Worlds in Collision

By Immanuel Velikovsky – 40 Q&As – Unbekoming Book Summary

Liam Scheff gave me the gift of awakening to the Electric Universe and it was within this universe that I came across the work of Immanuel Velikovsky.

His book Worlds in Collison has been on my list to review and summarize for some time, but recently a reader wrote to me and pushed it up the priority list (thanks pearl).

Let’s hear directly from Scheff first.

With thanks to Immanuel Velikovsky.

Worlds in Collision: Immanuel Velikovsky

---

---

Analogy

Imagine a peaceful neighborhood where houses have stood undisturbed for generations. Everyone believes the neighborhood will remain this way forever. But then, a new, reckless driver arrives, speeding through the streets and causing chaos. This new driver is like Venus in Velikovsky's theory, a disruptive force introduced to a previously stable system.

Venus, as a new celestial body, disrupts the established order of the solar system, causing collisions and near misses with the Earth. This leads to earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and dramatic changes in the Earth's climate and geography. These events are reflected in myths and legends across various cultures, which describe a period of global upheaval and change.

Continuing the analogy, this reckless driver doesn't just speed through the neighborhood once; they return periodically, causing repeated episodes of disruption and damage. The residents experience a collective trauma, trying to forget the terrifying events and rebuild their lives. This repeated disruption aligns with Velikovsky's idea that Earth experienced multiple encounters with Venus and Mars, leading to a cycle of catastrophes imprinted on the collective memory of humanity.

Over time, the memory of the reckless driver fades. People begin to doubt if the events really happened, rationalizing them as exaggerated stories or metaphorical tales. The physical evidence of the damage remains – cracked foundations, shifted landscapes – but the true cause is obscured and forgotten. This mirrors Velikovsky's argument that the scientific community, clinging to the idea of a stable solar system, has misinterpreted data and overlooked evidence of past catastrophes, dismissing ancient accounts as mere myths and legends.

Velikovsky challenges us to reexamine the history of our solar system, to acknowledge the possibility of past catastrophes, and to look for the scars they left behind, both on our planet and in the collective memory of humanity. Just like the physical evidence of the reckless driver's actions would remain in the neighborhood, the Earth bears witness to the tumultuous events of the past, waiting to be deciphered.

12-point summary

1. Challenging Conventional Cosmology: Velikovsky challenges the prevailing view of a stable and unchanging solar system. He argues that catastrophic events have shaped the solar system in recent history, contradicting the idea of gradual and uniform processes. He uses historical records and geological evidence to argue that the Earth has experienced major upheavals due to close encounters with other celestial bodies, particularly Venus and Mars.

2. Venus: A Recent Arrival: He proposes that Venus is a relatively young planet, born from Jupiter within the timeframe of recorded human history. He suggests that this event caused global catastrophes on Earth, including the plagues of Egypt described in the Bible.

3. Mars and Global Upheaval: He posits that Mars also played a role in causing terrestrial catastrophes. He links the planet's close approaches to Earth with events like the destruction of Sennacherib's army and the perturbation witnessed during the reign of King Ahaz, citing historical and astronomical data to support his claims.

4. Collective Amnesia: He explains the lack of clear memories of these catastrophic events through the concept of "collective amnesia," a psychological mechanism that causes the suppression of traumatic memories. He argues that humanity has subconsciously buried the memories of these upheavals due to their terrifying nature.

5. Historical and Mythological Evidence: He draws extensively on ancient texts, including the Bible, Greek mythology, and accounts from various cultures worldwide, to support his claims. He interprets these narratives not as mere legends but as records of actual cosmic events, arguing that the similarities across different cultures point to a common experience of global catastrophe.

6. Physical Evidence: In addition to historical accounts, he cites geological and paleontological evidence to support his theory. He points to phenomena like erratic boulders, mass extinctions, and rapid geological formations as evidence of sudden and violent upheavals, contradicting the idea of gradual geological changes.

7. Reinterpreting Scientific Data: He critiques the interpretation of scientific data in light of his theory. He argues that conflicting data, such as those related to Venus's rotation period, should not be dismissed as errors but re-examined to consider the possibility of a dynamic and evolving solar system. He suggests that the internal heat of Venus, potentially a remnant of its recent formation, plays a significant role in its atmospheric dynamics and affects scientific measurements.

8. Planetary Scars: He attributes the formation of prominent features on Mars and the Moon, such as the canals of Mars and the craters and lava seas of the Moon, to stresses and near-collisions with other celestial bodies. This challenges traditional explanations that focus solely on internal geological processes, emphasizing the impact of external cosmic events on shaping planetary surfaces.

