In 1950 Velikovsky claimed in Worlds ln Collision based on the testimony of
ancient peoples from all parts of the globe that Venus appeared in the
heavens as a giant, brilliant comet. From his analysis of this mythological
evidence Velikovsky drew the conclusion that Venus was a newborn planet in the early cool-down stage of its development. Therefore, if his understanding of the evidence was correct, then Venus should exhibit all the conditions of a world that was very recently molten over its entire surface. It should be stupendously volcanic and display immense volcanic structures over every region of the planet.
In 1983 Lawrence Colin of NASA's Ames Research Center stated in a highly
regarded volume Venus published by the University of Arizona with 69
"Let us now consider a survey of Venus concerning the available facts and
theories existing in 1961, prior to the first spacecraft launch one year
later ... The prevailing theories led to qualitative descriptions of Venus
which may be gathered into seven broad categories:
1. Moist, swampy, teeming with life or,
2. Warm, enveloped by a global carbonic acid ocean, or,
3. Cool, Earth-like, surface water, dense
4. Warm, massive precipitating clouds of water droplets, intense
5. Cold, polar regions with 10 km-thick ice caps, hot equatorial region
far above H20 boiling point, or,
6. Hot, dusty, dry, windy, global desert, or, 7. Extremely hot, cloudy, molten lead and zinc puddles at equators, seas of bromine, sulfuric acid, phenols at the poles.
"From this list it is not obvious that scientists were even talking about the
same planet in 1961. For those who are impatient for the outcome, speculation(6) appears to represent most closely what we now think Venus ls like.
That is, in 1983 and beyond, the scientific establishment maintained that
Venus was a hot dusty, dry windy desert. Reinforcing this sixth option,
Ernest J. Opik, the internationally known astronomer of Armagh Observatory in Northern Ireland stated, "The modern picture of Venus ... [is] a borderless desert extending over an area one hundred times that of the Sahara ... [The] Sahara itself would appear a paradise compared with the dry suffocating dust storms raging behind the brilliant deceitful face of the Evening Star."
Nowhere was it ever suggested by establishment scientists that Venus would be found to be immensely volcanic covered by immense lava flows. In fact as recent as 1989, Isaac Asimov, the late popular science writer, admitted:
"For years astronomers had believed that Venus was a geologically dead place.Although quakes, volcanoes and other activity surely wracked the planet at one time, it seemed certain that Venus was quiet today."
Therefore, if Velikovsky's analysis of the ancient testimony is correct, the
observations by the Magellan spacecraft should not only contradict the
previous models of the Venusian surface, but should also show overwhelming evidence of recent stupendous volcanism on a surface that appears to be pristine.
David Harry Grinspoon describes what Magellan spacecraft observations of Venus actually revealed:
"Perhaps the most striking feature of the Venusian landscape in the prevalence of volcanism. About 80 percent of the surface is made up of volcanic terrain ranging from the curiously familiar to the downright bizarre. Hundred-mile wide, gently sloping volcanoes, similar in appearance to the shield volcanoes of Hawaii abound on Venus; their flanks are covered with numerous overlapping lava flows, the most recent of which appear to have erupted only yesterday. Smaller, flat-topped 'pancake domes' have formed where more viscous lava has
been squeezed up through the crust. Huge areas of the planet are covered with flat voluminous and almost featureless lava flows. Thin meandering channels are visible, some extending for thousands of miles ... The channels on Venus, however, are thought to be volcanic in origin ..."