MODERN CATASTROPHISM

From Velikovsky to Talbott to Cochrane

https://www.youtube.com/@mudfossiluniversity/videos

CONTENTS — FIND IN PAGE

IMMANUEL VELIKOVSKY ORIGIN

WORLDS IN COLLISION

THE VELIKOVSKY AFFAIR

PENSE’E — VELIKOVSKY RECONSIDERED

JUERGENS ELECTRIC UNIVERSE

REVISING VELIKOVSKY’S TIMING — A MILLENNIUM

THE SATURN MYTH

SHIFTING FOCUS ONTO MARS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AI did a lot of the grunt work on this, but I guided and edited it.

IMMANUEL VELIKOVSKY ORIGIN

Immanuel Velikovsky was a Russian-born psychiatrist and independent scholar. He and his parents, Simon and Biela Rachel, left Russia in 1921. Simon Velikovsky, a committed Zionist, and Biela went directly to Palestine at that time, fulfilling his lifelong goal of contributing to the Jewish national revival and educational efforts in the land of Israel/Palestine. Immanuel, however, initially stayed in Berlin, Germany to pursue the idea of founding a Jewish academy, inspired by his father's vision, before eventually joining his parents in Palestine1.

The move was motivated by several factors. The aftermath of the Russian Revolution and civil unrest made life increasingly difficult and uncertain for Jews in Russia. Simon Velikovsky’s Zionist ideals and his dedication to reviving Hebrew culture and establishing Jewish institutions in Palestine were central to his decision. The broader context of rising antisemitism in Europe, including events like the Beilis trial, also influenced Immanuel’s generation to look toward Palestine as a safe haven and a place to build a new Jewish future1. Simon's goals included reviving Hebrew as a living language, helping to establish Jewish settlements in Palestine, and founding a Jewish academy. He sponsored publications and prizes for Hebrew literature, and after World War I, he and Immanuel worked together to publish Scripta Universitatis, a scholarly Hebrew-language anthology intended as a forerunner to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.2,1,5.

Immanuel Velikovsky, after earning his medical degree in Moscow, lived in Palestine from 1924 to 1939, where he practiced medicine, including psychiatry and psychoanalysis, and published scholarly papers1,5,9. Velikovsky studied psychoanalysis under Wilhelm Stekel, who was a close associate and student of Sigmund Freud. Velikovsky did not study directly under Freud, but he was part of the "third generation" of Vienna-trained analysts and published in psychoanalytic journals that Freud would have read6,1,5. Velikovsky met Freud on a few occasions and was influenced by his work, but his formal training was with Stekel, not Freud himself.

WORLDS IN COLLISION

Immanuel Velikovsky moved to New York City in July 1939 with his wife, Elisheva Kramer, and their two daughters, Shulamit (born 1925) and Ruth (born 1926)5,6. The move was prompted by the escalating threat of World War II and the increasingly dangerous situation for Jews in Europe and Palestine at that time. Additionally, Velikovsky wanted access to major research libraries in New York to pursue his new line of research, which would eventually lead to his book Worlds in Collision5. He began researching the origins of monotheism, prompted by Sigmund Freud’s book Moses and Monotheism. Freud argued that Moses was influenced by the Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten. Velikovsky sought evidence that Moses was the originator of monotheism, not Akhenaten, and turned to ancient texts and comparative mythology for support, examining ancient Egyptian, Greek, and Near Eastern sources.

He focused on the Ipuwer Papyrus, which described chaos and disasters in Egypt, and noticed similarities to the biblical account of the Ten Plagues. He broadened his research to include global myths and legends describing catastrophic events. Velikovsky theorized that the disasters described in the Bible and other ancient records were caused by a close approach of a large celestial body—specifically, a comet that later became the planet Venus. He believed this event occurred around the time of the Exodus and that it explained the Ten Plagues and other worldwide catastrophes. {Cardona later found that there likely was a large comet involved in the Exodus, but it was very likely not Venus.}

THE VELIKOVSKY AFFAIR

Velikovsky published Worlds in Collision in 1950. The book became a bestseller and sparked widespread public interest. The scientific community, particularly astronomers and physicists, strongly criticized the astronomical aspects of his theory. The Velikovsky Affair (1966) edited by Alfred de Grazia, is a collection of essays examining the controversy surrounding Immanuel Velikovsky’s Worlds in Collision and the intense reaction of the scientific community to his ideas.

The contributors documented instances where scientists attempted to block the publication and dissemination of Velikovsky’s work, pressured publishers, and threatened professional sanctions against his supporters. The book suggests that, in a more authoritarian society, Velikovsky’s personal safety might have been at risk due to the level of hostility he encountered from the scientific establishment5. The book discussed the social dynamics of science, arguing that the reaction to Velikovsky revealed a tendency toward "scientism"—the defense of orthodoxy and institutional authority—rather than open, objective scientific debate2,5,6.

