Beyond Velikovsky


First published December 13, 2018

In a recent paper on the Thunderbolts, I showed that Velikovsky is an untrustworthy source, being from the prominent Jewish families who have faked all of recent history. But I have been asked what this means for his theories. Does this mean he is completely wrong? Of course not. The modus operandi of these people is to tell as much truth as the project will bear, so the trick is to unwind the project, discovering where the truth ends and the misdirection begins.

I got back on this subject recently when I took a trip to visit my parents. I needed some light reading
material on the airplane, so I took along a paperback copy of Worlds in Collision. I wanted to reread it
now that I know what I know about Velikovsky and the Thunderbolts. I began very soon to see what
Velikovsky was up to. This is another “eyes-off” project, in which the audience is given a partial
reading of data to prevent them from a fuller reading. In this, it is much like the Titanic project we just
unwound a couple of months ago. There, author Robin Gardiner of the families admitted it involved
insurance fraud, but he wove a complex tale to keep you away from realizing how grand the fraud was,
and who was really involved. We saw that he was misdirecting your attention away from Lloyd’s of
London, John Jacob Astor, and many other parties. And he didn’t wish for you to figure out the truth:
the Titanic never sank at all. The whole story was faked from the ground—or the seafloor—up, as

With Velikovsky and Worlds in Collision, the main physical theory involves Venus settling into its
current orbit. Velikovsky claimed Venus had come into its present position recently, having a close
pass (or several) with the Earth which caused it to heat up. According to him, Venus was ejected from
Jupiter some time in the past few thousand years as a comet, intercepted the Earth’s orbit, had one or
more close passes or collisions with the Earth, and caused various historical upheavals, dark years, etc.
It then settled into its current position as a planet, carrying the heat of collision with it.

We now know this is both true and untrue. It is true that Venus is very hot, spinning the wrong
direction, and slowing its period of spin, indicating a fairly recent orbital change of a large kind. The
fact that Velikovsky predicted most of this (not the spin) just before it was discovered by the
mainstream is highly curious, and requires an unwinding. Also curious is that the mainstream still
buries the problem. Mainstream astronomers admit the data, but do not talk about what it must mean.
They do not admit it indicates Venus recently experienced a catastrophe of some sort—if not the
catastrophe of Velikovsky, then some other. Since Venus and her spin are still very round, we can rule
out an actual collision, but she may have had a close pass with an intruder—or the Earth.

However, what no one has pointed out is that Velikovsky is wrong about the source of Venus’ heat
regardless. As he admits, all planets have excess heat that is unexplainable by the mainstream. . .
Venus just has a lot more of it. I have shown in previous papers that this excess heat is explained by
the charge field, and planetary recycling of charge. Due to the bipolar nature of the field, all planets
pull in charge at both poles, but since part of this charge is upside down (spinning opposite) to the other
part, we get photon spin-ups—which are the same as a heat increase. It is a magnetic effect that creates
heat in a very simple way, as we have seen many times. See my paper on Period Four for my first full
explanation of it, as THROUGH CHARGE.

In the case of Venus, it is her opposite spin that is the cause of her heat. She exists in the charge field
of the Sun, which is mainly spinning left, say, while she is trying to spin right as a whole. Her entire
body is made up of atoms that are spinning right, while now recycling an ambient charge field that is
mainly spinning left. This is why her overall spin is slowing. I have predicted before that she must
slow her spin still further, and eventually reverse it. This is a natural outcome of her new position. She
cannot maintain an opposing spin in such a field, since the field is what causes spin to begin with. The
only reason she hasn’t already reversed is that reversing the spin of such a large body takes a very long
time. There is a lot of angular momentum that must be countered by the charge field, and the field
cannot just stop a body the size of Venus overnight.

Notice that Velikovsky’s explanation fails immediately, because if Venus had been heated to such a
degree by a collision or close pass with the Earth, the Earth should have been also. But instead of
several hundred degree temperature rises on the Earth, Velikovsky only shows some decades of
darkness and other fairly minor changes. Yes, to the people alive at the time they seemed catastophic,
but compared to temperature changes of hundreds of degrees, they were nothing.

So in fact it wasn’t Venus’ close pass to the Earth or other body that caused her new heat. It was that
she was flipped in the charge field, afterwards creating her heat by a sort of photon friction.
What this means is that both Velikovsky and the mainstream are wrong about the source of Venus’ heat.
The mainstream still tries to explain the heat as a function of the greenhouse effect and other heat
trapping, but the astonishing temperatures cannot possibly be explained that way. Certainly, heat
trapping by the heavy atmosphere adds to the temperature, but it cannot be the cause. In fact—as
Velikovsky correctly pointed out decades ago—an atmosphere as thick as that of Venus should act to
block heat coming from the Sun. This is why it is cooler on cloudy days and in the shade, you know.
Terrestrial clouds block some of the heat. Thicker Venusian clouds would block more heat, causing
lower temperatures, not higher. Also remember that Venus is so bright because her atmosphere is
reflecting huge amounts of visible light. Well, in the same way it must be reflecting in the infrared,
which is heat. This should short-circuit any greenhouse effect, since that effect requires heat coming in
from above. But according to my charge mechanism, the heat of Venus is actually coming up from
below and then being trapped by the atmosphere. Without that charge effect, the mainstream cannot
create enough heat coming from below to explain a surface temperature of 500oC, not with all the heat
trapping in the world.”


“Enter Velikovsky, who would first divulge a small part of the secret in a book geared to the popular
reader—one of those books with neon fonts on the cover and exclamation points and overstated titles.
While giving you the first level of information, he would be instructed to sex it up with lots of Bibical
references and wild speculation. This he had learned from his precursor Ignatius Donnelly, who in
1882 in Ragnarok had done much the same thing in related fields—divulging to the public a lot of good
data but then subtly blackwashing it by its context, presentation, author, and proposed results.
Donnelly was buried by mainstream science back then just as Velikovsky was buried 60 years later, and
this burying was no accident. It was part of the project. It acted to squelch discussion and research in
these fields for decades, especially in academia.

Why do you think so little attention has been given by mainstream astronomy and physics to the Venus question? Precisely because Velikovsky and the Thunderbolts have given it attention. Mainstream astronomers didn’t even want to use the same washroom as Velikovsky, and Carl Sagan was making sure of that up until the 1990s. Someone wanted to ensure you never got beyond Velikovsky.

Why? Because if you got beyond Velikovsky, you would be like me. You would be looking in your
rearview mirror at most mainstream science in all fields. Obviously, they couldn’t have that. To
maintain control of science, they had to keep everyone penned in the gravity-only, shut-up-and-calculate, Relativity/QED fog that defined the 20th century. If your average academic scientist had understood the charge field, the revolution would have been quick and fatal. All the big names at the top of all fields would have been guillotined, and their pet projects would have fallen with them—
including black holes, Big Bang, gravity waves, inflation, Higgs bosons, spooky forces, and all the rest.

Since this mainstream fraud not only hides many classified projects but also allows for billions in theft from worldwide treasuries, you have a pretty clear cui bono for any misdirecting projects like

Does this mean Velikovsky was wrong that historical events were caused by celestial events? Again,
no. I think he was wrong about the specifics, but right in general. I don’t think these events were
caused by Venus, and I have shown why her flipping must have come earlier. But they may well have
been caused by close passes of comets, asteroids, or meteors. In fact, I think the evidence he states
indicates many of the them probably were. Which makes it all the more surprising he didn’t propose
them instead of Venus as the cause. You should really ask yourself why—given objects in the sky that
looked like dragons with tails—he didn’t propose normal comets or asteroids* as the culprits, instead
coming up with this fanciful and unnecessarily complicated theory of Venus as a comet ejected from
Jupiter, reversing and making multiple passes. . . followed by Mars doing the same thing a few years
later. Doesn’t that seem suspicious on the face of it? Why would such a smart guy make such a hash
of it? I am telling you why: he was paid to do just that. This was another big blackwashing of the truth
and Velikovsky was another Anti. The ideas to be blackwashed were 1) charge, 2) serious reading of
historical texts as honest physical accounts, 3) “amateurs” as scientists, 4) the public as a serious player
in the history of science.

As far as 4) goes, the governors were tired of having to answer questions, about science funding or
anything else, so they wished to jettison any and all public participation in science, except as a prostrate
consumer. Before WW2 and especially before WW1 the public had maintained some education in
science. Consult old issues of Scientific American to get a taste of this. Back then, the magazines had
to treat their audiences with some respect, since those audiences had been partially educated. Those
same magazines can now treat their audiences as ninnies, since in almost all cases they are. They know
nothing but the current propaganda. Read back to back the first issue of Scientific American from 1845
and the latest issue, and you will have a capsule of the precipitous drop in intelligence of the average
American science reader—a drop planned and abetted over the past century and a half. ”



5 Responses to “Beyond Velikovsky”

  1. newensign says:

    Interesting post Pete, what Miles Mathis does not say is that Velikovsky plagiarised a lot of Comyns Beaumont’s work such as The Riddle Of Prehistoric Britain.

    • pete fairhurst 2 says:

      Thanks very much newensign much appreciated. Is that book worth reading? It sounds interesting after a quick google. But if you think that it is of dubious origin/intent then I won’t bother

  2. newensign says:

    There are other books by him as well. I just added it to the NE library in case you might want to read it Pete. Link: