From this reading of the scenario, then, the “Flood” itself appears to be yet another example of the “Unified Intention of Symbol,” since many such planetary- and regional-wide floods appear to be in view: (1) the Flood on Mars that resulted from the explosion of “Tiamat-Krypton” and, as the shock wave traveled further, similar damage to Earth; (2) subsequently the regional floods that recurred periodically on the Earth. The same would apply for the “Noah motif found especially in Sumerian and biblical literature. However, an interesting distinction between the two should be noted.
It is often pointed out by biblical scholars and Sumerologists that there is a clear similarity between the biblical story of Noah and that of the Sumerian flood epic and its heroes Utnapishtim and Gilgamesh. But there is an important distinction that might indicate that these two stories are referring to different floods: the Sumerian account clearly contains a reference to its heroes being able to view the entire Earth from a point in space above it, and this implies a space-faring technology. Thus, the Sumerian account might be referencing a “Noah” episode that concerns a planet other than the Earth, one that was concussed by a sudden planet-wide flood. The best candidate, of course, is Mars. The Biblical account, conversely, is squarely set on the Earth exclusively. While there are similarities in the accounts, therefore, it is my belief that they refer to separate events, or perhaps to a Space/Mars-based frame of reference as distinct from an Earth-based frame of reference for the same event. One might, in this case also, be in the presence once again of the Unified Intention of Symbol. In either case, if one is positing a sophisticated ancient society of this interplanetary nature, with a physics sufficient to fight a war and wreak destruction on a planetary scale, one is also positing a civilization with a sophistication sufficient to the genetic manipulations suggested by those same texts. In this light, the “ark” would appear to be less a boat packed with adult animals, than it would a container of DNA samples.
With these ideas in mind, we may now turn our attention to the planets themselves, seeking confirming clues that they may once have been the homes of a long-lost, advanced civilization, and the battlefields of a very ancient, cosmic war.
PART THREE:
EXTERNAL EVIDENCES: THE EARTH, THE MOON, MARS, AND SATURN
“Cremo and Thompson ’s central proposition is that the model of human prehistory, carefully built-up by scholars over the past two centuries, is sadly and completely wrong. Moreover, the authors are not proposing that it can be put right with minor tinkering and adjustments. What is needed is for the existing model to be thrown out the window and for us to start again with open minds and with absolutely no preconceptions at all. ”
Graham Hancock, from the Foreword to Michael A. Cremo’s and Richard L. Thompson’s The Hidden History of the Human Race, p. xiii.
13.
THE MYSTERIOUS MOON
“Earth not only has a satellite, but it is a giant satellite, 2,160 miles in diameter. Amazing. ”
Isaac Asimov591
“The Moon is the only thing that gives me a headache.”
Sir Isaac Newton
In order to corroborate the scenario of cosmic war suggested by the ancient traditions, it is necessary to examine the planetary systems on which it was alleged to occur or with which it was connected, for corroborative evidence. This evidence would of necessity have to be artifacts suggesting an artificial, intelligent origin, implying a civilization to construct it. Moreover, this evidence would also of necessity have to suggest the type of destruction associated with a war, and with the types of scalar, plasma, and nuclear types of weapons that those texts suggest.
Our focus here is, obviously, the Moon. Many people state that they have never seen a UFO. But, as we shall see, one of the most unexplained “flying objects” in the skies over our heads is precisely the Moon. It is, in a way, the largest, most obvious flying saucer, and by the same token it is therefore also the largest, most blatant challenge to the assumptions of “normal science” and the various paradigms of explanation and the models it engenders, for almost nothing about the Moon makes any sense if viewed from the standpoint of those very same paradigms and models. Our concentration will be on five principle areas of data: (1) How did it Get There? (2) LTPs, or Lunar Transient Phenomena, (3) Shards, Cuspids, and Towers versus “Incessant Meteoric Bombardment,” (4) its ability to “ring like a bell” and its implications, and finally (5) Strange Possibilities of Deliberate Destruction.
A. How Did It Get There?
The most obvious difficulty that the Moon presents is simply its presence, since by any reckoning it is just too massive for such a small parent planet as the Earth. This has prompted a variety of models to explain its origin, which may be reduced to two broad theories: the “planetary fission” model and the “capture” model.
1. The Planetary Fission Model
One theory, favored in the pre-Apollo era, was that the Moon and the Earth “fissioned” or split apart in the early years of the planets’ formation, with the Moon emerging from what is now the Pacific basin, and settling into its current orbit. This would entail enormous difficulties of celestial mechanics that simply pile up too many coincidences. For example, the Moon exists in a nearly perfect circular orbit around the Earth, an orbit that, moreover, allows only about 60% of the Moon’s surface — the same side — to be visible from the Earth, even though the Moon, like the Earth, rotates around its own axis. Additionally, the Moon exists at the precise distance from the Earth that allows it to totally eclipse the Sun. A “fission” model would, moreover, imply that the Moon’s orbital mechanics around the Earth would of necessity be rather more elliptical than they are.
