Regarding the Jim McCanny Interview on Coast to Coast


I thought you'd be interested in reading this email I sent to Jim.


----- Original Message -----

From: Kent

To: jmccanney

Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 11:19 AM

Subject: reaction to show


Here is my reaction to the Velikovsky show:

1. You were very respectful and accomodating, clearly you made the greater effort to keep the conversation elevated. Meanwhile the carbon copy, generic, and completely unoriginal mainstream scientist who appeared on the program with you seemed tired and almost put-out over having to go over the old "Velikovsky phenomena" yet again.

2. Tactically speaking, it was clear that you had a slight advantage simply because coming into the discussion you understood the opposing viewpoint to a far greater extent than the Brand X scientist understood yours. You appeared better prepared and more genuine than the arrogant mainstream scientist who obviously didn't bother to take the time to familiarize himself with you and your work.

3. I found it rather eye-opening that while 0% of the scientific community reportedly find Velikovsky's ideas to be credible, >50% of the audience listening, nonetheless, do approve of his ideas. As a member of that listening audience this leaves me with the impression that standard science isn't the democratic field of ideas that the pre-formatted Dr. X would have us all believe. Standard science comes off looking unresponsive to and out of tune with the thinking of the general public.

4. As a card carrying member of the priestly scientific class, Dr X was implicitly promoting two myths regarding the operation of modern science:

a.) that only scientists are able to appreciably influence the direction of scientific thought.

b.) the peer-review process can be whole-heartedly relied upon to discard all unworthy ideas and that the ideas which do survive the process are therefore true, valid, and unassailable.

-i) corollary...lone wolf scientists i.e. those who've been rejected by the esteemed peer-review process are therefore discountable and, properly, no additional time need be invested in further consideration of their ideas.

In fact, it should be recognized that:

a.) modern science exists and operates under the sole discression of this Planet's ruling class. It is the ruling class,operating behind the scenes, who determine the directions in which science is allowed to proceed and who furthermore, are the primary benefactors of any valuable results generated from scientific activity ----results which, by the way,are often permanently kept under concealment from the public at large.

b.) Due primarily to the influence of "a.)" above, the peer review process takes on the character of a cloistered 'old- boys' club that is decidedly undemocratic in it's gathering and consideration of any 'new' scientific thinking.

-i) corollary...any scientist who doesn't preach the party-line, whose ideas fall outside of the accepted 'cannon' of scientific thought, whose ideas represent a possible threat to the economic/political interests of the ruling class is destined to be ejected from the scientific community.

5. Throughout the program you repeatedly demonstrated new, original and "active" scientific thinking whereas the old boy pulled from the science bin laconically offered 30+ year old pronouncements and flat denials causing fits of coughing for anyone standing too close to the dust shaking loose.....

6. Three instances that I recall where the NASA approved scientist was drawn into specific descriptions stand out in my mind:

a.) Planets and moons form through a violent collision process of smaller aggregates of matter

b.) No scientific experiments to date have measured any electric current within the space of the Solar System.

c.) The observed Martian surface features are visible due to the shifting layers of dust which are blown around by the wind.

These instances allowed you the opportunity to point out the flaws both in standard theoretical explanations and in the experiments designed for data gathering. More importantly, you had the opportunity to stress the theoretical sweep of your ideas. This is important as current Astronomical thinking allows for only one primal cause, i.e. Gravitation, from which scientists unsuccessfully attempt to tie together all other observed phenomena in the Universe. Your ideas generate a much more solid foundation from which to compose a cosmological framework. Your framework is both theororetically and experimentally more effective at explaining and predicting observed phenomena. Your model simply fits the data better than the current exclusively Gravitational model. This, however, is difficult to establish since access to data is so restricted. Beyond pure data analysis your model allows for better extrapolation backwards and forward through time to explain the operation of the Universe when Mankind isn't necessarily around to observe.

I am curious what the Coast toCoast audience feedback is like for this program....


Thank you very much from everyone at MRN.