mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ For complete access to all the files of this collection see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php ========================================================== THOTH A Catastrophics Newsletter VOL V, No 8 July 31, 2001 EDITOR: Amy Acheson PUBLISHER: Michael Armstrong LIST MANAGER: Brian Stewart COTENTS: THE NO-BELIEF BELIEF SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . Mel Acheson INTERSECT 2001: CONFERENCE SPECIAL, PART II . . . Ian Tresman CONFERENCE IMPRESSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . James Conway >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-----<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< THE NO-BELIEF BELIEF SYSTEM by Mel Acheson I believe in not believing. I try not to believe anything, which is not the same as believing nothing. Even though nothing is not something, believing in nothing is still believing, and I try not to do that. People seldom ask me what I mean by "believe". They argue that I must believe something, or they smile and roll up their eyes. I don't take offense: On alternate days, I smile and roll my eyes at myself, too. But I do have an excuse for my confusion. Before I can say what I mean by "believe", I have to say something about what I mean by "mean". Consider the ideas of heads and tails. They stand in opposition to each other. You can't have one if you have the other. It's either/or. It's yes/no. It's good/bad. Let's put all these heads and tails in a small room with a hole in its ceiling. Now imagine a conceptual ladder. It runs through the hole in the ceiling. Climb the ladder. Stick your head out the hole. Look around. You're in a larger room, one that completely encloses the heads-and-tails room. This larger room is full of ideas of coins. Each coin has a head and a tail on obverse and reverse sides, but the coin is a whole. The head and the tail are merely parts that are thought of as opposites, along with other parts (the edge, the metal, the shape) that aren't thought of as opposites. So what were opposites in the room below are unities in the room above. You've just discovered a nested hierarchy of ideas. Ideas other than opposites can also nest into hierarchies. In logic, one such hierarchy is the distinction between an object language and a metalanguage. The object language is the one in which you formulate statements. The metalanguage is the one in which you talk about the object language. In the metalanguage, you don't care about the content of statements. You pay attention instead to how the statements interact. The metalanguage is a higher or more inclusive or more abstract level of meaning than the object language. The same term may be used in both languages, but in the object language it refers to its content and in the metalanguage it refers to its function in the object language. For example, in the first sentence in this essay I first use "believe" in a metalanguage mode: how I choose to evaluate the overall processes of the evaluation of particular theories. Then I use it ("not believing") in an object language mode: how I evaluate particular theories. Now I can answer the first question: What do I mean by "believe"? In the object language mode, I mean placing greater confidence in a particular theory than is warranted by the facts and by the nature of cognition. Notice there can be a complimentary definition: "Disbelief" is the placing of less confidence than is warranted. In order to place the proper level of confidence in a theory, i.e., in order to avoid both belief and disbelief, all I need do is evaluate the facts and the operation of cognition. Theories can then be given an index of confidence, and the one with the highest number can be judged most credible. Unfortunately, I immediately run into an insoluble problem. Facts are polymorphic and cognition is creative. Facts take on different meanings depending on the theory in which they're used. Cognition selects and applies different pigments of facts to paint different pictures of reality. So what's warranted cannot be calculated. That's not to say reason can't come up with good excuses for believing or disbelieving an idea. But reason is an abject slave: When Desire gives a command, Reason obeys. So if warrants are indeterminate, why bother with belief at all? You can skirt the issue of confidence and still use an idea as a working hypothesis. You can still test the idea and experiment with it and develop its logical implications. In fact, what's left after belief is abandoned is a provisional idea that's subject to critical evaluation and testing: In other words, science. If this is the cup with which we measure science, the most notable aspect is the great quantity that spills over the edge. Theories, speculations, idle thoughts, surmises are barely articulated before someone judges them by the criterion of "credibility". Because you can't put numbers on "credibility", the criterion deflates to mere "familiarity". Peer-reviewed papers are rejected because they're not credible, but the only apparent objection is that they disagree with a currently accepted theory. A more sophisticated reaction to innovation is the listing of evidence. The idea is that the theory