Immanuel VelikovskyBesprekingen

Ancient writings are fascinating to inter-compare, but Velikovsky's links between them are selective, creative and credulity-stretching. His notions of physics make no sense, and his hypothesis, evidence and conclusions are the kind of fare now served up by the worst of satellite TV channels.

HANDBOOKS PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE HISTORICAL SECTION OF THE FOREIGN OFFICE No 127 D 6 G7 no 127 Copy 2 ITALIAN LIBYA LONDON PUBLISHED BY H M STATIONERY OFFICE 1920

This is a book of pseudo Archaeology, drawn largely from literary references, and an example of arguing from inadequate research. While it was seen as an amusing sidelight to the pursuit of real history, it did stir interest in th period, and certainly made some money for the writer. Dr. Velikovsky, a psychiatrist became quite a well known figure due to series of highly imaginative reconstructions of the sober work done by Petrie, Murray, and later men such as Cunliffe, whose efforts seem to be far more founded in Fact. However this book and its followers did start several lively conversations in my life. Nowadays one could see his corpus becoming useful to the anti-scientific writers in the field of biblical examination.½

Jednou z nejstrašlivějších událostí v minulosti lidstva vzplanutí světa provázené děsivými jevy na obloze, praskáním země, chrlením lávy z tisíců sopek, roztavením půdy, vařícím mořem, zaplavením kontinentů, bombardováním letícími horkými kameny, řevem rozštípnuté země a hlasitým svištěním tornád letícího popela...

> Christ Le récit est à ta fois cosmologique et historique et s'appuie sur les témoignages de textes historiques ainsi que sur plusieurs oeuvres littéraires, dont les épopées nordiques, les livres sacrés des peuples d'Orient et d'Occident, les traditions et le folklore de tribus primitives, de vieilles inscriptions et d'antiques cartes astronomiques ainsi que sur des découvertes archéologiques, géologiques et paléontologiques.
—Mainmise, décembre 1977

> Babelio : https://www.babelio.com/livres/Velikovsky-Mondes-en-collision/869444
> BAnQ (Québec science, 1977, Mai) : https://collections.banq.qc.ca/ark:/52327/2873954

So if you read everything else written here about this book you will read that this is a book of pseudo-scientific nonsense.

But you should know that Velikovsky had a close personal relationship with (the) Albert Einstein. Velikovsky wrote this in the aftermath of Einstein's passing:

"Gina Plungian who arrived the same day went with Helen Dukas to the study to find how everything had been left there the Friday before. On Einstein’s table close to the window was Worlds in Collision in German, with many strips of paper between the pages, and open on some page. It was the last book that he read, actually re-read for the third time, each time differently impressed. I was also the last man with whom he discussed a scientific subject (besides a doctor friend from Switzerland, with whom, as I was told by Miss Dukas, about the time of my last visit he also discussed some scientific matter)."

I was initially attracted to Worlds In Collision (WIC) by my high school physics teacher who mentioned (c. 1963) that this book connected ancient writings and drew conclusions from them. So the example of a connection the teacher gave was that when Joshua saw the sun stand still, there was something written in (present day) Mexico about prolonged night; and something else from Iceland about prolonged twilight. Wow! I'm not a believer in coincidences so I had to find out what this was all about. Conclusions that Velikovsky drew (not directly from the Joshua stories) included existence of the Van-Allen belts, radio noise from Jupiter. &c.; none of which were thought about when WIC was published (c.1950) but were well known when I heard my physics teacher talk about the book. Double Wow!

I wound up writing my senior term paper on WIC. And I also wound up subsequently reading many of Velikovsky's other books. Many objected to WIC's reliance upon ancient legends so in Earth in Upheaval Velikovsy proudly stated that he would only refer to stones and bones to draw many of the same conclusions he drew in WIC. In Ages in Chaos (AIC), Velikovsky argued for a revised chronology based upon many of the same ancient writings mentioned in WIC. So that Mexican legend and Joshua weren't simultaneous in the conventional chronology, but Velikovsky they must have been simultaneous and proposed a revised chronology based upon events such as this. It was Einstein's opinion that Velikovsky would have been received more favorably by the scientific community if he have published AIC before WIC.

