http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ mirrored file
   For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
  ==========================================================
I suppose I could be catty and ask, if Velikovsky did not feel he had to
credit Whiston and Donnelly with more than a brief mention at best, why
should Clube and Napier have felt obliged to mention Velikovsky?  After
all, they completely reject all of Velikovsky's proposed physical
mechanisms.  Their "giant comet" model is very different from Velikovsky's
Radlof-like wandering Venus.  They interpret mythological themes
differently from Velikovsky.  In fact, their approach to mythology is the
reverse of Velikovsky's.  Velikovsky built a physical model using history
and mythology as the basis.  Clube and Napier built a physical model and
then looked to history and mythology as partial support.  Clube and Napier
also proposed a different chronological reconstruction than Velikovsky's.
(In their later works, such as _Cosmic Winter_[7], it appears that Clube
and Napier no longer subscribe to the revised historical model they
proposed in the _Cosmic Serpent_.) Clube and Napier have also stated that
they were familiar with Bellamy[3], but not with Velikovsky, when they
devised the early versions of their giant comet model.  Nevertheless, in
the proper academic tradition, Clube and Napier credited Velikovsky as a
precursor even though their physical model owes nothing to him.  Would that
Velikovsky had done so!

pib