UFO Conjectures

Saturday, December 03, 2011

A resource for UFO sightings. overlooked by aficionados of the phenomenon


Intellectually scourged “academic” Immanuel Velikovsky developed a theory about how our planetary (solar) system and Earth were formed and subject to catastrophes that were recorded by humans in many histories and works, such as The Bible, (Asian) Indian hymns and stories, Greek myths, Egyptian hieroglyphic remnants, Homer, and many, many more ancient accounts.

His theory may be found in two works, Worlds in Collision [1950] and Earth in Upheaval [1955].


Science has eschewed Velikovsky’s theory, but his insights keep popping up as NASA and cosmologists scrutinize the planets in our system.

While Velikovsky insisted that cosmological events were what humans saw and recorded, one can look pass his interpretations to find what could be UFO sightings.

For instance, this…

In The City of God by Augustine it is written:

“From the book of Marcus Varro, entitled Of the Race of the Roman People, I cite word for word the following instance: ‘There occurred a remarkable celestial portent; for Castor records that in the brilliant star Venus, called Vesperugo by Plautus, and the lovely Hesperus by Homer, there occurred so strange a prodigy, that it changed its color, size, form, course, which never happened before nor since. Adrastus of Cyzicus and Dion of Naples, famous mathematicians, said this occurred in the reign of Ogyges’” [Worlds in Collision, A Delta Book, 1965, Page 158]

Velikovsky supplemented his theory in later books, Oedipus and Akhnaton [1960], Peoples of the Sea, Ages in Chaos, Ramses II and his Time, and Human Amnesia.




Astronomers made it a point to suppress Velikovsky’s views and have been rather successful.

But that’s not what we should be concerned with.

Our interest is in the cited works and accounts that seem to be sightings of UFOs.

Velikovsky’s books provide sources that resonate in ways that might – might! – support Ancient Astronaut theories.

The difference is that Velikovsky’s “catastrophic” intrusions don’t interfere with or interact with humans; his events remain observational, not intercessional.

Also, many of Velikovsky’s cited events were eschewed, it seems, by the Vallee/Aubeck book, Wonders in the Sky, probably because Chris Aubeck’s resource venue (Yahoo Magonia X) for many of the sightings in his and Vallee’s book was controlled by the machinations of UFO stalwarts such as Jerry Clark, who held sightings and input hostage to his (Clark’s) view of the UFO phenomenon.

I suggest you get your hands on Velikovsky’s books. Overlook the catastrophic theory if you like – a mistake, as I see it – and cull the events that bespeak UFOs in days of old.

If UFOs were as prominent as they appear to have been, their appearance belies current hypotheses about military misidentifications, mental aberrations, or trickery by entities out to flummox modern humanity.

The brilliance and edification of Dr. Velikovsky will enlighten you, in a number of ways; that is certain.



  • I am not a Velikovsky fan and have never read his books, but I have two books which devote considerable space to his theories. One is Broca's Brain by Carl Sagan (which has 60 pages on him and gives him a fair appraisal). The other is de Grazia, Juergens and Stecchini's "The Velikovsky Affair", the whole book being a close look at V's ideas and the story leading up to "Worlds in Collision".

    There is also the AAAS symposium on Velikovsky in 1974.

    Some scientists were at least willing to give V a hearing, but most were not.

    I do not think any of the above deals with, or mentions, UFOs.

    By Blogger cda, at Sunday, December 04, 2011  

  • Christopher:

    I saw a guy in a History Channel UFO show here the other night who suggests that Mars was the moon of a very large planet that blew up, creating the asteroid belt.

    That brought me to the Velikovsky oeuvre, again.

    I was surprised to see that some of his catastrophic observations, cited in the works noted, were similar to UFO sightings, old and new.

    That aside, Velikovsky was interesting and not as far off base as some snotty astronomers had it.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, December 04, 2011  

  • Velikovsky's works should be read for no other reasons than 1) the sheer breadth and depth of his research, knowledge and imagination, and 2) the incredibly venomous reception he received from the scientific community. On the latter reason, if you consider yourself an open-minded person, read his books. You don't have to agree with his conclusions. Just give yourself the Velikovsky experience. It is like no other.


    By Blogger Terrence Seamon, at Monday, December 05, 2011  

  • Obviously, Terrence, I agree with your sentiments entirely.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, December 05, 2011  

  • Fascinating information. Never heard of Velikovsky prior. Seems worthy of checking out as a whole just on the merit of his empirical rejection alone. My kind of of guy.

    By Blogger Jeff Davis, at Monday, December 05, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home