Given the premise of planetary collisions, Immanuel Velikovsky tries to establish the date when Venus, ejected from Jupiter, narrowly missed colliding with the Earth. He works with literary and geological evidence available in the 1940's. It is a sensational and controversial work, chiefly useful for reminding scientists and the general public, that never embrace the idea that the knowledge in a given field is fixed and will not be subject to revision. By and large the book itself contains little of value, yet it inspired a great deal of education of the general public by more respectable and insightful scientists, in the 1950's and 1960's as Mr. Velikovsky continued his writing career.

I have read many classics of Fortean literature that turned out to be anthropologically intriguing, entertainingly written or simply striking historical objects. This is not one of them and I regret bothering to pull it down from my shelf.

The scholarship is atrocious. Velikovsky rarely builds an argument by strict reason, preferring instead to state his interpretation then beat the reader in to submission with page upon page of quotes from historical sources that he feels support it. What constitutes evidence varies: sometimes a close apparent synchronicity in time and event, but more often than not a superficial similarity of incident or general closeness in era. Metaphorical texts may be read as literal and vice versa if it suits the author's purpose. The cataclysms proposed are justified by the interpretation of the examples, while the interpretation of the examples is made in the context of the same supposed cataclysms; and down the drain of circular reasoning the book goes for page after endless page. (Velikovsky only briefly discusses the scholarly merits of his interpretative approach around page 300. I imagine he did not want the reader to look at it too closely.)

The sources cited are seldom from within two decades of the book's publication which is a particular issue for Velikovsky's scientific arguments, which supposedly ground the whole endeavour. (One cannot make points about astronomy in 1950 based on the state of the science in 1800-1930.) The author casually treats planets and comets as similar entities (except where his argument requires them to be wholly distinct classes of objects) in a manner that suggests a disinterest in this side of his own case. The coup de grace comes in the desperate Epilogue, where Velikovsky argues that we must make way for a new astronomy on the basis of these historical cataclysms, although the idea that the cataclysms themselves occurred depends entirely on those selfsame astronomical ideas. This is a book that is constantly trying to lift itself up by its own bootstraps.

This was ostensibly a deeply controversial book in the 1970s (when my copy was printed and at which point most of its sources were four decades or more out of date). Its popular appeal had led me to assume it must at least have some drive or scholarly strength despite its ultimately wrongheaded conclusions. Instead it somehow manages to be as tedious as it is fatuous.

Mr. Velikovsky was a mid-twentieth Century controversialist, usually in the areas of biblical and Egyptian history. He began with a controversial book called "Worlds in Collision" positing that the current set of Planets in our solar system has had a number of collisions and near collisions. One of which had occurred at the purported time of the Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt, say 1200 BC. Venus, entering the solar System had made a pass at the Earth, creating the phenomena associated with the narrative of the Book of Exodus. This upset the "Steady State" Astronomers of the 1950's and gave him a wide market for his future productions. Now (2018) we think there were planetary collisions, but that Velikovsky's time scale was way out of wack. So, this attempt by the same writer, to assess the resemblances between the Greek Story of Oedipus, legendary king of thebes, and Greek tragic figure with the possible history of the Egyptian Pharaoh Akhnaton is an interesting but not authoritative exercise. It reads well, and there are some interesting parallels drawn.½

I keep reading the Velikovsky books because there are still some die-hard Velikovskians around and if I ever run into one I don’t want to be accused of not having read his works. Plus it’s practice for spotting logical fallacies. Still, it’s a chore.


Velikovsky’s first published book was Worlds in Collision, which proposed Jupiter had ejected a “comet” in the 15th century BC that zipped around the solar system for a while, causing the various events described in Exodus, temporarily stopping the Earth’s rotation, setting the planet on fire, and generally raising havoc until it settled down and became the planet Venus. If he had been ignored, he would have been gradually faded away as one of history’s many loons (ever heard of Lawsonomy? How about World Ice Theory? Both were woowoo once roughly on Velikovsky’s level in terms of temporary popularity). However, astronomers Harlow Shapley and Cecelia Payne-Gaposchkin organized a boycott against Velikovsky’s publisher, Macmillan, threatening not to buy textbooks unless Macmillan dropped the book. This was a singularly bad idea; it gave Velikovsky notoriety for “standing up to authority” and Macmillan simply transferred the book to its rival Doubleday, where it made the best-seller list. Science historian Henry Bauer suggested (Beyond Velikovsky) suggested that some of the reaction to Velikovsky was a result of the dethroning liberal arts by the science as the pinnacle of human achievement. For years, a liberal arts degree had been the ticket of admission to the corridors of power; now, suddenly, with the development of atomic weapons and radar and all the other scientific marvels during WWII, physics and chemistry were suddenly important and a liberal arts degree was the ticket to nowhere in particular. In reaction, supposedly, the philosophers and psychologists and sociologists and lawyers all took up Velikovsky’s cause as demonstrating science was flawed – hadn’t Dr. Velikovsky proved the value of classical education by refuting accepted science with his careful study of ancient texts? I don’t know that I buy that argument fully but there may be something to it.


