Electric                    Astral               Pre-historical
Universe              Catastrophism        Reconstruction


     Mikamar
           Publishing
 

Articles & Products Supporting the Pre-historical Reconstruction and Plasma Cosmology
 home       features       science/philosophy       wholesale store       used books        contact

Site Section Links

Introduction Material
Articles
The Third Story
Features

Cosmology, Origins
The Nature of Time
Nature of Time video
The Nature of Space
The Neutrino Aether
Nature of Force Fields

Geophysical Material
Origin of Modern Geology
Niagara Falls Issues
Climate Change Model
Climate Change Questions

Philosophy Material
Philosophy Links

Reconstruction &
Mythology Material
Modern Mythology Material
Language/Symbol Development
1994 Velikovsky Symposium
Pensee Journals TOC
Velikovskian Journals TOC
Selected Velikovskian Article

Miscellaneous Material
Modern Mythology
State of Religious Diversity
PDF Download Files
Open letter to science editors

 

VELIKOVSKIAN                                                                                                         Vol. 1, No. 1

The Moon in Upheaval
Charles Ginenthal

In discussing scientists' discoveries of the Moon, Thomas Gold states, "Much ... was built upon conceptual structure, so that it has now become quite hard to distinguish these [theoretical] constructs from factual evidence.  Reports were written as fact that is pure conjecture [and] misrepresentation is a great disservice to lunar science."[1]

From the introductory citation, it appears that the evidence derived from lunar exploration cannot be used to support any theory of the Moon's structure, let alone Velikovsky's.  However, this is not the case.  If the Moon was subjected to great tidal distortions by the close approach of a planetary body as massive as Venus, then clear, straightforward evidence for such a recent event should exist from the center of the Moon to its surface regolith.  The number of phenomena pointing to this fact will be outlined below.  We will also find that the concepts contrary to this evidence are all subject to "Urey's Law," which only rarely applies to Velikovsky's hypothesis.  Bevan M. French declares:

A characteristic of lunar studies has been the ability of almost any theorist to explain a new observation in a way that supports his particular theory, so that a single result... can be invoked to support any number of contradictory theories.  This phenomenon, which also exists in other fields of science, was remarked on by H. C. Urey early in the Apollo Program, and it has sometimes been given semiformal status as 'Urey's Law."[2]

From these statements by French and Gold we can reasonably conclude that the Moon does not conform to any of the prior theories because the data have several different possible interpretations.  However, the catastrophic evidence is so pervasive and unique, that when taken all together, it indicates that the Moon has experienced recent violent tidal events of a global nature.  Taken individually, each of the phenomena can be interpreted as evidence of a recent catastrophe.  Taken all together, the conclusion of recent catastrophism becomes undeniable and strongly supports Velikovsky's theory.  I will also show that the accepted view, indicating that the lunar craters are caused by impact events, is contradicted by nearly all fundamental evidence, and that tidal distortion and bubbling of the surface is the only concept concordant with the evidence.  The position of this paper is not to argue from theory or consensus, but strictly from the evidence.

VELIKOVSKY'S LUNAR HYPOTHESIS

In 1950, Velikovsky claimed that the Moon was repeatedly involved in cosmic catastrophes:

Together with the terrestrial globe it passed through the fabric of the great [protoplanet Venus] comet of the time of Exodus, and in the conflicts of the eighth century before the present era, the Moon was more than once displaced from its orbit by Mars, During these catastrophes the Moon's surface flowed with lava and bubbled into great circular formations, which rapidly cooled off in the long lunar night, unprotected by [the] atmosphere from the coolness of cosmic spaces.  In the cosmic collisions or near contacts the surface of the Moon was also marked by clefts and rifts.[3]

A very clear picture of what would happen to the Moon if it had a close tidal interaction with an Earth-sized body was presented in 1966 by V. K. Firsoff, who, like Velikovsky, maintains that the Moon was acquired recently by a gravitational capture mechanism into its present orbit.  Since Venus is about 81% as massive as the Earth, a close interaction between Venus and the Moon would be almost equivalent to a close Earth-lunar interaction and would, therefore, produce quite comparable results.

Firsoff suggests that the mass of the body nearing the Moon caused powerful body tides [that] must have greatly disturbed the conditions inside the Moon.  The rock would be split into blocks to great depth, and these blocks would grind against each other as the Moon turned round.  The resultant friction would generate great heat, which could be sufficient, and certainly turn water to steam, The liquids, whether magma or water, ice and soft deformable rock, such as salt, would alternately rise to the surface and recede exerting great pressures on the overlying layers and partly breaking through.  This would give rise to volcanoes.  Part of the surface would heave up 'blisters' [that] would cave in as the pressure from within was withdrawn leaving behind huge walled depressions--craters, in fact.[4]

With respect to the time of the last interaction of the Moon with a large body, Firsoff reviews and concurs with J. E. Spurr's findings that

the face of the Moon shows two systems of great surface fractures, or faults, lying about [30] from the two poles and trending from west-southwest to east-northeast ... as a result of the halting of the Moon's rotation during which the north pole shifted south while the outer crust was wrenched to the east and then swung back.  Curiously the Earth, too, shows a similar structure with the same general trend .... The poles of the Earth would also seem to have shifted place on at least three occasions; [the last occurred] in the Quaternary Ice Age [and] northwestern Europe and north-eastern America were mainly affected, showing that the North Pole moved south just as it did on the Moon. [Given this data, Firsoff wonders if there] could ... be a correlation between these crustal movements on the two companion worlds? [5]

This description is, of course, quite in line with Velikovsky's hypothesis, in that both the Earth and the Moon in their tidal interactions with protoplanet Venus were tilted on their axes and had affected rotation, which changed the positions of their geographical poles and left similar alignments on both bodies.

Firsoff stated:

In the Tertiary [the period between the extinction of the dinosaurs and the present], Britain enjoyed a hot climate.  Tropical animals and plants flourished.  Then came great volcanic disturbances.  The bowels of the Earth were convulsed, sea changed their boundaries, continents were engulfed and on the Moon, too, at the unspecified date of capture--last capture--proportionally even greater changes took place.  The crust rose in a huge dome and then foundered, producing Mare Imbrium .... The terrestrial volcanoes had quieted down, but some mighty force made the crust of the Earth slip ... and the position of the poles wobble .... From this upheaval the new world and the civilization of man were born.[6]

In essence, Firsoff has proposed that the Earth and the Moon were violently affected by a cosmic catastrophe that ended the Ice Age.  This, without doubt, would clearly fit the hypothesis proposed by Velikovsky.  The difference between the two concepts is that the Ice Age ended, according to Firsoff, by lunar capture, while Velikovsky suggests the event was triggered by Venus on a near collision with the Earth and Moon.  There is also a difference in the time scale.

For those critics who suggest that no scientist of merit would propose a solar system disturbance similar to that proposed by Velikovsky, I pose that this is precisely the concept offered by both a distinguished British astronomer and an equally distinguished American geologist.

As was described, the Moon endured great recent catastrophes and was so violently affected by this interaction its crust was cracked and broken smoothly, with depth.  Based on the impact theory, the subsurface rock was broken, but neither to great depth nor smoothly over the whole Moon.  Based on Velikovsky's tidal distortion theory, the entire subsurface of the Moon, to great depth, was lifted, bubbled at the surface and subsided or collapsed.  The bedrock was broken up very uniformly, with depth.  No bedrock protruded above the regolith and no bedrock could have existed near the surface.

Impacts are not expected to do this smoothly over the entire Moon.  Thomas Gold tells us that

the seismic signals clearly preclude any largely continuous rock sheet being present at a small [lunar] depth, for then the enormously reverberant [seismic] signal that is always observed would have no explanation, nor would the absence of the usual dominant point-to-point signal of a shear [wave which moves perpendicular to the direction of the signal] and a pressure [or compression-contraction] wave.  The seismology would be satisfied only with a subsurface of a coarsely or finely broken up rock; but the radar denies the presence of any structure course on the scale of meters.  The combined evidence is for a deep soil, generally layered, with compaction increasing with depth but with only gentle transitions in density, or generally smooth interfaces where a sudden change of density does occur.[7]

The rock on the Moon is broken into finely ground particles at the surface; as we go deeper into the subsurface, the particles grow gradually larger and larger, so that there is no evidence anywhere on the Moon to suggest that at one depth is solid bedrock above which there is finely broken rock.  The seismic signal shows only smooth transitions with depth.  What would generate such a smooth gradation of rock-sized particles with depth over the entire Moon?  Impacts would be expected to fuse rock or melt it at certain near-surface depths to create regions with large rocks here and there below the surface, or rocks raised to the surface.  According to Gold, there is not one place on the Moon that shows sudden changes between regolith and bedrock.  But, if the Moon bubbled, then this deep subsurface force would move to the surface, evenly breaking up the rock through which the force passed.  That is, there would be a relationship between the force moving upward and the pressure of the rock opposing it.  This force and opposing pressure relationship would break the rock somewhat uniformly with depth and this is precisely what is found over the entire Moon.  This is one of the problems Gold feels is presently not understood, based on uniformitarian processes, but it is perfectly congruent with the bubbling wave concept suggested by Firsoff and Velikovsky.

            There is seismic evidence at extremely deep levels for sudden density changes, but these are unrelated to the problem just discussed.  We will explore this evidence later.

Related to a tidal disturbance would be evidence that a massive body moved in an orbit past the Moon leaving surface and subsurface phenomena along great circle arcs.  R. J. Mulcuit describes this phenomenon.  "The circular maria--Orientale, Imbrium, Serenitiatis, Crisium, Smythii, and Tsiolkovsky--lie nearly on a great circle.  This pattern can be considered the result of a very close non-capture encounter between the Moon and the Earth early in solar system history."[8]

The differences between Velikovsky's thesis and that of R. J. Mulcuit are the period when the tidal distortion occurred and the body that created the great circle arc pattern of large maria.  According to Velikovsky, the event was recent and the large body was protoplanet Venus; for the astronomers it was an ancient event when the Moon passed the Earth.  Hence, not only does V.A. Firsoff suggest a major tidal disturbance of the Moon, but other scientists also believe the Moon was subjected to the same forces proposed earlier by Velikovsky.  One group asserts that this happened in the very remote past; Firsoff believes it happened at the close of the Ice Age, 10,000 to 12,000 years ago; Velikovsky claims the event occurred 3,500 years ago.

The region across which the maria run in a great circle arc is closely related to the mascons, or concentrations of mass, which are found underneath the maria.  According to Velikovsky, the passing protoplanet Venus pulled mass toward the surface on the side of the Moon nearest Venus.  Michael Zeilik states: "The fact that almost all maria have associated mascons implies that some common process produced large amounts of dense material under the maria."[9]  This clearly implies a link to a passing body.  Since the large maria are found along a great circle arc, the mascons are also found along the same arc.  This is explicable only in terms of a tidal distortion.

Several hypotheses have been put forth to explain the origin of these great lumps of mass concentrated beneath the maria on the lunar nearside.  Nicholas M. Short declares: "It appears ... that the mascon regions are not in isostatic equilibrium with the highlands."[10]  Harold C. Urey suggests that very slow moving giant meteorites implanted themselves to create the mascons.[11] The first problem with Urey's contention is that, if the meteorites were traveling very slowly, they would not disintegrate on striking the Moon but would remain whole; they would not crack the crust and create the immense outpouring of lava to form the maria.  If, on the other hand, the meteorites created a huge upwelling of molten lava from below the surface, in the same areas where they fell, the meteorites would have melted.  The second problem related to Urey's process is that the meteorite mascons would remain in regions of great heat.  Even if the heat did not melt them completely, the difference in density between the highly dense meteorite mascons and the hot, low dense, surrounding magma of the ancient times would cause the mascons to sink deeper into even hotter subsurface regions (the deeper below the surface one goes, the higher the temperature becomes), where the masses would melt or sink to even hotter, deeper levels.  Under these conditions, the mascons would never survive.  The third problem is related to the random arrival of meteorites.  If the meteorites arrived, as is posited by impact theorists, at random times from random directions, why did they all only strike one side of the Moon and why were only those striking the lunar nearside traveling so slowly?  The concept is simply not plausible.  It is difficult to believe that meteorites only hit the maria in a great circle arc.

Thomas A. Hockey said: "Early theories said that they [mascons] represented metallic asteroid-sized bodies lying under the maria.  However, such bodies would have had to be traveling unreasonably slowly when they implanted themselves in order to remain intact."[12]

Another theory explaining the mascons was presented by R. P. Baldwin.[13] Instead of turning to meteoric impacts, he suggested mascons were created by different lava densities and thicknesses forming below the maria.  The problem is, Why would denser lavas survive above less dense masses?  Hot dense lavas would tend to sink by changing the surrounding mass to magma.  Why would dense magmas only rise on one side of the Moon along a great circle arc?  The concept is highly implausible.

John O'Keefe and his associates offer the view that mascons are plugs of denser mantle pulled up into the maria.[14]  But neither what pulled them nor why to only one side of the Moon along a great circle arc are explained.  Short says that "[n]one of these hypotheses fully satisfy a fundamental observation--namely, several apparently circular basins, nearly all large craters, and many lava-filled, do not contain mascons; however, these may represent regions in which early-formed mascons have been reduced by isostatic adjustments."[15]  As we can see, none of these theorists explain the problem of mascons.

An enormous problem facing mascon survival for billions of years is related to the Moon's high thermal gradient.  As we go back in time, the internal temperature of the Moon increases greatly.  According to Wernher von Braun and Frederick I. Ordway, "...scientists have estimated an internal [lunar] temperature of about 2,730F. (1,773K.) at a depth of 625 miles (1,000 kilometers)."[16] Therefore, in the past, the thermal gradient would have been enormously bigger and the layers of strata nearer the surface would have been much hotter.  The surface of the Moon does not have to melt the mascons to remove them.  What is required is a temperature warm enough to cause the denser masses to sink toward the molten core.  Peter Cadogan casts the problem thus: "Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of mascons is their survival."[17]

Eric Burgess informs us: "On Earth such [gravitational] anomalies disappear within a million years."[18]

All the evidence suggests the mascons were formed recently by a tidal distortion.  The tidal distortion hypothesis is the only one that is congruent with the evidence.

