Krakatoa

Published June 9, 2010

Krakatoa, the Indonesian volcano that erupted so violently in 1883, produced many recorded effects that are frequently used as yardsticks when discussing the possible consequences of similar events in the past, particularly the second millennium BC destruction of Thera, a leading contender in the Atlantis stakes. The Krakatoan eruption had a detrimental effect on global climates for some years.

However, this was not the first time that the eruption of Krakatoa had calamitous global consequences. David Keys (image below), an archaeological journalist, details the effects of an eruption of Krakatoa in 534/5 AD, in his book, Catastrophe^[1330]. This book was the subject of a documentary on the UK’s Channel Four^(d⁾. A few years before his book was published Keys wrote an article entitled: Comet may have caused catastrophe on Earth^(e⁾, in which he dismissed a volcanic eruption as the cause of the 6th century crop failures, plagues, wars, social unrest and widespread deaths, yet his subsequent book advocates^[p.269] a massive eruption of Krakatoa as the culprit. Around the same time, Mike Baillie was about to publish his Exodus to Arthur ^[⁰¹¹¹^] in which he argued

David Keys

strongly that the mid-6th century range of catastrophes were caused by a cometary impact. Five years later, Baillie co-authored, with Patrick McCafferty, another book linking comets with Irish mythology, The Celtic Gods, in which they point out that Keys’ proposed huge eruption has not been reflected in any of the various Greenland ice cores in the form of a volcanic-acid spike^[⁰¹¹²^.164]!

This debate regarding the cause of the global catastrophes in the mid-6th century would appear to be far from over. A 2015 report^(f⁾ suggests that a series of North American volcanic eruptions in 536 AD had such a detrimental effect on the climate of Europe that it contributed to the final demise of the Roman Empire. Furthermore, there is now evidence^(g⁾ that the eruption of the El Chicon volcano in Southern Mexico around 540 AD led to the disruption of the Maya civilisation. Matthew Toohey from the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel, Germany, has suggested the possibility of a double event!

Early in the 19^thcentury the eruption of Tambora, also in Indonesia, was even more powerful⁽^a⁾. However, the most violent eruption of the last two million years also took place in Indonesia 74,000 years ago, when Mt. Toba erupted with devastating consequences for the Indian sub-continent and further afield^(b⁾. The Toba caldera is now Lake Toba.

>The devastation caused by the Toba eruption led some, such George Weber and the author of Supervolcano ^[2085], John Savino, to propose that the event created a genetic evolutionary bottleneck. Although a number of articles^(c⁾ in recent years have supported the ‘bottleneck’ theory that led to the near extinction of humans, the idea has been strongly opposed in other quarters^(h⁾.<

The Theran eruption was equivalent to the 19^th century Krakatoa event when measured according to a volcanic explosivity index (VEI), based on quantitative criteria, as discussed in Walter Friedrich’s book on Thera^[⁴²⁸^]. Within a decade, the explosivity figure for Thera was reassessed by Professor Floyd McCoy of the University of Hawaii, who has written and broadcast extensively on the matter of the Late Bonze Age eruption of Thera. This included a paper delivered to the 2005 Atlantis Conference. In it, he noted that “New finds of tephra – ash and pumice – both on land and on the seafloor indicate a far larger eruption than previously assumed, suggesting a volume of at least 100 km3 of tephra (bulk volume) ejected, perhaps more. Such a volume ranks the eruption on the Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI) at 7.0, equivalent or larger than the 1815 eruption of Tambora (‘the year without a summer’), ten times larger than the eruption of Krakatau in 1883, and approximately 100 times that of Mt. St. Helens in 1980.” ^[629.311]

When we watched the 20^th century eruption of Mt. St. Helens or the Montserrat volcanoes on our televisions, it gave no real notion of the incredible power of these events or the absolute terror that was experienced by those living close by.

