Site Section Links
The Third Story
The Nature of Time
Nature of Time video
The Nature of Space
The Neutrino Aether
Nature of Force Fields
Origin of Modern
Niagara Falls Issues
Climate Change Model
Climate Change Questions
Modern Mythology Material
1994 Velikovsky Symposium
Pensee Journals TOC
Velikovskian Journals TOC
Selected Velikovskian Article
State of Religious Diversity
PDF Download Files
Open letter to science editors
Vol. 1, No. 1
The Moon in Upheaval
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."
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."
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
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.
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? 
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
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.
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
Impacts are not
expected to do this smoothly over the entire Moon. Thomas Gold tells us
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.
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
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."
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."
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.
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."
Harold C. Urey suggests that very slow moving giant meteorites implanted
themselves to create the mascons.
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
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."
explaining the mascons was presented by R. P. Baldwin.
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.
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
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 2,730°F.
at a depth of 625 miles (1,000 kilometers)."
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
Eric Burgess informs
us: "On Earth such [gravitational] anomalies disappear within a million
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
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.
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
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.
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."
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."
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.
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
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."
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 "2,732°F."
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."
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
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 "
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
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
But, Lunan has also pointed out that "the Moon has a liquid
[molten] core ... extending 772 [kilometers] from the center."
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."
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.
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"--is
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.
The Moon's crust is 60 kilometers (37 miles) thick, while its mantle is
1,040 kilometers (645 miles) thick.
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?"
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
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
The Origin and Nature of
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.
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.
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 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.
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
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
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
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."
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
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
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.
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.
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.
Galilean satellite of Jupiter, subjected to ongoing tidal stresses,
produces craters up to 200 kilometers in diameter.
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
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
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,
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."
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...."
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
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.
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
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.
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."
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."
In reply: Materials
on Io are clearly ejected outward along rayed ejecta patterns.
depth-diameter ratios likewise fit those of terrestrial and meteoric
In reply: Patrick
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.
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
"(d) The energy
required to dig the crater and throw out the ejecta far exceeds that
available from lunar seismic or volcanic processes."
In reply: Io provides
this energy, as is clearly observed.
"(e) The widespread
production of breccias, shock-metamorphosed material and impact melted
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
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."
(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
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
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
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.
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."
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."
Virgilio Brenna declares: "Almost  tons of meteoric fragments were
collected from the crater and near vicinity."
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."
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.
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
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.
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
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"
to explain these transient phenomena. French adds, "Present day
volcanic eruptions are hard to reconcile with the ancient ages of all
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.
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.
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
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."
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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[°]
was associated with the release of water, carbon dioxide, methane,
hydrogen cyanide, hydrogen, and minor amounts of hydrocarbons and other
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."
And it is grudgingly admitted: "'these lunar transients may be signs of
gas discharge or of current volcanic activity."
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
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."
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.
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 ....
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
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.
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
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 
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!
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
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
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."
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
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
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."
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
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."
What is most significant is that the deeper cores showed precisely this
layering phenomenon, which began from one inch to a few inches under
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."
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
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."
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
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.
The materials in the
lunar regolith have cosmic ray tracks to a depth where they penetrate to
about 6.5 feet (2 meters).
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
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
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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
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..."
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."
(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
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
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....
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
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."
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.
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."
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.
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."
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
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."
(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
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
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."
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."
However, Thomas A, Hockey states, contrary to Oberg's assertion,
"Curiously, however, many of these magnetic anomalies do not correspond
to heavily cratered areas."
Therefore, one must ask: How did the areas without impacts get their
magnetism? Hockey suggests, "Perhaps large impacts have transported
magnetic material as ejecta."
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.
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."
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
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.
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."
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."
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."
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
fields which are often above 300 gammas.
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
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 .
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!
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
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."
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."
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."
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,"
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,"
and in Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky,
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.
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.
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"?
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.
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.
Bevan M. French, The Moon Book (New York, 1978), p. 60.
Immanuel Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision (New York, 1950), p.
V. A. Firsoff (A), The Moon (New York, 1966), P. 76.
V.A. Firsoff (B), Strange Worlds of the Moon (New York,
1959), p. 23.
Thomas Gold, op. cit., p. 556.
R. J. Mulcuit, et. al., 'The Great Circle Pattern of Large Circular
Maria,' The Moon, Vol. 12 (1975): 55.
Michael Zeilik (A), Astronomy, The Evolving Universe, 4th ed.
(New York, 1985), p. 143.
Nicholas M. Short, Planetary Geology (Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey, 1975), p. 75.
Thomas A. Hockey, The Book of the Moon (New York, 1986), p.
Short, loc. cit.
Ibid., p. 75ff.
Wernher von Braun and Frederick 1. Ordway, New Worlds:
Discoveries From Our Solar System (New York, 1979), p. 153.
Peter Cadogan, The Moon--Our Sister Planet (Cambridge,
England, 1981), p. 271.
Eric Burgess, Return to the Red Planet (New York, 1990), p.
J. Kelly Beatty and Andrew Chaiken, ed., The New Solar System,
3rd ed. (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1990), pp. 310-311.
Harold C. Urey, "The Moon," Science in Space (New York,
1961), p. 191.
S. K. Runcorn, 'The Moon's Ancient Magnetism,' Scientific
American, 257 (December, 1987): 63.
Duncan Lunan, New World for Old (New York, 1979), p. 82.
Billy P. Glass, Introduction to Planetary Geology (New York,
1982), p. 229.
Bevan M. French, op. cit., p. 228.
Lunan, Loc. cit.
Cliff Frohlich, "Deep Earthquakes," Scientific American 260
(January, 1989): 48.
G. Latham, et. al., Science 174 (1971): 687-692.
Lunan, op. cit., p. 79.