The most powerful piece of evidence pointing to a recent tidal distortion is the fact that the Moon possesses a major hemispherical dichotomy, a bulge, a distortion on one side of its figure.  Measurements have shown that the hemisphere facing the Earth contains a bulge measuring 2 kilometers more or less.  Such a vast hemispheric distortion of the shape of the Moon is clearly explicable from only two points of view.  The first requires that the Moon was struck directly on the opposite hemisphere by a gigantic meteoric body or Apollo asteroid.  However, if such was the case, the far side of the Moon, almost directly opposite the bulge, would possess an enormous lunar basin comparable to and, more probably, larger than that of Mare Imbrium, the largest circular maria on the lunar nearside.  There is no such feature directly or even slightly opposite the center of the nearside lunar bulge.[19]  The only other probable explanation of the lunar hemispheric bulge is the tidal distortion hypothesis.  Harold C. Urey, who advocates a uniformitarian lunar history covering the past 4.5 billion years--except for occasional impacts, nevertheless describes this phenomenon with the following:

Astronomical data indicate that the Moon has a triaxial configuration with ellipticities quite different from those expected from the effects of tides [from Earth].  Hence, we may conclude that the Moon has indeed an irregular shape.  This ellipticity [bulge] is some seventeen times as great as would be calculated from present tidal forces... It is difficult to believe that the interior of the Moon can support such stresses for geological periods of time.[20]

What Urey means is that the lunar bulge cannot be many millions of years old, otherwise the bulge would be removed by isostatic forces.  S. K. Runcorn, after calculating the force of gravity on the Moon, came to the conclusion that, "if solid state creep occurred on the Moon at one-trillionth the rate at which we know it occurs in laboratory materials at modest temperatures [the]... bulge would have disappeared long ago."[21]

The germane point to be remembered is that the lunar bulge was induced by a recent event requiring immense force.  The force necessary to raise one hemisphere of the Moon more than 2 kilometers must have been colossal.  Rather than squarely face this overwhelming objection to the uniformitarian vision of astronomers regarding their gradualist hypotheses, the concept of a recent tidal lunar distortion is simply ignored.  Duncan Lunan, in discussing the displacement of the off-centered lunar mass 3.2 kilometers toward the Earth, ignores the tidal implication by stating: "As yet there is no adequate explanation for this peculiarity of the lunar core."[22]  What Lunan really means is that there is no adequate uniformitarian explanation for the lunar distortion.  A recent tidal distortion of the Moon's shape is the only logical and plausible cause for such a bulge.

Closely associated with this evidence is yet another phenomenon related to the hemispheric dichotomy of mascons, maria and the lunar bulge.  It is well known that the Moon, as measured by seismometers left by astronauts on its surface, constantly undergoes moonquakes.  Two types of quakes measured by these seismic devices relate well to Velikovsky's theory.  For now, we will concentrate on the deep-focus moonquakes and discuss the near-surface quakes elsewhere.  The deep-focus moonquakes occur about every 28 days or so, and, thus, are apparently related to slight, tidal forces exerted on the Moon by the Earth.  What is most significant about these quakes is their location; they do not originate randomly about the lunar interior, but are localized within the nearside hemisphere, where we find the maria, the bulge and mascons.  Billy P. Glass indicates: "Most of the deep-seated moonquakes appear to fall along three belts up to 2,000 [kilometers] long, on the lunar near-side that lies along arcs of great circles."[23]  This, of course is similar to the great circle arcs of maria and mascons.  This evidence indicates that whatever force created the maria and the mascons affected the interior of the Moon to be rent along great circle arcs also.  This is clearly related to a tidal distortion of the nearside.  Describing these moonquake epicenters, Bevan M. French says:

In addition to being deep (about 600 to 800 kilometers below the Surface), most moonquakes are also localized; that is, they occur again and again at specific places on the Moon.  At present 40 such "centers" of moonquake activity have been identified, all but one on the nearside of the Moon.  With only  a few exceptions, they lie along two great belts that are 100 and 300 kilometers wide and run about 2,000 kilometers across the Moon."[24]

If the mascons, which are much closer to the surface than the moonquakes, are difficult to explain, the deep location of these epicenters presents an even more difficult problem to uniformitarian analysis.  The deep-focus moonquakes are located near a depth that von Braun and Ordway presented as having a temperature of "2,732F."[25]  Describing seismic sounding of the Moon, Lunan states that "far more important was the absence of shear waves passing through the heart of the Moon [since] data indicates that the Moon has a [molten] liquid core 965 [kilometers] down extending 772 [kilometers] from the center."[26]  If it seems near to impossible that mascons much nearer to the lunar surface can survive, then it is impossible that discontinuities in the deep lunar subsurface could ever survive, How could the pressure differences in the Moon survive for geologic eras at higher temperatures in the past than presently persist?  Such discontinuities, at such depths, can only exist if they were generated recently.

As support for this conclusion, note the work of Cliff Frohlich, who showed that, at these depths and these temperatures, materials flow gradually rather than break violently.[27]  Only if these epicenters were created quite recently could one reasonably expect them to exist.  Had they been ancient, they would have disappeared.  And there is, once again, no uniformitarian explanation for their existence!  G. Latham admits this, stating: "The moonquakes appear to be releasing strain of unknown origin "[28]

Thus far, fundamental pieces of evidence point unambiguously to a recent tidal distortion of the Moon, viz, the lunar bulge, maria, mascons and deep-focus moonquakes.  With regard to each of these physical phenomena, the astronomers and geophysicists have, for over 30 years, been stymied in finding a plausible uniformitarian explanation in a manner that even remotely suggests consensus will ever be found for any of their gradualistic concepts.  Yet, each unsolved problem fits cleanly and comfortably into the catastrophic hypothesis Velikovsky offered long ago.

The Moon's Molten Core

The final point respecting the Moon's interior has to do with the Moon's molten core.  Duncan Lunan informs us that "professional astronomers had solidly maintained for decades that the Moon was completely dead, cold right through, a world without activity apart from the occasional meteor strike."[29]  But, Lunan has also pointed out that "the Moon has a liquid [molten] core ... extending 772 [kilometers] from the center."[30] This gives the Moon a molten core that is about 1,544 kilometers (957 miles) in diameter.  This is known because shear waves will not pass through liquid and the seismometers on the Moon showed shear waves will not pass through the lunar core.  The Moon's molten core, when first compared to that of the Earth, "was losing heat, overall, half as fast as the Earth--meaning that by unit of volume, the lunar interior generated twice as much heat as the Earth's core .... [However] by 1977 the heat flow estimates had been reduced by one-third, but the core material [heat flow] was still more active than the Earth's."[31]  Per unit volume, the Moon's core generates a third more heat to the entire Moon than the Earth's core does to the entire Earth.

The smaller the body, the more rapidly it must cool and lose its primordial heat.  For example, Mercury, which is 5.5% the mass of the Earth, was calculated by geophysicists to have frozen solid.  To Clark R. Chapman, if Mercury's core formed so long ago, "it is difficult to understand why it wouldn't have frozen solid shortly [and] ... these theoretical considerations mean that Mercury's core--if it formed early in the planet's history--must have long ago frozen solid.[32]  Yet, the Moon is only one-fifth the mass of Mercury, which means its core should have frozen solid even more rapidly than that of Mercury.  This evidence strongly suggests that the lunar core was made molten only recently, evidence that would be completely congruent with a recent massive tidal distortion.  Lunan admits that the finding of "the lunar core-the core that nobody thought could exist"[33]--is unexplained.

What ensues from the uniformitarian belief that the Moon has always generated more heat per volume (one-third or more units) than the Earth, over eons, is that the Moon's crust and mantle should also be much thinner, by comparable diameter, than that of the Earth.  The Earth's crust is on average 70 kilometers, or 43 miles, thick, while the Earth's mantle is 2,900 kilometers (1,800 miles) thick.[34] The Moon's crust is 60 kilometers (37 miles) thick, while its mantle is 1,040 kilometers (645 miles) thick.[35] Since the Moon's diameter is some four times smaller than that of the Earth, if the Moon were as large as the Earth, its crust would be 240 kilometers (149 miles) thick, or about three and four-tenths times thicker than the Earth's, and its mantle would be 4,160 kilometers (2,580 miles) thick, or one and four-tenths times thicker than the Earth's.  All of this would have to result from

having one-third more heat flowing throughout the lunar mass over its entire history.

The concept is so impossible that it begs description.  Crust thickness and mantle thickness are determined by the amount of heat they receive from the core; the greater the amount of heat received over time, the thinner they must be.  French, boggled by this contradiction, asks, "How could the experimental evidence for a hot lunar interior be reconciled with the evidence for a cold and rigid interior that has been supplied by the discovery of mascons?"[36]  Kenneth F. Weaver further explains: "In the distant past [the Moon] must have been hotter much closer to the surface.  Vast sheets of lava in the maria ... testify to widespread vulcanism long ago.  Such flows, scientists say, could easily have come from depths of as much as 300 miles."[37]  With the lunar molten core this close to the Moon's surface, none of the phenomena described above would have survived!  Any rational interpretation of this data precludes the Moon by ratio having a crust and mantle three and four-tenths and one and four-tenths times thicker than that of Earth, while having one-third more heat per unit volume over its entire history.  To suggest that this can be explained by uniformitarian processes is nothing but hand waving.

The only way understood to produce these contradictory phenomena, namely, greater lunar heat than Earth's, per unit volume, with a thick crust and mantle, is by recent catastrophism.  Only a recent catastrophe will create a large molten core in a world that, by uniformitarian cooling processes, ought to be frozen solid, and the only catastrophe congruent with all the other evidence is a tidal distortion.  There are no laws of geophysics or thermodynamics which will allow for the Moon, per unit volume, to be hotter than the Earth over 3 to 4 billion years and then to cool to its present state. What inevitably follows from this thermal evidence is that ancient mascons could not survive this greater heat flux.  The lunar bulge could not be sustained and deep focus moonquakes would have disappeared long ago.  To suggest otherwise smacks of sophistry, not to say uncontrolled imagination.  The uniformitarian scientific basis for such diverse, contradictory phenomena exists nowhere and is based on nothing!  It is only assumption that supports the view that the Moon's history is quiescent, not the evidence.  The facts presented here show that assumption is only assumption.

The Origin and Nature of Lunar Craters

From the present scientific viewpoint there are only two theories that explain the crater topography of the Moon.  The volcanic hypothesis argues that almost all lunar craters are of indigenous volcanic origin.  The impact hypothesis--which is the dominant theory--claims that almost all lunar craters are the result of meteor, comet and asteroid collisions.  Neither theory excludes the other; each merely states that the vast majority of craters were generated by one or the other process.  A third concept generally dismissed or ignored by the scientific community is the tidal distortion bubbling concept, which is the view Velikovsky's theory requires.  This theory was originally put forward in 1667 by Robert Hooke, the English contemporary of Isaac Newton.  Hooke suggested that craters were formed by enormous bubbles of gas rising from the molten interior of the Moon.  Once they reached the surface, the bubbles burst and the surface subsided.

In the last century, two French scientists, Pierre Puiseux and Moritz Loewy, revived this theory.  In our century, it was greatly amplified and defended by an American geologist, J. E. Spurr, as the near passage of the Moon to a planet the size of Earth.  In this respect, the bubbling theory is much closer to the volcanic hypothesis, except that the causative agent for crater production is a tidal distortion for gas release while for vulcanism the agent is heat release via magmatic upwelling.

If Velikovsky's concept is the correct one, then that should be exhibited in the evidence that fundamentally contradicts the volcanic and impact hypotheses.  Nevertheless, because Velikovsky's theory is so much more like the volcanic theory, it will share much of the evidence that supports that hypothesis.

Based on the impact and, to a lesser degree, the volcanic theory, one ought to discern a randomness of cratering activity.  The impact theory is based entirely on random impacts producing craters over 4 billion years.  Impacting bodies over billions of years would strike the lunar surface from all directions, creating an impacted surface which exhibits craters with random sizes and distribution.  On the basis of this theory, the entire lunar surface will generally appear the same.  The volcanic theory requires a less random distribution of craters because volcanoes will be generated along lines of weakness in the lunar surface.  It is, by and large, accepted by geophysicists that lines of craters are derived by volcanic processes.  Velikovsky's tidal distortion hypothesis requires that craters found on the Moon exhibit a distinct hemispheric dichotomy like that found for the lunar bulge, maria, mascons and deep-focus moonquakes.  It further requires that the weaknesses in the lunar crust, created by a changing of the Moon's rotation, should also show linearly distributed craters generally running along lines of weakness along meridians to the Moon's rotational poles.  It is also important to emphasize that the volcanic hypothesis does not in anyway claim that vulcanism will show a clear hemispheric dichotomy.  Thus, the very nature of crater distribution observed on the Moon yields an excellent testing method for discovering which of the three theories fits the observed crater distribution most closely.  It is at this first level of evidence that I will demonstrate that both the impact and volcanic hypotheses fail, while the tidal distortion thesis succeeds.

Elsewhere, I have shown that there is a distinct hemispheric dichotomy of lunar cratering.[38] In brief, Science News reported this dichotomy in a an article: "A major surprise in the early days of lunar exploration was the discovery that the soft maria visible from Earth were far more rare on the Moon's far side, presumably because of some one-sided influence of the Earth."[39] The nearside hemisphere has huge circular and subcircular basins while the far side hemisphere contains little to nothing comparable to these great basins, but contains, primarily, innumerable smaller craters.

In an attempt to explain this hemispheric dichotomy an ad hoc concept was offered that the far side of the Moon has a much thicker crust than the nearside.  This, so far as I have been able to discover, is lacking in the evidence from seismic readings of the Moon.  P.H. Cadogan questioned this far side crustal thickness:

The nearside-far side asymmetry is evidence from the dark mare material which fills the circular basins on the nearside.  Although there are similar basins on the far side, they are apparently not filled with mare basalt.  Laser altimeter data suggest that this may be a result of the greater thickness of the low density crust on the far side .... Although this may explain why maria occur only on the nearside, the difference in crustal thickness is still unaccounted for.  Either the Moon accreted heterogeneously, or else low density crust was at some early stage of lunar evolution, transferred from the nearside to the far side.  A possible mechanism for the transfer of vast quantities of crustal material could involve a major impact on the nearside.[40]

If, as is suggested, a stupendous impact on the nearside ejected enormous amounts of material which fell primarily on the lunar far side, the impact would have, in all probability, distorted the shape of the Moon; that is, an immense impact capable of sending so much ejecta to the far side would have impacted the nearside so forcefully that it caused a bulge on the opposite hemisphere.  But, in fact, this is not the case.  A bulge on the lunar far side would be subjected to tidal action by the Earth so as to pull that bulge around to face the Earth.  In such a case, the maria would be located not where they presently are--facing the Earth--but on the far side.  The entire concept is without support.

To date, there is no satisfactory impact or volcanic theoretical explanation for why the great maria are all located on one side of the Moon.  There are approximately 30 maria, of which some ten are extraordinarily large, with nothing comparable to these ten great lava-filled basins on the lunar far side.

Nevertheless, let us for the moment assume that the far side may have a thicker crust.  One is still left with the problem of explaining why, based on the random impact concept, the ten largest bodies that impacted the Moon only did so on one hemisphere, over billions of years ago along a great circle arc.  Such a concept is asking the investigator to believe contradiction to the theory is proof for it, i.e., to believe random means the largest impacts struck one lunar hemisphere along a great circle arc.  The evidence is so contrary to the concept of random impacts that it cannot be taken seriously.

This problem also applies in full to the volcanic theory.  Why did magma only vent its way to one hemisphere in great floods?  There is some lava on the lunar far side, but it is tiny by comparison with the nearside.  Again, let us assume for the moment that the lunar far side has a thicker crust and magma could not penetrate through it to the surface.  In this case, we face the problem of why magma only vented to the nearside to produce mascons and not to the far side to produce mascons.  Then we must also explain why it vented to produce mascons on the one hemisphere along a great circle arc!  Again, the evidence is so contrary to what the concept of vulcanism suggests that one cannot take this view seriously either.  Only the tidal distortion concept is in harmony with this hemispheric dichotomy.

Double Crater Types

There is also a second level of randomness related to the impact concept that should be seen on the Moon, but is missing.  Over billions of years of random impact events, large and small bodies indiscriminately crashed into the Moon.  Based on this scenario, one would expect to observe evidence showing that sometimes, a large body fell and created a large crater and, sometimes, a small body fell impacted on or near its rim, obliterating part of the rim wall of the larger crater.  This would create a double crater with the smaller one impinging on the larger one.  Conversely, a double crater with the larger one impinging on the smaller one may form as well.  Since larger craters will often obliterate the smaller ones, double craters of larger ones invading smaller ones will be in the minority, but they should be observed in abundance on a body believed to be impacted, as is the Moon.  That is, double craters, which are a common phenomenon of the lunar surface, should exhibit both types of double craters randomly.

The fact of the matter regarding this more localized distribution phenomenon is that, as a rule, double craters are observed to show that the smaller crater is always the intruder on the larger one. (See Figure 1.)


Figure 1. DOUBLE CRATER TYPES: (a) always found on the Moon; (b) almost never found on the Moon.

Patrick Moore asks us to consider the almost innumerable cases in which one crater breaks into another-and this is crucial; on the impact theory there would be randomness.... The rule is that the smaller crater is the intruder and the larger one the sufferer.  There are a few exceptions to the rule.... But the exceptions amount to a fraction of [1%], and here again the impact theory fails.  According to it, we would have a great many departures from the rule, since it is impossible to believe that all the large meteorites fell first.[41]

Thus, at this second level of localized randomness, the impact theory fails.  And this disagreement is basic.  Without a random distribution of craters the integrity of the impact hypothesis is utterly denied.  The astronomers that support the impact hypothesis must either deny that there is any orderliness in the distribution of lunar craters or ignore the plane evidence altogether.  In 1986, at the University of Toronto, when I confronted Peter Greives, a defender of the meteoric impact theory, with this evidence of non-randomness of lunar cratering, he was unable to answer this fundamental contradiction and thus has denied and ignored its existence.  The reason this observed evidence is denied or ignored is that it simply cannot be explained away by the proponents of impact.

Based on Velikovsky's hypothesis, the tidal interaction between protoplanet Venus and the Moon changed the Moon's rotation.  This change in rotation would lead to linear formations running longitudinally north and south on the Moon.  According to Alan B. Binder and Donald W. McCarthy, the Moon's surface shows, like the planet Mars, preferential trends in its lineaments, "such as polygonal crater walls, linear rilles, linear ridges, linear albedo boundaries and linear scarps .... [The authors add that] this system of fractures might be the consequences of changes in the planet's rate of rotation, polar wandering, or other stresses."[42] (Emphasis added.)

If stresses on the Moon are related to changes in rotation caused by a tidal disturbance, one would also expect to find that many crater chains would have a strong tendency to run along longitudinal arcs and exhibit North-South directional trends.  Again, Patrick Moore explains:

Any casual glance at a lunar map will show that the major formations tend to be arranged in chains or groups.  There is a chain down the central [North-South] meridian of the Earth-turned hemisphere made up of the Walter group [of craters], the Ptolemaeus group, and, perhaps, Clavius in the south and Archimedes and Plato in the north There is a [North-South] chain down the east limb, extending from Vlacq down to Endymion, and including the Mare Crisium; another down the west limb, reaching from Bailly to Strickard, Grimaldi and Pythagoras No such chains extend from east to west and it seems then that we are dealing with formations which were born along lines of weakness in the Moon's crust [and] the lining up of the chains with the central [North-South one] can hardly be due to chance.[43] (Emphasis added.)

Although it is argued that the Earth's tidal pull is responsible for such North-South chains of craters, it is also probable that weaknesses in the lunar crust were caused by a stronger influence than that of the Earth's gravitational field that has acted, according to uniformitarian theory, quite gradually over time.  As Binder and McCarthy stated above, the lineament systems on the Moon suggest more violent changes than those envisaged by uniformitarian concepts.

The very same dichotomy and double craters, as well as crater chains, are also found on Mercury.  Duncan Lunan states:

Comparison of the pre- and post-encounter pictures showed that Mercury, like the Moon, has two distinct hemispheres--one heavily cratered, the other with prominent maria.... Crater chains like the Moon's were found, and small craters impinging on larger ones, but never vice versa, just as on the Moon.[44]

Why then, in view of this negative evidence for non-random organization of craters, do the majority of astronomers suggest that impacts are responsible for the overwhelming majority of lunar craters?  There are several reasons, each of which will now be examined.

The first argument which is most influential and negative to the volcanic concept has to do with the size of craters.  It is rightly argued that there are no volcanic craters on the Earth, or anywhere, for that matter, comparable in size to those found on the Moon.  This is quite correct even given the Moon's smaller surface gravity and ought to be seen as such for a strict, indigenous, volcanic process.  If internal volcanic processes are responsible for most of the lunar craters, then, somewhere on the Earth or in the solar system, there ought to be evidence of at least one volcanic crater 200 kilometers (124 miles) in diameter.  This simply does not exist, so far as I know.  In this regard, I am seeking a volcano like those common on the Earth.  Mons Olympus, located on Mars, is the largest volcano in the solar system.  Its diameter is 600 kilometers (372 miles), but its caldera is less than 100 kilometers (62 miles) in diameter.[45]  However, Velikovsky's tidal distortion hypothesis requires bubbles of gas to well up, escape to space and then collapse to form craters.  This concept is quite different from that of the indigenous volcanic theory.  The difference between the bubble theory and the volcanic theory, as stated earlier, is that vulcanism is driven mainly by upwelling of lava with some gas, while, for the bubble theory, upwelling is mostly gaseous with some upwelling of lava.

Io, the Galilean satellite of Jupiter, subjected to ongoing tidal stresses, produces craters up to 200 kilometers in diameter.[46] All the craters, both large and small, are the product of tidal stresses and look like craters on the Moon.  What is outstandingly important is the fact that Io, like the Moon, is also asymmetrically volcanic; that is, it has much more volcanic activity on one hemisphere than on the other. K. S. McEwan states: "The global distribution of hot spots is further evidence that Io is a dimorphous body: The hemisphere centered on ... [around] 310' is much more volcanic than the opposite hemisphere."[47]  From Voyager, the entire astronomical community, in hushed disbelief, observed the ongoing process on Io that Velikovsky and others have suggested producing huge surface craters, but, because they are so imbued with dogmatic theories that craters are either of impact or indigenous volcanic origin, they have again denied or ignored the clear correlations observed.  On the Moon, a much more solid body than Io, the strength of the crust would demand greater pressures to build up before release and, therefore, it is probable that these greater pressures under the lunar surface created--in many instances--craters of far larger dimensions than those generated on Io.  Therefore, the contention that large craters cannot be produced by tidal stress is simply false.  The fact that the Moon, like Io, exhibits a hemispheric dichotomy with respect to vulcanism is telling evidence of correlation between these worlds.

The second argument offered in support of the impact hypothesis is that the production of shocked rock by an impact cannot be produced by volcanic processes.  Scientists also point out that the surface rock of the Moon is made up of breccia.  Breccia is a rough rock compounded of smaller rock fragments that were fused together by tremendous pressures.  It is broadly advertised by the impact theorists that only impacts can generate these immense pressures.  They claim that both shocked lunar rocks and breccias fit their views only and prove the impact model valid.  Although this concept is very highly esteemed and even assumed to be the only practical method by which to derive shocked rock and breccia, it is not the only method.  In fact, there is unambiguous evidence illustrating that Velikovsky's tidal distortion hypothesis will do just that.

Neville L. Carter analyzed the volcanic ejecta from Toba volcano in Sumatra and discovered that some of the material was shocked so powerfully that it showed,

"strong dynamic deformation [which] has resulted in intense kinking [bending of rock] in bistite and, with increasing shock intensity, the development in plagioclase of planar features [layers in unlayered rock material] shock mosaicism [mosaics of rock fused together], incipient recrystallization [crystals were semi-developed] and possible partial melting."[48]

Carter and his colleagues go on: "Peak shock stresses from explosive silicic vulcanism and other endogenic processes may be high and if so would obviate the need for extraterrestrial impacts to provide all dynamically deformed structures, possibly including shock features...."[49]

Now it must be pointed out that the amount of material that was shocked represented only a small amount of what was found among the volcanic debris.  And it is properly argued that one of the most intense volcanic eruptions on Earth produced a pittance compared to what was found on the Moon, which cannot be employed as an argument to explain the vast amount of this material overlying the entire lunar surface.  This is, indeed, the argument of the impact theorists.  Although this is a strong point against the internal volcanic theory, it fails with respect to the tidal distortion concept.

Observations of Io have shown that tidally-induced volcanic explosions will eject matter, at Io's surface, upward at a velocity of 1 kilometer--3,000 feet per second.  In one second, a motionless body sitting on Io's surface will have been struck by a force of such power that it will be ejected upward to a height of 3,000 feet, about two and four-tenths times the height of the Empire State Building.  Michael Zeilik informs us that, "Io's volcanoes eject plumes of gas and dust up to heights of 250 [kilometers] at velocities of 1,000 m/s [meters per second] In contrast, the Earth's large volcanoes spit out material at about 50 m/s.[50]  Tidal forces on Io eject materials at 20 times the speed than volcanoes do on Earth!

Consider then, a few tons of rock on the surface of Io struck by such a force.  The rock would be shattered to small pieces and show all the marks of shocked lunar rock.  But, on the Moon, the wave of motion--like a ballistic wave--must pass through the Moon before it reaches the surface to be released.  Therefore, below the surface the force of the wave must be immensely greater because, at the surface, the wave is attenuated to its weakest value.  Therefore, a wave that can move a rock 20 times faster at the surface than on Earth will be much more powerful below the surface.  It is only relatively near the region of unconsolidated rock where the force can expand and shatter everything in its path.  That is why the seismic readings show that lunar rock is broken to larger proportions with depth.  The odd large boulders found on the lunar surface are the rare blocks that escaped total disintegration.

Evidence of this effect was discovered on the Earth during the Cold War, when underground atomic bomb tests were conducted in Nevada by the U.S. military.  According to Thomas A. Mutch, the underground nuclear test carried out at Sedan, Nevada, produced an explosive upheaval of the surface rock that rose like a bubble and then subsided, creating a crater 600 feet in diameter from rim to rim.  The significant aspects of this experiment as they relate to our study are that breccia was formed inside the crater, the bedrock was overturned and blanket ejecta was thrown around the crater.[51]  In essence, the same phenomena associated with lunar craters had been generated.  The force of the underground explosion produced a crater 600 feet in diameter; the forces of the underground explosions on Io produce craters up to 200 kilometers (124 miles) in diameter.  The evidence speaks for itself!

Stuart Ross Taylor presented the strongest evidence for the impact hypothesis.[52]  He stated: "Decisive features favoring impact rather than volcanic origin [for lunar craters] include:

(a) Ejecta blankets.  Simple collapse as in terrestrial calderas does not produce        thick widespread deposits of ejecta."[53]

In reply: At Sedan, Nevada, ejecta blankets were produced similar to those on the Moon, which supports the bubbling concept by tidal distortion.

"(b) The rayed ejecta pattern resembles that of terrestrial explosion craters."[54]

In reply: Materials on Io are clearly ejected outward along rayed ejecta patterns.

"(c) The depth-diameter ratios likewise fit those of terrestrial and meteoric impact craters."[55]

In reply: Patrick Moore states:

In his original books, Baldwin placed great stress on the fact [that] when the depth-diameter ratios are plotted for lunar craters, meteorite craters and bomb craters, and set out in a graph, the result is a smooth curve; the smaller the crater, the greater the depth relative to the diameter.  This is quite true, but as terrestrial volcanic craters fit equally well into the same pattern, it provides no evidence either way.[56]

Bubble explosions are also of a volcanic nature, as can be observed on domes on the Moon with central crater pits, which fits the depth-diameter ratio.  When Galileo arrives at Io, the depth-diameter reading may he observed and then confirmed.

