I read this really great defense of Velikovsky's work (link below quotes) addressing in particular Carl Sagan's orchestrated attacks on his ideas, which have been the go-to for "deboonking" Velikovsky - I was just scanning through it when I found it online, without the intention of reading the whole thing, but it was utterly compelling and in the end I read the whole thing, and it was a great and informative read. Highly recommended, it backs up Velikovsky and exposes Sagan as a charlatan and a piece of shit:

Since the publication of Worlds in Collision, Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky's unconventional theories of the origin of the solar system have generated immense interest and bitter controversy. Chief among his critics has been the well-known astronomer, author and television personality, Dr. Carl Sagan, of Cornell University.

While brilliantly defending Velikovsky's work, Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky mercilessly dissects Sagan, his blatantly snide, dishonest and unprofessional 'arguments,' and exposes the sordid and unscientific side of 'scientific' controversy.

“Dr. Carl Sagan, a professor of astronomy from Cornell University, a well known public personality and writer of popular books of science, in 1974 at a symposium of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) delivered a paper, “An Analysis of Worlds in Collision“. This paper was later edited and presented in a book, Scientists Confront Velikovsky, published by Cornell University Press. The paper was further edited and presented in Sagan’s book Broca’s Brain, under the title “Venus and Dr. Velikovsky”. Sagan’s paper is a critique of Immanuel Velikovsky’s book Worlds in Collision.

“Having read Velikovsky, I also read Sagan’s paper; I thereafter discovered that a group of scientists and scholars had written critiques of Sagan’s analysis. After reading these criticisms I began a search of the literature and over a period of time I became convinced that Sagan’s critique lacked substance. Most surprising was the number of statements made by Sagan that proved to be clearly untrue. Further reading reinforced this discovery of the glaringly unscientific and unscholarly quality of Sagan’s paper. What was much worse, was that it was difficult to imagine that even Sagan was unaware of the misrepresentation of evidence presented as scholarly criticism by him and offered to the public.”

“.. the realization struck that Carl Sagan’s criticisms had been uncritically read by a wide audience. This was soon discovered to be the case among friends and relatives. Seemingly, they had all read Sagan’s side, but not Velikovsky’s. With little or no scientific background with which to judge, they had accepted Sagan’s word on all matters. It was then that I conceived the idea for this book. It is hoped that reading the other side will permit laymen to clarify the issues.”[1]

https://web.archive.org/web/20190620233119/http://immanuelvelikovsky.com/Svbasic.htm