It's one of those interdisciplinary theories that only experts can parse successfully. I read through Carl Sagan's critique of Velikovsky, and I have my doubts about both sides. Just this week, cosmology has been turned on its head because the comet that had a probe smash into it turned out not to be a big ball of ice. Some of Velikovsky's predictions proved to be true, but I think most of it has been debunked.
I think it's possible the Russians were keenly interested in Velikovsky, which is why they sent so many probes to Venus rather than Mars.
This particular side of Velikovsky had to do with his theory that Noah's flood was caused by the earth going through the tail of a comet and all the water precipitation that resulted, which is probably not the case.
All I can say is, I'm fascinated. The more I read, the more I learn. And I prefer to pick up both sides of a controversy before I come to any conclusions. Since I'm not a geologist nor cosmologist, it takes me longer.
I'm not scientist, but I've read enough rebuttal material because of my initial interest in his publications to now think that he was wrong.
Nothing wrong in floating new ideas. Einstein surely did. But let them sink or float based on their merits.
And largely, I think that is what has happened.