9. The 360-Day Year: Velikovsky points to evidence of a 360-day year in ancient cultures as a remnant of a time before a cosmic disturbance altered Earth's rotation period. He cites texts from various civilizations, including Hindu and Babylonian astronomical works, to support this claim, arguing that this change in Earth's rotation is a result of past cosmic encounters.

10. The Nature of the Deluge: He raises the question of whether the Deluge, traditionally considered a local flood in the Euphrates region, might have been a global event. He expresses his intention to investigate the Deluge further, connecting it with his theory of cosmic upheavals and challenging the prevailing view of it as a localized phenomenon.

11. The Centrality of Jupiter: He emphasizes the importance of investigating Jupiter in future research, aiming to explain the planet's prominent role in ancient mythologies. He suggests exploring the possibility of Venus's birth from Jupiter and the cosmic events that might have elevated Jupiter to the status of a chief deity in many ancient cultures, highlighting the potential role of this gas giant in shaping the early solar system.

12. Beyond Venus and Mars: He acknowledges that his research, while focusing on encounters with Venus and Mars, represents only a part of a larger story of cosmic upheavals. He expresses his intention to investigate events further back in time, beyond the encounters with Venus and Mars, to understand earlier cosmic upheavals that may have shaped the solar system into its current form.

40 Questions & Answers

Question (1): What specific historical evidence does Velikovsky use to support his argument for a recent history of global catastrophes?

Answer: His argument for recent global catastrophes uses evidence from various cultures' historical texts around the world. These include classical literature, epics of northern races, sacred books, folklore, astronomical inscriptions, and archaeological discoveries. He compares this process to the work of a psychoanalyst reconstructing a forgotten traumatic experience from fragmented memories and dreams.

His theory also incorporates geological and paleontological material to support the occurrence of global upheavals. He proposes that if cosmic disturbances happened, the lack of direct human memory might be explained by a form of collective amnesia, which he analyzes further in a dedicated section.

Question (2): How does Velikovsky's concept of "historical cosmogony" differ from the scientific understanding of cosmology prevalent in the mid-20th century?

Answer: Unlike the prevailing scientific beliefs of the mid-20th century, which assumed a stable and unchanging solar system with a gradual evolution over millions of years, he posited a recent history of cosmic upheavals and catastrophic events that dramatically shaped the Earth and other planets. These events, according to him, were not mere "accidents of celestial traffic," but potentially recurring phenomena like birth and death, observable in the macrocosm, similar to activities within an atom.

His approach questioned the "sacred laws" of science like the assumed age of the solar system and the Earth's harmonious revolution. He challenges the notion that scientific knowledge was nearing completion, highlighting the limitations of human understanding regarding fundamental questions like the origin of life, the existence of extraterrestrial life, and the formation of the solar system.

Question (3): What are the main arguments against the traditional view of a stable and unchanging solar system that Velikovsky presents?

Answer: He argues that historical evidence, including ancient texts and myths, suggests dramatic changes in the Earth's rotation, axis, and orbit. He points to worldwide accounts of floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and other catastrophic events as evidence of major cosmic disturbances. He challenges the prevailing assumption that these accounts are purely mythological, interpreting them as potentially based on real occurrences.

He questions the validity of extrapolating the present state of the solar system millions of years into the past, arguing that historical data suggests significant changes in planetary positions and behaviors. He also contends that the assumption of slow, gradual processes in geology and paleontology may not adequately account for certain phenomena like the rapid uplift of mountains or the sudden extinction of species.

Question (4): How does Velikovsky explain the alleged ejection of Venus from Jupiter, and what evidence does he offer?

Velikovsky claims that the planet Venus was ejected from Jupiter and offers several pieces of evidence to support this idea. He suggests that smaller comets were born from collisions between Venus and Mars, and that this offers an explanation for how comets in the solar system originated. Velikovsky argues that the presence of methane in Jupiter’s atmosphere, along with the hydrocarbon gases he believes are on Venus, suggests that Jupiter must also have petroleum, which further supports his theory that Venus came from Jupiter.

He writes that the modern theory of petroleum formation suggests an organic source for petroleum. Velikovsky goes on to say that because he believes Venus came from Jupiter and that Venus is populated by vermin¹, Jupiter must also be populated by vermin. He acknowledges that this is speculation and invites the reader to consider its plausibility. Finally, Velikovsky notes that Jupiter was the main deity for many ancient peoples, and that he will explain this in a later volume by referencing the planet’s role in past upheaval.

Question (5): What specific physical characteristics of Venus does Velikovsky point to as evidence for its recent and tumultuous history?

Answer: He believed Venus's gaseous envelope held the key to proving his theory about global catastrophes. Despite experts in planetary atmospheres stating that Venus's atmosphere lacked hydrocarbon gases, he argued that, based on his research, Venus must have them. He considered this a crucial test for his cosmological concepts derived from studying historical sources.

