posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 02:06 PM
reply to post by GuyverUnit I
Hi, maybe being a little older than most on this great site, I (vaguely) remember a similar view from Velikovski from the 1950's. Mix such theories
in with 'experts' such as Von Daniekem and the $'s, Euros or Swiss Fancs start rolling in...?
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Immanuel Velikovsky at the 1974 American Association for the Advancement of Science Conference in San FranciscoImmanuel Velikovsky (Иммануил
Великовский) (Vitebsk, June 10, 1895 (NS) – November 17, 1979) is a Russian-born American independent scholar, best known as the author
of a number of controversial books reinterpreting the events of ancient history, in particular the US bestseller Worlds in Collision, published in
1950. Earlier, he played a role in the founding of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Israel, and was a respected psychiatrist and
His books use comparative mythology and ancient literary sources (including the Bible) to argue that Earth has suffered catastrophic close-contacts
with other planets (principally Venus and Mars) in ancient times. In positioning Velikovsky among catastrophists including Hans Bellamy, Ignatius
Donnelly, and Johann Gottlieb Radlof, the British astronomers Victor Clube and Bill Napier noted ". . . Velikovsky is not so much the first of the
new catastrophists . . . ; he is the last in a line of traditional catastrophists going back to mediaeval times and probably earlier." Velikovsky
argued that electromagnetic effects play an important role in celestial mechanics. He also proposed a revised chronology for ancient Egypt, Greece,
Israel and other cultures of the ancient Near East. The revised chronology aimed at explaining the so-called "dark age" of the eastern Mediterranean
(ca. 1100 – 750 BCE) and reconciling biblical history with mainstream archeology and Egyptian chronology.
In general, Velikovsky's theories have been vigorously rejected or ignored by the academic community. Nonetheless, his books often sold well and
gained an enthusiastic support in lay circles, often fuelled by claims of unfair treatment for Velikovsky by orthodox academia. The
controversy surrounding his work and its reception is often referred to as "the Velikovsky affair".