"(d) The energy required to dig the crater and throw out the ejecta far exceeds that available from lunar seismic or volcanic processes."[57]

In reply: Io provides this energy, as is clearly observed.

"(e) The widespread production of breccias, shock-metamorphosed material and impact melted glasses ."[58]

In reply: Breccia was produced at Sedan.  Shocked rock at Toba.  On Io, the force exerted at the surface is immensely greater than that at Sedan or at Toba volcano and, therefore, production of these materials is well expected as well as melted glass.

In essence, all the phenomena associated with lunar craters have been produced at Sedan, Toba volcano or Io.

Also of importance is the fact that nearly all the materia at Sedan fell back upon the original bedrock surface from which it came.  Bevan M. French reports: "The solid bedrock at the Apollo II landing site is covered by a layer of 'lunar soil' a few meters thick composed of broken and melted rock fragments.  Nearly all are basalt fragments from the bedrock underneath."[59]

In light of this evidence, the impact theory faces a basic problem.  Donald Goldsmith explains that an impact produces a crater "five to ten times the object's diameter and would eject a vast quantity of matter upward and horizontally. [plus] most of the material ejected by the impact would be dust and grit."[60] (Emphasis added.)  The craters supposedly produced by impact excavate a deep hole and throw the debris from that hole across the lunar surface.  This is especially important for the larger craters and the giant maria.  Since the Moon's surface gravity is only one-sixth that of the Earth and there is no atmosphere to slow down flying ejecta particles, materials must travel great distances across the Moon before striking the surface.

Giant Maria on Lunar Surface

Consider the giant maria on the lunar nearside; these are several hundred miles in diameter.  Their ejecta could be expected to travel up to at least 1,000 miles before re-impacting the surface.  For example, the crater Tycho provides an excellent model to illustrate this concept.  French also states: "Many of these [lunar] craters have a radial pattern of bright rays that have been interpreted as long streamers of material ejected from the crater and scattered for hundreds of kilometers across the Moon."[61]  Tycho is a relatively average crater, 87 kilometers (54 miles) in diameter.  Therefore, the material excavated from the 30-odd maria would never be expected to fall predominantly back on the same bedrock from which it was explosively ejected.  There are literally thousands of craters over a mile in diameter that would then throw the old ejecta tens of miles outward.  Over 4 billion years, this ejection process would have created a jumbled mixture of surface covering, which is predominantly made up material quite different from the underlying bedrock.  The regolith overlying the bedrock would, after billions of years of bombardment, never reflect overwhelmingly the subsurface rock.

Paul D. Spudis makes this emphatic and telling point regarding transport of lunar ejecta materials:

Not surprisingly, the composition of the regolith closely resembles that of the local underlying bedrock.  Some exotic components are always present, perhaps arriving as debris flung from a large distant impact.  But this is the exception rather than the rule.  The contacts between mare and highland units appear sharp from lunar orbit, which suggest that relatively little material has been transported laterally.[62] (Emphasis added.)

When a meteorite impacts a surface, it produces a hole; almost all the material in the hole that has been excavated is thrown away from the hole, producing an ejecta blanket.  The larger the crater, the farther the ejecta blanket must extend.  The ejecta blankets from the maria would and must have fallen on surfaces of material quite different from that of the maria themselves.  But, in fact, Spudis informs us that there is a sharp demarcation between mare and highland units.  I suggest this would be impossible, based on the size of the craters and the distances materials would have been thrown, as well as in the analysis of the surface regolith or soil.  I will present indisputable evidence that the soil is not well mixed and was never transported as debris across the lunar surface.  I will also show that impacts have been extraordinarily rare events.  The bubble theory is also fully congruent with this evidence, as observed at the Sedan atomic test site.  The material was shattered in place as the ground was lifted and nearly all the material settled back on the same bedrock.

A further point that is often overlooked by impact theorists has to do with what one would expect to find mixed in with the regolith.  I am speaking about the fragments of the meteorites.  One would expect to discover large amounts of meteoric materials in the lunar soil, but this is far from the case.  French explains that there is only "l% to 2% of meteoric material [that] has been mixed with the ground-up lunar rock."[63]  Based on the Moon's age, its regolith should have a much larger percent of meteoric material, especially after 4.5 billion years of impacts.  There are, of course, some that would suggest that the percentage of meteoric material in the lunar soil is explained by the almost total disintegration of bodies that strike the Moon.  In answer, I point to Meteor Crater in Arizona, where according to Mutch, "Many large fragments from a nickel-iron meteorite have been discovered from the surface around the crater, as well as from depth in the crater."[64]  Virgilio Brenna declares: "Almost [15] tons of meteoric fragments were collected from the crater and near vicinity."[65]  G. J. H. McCall, an authority on meteorites, fully understood the physics of meteorite impacts and is cited by Patrick Moore regarding the dearth of this material on the Moon.  Moore states that "meteoric material does seem to be in strangely short supply, and one of the world's leading authorities on meteorites, G. J. H. McCall, has even asked plaintively, 'Where have all the meteorites gone?' if the Moon is 4.5 billions years old."[66]  The plaintive aspect of McCall's question is that no one knowledgeable of meteorite physics can accept that the Moon was bombarded by these bodies for 4.5 billion years and shows so little residue in the lunar regolith.  The 15 tons of meteoric debris found at Meteor Crater is prima facie evidence that the Moon's lack of this material in appropriate quantities is evidence against the impact hypothesis.

Bubbling Volcanism

If the Moon was subjected to a powerful tidal distortion recently, which induced craters to form by bubbling vulcanism, then the evidence related to this should be apparent.  In particular, surface and near-surface phenomena should indicate recent bubbling vulcanism.  In this respect, Bevan French discusses measured near-surface seismic disturbances seemingly unrelated to Earth tides.  He explains that,

not all moonquakes are regular or related to tides.  The lunar seismometers have also detected another kind of moonquake that occurs in groups at apparently random time, apparently unrelated to the Moon's motions around the Earth.  Those moonquakes are similar to the swarms of small, shallow earthquakes that often accompany the eruption of volcanic lavas on the Earth.[67]

Conversely, with respect to Earth tides, Zack Strickland reported:

The Apollo 12 lunar surface seismic experiment may have solved... [an] ancient mystery, but at the same time created another concerning the peculiarly precise moonquakes which possibly trigger the coloration [produced by gases observed on the Moon].

Signals from the Apollo 12 seismometers have been analyzed at...  [NASA' s] Manned Spacecraft Center showing the presence of moonquakes at the time the Moon's red glow is evident.  Both events occur when the Moon is at perigee... [nearest Earth on its orbit] a period when tidal forces between the two is strongest.  Dr. Gary Lathan of Lamont Dougherty Geophysical Observatory at Columbia University, the principal investigator of seismic activity on the Moon, believes the two events can be correlated.  His theory is that the tidal forces cause the Moon to 'pop', creating a moonquake and allowing gases trapped beneath the lunar surface to escape.  These gases may be the orange-red glow which astronomers have watched for centuries.[68]

In either case, magmatic and volcanic gases in the upper regions of the Moon would have dissipated themselves into space billions of years ago based on present theory.

If these shallow moonquakes are actually related to recent sites of bubbling vulcanism, then the degassing activity would tend to reoccur repeatedly in the same regions.  As is known, the last stages of vulcanism are exhibited by releases of hot gases from volcanic sites.  French states that there have been numerous observations by astronomers for hundreds of years, "such as glows, hazes, brief color changes and temporary obscurations made in recent times by careful observers [which] are convincing, although no adequate explanation has yet been proposed"[69] to explain these transient phenomena.  French adds, "Present day volcanic eruptions are hard to reconcile with the ancient ages of all lunar lavas."[70]

Several theories have been proposed to explain this phenomenon.  Winifred S. Cameron, in 1972, analyzed the various hypotheses and then concluded:

Comparison of the distribution (non-random) of the L.T.P. [lunar transient phenomena] sites, dark craters,...shows strong affinities for the mare edges... implying internal activity (probably degassing) as the source of most L.T.P.... Considering everything the data shows, the author is skeptical that there are any decisive external (even tidal) influences on this internal activity released at L.T.P. sites.[71]

What is well-observed is that, on the edges of maria and certain craters, gases from inside the Moon are repeatedly being released randomly.  This means that nothing external to the Moon can be responsible for these occurrences.  Were that the case, the luminescence would be observed on all areas of the Moon, not just in particular localized areas.

Patrick Moore reinforces this concept stating: "The sites named in nearly 400 reports of lunar transient phenomena fall into three classes, (I) sites peripheral to maria, (ii) ray craters, and (iii) ring plains with dark or partially dark floors; none are known in the rugged highland area of the southeast."[72]

Interestingly, V. A. Firsoff suggests that all observations indicate that the "Moon is not quite so dead after all.  In any event it is certain that gases are occasionally exhaled from the [lunar] interior and so at least some volcanic activity may be expected.  Gas exhalation is the last stage of declining vulcanism on the Earth."[73]  Firsoff also remarked on the following degassing observation that,

on 3rd November 1958 the Russian astronomer N. A. Kozyrev not only observed visually an emission of gas within the walled... [crater] of Alphonsus but secured a photograph of its spectrum (spectrogram) as corroborative evidence.  Oddly enough the gas appears to have been laden with molecules of carbon--it was in fact very fine smoke.[74]

What Kozyrev photographed spectroscopically was carbon gas being emitted from a particular lunar crater, much as carbon dioxide gas escapes from volcanic craters here on Earth.

Other gases have also been observed escaping from the Moon.  French has stated:

The search for radon [gas] was really an attempt to detect recent volcanic activity on the Moon... Because it decays into other element[s] quickly, any radon detected on the Moon's surface must have come up from the lunar interior in less than a week or two.  The detection of radon would pinpoint areas where gases were leaking rapidly out of the Moon; such places might be sites of recent vulcanism.[75]

Patrick Moore, in this regard, says that TLP were observed on the Moon on Oct. 30, 1963, as investigated by J. Greenacre and E. Barr from the Lowell Observatory in Arizona:

The phenomena included red and pink patches, and were quite unmistakable.  In the following month similar events were seen and were confirmed by P. Boyce at the Perkins Observatory using a 69-inch reflector--a giant telescope by any standard.  Detailed accounts were published, and if any lingering doubts about the reality of TLP remained after the Kozyrev episode, they were finally dispelled.

Aristarchus is the brightest crater on the Moon.  It is only 23 miles in diameter and 6,000 feet deep... [and] is the most event-prone [TLP] crater on the Moon, and is responsible for more than half the total number of reported TLP.  Gaseous emissions from it have been confirmed spectroscopically, and, on 19 July, 1969, activity was seen by the astronauts of Apollo 11, who were then together in the command module orbiting the Moon.  Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins used binoculars, and reported a luminous northwest wall, "more active" than anywhere else on the surface.  Added confirmation came from observers on Earth, who reported TLP in Aristarchus at around the same time.

There were further developments with the flight of Apollo 15, in 1971, when the command module carried a special device intended to detect what are known as alpha particles [helium nuclei].  These are produced by the decay of the radioactive gas radon, which in turn comes from uranium and thorium.  If radon gas diffuses through the regolith, it will release atoms into the tenuous atmosphere; when these atoms decay, alpha particles will be emitted.  As Apollo 15 passed [701 miles above Aristarchus, there was a significant rise in the number of alpha particles emitted by radon-222 .... Particles associated with decay of the other main kind of radon-220 were not found, and this showed that the effect was not due merely to a local excess on the surface of uranium and thorium.  The radon isotopes must have diffused through the regolith from below.  Radon-222 could be (and was) detected, but radon-220 atoms have a very brief existence; they last less than one minute, and would not persist ... long enough to come through the regolith.  Therefore, there seems no doubt that radioactivity in the Aristarchus area is responsible, and the scientists who carried out the analysis--P.  Gorenstein and P. Bjorkholm--added that "[t]he observed radon emanation is associated with the same internal processes which will on occasion limit volatiles in sufficient quantities to produce observable optical effects.[76]

In other words, the emanations are just like those found on Earth at sites of volcanoes!

One of the emissions of vulcanism is water vapor, and thus one of the most surprising discoveries of Apollo 14 was the discovery of emissions from the interior of the Moon that could only be derived from water vapor.  J. W. Freeman, Jr., reported that,

during a 14-hour period on March 7, 1971, the Apollo 14... suprathermal ion detector experiment [SIDE] observed an intense (maximum of 107 ions/ cm2 sec sr), prolonged series of bursts of 48.6 ev ions at the lunar surface.  The SIDE mass analyzer showed the mass per unit charge of these ions to be characteristic of water vapor if singly ionized.  The event was also observed by the SIDE total ion detectors (TIDS) at the Apollo 14 site and at Apollo 12 (located 183 [kilometers] to the west).... Ion spectra due to the LM [lunar module] exhaust gases are shown to be readily identified by the SIDE and are distinctly different in character from the spectra obtained on March 7.  Detailed consideration of other possible sources of water, including the Apollo 14 CSM, leads to the conclusion that the water did not come from man-made sources.  Also, it is estimated that the event may have involved a quantity of water much greater than that which has been artificially introduced into the lunar environment.  Consequently, it appears to be of lunar origin.[77]

in addition to water vapor escaping from the Moon, it was also indicated that S. O. Agrell, of the University of Cambridge had "reported finding a hydrous [water bearing] mineral geothite in a sample from Fra Mauro.  The geothite, [occurs as a surface] corrosive layer on iron grains--like rust on earth."[78]  He also stated:

A subsurface Apollo 16 soil... is much richer in volatile compounds than soils from any other locations or sites as shown by thermal analysis--gas release measurements.  A weight loss of 0.03[%] during the interval of 175[] to 350[] was associated with the release of water, carbon dioxide, methane, hydrogen cyanide, hydrogen, and minor amounts of hydrocarbons and other species.[79]

The explanation of a comet that struck the Moon to leave these volatiles in the regolith is highly untenable.  A comet striking the Moon at 20 kilometers per second, because it is so soft, would completely vaporize and the gases, which would be flung above the Moon by the impact, would either escape the Moon's weak gravitational field or, before descending to the surface, become ionized by the solar wind.  Like the findings of carbon gas and water vapor emissions that were observed, as well as those of water-bearing minerals, it is also probable that the volatile rich minerals found in the lunar regolith were outgassed from beneath the surface.  This concept of lunar outgassing is anathema to establishment scientists who support the impact theory.  In order to discredit this evidence from Alphonsus' carbon gas release, "E.  J. Opik questioned the reality of the [Alphonsus gas emission] phenomenon as a true [volcanic] disturbance and attributed it to fluorescence, but recent work has shown that no fluorescent effects on the Moon can be strong enough to cause glows visible from Earth."[80]  And it is grudgingly admitted: "'these lunar transients may be signs of gas discharge or of current volcanic activity."[81]  Therefore, vulcanism on the Moon cannot be a survival of ancient times and still show so much evidence of being in the final cool down stages.  The probes to the Moon were few in number and yet they found evidence while still in flight as well as while on the surface.  French stated that it is difficult to reconcile vulcanism on the Moon with ancient lavas.  It is difficult because uniformitarian theory demands that no vulcanism happened recently, otherwise the volcanic gas releases should simply not exist, but they do!  Nevertheless, this lingering volcanic activity on the Moon is exactly what is to be expected, based on Velikovsky's hypothesis.