His prediction later appeared confirmed when the Mariner probe revealed in 1963 that Venus is indeed enshrouded in a thick envelope of hydrocarbon gases and dust. He saw this as a vindication of his approach, emphasizing the importance of historical evidence alongside scientific observation. He suggested that this finding supported his claim of a recent and catastrophic origin for Venus.

Question (6): According to Velikovsky, how did the close approach of Venus cause the plagues of Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea as described in the Book of Exodus?

Answer: He attributes the plagues of Egypt to the close passage of Venus. He suggests that these plagues, including the darkening of the sky, hailstorms, and infestations of insects, were natural consequences of Venus's influence on Earth's atmosphere and environment. He argues that the biblical descriptions of these events can be interpreted as metaphorical accounts of actual natural phenomena caused by cosmic upheaval.

He interprets the parting of the Red Sea as a result of tidal forces generated by the close proximity of Venus. He suggests that the waters were drawn away from the shores, creating a temporary passage for the Israelites, and then returned with destructive force to engulf the pursuing Egyptians. He cites ancient commentaries and interpretations of the biblical text to support his explanation.

Question (7): How does Velikovsky interpret the biblical account of Joshua's long day, and how does it fit into his theory of Venus's impact on Earth?

Answer: The biblical account of Joshua's long day is seen as evidence of a significant interruption of Earth's rotation. He posits that the prolonged daylight described in the Book of Joshua was a result of the gravitational and electromagnetic forces exerted by the close encounter with Venus. This event would have temporarily altered Earth's spin, creating an extended day.

This interpretation of the biblical text is part of a larger argument about the interconnectedness of historical events and cosmic phenomena. He argues that seemingly miraculous occurrences in ancient accounts should be considered potential evidence for catastrophic events in Earth's past. He suggests that these events, rather than being isolated incidents, form a coherent narrative when viewed through the lens of cosmic catastrophism.

Question (8): In what ways does Velikovsky suggest that the alleged encounter with Venus affected Earth's axis, rotation, and orbit?

Velikovsky suggests that Earth’s close encounter with Venus had a number of dramatic effects on Earth’s axis, rotation, and orbit.

• Earth’s axis tilted, causing a shift in the location of the poles and changing the latitudes of different regions.

• The length of the year changed as the Earth was pushed to a new orbit farther from the sun.

• Earth’s rotation was disrupted, resulting in a change to the length of the day and causing the sun to appear to move erratically.

Velikovsky draws on a variety of sources to support these claims. He points to ancient myths and legends from around the world that describe a time when the sun stood still or moved backward in the sky, and argues that these stories are based on real events. He also cites historical records, like the biblical account of Joshua’s long day and the Egyptian records that describe multiple instances when the sun rose in the west and set in the east. Velikovsky suggests that these events can be explained by a sudden tilting of the earth’s axis caused by the gravitational pull of Venus.

Velikovsky also points to geological evidence to support his claims, arguing that the sudden changes in climate and the presence of marine fossils in mountainous regions can be explained by a shift in Earth’s poles. He suggests that the earth’s encounter with Venus caused widespread volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and floods, which further contributed to the changes in the Earth’s axis, rotation, and orbit.

Question (9): What evidence does Velikovsky present for Mars's alleged role in Earth's catastrophic past?

Answer: He argues that after Venus stabilized in its orbit, Mars played a significant role in Earth's catastrophic past. This assertion draws on his interpretation of ancient texts, myths, and astronomical observations. However, the sources provided do not detail the specific evidence he presents for Mars's alleged influence.

His future research, as mentioned in the Epilogue, intends to delve deeper into the events preceding the birth of Venus from Jupiter. He aims to explain why Jupiter, a seemingly less prominent celestial body in ancient mythology, held such importance as a deity. This suggests that his future works might provide more detailed evidence for Mars's involvement in Earth's past.

Question (10): What specific time period does Velikovsky associate with the interactions between Mars, Earth, and Venus?

Velikovsky places the interactions between Mars, Earth, and Venus within a specific timeframe. He argues that Venus first entered the solar system as a comet in the middle of the second millennium BCE, where it had two close encounters with Earth. Velikovsky associates these encounters with the biblical Exodus (around 1450 BCE) and the events described in the Book of Joshua, which he believes took place 52 years later. During these encounters, Venus disrupted Earth's rotation and orbit and caused widespread catastrophes, including floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions.

Centuries later, around the 8th and 7th centuries BCE, Velikovsky suggests that Mars, having been perturbed by a series of contacts with Venus, began to have its own close encounters with Earth. He cites evidence from biblical accounts, like the prophet Amos's description of an earthquake, and the story of the shadow moving backward on King Hezekiah's sundial as described by Isaiah, to support this claim. Velikovsky links these events to the founding of Rome in 747 BCE and suggests that they were caused by the gravitational influence of Mars, which caused further disruptions to Earth’s axis and rotation. He also argues that these encounters with Mars eventually stabilized Venus's orbit, pushing it into its current position as the Morning and Evening Star.

Question (11): What is the significance of the 52-year period in Velikovsky's theory, and how does he connect it to historical and cultural practices?

Answer: The 52-year period is significant in his theory as it represents a cycle of potential cosmic disturbances. He connects this period to historical events and cultural practices, citing evidence from ancient Mexico, where people anticipated a catastrophic event at the end of every 52-year cycle. This fear manifested in ceremonies and rituals, reflecting their belief in the cyclical recurrence of cosmic upheavals.

The 52-year period is also linked to the biblical Jubilee year, observed every 52 years in ancient Israel, during which debts were forgiven, and slaves were freed. He suggests that this practice might be a cultural memory of past catastrophic events, serving as a reminder of the fragility of human existence and the need for social renewal in the face of potential cosmic threats.

Question (12): How does Velikovsky's view on the possibility of life on other planets challenge the scientific consensus of his time?

Answer: While many scientists during his time considered the possibility of life on other planets improbable due to the vast differences in atmospheric and thermal conditions, he did not dismiss the idea. He acknowledged the improbability of finding life forms identical to those on Earth but considered it wrong to conclude that no life exists at all.

He entertained the possibility of microorganisms arriving on Earth from interstellar space, a concept not entirely new even in his time. He even suggests that Venus, and possibly Jupiter, from which he believes Venus originated, could be populated by organisms like insects and their larvae due to their ability to withstand extreme conditions. This open-mindedness to the possibility of extraterrestrial life, even if in forms different from what we know, contrasts with the prevailing skepticism of his time.

Question (13): What are the "perturbed months" that Velikovsky discusses, and how do they support his claims of recent cosmic upheaval?

Answer: He discusses "perturbed months," referencing ancient astronomical observations that indicate discrepancies in the lunar cycle, particularly in the duration of the lunar month. He uses this as evidence to argue that the moon’s orbit was once different, citing observations by ancient astronomers suggesting a period when the lunar month lasted 35 to 36 days.

He contends that this deviation from the current lunar month of 29.5 days supports his theory of recent cosmic upheaval. He suggests that the moon's orbit was disrupted during these periods of upheaval, causing it to temporarily reside in a different orbit, resulting in these "perturbed months". He further points to Babylonian tablets from that period that mention dates with a 33rd day, supporting his claim of a different lunar calendar in the past.

Question (14): How does Velikovsky connect a "commotion" during the reign of Uzziah with the separation of two world ages, and what evidence does he offer for a specific date?

Answer: He connects a "commotion" during the reign of King Uzziah to the separation of two world ages, suggesting that this event marked a significant turning point in history, possibly due to a cosmic disturbance. He places this event around the year -747, drawing on the fact that time was counted "from the commotion in the days of Uzziah". He also points out that the ancient inhabitants of Mexico celebrated their New Year on a date corresponding to February 26th in the Julian calendar, suggesting a potential connection to this "commotion" and its significance in marking a new era.

The sources provided do not elaborate on the nature of this "commotion" or provide further details about its connection to cosmic upheaval. However, he suggests the need to reexamine the computation of the era's start date in light of further cosmic disturbances occurring in the decades following -747. This indicates that his chronological analysis and the connection to cosmic events are based on a more detailed study of historical records and astronomical data beyond the scope of these excerpts.

Question (15): What is the "Taylor prism," and how does Velikovsky use it to argue for a two-stage campaign of Sennacherib against Palestine?

Answer: The "Taylor prism" is a historical artifact containing cuneiform inscriptions that record the campaigns of the Assyrian king Sennacherib, including his military exploits in Palestine. He uses the Taylor prism, alongside biblical accounts from the Book of Kings, to argue that Sennacherib's campaign against Palestine happened in two stages. He notes that the prism records the initial campaign, during which Sennacherib received tribute from King Hezekiah in Jerusalem but did not capture the city.

However, other biblical sources, like the Book of Chronicles and the Book of Isaiah, describe a second campaign where Sennacherib faced a disastrous defeat, an event not recorded on the Taylor prism. He concludes that the absence of this second campaign on the prism suggests its occurrence after the prism's creation, supporting his theory of two distinct campaigns with different outcomes.

Question (16): How does Velikovsky establish the date for the second campaign of Sennacherib against Palestine?

