From "Morry on the Market",
50 Broadway, Suite 3700, New York, NY 10004,
Market Letter #59, Nov. 30, 1994,
by Morris J. Markovitz, quoted in its entirety:

"Recommended reading: If you have any interest in pondering matters scientific, I can't recommend too highly Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets, by Tom Van Flandern ($18.95 from North Atlantic Books, PO Box 12327, Berkeley, CA 94701). This is the most interesting new book on any subject that I've read in years, and the most interesting of its type -- exciting, even -- I've ever read. Yet it's a quite easy read, containing hardly any explicit mathematics. Van Flandern is an astronomer with such impeccably well established credentials that his peers can't completely dismiss his maverick theories. From a simple, sensible starting point he carries the reader, by purely deductive reasoning, to a new view of the basic nature of things: from electrons to galaxies, from the nature of a photon to the cause of gravity to the origin of the solar system. Along the way, several paradoxes of existing, theories (relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.) are explained and then resolved (or their resolutions indicated) in the most simple and easily understandable expositions I've ever seen. Those acquainted in some detail with existing theories will appreciate the creative brilliance of Van Flandern's insights, the kind that seem to turn on a mental switch that blasts away every shadow in your field of vision at once, and the kind with which his book literally teems (the unpretentious simplicity of the author's conversational style may disguise its radical significance from the casual reader). Challenging much of existing scientific orthodoxy, Van Flandern's new theory is able to cover the ground of several current theories at once, but more simply and directly than any, with fewer inconsistencies, and without requiring the abandonment of a common sense view of the world. (Coincidentally, only within the past few days it has been reported that the newly operational Hubble telescope's inability to find so-called dark matter has thrown scientists into turmoil because currently accepted cosmological theory requires that the universe be about 90% filled with it. This is precisely one of Van Flandern's predictions (amongst many more): that no dark matter would be found by the Hubble scope, because there is no dark matter; that there was no need for scientists to infer its existence in the first place; that the phenomena which led them to infer it were already predicted and fully explained by Van Flandern's own simple view of gravitation [and by the way, there are no black holes either, according to Van Flandern]). My guess is that many more of Van Flandern's predictions are destined to be verified, and I believe this book may eventually find a place at the base of future scientific inquiry in many fields, not the least of which may be the philosophy of science (specifically its epistemology). If you are curious about such things as the nature of matter and the origin of the solar system, but feel inadequately equipped to grasp what modern science has to say about such things, read this book. You will not get the all-too-common condescending attempt to water-down the mysteries of modern science into a form intelligible to little-non-scientist you, but rather a straightforward new theory, logically derived in front of your eyes, which challenges the roots of many of today's complex accepted paradigms, yet whose essence is simple enough to be thoroughly communicated to the intelligent layman without losing in the translation ."

From Meteor News,
c/o Wanda L. Simmons, Publisher,
Route 3, Box 1062, Callahan, FL 32011, #104,
Spring 1994, by Karl Simmons, editor:

"This book deals primarily with alternative theories of cosmology and solar system phenomena. Many of these theories have little or no support in the scientific community. New research and discoveries in the future will undoubtedly prove or disprove many of them. Of interest to Meteor News readers is the chapter on the planetary breakup theory for asteroid formation where some interesting ideas concerning meteoroids are listed. 100% of the royalties from this book go to Meta Research to support additional astronomy research of the type described in the book."

From Astronomy Book Club flyer,
Winter, 1994:

"Tom Van Flandern is both an insider and an outsider. A professional astronomer for 25 years, he is well versed in the customs of mainstream science. On the other hand, after a long review of the assumptions underlying a large portion of received truth in astronomy and cosmology, he has come to a radical conclusion: much currently accepted theory is wrong. ... We don't suppose Van Flandern is right in all his particulars. He may not be right in any. But this is a fascinating and useful book all the same, for the doubts it raises and for the way it reminds us of the importance of having skeptical people ask inconvenient questions."

From The Reflector,
The Astronomical League Newsletter,
Vol. XLVI #2, Feb. 1994,
review by Paul R. Castle:

"This has been a very difficult review to write. There is a lot about the book Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets that I like, yet so much of it presents theories and perspectives which are very different from the mainstream. ... Van Flandern points out solar system phenomena that he feels are best explained by a planetary breakup. ... I found these ideas and arguments intriguing and well thought out. The only problem I have is that there is no known mechanism that would cause a planetary breakup. This Van Flandern readily admits, but he reminds us that our knowledge of planetary cores is just too small to generalize about the processes involved. ... If you are ready to have your understanding of reality challenged, Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets is the book for you. Like myself, you may not agree with all of the conclusions offered, but you will find your perspectives broadened by a different way of viewing the universe. Isn't that the reason we pursue astronomy in the first place?"

From Australian & New Zealand Physicist,
Vol. 30 #9, Sept. 1993,
review by Colin Keay, Assoc. Professor of Physics,
University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW

"... One astronomer who wants to be right in on the ground floor when the foundations are rocked is Tom Van Flandern, a Yale graduate who for many years directed the Celestial Mechanics Branch of the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington. ... In planetary science, Dr. Van Flandern pursues the idea of a major planetary explosion about 3 million years ago which gave birth to comets and the asteroid belt. There is no doubt that his scheme answers many problems and enigmas about the solar system, in particular those revealed by the Voyager spacecraft, and has made some useful predictions such as the unexpected incidence of many-body asteroids. But at the same time his opponents freely return a great many counter arguments to the planetary breakup model. However, Dr. Van Flandern has boldly tackled a much bigger issue than the mere reorganization of our solar system. He questions conventional wisdom on the nature of gravity, especially that sacred cow: general relativity. He was alerted by a persistent observation which came to his notice while directing work on celestial mechanics for the Nautical Almanac Office. The position of the visible Sun differs by 20 arc seconds from the dynamical Sun, to an accuracy of better than one arc second. This implies that the influence of gravity on the Earth-Moon system, and all other bodies orbiting the Sun, travels at least twenty times faster than the velocity of light. If the speed of gravity is faster than light there is no need to invoke black holes, or to have a big-bang to set the universe rolling. The galaxy missing mass is solved immediately without need for MACHOs or WIMPs. Maybe Halton (Chip) Arp has been correct all along about non-velocity redshifts. And there are many more puzzles, for example, VLBI-measured proper motions of quasars (if confirmed), which may have simple explanations. ..."

From Aeon: A Journal of Myth and Science,
Vol. III, No. 5, May 1994, pp. 95-98,
by Frederic Jueneman:

"... This [exploded planet] event is postulated as occurring some 3.2 million years ago, a thousand times more than the historical events describe in Velikovsky's scenario, [(footnote): It should be mentioned that Van Flandern is one of an exceptionally small coterie of authors who refer to Velikovsky in passing and don't give him a gratuitous verbal kick in the shins while so doing.] but still far too soon for most paleogeologists digestion who even have some gastritis over the Luis Alvarez asteroidal impact theory of some 65 million years ago at the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) boundary. The prima rests on the observed appearance of first-time comets which have calculated orbital periods of revolution of that magnitude. This moment in time also delineates the onset of the Pleistocene, or glacial, epoch in Earth's history, including the advent of mankind himself, which gives one speculative pause. ..." [Fred is the author of the new science-challenging book "Raptures of the Deep". -- tvf]

From Science Frontiers Book Supplement,
The Sourcebook Project,
PO Box 107, Glen Arm, MD 21057, #88,
Jul.-Aug. 1993, by William R. Corliss:

"It is not easy to find scandalously iconoclastic books in the field of astronomy; but this one will suffice for a few eons! First of all, it is very readable, immensely stimulating, and even personal as the author confronts the enormity of scientific arrogance. ... The three theories are: (1) the Big Bang theory; (2) our concept of gravity; and (3) the Oort cloud theory of comets. Not content with simply compiling evidence undermining these theories, Van Flandern provides and defends three replacement theories: (1) his Meta Model; (2) his C-graviton Model; and (3) his Exploded Planet Model. Any one of these revolutions in thinking would be enough to recommend this book, but there is much more: There are no black holes; Faster-than-light motion is possible; Saturn's moons are young; plus dozens more! Powerful stuff."

The following are a sampling from among hundreds of letters received:

From Paul Cook, Tempe, AZ:

"I've just read your book, Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets. Twice, in fact. I think it's the most important book I've ever read in science (and anomalistic studies). I'm recommending it to all of my students at Arizona State University (where I teach American literature). ... I would also like to mention that I am a publishing science fiction writer. If just a fraction of your ideas are true, then all of science fiction will need to be revised."

From Tim Seward, Santiago, Chile:

"Thank you for writing Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets, which I found to be truly inspiring and refreshing. ... Many of the professional astronomers who address themselves to us seem to believe that we're a little slow on the uptake. Or at least they tend to talk down to us in a rather paternalistic fashion. You do not do this at all. Your voice is wonderful, ... I also found your book to be deeply disturbing, and I am not referring to whatever happened to Planet K. The disturbing part is your focus on the systematic way in which mainstream astronomy has fallen headlong into a real black hole, the kind from which a breath of fresh air can hardly ever escape. ... your book has inspired a story, tentatively called The Krypton-Terrestrial Boundary, which I hope I am writing more in the spirit of science-fact than science-fiction."

From Paul C. White, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada:

"Just read Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets .... then read it again -- finally a little sanity in science."

From Don Swaner, Chevy Chase, MD:

"William Corliss's Science Frontiers notes the anomalous nature of deep earthquakes -- according to theory, the rock at that depth is at such pressure and temperature that it is fluid, prohibiting sudden breaks. In the Meta Model of gravitation, there would be increased shielding from C-gravitons in the earth's interior -- possibly yielding a different model of the earth's internal structure which hopefully might explain deep quakes."

From Christopher Maricaille, Lisieux, France:

"Van Flandern's book is really a different book, something rather special, where the unexpected comes up at every page. Imagine someone more original and heretical than Velikovsky, with a strong scientific background, and you get the man. It is sometimes a bit far-fetched, but after reading it you cannot think about the universe the same way as before."

From Robert L. Henderson, Sun City, AZ:

"It is a fact that the scientific community is no more objective now than was the church in Galileo's time: it is a difficult time for true scientists. It is my belief that most of the theoretical scientific papers now appearing in the scientific literature (such as Science) should be more realistically published as further adventures of Alice in Wonderland. I believe that the next true advances in the understanding of the real world will be found in the literature published outside the dominant scientific press, such as the books both you and Halton Arp found it necessary to publish in order to get your views exposed to the public." [RLH is the author of an interesting monograph critical of relativity. . -- tvf]

From C. Leroy Ellenberger, St. Louis, MO:

"After the Meta Model, origin of comets, orbits, capture and sphere of influence -- all of which are enlightening to me -- the further away you get from the core of your expertise, the less impressed by the soundness of your often admittedly amateur opinions and conclusions I am. The first time I tripped was with your attitude towards plate tectonics, which like other non-Earth scientists you call continental spreading rates. You await VLBI results to test plate spreading rates; but VLBI results have been available since at least 1984 confirming plate tectonics. Richard Kerr reported VLBI results in Science, 12 June 1987, p. 1425, for the motion of Hawaii toward Japan and Atlantic spreading that confirmed the geological rates. ... I do not understand how your book could be so off-base on such a fundamental issue. ... You write that the opposition to your planetary breakup model stems from it being an extraordinary hypothesis. I'd say it's more likely the opposition stems from the absence of a convincing breakup process, just as Wegener was opposed because he had no good process for moving the continents in his drift model."

From Ronald R. Hatch, Wilmington, CA: