>>10841903It's fine. I wouldn't be shitposting on /pol/ if something like that bothers me.
If you want to talk about them, I gave them all a look, and none of them are really "sources" for any of the stuff mentioned by Captain Contract or whoever that was.
>Velilskovsky bookImmanuel Velikovsky has several books, but I'm assuming you're mentioning his most popular "Worlds in Collision." In Velikovsky's own words, the book isn't history or even a theory on what happened. It is cosmological story made from using various myths and folklore to piece together an epic of planetary events. The stuff within the book is incredibly unscientific, for example Venus was ejected out of Jupiter towards the Sun yet mysteriously slows down when it gets close to Earth and just hangs out there before drifting onward to its usual orbit. Then Mars gets close to Earth and then goes back for no reason,. That isn't how space or gravity works. It's just a story element.
>Michael Talbot's Saturn MythThis one invalidates the previous by saying Earth was a Saturn moon, which was ejected and unsettled Mars and Venus. Talbot also admits he got the idea from Velilskovsky, not any science.
>Sagan' paper on ancient aliensFrom your own link,
>The paper explores models for the distribution of technical civilizations in the galaxy. Using Frank D. Drake's equation to suggest that 0.001 percent of stars in the sky have a planet on them on which an advanced civilization resides. Sagan suggests the nearest such advanced civilization is several hundred light years away from earth. From there, Sagan explores the feasibility of interstellar spaceflight as a means for traversing such distances. The paper ends in consideration of the possibility of extraterrestrial contact with Earth in the past.I'm using the description because the text itself is illegible (pic related). This paper isn't claiming anything said is real or happened, Sagan is exploring how things might be if Drake's equation was true.