with the longest list is best. New theories are at a disadvantage because they haven't been around as long to collect as much evidence. But the accumulation of evidence can never "prove" a theory. Nothing can guarantee that some new theory won't explain more things better. If credibility can't be calculated and confirmation can't be counted on, how are we to know if our knowledge is true? I'd make a distinction between true and truthful: "True" is an exact representation of some hypothetical rock-solid reality; "truthful" is a correspondence with selected parts of a reality that includes and is interactive with the knower. What "truthful" lacks in confidence is more than made up for in adaptability to a dynamic and hierarchical reality. "True" is dogmatic, "truthful" is critical. Karl Popper developed this idea of criticism as the criterion of demarcation between science and all the other cognitive efforts to understand our world. Theology, metaphysics, pseudo-science, even politics can be just as meaningful as science. They can be beneficial or detrimental, just as can science. But there's a reason dogmatic theology is called dogmatic: The fundamental tenets of faith are not subject to critical evaluation. Now there's a good and useful place for dogmatism, too. But what sets science apart, what distinguishes it, is the encouragement of criticism, even of fundamentals. This is why science moves and the others stand fast. This is why science progresses and the others preach. This doesn't mean we should abolish the others. Most ideas arise in pseudo-science or metaphysics or theology. They become scientific when they're criticized and tested. And they can become metaphysical or pseudo-scientific again if the criticism and testing stop. Belief is an anchor that prevents the winds of criticism from blowing the ship of curiosity into new cognitive waters. Belief turns science into the pseudo-religion of scientism, which then tries to wrest from established religions the sacerdotal claim to revelation of divine truth. Criticism, especially of fundamentals, will be the first sacrificial offering slaughtered on the new altar. Science is not all of life, and curiosity is not the only reason for living. But they are an important part. As long as this limitation is respected, belief can be excised from science, and science can continue to discover new worlds. ~Mel Acheson thoth at whidbey.com ********************************************************* INTERSECT 2001: CONFERENCE SPECIAL, PART II Ian Tresman Sunday 8th July. AM 8:30 Anthony Peratt: Electric Currents in Space 9:30 Mel Acheson: Verbal Vignette 9:35 Dwardu Cardona: A World with One Season. Part II 10:15 Break 10:30 Dave Talbott: Symbols of an Alien Sky, Part II 11:35 Mel Acheson: Verbal Vignette 11:45 John Chappell: Problems with Modern Physics ********************** ANTHONY PERATT has a doctorate in plasma physics. He studied under Hannes Alfven, from whom he inherited an interest in the plasma universe. Alfven, in turn, inherited his interest from Kristian Birkeland. Tony pointed out that his presentation was available on the Web at www.theuniverse.ws He kicked off the morning with an introductions to plasma, and plasmas in space. He mentioned that it is often thought that plasmas in space are not generally accepted by the scientific community. On the contrary, in the past decade or so many changes have occurred, and plasma is becoming more and more accepted in the astronomical community. The plasma labs at Los Alamos employ a greater number of astrophysicists than perhaps any other facility. Tony went on to explain WHAT a plasma is[See Web site for detail: click on Main Directory] and that it is scaleable over 14 orders of magnitude. In other words, you could produce a plasma in the laboratory with milliamp currents, and then scale the resulting plasma, and see the same affects using GigaAmp currents, and bigger. Los Alamos claims that the Universe is fully ionized, and that plasma is a better conductor than even copper or silver. Indeed, in a fluorescent lamp a resistor must be introduced, otherwise the current would short-circuit. WHERE is plasma? [See Web again]. He mentioned some forms that I had not heard of before, such as plasma which occurs in crystals, and magma in the Earth's crust which is magnetized plasma. WHERE PLASMA IS NOT FOUND. In general, in the biosphere and on the surfaces of rocky planets. In other words, plasma is rarest exactly where we live. UNDERSTANDING plasma: Its distinguishing characteristic is that it forms filaments. They are more influenced by electromagnetic forces than by gravitational forces. Plasmas also give off radio frequency emissions; solids also give off radio frequencies if shocked, such as during earthquakes (cf. earthquake lights), and during underground nuclear testing. Los Alamos has some impressive facilities and can generate incredibly high voltages and currents for very short lengths of time, e.g. Mega-amps for millionths of a second. It cost $243,000 each time they fire the plasma guns, so lots of thought goes into preparation for each experiment in order to obtain a maximum of data. Still not much is known about SPACE PLASMAS. They follow magnetic lines, tend to draw in matter, such as dust. Stars and maybe planets, too, were formed this way! ******************* MEL ACHESON: Mel reminded us that gravity is theory. Stars in galactic arms, for instance, repudiate gravity. Solar prominences disobey it. [See Velikovsky's comments in Cosmos without Gravitation, at http://www.varchive.org/ce/cosmos.htm] The Gravitation Constant is like a dancing plasma. Herodotus says that "Thunderbolts steer the universe". Like Newton, Herodotus would have seen apples fall from trees, but did not consider the observation significant to his view. Likewise, Newton would have seen lightning, but not considered the observation significant to his view of gravity. Full editorial at www.dragonscience.com is called "Question Gravity." ******************** DWARDU CARDONA continued his talk on A World with One Season, focusing first on tree rings and whether they always indicate seasons. Apparently fossilized trees do not always show tree rings. Carboniferous trees lack rings, as do trees found in coal swamps. Trees found in the Permian period, and also in Canada, Europe and Asia often have weak tree rings. South American trees often have strong tree rings, even though the seasons are not necessarily differentiated. In the Triassic period, and in the Amazon, there are found a mixture of trees both with and without tree rings. Some tropical trees do not grow rings, some grow 3 or 4 rings per season. In the dry season, rings may be missing. What all this shows is that tree rings are not determined by seasons, but by water and growing periods. How did proto-Saturn warm the Earth's southern pole as effectively as it warmed the north polar region? One possibility is larger enveloping atmosphere, but this might hinder man's view of proto- Saturn (although maybe there was a hole in the atmosphere here). In 1976, Ralph Juergens suggested that the proto-Saturnian system may have been surrounded by a plasma sheath. In 1981, Roger Ashton suggested that the "plasma bubble" may have had an opaque surface. Wal Thornhill has suggested that proto-Saturn may have been a brown dwarf star, and that Earth orbited within its "atmosphere". Evidence for similar effects include Uranus, whose temperature is uniform, even though one pole stays in darkness for 40 years due to its axially tilt. And on Io, the night temperature is similar at the poles and equator. But none of the preceding DEMANDS a Saturn-Earth system. However, there is evidence that some plants and animals in the polar regions evolved 4-million years ahead of their appearance at lower latitudes. The Saturn-Earth alignment supports this idea, dating from at least the Eocene period. The Papago Indians believe that the Sun was once closer to the Earth, and there were no seasons. ******************** DAVE TALBOTT continued his talk on Symbols of an Alien Sky. He stated that important considerations for the Saturn model would be (a) Cross-cultural points of agreement (b) Recurring themes (c) Most ancient sources are given precedence (d) Must take into account both texts and images. The acid tests of such a theory would be (a) Historic testimony (b) The perspective of such forms as seen from the Earth (c) Dynamics (d) Physical evidence (e) Consistency. Dave recalled that a collinear alignment for Saturn and Earth (i.e., in a line, rather than each independently revolving around a center of gravity) was considered dynamically impossible until Robert Grubaugh showed that there could be an equilibrium position for each planet on a single line, at which they would all have the same period of revolution, staying in line until disturbed. [See "Visualizing Collinear System", Thoth Vol II no 19, Nov 30, 1998,http://www.kronia.com/thoth/ThotII19.txt, and "A Proposed Model for the Polar Configuration", Aeon Volume III, No 3 (Oct 1993)] Grubaugh's strictly Newtonian model is only one possibility from which to choose. Plasma cosmology offers several others. Other collinear systems are seen the universe, such as Herbig-Haro objects (e.g. see HH 409.) Some of the main archetypes of the Saturn model are: (a) The Universal Sovereign, Saturn (b) Mother Goddess, Venus (c) Warrior Hero, Mars (d) Chaos Monster or "terrible aspect" of the goddess and hero. [For more, see http://www.aeonjournal.com/articles/talbott/talbott.html] *********************** JOHN CHAPPELL talked about the problems with Special Relativity [see http://www.howstuffworks.com/relativity.htm] Special Relativity is a very difficult theory to criticize in the press. The theory itself is based on two postulates. For example, for a ball being thrown in a moving train (1) That the laws of physics apply, so the ball moves with the train, so that if you throw it inside the train, you can ignore the motion of the train. (2) The velocity of light is a constant (regardless of how fast the train is moving). But these two postulate contradict each other (light does not obey the laws of motion, the first postulate). It was Thomas Kuhn in his book the Structure of Scientific Revolution who made the 'paradigm' a household word. In choosing paradigms, scientists often choose non-scientific criteria; physicists can be dominated by anti-logic. People often believe in a different way of interpreting evidence, such as when they describe the