But there is a final difficulty, one that proved fatal to the “fission” model after the first Apollo Moon landings returned with rocks from our celestial neighbor. For the fission model to be true, the age of rocks on the Moon would have to be of similar antiquity to the Earth itself, yet rocks and soil were discovered on the Moon that were some billions of years older. The oldest rocks found on Earth are some 3.7 billions of years old, while rocks returned from the Apollo missions dated from 4.3 to 4.6 billions of years old, while one rock even dated to some 5.3 billions of years old. This fact is made the more curious because the area of the Moon from whence they originated was thought to be one of the geologically youngest on that planet!
2. The Capture Model
With the death of the “fission” model, scientists were led to posit a “capture” model for its origin. In one version of this theory, the Earth and the Moon evolved into their current double-planet system from the same primordial space dust in the early formative years of the solar system. However, for this model to be true the age of rocks from the two planets would again have to be similar, and here again, the Apollo moon rocks simply exhibited too great of an age disparity for this model to be correct.
This led to the second, and now regnant, theory of “capture” to be adopted. According to this theory, the Moon was “captured” by the Earth’s gravity as it wandered too close, and became a permanent satellite of the Earth.
The problem with this model is, once again, the physics simply does not work, for in addition to piling up all the previously mentioned mechanical “coincidences” a further problem is encountered. This is the idea of “capture” itself, a phenomenon used, in fact, by the Russian and European space agencies, and by NASA itself, in launching deep space probes to the other planets of the solar system. Using another planet’s gravity well, these probes are steered close enough to these planets to “slingshot” them to even more distances. As the probes enter a planet’s gravitational attraction, they accelerate and thus slingshot by the planet, able to gain speed for their outward journey.
And so the Moon, if it was captured would have to accelerate as it entered the gravitational pull of the Earth, and this in turn would inevitably have led to an elongated and elliptical orbit. But this is not what millennia of observations have shown. Since
the Moon is apparently older than the Earth, it stands to reason that the capture model is correct in its basic outline. However, no known mechanism can account for its current orbital mechanics. In short, it would appear that the Moon had to have been “braked” as it entered Earth orbit, and in such a fashion as to assume its current position. As no known naturalist mechanism exists to explain such “braking,” the only other explanation would appear that it had been intelligently guided to its current position. It is a celestial mechanics analogue to parallel parking a car.
Briefly stated, the Moon was parked. And that implies a pilot.
This catalogue of facts led two Soviet scientists to propose in the 1970s for the Soviet magazine Sputnik that the Moon was, in fact, a gigantic artificial spaceship. But there were other anomalies about the Moon, first revealed during the initial days of the space race between the United States and the Soviet Union, and continuing all the way up through the Apollo moon landings.
B. Apollo Anomalies
1. Previous Soviet and American Probes
One of the most interesting aspects of the lunar anomalies is the strange behavior of early Soviet and American unmanned probes to the planet. The Russians were the first to the Moon with an unmanned probe, another first in their long line of early space firsts; Luna 1 reached the Moon on a “fly-by” mission in 1959, coming to within about 4500 miles of the Moon’s surface.
This was followed by Luna 2, which was the first man-made object to actually hit the moon. This probe was not designed to survive the impact on the Moon’s surface. Things suddenly changed, however, with the Luna 3 probe.
Luna 3 was the first man-made satellite to circle around to the far side of the Moon, where it was also the first to take pictures of that side of the Moon. Strangely, and as far as is publicly known, the Soviet Union ceased all lunar exploration for a full four years after Luna 3, and the probe’s pictures were a closely held secret.
Meanwhile, the United States was late getting to the Moon, and its early probes were not very successful. Ranger 3, which was launched in 1962, so completely missed the Moon that it wound up in orbit around the Sun. Ranger 4 struck the Moon, but returned little useful information. Ranger 5 missed the Moon by a whopping 450 miles.
When the Soviet Union revived its lunar exploration in 1964 with Luna 5, the craft crashed into the Moon at full speed when it had been designed for a soft lunar landing. Luna 6 was even less successful, missing the moon completely. Like Luna 5, Luna 7 crashed into the Moon, a result of its retro-rockets having fired too early. This point is highly significant, as will be seen momentarily.
Luna 8 also crashed, but finally the Russians were successful with Luna 9, which was able to soft land on the Moon, the first man-made spacecraft to do so. It is also noteworthy that after Luna 9, both Russian and American success rates of attempts to land probes on the Moon improved.
2. The Equigravisphere and Other Gravitational Problems
Why were the early Soviet and American attempts to orbit or land probes on the Moon so unsuccessful? Clearly neither the Russians nor the Americans lacked the mathematical talent to calculate a proper trajectory for spacecraft going to the Moon, unless there was some hidden problem that made accurate calculations erroneous. As an example of this problem, many have pointed out that Dr. Werner Von Braun let slip an interesting piece of information after the first successful Apollo landing, in an interview to Time magazine in 1969. In the interview, Von Braun revealed that the neutral point for the gravitational attraction between the Earth and the Moon was approximately 43,500 miles from the lunar surface. This was over twenty thousand miles further away from the surface of the Moon if the Moon were only 1/6th of the gravitational attraction of the Earth.
Yet another problem was revealed during these early space probes and the subsequent Apollo missions. Orbiting spacecraft would suddenly “dip” and accelerate over certain very localized areas of the lunar surface, those areas precisely known as the lunar “maria” or “seas,” the dark glassy areas of the Moon found only on the side facing the Earth. These concentrations of heavy mass were called appropriately enough “mascons,” and they could only mean that there was present beneath the lunar surface in these areas dense concentrations of some very heavy matter. Yet, no naturalistic explanation has yet been advanced for these formations that can account for their presence through random processes.
But the final gravitational anomaly may be the most significant one, and that is the anomaly related to the Russian space probe Luna 7’s early firing of its retro-rockets. It was natural for the Russians to assume that the Moon was a solid, homogeneous “rock” floating in space. In these circumstances, retro-rockets may be fired fairly early. But if the Moon were not a “solid rock” floating in space, but was either of greatly differing densities of material on its interior, or even worse, hollow, then this would change everything. Retro-rockets would have to fire later and burn faster.
The reason is relatively simple. If the Moon was a solid rock, then the center of gravity is farther away from the surface one is landing on, and hence, one may fire retro-rockets earlier, and burned at a slower rate. Conversely, if the Moon is hollow, the center of gravity shifts towards the surface one wishes to land on, and thus one would fire retro-rockets later and burn them faster in order to effect a soft landing. Indeed, in the July 1982 issue of Atsronautics magazine, Dr. Gordon McDonald of NASA actually reported that a NASA study of the Moon’s motion revealed that it moved more like a hollow object than a solid one, i.e., that the material in its interior was much less dense than that toward its surface.592
So gravitationally, the Moon is almost completely unlike any other celestial object man has encountered. Even if one does not accept the possibility that its gravity might be much more then the 1/6th gravity that prevailed before Von Braun’s significant revelation about the distance of the neutral point between the Earth and the Moon, one is still left with the difficulties of physical mechanics that the Earth should even have such a large satellite based on a random “capture” of a passing celestial body, much less have it in precisely the perfectly “circular” orbit that it has. The gravitational problem of such a capture is further enhanced by the presence of the anomalous regions of greater mass concentrations beneath the maria, the “mascons,” for their presence would make any such “capture” somewhat “wobbly.” And finally, there is the problem of all those early space probes, careening wildly by the Moon, or, retro-rockets firing as if to soft land on a solid rock, and instead crashing straight into it.
This led two Soviet scientists to draw what was by then an obvious, but very uncomfortable, conclusion: the Moon was not a planet in any normal sense at all. It was an artificial body. It was a gigantic spaceship. This idea became, in fact, the subject of a “UFO classic” in the 1970’s in a book by Don Wilson called Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon. The book contains a goldmine of details on strange lunar anomalies, and, in spite of its popularity, has never been republished.
In any case, if this “spaceship Moon” hypothesis were ever to be confirmed, however, its relevance to the Cosmic War hypothesis and scenario outlined here is rather obvious, for a civilization in possession of a physics and technology capable of wreaking giant regional scarring on the surfaces of planets, or of exploding one, would likely also be capable of other similarly huge “mega-engineering” projects. But even if, as is much more likely, the Moon is not an artificial body, it still contains sufficient anomalies to suggest that it may once have been an outpost of the civilization that waged that cosmic war. And the problem of how it got there remains.
3. Mission to Ground Transmissions
An odd confirmation of this has been the strange radio signals coming from the Moon and its vicinity. In fact, the radio transmissions were not the only strange things man encountered in the beginning years of space exploration. It is well known that Project Mercury astronaut Gordon Cooper never made it a secret that he had spotted a UFO during his Faith 7 Mercury mis
sion. The object was also seen by over 200 people at Muchea tracking station near Perth, Australia. Additionally, Cooper maintained that he heard radio voice transmissions in an “unintelligible foreign language.” According to Don Wilson of Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon once again, the tapes of these signals were replayed by NASA and analyzed, but no known human language could ever be identified as the language on the transmissions.593
Even earlier, in 1956, the University of Ohio and other Moon-watching institutions reported that there was strange “codelike radio chatter” coming from the Moon. And in October of 1958, American, British, and Russian astronomers all reported observing something speeding toward the Moon at 25,000 miles an hour, emitting radio signals that, once again, no one could interpret.594
Once mankind did reach the Moon with the Apollo landings, the radio chatter — this time man’s own radio chatter - became even more suggestive. Consider the following transcript from Apollo 17, between its Ground Control (GC) on the lunar surface, and the Command Module Pilot (CMP) orbiting above.
CMP: What are you learning?
GP: Hot spots on the Moon, Jack.
CMP: Where are your big anomalies? Can you summarize quickly?
GC: Jack, we’ll get that for you on the next pass.
CMP: Hey, I can see a bright spot down there on the landing site where they might have blown off some of that halo stuff.
The Cosmic War: Interplanetary Warfare, Modern Physics and Ancient Texts Page 35