Directly related to this is the question of heat flow from the lunar interior, and, particularly important, the locations of greatest heat flows.  If the regions of lunar transients are derived from subsurface vulcanism, then these sites should also be the regions of greatest heat.  We were earlier informed that LTPs are most common on the outer edges of the maria lava basins.  Thus, these areas should also be the sites for high thermal subsurface emissions.  And this is precisely the case.  Wernher von Braun and Ordway state that "...experiments by apollo astronauts on the Moon measured the heat flow from its interior.  Surprisingly, the heat rate was at first found to be double what was expected.  As data continued to be collected over many months it was found that the heat flow was not so great after all.  Still the instruments, which may have been in abnormally hot areas ... they were on the edges of lava basins ... indicated a flow of about half the average heat flow on Earth.  This very high value remains unexplained."[82] (Emphasis added.)

Related to all the foregoing are several types of volcanic features found

primarily on the nearside hemisphere.  Short tells us:

Most of the more than [4001 lunar domes, the dark-halo craters, rings, wrinkled ridges, straight and sinuous rilles, and other endogenic features of volcanic origin are associated with mare lavas, volcanic fillings in large craters or, in some instances, the smooth [maria] planes.... The majority of these features are concentrated on the nearside of the Moon as would be expected from the prevalence of the maria on [that] face.[83]

A most important feature commonly found over the Moon's surface as, Short mentioned, are the over 400 lunar domes.  Based on the tidal distortion, bubbling-volcanic concept domes are the remains of solid uplifted bubbles that have not collapsed.  Some of these domes, miles in diameter, also exhibit central crater pits.  Moore informs us that,

there are the remarkable features known as domes.  As their name suggests, they were produced by some internal force which pushed up the Moon's crust without being able to break it ....

Several interesting facts have emerged even before the Orbiter flights.  First, the domes are not spread about at random, but occur in clusters.

Secondly, many of the domes proved to have summit pits, giving them a striking resemblance to true volcanoes....[84]

It is now believed by astronomers that lunar domes are volcanic in nature.  However, it is also posited with the supposition that these volcanic structures were created billions of years ago when vulcanism was more prevalent on the Moon.  Lunar domes are not very large, compared to most of the higher mountains that are found on the Moon.  Here there arises a major problem which suggests that these domes could not be 1 billion years old.  The problem is lunar erosion.  Crater pits are low, caldera-like depressions centered on the top of domes.  They arc not very deep and thus would not survive the type of erosion described next.  G. Harry Stine explains:

On Luna the surface has lain bare to space for... billions of years, acted upon only by erosion of the temperature cycle of lunar night and day, the action of solar wind and impacts of meteorites.

But each of these types of lunar erosion was grossly misjudged by lunar experts before the Space Age.  For example, conceptual paintings of the lunar surface before the Apollo landings showed ranges of steep, sharply-spired mountains.  We now know from on-the-spot photographs that the highest and most rugged lunar mountains are gently sloped, softly rounded hills.  At one time they must have been rugged.  But some 3 billion years of erosion... plus billions of years of countless [tiny] impacts have reduced these once-majestic mountains to ant hills.[85]

This rounded-down structure of the lunar mountains can be seen from any good collection of photographs taken from lunar orbiting spacecraft or from the lunar surface.  What becomes clear from this evidence is that the rugged mountains were eroded down several thousand feet and are gently sloped and well-rounded.  With this erosion data, I now turn to the lunar domes and their crater pits.  The fact that crater pits exist at all is a contradiction of the evidence from erosion.  The fact that they exist indicates that they formed more recently than billions of years ago.  But this is not the only form of erosion on the Moon.

The second form of erosion operating on the Moon's surface lowers the age of the domes even more considerably than many millions of years.  Reducing the age of the domes to less than a million years presents a volcanic episode in lunar history completely unaccounted for by astronomers.  William R. Corliss presented an analysis of the nature of Rheology of lunar rock:

The science of Rheology deals with the flow of solids under stress [gravitational and heat stress].  Equations describing the deformation of solids under the influence of prolonged forces, such as gravity, are well developed.  That terrestrial rocks can deform in relatively short periods of time can be seen in the movements of salt and ice glaciers and the sagging of old tombstones under their own weight.  The thrust of this article... is that the Moon's crater walls must flow like any other solid.  In fact, after 3 billion or more years, the lunar craters should have all hut disappeared!

The unit of viscosity is the poise.  Terrestrial rocks have viscosities well under 1023 poises; e.g., granite is 1020 poise.  No direct measurements of the viscosities of lunar rocks at lunar temperatures have been found in the literature, but by analogy to terrestrial rocks, they should be under 1023 poise also.  Lunar basalts, for example, are very much like terrestrial basalts.

Using the equations of rheology, the lunar craters should be flattened by gravity in less than a million years if the viscosity of similar terrestrial rock (basalt) [is] used.  Actually, some scientists have estimated the viscosity of the lunar crust at 1027 poise based on the assumption that the lunar crust solidified over [3] billion years ago.  In contrast, the viscosity of the terrestrial mantle is usually taken as 1022 poise, a factor of 105 [100,000 times] lower![86] (Emphasis added.)

In fact, R. B. Baldwin, in order to explain the absolute ages of seven lunar front face basin walls, required that their rocks have strengths of up to 1030 poise.[87]

In the most simple terms, the scientists have assumed, as required precisely, the strength of the rock in order to allow the high regions of the Moon to have lasted 3 to 4 billion years.  Here we can see that the scientists have, based only on an assumed age of lunar high structures, concluded that rock on the Moon is 100,000 times to 100,000,000 times more rigid than the strongest rocks on Earth.  If only the Egyptians could have quarried this rock for their pyramids they would have had structures that would stand for the rest of time on Earth.  These are truly the rocks of the ages.

What should be obvious from this evidence is that, taken together, erosion and rheology would not only remove all the crater pits of lunar domes, but the domes as well.  From this, it becomes apparent that the lunar domes are less than a million years old.  And one may properly argue that 1 million years will not accommodate Velikovsky's 3,500-year-old catastrophist conclusion.  But I have not come to the end of this analysis.

One aspect of the lunar maria is that lava flows exist over their surfaces.  The question is this, How does one know that lava flowed across the maria?  The answer: These flows look like lava flows observed here on Earth.  Farouk El Baz related: "The Apollo missions also returned ample photographic evidence not only that the lunar maria were the products of lava flows, but also that these flows were emplaced at repeated times, allowing one flow to cool and solidify prior to emplacement of another."[88]  These lava flows are much, much smaller structures in height on the lunar surface than the domes are.  These flows are made of basalt--the same basalt that flows out of terrestrial volcanoes on Earth.  Unless these lunar basalts are billions of times more rigid than Earth basalts, the lunar lava flows should be completely flattened.  That implies that micrometeorite erosion would lower the flows and the detritus would gravitationally fill the valleys between the flows.  The heat at the surface would cause flow leveling more rapidly since solar heat causes more rapid flow of rock.  This suggests that flows are recent, perhaps less than 10,000 years old.  They cannot, under these conditions, be even 100,000 years old.

In addition, we must remember that the Moon generates one-third more heat per unit volume than does the Earth.  Under this condition, the subsurface rock should deform even more rapidly and allow the Moon's surface irregularities to relax and disappear.

The surface of the Moon, based on this evidence, is much younger than astronomers have dared to consider.  How young we will show from evidence of the Moon's regolith, which contains a number of important, surprising pieces of evidence that show even more conclusively that the established history of the Moon is incorrect.

The Lunar Regolith

Earlier in this paper, it was pointed out that the lunar regolith is not a well mixed matrix with a good deal of material from different areas thrown together pell mell.  It was also shown that there is very little meteoric material in the regolith compared to what one would expect.  It is time to examine the lunar regolith in detail.

One of the most misrepresented concepts offered to the public by conventional science is that the lunar regolith is a highly-mixed soil caused by impact events.  A perfect example of this misrepresentation is presented by Arthur N. Strahler, who informs us: "Wherever the Apollo astronauts were able to observe cross-sectional exposures of lunar material below the general surface (as in crater rims and rilles) it proved to be a mixture of fine and coarse fragments formed by churning action of repeated cratering."[89]

Nevertheless, a totally different picture emerges when we investigate what was actually discovered in these very cores taken from the lunar regolith.  French informs us, contrary to Strahler, that cross-sections of the soil were collected by driving a hollow tube vertically into the soil.  When the tube was pulled out it contained a core of lunar soil 2 centimeters in diameter and usually 10 to 20 centimeters [2.5 to 5 inches] long.

The first cores returned by the Apollo 11 were 10 centimeters and 13.5 centimeters [2.5 to 5.5 inches] long.  They seemed well-mixed and homogenous, suggesting that the mixing process in the lunar soil [was] effective to at least these depths.  But the two Apollo 12 cores told a much different story.  They had penetrated to depths of 19.3 and 41.3 centimeters [7.75 and 16.5 inches] and the longer core contained at least ten recognizable layers with different colors, particle sizes, and compositions.  Most of the layers were composed of material identified as reworked soil, but a few contained particles of bedrock ....

Still more impressive layering was found in the long core (242 centimeters) [8 feet] returned from the Apollo 15 landing site at Hadley Rille.  The core contained at least 42 distinct layers ranging in thickness from a few centimeters to 13 centimeters.  Well-layered cores were also returned by the Apollo 16 crew from the highlands near Descartes.

The cores from the later Apollo missions demonstrate that layering is preserved in the lunar soil and that the mixing of the soil by small impacts does not occur rapidly at depths greater than a few centimeters.[90] (Emphasis added.)

Strahler has suggested that the lunar regolith is a well-mixed matrix, especially in rilles, but at Hadley's Rille, 42 distinct layers were found with thickness ranging between a few centimeters and 13 centimeters, This layered stratification of the lunar soil is in total contradiction to what he has stated.  A second point offered by French was that the regolith layers were "reworked soil."[91]  If impacts reworked the soil, there would not be layers at all.

Thomas Gold also analyzed this layering phenomenon and stated that "most of the core tubes investigated show many very distinctive layers with differences of grain size, albedo [light reflective capacity of materials] and chemical composition.  However these layers might be produced, their presence argues against the supposition that the soil has generally been stirred."[92] What was clearly observed in the lunar soil were distinct layers of particles that differed from one another.  They differed distinctively by their sizes.  That is, one layer had, in general, larger or smaller particles in it than the layers above and below.  The layers differed distinctively by their capability of reflecting light.  But, most significantly, they differed from one another by each layer having a chemical composition unlike its neighboring layers!  If the regolith was stirred again and again periodically for 4 billion years, by violent and gentle impacts, then these unique, separate layers of particles in the Moon's regolith simply should not exist.  Nicholas Short states emphatically: "Stratification argues against major turnover and mixing at least within the sample interval."[93]  What is most significant is that the deeper cores showed precisely this layering phenomenon, which began from one inch to a few inches under this regolith.

In fact, Strahler mentions the deep core taken from the Moon layers and states: "Cratering was accompanied by the throwing out of fine particles that fell widely in layers surrounding the craters.  For that reason, thin layers of fine particles are found with large fragments embedded in them."[94]  Strahler never mentions that the core layers are arranged by particle size, color, albedo, or chemical composition.  He does discuss the long core just mentioned, but assiduously ignores its significant evidence to maintain that the Moon has been impacted.

The impact theory requires the following scenario: A meteorite strikes the lunar surface and cracks it so deeply that lava inundates the surface containing distinctive materials in layers.  The lava freezes solid in the freezing lunar night period.  Thereafter, impact upon impact by large and small bodies strike that lunar surface over 4 billion years.  Can anyone believe that distinct layers of material, with particles separated by size, albedo, color, and chemical composition, would survive intact on the Moon, or that the cores, by some improbably accident, were just coincidentally taken only from areas that were unaffected by 4 billion years of impacts?  The concept is so improbable as to be totally devoid of merit.

In conjunction, layered soil derived from its bedrock, described carrier, and almost devoid of meteoric material, supports Velikovsky's concept.  In a bubbling, volcanic tidal event, lava would flow across the Moon's surface to cover it.  But the bubbling uplift and subsidence would last for weeks to months before the interior of the Moon quieted its rumbling.  This uplift and subsidence would break the overcovering lava in place, so that the layers would survive intact.  Only the top few inches would become jumbled and mixed, because only these particles could move about.  The layers beneath the surface are surrounded by other particles and have very little room to move laterally or vertically.  These subsurface, deeper particles, therefore, remain in relatively the same stratum.  Of course, a few particles from the top stratum will find their way to deeper layers, but these would be few in number, scattered in the lower layers with time.

This explains why only the top few centimeters of the lunar regolith were mixed, while those below were only very slightly mixed.  The great uplifts and subsidence regions would leave the strata very much as they found it, but at a different altitude, so that the surface would by and large reflect its earlier appearance.  There is, so far as I know, no other concept offered by astronomers that explains all the evidence discussed thus far.  Only a tidal distortion of recent time, with bubbling vulcanism, is in conformity with the evidence.

In addition to layering, there is a second phenomenon found in the lunar regolith that also denies that it was churned repeatedly.  Strahler states: "The surfaces of regolith fragments show clear indications of erosion by micrometeorites as well as damage from cosmic-ray and solar-flare particles, but this damage is on an atomic scale."[95]  Therefore, if the Moon was bombarded again and again for 4 billion years, surface particles with cosmic ray trails would sometimes be buried by this process, but new materials without cosmic-ray trails would be exposed on the surface and many of these new materials would also be buried by the debris of the impact at the same time.  These particles would be clear of cosmic-ray tracks.  In this regard, Gold further explains:

The lunar soil shows generally a remarkably high surface exposure, as judged by its cosmic ray tracks, by its implanted gases .... If this degree of surface exposure occurred during the entire age of the Moon, at the present rate only a thin layer could have been treated, however well the material was stirred or moved. The estimates of the maximum amount so treated range from a few tens of centimeters [8 inches] to a few meters [10 feet].  While this may perhaps seem adequate to account for the material investigated in the form of 3 meter [10 foot] drill cores, it is far from adequate when stirring by larger cratering events is taken into account.  Much of the material now of the top few meters must have come from nearby craters that are many tens of meters deep.  A substantial admixture of unexposed material should therefore be present almost everywhere in the soil.

Apart from the total amount of surface exposure, the distribution [materials with and without cosmic ray tracks] also cannot be accounted for.  If random stirring were held responsible for bringing grains to the surface for exposure, then even the most vigorous stirring would still give a larger proportion of unexposed grains than is found.  A computer simulation study... demonstrates this clearly.[96] (Emphasis added.)

The materials in the lunar regolith have cosmic ray tracks to a depth where they penetrate to about 6.5 feet (2 meters).[97]  However, the regolith appears to be unstirred because there are very few clear rocks without cosmic ray tracks in the lunar soil.  That is, since these rays are random, the soil seems to have the number of clear rocks one would expect if these rocks were missed by cosmic rays from an unstirred regolith.  A highly stirred soil would show a much larger percentage of clear rocks.  At this point, there are two levels of evidence that show the lunar soil was not mixed, viz, layers and cosmic ray tracks.

In addition, Strahler has indicated that solar flares also affect rock on the lunar surface.  If Velikovsky's concept is correct, then these rocks should show a very recent influx of micrometeorites caused by protoplanet Venus' tail materials carried in its train and left in space.  French gives us this surprising information:

The exposed surface of a lunar rock is a natural particle counter.  The tiny, fast moving particles of cosmic dust that strike the rock produce tiny glass-lined microcraters.  If the exposed age of the rock is known, we need only count craters on the exposed surface to calculate the rate at which the rock has been bombarded ....

So far as we know, the impact rate of small dust particles onto the Moon has been constant throughout the past few million years.  However, some recent studies have raised questions about this assumption.  Scientists who made a complete study of the microcraters on a large Apollo 16 sample (60015)... were able to date the formation ages of single microcraters by studying the solar flare particle tracks preserved in the glass linings of each crater.  The rock has been [estimated] exposed on the lunar surface for about 80,000 years, but the data indicates that more microcraters had formed during the last 10,000 years than in the earlier stages of the rock's exposure.

Such a recent increase in microcrater formation would imply a sudden influx of dust-size particles into the Earth-Moon region about 10,000 years ago.  One possible explanation is the arrival of a new comet which began to shed dust as it passed close to the Sun.[98]

This is yet to be confirmed by study of other rocks, but this preliminary research would appear to show that a new comet created a great deal of cosmic dust around the time Venus is supposed to have been ejected from Jupiter.  We will return to lunar dust below.

As a final piece of evidence which categorically denies that the Moon's regolith was stirred again and again by impacts, we turn to evidence of thermoluminescense tests carried out on lunar samples from the cores.  Gold has indicated: "The lunar soils shows generally a remarkable high surface exposure as judged by its ... implanted gases."[99]  These implanted electrons are used to estimate the time when the Moon's surface was last molten. the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was indeed quite interested in this question, as was Velikovsky, who sent a letter to the New York Times on August 5, 1971, in which he requested that core samples of lunar soil 3 feet deep be subjected to thermoluminescence testing.  Velikovsky contended that these tests would show the Moon was molten in historical times.  NASA did have such tests performed.  The tests were carried out by R. M. Walker of Washington University, St. Louis, as reported in KRONOS (Winter 1977): 37-38.  However, the cores were from only 6-inch soil depths and not 3-feet depths as Velikovsky suggested.  In such a case, the particles could be affected by the long 14-day lunar day period.  Since the Moon lacks an atmosphere unlike Earth, it is subjected to greater solar radiation.  In spite of this, the shallow core sample test by Walker showed that the Moon had been molten less than 10,000 years ago--not millions of years ago as conventional science has presented.  James E. Oberg, in a recent article on Velikovsky, criticized him on this specific thermoluminescence evidence.  Oberg states:

According to Dr. Robert M. Walker, the man who did the original studies, "The discussion of the thermoluminescence data by Velikovsky is completely wrong headed.... Any disturbance we might have reported would have a physical disturbance resulting in the exposure of subsurface material to solar heating.  In fact, the thermoluminescence data proves that Velikovsky's contention--that the Moon surface was recently heated--is nonsense." These are the words of the principal investigator of the experiment whose report was used by Velikovsky as support.[100]

Let us, therefore, examine this evidence that Oberg and Walker claim contradicts Velikovsky.  As we will see, this is not at all the case, because thermoluminescence evidence fully supports and concurs with Velikovsky's thesis.  According to Walker's scenario, an impact or other violent event brought the rock specimen to the surface with such force that it heated the rock to the temperature which released thermoluminescent electrons.  Thereafter, the rock was exposed at the surface to solar radiation, which reimplanted electrons that gave the sample its youthful age.  Based on Oberg and Walker's analysis, the lunar regolith was subjected to impacts which rearranged the particles in it.  Therefore, what should one expect to find in the lunar soil based on this impact and mixing concept?  What should be found is that some specimens will have more thermoluminescence in the same layer than others.  That is, the thermoluminescence should not show clear development of gradients.  That is, Walker's concept demands that there should be randomness of thermoluminescence throughout the core; here a particle was heated and raised to the surface, there a particle from the surface was buried, and sometimes surface particles fell back upon the surface, and sometimes buried particles were reburied after impact.  Under no condition does the concept by Oberg and Walker allow for a uniform gradient in general for the thermoluminescence tested for in the cores.  Furthermore, their concept requires that the impact events that heated the rock brought to the surface left it there with zero age.  Hence, their scenario also demands that the specimens with the youngest thermoluminescence age be at the surface.  Based on this view, a uniform gradient must not be found--it should show randomness--and there should not be a uniform gradient of thermoluminescence age becoming younger (decreasing) as we go deeper into the Moon.

Velikovsky's hypothesis stipulates that the Moon experienced a tidal distortion and, therefore was heated from below.  As the rock particles cooled, they also retained their heat longer the deeper into the Moon one goes.  He also claims that hot gases with radon and electrons and alpha particles have been emitted with other gases from deeper within the Moon.  These would implant thermoluminescence more into the rock the deeper one goes.  More of these radioactive gases and electrons with depth would create greater thermoluminescence with depth.  A second outcome of Velikovsky's thesis requires that, instead of having the youngest thermoluminescence age rock at the top layers, the age will also decrease with depth.  The reason for this is that hot rock particles must cool below a certain temperature to set their thermoluminescence age to zero.  Based on Velikovsky's hypothesis, the Moon cooled its particles at the surface first, then more slowly with depth.  Thus, if Velikovsky is correct, the deeper the core sample, the more thermoluminescence it will generally contain and the younger the age of the particle will become.  There should be both more thermoluminescence with depth and greater youth with depth.

The differences between the claims of Walker and Oberg's analysis and that of Velikovsky are so unambiguous that there can be no problem in determining which of these two concepts is the correct one.  We saw how well the layered lunar soil and the evidence of cosmic ray tracks was fully supportive of Velikovsky's scenario; let us now turn to the evidence of thermoluminescence.

With respect to the question of whether there is randomness or a gradient of thermoluminescence [TL] with depth, we turn to G. F. J. Garlick and 1. Robinson, who report that "...thermoluminescence studies of lunar samples found both for Apollo 11 and 12 core samples [show] that the residual thermoluminescence increases with depth of core sample below the lunar surface..."[101] (Emphasis added.)

Completely contrary to Walker and Oberg, the gradient showed more TL with depth, whereas their concept requires the surface layer to have the most thermoluminescence.  Most significantly, these were relatively shallow cores, which completely denies the concept that the solar wind particles induced the thermoluminescence.  Shallow cores are expected to receive their implanted electrons from above.

With respect to the question of age with depth, we turn to evidence from Luna-24, an unmanned Soviet spacecraft that returned cores from the Moon.  These cores were tested for thermoluminescence by B. D. Bhasin and C. M. Sunta in India.  They state that "the relative age should increase with depth but the computation [of thermoluminescence of the core samples] show reverse of it."[102] (Emphasis added.) Instead of finding a mixed regolith, or one in which materials show greater age with depth, just as Oberg and Walker's concept demands, just the opposite was found in the lunar core.  Shocked beyond belief, Bhasin and Sunta declare, "Such a situation is impossible."[103]  What makes this "impossible" requires one to accept that impacts in some fashion or other caused a complete reversal of the layers in the Luna-24 core and that it did so in a manner that preserved the layers--particle by particle--upside down.  Is there anyone willing to believe millions of rock particles can be so carefully and precisely rearranged by an impact?

This evidence validates Velikovsky's claim that the Moon was molten by being recently heated from below and its particles cooled from the surface downward.  The evidence is in complete agreement with Velikovsky's hypothesis.  What is measured and observed is that the thermoluminescence becomes greater with depth because it was hotter longer and stayed warmer with depth so more radioactive gases with electrons escaping from below could be reabsorbed; and the thermoluminescence age also decreases with depth because the deeper particles took longer to cool to zero age before they began to collect electrons.  The point that must be emphasized is that this evidence was found wherever cores of the lunar regolith were taken.  G. J. H. McCall stated:

The lunar basalts [lava materials] are now known to have been differentiated to a limited degree in a manner that can be detected from landing site to landing site, and shows a progression with age: [W]hatever the exact nature of this differentiation, it is clearly one that took place in an immense reservoir of melt....[104] (Emphasis added.)

In other words, the fact that the volcanic rock materials in the lunar soil are organized by thermoluminescence, by layers and by cosmic ray tracks could only be produced by one immense melting of the Moon, according to McCall, who then adds that "this fact rules out the possibility of lunar basalts being simply localized [sic] products of impact-induced secondary melting."[105]

Oberg, through Robert M. Walker, called Velikovsky's concept "completely wrong headed" and "nonsense," based on their own understanding.  These are angry words and require a response with even more evidence.  Garlick and Robinson, who were cited earlier regarding the fact that there is more thermoluminescence with depth, inform us who developed and proved this to be so.  The person responsible for this evidence, which contradicts Robert M. Walker, the head of the team that carried out the thermoluminescence tests for NASA, just happens to be Robert M. Walker.  Walker presented the findings in Proceedings of the Apollo 11 and Lunar Science Conference, Cosmochimica Acta Supplement 13, p. 2269, and in Proceedings of the Apollo 12 Lunar Science Conference (MIT Press).  Thus, Oberg and Walker use anger and name-calling rather than an appropriate analysis of the evidence.  Notwithstanding their statements, the thermoluminescence evidence supports Velikovsky's hypothesis and contradicts their conclusions.

Based on three levels of evidence--layering in the lunar regolith, cosmic ray tracks in the lunar soil and thermoluminescence becoming greater and younger with depth--all deny the Moon was bombarded again and again throughout its history.  This evidence also emphatically denies the localized periodic volcanic theory.  No localized volcanic theory will account for this uniformity over the entire Moon.  As McCall stated, it had to have been the product of "an immense melt."[106]  What localized volcanic episode will melt the entire Moon?  The answer: A global tidal distortion is the only agent that could do this and which is in harmony with all the other evidence discussed above.

Since there is no evidence of stirring to depth or of massive mixing of the lunar regolith, there comes the problem of 4 billion years of dust.  However, there is only a very thin layer of dust on the lunar surface.  Ian T. Taylor writes:

Petterson (1960) of the Swedish Oceanographic Institute, working on high mountain tops, filtered measured quantities of air and analyzed the particles he found.  Since the meteorites that have survived contained an average of 2.5 percent nickel, then the nickel content of the dust extracted represented that which came from meteorites rather than from terrestrial sources.  From a knowledge of the total volume of the Earth's atmosphere, Petterson reckoned that 14 million tons of meteoric dust settled on the Earth's surface each year; however, because of some variability in results, he concluded with a more conservative figure of five million tons .... Isaac Asimov the [late] popular science writer, took the more liberal figure and concluded that at that rate, the dust piles up to about ten-millionths of an inch per year.  This is certainly not much to get excited about.  However, he then pointed out that over nearly five billion years, this would add up, if undisturbed, to a layer of fifty-four feet deep over the entire surface of the Earth. [See Isaac Asimov in Science Digest, Jan. 1959]  Recalling that this dust is mostly iron and nickel oxides it will be evident that no such layer or any trace of it is to be found; then of course it is argued that wind and water carried it away and it is now in ocean sediment.

