Text File

From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news) Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Ginenthal on Venus' Surface Phenomena Message-ID: <200@fedfil.UUCP> Date: 12 Jan 93 05:30:44 GMT Organization: HTE Lines: 788

The following is from Charles Ginenthal's article, "THE SURFACE OF VENUS", AEON III/I, winter 92/93. Ginenthal appears to not be hung up over copyrights, as some catastrophist authors have been, and if this article (of mine) begins to look like large-scale plagiarism, you can relax; Mr. G. himself told me it was cool. He, like myself, is primarily concerned that this information simply gets out. I have removed all footnotes from the following material... anybody that serious can subscribe to AEON. Comments of mine will begin all the way to the left.

"In 1950, Immanuel Velikovsky claimed that the testimony of ancient peoples from all parts of the globe described Venus as a giant, brilliant comet. Based on Velikovsky's analysis of this data he drew the conclusion that Venus was a newborn planet in the early cool-down stage of its development. Therefore, if his understanding of the evidence was correct then Venus' surface should exhibit all the conditions of a world that was very recently molten and is most likely still volcanic and geologically active.

Thus we have Velikovsky on record with a correct prediction of what we would actually find on Venus as early as 1950. Ginenthal notes that ten years later, establishment science was still in the woods:

"In 1985, Dr. Lawrence Colin, Chief of the Space Science Division at NASA's Ames Research Center and coeditor of Venus, wrote:

'Our knowledge of Venus was still seriously limited in the early 1960s prior to mankind's first rendezvous by spacecraft. In 1961 competing views of Venus could be classified in seven broad categories:

1. moist, swampy, teeming with life. 2. warm, enveloped by a global carbonic-acid ocean.

3. cool, Earth-like, with surface water and a dense ionosphere.

4. water, massive precipitating clouds of water droplets with intense lightning.

5. cold, polar regions with ice caps 10 kilometers thick and a hot equatorial region far above the boiling point of water.

6. hot, dusty, dry, windy global desert. extremely hot and cloudy, with molten lead and zinc puddles at the equator, seas of bromine, butyric acid and phenols at the poles.

'From this list it is not obvious that scientists were all describing the same planet. For those who are impatient about the outcome, speculation 6 appears to represent most closely what we now think Venus is like.

The source from Colin and others are cited as to the state of establishment knowledge of Venus as of 1960/61.

"Nowhere was it ever suggested by establishment scientists that Venus would be found to be a volcanic cauldron covered by immense lava flows. In fact, as recent as 1989, Isaac Asimov, the late popular science writer, remarked:

'For years astronomers had believed that Venus was a geologically dead place. Although quakes, volcanoes and other activity surely wracked the planet at one time, it seemed certain that Venus was quiet today.

Due to the 5+ billion year age of the system no doubt. If earth in no way resembles a solid sea of lava, there would be no reason to suspect that an entirely similar sister planet the same age would.

"Therefore, if Velikovsky's analysis of the ancient testimony is correct the observations by the Magellan spacecraft should not only contradict the previous models of the Venusian surface but should also show overwhelming evidence of recent stupendous volcanism on a surface that appears to be pristine.

"One of the first indications of this excessive volcanism was presented in May 1990 in the Journal of Geophysical Research which analyzed the sulfur content of the Venusian clouds. There Na Y. Chan et al. state:

'Results of recent International Ultraviolet Explorer (IUE) observations of Venus made on January 20, 1987, and April 2 and 3, 1988, along with a re-analysis of the 1979 observations ... are presented. The observations indicate that the amount of sulfur dioxide at the cloud tops of Venus declined by a factor of 8 +- 4 from 380 +- 70 ppb [parts per billion] to 50 +- 20 ppb in 1987 and 1988.

"One of the researchers of this phenomenon, Larry Esposito from the University of Boulder Colorado, elaborated on this decrease of S02 and SO two months later in "Astronomy":

'Pioneer Venus has continued to monitor these constituents above the clouds. Over the years a remarkable discovery has emerged: both sulfur dioxide and the haze have been gradually disappearing. By now only about 10 percent of the 1978 amount remains. This disappearance has also been confirmed by the Earth-orbiting International Ultraviolet Explorer between 1979 and 1987 and other Earth-based observations. The haze and the sulfur dioxide are now approaching their pre-1978 values.

'Analysis of recent Earth-based radio observations by Paul Steffes and his colleagues show less sulfur dioxide below the clouds than was measured by Pioneer Venus and the Venera landers, which is also consistent with the decrease of sulfur dioxide. Inclusive Earth-based data show that a similar phenomenon may also have occurred in the late 1950s.

"The best explanation right now for the decrease is that from time to time major volcanic eruptions inject sulfur dioxide gas to high altitudes. The haze comes from particles of sulfuric acid, which is created by the action of sunlight on sulfur dioxide ... Being heavy the particles gradually fall out of the upper atmosphere, letting conditions up there return to normal between eruptions.

"My calculations show that this eruption of the late 1970s was at least as large as the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa. The explosion, equal to a 500-megaton H-bomb, was the most violent of the last century or so shooting vast quantities of gas into the Earth's stratosphere.

Ginenthal cites other authors claiming massive and very recent (last hundred years or so) volcanic activity on Venus:

"David Morrison and Tobias Owen put the case even more strongly:

"Observations over the past twenty years have indicated that large fluctuations occur in the concentration of sulfur dioxide (SO2) in the atmosphere of Venus above the clouds. When these observations are combined with indications of volcanic topography and lightning discharges for possible volcanism, the case for erupting volcanoes on Venus becomes rather strong.

"This appears to be indirect evidence that at least twice in the 1950s and 1970s there were major volcanic eruptions on Venus' surface. There are, of course, questions and objections related to this analysis; nevertheless, the Magellan spacecraft may have already observed explosive volcanism. In the December 1990 issue of Scientific American appears a photograph made by Magellan which appears to exhibit exploded material from one of its craters. The caption accompanying the picture states:

'Explosive volcanism may be responsible for the radar-bright deposit that extends roughly 10 kilometers from the kilometer-wide volcanic crater at the center of the image. The etched pattern of the surrounding plains becomes more obscure closer to the crater, which indicates that the deposit is thickest near the crater. The shape of the deposit suggests that local winds either carried the plume southward or else gradually eroded away the plume material except for that part located in the volcano's wind shadow.

Ginenthal is essentially saying that that major volcanic activity (Krakatoa-like) appears to be a regular feature of Venus. He goes on to compare lava-flow features of Venus with those of Jupiter's moon, IO, for reasons which shall shortly become apparent.

"As lo orbits around Jupiter it is constantly being distorted in shape by its tidal interactions with the very massive Jupiter and its three outer Galilean satellites. As lo is distorted and flexed, like the action produced by bending a spoon, enormous heat is generated producing volcanism. therefore, lo is molten at a relatively low depth of its surface and its thin crust is floating on an ocean of molten magma.

"Io is the most volcanic body in the solar system. According to Billy Glass:

'The volcanic eruptions [on lo] appear to be comparable in intensity to the greatest terrestrial eruptions which are rare on the Earth ... lo appears to be volcanically more active than the Earth. This has made mapping lo difficult because the active regions undergo radical changes in short periods of time.

Ginenthal see in IO a body very roughly comparable with Venus, assuming Velikovsky's version of Venus' recent history.

"Hence, if Venus was an incandescent body 3500 years ago and then cooled to the point where it became molten before it arrived at its present state, it should exhibit a topography quite similar to that of lo. In essence the volcanic forms observed on lo should generally be representative of the surface features seen on Venus. There should, of course be differences between the bodies because Io's temperature is not decreasing whereas we presume that Venus' temperature is. Furthermore, there will be differences in the materials each body contains which will also affect the appearance of their surfaces.

Ginenthal points out that some of what we see on Io resembles features of more familiar bodies such as Earth or Mars. However:

"David Morrison describes Io's volcanic features as follows:

'Some of lo's volcanic features look a great deal like their terrestrial counterparts: low shield-shaped constructs with calderas at their peaks and flows of erupted materials on their sides. However, most of lo's calderas are not at the tops of mountains but instead appear to be scattered amid the plains."

That is in fact a feature we would expect of either a totally new planet or of some body which was for other reasons, as is the case with Io, being kept in a nearly totally molten state. Ginenthal notes:

"Io exudes its magma in this manner because it is tremendously hot internally and has an extremely thin crust. Therefore if Velikovsky was right that Venus was hot internally just below its thin crust it too should pour forth its magma after the fashion of Io. Observations should show evidence that lava is either presently or has very recently been exuded from circular vents on the plains of the Venusian surface. In New Scientist we learn that radar shows lava flows on Venus are indeed very much like those on Io:

'The flat plains of Venus consist of lava that has flowed from the planet comparatively recently, according to latest radar results. And an appreciable amount of the planet's heat may escape through these lava flows, rather than through large volcanoes and rift valleys that geologists have known for some years.