Sun moving across the sky. In reality the Sun does not move, the Earth rotates and the sky appears to move. The classic Michelson-Morley experiment [e.g. see http://www.drphysics.com/syllabus/M_M/M_M.html] can be interpreted in at least 5 different ways (including assuming that the Earth stands still). But the interpretation chosen is the one the fits the preconceived idea. Michelson ridiculed Special Relativity. Chappell tells the story of a Harvard undergraduate (Duncan Enzmann?) who wanted to interpret Special Relativity in a Newtonian context, but was refused. And John Chappell himself wanted to do a thesis on Special Relativity, but physics department refused. The book "The Golem" (Barnes and Collins, 2nd Ed 1998) takes a critical look at Arthur Eddington's experiment concerning starlight bending around stars. The authors believe Eddington threw out some of his significant data. There is also an interesting article in the journal Lingua Franca call "Constructivism", and in Newsweek, April 1997 which accused scientists of being biased. A 1976 issue of Physics Journal actually included 2 letters criticizing Special Relativity, but no articles; indeed the letters editor had a draw of 50 articles that he would not publish. The online newspaper www.salon.com features an article on scientific descent on 6/7/2000. For more information, see the Web site of Natural Philosophy Alliance at http://members.home.net./saiph/npahome.html *********************** Sunday Afternoon: 1:45 Wal Thornhill: The Electric Universe Part I: Electrical Scarring 2:45 Mel Acheson: Verbal Vignette 2:50 Dave Talbott: Symbols of an Alien Sky, Part II [Note: items in square brackets are mine. - Ian] WAL THORNHILL kicked off the afternoon session describing his Electric Universe theory, focusing on electrical scarring on planets. Wal suggested that geologists are unable to simulate the shape of lunar craters with the use of explosives or high speed impacts. And then he poses the questions: are the Thunderbolts of the Gods responsible? In a standard impact, a bolide explodes, there is a shallow dish crater with little melting, producing shock flows and a butterfly- shaped ejecta pattern. "Complex impact craters, craters with such features as a flat floor, a central peak, and wall terraces, have never been created in common geologic materials in the lab or with large explosions. At present, only the morphometry of impact craters on the solid bodies of the solar system can provide data on how various target and impactor properties affect complex crater formation." From: "Inversion of crater morphometric data to gain insight on the cratering process", Robert R. Herrick and Suzanne N. Lyons, Meteoritics & Planetary Science 33, 131-143 (1998). Now consider electric arcs (spark machining) cratering. They produce circular craters with flat floors, melted terraces, a central peak, steep walls, a raised rim with smaller craters on the rim, bilateral symmetry, shocked material, with fulgarites and glass. Such glasses are found both in lunar craters and in Meteor Crater, Arizona. Disturbed electrical craters may give asymmetry, eg: the Anaxagoras crater [see http://www.nrl.navy.mil/clementine/clib/features/crater_a_c.html ], * lunar corkscrew crater, Tharsis Tholus [eg see http://www.exploringmars.com/science/atlas/tt.html ]. The asteroid Mathilda has a crater almost equal to its radius [eg see http://www.planetary.org/html/neo/Objects-Impacts/mathilda.html ] which, if it was an impact, should have broken the asteroid apart. And the asteroid Eros also shows some unexplained surface features such as inexpected crater distribution, flat-bottomed craters, sedimentary layering, asteroid-wide grids. [eg. see http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/5421/eros.html ] Comet tails are supposedly composed from icy substances subliming from their surface or pockets within their core [eg see Giotto's image of Halley's Comet, http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/giotto.html ], but Wal suggests that the tails are actually cathode arcs, due to the comet cutting across the Sun's radial electrical field. Meteorites often contain crystals, condrules and isotopic anomalies which Wal suggests were due to them being formed in cosmic lightning bolts. Meteor Crater in Arizona [www.meteorcrater.com] shows features associated with electrical arcs, including: fulgarites [eg see http://www.minresco.com/fulgurites/fulgurites.htm ], and two sinuous rilles which Wal crossed during his trip to the crater. Some of the characteristics of lightning include filaments, parallelism and sinuosity. Wal showed a photograph of a lightning strike on a golf course green showing a characteristic Lichtenberg figure [see also Pensee IVR X, p. 31, and images at http://www.aquila.net/bert.hickman/frames/coilgallery.html ]. There is also a 40-foot trench caused by lightning, blasted out of a baseball diamond by a lightning bolt [see image in Pensee IVR, IX, p. 26] whose most important characteristic is that it is a channel of constant width, as described by Ralph Juergens in the Pensee in the same article. It was Juergens who first suggested that sinuous rilles were formed by lightning. The Moon's sinuous rilles are up to 250km in length, and are