Lunan, loc. cit., pp. 81-82.
Clark R. Chapman, 'Mercury: The Sun's Closest Companion,'
Planets, ed. B. Preiss (New York, 1985), p. 256.
W. Kenneth Hamblin, The Earths Dynamic Systems, 2nd ed.
(Minneapolis, 1978), p. 41.
Don E. Williams, "Moon," The Geology of the Terrestrial Planets,
ed. Michael H. Carr (Washington, DC, NASA 1984), p. 145.
French, op. cit., p. 105.
Kenneth F. Weaver, "The Mysteries of the Moon," National
Geographic, 144, No. 30 (September, 1973):319.
Charles Ginenthal, Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky (New
York, 1990), pp. 20-22.
Science News, 105 (1974), p. 241.
Cadogan, loc. cit.
Patrick Moore, New Guide to the Moon (New York, 1976), pp.
Allan B. Binder and Donald W. McCarthy, "Mars: The Lineament
Systems,' Science 176 (1972): 279
Patrick Moore, op. cit., p. 183.
Duncan Lunan, op. cit., pp. 154-155.
Thomas A, Mutch (A), et. al., The Geology of Mars (Princeton,
New Jersey, 1976), p. 184.
Charles Ginenthal (B), 'Venus 'A New Born Babe,"' forthcoming in
AEON III, No. 1.
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
Neville L. Carter, et. al., Geology 14 (May, 1986): 4.
Michael Zeilik (B), Astronomy: The Evolving Universe, 6th ed.
(New York, 1991), p. 210.
Thomas A. Mutch (B), Geology of the Moon, rev. ed.
(Princeton, New Jersey, 1972), p. 94.
Stuart Ross Taylor, Lunar Science: A Post Apollo View (New
York, 1975), p. 29.
Moore, op. cit., pp. 181-182.
Taylor, loc. cit.
French, op. cit., p. 24.
Donald Goldsmith, Nemesis the Death Star and Other Theories of
Mass Extinction (New York, 1985), p. 25.
Ibid., p. 60.
Paul D. Spudis, "The Moon," The New Solar System, 3rd ed.,
ed. J. Kelly Beatty and Andrew Chaiken (New York, 1990), p. 44.
French, op. cit., p. 144
Mutch (B), op. cit., p. 84.
Virgilio Brenna, The Moon (New York, 1963), p. 77,
Patrick Moore (B), Star and Sky, Vol. 1 (April, 1979), p. 10.
French, op. cit., pp. 229-230.
Zack Strickland, "Apollo 12 Seismic Experiment Links Red Lunar Glow
to Quakes," Aviation Week 57 (August 10, 1970): 57.
French, op. cit., p. 237.
Winifred S. Cameron, "Comparative Analysis of Observations of Lunar
Transient Phenomena," Icaris 16 (1972): 339-387.
B. M. Middlehurst and P. A. Moore, "Lunar Transient Phenomena:
Topographical Distribution," Science 155 (1967): 449-450.
Firsoff (A), op. cit., p. 74.
Ibid., p. 72.
French, op. cit., pp. 114-115.
Moore (A), op. cit., p. 206-207.
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.
"Another Vote for Moon Water," Science News 101 (1972): 73.
Everett K. Gibson, Jr., and Gary W. Moore, "Volatile-Rich Lunar
Soil: Evidence of Possible Cometary Impact," Science 179
Moore (A), op. cit., p. 205.
Short, op. cit., p. 64
von Braun and Ordway, loc. cit.
Short, op. cit., p. 109.
Moore (A), op. cit., p. 106.
G. Harry Stine, "Sol III--The Twin Planet," Closeup New Worlds,
ed. Ben Bova and Trudy Bell (New York, 1977), p. 16.
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.
R. B. Baldwin, "On the Relative Ages of Seven Lunar Front Face
Basins from Viscosity Arguments," Icarus 71, No. 10 (1987):
Farouk El Baz, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics
(Palo Alto, California, 1974): 140.
Arthur N. Strahler, Science and Earth History: The
Evolution/Creation Controversy (Buffalo, New York, 1987), p.
French, op. cit., p. 164.
Gold, op. cit., pp. 555-557.
Short, op. cit., p. 148.
Strabler, loc. cit., p. 144.
Gold, loc. cit., p. 557.
French, op. cit., p. 197.
French, op. cit., p. 203-204.
Gold, loc. cit.
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
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.
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.
Ian T. Taylor, In he Minds of Men (Toronto, 1984), pp.
Allen L. Hammond, "Lunar Research: No Agreement on Evolutionary
Models," Science 175 (1972): 868-870.
French, p. cit., p. 244.
Hammond, loc. cit.
Cadogan, op. cit., p. 312.
Oberg, loc. cit.
Hockey, op. cit., p. 201.
Zdenek Kopal, The Realm of the Terrestrial Planets, (New
York, 1979), p. 52.
"Crystalline Rock," Encyclopaedia Britannica: Micropaedia (Chicago,
1982), Vol. III, p. 273.
Kopal, loc. cit.
Cadogan, op. cit., p. 316.
S. K. Runcorn, op. cit., p. 65.
French, op. cit., p. 243.
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.
Gold, Loc.. cit., p. 555.
Roger Ashton, "The Unworkable Polar Saturn," AEON I, No. 3
AEON II, No. 5 (1991):90-99.
AEON I, No. 4 (1988): 60-76.
Privately published book. Charles Ginenthal, (New York, 1990), p.
William D. Metz, "Mercury: More Surprises in the Second Assessment,"
Science 184 (1974): 132.
Victor Clube and Bill Napier, The Cosmic Winter (Cambridge,
Massachusetts, 1990), pp. 153-154.