Robomatic you could be responded to on many levels, but I will try to be very brief.
1)Conventional geology adheres to the priciple of Uniformitarianism whereas Velikovsky advocated catastrophism. The extinction of the dinosaurs was a catastrophe, as was the formation of the Witswaterand by the Vredefort impact crater. There are roughly 170 major impact structures recognised and in the deep ocean no one knows.
The science is overwhelming that catastrophes do occur. The presence of craters, nano diamonds and the shocked quartz varieties of coesite and stishovite supports the view impacts were responsible.
So on that score Velikovsky was ahead of his time. He was ridiculed for both the events and the causative agent. It seems meteorites were responsible, not planets(I hesitate to be too emphatic about that because smug certainty can be later disproved)

2)Hamlets Mill, An Essay Investigating the Origins of Human Knowledge and Its Transmission Through Myth by Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha von Dechend ,is a nonfiction work of history and comparative mythology, particularly the subfield of archaeoastronomy
It is also a very thought provoking book. A partial summary would say that it makes the case that Ancient man had a fixation on the Heavens, and especially the Zodiac. Certain numbers concerning periodicity crop up in many myths worldwide and are repeated in architecture of ancient sites.. Why would so much time be wasted tracking precession. Why so many stories about world ages. Did they know something about periodicity that we do not? After all the oort cloud can slingshot nasty surprises into potential earth crossing orbits.
3)Alexander Thom an Oxford engineering professor was ridiculed for insisting sites such as Stonehenge were laid out with high precision, by use of a megalithic yard. The precision is accepted(now) but the megalithic yard is still disputed.
4)Conventional archeology seems very straitjacketed and unable to accept new Ideas. For me it was beautifully summed up by the BBC program Timeteam. Each time an object was found that they could not explain it was automatically labelled a ritual object.
5)People such as Velikovsky, Von Daniken and Graham Hancock are vital.
They challenge the existing paradigm and make all manner of embarrassing challenges. That is healthy. Unfortunately peer pressure makes cowards and funding can make science political.
Science from the left field, not surprisingly, is very sinister and academics automatically reject it, often without even studying the supporting evidence.