Amazon.com: Earth in Upheaval: Immanuel Velikovsky: Books

Velikovsky compiled this huge list of catastrophic data in answer to one of the foolish criticisms of 1950's "Worlds In Collision" -- that it relied on 'tales and stories'. Catastrophists often rely on bits and pieces from this book, perhaps indirectly, but nowhere else can they all be found, except perhaps for William Corliss' catalogs and sourcebooks.

The only thing that has happened since "Earth In Upheaval" was published in 1955 is that even more evidence has emerged along with even more outlandish rationalizations and apologia for uniform "explanations". While this 19th century delusional system perishes, its grip on power has slipped away. Catastrophism triumphs everywhere, even in the consideration of celestial disasters in historical times.

In 1960 the Chicxulub crater was discovered by PEMEX. In 1970 someone first suggested that the dinosaurs went extinct due to an impact. In 1972 impact was shown to be the dominant force on the lunar surface. In 1980 the Alvarez team suggested it again, supporting their view with the iridium found at the K-T boundary layer. Others found similar iridium in other boundary layers. By 1990 the Chicxulub crater finally came to the attention of the impact theorists. Impact wasn't the fully accepted consensus until the 1994 impacts of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9's fragments into Jupiter.

The text has the same ease and command of Velikovsky's other books, and I found it to be a pleasure to read 20 plus years ago. I highly recommend it, particularly for those considering other books. There is still a great deal of ill-temper, hostility, and ignorance regarding Velikovsky's works, and these often take the form of a single dismissive sentence or paragraph. Living writers seem to go out of their way to dump on him, and this is particularly true among fringe authors.

See also Velikovsky's other works (new and used), David Rohl's "Pharaohs and Kings", Peter James' "Centuries of Darkness", Ryan and Pitman's "Noah's Flood", Mary Settegast's "Plato Prehistorian", and Robert Schoch's "Voices of the Rocks".

Comment Comment | Permalink | Was this review helpful to you? Yes No (Report this)

20 of 20 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars So many answers, so little recognition, July 16, 2000

By	ltp (north carolina) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Earth in Upheaval (Hardcover)

I first read this book perhaps 15 years ago, and I still remember the impact it had on me. Everything clicked in place, and so many questions were answered and substantiated, and so many predictions have been validated as our knowledge of the solar system increases.

Despite the fact that the author has been proven right in so many of his theories, recognition from the academic community is still not forthcoming. What is even more ironic is that the majority of his detractors, then and now, have not even read his books!

Due to the competition for grants and the decrease in available funds for pure research many scientists relegated new or contradictory ideas to the closet. No one wanted to rock the boat. Now, thanks to space exploration, our discoveries often outpace our theories. Hopefully this will open the door that was shut on a brilliant man years ago. Hopefully, the fact that many of our new discoveries were predicted and substantiated by a man who truly deserves the recognition so deliberately denied him, will be bought to light.

In an age when our very existence may well depend on our ability to understand science, as well as understand ourselves, the need for an open mind has never been more important.

Sadly, I lost my copy of this book and would be grateful to know where I can find another.

Comment Comment | Permalink | Was this review helpful to you? Yes No (Report this)

16 of 16 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Earth in Upheaval,, October 17, 2001

By	"illsay" (Montreal, Quebec Canada) - See all my reviews

I have read this book as well as others by this author and found it fascinating, well researched. It does challenge established science. Strict guidelines have to be followed when emitting a theory; Mr. Velikovsky seems to have done just that even though his detractors find him sensationalistic to say the least. However, science has to be challenged. That is how new discoveries are made, quite often, at the expense of the scientist's career, especially if he goes agaist the grain of accepted theories or so called "known facts". Unfortunately, Sciences' motives are not always as pure as one would want to believe. Scientists are human, therefore faillible and like everybody else, they like to protect their turf.