often suggested to be collapsed lava tubes, though Wal's own experience, having visited actual collapsed lava tubes in Hawaii and Australia, is that they are dissimilar. One type of electrical discharge arcing is "cathode scarring" which typically jumps around the strike zone resulting in small circular craters within and surrounding the main channel. The Moon's Hyginus Rille features such on-channel scarring. One of the "Smoking Guns" of the Electric Universe theory, is the activity on Jupiter's moon Io [eg see http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/moons/io.html ]. Other moons show examples of fretting, circular scalloped craters, furrows as on the moon Europa [eg see http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/moons/europa.html ], which resemble plasma scarring more than they resemble cracks in the ice. Indeed, Europa has some very unusual features, such as parallel cycloid patterns which would seem to indicate electrical activity. Venus also appear to be covered with electrical scars. The valley, Baltis Vallis is a 6800km rille of continuous width, with signs of levied banks. There also are many groups of raised dome formations on Venus which appear to be fulgamite (not fulgurite) scars. Mars' Tharsis Tholus is an example of an electrical fulgamite scar. Mars also features fretted terrain, such as Labyrinthus Noctis which shows no signs of fluid flow, nor debris outflow, and also shows overlapping circular pits. Nirgal Vallis is characteristic of a rille showing transverse ridges and transverse glass effects. And one wonders where the contents of Mars' Vallis Marineris went? Of course pictures of the Martian surface show it to be rock strewn and often burnt. and then there are the Martian meteorites found on Earth. Lightning accelerates material upwards (cf. Eric Crew, who suggests that blocks of ice that fall from the sky could be due to lightning accelerating water in moist air up into the atmosphere). Wal suggests that interplanetary lightning would be capable of excavating Valles Marineris and scattering most of the contents into space and onto Mars' surface. Wal concluded by looking at Mons Olympus [eg see http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mep/science/olympus_mons.html ] which is considered to be the Solar System's largest known volcano. Wal pointed out that it is burnt around the top, there is no apparent lava flow, and there is a fluted escarpment, once again characteristic of an electrical scar, comparable to fulgamites found on lightning arrestors after a strike. ****************** MEL ACHESON gave another verbal vignette, this time highlighting the need for using the correct tool for the right job. Unfortunately astrophysics use one tool, that of gravity. http://www.dragonscience.com/view/tooltime.html ****************** DAVE TALBOTT continued his talk on Symbols of an Alien Sky (Part II). Unfortunately his talk moved so fast with so many interesting new ideas, that I was unable to take down many notes. Dave began with plasmas, and how they try to reduce their electrical stress; one way is by discharging in equally distributed streamers, or symmetrical star-like patterns. When electrical stress becomes greater, the plasma will produce a larger number of streamers, in evenly spaced radial streams. Using three-dimensional modeling provided by Rick Smith, Dave noted that three symmetrical streamers or "rays" of Venus, as they exploded from Venus' equator and stretched upward toward Saturn, alternately presented a perfect triangle or a three-rayed "star," depending on the specific angle and length of the streamers in relation to the polar axis. Both forms are extremely common images of the great mother (the "threefold goddess") in the ancient world. In the same way, the phase of four streamers yielded simultaneously the image of a four-rayed star and of a "diamond," both of which were popular Venus or goddess symbols in both the Old World and the New. Also, the star with many "rays," placed in the center of the primeval "sun" (Saturn) is one of the dominant forms observed in ancient times. The Saturn Model has the planets Earth, Mars, Venus and Saturn (in that order) in a collinear arrangement (basically a straight line). Mythically, this was the "Great Conjunction" of the Golden Age. As the system destabilized, the perspective of the observer on earth shifted dramatically, and with that shift the appearance of the streamers changed as well. To illustrate the importance of perspective, Dave showed an animated sequence in which, as the Earth changed its position in relation to the streamers (a highly active phase involving many streamers), the change in perspective produced a perfect image of a "scallop shell," perhaps the most familiar image of Venus we have inherited from ancient times. But in this transformation (the mythical "birth" of Venus), no change in structure of the streamers was necessary, just a change in Earth's position relative to Venus. Dave showed quite convincingly how images such as Egyptian White Crown, the Ankh symbol, the worldwide role of the feathered headdress, the plant of life, world tree, seven-headed serpent, and numerous other images suggesting discharge streamers, all derived from the one Saturnian