I don't know what you make of this site but at http://saturniancosmology.org/other.php … the web site host takes a swipe at alternative catastrophist theories, all the while maintaining it is credible to think in terms of a Saturnian scenario. Keeping a straight face is the secret I suppose.
He begins by having a pop at Phil Burns, one of the more feet on the ground catastrophists who is apparently sceptical of reconstructions of the solar system based on mythology and reinterpretations of that mythology, which of course includes, most pertinently, the Saturnian scenario.
Okay, that gets him out of the way, no point in looking at it from a common sense angle I suppose, and he then breezes through a selection of catastrophist authors and debunks them one by one. They include Zecharia Sitchin, Planet X, von Daniken, Allan and Delair, Bauval and Gilbert, and Alfred de Grazia. The latter is something of a surprise but he chooses to take aim at one of his books, Solaria Binaria (1984) and the concept of the solar system once having a binary star.
Next the web site takes aim at Patten and Windsor's 'The Mars-Earth Wars' (1996) noting the authors are physical scientists and engineers, and therefore not as dullardly as others. Like Velikovsky the authors swallowed the mainstream view of comets as dirty snowballs and were therefore incapable of causing major catastrophic events. Like Velikovsky they sought to get the same effect from planets on errant orbits – or orbits that differ from today. The web site criticism of Patten and Windsor seems to mainly involve the fact they concentrate on the Mars events and ignore previous celestial history. Why that is a problem I don't know as the previous celestial history is as Phil Burns says derived from a credulous reinterpretation of mythology and is all in the heads of the people behind the web site.
Next, they take a poke at John Ackerman (1996 and 2000) who wrote two books on the catastrophic history of the Earth which again involves repeated meetings of the Earth with the orbits of Mars and Venus, along the lines of Velikovsky but involving his interpretation of Vedic mythology.
Lastly, he arrives at Clube and Napier's 'snake' (the Cosmic Serpent, 1982) and this amounts to the shortest critique (which must tell us something about the web site itself). They say it 'attempts' to suggest ancient catastrophes were caused by meteor streams (and comets) when in reality the book takes the planets out of catastrophism and replaces them with comets (and their bits and pieces). He admits they are astronomers but accuses them of ineptitude when it comes to antiquity (ancient history) and mythology (which is like accusing somebody of something you are doing yourselves). They are particularly inept as astronomers, they continue, which appears to mean they don't like the idea of a bit of cold water splashed on the idea of errant planets bouncing around the solar system. He refers the reader to www.contrarybooks.com/clube.php which appears to be a sceptical review of The Cosmic Serpent. Their other book, The Cosmic Winter is not mentioned, or the numerous articles published in academic journals and in SIS Review are all ignored – or their participation in various conferences and meetings including the second SIS Cambridge Conference. It seems that former Velikovskians are well and truly divided and never will be brought together. Amen.