Venus Data is being routinely "fixed", "patched-up", and otherwise falsified in numerous disciplines to keep it in line with astronomical dogma.

Copyright Ted Holden

Students of archeology, paleontology, and other disciplines appear to have been had by the astronomers and by one of their vendettas which has, until now, succeeded. The emerging science of catastrophism is the one thing in the world which could shed any light on numerous major facets of a number of sciences, but has nevertheless been pretty much driven underground by the Sagans, Shapeley's et. al.

In the absence of the new discipline and its explainatory power, Venus has become a sort of a breaking point for both astronomy and natural sciences. Raw data in all areas involving Venus is routinely falsified to make it fit standard views as to cosmology, and this ranges from the Pioneer probes to the Dresden codices.

Gerry Palo recently noted (talk.origins) that:

>I believe that there are serious scientists today who advocate the
>screening of all observed evidence and the a priori discarding of
>anything that appears to contradict known physical principles. Sort of a
>return to the Middle Ages. No Grand Inquisitor, but a Peer Review
>Committe instead. No bookburning pyre, of course, but the observation
>half of science becomes "purified" nonetheless. What would Galileo think
>of all this progress?

Venus data of all sorts is the most glaring example.

If our system is actually billions of years old, and Venus has been in its present place for billions of years, then ancient astronomical charts and observations MUST show Venus in its present orbit. Indeed, scientists claim that they DO; they used some of this evidence at the AAAS meeting in 1974 which produced "Scientists Confront Velikovsky", claiming that the well-known "Venus Tablets" of the Babylonian king Ammizaduga showed Venus entirely in its present orbit in the middle of the second millennium BC i.e. during the period when, according to Velikovsky, it would have perforce been unstable.

But then, a number of real scholars began to take a harder look at the Venus Tablets. The following is from an article by Lynn E. Rose from the Winter 73 issue (#III) of the Pensee Journal, the old Student Academic Freedom Forum. This is a long article which I could not quote in its entirety. The article treated mostly with the manner in which the tablets involved have been translated in the past.

The key paragraph of the article read as follows:

"Unfortunately, nearly all treatments of groups one and three on K. 160, and of the genuinely observational material on the other Venus tablets that supplement K. 160, have been based on what I call the "astronomer's dogma". The "astronomer's dogma" is the uniformatarian attitude that the solar system has for untold years been just as it is now, and that Venus and Earth in particular have always been on the same orbits they are on now, except for certain very minor perturbations that are for most purposes entirely negligible. This means that we can look at the present motions of Earth and Venus and then judge on that basis how accurate the ancient observations were. If the ancient observations do not conform to what would be expected from the present state of affairs, then the ancient records were defective, and were either fictions or errors, but could not have been accurate observations of what was going on in the sky; accordingly, it is up to us to rewrite those ancient records so that they WILL conform to what we see in the sky today."
Rose notes the nature of Venus as it appears to us first as evening star, disappears for a few days of inferior conjunction, reappears as morning star West of the sun for some months and then disappears during superior conjunction. He notes that one of the Babylonian tablet fragments (K. 160 from the library of Ashurbanipal, now in the British Museum) appears to be a record of these comings and goings:
"Let me give some typical passages from the tablet:

"In the month of Sivan, on the twenty fifth day, Ninsianna [that is, Venus] disappeared in the east; she remained absent from the sky for two months, six days; in the month Ulul on the 24'th day, Ninsianna appeared in the West - the heart of the land is happy. In the month Nisan on the 27'th day, Ninsianna disappeared in the West; she remained absent from the sky for seven days; in the month Ayar on the third day, Ninsianna appeared in the east - hostilities occur in the land, the harvest of the land is successful.

"The first invisibility mentioned in these lines involves a disappearance in the east, an invisibility of two months, six days, and a reappearance in the west. This seems to be a superior conjunction. The second invisibility involves a disappearance in the west, an invisibility of seven days, and a reappearance in the east. This seems to be an inferior conjunction. Most of the data in groups one and three on the tablet are of this form. But the lengths and spacings of these invisibilities have a certain irregularity about them, and they do not conform to the manner in which Venus moves at present.

"The data given in the second group on the tablet do have regularity - even too much regularity to be believable, - but they do not conform to the present state of affairs either.....

These kinds of things are well-known to scholars who have actually studied the tablets. Rose mentions numerous translators, Boseanquet & Sayce, Schiaperelli, Langdon and Fotheringham... He notes [as an example], that:
"The next major study of the Venus tablets was by Langdon and Fotheringham in 1928. Their book is important for the student of the tablets in that they bring together a great deal of material that is not available in any one other place; unfortunately, however, their book is dominated and severely handicapped by the astronomer's dogma, and they find it necessary to scoff at much of what the tablets say was actually seen, simply because such things are not seen today."
He cites also the case of Van der Waerden:
"Further attempts to deal with the tablets along uniformitarian lines were made by Ungnad in 1940 and van der Waerden in 1946. Van der Waerden plays the uniformitarian game much better than some of his predecessors, but the main reason I want to mention him here is that he is the clearest example I have found of an unfortunate way of talking and thinking that is characteristic of uniformitarians. He says at one point, after either rejecting or radically rewriting about three out of four of the recorded observations, that:

"All I have done is to remove inner contradictions from the text."


Charles Ginenthal (Sagan and Velikovsky, old printing) has a great deal to say about the Ammizaduga tablets, pp 281 - 284, quoting Livio C. Stecchini's "The Velikovsky Affair":
"The Venus tablets of Ammizaduga is the most striking document of early Babylonian astronomy. These tablets, of which we possess several copies of different origin, report the dates of the helical rising and setting of the planet Venus during a period of 21 years...

"Since the first effort at explanation of Archibald Henry Sayce in 1874, these figures have challenged the wit of a score of experts of astronomy and cuneiform philology. (Father Franz Xavier) Kugler (1862 - 1929), a recognized major authority on Babylonian and biblical astronomy, chronology and mythology, opposed the contention of those who claim that these documents must be dismissed as nonsense. " [because they do not conform to present orbital patterns for Venus]"

Indian and Central American records also show Venus moving on an orbit other than its present one. Ginenthal cites Evan Hadingham ("Early Man and the Cosmos):
"The Venus pages [of the Dresden Codex] bear little resemblance to a modern astronomical table."

Ginenthal goes on to say:

"Since Hadingham, like the astronomers who dealt with the Babylonian tables cannot conceive nor accept this evidence that Venus' orbit was different in the past, an analysis is created to dispose of this information. This is so in spite of Hadingham's asserting the following regarding Mayan astronomy:

'The precision of the observations documented in the few surviving hieroglyphic books is astonishing. For instance, one book contains a scheme for the correction of Venus observations [present variety as opposed to the distant past] which ensures an accuracy of approximately two hours in five hundred years... How were they able to score such phenomenal success in their observations?'"

Again, Ginenthal:

"Astronomers, in attempting to deal with this evidence respecting Venus, either ignore the data or invent systems to explain it away so that it will conform to their uniformitarian view. By employing a sledge hammer, they smash the tablets of Ammizaduga to bits and then reassemble the fragments to prove that Venus' orbit has never changed. Although Velikovsky does not explain the precise cause for the circularization of Venus' orbit except to invoke electromagnetic forces, the plain evidence of the ancient astronomers shows that Venus' orbit was different, and therefore, more elliptical than its present, almost circular orbit and thus, there must exist a force that circularized it.

Again, Venus figures heavily in all mesoAmerican religious systems which I am aware of. Is there anything there indicating an unusual role for Venus in recent prehistoric times?

From Dennis Tedlock's translation of the Popol Vuh, p 86.

"[Seven Macaw speaking] 'I am great. My place is now higher than that of the human work, the human design. I am their sun and I am their light, and I am also their months [they should begin to figure time by me]. So be it: my light is great. I am the walkway and I am the foothold of the people, because my eyes are of metal... And this nose of mine shines white into the distance like the moon. Since my nest is metal, it lights up the face of the earth. When I come forth before my nest, I am like the sun and moon for those who are born in the light, begotten in the light. It must be so, because my face reaches into the distance,' says Seven Macaw."

"It is not true that he is the sun, this Seven Macaw, yet he magnifies himself, his wings, his metal... The faces of the sun, moon, and stars are not yet visible, it has not yet dawned."

This is clearly something other than the sun bringing light to a world in ash and shadow, a world ruined by catastrophe, into which the light of the sun does not intrude, and claiming that the people should use his light for telling time, i.e. this was going on for a protracted period of time. That's weird.

What about actual Venus probe data?

There are two possible explainations for the 1000 F surface temperature of Venus: Velikovsky's, which is that Venus is in a process of cooling either from a recent creation or from heat generated during recent catastrophic events (i.e. is natively hot), and Carl Sagan's "super greenhouse" theory, which is standard doctrine amongst astronomers, despite being ridiculous.

Sagan's theory would require that Venus' atmosphere be in thermal balance, i.e. since all the heat would be derived from the sun, heat taken in and given out should equal eachother.

I have noted that this is in sharp disagreement with with actual findings, and that astronomers have made a habit of doctoring the findings and have actually found themselves in the position of having to explain AWAY 100% of the raw data. All of the probes which carried infra-red flux (upward vs. downward readings) meters to the surface measured a sharp upward ir flux, which is in keeping with Velikovsky's version, but not that of Sagan. Astronomers have posted oficial position papers (Revercomb/Suomi et. al) explaining the manner in which each and every such probe "failed", without bothering to try to explain why they should not all be fired for failing to oversee the proper manufacture of so simple an instrument in even one case out of at least four (instruments were not all the same).

