What do you think?
Rate this book
The Velikovsky Heresies: Worlds in Collision and Ancient Catastrophes Revisited
A reexamination of Immanuel Velikovsky’s controversial Venus theories in light of new astronomical and archaeological findings
• Provides new evidence from recent space probe missions to support Velikovsky’s theories on the formation of Venus
• Presents recently translated ancient texts from China, Korea, and Japan that uphold the cometlike descriptions of Venus cited by Velikovsky
• Examines evidence of major geomagnetic events in 1500 BCE and 750 BCE that correspond with close passes of the comet Venus and its impact with Mars
• Offers scientific explanations for many disputed aspects of Velikovsky’s theories, such as how Venus could have transformed from a comet into an orbiting planet
Surrounded by controversy even before its publication in 1950, Immanuel Velikovsky’s Worlds in Collision introduced the provocative theory that Venus began as a brilliant comet ejected by Jupiter around 1600 BCE, wreaking chaos on Mars and Earth as it roamed through our solar system prior to settling into its current orbit. Immediately dismissed without any investigation and subject to vicious attacks, Velikovsky’s theory is now poised for reexamination in light of recent astronomical and archaeological findings.
Exploring the key points of Velikovsky’s theories, Laird Scranton presents evidence from recent space probe missions to show that Venus still exhibits cometlike properties, such as its atmospheric composition, and could be a young planet. Reviewing the widespread cometlike descriptions of Venus from 1500 BCE to 750 BCE as well as Velikovsky’s observation that no records of Venus exist prior to 1600 BCE, Scranton reveals recently translated ancient texts from China, Korea, and Japan that further uphold Velikovsky’s theories. Examining evidence of major geomagnetic and climate-change events around 1500 BCE and 750 BCE, corresponding with close passes of the comet Venus and its impact with Mars, the author offers scientific explanations for many disputed aspects of Velikovsky’s theories, such as how Venus transformed from a comet into an orbiting planet. By updating this unresolved controversy with new scientific evidence, Scranton helps us to understand how it was that Worlds in Collision was the one book found open on Albert Einstein’s desk at the time of his death.
• Provides new evidence from recent space probe missions to support Velikovsky’s theories on the formation of Venus
• Presents recently translated ancient texts from China, Korea, and Japan that uphold the cometlike descriptions of Venus cited by Velikovsky
• Examines evidence of major geomagnetic events in 1500 BCE and 750 BCE that correspond with close passes of the comet Venus and its impact with Mars
• Offers scientific explanations for many disputed aspects of Velikovsky’s theories, such as how Venus could have transformed from a comet into an orbiting planet
Surrounded by controversy even before its publication in 1950, Immanuel Velikovsky’s Worlds in Collision introduced the provocative theory that Venus began as a brilliant comet ejected by Jupiter around 1600 BCE, wreaking chaos on Mars and Earth as it roamed through our solar system prior to settling into its current orbit. Immediately dismissed without any investigation and subject to vicious attacks, Velikovsky’s theory is now poised for reexamination in light of recent astronomical and archaeological findings.
Exploring the key points of Velikovsky’s theories, Laird Scranton presents evidence from recent space probe missions to show that Venus still exhibits cometlike properties, such as its atmospheric composition, and could be a young planet. Reviewing the widespread cometlike descriptions of Venus from 1500 BCE to 750 BCE as well as Velikovsky’s observation that no records of Venus exist prior to 1600 BCE, Scranton reveals recently translated ancient texts from China, Korea, and Japan that further uphold Velikovsky’s theories. Examining evidence of major geomagnetic and climate-change events around 1500 BCE and 750 BCE, corresponding with close passes of the comet Venus and its impact with Mars, the author offers scientific explanations for many disputed aspects of Velikovsky’s theories, such as how Venus transformed from a comet into an orbiting planet. By updating this unresolved controversy with new scientific evidence, Scranton helps us to understand how it was that Worlds in Collision was the one book found open on Albert Einstein’s desk at the time of his death.
