Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: CarolinaGuitarman; WorkingClassFilth

"He was wrong in every detail."

Some outside thoughts on your disagreement. First let me say I read 3 of Velikovsky's books about 30 years ago. I had 2 semesters of geology, and 1 of Astronomy in college, 45 years ago. Velikovsky's books dealt with two distinct areas. One was his theory of cometary castastrophy on the earth, related to interaction with the planets. My inclination at the time was to think that the planetary aspect of his theory was wrong. However, I was intrigued by his idea of major catastrophys caused be comets or other boloids. New findings do seem to be confirming that perspective.

Secondly, he listed a large number of unusual phenomena on earth that he suggested as evidence for his theories. These include flash frozen mammoths in Siberia with buttercups in their stomachs, and great masses of shredded animal remains in the far north of our continent. The buttercup material has been repeated in a number of other places, and a book I read entitled (I think) "My Way Was North," described a bluff along the coast of Alaska or Canada that was over 200 feet thick with jumbled animal bones including mammoths (a source of carving ivory). The Ipuwer papyrus describes terrible natural conditions at the time of Egypt's First Intermediate Period, which was a time of great chaos. Recently a 2 mile wide crater was discovered in the drained Iraq marshes that dates to the Ipuwer period.

In sum, I think that Velikovsky's theory of boloid catastrophys was right, his theory of causation was probably wrong, and many of his examples were probably true. I know his books have triggered a life long interest in seeking answers to such questions. For another "kook" check out Graham Hancock. Also lots of fascinating conjecture/information.


212 posted on 06/03/2006 1:08:48 AM PDT by gleeaikin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies ]


To: gleeaikin
"My inclination at the time was to think that the planetary aspect of his theory was wrong. However, I was intrigued by his idea of major catastrophys caused be comets or other boloids. New findings do seem to be confirming that perspective."

But none of his ideas about comets has panned out. Venus was never a comet. He specifically said that where scientific theory differed from ancient myths, it was science that need to adjust to the myth, not the other way around. He has almost certainly hurt not helped researchers into catastrophes because the idea of extra-planetary impacts was so stigmatized by the kooky examples that Velikovsky invented. His example slowed the reception of legitimate work like this study (which I am not saying is certain, as more work needs to be done).

Velikovsky's ideas have as much scientific support as do the claims of L. Ron Hubbard.
217 posted on 06/03/2006 12:04:07 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (Gas up your tanks!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson