Laird Scranton | Velikovsky: Ancient Catastrophes

Velikovsky Ancient Catastrophes. Laird Scranton joins Dr. Rita Louise on Just Energy Radio where they discuss the controversial work of Immanuel Velikovsky and his book Worlds In Collision.


Kenneth J. Dillon

Mr. Scranton:

I found much of value in your “The Velikovsky Heresies”, including your stress on examining new evidence and your penetrating discussion of the calendrical issue.
One approach would be to ask whether Velikovsky’s Venus theory could be part of a larger framework theory. At, you can find such a theory. See also the linked discussions of iconographic evidence and of related topics at
Best wishes.

Ken Dillon
Washington, D.C.

Gary Littlejohn

I have only just come across your work though the video by Carmen Boulter on Ancient Egypt, entitled ‘The Pyramid Code’. So I have read none of your work and seen none of your videos. On Velikovsky, are you in touch with the Electric Universe group, for example, at or

I look forward to reading your work on the Dogon, and watching your videos.

Harrogate, UK

Ivar Nielsen

Although Veliskovski proved to be right in some astronomical cases, the real catastrophe is that he and his followers use a “romanized mythology” where names of primary and primordial deities of creation are interpreted as planetary deities, creating a kind of astrology instead of a mytho-cosmology where the primeval deities really belongs to the creation of our Milky Way, for instants as with Egyptian goddess Hathor who directly can be compared to the goddess Venus.

Read more of this strange confusion here and in my personal website:

David Goble

I recently posted the following on a bulletin board regarding an experience while attending university.

While attending an undergraduate course in physics at a university that shall go un-named, when the topic of electrically charged bodies came around, I was very interested and paid close attention to the lecture.

The “learned professor” explained the theory quite well and even showed the class — by use of pith balls — how bodies of like electrical charge are repelled be a close proximity to each other, and how bodies of “unlike electrical charge” are attracted to each other on account of that same close proximity, and will exchange charge.

As I had no other class to rush to, I stayed after class and waited for the “learned professor” to entertain my questions.

When I asked him whether or not electrically-charged bodies of planetary size (macro-scale) will exhibit the same behavior as the pith balls (micro-scale by comparison), the man immediately got red in the face and demanded, “Where did you hear that!”

I was stunned by his reaction, and when I replied that I’d read “Worlds in Collision” by Immanuel Velikovsky, he cut me off with some rude comment, turned on his heel, and left the lecture hall at a fairly fast clip.

Right then and there, I got the picture — the academic priesthood have topics that are “off-limits” — certain topics that are forbidden to even be discussed on a rational basis.

By any measure, the reaction of the “learned professor” to my question was irrational, and that’s just the reaction I expect from any confrontational responses to this post. They just don’t want to hear it, and, at best, have only unsubstantiated assertions as to why Velikovsky’s hypothesis about the “birth of Venus” was “impossible”!

Imagine 51 years between the Day of Passage and the long day of Joshua 10.
Is Ahnknaton the prototype for Oedipus? Freud said that Moses borrowed his monotheism from Ahnknaton. Velikovsky could not bear the notion that his father could ever tell him a lie. Simon Velikovsky believed the scriptures were God inspired truth.
My best,
Glen Risley, Houston

Your analysis of Velikovsky’s birth of Venus out of the head of Zeus gives me a problem.
David Talbot is totally convinced that Venus was a compannion with Mars and The earth during the golden epoch as satelites of Saturn.
If Venus already exited in the golden epoch as a satelite of Saturn, how could it have been born out of the head of Jupiter?
I would like a discourse on the possibilities please

james hodson

Thanks for the nicely comprehensive interview. However there is one point I noticed to be misleading, that is the reference to “Ages in Chaos” but then describing the geological example concerning Niagara Falls’ erosion which I think more properly should have been referenced as from “Earth in Upheaval” (pp. 161-162)wherein, interestingly, it is concluded that the glacial ice retreated… “between 1500 and 500 years before the present era.” .
Incidentally, the object believed to have impacted Jupiter (presumably Metis )may have been erupted from Saturn. See material concerning a proto-Saturn, being a brown dwarf star as the”FIRST SUN” and generator of Earth(and possibly also Mars) according to the theory of “The Electrical Universe”.

Patricia Williams

Great show

Joseph Black

Dear Mr. Scranton,
Reading your interesting “Velikovsky Heresies,” a logical problem with Drs. Velikovsky’s, Sagan’s and your analysis of the emergence of planet Venus is that people in 1/2 the world observed it in the afternoon, rivaling or exceeding the Sun, while many others observed it spectacularly emerging from the sea, presumably that night. Those who saw it in daylight wrote it appeared at the head of the king of the gods (Zeus). No one can readily see Jupiter any afternoon, much less its poles.
I suggest people were in actuality quite shocked to see “comet” Venus (Metis?) being super-heated by passing close to our Sun.
Please be in touch, as I value your opinions.
Joe R. Black, Author
Evolutionary Moons Creation Hypothesis