Immanuel Velikovsky

Actually, I consider Carl Sagan to be a pretty bland writer, too. Certainly, his "Cosmos", which won the Pulitzer as a book and then an Emmy and Peabody as a TV show, was high-class stuff, but strangely dated, given what we'd learned in only 25 years. Nonetheless, we really can't fault Sagan, it's that the science has advanced so fast, anything over ten years old looks like Neils Bohr.

Nonetheless, I think that Sagan's best work (and the one most hated by the Luddites) would be "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" (1996).

The bottom line for me, though, is that I can see a lot of holes in logic, and just basic science, in the works of Sitchin, Beardon, von Daniken, and Velikovsky; I can't in any of Sagan's work.

If you like exciting fiction, by all means, the authors listed above are great entertainment; it's the matter-of-fact Sagan, though, who seems to be telling the truth.

I agree for sure on Daniken, and find his theories quite outrageous and totally illogical, I also feel Velikovsky is not basing his claims on sound foundations, and as for Sitchin.... the jury's still out on him for me. I know too little about the mythology, and astronomy of Babylon to make a useful judgement.
I know why I am more accepting of the more 'paranormal' theories and claims of others, though. And Sagan's pronouncements on the subject are certainly at odds with my life experiences, if I read his take on it correctly. He has little faith in any kind of magic, miracles, angels, or life after death, as far as I know.
I, on the other hand, would be understating my feelings to say that I have faith in such things. To me, it changed from faith to something more solid last year, though the faith has been there since childhood. It is now hard for me to consider it faith, I have accepted certain paranormal phenomena as being real. And trust me, this was not a result of one anecdotal coincidence, but more a surrender on my part to being beaten over the head my whole life. Last year was the TKO, I caved, which for someone as well-read, skeptical, picky, and academically inclined as I see myself as, that was a big deal. Consider that I had my first 'inexplicable' experience about 34 years ago, and regularly had others all that time. I was not an easy mark. But anyway, just wanted to try to convey my perspective, though I know full well that eyes are rolling, and readers are chuckling as they read this, thinking, 'that poor, deluded man.', or even worse, 'what a liar.' Luckily, along with my crying uncle last year, I stopped caring about that.

Originally posted by Nairod
Velikovsky's science was poor. His rethinking history however, all people can say is that it's "poor", and not cite examples and reasoning.

Actually, what we say is that there were several civilizations (India, Sumeria, China, Egypt) that had been writing for quite awhile, and THEY contradict him. In fact, prehistoric astronomy sites contradict him.

It's not just the skeptics. It's the ancients as well.

Remember that Venus is supposed to have passed the Earth during the time of the Exodus of the Bible. Exodus is dated to 1400 BC... the time during which the Egyptians were writing and there were Greek bards and poets and people who also wrote and the Phoenecians were writing as were the Akkadians/Sumerians and the Chinese.

Now, ask yourself how could they miss a horking big planet coming close enough to rain down manna into the atmosphere? In order to pour down something on the ground, the planet would have to be INSIDE Earth's atmosphere, Why aren't there written records of the whole event? It would have taken awhile to get past Earth and at least 1/2 the people of Earth would have seen it (probably more)

Planets are bright.

A planet coming that close (well inside the orbit of the moon; close enough to affect the atmosphere) would have smashed into Earth.

Someone other than the Hebrews would have written about it (and remember, by that time a good dozen or so civilizations (includng China) were writing. Pre-literate civilizations often painted or inscribed in rock unusual astronomical events.

It's possible to date the drawings and artifacts by many methods.

So the bottom line is that there is no cultural evidence produced by the people who lived at that time (and we have quite a lot of it) that confirms any of his tale.

And no, it's not a matter of interpretation. You can take the trouble to go learn to read the inscriptions for yourself (it will take awhile) and hunt up duplicates of material (ditto). But in the end you will find that even the evidence of he ancients says that Velikovsky has no idea what he's talking about.

Biblical timeline:
www.bible-history.com...

Ancient history 1800-1500 BC:
www.multied.com...

The Chinese are keeping eclipse records about then:
www.astronomy.pomona.edu...

Egyptians were dealing with the Hittites, so there's lots of literature on both sides:
www.astronomy.pomona.edu...

Mexico and Central America:
www.metmuseum.org...

Sumerian astronomy with observations of Venus based on hundreds of years of their own data:
www.ancientx.com...

...and, of course, ancient astrologers who had been casting charts based on the observable planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn) and the moon and the sun for at least 4,000 years.
www.nickcampion.com...


...and that is how the ancients in tens of thousands of records debunk Velikovsky.

Thanks to all who have made this an interesting thread and also pointing me to Sitchin and Bearden of whom I was unfamiliar. A question I do have is the Bearden mentioned Tom Bearden who works with the MEG?
Looks like the only work of Velikovsky anybody has comments on is Worlds, which does have some far reaching theories. The only other work I've read by him is Peoples of the Sea which deals with redating the history of Egypt. I know Hancock and Schoch have done research into this and like Velikovsky have been met with contempt from inside the box thinkers. Anyone read any of the Ages in Chaos series?

Originally posted by DB Cooper
Thanks to all who have made this an interesting thread and also pointing me to Sitchin and Bearden of whom I was unfamiliar. A question I do have is the Bearden mentioned Tom Bearden who works with the MEG?
Looks like the only work of Velikovsky anybody has comments on is Worlds, which does have some far reaching theories. The only other work I've read by him is Peoples of the Sea which deals with redating the history of Egypt. I know Hancock and Schoch have done research into this and like Velikovsky have been met with contempt from inside the box thinkers. Anyone read any of the Ages in Chaos series?

Two excellent books by David Rohl, 'Legend', and 'A Test of Time' show how the Hebrew and Egyptian dates can be aligned to support the validity of each other. Each book is around 500 + pages, so they are not light reading, but they are full of interesting information. And he gives good reasons for all of his conclusions, so it all sounds very plausible.

DB Cooper says:

A question I do have is the Bearden mentioned Tom Bearden who works with the MEG?

Yes, it is the same person.

Originally posted by DB Cooper
Thanks to all who have made this an interesting thread and also pointing me to Sitchin and Bearden of whom I was unfamiliar. A question I do have is the Bearden mentioned Tom Bearden who works with the MEG?
Looks like the only work of Velikovsky anybody has comments on is Worlds, which does have some far reaching theories.

Because there's so many errors in them that it's hard to pick just one. A bit of googling will give you some real howlers. For instance, he claims that the Queen of Sheba was obviously Pharoah Hatshepsut.

Anyone who's studied Egyptian history and Hatshepsut is probably rolling aorund, laughing at this point. Hatshepsut's the LEAST likely candidate for the Queen of Sheba, frankly. She was a strong ruler who dressed as a male... I don't think anyone sees her as simpering off to roll herself in a carpet to meet Solomon. She would probably have demanded he go see her, instead.

Nor did she have any children (unlike the Queen of Sheba.)

The only other work I've read by him is Peoples of the Sea which deals with redating the history of Egypt. I know Hancock and Schoch have done research into this and like Velikovsky have been met with contempt from inside the box thinkers.

This is because, as I've said, he discounts what the people themselves write. He misidentifies an Ugartic King (which enables him to "overturn history"... it's like misidentifying the two George Bushes and saying that our current President was in charge of Desert Storm and we have to change the dates on the US timeline by 20 years because of that.)

The "inside the box thinkers" you dismiss are people who have their hands on the cultural material of these civilizations and who have gone on digs (unlike Velikovsky) and who actually can read the languages directly (unlike Velikovsky) -- people who have had to defend their interpretations against other peers. Every new translation/discovery is met with heavy critical examination and you really can't just stroll off and deliver a translation and think that everyone will go along with you.

These people know the grammar, the references, the cultural basis for the language and symbols... unlike Velikovsky.

Would you trust a diagnosis made by a car mechanic who studied a few manuals over a "thinker-in-the-box mechanic" who went to schools and worked for 30 years in the field and worked for a number of different dealerships? That's the difference between Velikovsky and the scholars. He's read a few books. They have spent decades in the field, getting dirty and working with all the tools and all the material.

My views on the credibility of Velikovsky's work are quickly going from unimpressed to laughable. Thank you Byrd for the info. on his Hatshepsut guess, and what a poor one it is.
I have long believed the most likely candidate is the Queen of what is now Ethiopia/Eritrea, the ancestor of Haile Selassie. I think her name was Makeda? I could be off on that. But since the song of solomon clearly states that she is a beautiful black woman, and the history of Ethiopian Jews is a very long one, she is the most logical candidate. Is there another figure that is as likely to be the Queen of Sheba? If so, I would like to learn about her. Another supporting point is the story of the removal of the Ark by their son, which the Ethiopian texts say happened when he returned to Israel. Some folks believe it is still in Ethiopia, in Axum, I think.

(posted by Off_The_Street, not a.k.a. ManInTheDitto)
I wasn't aware of Heyerdahl's views of the submarine critters; I'll have to pull out Kon-Tiki and re-read it.