⁽^a⁾ https://www.volcanodiscovery.com/tambora.html

^(b⁾ https://creativesystemsthinking.wordpress.com/2014/10/24/did-humans-almost-die-out-70000-years-ago/

^(c⁾ How Human Beings Almost Vanished From Earth In 70,000 B.C. | Wade Harold Johnson – Canadian Novelist/Poet (whjohnson.ca) *

^(d⁾ https://www.davidkeys.co.uk/davids-documentaries/ (Link broken Nov. 2018)

^(e) https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/comet-may-have-caused-catastrophe-on-earth-collision-of-celestial-body-gaining-support-as-likely-1416079.html

^(f) https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36086096

^(g) https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/283466/volcanoes-hastened-fall-of-the-roman-empire

^(h⁾ Toba catastrophe theory – Wikipedia *

Tagged Atlantis Conference 2005, David Keys, El Chicon, Floyd McCoy, George Weber, Greenland ice cores, John Savino, Krakatoa, Matthew Toohey, Maya, Mike Baillie, Montserrat, Mt. St. Helens, Mt. Toba, Patrick McCafferty, Roman Empire, Tambora, Thera, Toba, Walter Friedrich

Velikovsky, Immanuel

Published May 22, 2010

Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979) was born in what is now Belarus. He was by profession a doctor of medicine, specialising in psychiatry. However, his fame is based on being arguably the most controversial catastrophist of the 20^th century. He daringly proposed that the Earth had several close encounters with other planetary bodies that resulted in catastrophic consequences, including interference with the rotation of our planet. He speculated that Atlantis was probably destroyed during one of these cataclysmic events.^[⁰³⁷^][⁰³⁸^]

John Kettler is an American writer on alternative science and was a frequent contributor to Atlantis Rising magazine. In issue #30^(z) of that publication, he reviewed the disgusting manner in which members of the scientific community endeavoured to prevent the publication of Velikovsky’s books. In order to give you the full flavour of the nastiness of their methods, I add three paragraphs here.

“The scientific and academic reaction to the book (Worlds in Collision) was generally presaged by the extortion practised prior to and after publication against the Macmillan Company. As the book began to garner public and in some circles, even scientific interest and acclaim, all pretence of genteel discussion went by the boards. Out came the mailed fists, the naked threats and oceans of mud and offal. The attacks targeted three main groups: the public, the scientific and academic community, and Immanuel Velikovsky himself. Nor were such niceties as actually reading the book before denouncing it and its author employed.

Even before the Macmillan Company published the book, renowned astronomer Harlow Shapley arranged multiple intellectual well poisonings by an astronomer, a geologist, and an archaeologist, not one of whom had read the book, in a learned journal. This was a pattern used over and over again.

Shapley and his minions also engineered the sacking of the veteran senior editor (25 years at the Macmillan Company) who accepted Worlds in Collision for publication and got the director of the famous Hayden Planetarium fired for the high crime of proposing to mount a display there, on Velikovsky’s unique cosmological theory. Meanwhile, Velikovsky was systematically attacked in the scientific journals, via distortion, lies, misrepresentation, incompetence and ad hominem attacks, while there never seemed to be space in which he could reply, in order to defend himself.” J. Douglas Kenyon included Kettler’s revealing essay in Forbidden History ^[802.53].

Some have seen the influence of Ignatius Donnelly’s Ragnarok, written seventy years earlier, in Velikovsky’s cosmic collision theories. Some commentators have noted how Velikovsky seemed reluctant to credit earlier writers, such as W. C. Beaumont and Johann Radlof (1775-1846)^(b)[^1438], with their contributions to the development of the theory of planetary catastrophism. Rens Van Der Sluijs has written an interesting two-part paper^(d)(e) listing the catastrophists who preceded Velikovsky demonstrating a certain lack of originality on his part! Others take a more critical view of his ideas^(g). In 1950, he responded to this criticism with a defensive piece⁽ⁿ⁾, but I consider it inadequate as he continued to ignore the work of Radlof and Beaumont. Some years ago Ev Cochrane and Phil ‘Pib’ Burns also discussed Velikovsky’s reluctance to credit earlier writers for ideas used by him, compared with the recognition given by Clube & Napier to the work of Velikovsky^(x).

Van Der Sluijs has written a two-part^(k)(l) article on Velikovsky’s radical views regarding Venus as a comet-like body and how Aztec sources support some of his contentions.

Carl Sagan (1934-1996), was a well-known American astronomer, author and lecturer. He is considered a leading debunker of Velikovsky’s theories. He devoted much of his Broca’s Brain ^[¹⁶⁶²^] to this end. Charles Ginenthal (1934-2017) produced an extensive rebuttal of Sagan’s criticisms in Carl Sagan & Immanuel Velikovsky ^[¹⁴⁸⁵^]. However, criticism of Velikovsky continues with varying degrees of ferocity, such as that of Leroy Ellenberger, a former supporter of Velikovsky, who contends that the data from the Greenland ice cores fail to support Velikovsky^(s).

Velikovsky and Einstein were acquaintances and as Nathaniel Lloyd wrote in his three-part blog on chronological revisionism^(y) that when Velikovsky “asked Einstein to read his work and give an opinion. Einstein suggested that Velikovsky might have a hard time finding a publisher, specifically because “every sensible physicist” would realize that the catastrophes Velikovsky described would have completely destroyed the Earth’s crust. Nevertheless, Einstein was kind about his criticism, and Velikovsky was undeterred. But years later, in Einstein’s very last interview, his opinion was less delicate: ‘It really isn’t a bad book,’ he said, laughing. ‘The only trouble with it is, it is crazy’.”

More recently, Paul Dunbavin, author of Towers of Atlantis ^[¹⁶²⁷^], has published a paper^(r), entitled Catastrophism without Velikovsky, which is highly critical of Velikovsky’s work.

Velikovsky was initially inclined to link the disappearance of Atlantis with the eruption of Thera but later came to support a location between the Azores and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge⁽ⁱ⁾. He was an early questioner of Plato’s figure of 9,000 years for the age of Atlantis, suggesting that it was exaggerated by a factor of ten^[0037.152]. ”Whatever the source of the error, the most probable date of the sinking of Atlantis would be in the middle of the second millennium, 900 years before Solon when the earth twice suffered great catastrophes as a result of ‘the shifting of the heavenly bodies.’ These words of Plato received the least attention, though they deserved the greatest.”

Velikovsky offered intriguing evidence that on at least one occasion the early Egyptians experienced the sun rising in the west and set in the east^(q⁾!

His other major contribution was in his questioning of the accepted Bronze Age chronologies of the eastern Mediterranean^[⁰³⁹^]. Later writers, such as David Rohl and Peter James have built on his chronology work, while Gary Gilligan has added support for Velikovsky’s planetary theories^[1385] as well. Others have accused Velikovsky of being over-dependent on his belief in the inerrancy of biblical chronology.

In a recent (2023) paper^(ac). on the Academia.edu website, Donald Keith Mills was highly critical of Velikovsky’s research on the Hyksos and Amalakites in Ages in Chaos. Mills had earlier written critically of Velikovsky’s Worlds in Collision^(ab).

“In Ages in Chaos, Velikovsky made numerous detailed claims which he supported by footnote references to his sources. Those sources were of two kinds: those that would be easily available to most of his readers, such as the Bible and the works of Josephus; and those that would be difficult or impossible for most readers to access, including technical journals and the works of medieval Arabian, Persian, and Egyptian writers.

“Access to such materials began to change in the late 20th Century, and I have been able to download almost all of Velikovsky’s “Arabic” sources from the Internet Archive Digital Library (https://archive.org/ ), together with some he didn’t explicitly use. Those original sources, in the same editions as he cited, revealed that his uses of allusions, references, and quotations often failed to agree with what the sources actually said.”

“Repeatedly, when faced with conflicting accounts of pre-Islamic (and essentially prehistoric) events, Velikovsky selected only those that met his purposes. The damaging aspect of this criticism is the fact that, almost without exception, he did so without discussing the alternatives, without providing reasons for rejecting them, and without even acknowledging their existence.“

One website⁽^a⁾provides us with a considerable amount of Velikovsky’s unpublished work, while another offers an encyclopedia of his work⁽^c⁾. A more general German site^(f), in English, is also worth a visit.