Answer: He establishes the date of Sennacherib’s second campaign against Palestine as -687, or possibly -686, based on historical analysis and cross-referencing various sources. This dating is derived from understanding that Sennacherib’s first campaign took place in -702 or -701. He likely relies on additional historical data and chronological records to arrive at the specific year for the second campaign, but the provided sources do not explicitly detail this process.

It's worth noting that the dating of historical events often involves complex analysis and interpretation of available evidence, and his conclusions about the timing of Sennacherib’s campaigns are part of his broader attempt to reconstruct a historical timeline that incorporates his theory of cosmic catastrophism.

Question (17): Why does Velikovsky introduce the question of the destruction of Troy in his discussion of Venus and Mars?

Answer: He introduces the question of Troy's destruction while discussing Venus and Mars to highlight a seeming chronological inconsistency. He points out that traditional accounts place the fall of Troy in a timeframe that conflicts with the established dates of Roman history, specifically the founding of Rome, traditionally believed to have occurred in the 8th century BCE. This chronological discrepancy serves as a starting point for his exploration of alternative historical timelines that might incorporate cosmic upheaval.

He suggests that a reassessment of traditional chronologies might be necessary to reconcile seemingly contradictory historical data. The question of Troy's destruction, with its implications for understanding the timeline of ancient civilizations, becomes an example of how traditional historical narratives might need revision in light of his theory of cosmic catastrophism.

Question (18): What is the "Völuspa," and how does Velikovsky use it to illustrate the tumultuous nature of the period he is discussing?

Answer: The "Völuspa" is a poem from the Poetic Edda, a collection of Norse mythology and heroic legends. He uses the Völuspa’s apocalyptic imagery, describing a world consumed by fire, darkness, and strife, to illustrate the chaotic period he associates with cosmic upheaval. The poem's vivid descriptions of "axe-time, sword-time" and a world where "brothers shall fight and fell each other" align with his interpretation of ancient texts that suggest widespread warfare and social unrest during periods of planetary upheaval.

He connects the wars of Assyrian kings like Shalmaneser IV, Sargon II, and Sennacherib to the events described in the Völuspa, arguing that these conflicts were either triggered by or occurred concurrently with cosmic catastrophes. He cites Sennacherib's own accounts, where military campaigns were disrupted by natural disasters, and the prophecies of Isaiah, who anticipated divine intervention through natural forces during times of war, as further evidence for this connection.

Question (19): What is the significance of the missing account of Berosus that Josephus intended to quote, and how does Velikovsky propose to reconstruct it?

Answer: He notes the historical importance of a missing account by the Babylonian historian Berosus, which the Jewish historian Josephus intended to quote but ultimately did not preserve. This missing account likely described events related to the destruction of Sennacherib's army, offering a different perspective from the account by Herodotus. He suggests that by understanding the events of March 23rd, -687, we might be able to reconstruct Berosus's lost narrative.

The specific events of that date and their connection to the missing account are not detailed in the sources. However, his statement implies that a thorough understanding of the historical context and the astronomical events of that time could shed light on the content of Berosus's lost account, potentially offering further insights into the cosmic events that shaped that period.

Question (20): How does Velikovsky connect the phases of the moon with the occurrence of earthquakes?

Answer: He suggests a potential correlation between the phases of the moon and the frequency of earthquakes. He cites a statistical investigation of earthquakes in the mid-19th century that suggested increased seismic activity around new and full moons. This observation is attributed to the combined gravitational pull of the sun and the moon during these phases, which potentially affects Earth's crust.

However, he acknowledges that the study's findings were challenged regarding their general validity. This highlights the complexity of understanding the relationship between astronomical events and geological phenomena and suggests that further research is needed to confirm or refute the proposed connection between lunar phases and earthquakes.

Question (21): According to Velikovsky, what was the initial reaction from the scientific community to his book Worlds in Collision?

Answer: The scientific community reacted with hostility and attempts to suppress his work. The sources provide an editorial from The Daily Princetonian, a student newspaper, which criticized the scientific community’s response to Velikovsky's ideas. The editorial characterized the response as going beyond mere disagreement and including "personal vituperation, deliberate misrepresentation of facts, offhand misquotations, efforts at suppression of the books containing the theories, and the denial of the right to rebut opponents in professional journals." This suggests that Velikovsky's theories were met with strong resistance and attempts to discredit him rather than engage in open scientific debate.

Question (22): How does Velikovsky use Seneca’s description in the drama Thyestes to support his claim of the sun’s unusual behavior?