At any rate, Velikovsky followed up Worlds in Collision with a whole shelf full of woowoo, writing Near Eastern history to fit the Old Testament narratives: Ages in Chaos, Oedipus and Ankhenaton, Ramses II and his Time (there are a couple of other books in the series that were never published in paper but are available on line). An interesting thing here is despite Velikovsky’s uncritical and literal acceptance of the Old Testament as history, he was not particularly religious; all the miracles of the Bible had physical explanations and didn’t require any Divine intervention (of course, Velikovsky’s physics was complete woowoo, created on the fly to fit). In the other books, Velkovsky can be credited as the inventor of “phantom history”; the idea that large periods of accepted history are fabrications, invented for political reasons. A corollary is many historical figures are actually the same person under two different names. (The most extreme example is presented by Russian Anatoly Fomenko, who contends all of human history before about 800AD was invented by medieval chroniclers – but that’s another bucket of woo).


The key problem for Velikovsky and the other Biblical phantom history advocates is reconciling the Old Testament accounts with archaeology. The “begats” put the United Monarchy of Israel – the empires of Saul, David, and Solomon – in the Late Bronze Age, but there’s no archaeological evidence that there ever was a “United Monarchy” or that any such persons as Saul, David or Solomon ever existed, and the evidence is that the Levant – including what would eventually be Israel and Judah – were Egyptian colonies during the supposed United Monarchy period. This is the problem that Velikovsky and the other “revised chronologies” and “new chronologies” have to deal with, and the solution is the subtract a big chunk of Egyptian history so it conforms with Old Testament.


That, finally, brings us to Ramses II and His Time. Velikovsy uses the “duplicate historical figure” argument; Ramses II of the 19th Dynasty is actually the same person as the “Pharaoh Necho” of the Old Testament (rather than the Egyptological assignment of Pharaoh Necho to Nekau Wahemibre of the 26th Dynasty). What’s more, the Hittite King Hattusili II is actually the Neobabylonian (Velikovsky uses the obsolete term “Chaldean”) Nebuchadnezzar, and there never was any such thing as a “Hittite Empire”; it was actually the Chaldeans. Velikovsky’s arguments for this partially based on the unstated assumption that anybody mentioned in the Old Testament must be important and therefore Pharaoh Necho can’t possibly be the obscure Nekau Wahemibre. Velikovsky’s second line of evidence of supposed parallel accounts of the battle of Carchemish in Jeremiah and the battle of Kadesh in Egypt. Jeremiah’s account (chapter 46) has Necho (who Velikovsky claims is Ramses II) defeated by Nebuchadnezzar (who Velikovsky claims is Hatusili II) at Carchemish (which Velikovsky claims is Kadesh) and fleeing to the north; the Egyptian accounts (Velikovsky mentions The Poem of Pentaur and inscriptions at Abu Simbel) have Ramses II defeated by Hatusili II at Kadesh and part of the Egyptian army retreating to the north. QED, according to Velikovsky.


Except, of course, it doesn’t end there; Velikovsky completely ignores the remainder of the Egyptian descriptions of Kadesh. The Hittites stop their pursuit to plunder the Egyptian baggage; the Egyptians rally, additional forces come up, and now it’s the Hittites turn to be routed; the Egyptian army does not withdraw in defeat as Jeremiah describes. This omission has to be deliberate.


There are many other things that Velikovsky cites as “evidence”. As noted by several of his critics, Velikovsky couldn’t read any of the ancient texts he cites in the original language and had to depend on translations. He cherry-picked translations to fit his claims; he habitually used obsolete translations, and he only used archaeological reports when they seemed to fit his theses. There really isn’t much point in going into all of them.


Some photographs. Good maps of the Near East on the endpapers. No bibliography; you would have to peruse all the footnotes to track Velikovsky’s sources. As mentioned, only of interest if you need to debunk a Velikovskian, which would probably be as futile as trying to argue with a Flat Earther or an antivaxxer.