In the plains the researchers found dozens of small vents, which oozed lava without forming volcanic cones. The researchers say, "The large number and wide distribution of vents in the lowlands strongly suggest that plains volcanism is an important aspect of surface evolution and contributed to heat loss on Venus".

"Thus, there is a basic similarity that strongly suggests that Venus is venting its internal heat through plains volcanism. This implies that Venus, like lo, has a thin crust and is extremely hot not far beneath that crust.

This, then is the reality; Super Greenhouse is a fiction. Ginenthal goes on to point out a number of interesting similarities between craters on Io and on Venus... for one, that they are often irregular and misshapen due to the movement of liquid material close under them.

"Thus an article in Discover states, "Even Venus' meteorite craters are intriguing. Some have strange and irregular shapes, in puzzling contrast to the round outline typical of most impact craters in the solar System."

Extreme depth of cratering appears to be a common feature of Io and of Venus. Other evidence of massive surface re-arrangement is presented.

"One of the most bizarre features yet identified on Venus is a remarkably long and narrow channel that MageHan scientists have nicknamed the river Styx. Although it is only half a mile wide, Styx is 4,800 miles long. What could have caused such a channel is unclear. Water, of course, is out of the question. Flowing lava is a possibility but it would have to have been extremely hot, thin and fluid.

"On Venus it is assumed that any crater larger than 300 km would settle by rheological flow in about one billion years. Sulfur is the fluid suggested as being responsible for river structures on Io.

"However, the River Styx runs up as well as downhill. What is clearly implied, if this feature is a flow, is that the surface topography has shifted greatly since the flow ceased.

Ginenthal notes other oddities common to Venus and Io, but to nothing else in our system.

"PANCAKE-SHAPED DOMES AND OTHER ANOMALIES

"Among the strangest features found on Venus is a series of pancake-shaped domes. This surprising discovery was recounted in the New York Times as follows:

'At the news conference yesterday, Dr. R. Stephen Saunders, the [MageHan] project's chief scientist, showed pictures of ... pancake-shaped domes which he said were "features never seen before" on any planet. In one region, seven domes remarkably similar in size stretch out in a line remarkably straight for nature ... They were presumably formed by extreme viscous lava pouring out of volcanic vents. The pattern "is telling us something about the eruption mechanism, the viscosity and the eruption rate.' But that was as far as geologists ventured in the interpretation.

"The unusual shape of these features should have struck a chord somewhere among the planetary geologists because pancake-shaped domes have also been observed on lo. Thus Carr et al., inform us:

'While most calderas [on Io] do not seem to be within sharply defined edifices, a variety of positive relief features are recognizable. Most are puzzling and difficult to relate to terrestrial landforrns. Among the more comprehensible because of their resemblance to low volcanic cones, are two pancake-like constructions ... They are nearly circular, and surrounded by low escarpments. Each has a bright-floored small crater in the middle.

Another phenomenon which is inexplicable given the Sagan Super-Greenhouse explaination for Venus' surface heat is hot spots.

"For some time now it has been known that certain areas on lo are far hotter than the surrounding surface terrain. Such areas are described as "hot spots." Here Morrison tells us, "In lo's case nature has aided us by channeling much of the heat flow into a few small areas resulting in hot-spots with temperatures far higher than the ambient background. Alfred McEwen et al., suggest that, "Observations ... show that most of the hot spots [on lo] have remained relatively stable in temperature, location and total power output at least since the Voyager encounters and possibly for the last decade.

"Hotspots have been associated with surface features on Venus for a very long time; they were originally found by Earth-bound radar and confirmed by Venera spacecraft. James Head asks:

"The question with arguably the broadest implications is simply how has Venus chosen to get rid of its internal heat (emphasis in original) ... Does Venus cool itself by sending magma directly from the interior to the surface? Then we would expect to see widespread volcanic deposits and numerous "hot spots," like those on Jupiter's satellite Io.

"Thus the presence of hot-spots suggests that Venus-like Io-is venting its heat via hot-spot volcanism. This, in turn, suggests that Venus - similar to lo - is molten at a shallow depth. One of the great enigmas of the <runaway greenhouse effect> is the problem of explaining the source of Venus' high surface temperature. Based on this analysis it now seems highly probable that the high surface temperature has little if anything to do with a greenhouse effect. Velikovsky's conclusion that Venus' surface heat is derived from its molten core appears to be correct.

THE AGE OF VENUS' SURFACE

"In Worlds in Collision Velikovsky suggested that Venus' age was to be measured in thousands of years rather than billions. In a recent article in Science a leading astronomer offered the following observation regarding the age of Venus' surface:

'The planetary geologists who are studying the radar images streaming back from Magellan find that they have an enigma on their hands. When they read the geologic clock that tells them how old the Venusian surface is they find a planet on the brink of adolescence. But when they look at the surface itself, they see a newborn babe ... (emphasis added) Magellan scientists have been struck by the newly minted appearances of the craters formed ... Only one of the 75 craters identified on the 5% of the planet mapped shows any of the typical signs of aging, such as filling in with lava of volcanic eruptions or being torn by the faulting of tectonic disruption. But by geologists usual measure these fresh-looking craters had plenty of time to fall prey to the ravages of geologic change.36

"Based on the assumption that Venus is an ancient body the scientists estimate the surface of Venus to be on the order of 100 million to I billion years old. In short, even though they are confronted with a surface that is pristine scientists nevertheless interpret the evidence according to the theory that Venus is 4.5 billion years old.

I refer to this sort of phenomenon as "learning to skate away from the railing", essentially, the quandry which every beginning ice-skater faces. The astronomers haven't fotten this far yet, the multi-billion year thing (a "Bushism") being their version of Linus' security blanket.

Ginenthal goes on to note that, given the standard multi-billion year age estimates for Venus, there should be lots and lots of dust, debris, loose soil etc. lying around all over the place, the surface heat not being great enough to melt and fuse everything altogether. There isn't.

This is somewhat strange. The surface winds, despite being slow, would bowl a man over due to the very thickness of the atmosphere. The atmosphere itself is highly corrosive. The two should have caused lots and lots of weathering. But there is no evidence of this.

"THE MISSING VENUSIAN REGOLITH

"Geophysicists, in order to explain the physical nature of the Venusian surface, offer the supposition that between 100 million and a billion years ago the entire planet turned itself inside out. If one were to accept this assumption it would require that over that period of time between the covering of the surface with lava flows and the present, erosional forces would break down the surface rock into detritus to form a regolith.

"Venus' atmosphere is known to contain hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acid, both of which are very corrosive. Paolo Maffei explains further that, "the atmosphere of Venus also contains - although in small amounts-hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride, which reacting with sulfuric acid [known to exist in Venus' atmosphere] could form fluosulfuric acid, a very strong acid capable of attacking and dissolving almost all common materials including most rocks."

"According to the scientists, Venus has been subjected to this intense weathering of its surface for at least 100 million years. Over this period of time the planet shouict have developed a covering of weathered material. Nevertheless, George McGill et al., inform us that:

'Radar and Venera lander observations imply that most of the surface of Venus cannot be covered by unconsolidated wind blown deposits; bulk densities on near surface materials are not consistent with aeolian sediments ... Thus present-day wind-blown sediments cannot form a continuous layer over the entire planct.

And from Bruce Murray (JOURNEY INTO SPACE):

'Russian close-ups of Venus were surprising. I had presumed that its surface was buried under a uniform blanket of soil and dust. Chemical weathering should be intense in such a hot and acid environment,...Unknown processes of topographic renewal evidently manage to outstrip degradation and burial.

"In order to explain the lack of a Venusian regolith the scientists imagine a process that has no scientific basis for its action to reconsolidate the detritus on Venus. Nevertheless, let us assume that Venus' erosion rate is extremely weak and that it is not tumed back into rock at the surface by unknown processes. What do we find? If we allow a tiny erosion rate of one millimeter per hundred years, then in 100 thousand years we produce one meter of loose material on the surface of Venus, which is equal to about 40 inches. However, in 100 million years we generate a kilometer of detritus, which is over 3000 feet of this loose material. Under no known condition can this much matter at the surface be turned to solid rock..."

"What we find at the surface of Venus is the detritus of an erosion rate that is only a few thousand years old. Only by ignoring this clear evidence can the astronomers support the view that Venus' surface reflects events tracing to processes occurring between 100 million and one billion years ago.

Ginenthal mentions the curious anomoly of the pristine condition of Venus' craters:

"Although Magellan has cast doubt upon most of the scientific establishment's predictions regarding the nature of Venus' surface, a belief in a 4.5 billion year old age of the planet Venus is still enshrined as dogma. In accordance with this theory, it is believed by the space scientists that the degradation of craters on Venus' surface must have occurred over hundreds of millions of years.