Answer: He uses Seneca's description in Thyestes as evidence for the sun's unusual behavior, suggesting that the playwright possessed knowledge of actual astronomical events. In the play, the chorus questions why the sun is "blot[ting] out the day in mid-Olympus" before the evening star appears, and wonders if "Typhoeus [Typhon] thrown off the mountainous mass and set his body free."

He interprets this passage as a depiction of the sun's sudden change in course, occurring at an unexpected time, possibly due to the influence of a celestial body like Typhon, which he associates with a planet or comet. The playwright's detailed description, including the unexpected darkness at midday and the fear-stricken people asking if the end of the world has come, is presented as evidence that such events were not merely mythological inventions but reflections of actual cosmic phenomena.

Question (23): Explain Velikovsky’s interpretation of the biblical Jubilee year and its connection to astronomical phenomena.

Answer: He proposes that the biblical Jubilee year, observed every 52 years in ancient Israel, might be a cultural memory of past astronomical events. The Jubilee year involved land redistribution and the release of slaves, signifying a return to an original state. He suggests that this practice could be a symbolic reminder of periods of upheaval and subsequent renewal, possibly linked to the 52-year cycle of close approaches between Mars and Earth.

He argues that these close approaches might have caused catastrophic events, leading to societal disruptions and the need for a reset, reflected in the Jubilee year's practices. This interpretation connects cultural practices with astronomical phenomena, suggesting that ancient rituals and traditions might hold clues to understanding past cosmic events.

Question (24): How does Velikovsky's understanding of comets challenge traditional scientific views?

Answer: He presents comets as planets that return at long intervals, challenging the traditional view of comets as icy bodies with long, unpredictable orbits. He supports this idea by referring to the teachings of the Pythagoreans, who considered one of the planets, rising only slightly above the horizon, as a comet.

This interpretation aligns with his theory that planets have undergone significant orbital changes in the past, possibly due to close encounters with other celestial bodies. He suggests that Venus, known for its low rise above the horizon, might be the planet the Pythagoreans referred to as a comet, further supporting his theory of planetary catastrophism and its impact on the solar system's history.

Question (25): What is the role of folklore in Velikovsky’s argument for historical catastrophes?

Answer: He views folklore as a valuable resource for understanding historical catastrophes, arguing that folk tales and legends, though often dismissed as mere fantasy, might contain echoes of real events. He argues that similar stories and motifs found across diverse cultures, despite differing interpretations, suggest a common factual basis.

He uses the example of the sun seemingly going backward to illustrate this point. Though various cultures attribute this phenomenon to different causes, the consistent description of the event itself, along with specific accompanying details like conflagrations, suggests a real occurrence. He interprets the varied interpretations as subjective inventions, while the consistent core narrative points to an actual historical event, possibly a cosmic disturbance affecting the sun's apparent motion.

Question (26): Describe a specific example of a folklore motif that Velikovsky uses to support his theory of cosmic upheaval.

Answer: One specific folklore motif he uses to support his theory is the story of "snaring" or "attacking" the sun. He notes that this motif, with variations, appears in cultures as diverse as Native American tribes and ancient Greek mythology. While the specific stories differ in details, the common thread is a disruption in the sun's usual motion, followed by catastrophic consequences like fires, earthquakes, and changes in the natural world.

He points out that the consistency of the world fire motif, even across geographically separated cultures, suggests a common historical experience. He argues that ancient people would not have spontaneously invented such a specific and consistent detail unless it reflected a real event, likely a cosmic disturbance affecting the sun's apparent behavior and leading to widespread fires. This example illustrates his use of folklore as evidence for his theory of past cosmic upheaval and its global impact.

Question (27): What changes in the motion of the Earth, moon, and Mars does Velikovsky hypothesize occurred in the eighth and seventh centuries BCE?

Answer: He suggests that close encounters between Mars and the Earth in the eighth and seventh centuries BCE could have caused significant changes in the motion of all three celestial bodies. He speculates that the moon, being smaller, would have been significantly influenced by Mars if the two planets came close enough. This influence could have drawn the moon closer to Earth or pushed it further away, potentially altering its orbital period and causing the "perturbed months" he discusses.

He also suggests that Earth's orbit, axial tilt, and even the length of the day could have been affected by these encounters. These changes, he argues, could be traced by examining ancient astronomical records, like the star chart on the ceiling of Senmut's tomb in Egypt, which he believes predates these cosmic upheavals. This hypothesis connects astronomical phenomena with historical events, suggesting that these close encounters had profound effects on the Earth-moon system and potentially left traces in ancient records.

Question (28): How does Velikovsky interpret the distribution of the ice sheet during the last glacial age?

Answer: He suggests that the distribution of the ice sheet during the last glacial age might be connected to a shift in the Earth's axis. He observes that the ice sheet's extent can be roughly enclosed within a circle centered near the present north magnetic pole. This distribution, he argues, is inconsistent with the current axial tilt and suggests that the poles might have been located differently during the last glacial period.

He connects this potential shift in the Earth's axis to his theory of cosmic upheaval, suggesting that close encounters with other celestial bodies could have disrupted Earth's rotation and caused the poles to shift. This interpretation challenges traditional explanations for the ice ages and connects them to his broader theory of planetary catastrophism.

Question (29): What is the significance of the discovery of the ancient city of Ipiutak in Alaska?

Answer: He highlights the discovery of the ancient city of Ipiutak in Alaska, located within the Arctic Circle, as evidence for a different climate in the past. The city, estimated to be at least 2,000 years old, suggests that the region was once hospitable to a larger population, indicating a warmer climate than the present Arctic conditions.

The advanced cultural artifacts found at Ipiutak, some resembling those from East Asia, also support his theory of global migrations and cultural exchange triggered by past catastrophes. This discovery challenges traditional understandings of human migration patterns and aligns with his theory of a relatively recent period of global upheaval that forced populations to relocate and adapt to changing environments.

Question (30): What does Velikovsky conclude about the nature of the formations on the moon?

Answer: He favors the theory that the circular formations on the moon are impact craters caused by meteorites rather than volcanic activity. He points to the vast size of these formations, some exceeding the diameters of any known terrestrial volcanoes, as evidence against a volcanic origin.

He compares these formations to the Meteor Crater in Arizona, noting that while the terrestrial crater is much smaller, it provides a clear example of impact cratering. This interpretation aligns with his theory of a turbulent cosmic past where celestial bodies, including Earth and the moon, were subjected to collisions and impacts, leaving lasting marks on their surfaces.

Question (31): According to Velikovsky, what is the significance of ancient Babylonian astronomical tablets that describe multiple planetary systems?

Answer: He argues that ancient Babylonian astronomical tablets describing "three systems of planets" indicate that the solar system has undergone major transformations in the past. These tablets, each detailing different planetary motions, suggest that the current arrangement of planets and their orbits is not the only configuration that has existed. He emphasizes that only the last of these described systems aligns with the present planetary order.

He interprets this as evidence supporting his theory of cosmic catastrophism, implying that the solar system has experienced periods of instability and rearrangement. These Babylonian tablets, recording different planetary systems, are presented as physical proof that the heavens have not always been as they are now, challenging the prevailing view of a static and unchanging cosmos.

Question (32): How does Velikovsky use the concept of “favorable opposition” to explain periods of catastrophic events on Earth?

Answer: He introduces the concept of “favorable opposition” as a time when Mars is closest to Earth in its orbit. This proximity, he suggests, increases the likelihood of gravitational interactions and potential disruptions, leading to catastrophic events on Earth. He specifically points to the years -776, -747, -717 or -702, and -687 as potential periods of favorable opposition when Mars might have caused significant disturbances.

He links this concept to events described in Hebrew tradition, suggesting that cosmic disturbances occurring during these years, possibly during favorable oppositions of Mars, might have been responsible for events like the perturbation witnessed during the reign of King Ahaz and the destruction of Sennacherib’s army. He posits a connection between the 15-year period mentioned in the Book of Isaiah and the periodicity of these catastrophic events, suggesting a possible link to the cyclical nature of Mars's close approaches to Earth.

Question (33): What is Velikovsky’s explanation for the conflicting scientific data regarding Venus’s rotational period?

Answer: He proposes that the conflicting scientific data regarding Venus's rotational period might be due to the planet's recent formation and ongoing cooling process. He points out that both radiometric data, suggesting a short rotational period, and spectroscopic data, indicating a long period, are valid observations. Instead of viewing them as contradictory, he suggests that they reflect different aspects of Venus's dynamic state.

He emphasizes that the nocturnal side of Venus radiates heat, indicating that the planet itself is hot. He argues that this internal heat, likely a remnant of its recent formation, influences its atmospheric dynamics and affects the measurements obtained through different scientific methods. He concludes that this heat, rather than just the sun's radiation, plays a key role in understanding Venus's thermal balance and its seemingly contradictory rotational behavior.

Question (34): What does Velikovsky claim to have explained regarding the formations on Mars and the Moon?

Answer: He asserts that he has explained the origin of the canals on Mars and the craters and lava seas on the Moon as being results of stress and near-collisions with other celestial bodies. This explanation aligns with his broader theory of cosmic catastrophism, suggesting that these formations are not solely due to internal geological processes but bear the marks of past interactions with planets or comets.

He implies that the forces exerted during these close encounters could have caused massive surface disruptions, leading to the formation of features like the Martian canals and the lunar craters. This perspective challenges traditional explanations that focus primarily on internal geological processes and emphasizes the role of external cosmic events in shaping planetary surfaces.

Question (35): What is the next historical event that Velikovsky plans to investigate?

Answer: He plans to investigate the Deluge, traditionally considered a local flood in the Euphrates region, to determine its true nature and extent. He aims to challenge the prevailing view of the Deluge as a localized event and explore the possibility of it being a global catastrophe connected to his theory of cosmic upheaval.

Question (36): What are some of the unsolved problems Velikovsky acknowledges?

Answer: He acknowledges that his work raises more questions than it answers, recognizing the limitations of his research. He specifically mentions the need to explore events further back in time, beyond the encounters with Venus and Mars, to understand earlier cosmic upheavals. He expresses his intention to investigate the Deluge and the role of Jupiter in ancient mythologies, hinting at the possibility of even more ancient and dramatic cosmic events that shaped our world.

Question (37): What future research does Velikovsky intend to pursue in relation to the planet Jupiter?

Answer: He expresses his intention to further investigate Jupiter, aiming to understand the circumstances that led to the planet's prominent role in ancient mythologies. He hints at exploring the possibility of Venus's birth from Jupiter and the cosmic events that might have elevated Jupiter to the status of a chief deity in many ancient cultures.

Question (38): How does Velikovsky connect atomic phenomena with macrocosmic events?

Answer: He suggests a parallel between the dynamic activity within an atom and the events occurring in the macrocosm. He argues that if changes within an atom can be considered normal phenomena, then cosmic events like interplanetary discharges and planetary metamorphoses might also be considered normal rather than accidental. He draws a comparison between the energy releases within an atom and the large-scale transformations witnessed in planetary systems, suggesting that both microcosmic and macrocosmic events follow similar patterns of change and upheaval.

Question (39): What does Velikovsky say about the separation between different scientific disciplines?

Answer: He criticizes the separation between different scientific disciplines, arguing that it creates a false sense of completeness and hinders a holistic understanding of the world. He points out that problems in one field often have implications for others, demonstrating that knowledge cannot be neatly compartmentalized. His own research, spanning astronomy, history, geology, and mythology, exemplifies this interconnectedness, demonstrating that a comprehensive understanding of natural phenomena requires crossing disciplinary boundaries.

Question (40): Who are some of the people Velikovsky credits with influencing his work?

Answer: He provides a list of individuals who read his manuscript and offered valuable insights and suggestions. These include:

• Dr. Horace M. Kallen, formerly Dean of the Graduate Faculty of the New School for Social Research, New York

• John J. O’Neill, Science Editor of the New York Herald Tribune

• James Putnam, Associate Editor of the Macmillan Company

• Clifton Fadiman, literary critic and commentator

• Gordon A. Atwater, Chairman and Curator of the Hayden Planetarium of the American Museum of Natural History, New York

He also mentions R. Juergens, attributing the phrase "natural fallout from a single central idea" to him. While he expresses gratitude to these individuals for their contributions, he emphasizes that he alone bears responsibility for the content and conclusions presented in his work.

---

---

I appreciate you being here.

If you've found the content interesting, useful and maybe even helpful, please consider supporting it through a small paid subscription. While everything here is free, your paid subscription is important as it helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. It also helps keep it free for those that cannot afford to pay.

Please make full use of the Free Libraries.

Unbekoming Interview Library: Great interviews across a spectrum of important topics.

Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Concise summaries of important books.

Stories

I'm always in search of good stories, people with valuable expertise and helpful books. Please don't hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com

For COVID vaccine injury

Consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment as a resource.

Baseline Human Health

Watch and share this profound 21-minute video to understand and appreciate what health looks like without vaccination.

1. Velikovsky does not offer a precise definition of "vermin" but uses the term to refer to small, undesirable creatures. He hypothesizes that both Venus and Jupiter are populated by these creatures.

Velikovsky discusses the plagues of vermin described in Exodus, including flies, frogs, and locusts. He argues that these plagues were caused by the earth's close encounter with Venus, which resulted in scorching gases and extreme heat that accelerated the reproduction of vermin. He goes on to suggest that some of these vermin may have originated from Venus itself.

Velikovsky notes that many cultures associate Venus with flies, including the Philistines, who built a temple to Baal Zevuv, "the god of the fly". He also cites the Bundahis, which compares the god of darkness, Ahriman, to a fly. He uses this cultural association to further support his idea that Venus may be infested with vermin.

Velikovsky acknowledges that it is uncertain whether life exists on other planets but suggests that the ability of insects and their larvae to survive extreme temperatures and oxygen-deprived environments makes it possible that Venus and Jupiter could be inhabited by vermin.