The Age of Velikovsky is written by C.J. Ransom, a PhD in Plasma Physics who conducted research for General Dynamics' Convair Aerospace Division. It is important reading for anyone interested in the Velikovsky affair. Ransom gives an overview of Velikovsky's early life, then Chapter 1 begins with the events surrounding the publication of Velikovsky's first book in 1950: "The reaction to _Worlds in Collision_ by many members of the scientific community can provide research material to interested psychoanalysts for decades.... unscientific and unethical actions did take place, and no amount of rationalization can justify these actions... Many of the actions were personal asaults on Velikovsky, or others who happened to be in the line of fire. These actions were inexcusable even if Velikovsky were wrong..." Ransom is given to bursts of humor, as can be seen in the following: "*Before the book was published*, review articles... appeared [which] did not accurately portray the conclusions or the scholarship which led to these conclusions. Unfortunately... [s]ome writers never came closer to the original than a review article, and they wrote articles refuting what *others* thought Velikovsky might have said. Oddly enough, some of these same people claimed that Velikovsky did not use proper sources." (emphasis in original). So much pressure was exerted on the publisher by the scientific community that the book was transferred to another publisher, though it had remained the best-seller almost from the first day of its release. This attempt at supression of Velikovsky's work can be clearly seen as one of the darkest and shabbiest actions in the history of modern science. The author devotes almost 200 pages to showing many different aspects of Velikovsky's discoveries, with evidence that indicates their accuracy. There is the correction of history by over 500 years and the inconsistencies that are eliminated by the revised chronology. There are numerous characteristics of the sun, planets, and moons, realization of which were surprises to scientists, but had either been explicitly predicted by Velikovsky or fit his theory better than they did into existing scientific dogma. Then we read about the AAAS convention of 1974: "[it] was advertised as a scientific appraisal of Velikovsky's theory. But, at the opening of the meeting, the attendees were informed that the subject was not worthy of scientific discussion and the meeting was being held to point this out to any minds which had strayed from the uniformitarian fath. Several of the participants certainly lived up to the claim that they would not discuss the subject scientifically." Paramount among these was Carl Sagan. "His paper contained nothing which furthered scientific debate. However, his paper was presented exceptionally well, and his charisma added to the effectiveness of the presentation. Most of the audience did not know and, because of his captivating delivery, did not care that many of his points were irrelevant, incorrect, or misleading. His entrancingly arrogant delivery exuded the air of a great evangelist who had come to lead the people along the true uniformitarian path... Perhaps Sagan's most quoted statement from the sumposium was this: 'My conclusion will be that where V is original, he is very likely wrong; and that where he is right, the idea has been pre-empted by earlier workers.' Whether this lie was original with Sagan or was fabricated by an earlier worker, it is flatly untrue." In Ransom's conclusion he says, "We have seen that a number of irrational acts have occurred in the Velikovsky afffair, and that there are divergent reasons for these actions... However, it is time to look ahead. We could argue forever over what Velikovsky did or did not mean, what he did or did not predict, and miss the total concept he presented. Enough information now exists to show that his ideas are worthy of continued study. Whether he as an individual is right or wrong on some point is irrelevant. Velikovsky's work now belongs to the world, and the world will lose by continuing to ignore it." Wonderful reading if you can find the book!

Mankind in Amnesia, (Doubleday, New York, 1982) by Immanuel Velikovsky

Dr. Velikovsky gave us the controversial best seller "Worlds in Collision" (1950), and sequels on the same theme including "Ages in Chaos" (1952) and "Earth in upheaval" (1955). "Mankind in Amnesia" is the first of several to be published posthumously and it develops the thesis addressed in his other books, namely the catastrophic history of our planet-so traumatic that the human race has rejected it from memory and refuses to face evidence of it. He postulates near collisions between Earth and Venus and other bodies.

Velikovsky, a Russian-born Jewish psychiatrist, uses his theory to justify a literal reading of the Exodus. The miraculous events (the parting of the Red Sea, manna from Heaven, etc.) he ascribes to natural causes.

He was quite a salesman. Although his formal education, gained throughout Europe, was in medicine, obviously his great interest was astronomy, cosmology, geology and the architectonics of the universe. And his writing has had an impact on those who pursue knowledge in those areas. The late Buckminster Fuller, inventor of the geodesic dome, said of the book, "...an extraordinarily important book, beautifully researched and devastatingly true." Or, so he is quoted on the dust jacket. The late Carl Sagan, on the other hand, calls his approach "shoddy, ignorant and doctrinaire," and strongly implies that his scientific understanding is sadly lacking (Broca's Brain, Random House, N.Y., 1974.)

So, Velikovsky's theories, to put it mildly, are not universally embraced by his peers. Nevertheless, this is a good book. He has a good vocabulary and he uses it enchantingly and persuasively to sell his great idea. It is a book for the literate person who relishes new ideas and fresh approaches to old ones.

Joseph Pierre,
Author of THE ROAD TO DAMASCUS: Our Journey Through Eternity

What I think is: The people who are against this book just love Carl Sagan. Sagan was on tv after all so he must be right in everything. Not only that he wasn't ugly or geeky like some some of those types could be. And even the ones who aren't just couldn't show well on tv or be popular. That's what it really boils down to. Carl Sagan, good ole boy trained by the old school must be loyal to the closed scientific world. I've read Worlds in Collision twice and have great respect for Immanuel Velikovsky. His work will always be debated because the "white american and european world" can not accept anything without their stamp of approval. And heaven forbid anyone should write or think to the contrary! Charles Ginenthal was pretty cool to write this book -- right on! For another awesome take on this subject read: "Red Earth, White Lies" by Vine Deloria Jr. Open your eyes people, don't be duped by academia - knowledge rules!

We all recognise that "science" is not driven by purity of intellectual freedom, but is also subject to the fallibilities of human ego. Nowhere is this truth more clearly displayed than in Ginenthal's book -- even when it is shocking and disconcerting. Here, we are clearly shown, using Sagan's own writing, how he fudges facts to fit his theories; how he disputes Velikovsky's proposals based not on free intellectual inquiry, but instead on unproven dogmatic notions; how he distorts history to aggrandize himself; and how he is apparently remarkably free of conscience in this effort. I suspect that if Sagan done the same type of smear campaign against a "beloved" public figure such as Buckminster Fuller (instead of one as controversial as Velikovsky), his own editors would have quashed his actions. At times, Ginenthal does go a tad overboard in making certain that the reader recognises the irony or falsehood of Sagan's assertions, but that is my only quibble with the book. This is an extremely important volume for those interested in popular culture or in the history of science, and should be widely read.

In an age of specialization, a book such as this is essential for the layman who can only get information from the mass media and the individual scientist stuck in the small cubicle of his own specialty. Charles Ginenthal really did a lot of research. This book brings much light into a 50 year old debate in the scientific community and demonstrates that we have learned a lot about the world we live on since Velikovsky wrote "Worlds in Collision". The only detraction for me was that Carl Sagan came out so small that his devotees, unable to take off their "uniformatarian" blinders, will write bad reviews of this work even if they have not read it.

This author cites various examples from across the Earth of homogeneous and otherwise unexplained deposits laid down over large areas. He then takes a leap and partially describes a zany, interdimensional phenomenon for which he provides neither documentation nor quantification. A comet isn't really there, don't you know? It's yet another attempt to have catastrophism without the mess, to show that catastrophes happen, but we're all nice and safe.

The title warrants three stars for its much more conventional and interesting discussion of the Cities of Cibola, which occupies the author for the first half of the book. Petersen seems to have solved the problem of their location, alas too late for much to be done, even if this part of the work were to receive a wider audience.

Part 1 of Mr Bauer's book- 'The Story of the Velikovsky Affair'- is presented and reads like a fair summary of the whole controversy. On the face there presides reason, fairness; the impartiality of a judge's summary. But the unwary reader is not prepared for the true motives of this book, the subtle but quite blatant intention of the author to deliver not a judge's deliberation but a prosecutor's summing up.....
Part 2 is called, 'Velikovsky, Right or Wrong?', throughout which the reader is presented more than once with an awkward feeling; an awkward question- 'Is this book REALLY fair... or could I be the victim of some barrister's rhetoric?' It becomes increasingly clear that this book is an ATTACK upon it's subject disguised as an even-handed and fair account, which leads to the book's negative conclusion about Velikovsky.
To see Bauer's true position- not the moderator but the persecutor- there's no need to delve within the specifics. The gift of this book to the fair minded reader is that, really, it's all so plain.
Just stand back and observe, for instance, that NO analysis is made of ANY of V's historical work in any way and already it is clear. References to V's science are only in the form of selective criticisms, and these deliberately limited to the broadest and most speculatory of V's theories. To say as well that these references are ALL that Bauer uses to successfully brand V a 'pseudo-scientist' and we are left with a work of the most simple character. No space is devoted to V's scientific application of history or the areas in orthodox science (carbon dating, archaeology, astronomy) which undoubtedly bare out his theories- as well as those that don't. Although the positive aspects of V's work are never denied by Bauer, he consistently underplays these while referring in detail to the negative. In overview we see the prosecutor exposed. He has to tread between the lines and limit his case to that which is easily muddied and confused.
Beyond Velikovsky is weighted; it is unfair and biased. NO discussion is held on any of V's actual theories- only a pedantic and misleading analysis of SOME of his scientific references and approaches.
Bauer deals with such a narrow spectrum of V's work that the book itself suffers from bad structure- the first two parts concluded and the main conclusions reached before it is half through. The reader is left only to peruse a series of space filling chapters in part 3- 'Beyond the Velikovsky Affair'- with such offerings as 'Motives for Believing' and 'Means of Persuasion' and 'Realities About Science'.
Thus, by showing us a corner of the picture; a piece of the puzzle, Bauer reveals to us the smallness and the entirety of his ambitions. This book could never have been conceived as a fair, impartial analysis. The book I read was a pedantic, narrow and deceptive piece of scholarship.