[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

O'Keefe

Dear Martin (& list members)
	I would like to address your remark about O'Keefe: "Although he is in
dissagreement with most others on the origin of tektites...."
I do not mean to imply you are an originator of the following, but do
wonder if you are not a victim of same: 
	I know AT LEAST as many SERIOUS SCIENTISTS who embrace the Lunar
Vulcanism Origin Theory as those who embrace the Terrestrial Impact
Theory. Each and every Lunar theorist I have had contact with has told
me that the reason the liturature appears so imballanced is that the few
journals publishing papers on such topics have Terrestrial Theorists on
their review committees who block the publication of any article
presenting evidence for lunar origin or against terrestrial origin.
	Now, PERHAPS they are "bad loosers," distorting facts, out and out
liars or paranoids - but I doubt it. I have had the pleasure of several
extensive conversations with Hal Povenmire and Darryl Futrell & they
both come accross very knowledgable AND sane & most unlikely to engage
in lies, distortions or delusional idiology.
	I am not saying "Rah, rah for luner origin theory" - I am just saying
that highly educated individuals present sophisticated arguments for
BOTH sides of this issue, yet, there seems to be a sort of "propaganda"
perpetuated by the Terrestrialists that the lunar advocates comprise a
very small minority (they also imply that, somehow, this lends further
credibility to THEIR perspective). It seems that, at least perhaps, this
is not the case at all - rather, the terrestrialists, perhaps, simply
occupy key positions of influence.
If this is the case, it seems an unfortunate state of affairs to me.
	Again, it is not so much a matter of who is "right" or what "the truth"
is - it is a matter of CONTROLING the expression of opinions and
presentation of data - and this would HARDLY be an isolated instance.
(again, look at how long it took Franke to have his "small commet
theory" seriously considered - the issue isn't whether his theory is
accurate, rather how BADLY he was treated for holding it and how VERY
long it took to get his theory "out" where it could be considered by
more than a very select few - who teated him like a fool - only his
fully established stature in another field kept him from being
professionally ruined)
	I find it fascinating and tragic that "science," like religion, is so
powerfully controlled by politics - far more so than by the basis of its
origin. 
	I apologize if I sounded too "long winded." 
	Best wishes, Michael
Follow-Ups: