to the internet where he is widely supported, mostly from the Russian scientific community, which McClannan states teaches his theory in the classroom. If you are not familiar with McClannan, here's an on-air interview he had a couple of years back with Chuck Shramek, of Houston. Shramek (who has since died) was the guy who took and published the first picture of Hale-Bopp with the companion 'object.' :

- CLICK! -

Fascinating!

Oops.
Please pardon my bad vannrox -- the answer to my first question was at the very top. Great job. thankyou.

And I also think I ought to be more clear about my last question. The hypothesis of which I speak is the one involving the bible versus science dispute being a big reason for the poor treatment of Velikovsky, not the likeliness of a vendetta against those in science who didn't sign on to Shapely's side.