As the situation on lo proves, however, degradation does not require long time periods. Io's craters decay over extraordinarily short time periods measured in weeks or months. On Venus this period might take years. Based on the indications (cited above) that both Venus and Io are molten at shallow depth and are highly volcanic, Venus' craters would by no stretch of the imagination require millions of years to degrade. How then do scientists explain the fact that, Venus' craters look so pristine? Here Kerr observes:

'MageUan scientists strove to explain the paradox of young looking craters on a relatively old surface. They raised the possibility that several hundred million years ago, a planet-wide outpouring wiped the slate clean, drowning any existing craters in a flood of lava. Then the flood would have had to turn off fairly abruptly so the craters formed by subsequent impacts would remain pristine.

"No doubt there will be other, equally imaginative, scenarios advanced in order to explain away this dilemma of so few craters showing signs of decay. To retum to Kerr:

'But surface remodeling is going on after afl, Magellan scientists told a large crowd at the AGU [American Geological Union] meeting. More recent images show the ravages of time, but in a fashion that leavesfew aged craters."

That's like saying that your 90-year-old grandma shows her age, but in a manner which draws wolf-whistles in a bikini. Not too likely, is it?

Another problem with the standard view is the vast areas of Venus' surface which show no signs of cratering at all.

"This is not the only problem, however. Again we cite Kerr:

'The expanded view reveals four nearly continent-sized areas, ranging from a few million to 5 million square kilometers, that have no impact craters at all. According to Magellan team member Roger Phillips of Southem Methodist University in Dallas, the absence of impact craters- despite a steady rain of asteroids and comets onto the Venusian surface-means that in the recent geologic past the craters were wiped out either by lava flooding across these areas or by tectonic faulting, stretching and compression.

The volcanic activity required to resurface the crater- free regions would be impressive by any standards, Phillips says. For example, it took at least a million cubic kilometers of lava over a few million years to produce the 66-million-year-old Deccan Traps of India... But the lava-covered areas already uncovered on a small part of Venus by Magellan must have all formed within the past few tens of millions of years to have escaped being marked by impact craters.

"So Magellan scientists are still left with an enigma. What is clearly implied by the radar and photographic evidence is that immense outpourings of lava have occurred over huge areas of Venus' surface, covering over everything including craters. The scientists still cannot explain why there are so few craters that are degraded or flooded or why Venus suddenly poured out its lava in oceanic amounts. But all of this is clearly what one would expect to find from the theory that Velikovsky advanced in Worlds in Collision whereby Venus was only recently subjected to tremendous stresses and participated in numerous clashes with other planets.

Ginenthal cites further evidence, as if any were needed from one of the favorite realms of several of the t.o regular crew, i.e. Chemistry. Given standard theory, you'd not expect a lot of iron compounds lying around on Venus' surface:

"As a newbom planet, Venus would not have fully differentiated so it remains possible that all its iron has yet to sink to its core. Accordingly, it was reported in Astronomy that:

Maxwell Montes ... poses a big problem in interpretation. Parts have electrical properties that indicate the surface contains "flakes" of -some unknown mineral, most likcly iron sulfides, iron oxides, or magnetite. Iron sulfides ("fool' s gold") fit the observations best, but studies havc shown that they would be quickly destroyed by the corrosive Venusian atmosphere. Iron oxides (such as hematite) and magnetite are also possible, but the a presence of either is not easy to account for.

"If indeed iron is to be found upon the surface of Venus it would support the claim that it is a youthful planet in the early stages of cooling. A planet that had differentiated its iron into its central core would not be expected to pour iron onto the surface with volcanic materials. The reason that the iron compounds have not completely corroded in Venus' corrosive atmosphere, most probably, is that these outpourings of iron are extremely recent surface coverings measured in perhaps a few years. Iron on Venus' surface is clear evidence that supports Velikovsky.

Thre is further evidence involving Argon and involving oxygen:

"Ultraviolet radiation photodissociates C02, S02 and H20; over millions of years oxygen should have become plentiful in Venus' atmosphere, but it remains a minute constituent. Venus' water vapor cannot have escaped in less than 20 billion years. Where then is Venus' water? To argue Venus had no water but retains other volatiles is a basic contradiction....

This lack of water vapor becomes critical for proponents of the so-called <super-greenhouse> theory, the standard theory of establishment astronomy for explaining the great surface heat of Venus. As I've noted before, the CO2 atmosphere certainly acts as a blanket in keeping heat close to the surface far longer than it might otherwise stay there left to its own devices. This isn't what astronomers are claiming, however.