Immanuel Velikovsky is probably the patriarch of 20th century pseudoscientists. Perhaps it’s not quite right to call him a pseudoscientist, as he didn’t have much use for science – pseudohistorian or pseudoarchaeologist don’t seem to fit either.


The irony of Velikovsky’s career is that he probably would have been ignored as just another minor loon with crackpot ideas were it not for Harlow Shapely and Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, who organized a boycott against the publisher of Worlds in Collision. It was during the McCarthy era, and the idea of censorship put a lot of backs up; thus Velikovsky became a cause célèbre among a coterie who hadn’t the faintest idea of what he was talking about.


The gist of Velikovsky’s method is:


* The Old Testament (as far as “history” goes; Velikovsky never address Creation) is factually correct.

* Any other ancient text is also factually correct, insofar as it agrees with the Old Testament.

* If archaeological evidence – stratigraphy, sequence dating, etc. – disagrees with (1) or (2), it is wrong.

* If scientific evidence or theory – radiocarbon dating, celestial mechanics, etc. – disagrees with (1) or (2), it is also wrong.


From the above come a couple of corollaries:


* Since archaeological, astronomical, and radiometric dating methods are all incorrect (at least, insofar as they disagree with Velikovsky), and all ancient texts are factually correct as long as they don’t disagree with Velikovsky, any texts that appear to describe similar events actually do so, even if one is a 14th century CE Aztec codex and the other is Exodus. The apparent discrepancy in chronology is incorrect.


* If an account of a particular catastrophe – for example, the Earth’s rotation stopping and the planet catching fire - doesn’t appear in a particular culture’s mythology or written record, it’s because the event was so traumatic it induced “collective amnesia”.


I’ve been reading my way through Velikovsky’s work over the years – he was very prolific – and came up with one of the rarer works in a used book store. [Oedipus and Akhnaton is peripheral to the main Velikovsky theme of repeated catastrophes – he just stepped aside for a moment to muck about in Egyptian history. Here, Velikovsky states – I almost said “proposes” but there’s never any room for testable hypotheses in Velikovsky’s work – that Akhenaton (that’s my preferred spelling) and Oedipus were the same person. Yep; Akhenaton “killed” his father (at least, Velikovsky acknowledges this was symbolic – by chiseling Amenhotep III’s name of monuments), married his mother (Queen Tiye/Jocasta), was denounced by Tiresias (Amenhotep son of Hapu), and went blind. His sons (Eteocles/Polynices –Tutankhamen/Smenkhkare) warred against each other; his successor (Creon/Ay) forbid the burial of Polynices/Smenkhkare and entombed Baketaten/Antigone alive when she performed it. All spelled out by carefully selected texts, thoroughly documented in footnotes. As just one example, Cadmus, the founder of Thebes in Greece, was (according to Velikovsky) the same as Niqmaddu II of Ugarit (who Velikovsky refers to as “King Nikmed”). Velikovsky has Nikmed marrying an Egyptian princess (I confess I’m not up to speed on Ugaritic history, but AFAIK the only evidence for this is a relief that shows Niqmaddu accompanied by a lady in what can be interpreted as Egyptian dress, which Velikovsky cites as if it were a textual reference); Cadmus had an Egyptian wife (Velikovsky’s authority for this is an encyclopedia published in 1724 that names Cadmus’s wife as “Sphinx”); thus, since Niqmaddu II was a contemporary of Akhenaton he brought the story to Greece – where presumably all the names were changed to avoid embarrassing the participants.


There’s an interesting epilogue – Velikovsky was a Freudian, and he gives great credit to The Master for elucidating the Oedipus Complex. However, he is forced to dismiss Freud’s last work – Moses and Monotheism. Freud has Moses picking up monotheism as a disciple of Akhenaton; this is doubly heretical for Velikovsky since he doesn’t consider Akhenaton a monotheist (rather a “monolatrist”) and because Akhenaton has to come much later than Moses for Velikovsky’s chronology to work.