True, he never even HINTED, as far as I'm aware, that they could've been otherworldly happenings, at least not in that book. After all, this was way back when UFOlogy was still in the Stone Age, in 1947. WW II pilots had come back talking about the foo-fighters, yes, and the year of the Kon-Tiki just happened to be the year of the Roswell events, but the jokes about the LGMs had barely started to spread across the land. It was only later that others started wondering.

How about this, for example, in Chapter Five: " (...) and only once was our attention engaged as we saw the sea as though it were boiling, while something like a large wheel rotated with its spokes in full sight, and some of our dolphins [not the mammal but the warm-water fish bearing the same name (striped tunny?)] tried to escape by leaping high up in the air."

The "large balls of fire" are described in the previous chapter. Their behavior is hard or impossible to ascribe to any known bioluminescent marine species. About two pages after the former quote there's a dubious case: "On several occasions we glided over huge dark masses, as big as the floor of a room etc. etc. etc." To be honest, although here he has no idea what they are, he assumes them to be giant rays (skates), "mantas" in Spanish. Surely you know that the rumor mill has come up with a hypothetical secret airplane, huge and triangular, that they call the Manta, to explain the "Black Triangles", but maybe they're just as mythical as the Aurora.

Actually, someone wanting sound evidence for the existence of USOs, coming from lone mariners, would have to turn to Adrian Hayter, who, incredibly, sailed from England to Australia in his tiny yacht, the "Sheila" (length: 12 mt.!). As he went down the Red Sea...

" (...) we [he'd taken on board a temporary passenger] observed a light far away, to the southeast. We were then between Assab and Djibouti. As we watched it, it waxed brighter and advanced toward us, looking like the ray from a very powerful searchlight. Suddenly it veered to the south and swept the horizon from side to side..., but UNDER the water. It approached swiftly and at a steady speed, until it shone on our sails with a greenish glow, brightly enough to read in its light. I saw that ray of light that was so well-defined as it passed under the 'Sheila', casting momentarily the black shadow of its hull upon the sails, then to continue its way at a great speed towards the western horizon (...). This was repeated five times, always in the same manner, and at regular intervals, in complete silence and without the least change in the wind or the condition of the sea." (Sheila in the Wind, Hodder & Stoughton, London)

UFOlogist believe that there is now enough evidence showing the existence of alien submarine bases in the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf, and the Bermuda Triangle and other places in the Atlantic, such as Cape Race, Newfoundland (Terranova).

Better yet, why not go over the works of the legendary Ch. Fort. A new world is waiting, far beyond your dreary drawing board (slanted, too).

Even more ripleyesque was that close encounter with the sailor himself, in the South Pacific, of all places. It deserves at least an article, titled "Close Encounter in Micronesia". And just as noteworthy as his account of the voyage is The Island of the Kon-Tiki, the story of how Bengt Danielsson, one of the Kon-Tiki Six, returns to Raroia (where by chance the raft had arrived) to study the natives' ancient ways. He was prompted by a letter inviting him to come back, sent by the chief of the island.

Sorry again, for turning a short divergence into a long one. (Nothing better to do on a long weekend.)

(posted by BlackGuardXIII)
Thor Heyerdahl opened a lot of eyes, and later research that I have read has convinced me that there was contact between ancient Egypt and the Americas. The name Lamerika, (my spelling is suspect) used in reference to a paradise across the western seas, is thousands of years old, for example.

What is the connection between the name of an ancient legend and the first name of a 16th-century Italian who gave it to a continent? Is this suggesting that he was fated to give it to a mythical land that had always been there???

(posted by Byrd)
Anyone who's studied Egyptian history and Hatshepsut is probably rolling aorund, laughing at this point. Hatshepsut's the LEAST likely candidate for the Queen of Sheba, frankly. She was a strong ruler who dressed as a male... I don't think anyone sees her as simpering off to roll herself in a carpet to meet Solomon. She would probably have demanded he go see her, instead.

I remember Elizabeth Taylor, as Queen Cleopatra, rolling off the carpet and surprising Richard Burton, playing Julius Caesar, so either one of us is mixing up his facts or Cleopatra knew her Hebrew history and decided to imitate that other queen. Where are the scholars, please?
*

Gee Street I didn't recall Velikovsky saying that Venus was expelled from Jupiter... I know the mythology around the planets has said that in a prosaic sense. I thought that Velikovsky theorized that Venus had actually entered the solar system and been captured... after a couple of highly disruptive passes through. And yes, Velikovsky was a psychiatrist but also an anthropologist. Some of his psychiatric theory is founded in anthropological psych. I'll have to pull those books out and give them a re-read.