The first chapter presented Velikovsky’s main claims: that catastrophic planetary events (notably involving Venus and Mars) shaped human history and that these events are recorded in ancient myths and texts. The book outlined how Velikovsky’s research led him to challenge established chronologies in astronomy, geology, and history, and to propose that electromagnetic forces play a major role in celestial mechanics7.

While the book was sympathetic to Velikovsky and critical of the scientific community’s response, it also sparked debate about the boundaries of legitimate scientific inquiry and the sociology of knowledge. It argued that the scientific community’s reaction to Velikovsky was driven more by institutional self-defense and resistance to interdisciplinary challenges than by open scientific evaluation. It became a foundational text in the sociology of scientific controversy and is often cited in discussions about the treatment of unconventional ideas in science1,5,6.

{In 1969 my college roommate showed me Velikovsky’s 1950 book (Worlds in Collision) and I read it with great interest. I also found that he wrote Earth in Upheaval and Ages in Chaos after 1950 and I read them too. His theory seemed very persuasive, but I didn’t understand why science literature hadn’t discussed his findings. When I saw the book, The Velikovsky Affair, described above, I didn’t read it because I assumed that it disproved his theory. Had I read it, I would have been greatly encouraged. I did read some years later. As it was, it wasn’t till 1971 that I regained interest in his works, when I read an ad in Intellectual Digest for a new magazine coming out in 1972, called Pensee’ — Velikovsky Reconsidered.}

PENSE’E — VELIKOVSKY RECONSIDERED

The Talbott brothers, David and Stephen, played key roles in founding both the Student Academic Freedom Forum and the magazine Pensée in Oregon, which became central platforms for discussing Immanuel Velikovsky’s controversial theories. The Student Academic Freedom Forum was established in Portland, Oregon, with David N. Talbott as its president. The Forum was created to promote open inquiry and critical analysis of controversial ideas, particularly those marginalized by mainstream academia1,6. It was closely associated with Lewis and Clark College, which provided assistance and cooperation for its activities1. The Forum served as the organizational base for the later Pensée project, especially as it shifted focus to Velikovsky’s work.

Pensée was originally founded in 1966 as a student magazine in Oregon, but it lapsed for several years before being revived in 1970 as an unofficial student publication distributed on Oregon campuses1. In late 1971, David Talbott (publisher) and Stephen Talbott (editor) decided to dedicate a major issue to Immanuel Velikovsky’s theories after becoming personally familiar with his work1,6,8. The Talbotts were able to find authors for Pensée in part by using a list of scientists and scholars interested in Velikovsky’s work that was maintained by Immanuel Velikovsky himself, leading to the May 1972 issue of Pensée. This issue’s success led to a series of ten special issues under the banner Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered between 1972 and 1974-751,6,8. The magazine achieved significant circulation (10,000–20,000 subscribers, with the first issue reprinted to a total of 75,000 copies) and played a major role in reviving interest in Velikovsky’s ideas1,6. The staff included the Talbott brothers and several associate editors, and the magazine also sponsored major symposia on Velikovsky’s work1.

JUERGENS ELECTRIC UNIVERSE

Ralph E. Juergens was trained as a civil engineer, but studied Alfven’s and others’ writings on electrical forces in the universe. He was an editor in the publications division of McGraw-Hill, and he later became an influential science writer and editor, notably serving as Associate Editor of Pensée magazine and Senior Editor of Kronos journal1,4. Juergens retired in 1960 and moved from the Midwest to Hightstown, near Princeton, New Jersey, to become more involved with Immanuel Velikovsky's work1. Inspired by Velikovsky, he contributed to documenting the "Velikovsky Affair" and co-authored The Velikovsky Affair: Scientism against Science (1966) with Alfred de Grazia and Livio Stecchini1,4.

Ralph Juergens’ Pensée article “Of the Moon and Mars” (Parts I and II, 1974–75) presented a detailed, interdisciplinary argument that many of the Moon’s and Mars’s most prominent surface features—especially lunar sinuous rilles and certain large craters—are scars of massive interplanetary electrical discharges, not the result of volcanic or impact processes as conventionally believed1,2,5. Juergens is best known for developing the "Electric Sun" hypothesis, proposing that the Sun and stars are electrically powered rather than fueled by nuclear fusion—a concept that later became central to the Electric Universe model1,4,5,6. He and Velikovsky both died in November 1979. Wal Thornhill and Don Scott took over the Electric Universe model after Juergens. {But I favor Charles Chandler’s Electric Astrophysics model.}

REVISING VELIKOVSKY’S THESIS — A MILLENNIUM

David Talbott and Dwardu Cardona, both deeply influenced by Immanuel Velikovsky’s work, became leading figures in the post-Velikovsky catastrophist community. Through their own comparative studies of ancient myth and symbolism, they concluded that Velikovsky’s timing for the global catastrophes he described—especially those involving Venus and Mars—was about a millennium too late.

Velikovsky placed his major catastrophes, such as those described in Worlds in Collision, in the second millennium BC, often associating them with the Exodus and the end of Egypt’s Middle Kingdom2,5. By examining the deepest layers of myth, especially those surrounding the “Golden Age” and the universal monarch Saturn, Talbott and Cardona argued that the most profound global catastrophes remembered by ancient cultures occurred much earlier—at the very dawn of civilization, not in the historical era of Moses and the Exodus. They found that the symbolism and stories associated with Saturn, Venus, and Mars pointed to a period when Saturn was the dominant celestial body in the sky, an era memorialized as a “Golden Age” before the rise of the current solar order. This epoch, they argued, ended with a series of catastrophic events that predate Velikovsky’s timeline by centuries or even a full millennium.

Some of Velikovsky’s followers continue to favor dates for the Venus and Mars catastrophes close to the dates Velikovsky stated. Among these are Lynn Rose, Charles Ginenthal, Emmett Sweeney and Gunnar Heinsohn. See The Velikovskian.

THE SATURN MYTH

The Saturn Myth is Talbott’s major work, synthesizing years of research into ancient myth, symbolism, and comparative mythlogy6,8,9. Talbott contended that the “Great God” or “Universal Monarch” of ancient myth was not our current Sun, but the planet Saturn, which once loomed large and stationary in Earth’s sky, fixed at the celestial north6,8,9. He proposed a “polar configuration” in which Saturn, Venus, and Mars were visually aligned above Earth’s north pole, forming a spectacular and unique celestial arrangement. This configuration inspired the world’s earliest myths, symbols, and religious rites.

The end of this Saturnian era came with a series of cosmic upheavals—planetary encounters and electrical discharges—that shattered the old order. These events were remembered as battles of the gods and the fall of the Golden Age, and they catalyzed the birth of civilization as humans sought to commemorate and re-enact the lost order. Talbott demonstrated that a vast array of ancient symbols—the cosmic ship, island at the top of the world, eye of heaven, revolving temple, sun-wheels, holy mountains, crowns, and pillars—derive from direct observations of this extraordinary celestial arrangement, not from abstract imagination.

Talbott’s approach was to “take the ancients at their word,” interpreting their stories and symbols as records of real celestial events rather than mere allegory or metaphor6. He integrated evidence from multiple cultures, showing a remarkable coherence in their accounts of Saturn as the original sun and king of the gods. The Saturn Myth became a foundational text for the “Saturn theory” and the study of ancient planetary catastrophism, influencing later work in the fields of comparative mythology, alternative cosmology, and the Electric Universe community.

SHIFTING FOCUS ONTO MARS

Ev Cochrane became a key collaborator with David Talbott in the early 1980s after learning about Talbott’s “Saturn Thesis.” Cochrane first encountered Talbott’s work in 1981 and began corresponding with him soon after. Their collaboration was described as complementary and synergistic, with each pushing the other to deeper insights. They jointly explored the idea that ancient myths and symbols were eyewitness accounts of dramatic planetary events involving Saturn, Venus, and Mars1,3. Early on, their work centered on the “polar configuration” hypothesis—Saturn, Venus, and Mars visually aligned above Earth’s north pole, dominating the ancient sky. They published a series of articles in the mid-1980s presenting evidence for Venus’s comet-like history and its role in this configuration, well before the events described by Velikovsky in Worlds in Collision3.

Ev Cochrane became the publisher and editor of Aeon, a journal dedicated to comparative mythology, archaeoastronomy, and planetary catastrophism9. Under his editorship, Aeon became a leading platform for discussions and debates about the Saturn theory, planetary catastrophism, and the reinterpretation of ancient myth. Talbott’s The Saturn Myth (1980) argued that Saturn was the original “Universal Monarch” of ancient myth, the great god who ruled during the lost Golden Age7,10. Over time, Cochrane’s research began to emphasize the role of Mars. He argued that Mars was the archetypal “Warrior-Hero” and, in many myths, the true Universal Monarch, not Saturn. This shift is reflected in his book Martian Metamorphoses: The Planet Mars in Ancient Myth and Religion (1997), where he identifies Mars with legendary figures like Heracles, Gilgamesh, and Samson, and interprets global myth as a record of catastrophic events involving Mars6,11. Cochrane found that many of the most dramatic myths—those of cosmic battles, floods, and world-threatening chaos—centered on Mars rather than Saturn. See MaverickScience.com.

BIBLIOGRAPHY