Velikovsky’s been gone for decades now, but even a minor amount of Web searching discloses he still has numerous followers. Catastrophism is always popular, and some like that; Velikovsky was “persecuted” by “the Establishment” and some like that; Velikovsky appeals to Biblical literalists by finding “scientific” explanations for the miracles documented in Exodus; and Velikovsky’s sanctification of the written word and his methods of using texts appeal to deconstructionists. I can recommend Oedipus and Akhnaton to anybody who’s interested in studying the workings of a mind like Velikovsky; as Egyptian history it is, of course, valueless.½

Pseudoscientific nonsense. Back in the 1950s, it was understandable that the gullible and ignorant could be taken in by this ridiculous work. That some people still are is inexcusable, now that the wealth of scientific knowledge is available to anyone with a computer and an internet connection.½

Imagine if you will, the history you learned of Egypt, the Israelites, the Hyksos, the Minoans, the Assyrians, and the Mycenaeans was out of sync by six hundred years. In essence, six hundred years are missing from the Israelites’ history or six hundred extra years have been added to Egyptian history with events that never occurred, kings who never reigned, and battles with no historical evidence. To add to the confusion, was a geological upheaval that adversely affected the six societies above as the Israelites were leaving Egypt. Velikovsky’s writings were roundly criticized by historians of the day so he decided for this book, he would locate autochthonous writings for each society and compare them for specific periods in time. He appears to have a valid case with these points; 1. Hyksos=Amalekites. 2. Sextus Julius Africanus said the Amalekites were from Arabia 3. The earthquakes and plagues were experienced by both the Hyksos-Amalekites in Arabia and the Hebrews in Egypt. 4. The span of years between the Middle and the New Kingdom isn’t 200 years (according to popular history) but 600 years which is the span of Hyksos-Amalekite rule in Egypt. 5. The Exodus took place during a time geological upheaval and after the Hebrews left Egypt, the Hyksos-Amalekites invaded Egypt 6. Proofs of his theory are taken from Hebrew, Egyptian, and Arabian writings. 7. The Hyksos-Amalekite capital of Auaris will be found by digging at Rhinocular (He was pot on with this; check Archaelogy.org for more info) 8. The Hyksos-Amalekites were defeated by Saul of the Israelites and Kamose who became Pharaoh 9. Hatshepsut = Queen of Sheba, Punt = Palestine 10. Hatshepsut lived at the same time as Solomon 11. Thutmosis III lived at the same time as Rehoboam (son of Solomon) and Jeroboam. Thutmosis III took away the treasures in the Temple of Solomon but left behind the Ten Commandments and the Ark of the Covenant 12. Crete was destroyed by the same geologic upheaval that occurred at Exodus 13. Kadesh = Jerusalem 14. 18th dynasty in Egypt ~ David Solomon ~ Late Minoan ~ Late Mycenaean ~ 1000 B.C (~ means same time period) 15. Retenu = Palestine 16. Amenhotep II = Zerah in Bible = Terra to the Hittites 17. The El Amarna letters were not written 1410-1370 B.C. but in 870-840 B.C. 18. Amenhotep III Akhenaton ~ King Jehosaphat in Jerusalem 19. El Amarna letter ~ Elijah and Elisha in Jerusalem ~ Shalmaneser of Assyria This book is not an easy read but for lovers of Egyptian, Israelite, and Assyrian history, it is a necessity."½

Fun to read but pretty obviously wrong.

I'm giving this a high score for pure pleasure in reading, and in witnessing someone being able to draw together global mythologies into a coherent narrative. As for the science/actual believability of it all? No clue, and I'm a born skeptic– but I'll admit, it was a really fun read.

After the success of "Worlds in Collision", IV presented what he felt was more supporting evidence in this 1955 follow-up book. As it stimulated discussion, in a world that at that point knew very little of plate tectonics, magnetic pole switchings, or the number of large catastrophes that have devastated large swatches of the planet, I value this book. I'd never present it as a basic text, but as a curious example of forerunner accuracy.

Not the easiest read ever but fascinating. I think his reasoning is, at times, seriously flawed and he hasn't convinced me but he puts up a good argument with lots of evidence from ancient writings, if you take them literally. Very interesting and does make you think if nothing else.

Velikovsky was unknown to me when I found this paperback book in the library used-bookstore. From the cover I assumed it was science fiction and from the author's name I thought it may be Russian Science Fiction, so I bought the book. It turns out to be a science book defending the idea that the earth as we know it is a result of "cataclysmic evolution." After I finished the book, I looked Velikovsky up in Wikipedia, and discovered that he began his research to prove that the events in the Bible (Old Testament) actually happened using "science" and that he has several other volumes related to this idea. Moreover, most scientists, including Carl Sagan, rejected his theory.
I do not have a science background and know only the basics of Darwin's theory of evolution, about climate change and the ice age, nor do I read much science writing--so I cannot comment on the veracity of his data. I can say that this book made geology seem truly exciting and interesting. Velikovsky has a very persuasive way of writing. His descriptions are fascinating and he fills every page with scientific references and footnotes. In this book, he never mentions the Bible or God or references any religious doctrine. Besides actual scientific papers, he does use mythology to show how various cultures around the world share common primitive ideas about the earth and its relation to the stars and other planets. Whatever Velikovsky might be, charlatan or genius, his book is worth reading just for his amazing interpretation of how the earth came to be.½

L'auteur compare les différentes mythologies et les récits de l'ancien testament pour arriver à la conclusion que par deux fois, la terre a été heurtée, ou au moins approchée de très près, par une comète qui serait ensuite devenue Vénus. Le livre, publié en 1950, pourrait être passionnant s'il n'y avait pas toutes les répétitions d'un chapitre à l'autre. Il ressemble plus à une première ébauche devant encore être débroussaillée qu'à un ouvrage bien fini.

מדע? בדיוני? מדע בדיוני? מי יודע בטח לא אני היום. אבל זה היה הצלחה מסחרית אדירה.

Although I don't agree with everything Velikovsky writes about, amazingly he has gotten more right than many of the scientists who study such fields (physics, astronomy, history, etc.). This book was a real eye-opener for me, so I bought as many of his other books as I could get my hands on. I am reading them as the mood strikes me and my time allows.

I have to read his books a little at a time, but I love them. There is a fact vs. fantasy quality about them and it takes me a bit to decide which is which, although I'm sure he would like for me to believe it all.

I am still reading this book.

A nice read still...

Very interesting.

I was expecting Velikovsky to have connected Akhnaton to Oedipus only through his marriage to his mother Tiy (Jocasta), but he has explanations for all the characters in the Oedipus plays: Oedipus, Jocasta, Antigone, Creon, Polynices, Eteocles, Tiresias, Laius, Chrysippus. He even has an explanation for Antigone's tomb, the Sphinx, Oedipus' exile, Polynices not being properly buried, and the Seven Against Thebes.

The only thing that bothered me is that he jumped to a lot of conclusions but that can be expected in a book like this. Above all, it was a very good book that casts a light on many, many coincidences between the legend and the Heretic Pharaoh.

Russe d'origine Velikovsky, génie scientifique, ami de Freud et d'Einstein a remporté le prix d'immortalité (s'il existait) dans la recherche ou l'analyse scientifique. Brûlé comme le furent les sorcières jadis, ses écrits ont bouleversé les sciences édifiantes de l'évolution lente et "normalisée" en apportant au public sa contribution à la naissance du catastrophisme.
Il aura fallut que des astrophysiciens intellectuellement honnêtes publient une lettre dans la revue américaine "Science" pour valider ses découvertes.
Mondes en collision a été écrit en 1955, tremblement de terre ou raz de marée, Velikovsky donne la composition de l'atmosphère de Vénus allant à contre sens de tout ce qui était dit à l'époque, il affirme que Vénus est toute jeune, qu'elle doit être volcanique comme toute planète naissante, Shapley directeur du département d'astrophysique d'Harward déclare: Si Vélikovsky a raison, nous sommes tous fous!
Mortellement vexé Shapley va systématiquement dénigrer tout ce qu'annonce Velikovsky, à savoir entre autre: Vénus tourne dans le sens contraire de notre planète, (ce sont les premières sondes qui le confirmeront), Jupiter émet des ondes radio (annoncé par I.V. en 53, confirmé en 55 par le département d'astrophysique du Carnegie institute). Velikovsky en avait même fait un pari avec Albert Einstein que ce dernier perdit. Huit jours plus tard, Einstein mourut alors qu'il relisait mondes en collision pour la 3 ème fois. Ce fut d'ailleurs le seul livre ouvert que l'on retrouva sur son bureau.
Velikovsky a annoncé 29 ans avant les premiers pas (?!?) sur la lune que cette dernière était en permanence parcourue par de petits tremblements ....de lune, il annonce en 1950 que la Terre possède une magnétosphère (attesté en 1958 par Van Halen), il annonce que les pôles de la Terre ont été inversés à plusieurs reprises à la suite de cataclysmes...
Velikovsky parlait couramment russe, français, anglais, allemand et hébreu en plus du grec et du latin. Il fut le premier à mettre en parallèle le Papyrus d'Ipuwer, l'éxode, le popol-vuh, les textes de Platon, les textes Brahmanes...

Si vous ne connaissez pas Velikovsky vous passez peut-être à coté d'un des plus grands génie du XX ème siècle.