Now that the naysayers have slid their input like a dagger into the side of Velikovsky, let's let the man speak for himself.

A novel idea...no pun intended.

From 'Earth in Upheaval' he speaks of his methodology in a neat paragraph found on page 238;

Quote:

"I came upon the idea that traditions and legends and memories of generic origin can be treated in the same way in which we treat in psychoanalysis the early memories of a single individual.
I spent ten years on this work. I found that the collective memory of mankind spoke of a series of global catastrophies that occurred in historical times. I believed that I could even identify the exact times and the very agents of the great upheavals of the more recent past. The conclusions at which I arrived compelled me to cross the frontiers into various fields of science- archaeology, geology and astronomy. The result was a book, a prolegomenom. In it's concluding pages I conceded that more problems were raised than had been solved, and I promised, always reckoning with the limitations of the individual scholar, to pursue my study into these fields too. But already the implications of the fact of great global catastrophes on the earth, one of the celestial bodies, in a time so recent, had caused my critics to assert, in the words of a Harvard astronomer, that here was the "most amazing example of a shattering of accepted concepts on record."

unquote.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The problem poor old Immanuel had was one of 'blinker loss'. He was determined to cross boundaries and that just did not sit well with the anal scientific methods of the day...one musn't look over another's shoulder, so to speak. Imagine the huff that most of those geeks got into when they noted this upstart psychoanalist looking into geology and archaeology.

Bad man...hisssss!

Besides, he put into question the very basic notion put forth 200 years previous by LaPlace that the solar system would remain unchanged "forever". Also, LaMarck had bolstered LaPlace with the assertion that the world we live on " has ever been an abode of peaceful evolution".

This WAS the standard everyone felt most comfortable with...go on, admit it...ain't the world a safer place with LaPlace and LaMarck's 'feel good world'?

Well...Immanuel upset that apple cart, and though he is discredited as yet, especially by the ordinary and mundane (since the scientific community is far too busy calculating effects of rising sea levels and changing climate), I say that something wicked will someday come...whether it's Sedna doing a fly-by or Niburu or whatever...the day will come when Immanuel will rise like the Phoenix from the ashes of his immolation and his heresy shall be proclaimed as truth.


[edit on 5-6-2005 by masqua]

I'm compiling some info on suppressed/repressed knowledge and naturally no collection of that sort would not have Immanuel in the top five heretics.

I was of course curious to seek what a reception his work would have received here at ATS.

In reading the (somewhat old ) naysayers responses two things become rather apparent...

1) What is it about know it all critics that they don't feel ANY need whatsoever to so easily refute Immanuels materials WITHOUT EVEN READING IT?



2) If 'accepted theories' are the basis for refusing to even consider any of Immanuels materials, then the solution becomes rather obvious...

The 'accepted theories' need to be tossed on the trash heap.

I guess there is NO substitute for paying attention.

Science has become 'Science', just another dogmatic religion.

Reviewing Velikovsky lately and he mostly records the existence of
large calamities on planet earth from some old writings and existing
formations on Earth.
Makes an assumption on the birth of Venus that gets entangled with
Mars from the birth of Rome to the defeat of a biblical army.
He states that records show 360 and 365 1/4 day year calendars in
antiquity. He rolls of a lot of supporting data until you wished he
would go into wild scenerios but doesn't and you find yourself doing
a better imaginary job.
Another book just deals with a 800 year span.
Another goes into Earth features.
Yet another deals with Egypt figures.
Then a book on Peoples of the Sea that may have been written.

I live in Ohio near areas where large blocks of the red granite from Canada are scattered around the countryside. His idea was that these stones were not brought down by glaciers but rather blown into the atmophere by a meteor slaming into the earth and then landing here and there in a scattered field. I know of one field that had 5 large blocks of very nice red stone. This is not far from Madison Co Ohio.

Strangely, before ever hearing of Velikovsky its that obvious, I had noticed the broken edge nature of these stones and the lack of conditions on the stones that would indicate contact with glaciers. The stones look as though they were broken up by say a large hammer and after that were not subject to any grinding. I mentioned that to someone who then directed me to read Velikovsky. Velikovsky says the patern deposits of these stones also indicate that they were not deposited by glaciers as the pattern exstends beyound areas, in the south, reached by glaciers and are not simply found at the furthest point of the glaciers exstention. The deposit pattern also indicates a circular depost which also points to a large exsplosion at the source of the stones. As well these stones are in contrast to the multitude of stones in the area that had obvious contact with glaciers or other weathering exsposure.

A critical book review of Velikosky in 1950 read "Sacred Cows in Collision"

I enjoyed Velikosky and am a supporter of The Electric Universe but one must recognize Velikovsky's extrodinary zeal... that it was over the top, is understandable considering how much it did explain, and it doesn't mean there isn't a great deal to learn. see Electric Universe < This stuff makes more sense to me than the current explanations of the Hubbel Constant, but then I'm an old electronics guy...

www.thunderbolts.info...

[edit on 12-2-2010 by seataka]

[edit on 12-2-2010 by seataka]

"Earth in Upheaval" point out a lot of geological sites.

Lets see I just took a look at "Ages in Chaos" and he basically
reads from old documents.
And finds his interpretation , he does sort of fix the events around and
after Exodus as far as what man was doing at that time.
I don't see him solving the other problems but shows the working
source material and the conflict to be resolved.

I went back to "Worlds in Collision" and found I like that better.
Although the notion that people in the other side of the Red Sea
invaded the north and onto Egypt as others were escaping
even worse plagues in Egypt might have happened.
Egypt was wrecked and under guard by non Egyptians who
were freed at last by the people who escaped and finally got north
to Judea and Canaan. It just happens that the story is only told
that way by Velikovsky.

How about the human sacrifices to the Morning Star in the Srping
or around March 19th.
They successfully kept Venus from coming back and tipping the
Earth again.
Good going scientist of pre AD.
Only the scientist back then were religious advisers.
Or is it people just understand sacrifices.

He mentioned a Jupiter event I don't recall reading and I think
there was a Deluge event he analyzed.

ED: If Venus rained down naphtha everywhere and especially in
Arabia what did the Jupiter probe tell us about the atmosphere.
If Venus, the hot planet, came from Jupiter then Jupiter must be
a big gas station.
Neptune has a hole like Jupiter, perhaps the deluge and sea
planet just like the name implies yet it not an ancient planet.



[edit on 3/4/2010 by TeslaandLyne]

When will they ever learn:

from

www.answers.com...

By 1974, the controversy surrounding Velikovsky's work had permeated US society to the point where the American Association for the Advancement of Science felt obliged to address the situation, as they had previously done in relation to UFOs, and devoted a scientific session to Velikovsky, featuring (among others) Velikovsky himself and Professor Carl Sagan. Sagan gave a critique of Velikovsky's ideas (the book version of Sagan's critique is much longer than that presented in the talk; see below). His criticisms are available in Scientists Confront Velikovsky[34] and as a corrected and revised version in the book Broca's Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science.[35] Sagan's arguments were aimed at a popular audience and he did not bother to remain to debate Velikovsky in person, facts that were used by Velikovsky's followers to attempt to discredit his analysis.[36] Sagan rebutted these charges, and further attacked Velikovsky's ideas in his PBS television series Cosmos, though not without reprimanding scientists who attempted to suppress Velikovsky's ideas.

Continued:


And there is a lot there just sitting in manuscripts:

Velikovsky's ideas on his earlier Saturn/Mercury/Jupiter events were never published, and the available archived manuscripts are much less developed. Of all the strands of his work, Velikovsky published least on his ideas regarding the role of electromagnetism in astronomy. Although he appears to have retreated from the propositions in his 1946 monograph Cosmos without Gravitation, no such retreat is apparent in Stargazers and Gravediggers.[27] Cosmos without Gravitation, which Velikovsky placed in university libraries and sent to scientists,

Continued:

The problem lies with:

Some of Velikovsky's specific postulated catastrophes included: * A tentative suggestion that Earth had once been a satellite of a "proto-Saturn" body, before its current solar orbit. * That the Deluge (Noah's Flood) had been caused by proto-Saturn entering a nova state, and ejecting much of its mass into space. * A suggestion that the planet Mercury was involved in the Tower of Babel catastrophe. * Jupiter had been the culprit for the catastrophe which saw the destruction of the "Cities of the Plain" (Sodom and Gomorrah) * Periodic close contacts with a cometary Venus (which had been ejected from Jupiter) had caused the Exodus events (c.1500 BCE) and Joshua's subsequent "sun standing still" incident. * Periodic close contacts with Mars had caused havoc in the 8th and 7th centuries BCE.

Now I can see how Mars and Venus happened in the eyes and writings
of the ancients as made alive by Velikovsky but how did the Deluge
happen when there was just verbal traditions perhaps from Methuselah.
Now Methuselah would not lie or make up stories so what did Velikovsky
find.