[snip]
> I wonder if either van Meurs or Morton would
>care to comment on those "old river gravels".
>
> Morton replied in part as follows:
>
>" And by the way, Janet, I don't believe those
>gravels you mention really exist. You are obviously
>defending your 'authority' as a scientific outsider,
>and your velikovskian colleagues probably put enough
>pressure on you so that you are merely saying what
>they want you to. You know that they won't publish
>your articles in Chronos if you stray from the party
>line. If you were to challenge their orthodoxy you
>would not be in good standing with them. So whatever
>evidence you cite I know that you are citing it
>simply so you can go to the Velikovskian club
>meetings."
>
> I can understand why Mr. Morton would **wish**
>that those slabs did not exist; obviously they
>cannot be accommodated by any uniformitarian model,
>but of course they pose no problem at all to
>Petersen's view of the loess.
Janet, you entirely miss the point. If it is ok for you to 'question' the
evidence, why is it not ok for other to question your 'evidence'. The
problem you have is that you pick and choose what evidence you want to
believe.
However Mr. Morton
>seems confused about the source of that evidence. I
>did not obtain it from any "velikovskian
>colleagues"; I got it from Page 141 of Petersen's
>book, as I stated clearly above and as Morton would
>have known if he had read the book as claimed.
You also missed the parody of your position that I had in the note to which
you are responding. You made the statement that that Academics do what they
do because of job related pressure, yet you don't see that as an irrelevant
argument that could (also irrelevantly) be turned against your own
position. If you question the motives of others, why cant they question
your motives? I notice that you continue to avoid Steve Schimmrich's
question. What is your relationship to the publisher, if any? Do you or
your employer get money as a result of your sales of this book? See, Janet,
it is irrelevant to question motives and if one can do it one way, why
can't it be done the other way?
>If Morton had read Petersen's book,
>and understood it, as he claims, then he would
>surely have seen those pictures and would have
>known what those voids look like.
I have seen it and find them totally unconvincing.
>
> How then can one understand the following
>exchange that took place between Mr. Morton and
>myself on 9 Sept. under the heading "RE: Petersen's
>Book"? Firstly, Morton quoted from the book,
>"Aeolian Dust and Dust Deposits" by Kenneth Pye as
>follows:
>
> "... Many of the nodules form around plant
> roots and contain large internal voids partly
> filled by coarse rhombohedral calcite."
>To which I replied:
> "I am glad to be informed of this reference,
> but you might note that Pye did not offer to
> explain those voids."
>And then Morton answered:
> "Are you unaware that when roots rot away they
> leave a void?"
>
> Here again is persuasive evidence that Mr.
>Morton has not examined Petersen's work. Had he
>done so he could not have confused the irregular
>voids shown in Plates 32,33 and 34 with the holes
>left by rotted roots.
Not all nodules look like those in Petersn's pictures. Those in his book
look like the shrinkage associated with the drying shale.
Janet, can you take a stab at refuting my electrical conspiracy theory?
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm