According to Ralph Juergens:

Professor Bailey, taking exception to idea that his own work should be abandoned to accomodate anti-Velikovsky forces, prepared an article in rebuttal to Menzel's piece and submitted it to 'Harper's' for publication in same issue with Menzel's. Bailey had discovered a simple arithmetical error in Menzel's calculations, which invalidated his argument.

It is equally interesting to see how Harvard astronomer dealt with fact that most of Velikovsky's predictions had been confirmed. On radio emissions from Jupiter, he wrote that, since most scientists do not accept Velikovsky's theory then it follows that 'any seeming verification of Velikovsky's prediction is pure chance'. As far as high surface temperature of Venus is concerned, Menzel argued that 'hot is only a relative term'. Later in article he referred back to this statement saying 'I have already disposed of question of temperature of Venus'. Actually, in 1950, Menzel had estimated temperature of Venus to be about 120 degrees Fahrenheit when it is really more like 800 degrees. On extent of Earth's magnetic field, Menzel wrote that Velikovsky 'said it would extend as far as moon; actually field suddenly breaks off at a distance of several earth diameters'. In fact, Menzel was wrong; field had been detected as extending at least {Emphasis} twenty-two Earth radii a year earlier by 'Explorer' satellite.

To their credit, a few scientists did support Velikovsky against climate of hysteria and intimidation including Princeton's Professor H. H. Hess, who was later chairman of National Academy of Science's space board. In 1962, Princeton physicist Valentin Bargmann and Columbia astronomer Lloyd Motz wrote a joint letter to editor of 'Science' magazine calling attention to Velikovsky's priority in predicting Venus's high surface temperature, Jupiter's radio emissions and great extent of Earth's magnetosphere, but 'Science's' editor Dr Philip Abelson, was not interested in Velikovsky. Instead, he printed a letter from science fiction writer Paul Anderson satirising Velikovsky on grounds that science fiction writers and hoaxers also made fantastic predictions that were sometimes verified. When editor of 'Horizon' magazine wrote to Abelson protesting at exclusion of an article by Velikovsky, Abelson replied:

‘Velikovsky is a controversial figure. Many of ideas that he expressed are not accepted by serious students of earth science. Since my prejudices happen to agree with this majority, I strained my sense of fair play to accept letter by Bargmann and Motz, and thought that books were nicely balanced with rejoinder of Anderson.’ (4)

'Scientific American' showed that it had not moved on editorially since it ridiculed Wright Brothers fifty years earlier. The magazine had refused to carry advertising for 'Worlds in Collision' {Forwarded by Einstein I believe} and in 1956 it carried a strongly critical article by physicist Harrison Brown." (5)

One of reasons for this is fact that Velikovsky's Egyptian chronologies directly refute Biblical history. In fact he destroys whole time or calendrical premises of most history and shows how it is based on three pillars of ignorance. Errors accepted in one branch of academics are picked up by others and whole fiasco is a 'house of cards' with propaganda in mind. When I found his book 'Peoples of Sea' it was in fiction section of my local library while other stories and theories which have been proven false over and over again, are in reference or science sections.

"Do I need to spell it out to you? Spelvin is F-A-N-T-A-S-T-I-C." The dude "The layout was brilliant, difficulty good, but controllable. One of BEST word games I have seen to date." Mary Nixon