model. [It crossed my mind that since the Saturn Model was derived from mythological symbols, then by definition, one seems to follow from the other]. {Ed note: Final episode will appear in the next issue. Ian will also be using the notes (with extra references and pictures) in the next issue of the SIS Internet Digest (2001 No. 2), details at www.knowledge.co.uk/sis/. Pictures can be found online at www.catastrophism.com/intersect2001/} ~Ian Tresman ********************************************************* CONFERENCE IMPRESSIONS James Conway Rupert Sheldrake was a star. I read his book on morphic fields and his biography just before the conference so it was nothing new to me. His response on the other hand to Kronia would be a bit difficult to put into words. ... But by his next lecture he said that his intellectual view had gone over a complete meltdown. He said this in a good way not a dismissive way. Sheldrake has ... proved statistically that animals and humans are telepathically connected. Those of you who were doubters simply get over it. It's a done deal. It's only a matter of time and better tests before it's proved to be a human to human connection also. The man was pleasantly surprised that we didn't dismiss his work outright. The idea of morphic fields and resonance fits very well in the electrical plasma universe which even predicts such phenomena. I think Sheldrake saw for the first time supporters he never knew existed. He will not be going away any time soon because he can see that open minds are ... in greater supply in Kronia. If Sheldrake was a star Bruce Lipton was a nova. The sound mike the hotel provided required you to speak into it like a rock star eats it. All of the other speakers had little experience in this and so mostly spoke too far away from the mike. Imagine now a person who has a lectures voice that boomed so he had no need of any mike. Then he of all of the lectures ate the mike. I thot my ears would lose their ability to hear but nobody complained because what he was saying was just too astonishing. I simply could not believe my ears and eyes - he [Bruce Lipton] has great videos only surpassed by Dave's and Wal's. [He tells us that] Cells are just batteries. Cells have antennae outside and receptors inside. The antennae tell the receptors when to open and close to allow outside stimuli in or out. The antennae were the 'identification' of who each of us are. Take the antennae off and you could put the cells in anyone else and they will not be rejected. The DNA only replicated itself and those parts made proteins as chains of amino acids which the cells needed. Meaning that genetics is a dead field and there is no software everyone is looking for written in the physical cell anywhere. All of a sudden morphic fields are needed to explain the behavior of cells. I doubt Sheldrake lost the point. Why I didn't think to ask him myself when he was close at hand now defies my imagination. But to me this was synergy at its greatest. The best minds in biology have come to ... groups like Kronia to find the support they deserve and aren't getting from the mainstream. Of course, the cancellation of Arp was a great disappointment to many of us. I was looking forward to an update of his work. But Tony was there and he did not disappoint by providing undeniable evidence that rock art was detailed figures of plasma discharges. Along with the other backbone of physical evidence by Wal, Scott, Dave, and Michael all went predictable well. As for the general overall feel for the conference, the constant ding ding ding of bells and noise makers ... To say the least such an environment did not lead to high intellectual conversation. You couldn't even get away from it at the bar as each stool was next to a slot machine embedded in the bar itself. But it [Nevada} was not as bad as it could have been since us WA and Seattle people brought cloud cover keeping the temperature to only the 100's. The best investment I made was to take the group dinner river cruise. It afforded the best after dinner conversation to be had besides one other late talk the night that I got involved in by pure chance. The after dinner speeches on banquet night were filled with humor and pride at being a part with other individuals who work at being self honest with internal integrity. Some of the people who got up and spoke called themselves the deadwood group. I tried to speak on that part because there is no such thing as deadwood. Of the three main groups in Kronia: professionals, amateurs in specialty fields, and intellectual fans, all are *Essential*. Special notice needs to be given to Ben Low who put together a very good animation of past planetary interactions. The pictures were excellent and the sound was superb. I hope more outside input and discussion is in the offering on this project. Also outside individuals that make broadcasts for PBS filmed the entire conference. I hope we will hear more from them soon. Laura Lee worked the crowd the entire conference. Kronia should be most grateful for her talents and thankful for all the work and time she has put in for Kronia. Obviously, she has excellent instincts for what matters. ~James Conway ************************************************************