Robert sent in a couple of links. The first one concerns volcanism on the moon – see https://www.livescience.com/china-rover-moon-volcanism … was the moon’s surface molten far more recently than scientists imagine? Robert goes on to quote Velikovsky in Pensee 2:2 [1972], refers to the exterior of the lunar rocks, and that Thomas Gold had discussed Apollo 11 observations of remarkable glazing on the surface of the moon. Or at least, close to where their spaceship landed. Gold assumed it was caused by a grand solar outburst in geologically recent time – less than 30,000 years ago. We might extend that nowadays to 40,000 years ago. Velikovsky, of course, had a different view. He suggested it was even more recent than Gold and was down to the events described in Worlds in Collision.
The same study, above, claims volcanoes were still erupting on the moon one billion years ago. It had nothing directly to do with lunar glazing, or more recent activity. However, the time scale is entirely uniformitarian in nature, so Robert is simply saying that such dates may not be as old as mainstream insists. That is a long way out from Velikovsky’s Mars flybys so we are still left in limbo concerning the glazed rocks – and what caused them.
Robert’s second link is to https://www.livescience.com/duck-billed-dinosaur-cliques … which seems to refer to young adult Hadrosaurs that are said to have struck out from the main herd and were engulfed as a single group [of four or five animals]. Why would they have struck out on their own as they are one feature of a bone bed. Robert says, quite rightly, that bone beds usually consist of hundreds, if not thousands of disarticulated bones of land and marine animals, as well as plants. They reflect a mass kill event. Why are a few bodies of Hadrosaurs taken out of context, he asks? As part of a bone bed they do not represent a pre-existing past environment. On the other hand, that is not necessarily so if the bone bed just consisted of those few Hadrosaurs. The Live Science article is ambiguous as far as that is concerned. Logic would say it was an extension of a much larger bone bed – which is ignored in the paleontological explanation. If so, what is the point of pretending the mass kill event did not occur? Who benefits from obfuscating the evidence? Obviously, that is the mainstream mantra of uniformitarianism, and its teachers [at schools and in universities]. Anyone with no skin in the game can see a bone bed as a graveyard – formed suddenly by a natural disaster of some kind. You don’t have to embrace Velikovsky or any of his ideas in Worlds in Collision or Earth in Upheaval. It is simply an obvious observation.