The three of Velikovsky’s most popular books as well as some of his lesser-known papers are available as pdf files^(j)(m).

Jan Sammer was an assistant to Velikovsky (1976-1978) and an archivist and editor for the Velikovsky Estate (1980-1983). He advises us that he was involved in the completion of Velikovsky’s unpublished book, In the Beginning^(h), which was eventually published in 2020 ^[^1956]. The book’s contents were originally intended to be part of Worlds in Collision. In it, you will find more details of Velikovsky’s claim that within the memory of man, there was a time when we had no Moon, which he claimed was subsequently ‘captured’ by the Earth. He wrote a short paper in 1973 entitled Earth without a Moon and published by the editors of Pensée in Velikovsky Reconsidered ^[^1877.86], but without any reference to Hanns Hörbiger.

According to Velikovsky, Venus was a relatively recent newcomer to our Solar System and the orbit of Mars had been disturbed, which would suggest that before the arrival of Venus, Bode’s Law would have been invalidated! C.J. Ransom tackled this head-on in The Age of Velikovsky ^[1880.90]. However, his defence of Bode and Velikovsky was rejected by Dr M. M. Nieto^(t⁾.

In 2012, Laird Scranton, published The Velikovsky Heresies^[1642], in which he reviews Velikovsky’s controversial theories in the light of scientific discoveries since his death. Not unexpectedly, Scranton does find evidence that supports some of Velikovsky’s contentions.

Ralph E. Juergens, an American engineer, supported Velikovsky with the idea that electromagnetic and electrostatic forces and not conventional celestial mechanics alone were responsible for the cosmic encounters witnessed and recorded by our ancestors^(u⁾.

In the late 1990s Sean Mewhinney (1944-2016), a Canadian researcher published a series of papers^(w)that was highly critical of Velikovsky’s theories. Much of his criticism was focused on ice-core data. Once again, Charles Ginenthal took up the challenge, responding with an extensive paper entitled Minds in Denial, later the title of an ebook ^[^1897] that include the original paper. Ginenthal also published a book on the Electro-Gravitic Theory of Celestial Motion and Cosmology and its possible application to Velikovsky’s theories^(v⁾.

In 2021, Bob Forrest⁽^aa⁾, a British retired mathematics teacher had re-published a book of over 700 pages entitled Velikovsky’s Sources, which deals with Worlds in Collision. It had been originally issued as a series of seven booklets between 1981 and 1985. These have now been combined in one volume and edited by Donald Keith Mills and available on the Academia.edu website⁽^ab⁾. The content is a critique of Velikovsky’s work and now forty years later Forrest still believes “that Velikovsky was spectacularly wrong.”

Some readers may wish to see a video by Wallace Thornhill, of Electric Universe fame, in which he discusses Velikovsky’s Astrophysics^(o). There are several related papers and books, including some Velikovskian material, freely available online^(p).

>We are also fortunate to have a biography of Velikovsky’s eventful life published in 2010 by his daughter, Ruth Velikovsky Sharon ^[2048].<

⁽^a⁾ https://www.varchive.org/

⁽^b⁾https://www.mythopedia.info/radlof.htm

^(c)https://www.velikovsky.info/Main_Page

^(d) https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2013/01/22/on-the-shoulders-of-suppressed-giants-part-one-2/

^(e) https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2013/01/23/on-the-shoulders-of-suppressed-giants-part-two-2/ ^(f) http://www.velikovsky.de/en/velikovsky.html

^(g) See: https://web.archive.org/web/20180305142157/https://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/velidelu.html

^(h) https://www.varchive.org/itb/tnote.htm

⁽ⁱ⁾ https://www.varchive.org/ce/baalbek/atlantis.htm

^(j) https://www.pdfarchive.info/index.php?pages/Ve

^(k) https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2016/12/19/smoke-without-fire-part-one/

^(l) https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2016/12/21/smoke-without-fire-part-two/