160 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2012
17 people are currently reading
147 people want to read
About the author
Laird Scranton
28 books54 followersHe is an independent software designer who became interested in Dogon mythology and symbolism in the early 1990s. He has studied ancient myth, language, and cosmology since 1997 and has been a lecturer at Colgate University. He also appears in John Anthony West’s Magical Egypt DVD series.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
June 18, 2021
Excellent Rebuttal
This book is essentially a rebuttal to scientists like Carl Sagan who attempted to paint Immanual Velikovsky as some kind of delusional idiot when Velikovsky came out with Worlds in Collision circa 1950. Sagan’s dismissal of Velikovsky’s work was shown by individuals such as Laird Scranton, Charles Ginenthal and others to be nothing more than bluster. In fact, most of Sagan’s arguments were baseless, if not totally erroneous as has been pointed out by Scranton, et al.
And the same is true of the whole ‘good ole’ boy’ network of academicians and scientists who didn’t want Velikovsky wrecking havoc with the hard-wrought confusion they’d perpetrated on the masses by obfuscating our scientific history. While there may be any number of ‘good ole’ scientists and educators who either don’t wish to be enlightened themselves or to allow anyone else to be enlightened, there are many ‘alternative’ academicians and scientists who are exposing mainstream academia and science for what it has become: obfuscators par exellance with their heads stuck firmly … in the sand or worse, trolls and disinformation specialists.
In fact, if Sagan had been half as thorough in perusing ancient texts, he, too, might have come to the same conclusions as Velikovsky, as well as with anyone who’s done their research on this subject. What’s the old saying: “If it walks like duck…?”
Numerous ancient texts reference the explosion of a planet in our solar system (which many believe to be a super sized ‘earth known as Maldek or Tiamat). The debris of that planet is believed to be the asteroid belt. If this ‘exploded planet’ was not what caused the asteroid belt, what did?
Additonally, that planet’s ‘moon’ was completely knocked out of its orbit and is now orbiting between Earth and Jupiter. We’ve named it … Mars.
What do our mainstream scientists not want us to know?
This book is essentially a rebuttal to scientists like Carl Sagan who attempted to paint Immanual Velikovsky as some kind of delusional idiot when Velikovsky came out with Worlds in Collision circa 1950. Sagan’s dismissal of Velikovsky’s work was shown by individuals such as Laird Scranton, Charles Ginenthal and others to be nothing more than bluster. In fact, most of Sagan’s arguments were baseless, if not totally erroneous as has been pointed out by Scranton, et al.
And the same is true of the whole ‘good ole’ boy’ network of academicians and scientists who didn’t want Velikovsky wrecking havoc with the hard-wrought confusion they’d perpetrated on the masses by obfuscating our scientific history. While there may be any number of ‘good ole’ scientists and educators who either don’t wish to be enlightened themselves or to allow anyone else to be enlightened, there are many ‘alternative’ academicians and scientists who are exposing mainstream academia and science for what it has become: obfuscators par exellance with their heads stuck firmly … in the sand or worse, trolls and disinformation specialists.
In fact, if Sagan had been half as thorough in perusing ancient texts, he, too, might have come to the same conclusions as Velikovsky, as well as with anyone who’s done their research on this subject. What’s the old saying: “If it walks like duck…?”
Numerous ancient texts reference the explosion of a planet in our solar system (which many believe to be a super sized ‘earth known as Maldek or Tiamat). The debris of that planet is believed to be the asteroid belt. If this ‘exploded planet’ was not what caused the asteroid belt, what did?
Additonally, that planet’s ‘moon’ was completely knocked out of its orbit and is now orbiting between Earth and Jupiter. We’ve named it … Mars.
What do our mainstream scientists not want us to know?
November 16, 2017
I think Velikovsky has the right of things. It is so funny that we completely ignore ancient writings, we are just so smart they all must be wrong. Delusions of grandeur, we are quit stubbed and we prove it over and over again.
I have been reading some history lately and there is so much that we could learn, but we don't and won't, sad.
I have been reading some history lately and there is so much that we could learn, but we don't and won't, sad.
January 28, 2013
I enjoyed this book very much. It was well documented and fascinating. Velikovsky may end up being the Copernicus of our generation. I read many of his books years ago and was surprised by some of his conclusions. In thinking outside the box, he made some very astute observations and novel assumptions, postulating some interesting theories, many of which are proving to be valid as we continue to learn more about the universe. I didn't know he discussed many of his ideas with Einstein. The author, Laird Scranton, clearly was able to defend many of Velikovsky's theories as correct. Even if a scientist is not 100% accurate in some small details, their theories should be considered and they should be given credit for their findings and achievements if they are indeed relevant. Too often truth is validated after they are dead but his posterity should savor the sweet sense of their progenitor's discoveries.
It is too easy for scientists to build upon others' incorrect conclusions and the cloth of mainstream thinking. A true scientist will not marginalize important data, massage the data to support their own thinking, and ignore the obvious. It creates a sandy foundation. I always appreciated Velikovsky's review of ancient literature. Learning from the past and not always setting it aside because we believe we are so much more advanced than our ancestors is important. Future generations will likely look at us with the same critical microscope. History is too easily rewritten and muddied by the victors. Sometimes important knowledge is lost when we unwittingly throw the baby out with the bath water.
It is too easy for scientists to build upon others' incorrect conclusions and the cloth of mainstream thinking. A true scientist will not marginalize important data, massage the data to support their own thinking, and ignore the obvious. It creates a sandy foundation. I always appreciated Velikovsky's review of ancient literature. Learning from the past and not always setting it aside because we believe we are so much more advanced than our ancestors is important. Future generations will likely look at us with the same critical microscope. History is too easily rewritten and muddied by the victors. Sometimes important knowledge is lost when we unwittingly throw the baby out with the bath water.
May 27, 2013
While I didn't always like the way Laird Scranton shifted between the academic "we" and a more intimate "I" in his prose, I thoroughly enjoyed my reading of The Velikovsky Heresies. Enough so that I now feel inspired to read Worlds in Collision, a book I'd have never known of save for a brief glimpse of the title in a used bookstore almost ten years ago....
The best part of the book is how much it reminds us of how human we all are, even those people we idolize. I certainly have a new perspective of Carl Sagan now.
The best part of the book is how much it reminds us of how human we all are, even those people we idolize. I certainly have a new perspective of Carl Sagan now.
December 31, 2014
A solid survey of recent scientific evidence concerning Velikovsy's "Worlds in collision" theory. Missions to Venus, Mars, and Jupiter have confirmed many of his predictions, and failed to uncover any substantive proof against the theory that was so violently opposed by the scientific establishment.
July 28, 2021
A good overview of the Velikovsky controversial theory about the planet Venus, how it was treated at the time, and how certain predictions have eventually been proven true.
Velikovsky's book, "Worlds In Collison" came out in 1950 in spite of pressure from the science establishment on the publisher to drop the book. Yes, the most shocking part of the Velikovsky story to me is the horrible attempt to censor or block him. Even now, when scientists write papers that even partially corroborate any one of his predictions, the writer does a little dance to avoid directly naming or crediting him.
To put it briefly, Velikovsky wrote about the odd descriptions of the planet Venus that sounded more a comet, descriptions from as old as 3,500 years ago or as recent as 800 B.C. He also outlined a hefty list of predictions chief of which was that it would have very high temperatures and pressures. He even speculated on the chemical makeup of its atmosphere, and stated it was probably a young planet. He was ridiculed at the time, but probes made decades later confirmed his projections. One of the curiouser evidences for Venus having once been a comet is that it still possesses a tail, an ionotail that the solar wind pushes towards Earth and actually reaches Earth at its closest approach to us.
One of his biggest and certainly most famous detractor was Carl Sagan, the widely beloved astrophysicist. He is possibly best known for popularizing the terms 'greenhouse effect' and 'nuclear winter.' About the term 'nuclear winter', "physicist Freeman Dyson of Princeton for example stated "It's an absolutely atrocious piece of science, but I quite despair of setting the public record straight." "
But about the equally dicey 'greenhouse effect' science has been more reluctant to openly discredit it, because then they might have to actually say Velikovsky was right about something.
Just one quote from the book to close this brief review:
"If we are to believe that one of these planets -- namely Venus -- is a recent planet, then we should observe at least one satellite for Jupiter such as Io, whose pristine surface suggests that it also could be recently formed. This proposition is supported by evidence that Io remains volcanically active, as we might expect of a recently formed body."
Velikovsky's book, "Worlds In Collison" came out in 1950 in spite of pressure from the science establishment on the publisher to drop the book. Yes, the most shocking part of the Velikovsky story to me is the horrible attempt to censor or block him. Even now, when scientists write papers that even partially corroborate any one of his predictions, the writer does a little dance to avoid directly naming or crediting him.
To put it briefly, Velikovsky wrote about the odd descriptions of the planet Venus that sounded more a comet, descriptions from as old as 3,500 years ago or as recent as 800 B.C. He also outlined a hefty list of predictions chief of which was that it would have very high temperatures and pressures. He even speculated on the chemical makeup of its atmosphere, and stated it was probably a young planet. He was ridiculed at the time, but probes made decades later confirmed his projections. One of the curiouser evidences for Venus having once been a comet is that it still possesses a tail, an ionotail that the solar wind pushes towards Earth and actually reaches Earth at its closest approach to us.
One of his biggest and certainly most famous detractor was Carl Sagan, the widely beloved astrophysicist. He is possibly best known for popularizing the terms 'greenhouse effect' and 'nuclear winter.' About the term 'nuclear winter', "physicist Freeman Dyson of Princeton for example stated "It's an absolutely atrocious piece of science, but I quite despair of setting the public record straight." "
But about the equally dicey 'greenhouse effect' science has been more reluctant to openly discredit it, because then they might have to actually say Velikovsky was right about something.
Just one quote from the book to close this brief review:
"If we are to believe that one of these planets -- namely Venus -- is a recent planet, then we should observe at least one satellite for Jupiter such as Io, whose pristine surface suggests that it also could be recently formed. This proposition is supported by evidence that Io remains volcanically active, as we might expect of a recently formed body."
February 16, 2022
... am citit cu un crescând interes argumentele a diverși critici de înaltă reputație la adresa lui Velikovsky, pe lângă un număr de alte cărți dedicate unei discuții mai generale
privind controversa Velikovsky în sine. Am ajuns destul de repede să-mi dau seama că rolul jucat de Velikovsky în raport cu comunitatea științifică — în esență, acela de eretic al ereticilor — părea să provină în mare parte din cauza deosebirilor de metodologie pe care le aplica în studiile lui, în comparație cu cele folosite în mod tipic de un istoric sau un om de știință de meserie. Metoda de abordare a lui Velikovsky era adesea greu de acceptat pentru un membru al comunității academice tradiționale — uneori greu de înțeles — și astfel a devenit o aparentă sursă de frustrare pentru diverși savanți, pe măsu-ra derulării controversei. În unele privințe, Velikovsky a devenit pentru oamenii de știin-ță tradiționaliști ai anilor 1950 ceea ce Groucho Marx fusese pentru elita socială a anilor 1930 — un outsider care nu putea fi amuțit, care, cu toate că refuza să joace după reguli-le tradiționale, încă era în stare să învingă, la propriul ei joc, elita bine înconjurată de zidurile cetății, având potențialul de a ridiculiza pe parcurs numita elită. Trebuie să recu-noaștem: Immanuel Velikovsky și-a abordat subiectul într-o manieră nouă, aplicând un tip unic de inteligență la multele probleme pe care le-a cercetat. Velikovsky este cel care, cu un aplomb lipsit de emfază, ne-a oferit povestiri mitologice antice pe post de dovezi care susțineau controversata lui nouă teorie astronomică. Velikovsky a fost persoana care a furnizat, fără să se rușineze câtuși de puțin, explicații raționale, științifice, pentru evenimentele biblice pe care alții le expediaseră de mult ca fiind mai degrabă povești cu zâne, decât un discurs științific serios.
privind controversa Velikovsky în sine. Am ajuns destul de repede să-mi dau seama că rolul jucat de Velikovsky în raport cu comunitatea științifică — în esență, acela de eretic al ereticilor — părea să provină în mare parte din cauza deosebirilor de metodologie pe care le aplica în studiile lui, în comparație cu cele folosite în mod tipic de un istoric sau un om de știință de meserie. Metoda de abordare a lui Velikovsky era adesea greu de acceptat pentru un membru al comunității academice tradiționale — uneori greu de înțeles — și astfel a devenit o aparentă sursă de frustrare pentru diverși savanți, pe măsu-ra derulării controversei. În unele privințe, Velikovsky a devenit pentru oamenii de știin-ță tradiționaliști ai anilor 1950 ceea ce Groucho Marx fusese pentru elita socială a anilor 1930 — un outsider care nu putea fi amuțit, care, cu toate că refuza să joace după reguli-le tradiționale, încă era în stare să învingă, la propriul ei joc, elita bine înconjurată de zidurile cetății, având potențialul de a ridiculiza pe parcurs numita elită. Trebuie să recu-noaștem: Immanuel Velikovsky și-a abordat subiectul într-o manieră nouă, aplicând un tip unic de inteligență la multele probleme pe care le-a cercetat. Velikovsky este cel care, cu un aplomb lipsit de emfază, ne-a oferit povestiri mitologice antice pe post de dovezi care susțineau controversata lui nouă teorie astronomică. Velikovsky a fost persoana care a furnizat, fără să se rușineze câtuși de puțin, explicații raționale, științifice, pentru evenimentele biblice pe care alții le expediaseră de mult ca fiind mai degrabă povești cu zâne, decât un discurs științific serios.
December 9, 2025
If true, interesting, interesting non the less
This is a fascinating review of current data that can point or verifying Velikovsky. Hard to put down. Not being familiar with the author this debate was new to me. Found the authors discussion interesting and if correct may cause the controversy to end.
This is a fascinating review of current data that can point or verifying Velikovsky. Hard to put down. Not being familiar with the author this debate was new to me. Found the authors discussion interesting and if correct may cause the controversy to end.
September 12, 2020
Velikovsky was right
Based on facts not available in 1950 when Velikovsky first published his theory about Venus and suffered a firestorm of ridicule from "established" astronomers this book points out many recent discoveries that validate his work. Highly recommended!
Based on facts not available in 1950 when Velikovsky first published his theory about Venus and suffered a firestorm of ridicule from "established" astronomers this book points out many recent discoveries that validate his work. Highly recommended!
January 18, 2018
This is a bunch of unscientific drivel. Period. The fact that other users gave it more than 4 stars makes me weep for the future of the human race. How stupid are people to believe this??
August 27, 2022
Laird Scranton is well researched and intelligent, but his writing style is dry and boring compared to the multiple interviews he has given on this topic.
September 4, 2022
Incredible, well explained.
January 23, 2024
An excellent review of what we have learned about the planets in our solar system and how the new data has at times backed up Velikovsky's claims in World in Collision.
January 13, 2017
Velikovsky was right.
August 17, 2014
Not all that interesting really.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews