You are too polite. I would say that scientific dogmatism is the poison which holds us back for so many years. Scientists afraid to challenge existing ideas are worth nothing. At all. If Velikovsky could unearth such facts by analyzing... myths, imagine what a truly dedicated astronomer could do with the proper resources.
One of my motivations for writing was the belief that we should be able to uncover a specific fact (or set of facts) that would tip the controversy, either in Velikovsky's favor or against him. I don't claim to have done that, although I do think I've opened some additional windows of consideration.
To me, it's a really interesting circumstance that so many varied factors could each teeter on the fulcrum of ambiguity for so many decades. I understand that there can be multiple viewpoints on an issue that seems, at least outwardly, to be ambiguous.