Asimov, writing at about the time the Apollo Moon landing was being planned, was reflecting a concern among scientists that in the absence of wind and rain, a similar depth of dust would have accumulated on the Moon's surface .... There was before them the prospect that the Apollo lunar module would land only to disappear by slowly sinking into the Moon dust!  To avoid this very possibility, the lunar module was equipped with large pad feet.  On 21 July 1969, more than 600 million people watched as television transmitted mankind's first footstep onto the Moon's surface.  Neil Armstrong's reply to CBS interviewer Walter Cronkite is worth quoting since the opening dialogue reported by Wilford of The New York Times (21 July 1969, page 1), concerns the depth of the dust.  The surface is fine and powdery.  I can pick it up loosely with my toe.  It does adhere in fine layers like powdered charcoal to the sole and sides of my boots.  I only go in a small fraction of an inch, maybe an eighth of an inch."  As if to confirm this, astronauts Armstrong an Aldrin had great difficulty planting the American flag into the rocky and virtually dust-free ground, yet not one comment was made on the significance of the absence of the great depth of dust."[107]

Now what has happened to the dust?  According to Strahler, page 144,

if a farmer plows the same field to a depth of 20 cm [8 in] each spring, even in a lifetime or several lifetimes the layer disturbed by plowing will be only 20 cm deep.... On the Moon, in the absence of an atmosphere and free water, cratering has simply moved the contents of a shallow surface layer from one point to another in a random manner over the past 3 b. y. [billion years] or so.

In other words, impacts and stirring removed the dust.  This view is still maintained in spite of the direct evidence against stirring.  If a farmer plows the same field while dust is failing and this goes on even for 3 or 4 billion years, the depth of the material will increase; 27 feet or even 54 feet of dust would leave more than one-eighth of an inch of dust on the Moon because the stirring could have occurred over only a few centimeters.  How Strahler reduces 54 to 27 feet of dust to a thickness of only a few centimeters requires a logic that is beyond comprehension!

There is an aspect of the lunar regolith related to the nature of radioactivity found in it over certain regions.  It is a well known geological fact that the youngest rocks on Earth contain the most radioactive materials, except, of course, for special strata which are mined for uranium.  Therefore, if there was an immense outgassing or outpouring from deep lunar regions, certain areas would receive more of their share of these radioactive substances and show a much higher degree of radioactivity than other areas.  The sites of the largest upheavals, under these circumstances, would tend to exhibit this evidence because there the outpouring and outgassing was also greatest.  Allen Hammond states:

The region around the Imbrium basin ... appears to have some unusual features.  Observation of the gamma rays given off by radioactive materials showed much higher concentrations of uranium, thorium and potassium in Mare Imbrium and in the neighboring lava flows of Oceanus Procellarum than elsewhere on the Moon. [These are the largest maria on the Moon and would, therefore, contain the deepest radioactive materials in their surface lavas.] The observations were made from lunar orbit and the Apollo 15 spacecraft allowed about 15 percent of the Moon's surface to be mapped.  The results of the experiment, conducted by a team headed by James Arnold of the University of California at San Diego, indicate concentrations of about 10 parts per million of thorium in the Mare Imbrium soil, compared with I ... ppm in the eastern part of the Moon [but] why the Imbrium and Procellarum regions should be the overwhelming source of the radioactive elements on the Moon's surface, as they appear to be, has been difficult for geochemists to explain.[108]

It is only difficult to explain this phenomenon it one Is uniformitarian beliefs repress the concept that the Moon has recently undergone a tidal distortion which brought radioactive materials to its surface.

Lastly, let us deal with the Moon's magnetism.  The problem of the Moon's magnetic field is well known as an unsolved problem to present-day astronomy.  French puts it in this light, "Basically, we just do not know enough yet to understand where the lunar magnetism came from."[109]

Hammond remarks:

Neither the magnetic field associated with the solar nebula nor the dipole magnetic field of the Earth, according to S. K. Runcorn, of the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne in England could have magnified the Moon's crust because of the orientation of the field in the solar wind and the length of period during which the Moon would have to be very close to the Earth.[110]

If neither the Earth, nor the Sun, nor the Moon itself could generate its magnetic field, whence came its field?  According to Cadogen, "rocks of the lunar crust have been magnetized externally rather than internally."[111]  (Emphasis added.) In order for this to occur, a body had to come close enough to the Moon to melt its rocks and at the same time immerse the Moon in a strong magnetic field.  This indeed is the concept proposed by Velikovsky.

In order to dispute and disprove Velikovsky's concept regarding lunar magnetism, James E. Oberg also criticized Velikovsky on this point in his article.  Oberg writes:

As to the magnetism in the rocks (which to Velikovsky's credit seems to have been a complete surprise to everyone else), his exact words were that the Moon's surface "could conceivably be rich in remanent magnetism resulting from strong currents when in the embrace of erogenous magnetic fields." Such a careful wording would have been safe if such magnetism had not been found, but Velikovsky hit the jackpot here.  Or did he?

The actual nature of the lunar remanent magnetism is even stranger than Velikovsky had predicted.  Far from being a planet-wide field, it is logically "patchy" and varies tremendously in orientation and strength.  In fact, the fossil magnetic fields appear related to random impact events, not to the simultaneously implanting of an unidirectional outside field.  The lack of any general homogeneity has led Moon geologists to reject the notion of any external cause, such as the one Velikovsky predicted."[112]

Once again, random impacts are called to the rescue despite all the evidence against this theory.  Let us, therefore, analyze this concept to see what the evidence actually shows.  Oberg has told us that magnetism on the Moon's surface "appear[s] related to random impact events."[113]  However, Thomas A, Hockey states, contrary to Oberg's assertion, "Curiously, however, many of these magnetic anomalies do not correspond to heavily cratered areas."[114]  Therefore, one must ask: How did the areas without impacts get their magnetism?  Hockey suggests, "Perhaps large impacts have transported magnetic material as ejecta."[115]  In such a case, one must conclude that particles that were somehow magnetized by the impact flew through space across the lunar surface and then fell onto and into the regolith, nearly all with the same alignment of their dipoles.  Thus, based on Oberg's suggestion, both certain craters but not other regions with few craters or even no craters became magnetized by impacts.  How each place became magnetized while its particles were flying every which way to generate a dipole alignment of these same particles is left to one's imagination.

The supposedly telling point Oberg makes is that these impacts created a surface magnetic field that is patchy.  Unfortunately, for Oberg, Zdenek Kopal, in complete contradiction to Oberg, informs us:

With the arrival in the lunar environment of the surface and sub-satellite magnometers of the successive Apollo missions, many new facts on lunar magnetism came to tight.  The sub-satellite of the Apollo 15-17 missions orbited at altitudes substantially lower than that of Explorer 35 and detected local magnetic fluctuations between 20 and 30 gammas.  These fluctuations turned out to be correlated with specific formations (craters) on the lunar surface overflown by the magnometer.  The carriers of this field are brecciated rocks produced by impacts.  At any rate, the origin of this field which fluctuates with topography can only be skin deep and has nothing to do with the deep interior.

The same is not true of the remanent magnetism of lunar crystalline rocks which are found deeper below the surface."[116] (Emphasis added.)

Kopal tells us that there are two kinds of magnetism of the Moon.  One field is splotchy and at the surface--the one described by Oberg.  The other field is related to the deeper interior where "remanent magnetism in lunar crystalline rocks" are located.  Kopal also tells us the surface magnetic field has nothing to do with the field in the deeper interior.  That difference has to do with crystalline rock.  And there is excellent reason for this difference.  Crystals form slowly in rocks and iron atoms in these crystals were also incorporated into them slowly.  The Britannica states, "Many factors influence the ability of a magma to crystallize, but the length of time during which cooling occurs is the controlling factor."[117]  Tiny crystals can form in a few hours to a few days.  Crystals do not form in a few seconds by impacts that align their magnetic components.

Kopal further explains that "the magnetism of these [lunar rocks] is stable and suggests a prevalence of much stronger fields (100-1,000 gammas) at the time of solidification."[118]  An impact can melt rock but cannot create a magnetic field for longer than a few seconds.  To imprint magnetism in crystals in rock takes from hours, at the very least, to a few days.  Oberg's entire criticism of Velikovsky is based on a fundamental ignorance of how remanent magnetism is implanted in deeper crystalline rock.  In this respect, Cadogan also, contrary to Oberg, states:

Magnetic features as small as a mile across would simply not be detected from [high] orbit if they were randomly distributed.  And magnetic measurements at different altitudes imply that crystal magnetism may in places be coherent down to depths of at least several thousand feet.  Only a global magnetic field... could possibly account for this coherence."[119] (Emphasis added.)

As one can see, the concept suggested by Velikovsky fully agrees with the evidence regarding remanent lunar magnetism.

What then of the surface field found with some craters and others in non-cratered areas?  In Worlds in Collision, Velikovsky suggested that lightning flashes were exchanged between protoplanet Venus and the Earth and Moon.  S. K Runcorn categorically states that "a lightning bolt can magnetize a rock outcrop."[120]  That is, lightning created the surface magnetic field which is patchy and is oriented in numerous directions.  While the scientists can explain neither the surface fields of lunar magnetism nor the deeper fields of remanent magnetism found in crystalline lunar rock, Velikovsky's theory accounts quite well for both magnetic fields.

However, to reinforce this evidence, we will now add the fact that one hemisphere of the Moon exhibits magnetic field strengths generally greater than the opposite hemisphere.  Were we to invoke impacts, as Oberg has suggested, then, somehow, these surface impacts created remanent magnetism with a hemispheric dichotomy.  French states:

In general, the maria on the nearside of the Moon have lower magnetism than the highlands--less than 50 gammas--and are more uniform magnetically.

 The highland areas especially those on the far side, show stronger, if uneven and

variable magnetic fields which are often above 300 gammas.[121]

Therefore, according to Oberg, the impacts on the nearside generated weaker magnetic fields than on the far side and also generated more uniform fields on the nearside maria.  Does Oberg expect anyone to believe that random impact events have the capacity to produce more varied and more powerful fields on one hemisphere of the Moon while they produced more uniform and less powerful fields on the opposite hemisphere?  Again, what is erroneously suggested is that "random" impacts produce non-random phenomena.  The concepts related to impacts are disproven by too much fundamental evidence.

The real question is, Do scientists believe that the Moon's remanent magnetism can be created by the process Velikovsky propounded, i.e., by a close tidal interaction of the Moon with a planet?  The answer is "Yes." Accordingly, W. Strangway, suggests precisely this in the journal Lunar Science.  Scientists concluded 23 years after Velikovsky first proposed his thesis that the close approach of the Moon to the Earth in ancient times melted the Moon and immersed it in the Earth's magnetic field to generate its remanent magnetism .[122]  The only differences between Velikovsky's theory and that proposed by the scientists are the time of the event and the body responsible for the magnetism.  In one case, it is suggested that the Earth magnetized the Moon in ancient times.  In Velikovsky's case, protoplanet Venus did so a few thousand years ago.  In every other way, the two concepts are alike.  However, Velikovsky's theory makes more sense because 4 billion years of bombardment and impact would have destroyed all the ancient magnetism.  Velikovsky's suggestion is based on the same scientific principles as that of Strangway and his colleagues.  So much for Oberg's criticism about lunar magnetism!

CONCLUSION

The foregoing analysis presents to the reader a great deal of evidence that is related to several major areas of lunar research.  The basis of the evidence is fundamental.  When taken all together, it indicates in undeniable terms that there is no history of meteoric random bombardment from space.  If that were the case, the number of contradictory phenomena would not be so numerous, compelling nor basic.  Yet, here we encounter a seeming enigma.  Seismometers on the lunar surface have measured undeniable evidence of impacts occurring presently.  It is on the basis of this present-day evidence that astronomers feel confident that the impact hypothesis must be correct.  The reasoning is like that proposed by Charles Lyell 150 years ago, that "the present is the key to the past." Therefore, ff impacts are happening today, then they must also have occurred throughout the entire period of lunar history.  To support this uniformitarian belief, they must ignore all the varied evidence presented above or invent numerous ad hoc processes to explain the negative facts for this belief.  For example, D. E. Gault and his associates developed a concept that allows cosmic missiles to strike the Moon and not disrupt the layering found in the regolith.  But for all its ingenuity, no one takes such a concept seriously.  Before one can accept the impact vision of lunar history, the facts actually derived from observations, measurement, etc., must explain such evidence as hemisphere dichotomies for maria, mascons, deep focus moonquakes and the lunar bulge, as well as local or regional phenomenon such as double craters, linear crater chains running north and south and regions of high radioactivity.

Before proceeding further, it is important to point out that Velikovsky's theory accounts for the present lunar bombardment as well.  His theory claims that the catastrophes that occurred produced solar system debris such as comets, meteors and zodiacal dust.  The production of this debris is presently still with us, but is removed from space by impacts on the satellites of the Sun or by the Sun itself Debris is also removed from the solar system by near-collisions with its satellites.  Velikovsky's theory points out that we are living in the period after a major solar system debacle and that the debris, such as comets, meteors, and zodiacal dust, arc the leftovers of this catastrophic period.  This fallout, in time, will decline and end until the next great catastrophe.  In this respect, "the present is the key to a catastrophic past."

Any attempt by the theorists to explain the history of the Moon must take all this evidence into account and not ignore the evidence which is inconvenient and negative to the impact theory.  As Gold stated in the introductory statement of this paper, "Much ... was built upon conceptual structure, so that it has...become quite hard to distinguish these [theoretical] constructs from factual evidence."[123] The major conceptual structure of lunar research is the concept of the impact hypothesis.  This paper has demonstrated that it is not only not hard to distinguish this concept from factual evidence but that the factual evidence is negative to it on nearly every level.  To then argue that impact theory is the only plausible, rational or scientific explanation for what is observed on the Moon is, as Gold said, "misrepresentation [and] a great disservice to lunar science."[124]

Roger Ashton, writing about a different concept of catastrophic theory, presented a biting denunciation of "Velikovskian Methodological Flaws": "The burden of proof is heavier than that upon the scientific establishment for its own views because one must at every step and substep respect the requirements of scientific ... [evidence].  Velikovskians have not met even .01 percent of their burden of proof and have shown no signs that it is due in fill."[125]  When we apply Ashton's argument to the impact theory for the Moon, we see that there is no hard evidence from establishment science to make a plausible, rational or scientific case for this concept.  In fact, the great bulk of the hard evidence quite clearly supports a very different theory--namely the massive tidal distortion hypothesis.  With respect to the Moon, the shoe is on the other foot because the scientific establishment, not the Velikovskians, has shown little respect at every step and substep regarding the requirements of scientific evidence.  The scientific establishment, not the Velikovskians, has not met even one percent of its burden of proof, and has shown no signs of recognizing that it is due in full!

At the University of Toronto symposium in 1990, organized by Milton Zysman, I confronted Peter Grieves with but a fraction of the evidence presented above.  In the audience was Victor Clube, the invited guest speaker from the London Observatory, who, with Bill Clube and Michael Bailey, proposed an impact history for the Earth and the Moon.  Not a single point was answered by Clube, while Grieves brushed the evidence aside.  James McCanney's piece, "On Denial Systems,"[126] shows that the failure to squarely face up to negative evidence is nothing but denial--an attempt to avoid painful facts that contradict one's cherished beliefs.  By denying such facts, one can continue to believe in the integrity of one's belief system, and, with the Moon's history, the impact hypothesis is merely a belief system underpinned by assumptions, not evidence.

I also presented similar evidence in "Mars in Upheaval,"[127] and in Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky,[128] in which it was shown that Mars also exhibits a hemispheric cratering topography--a kind of hemispheric bulge, hemispheric vulcanism, all on one of the planet's hemispheres, but little or none on the other.  This cratering dichotomy is also found on Mercury.[129]  This asymmetry is completely antithetical to the impact hypothesis, but it was not addressed in Canada nor anywhere else by impact theorists.  Why?  It is part of the cherished belief system of its supporters and is too painful as a hard fact to be faced squarely along with all the other painful facts.  To accept these facts requires that the impact theory supporters relinquish their cherished belief system and admit it has no basis in the scientific evidence.

Those who wish to follow Clube, Napier and Bailey's catastrophic scenario, and also Clube, Napier and Bailey, have the obligation to face up to the evidence presented above if they are to be taken seriously.  I quote from Clube and Napier's The Cosmic Winter:

We seem to have found then the vital element missing from the works of the early Biblical catastrophists--Whiston, Radlof, Donnelly, Velikovsky and the rest--namely, a scientific rationale, a relatively secure astronomical framework.   Biblical and geological catastrophism are, after all, inextricably linked.  While this clearly justifies an urgent reappraisal of the ancient tales of celestial catastrophe, the new information is extremely awkward for a generation of astronomers who insisted that Velikovsky was no more than an erudite charlatan.  Astronomers, indeed, scientists, generally like to think of themselves as tolerant judges and very adaptable to fresh discoveries.  The evidence in this instance is, however, mostly the other way.  One may, therefore, expect that in some circles the data now emerging from the Taurid meteor stream will be ignored in the hope that something reassuring will turn up... this is a time-honoured scholarly ploy for the handling of discordant new facts.[130] (Emphasis added.)

Why doesn't the evidence support the eons-long history of impacts if, as Clube and Napier state: "The Moon... ran through such a [meteor] swarm between 22-26 June 1975 [and] lunar seismometers left by the Apollo astronauts recorded the impacts of a swarm of ton-sized boulders, as many hitting the Moon over those five days, as had struck it over the previous five years"?[131]  No one has attempted to deal with the physical evidence.  Is this simply being "ignored in the hope that something reassuring will turn up"?  This "time-honoured scholarly ploy for the handling of discordant facts," is really denial by self-repression and self-deception that the discordant facts do not exist, BUT THEY DO!

The evidence supports Velikovsky's thesis, not that of Clube and Napier or that of any other impact concept supporters.  The dearth of counter physical evidence raised against these facts indicates that the facts can only be faced by ignoring them!  If this isn't denial, then nothing is!  For now I will stick with Velikovsky and the evidence.

[1].  Thomas Gold, "Origin and Evolution of the Lunar Surface: The Major Questions Remaining," Philosophical Transacts of the Royal Society of London, 25, A (I 977): 555.

[2].  Bevan M. French, The Moon Book (New York, 1978), p. 60.

[3].  Immanuel Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision (New York, 1950), p. 361.

[4].  V. A. Firsoff (A), The Moon (New York, 1966), P. 76.

[5].  V.A. Firsoff (B), Strange Worlds of the Moon (New York, 1959), p. 23.

[6]Ibid.

[7].  Thomas Gold, op. cit., p. 556.

[8].  R. J. Mulcuit, et. al., 'The Great Circle Pattern of Large Circular Maria,' The Moon, Vol. 12 (1975): 55.

[9].  Michael Zeilik (A), Astronomy, The Evolving Universe, 4th ed. (New York, 1985), p. 143.

[10].  Nicholas M. Short, Planetary Geology (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1975), p. 75.

[11]Ibid.

[12].  Thomas A. Hockey, The Book of the Moon (New York, 1986), p. 184.

[13].  Short, loc. cit.

[14]Ibid.

[15]Ibid., p. 75ff.

[16].  Wernher von Braun and Frederick 1. Ordway, New Worlds: Discoveries From Our Solar System (New York, 1979), p. 153.

[17].  Peter Cadogan, The Moon--Our Sister Planet (Cambridge, England, 1981), p. 271.

[18].  Eric Burgess, Return to the Red Planet (New York, 1990), p. 92.

[19].  J. Kelly Beatty and Andrew Chaiken, ed., The New Solar System, 3rd ed. (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1990), pp. 310-311.

[20].  Harold C. Urey, "The Moon," Science in Space (New York, 1961), p. 191.

[21].  S.  K. Runcorn, 'The Moon's Ancient Magnetism,' Scientific American, 257 (December, 1987): 63.

[22].  Duncan Lunan, New World for Old (New York, 1979), p. 82.

[23].  Billy P. Glass, Introduction to Planetary Geology (New York, 1982), p. 229.

[24].  Bevan M. French, op. cit., p. 228.

[25].  Lunan, Loc. cit.

[26]Ibid.

[27].  Cliff Frohlich, "Deep Earthquakes," Scientific American 260 (January, 1989): 48.

[28].  G. Latham, et. al., Science 174 (1971): 687-692.

[29].  Lunan, op. cit., p. 79.

[30]Ibid.

[31].  Lunan, loc. cit., pp. 81-82.

[32].  Clark R. Chapman, 'Mercury: The Sun's Closest Companion,' Planets, ed.  B. Preiss (New York, 1985), p. 256.

[33]Ibid.

[34].  W.  Kenneth Hamblin, The Earths Dynamic Systems, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis, 1978), p. 41.

[35].  Don E. Williams, "Moon," The Geology of the Terrestrial Planets, ed. Michael H. Carr (Washington, DC, NASA 1984), p. 145.

[36].  French, op. cit., p. 105.

[37].  Kenneth F. Weaver, "The Mysteries of the Moon," National Geographic, 144, No. 30 (September, 1973):319.

[38].  Charles Ginenthal, Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky (New York, 1990), pp. 20-22.

[39]Science News, 105 (1974), p. 241.

[40].  Cadogan, loc. cit.

[41].  Patrick Moore, New Guide to the Moon (New York, 1976), pp. 186-187.

[42].  Allan B. Binder and Donald W. McCarthy, "Mars: The Lineament Systems,' Science 176 (1972): 279

[43].  Patrick Moore, op. cit., p. 183.

[44].  Duncan Lunan, op. cit., pp. 154-155.

[45].  Thomas A, Mutch (A), et. al., The Geology of Mars (Princeton, New Jersey, 1976), p. 184.

[46].  Charles Ginenthal (B), 'Venus 'A New Born Babe,"' forthcoming in AEON III, No. 1.

[47].  A. S. McEwan, et. al., "Volcanic Hot Spots on Io: Correlation with Low-Albedo Calderas," Journal of Geophysical Research 90, No. B14 (December 10, 1985): 12, 345

[48].  Neville L. Carter, et. al., Geology 14 (May, 1986): 4.

[49]Ibid.

[50].  Michael Zeilik (B), Astronomy: The Evolving Universe, 6th ed. (New York, 1991), p. 210.

[51].  Thomas A. Mutch (B), Geology of the Moon, rev. ed. (Princeton, New Jersey, 1972), p. 94.

[52].  Stuart Ross Taylor, Lunar Science: A Post Apollo View (New York, 1975), p. 29.

[53]Ibid.

[54]Ibid.

[55]Ibid.

[56].  Moore, op. cit., pp. 181-182.

[57].  Taylor, loc. cit.

[58]Ibid.

[59].  French, op. cit., p. 24.

[60].  Donald Goldsmith, Nemesis the Death Star and Other Theories of Mass Extinction (New York, 1985), p. 25.

[61]Ibid., p. 60.

[62].  Paul D. Spudis, "The Moon," The New Solar System, 3rd ed., ed.  J. Kelly Beatty and Andrew Chaiken (New York, 1990), p. 44.

[63].  French, op. cit., p. 144

[64].  Mutch (B), op. cit., p. 84.

[65].  Virgilio Brenna, The Moon (New York, 1963), p. 77,

[66].  Patrick Moore (B), Star and Sky, Vol. 1 (April, 1979), p. 10.

[67].  French, op. cit., pp. 229-230.

[68].  Zack Strickland, "Apollo 12 Seismic Experiment Links Red Lunar Glow to Quakes," Aviation Week 57 (August 10, 1970): 57.

[69].  French, op. cit., p. 237.

[70]Ibid.

[71].  Winifred S. Cameron, "Comparative Analysis of Observations of Lunar Transient Phenomena," Icaris 16 (1972): 339-387.

[72].  B. M. Middlehurst and P. A. Moore, "Lunar Transient Phenomena: Topographical Distribution," Science 155 (1967): 449-450.

[73].  Firsoff (A), op. cit., p. 74.

[74]Ibid., p. 72.

[75].  French, op. cit., pp. 114-115.

[76].  Moore (A), op. cit., p. 206-207.

[77].  J. W. Freeman, et. al., "Water Vapor, Whence Comest Thou?" Proceedings of the Third Lunar Science Conference, Supp. 3, Geochimica and Chosmochemica Acta 3 (1972): 2217.

[78].  "Another Vote for Moon Water," Science News 101 (1972): 73.

[79].  Everett K. Gibson, Jr., and Gary W. Moore, "Volatile-Rich Lunar Soil: Evidence of Possible Cometary Impact," Science 179 (1973): 69.

[80].  Moore (A), op. cit., p. 205.

[81].  Short, op. cit., p. 64

[82].  von Braun and Ordway, loc. cit.

[83].  Short, op. cit., p. 109.

[84].  Moore (A), op. cit., p. 106.

[85].  G. Harry Stine, "Sol III--The Twin Planet," Closeup New Worlds, ed.  Ben Bova and Trudy Bell (New York, 1977), p. 16.

[86].  William R. Corliss, The Moon and Planets (Glen Arm, Maryland, 1985), p. 118.  See also, Glen R. Morton, et. al., "The Age of Lunar Craters," Creation Research Society Quarterly 20 (1983): 105.

[87].  R. B. Baldwin, "On the Relative Ages of Seven Lunar Front Face Basins from Viscosity Arguments," Icarus 71, No. 10 (1987): 1-18.

[88].  Farouk El Baz, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics (Palo Alto, California, 1974): 140.

[89].  Arthur N. Strahler, Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy (Buffalo, New York, 1987), p. 144.

[90].  French, op. cit., p. 164.

[91]Ibid.

[92].  Gold, op. cit., pp. 555-557.

[93].  Short, op. cit., p. 148.

[94].  Strabler, loc. cit., p. 144.

[95]Ibid.

[96].  Gold, loc. cit., p. 557.

[97].  French, op. cit., p. 197.

[98].  French, op. cit., p. 203-204.

[99].  Gold, loc. cit.

[100].  James E. Oberg, "How Good Were Velikovsky's Space and Planetary Science Predictions, Really,"The Universe and its Origins, ed.  F. Singer (New York, 1990), p. 42

[101].  G. F. J. Garlick and I. Robinson, "Thermoluminescence of Lunar Samples," The Moon, The International Astronomical Union (IAU) Symposium, No. 47 (Dordrecht, Holland, 1972), p. 329.

[102].  B. D. Bhasin and C. M. Sunta, "Thermoluminescence of Luna-24 Samples," Proceedings of the Indian National Sciences Academy 45, Pt.  A, No. 3 (1979): 47.

[103]Ibid.

[104]Ibid.

[105]Ibid.

[106]Ibid.

[107].  Ian T. Taylor, In he Minds of Men (Toronto, 1984), pp. 328-329.

[108].  Allen L. Hammond, "Lunar Research: No Agreement on Evolutionary Models," Science 175 (1972): 868-870.

[109].  French, p. cit., p. 244.

[110].  Hammond, loc. cit.

[111].  Cadogan, op. cit., p. 312.

[112].  Oberg, loc. cit.

[113]lbid.

[114].  Hockey, op. cit., p. 201.

[115]Ibid.

[116].  Zdenek Kopal, The Realm of the Terrestrial Planets, (New York, 1979), p. 52.

[117].  "Crystalline Rock," Encyclopaedia Britannica: Micropaedia (Chicago, 1982), Vol.  III, p. 273.

[118].  Kopal, loc. cit.

[119].  Cadogan, op. cit., p. 316.

[120].  S. K. Runcorn, op. cit., p. 65.

[121].  French, op. cit., p. 243.

[122].  D. W. Strangway, et. al., "Magnetism and the Early History of the Moon," Lunar Science, ed.  J. W. Chamberlain and C. Watkins.  IV (1973): 697.

[123].  Gold, Loc.. cit., p. 555.

[124]Ibid.

[125].  Roger Ashton, "The Unworkable Polar Saturn," AEON I, No. 3 (1988): 53.

[126]AEON II, No. 5 (1991):90-99.

[127]AEON I, No. 4 (1988): 60-76.

[128].  Privately published book.  Charles Ginenthal, (New York, 1990), p. 197-212.

[129].  William D. Metz, "Mercury: More Surprises in the Second Assessment," Science 184 (1974): 132.

[130].  Victor Clube and Bill Napier, The Cosmic Winter (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1990), pp. 153-154.

[131]Ibid.

 home       features       science/philosophy       wholesale store        policies        contact
Mikamar Publishing, 16871 SE 80th Pl,  Portland  OR  97267       503-974-9665