And then there is the question of F.W. Taylor's description of massive thermal imbalance as measured from outside the atmosphere (from the article on thermal balance by F.W. Taylor in "VENUS", Hunton, Colin, Donahue, Moroz, Univ. of Ariz. Press, 1983, ISBN 0-8165-0788-0, pp 657-658).

"Measurements of albedo are more difficult to calibrate than those of thermal flux, because of the problem of obtaining an accurate reference source. Using earth-based measurements, Irvine (1968) calculated a value for A [albedo] of 0.77 0.07, which was later revised upward to 0.80 0.07 by Travis (1975). The Pioneer Venus infrared radiometer had a 0.4 to 4.0 m channel calibrated by a lamp from which Tomasko et al. (1980b) obtained a preliminary albedo for Venus of 0.80 0.02.

"Another approach to determining the albedo is simply to assume that the atmosphere is in net radiative balance, whence the equation:


                         (1-A)E
                    4          0
       sigma * theta   = ---------
                    b      a^2

    should apply.  Here E  is the solar constant, and a the distance
                         0

from the sun. This expression allows the albedo to be calculated from thermal measurements alone.

"In this way, a value of 0.79 + 0.02 - 0.01 has been obtained from Venera radiometry (Ksanfomality, 1977, 1980b) and [a value] of 0.76 0.006 [has been obtained] from Pioneer Venus emission measurements (Schofield et al., 1982).

"Clearly the Pioneer measurements of emission and reflection are not consistent with each other if net radiative balance applies. (Emphasis added.) A source inside Venus equal in magnitude to 20% of the solar input (i.e., accounting for the difference between A = 0.76 and A = 0.80) is very unlikely, since Venus is thought to have an Earth-like makeup, which would imply internal heat sources several orders of magnitude less than this. Also, even if such sources were postulated, it is difficult to construct a model in which these fairly large amounts of heat can be transported from the core to the atmosphere via a rocky crust without the latter becoming sufficiently plastic to collapse of the observed surface relief. This could be avoided if the transport was very localized, i.e., via a relatively small number of giant volcanoes. Although large, fresh-looking volcanoes do appear to exist on Venus...and the composition of the atmosphere is consistent with vigorous output from these, a simple comparison with terrestrial volcanism shows that the volcanic activity on Venus would have to be on an awesome scale to account for the missing 5 X 1015 W [watts], or so, of power. A more acceptable alternative is that the preliminary estimate of 0.80 0.2 for the albedo from the P. V. [Pioneer Venus] measurements is too high, since the uncertainty limit is now known from further work to be too conservative. (J. V. Martonchik, personal communication.) A fuller analysis of the P. V. [Pioneer Venus] albedo data--still the best, in terms of wavelength, spacial and phase coverage, and radiometric precision, which is likely to be obtained for the foreseeable future--is likely to resolve this puzzle. In conclusion, then, the best thermal measurements of Venus WITH THE ASSUMPTION OF GLOBAL ENERGY BALANCE yield a value for the albedo of 0.76 0.1; this is the most probable value."


Let's examine what Taylor is saying. The term "albedo", stripped of the four-syllable adjectives, is a measure of reflectivity, the percentage of light which bounces back from something.

Taylor is saying that there are two ways to measure this albedo, a direct method, and an indirect method involving a formula which relates albedo to thermal emissions, assuming thermal balance holds. The direct method:

"The Pioneer Venus infrared radiometer had a 0.4 to 4.0 m channel calibrated by a lamp from which Tomasko et al. (1980b) obtained a preliminary albedo for Venus of 0.80 0.02."
doesn't go into detail, but makes it clear that they either did one of the following things, or something entirely like one of them:

a. Brought the satellite to the dark side of Venus, beamed a light towards Venus, and measured how much of that light returned.

b. Brought the satellite to the light side of Venus, and simply turned the instrument towards the sun, and then towards Venus, and computed a ratio of the light intensities.

Taylor also mentions the indirect method:

"Another approach to determining the albedo is simply to assume that the atmosphere is in net radiative balance, whence the equation:
                         (1-A)E
                    4          0
       sigma * theta   = ---------
                    b      a^2

    should apply.  Here E  is the solar constant, and a the distance
                         0
from the sun. This expression allows the albedo to be calculated from thermal measurements alone.
He notes that, if thermal balance does hold, the two techniques should produce the same number, but that they don't, and that the difference is so great, that a massive heat source on Venus would be needed to explain it, entirely in keeping with Velikovsky's version of the entire thing.

He notes that further study is needed, since he sees no way for Venus to have such a heat source given standard versions of solar-system history, and that the .76 value derived for albedo is therefore the "most probable" value.

He notes that the Pioneer Venus readings are the best we've had and the best we're likely to get for a long time:

A fuller analysis of the P. V. [Pioneer Venus] albedo data--still the best, in terms of wavelength, spacial and phase coverage, and radiometric precision, which is likely to be obtained for the foreseeable future--is likely to resolve this puzzle.
Thus between the infra-red flux meters of the descender probes and the phenomena Taylor describes, all of the raw data flatly contradict Sagan and "super-greenhouse", and scientists are left having to explain away 100% of the raw data.

The scientists describing the "failure" modes of all of the various infrared flux meters carried by the descender probes appear to have taken cues directly from the translater of the codices:

"All I have done is to remove inner contradictions from the text."

The surface of Venus is so new, so pristine, that a "global resurfacing event" is required to describe it. This event is typically dated at 300 million to 500 million years in the past.

James W. Head Ill from the Department of Geological Sciences, Brown University, writes in the Dec/94 issue of "Nature":

"Attempts to break the chains of narrow, religiously based interpretations dominated the early history of geological thought on the Earth. Natural events and features were interpreted to be the result of acts by a divine creator, and most observed geological deposits were linked to the Noachian flood. Slowly, an appreciation of the great age of the Earth melded with an increasing awareness that present geological processes, operating at relatively constant rates over extended geological time, could produce the range of features seen in the rock record. Catastrophism, as an explanation for geological events, fell out of favour, and uniformitarianism, the idea that the past history of the Earth could be interpreted by observing present processes and their rates and extending them back in time, came to dominate geological thinking.

Had such thinking arisen on Venus instead of the Earth, the situation might have been different. On the basis of global images and topography from NASA's spectacularly successful Magellan mission to Venus, it appears that there is no surface terrain dating from the first 85 per cent of the history of Venus. Planetary scientists have observed terrain that is largely volcanic plains, and the impact cratering record has been interpreted to indicate that a near-global tec- tonic deformation and volcanic flooding event occurred some 300 - 500 million years ago.

And that's not all. Apparently, not much has happened geologically since then. Neither the style nor the rates of geological processes are the same now as they were at the time of this global flooding event...

...As the Magellan high-resolution images rolled in strip by strip, a global picture emerged. The highly deformed and high-standing tessera terrain made up a little less than 10 per cent of the planet and was embayed by volcanic plains making up most of the rest of the surface. One might surmise that the ancient tessera dated from the first half of Venus's history and the plains represented subsequent long-term resurfacing either by vertical build-up (as on the Moon and Mars) or by lateral crustal spreading, as on the Earth.

But initial analysis of impact craters, their number, distribution and characteristics, told a different story5,6. Instead of different crater densities for the tessera and various volcanic plains units, the crater distribution could not be distinguished from a spatially random population.

Using the estimated flux of impactors in the environs of Venus, observers interpreted the frequency distribution of crater sizes to mean that the crater retention age of the surface of Venus was about 300 - 500 million years. Even more intriguing was the fact that only a small percentage of the observed impact craters had been modified by subsequent volcanic and tectonic activity. Schaber and Strom and their colleagues interpreted this to mean that a catastrophic resurfacing event had erased all pre-existing craters some 300 - 500 million years ago, creating a new surface dominated by volcanic plains7.

Following the catastrophic event, geological activity in the form of volcanism must have declined sharply, and this tabula rasa simply accumulated craters which remain largely unmodified to this day, hundreds of millions of years later.

We thus see that the 300 - 500 m year age estimate for the grand resurfacing event is based on present cratering rates and would be enormously shortened by using an estimate of cratering rates for a solar system which was undergoing a cycle of catastrophes within the last 10000 years.

Consider the argument which several of the t.o regulars have used against my own demonstration that the astronomical literature itself flatly states that all raw data show Venus seriously out of thermal balance, basically that there is no way to get the required amounts of heat through the assumed thick surface.

What one notes from Head's article though, is that heat in enormous quantities DID get to the surface at least once, and that all which remains is a choice as to WHEN. It would be every bit as impossible for heat to get to the surface of Venus 300 M years ago as it is now, according to standard dogma, and for all of the same reasons. In fact, Head notes several proposed explainations, all equally inane and without visible cause:

"In one explanation for such a catas trophic event, periods of rapid plate tectonics are episodically interleaved with periods of lithospheric stability and relative quiescence, such as we see today9. In another explanation, the key lies in vertical crustal growth over geological time10.
My question to anybody is why should you prefer to believe that something like this for which there is no basis in theory or experience should have happened 300 - 500 million years ago for no real reason, to believing that it happened 3500 - 10000 years ago as described by a totally coherent theory with vast explainatory and predictive power, and in keeping with a huge and growing body of evidence from the realms of mythology and iconography, all of which indicates that our ancesters witnessed these events, particularly when all raw data bearing on thermal balance supports the later version?