They ARE claiming that ALL of the huge surface energy of Venus is CAUSED by the tiny to non-existent modicum of solar energy which finally gets to the surface through all that CO2 via uv radiation and then cannot escape as re-radiated ir radiation.

"For years the scientific community has maintained that the great heat of Venus is derived from an atmospheric geenhouse effect. Gary Hunt and Patrick Moore outline the ingredients necessary to generate a large and powerful geenhouse on Venus:

'C02 is responsible for about 55% of the trapped heat. A further 25% is due to the presence of water vapor, while S02 which constitutes only 0.02% [2/100 of a per cent] of the atmosphere, traps 5% of remaining infrared radiation. The remaining 15% of the greenhouse is due to the clouds and hazes which surround the planet.

The problem becomes, WHAT WATER?

"While carbon dioxide is certainly present on Venus, it can account for only 55% of the greenhouse effect. As Barrie Jones explains, other factors are also necessary to make the greenhouse work:

"Efficient trapping [of heat] cannot be produced by C02 alone, in spite of the enormous mass Of C02 in the atmosphere. This is because C02 is fairly transparent over certain wavelength ranges to planetary wavelengths. Radiation could escape through these "windows" in sufficient quantities to greatly reduce the greenhouse effect below that which exists. It is by blocking of these windows by S02, by H20 and by the clouds that greatly increases the greenhouse effect.

"In short, it is crucial to the runaway greenhouse effect that there be sufficient water, sulfur dioxide, and haze to maintain the heat holding capacity of the planet. Respecting water, especially in the lower atmosphere, the scientists have been looking for this vapor for a very long time. As late as September 1991, water vapor has not been found in anything like that amount needed to support the contention that the greenhouse is a foregone conclusion. According to R. Cowan:

'A research team has focused on the greenhouse puzzle ... The absence of water vapor above Venus' cloud banks mystifies scientists because models of the planet's strong greenhouse effect suggest that [water] vapor plays a key role in maintaining the warming. Researchers have now looked for water below the cloud bank and down to the surface-and their search has come up dry...

'Evidence of a dry Venus may force researchers to consider whether other chemicals could create and sustain the planet's greenhouse effect, says David Crisp of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory ... who coauthored the new report.

"Now when a vapor responsible for 25% of the efficiency of the greenhouse-effect has been sought in vain for some 20 years it implies that a major problem exists with the model in question. Furthermore, in our earlier discussion of the S02 and haze in the Venusian atmosphere we have shown that measurements indicate that these materials are transient products and do not sustain themselves for long periods of time. With this additional undermining of the greenhouse effect the process becomes more and more difficult to imagine.

"One of the major theoretical supports of the greenhouse model is the belief that Venus is in thermal balance. Over and over we are told that measurements of the cloud tops for infrared emissions show conclusively that the amount of sunlight incident on the planet is equal to the infrared radiation emitted by Venus. However, this must also be supported by in situ measurements throughout the atmosphere:

"Radiative balance occurs [on a planet] at every level when the amount of downward- directed solar radiation that is absorbed is equal to the amount of infrared radiation that is emitted upward. When local temperatures satisfy this balance the atmospheric temperature is maintained. (emphasis added)50 Not only must there be thermal balance at one level of the atmosphere, this thermal balance must exist at all levels throughout the atmosphere to confirm thermal balance.

As I have noted a number of times, a LACK of balance is indicated by actual data at every level.

"That this is not the case upon Venus has been known for some time. As long ago as 1980 Richard Kerr reported in Science that:

'When Pioneer Venus probes looked at the temperature, each one found more energy being radiated up from the lower atmosphere than enters it as sunlight ... To further complicate the situation, the size of the apparent upward flow of energy varies from place to place by a factor of 2 which was a disturbing discovery.

Again, a number of probes of different types and manufacture all said the same thing; they are not all likely to be in similar error.

Ginenthal concludes:

"A fair reading of history will show that conventional astronomers have a very poor record when it comes to predicting the surface conditions of Venus. Such is not the case with regards to the thesis outlines by Immanuel Velikovsky in 1950. As this essay has sought to show, the evidence from Venus is fully consistent with the thesis of its anomalous origin and tumultuous recent history as set forth in WORLDS IN COLLISION. Indeed, it is this author's sincere hope that the day will come when members of the scientific community will find the courage and integrity to call for a full and proper investigation of Velikovsky's hypothesis."

-- Ted Holden HTE