“Thought that is silenced is always rebellious. Majorities, of course, are often mistaken. This is why the silencing of minorities is necessarily dangerous. Criticism and dissent are the indispensable antidote to major delusions.” – Alan Barth
Moon Anomalies and Enigmas
Ever since the first probes sent back lunar information, people throughout the world have been asking questions about what they see as the Moon’s anomalies, and scientists have never failed to call them conspiracy theorists. The first book about the subject, “We Never Went to the Moon: America’s Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle”, was written in 1974, only two years after the last Apollo mission, the first book of dozens more. Don’t worry, I’m sure NASA did go to the Moon, but I don’t think things were done in the manner we are led to believe. There are no conspiracy theories in this blog apart from the ones carefully contrived and constructed by NASA and science, and these are of course all very well referenced. This is what this blog is all about, the mysteries conspiracies and anomalies that academic science generates.
I don’t really understand what it is about conspiracies that makes people so twitchy, when the governments of the world spend billions in tax-payers money on security services who’s job it is to root-out conspiracies and devise new ones of their own; they even have their own tame advisory scientists. Conspiracy denial seems to be pandemic, but then we don’t need a conspiracy when we have all the anomalies and mysteries regarding our own natural satellite, the Moon. We don’t need a “Did we go to the Moon?” conspiracy, because several books could be written about all the other lunar mysteries, the things about the Moon for which science either has no answers or is unwilling to answer.
I found some of the following on the Internet long ago and I have woven it into my own more recent data: ‘Lunar Anomalies’ is compiled by Ronald Regehr who is said to be, surprisingly, a “researcher and scientist in the defense industry and NASA”. All of his items are numbered and in quotes. It’s quite old, and the original link is gone, but it suits our purpose for what follows, in that all modern interpretations of the same data have become highly technical and intellectually obscure. I’ve woven-in a large amount of of my own data and numerous links and references:
Ronald Regehr says, “After hundreds of years of detailed observation and study, our closest companion in the vast universe, Earth’s moon, remains an enigma. Six moon landings and hundreds of experiments have resulted in more questions being asked than answered. Among them:”
1. The Moon’s Age: “The moon is far older than previously expected. Maybe even older than the Earth or the Sun. The oldest age for the Earth is estimated to be 4.6 billion years old; moon rocks were dated at 5.3 billion years old, and the dust upon which they were resting was at least another billion years older.”
There are now theories that rationalise this in accordance with status quo theories, but they are only theories presented as if they were fact. Science likes linear dates, and a moon older than its planet is taboo because moon capture is not something easily explained by linear consensus theory.” 1 Science likes straight lines which incidentally, don’t exist in space.
Harvard’s respected astronomy journal ‘Sky and Telescope’ reported that at the Lunar Conference of 1973, it was revealed that one moon rock was dated at 5.3 billion years old which would make it almost a billion years older than our planet. This puzzle was compounded by the fact that lunar dust in which the rocks were found proved to be a billion years older than the rocks themselves. Chemical analysis showed that the Moon rocks were of a completely different composition from the soil around them. Since dusty soil is usually produced by the weathering and breakup of surrounding rocks, the lunar rocks must have come from some place other than where they were found. But where?” 2 Here on Earth it would be strange indeed if the soil of a valley could not be shown to originate in the surrounding mountains.
Note: A slight diversion that will be explained as we progress: It may be of interest to the reader that it was Sky and Telescope who censored the first NASA pictures of Mars, from panic, rationalising ‘that they would give credence to the theories of Immanuel Velikovsky who had made several predictions as to what would be found on the Moon. As we progress through the pages of this blog we will also be looking at the surprising aftermath of Velikovsky’s theories on astronomy and science in general. We will see how Velikovsky’s ideas, popular at the time, changed science, but not in the way he intended.
I also recall seeing these rock ages given in an astronomy magazine of the seventies or it may have been the eighties. But it was soon realised by scientists that the ages were incompatible with theory and the game was on to find ages more agreeable. Some scientists have short and selective memories and deny that this was ever in print. Others justify it by claiming that the more modern, ‘corresponding’ dates are attributable to improved dating techniques. Improvement on dates that are manipulated to fit theories is not improvement, it’s called fudging, but a radical update would also change the age of the Earth, and this has not happened.
All of the theories about the Moon’s origin have been around for decades or even centuries, but they are dusted off and resurrected on a regular basis as the need arises. There is more up-to-date information but there is also a caveat in that rock cannot really be dated with any certainty and any lunar rocks or meteorites found could have come from anywhere at any time in the past n millions of years or just yesterday.)…Rock dating is a highly suspect discipline, something we will return-to. 3
And then I found supporting references from the seventies thanks to “The Moon and the Planets”, William R Corliss, ALE19 Earth-Moon Compositional Differences page 116
Problems in Dating Lunar Rocks and Soil “X3. Analysis of lunar sample 14163. The ratios of lead-207 to lead-206 were 1.2 to 1.3, giving apparent ages of up to 5. 5 billion years. “This isotopic composition has never been observed anywhere in the material of the solar system. “(Rl) References: R1. Driscoll, Everly; “Dating of Moon Samples, ” Science News, 101:12, 1972. (X1-X3)”
Moon rock dating and rock dating in general is highly controversial even among scientists and we will return to the subject when I find the data. The main problem seems to be that big assumptions must be made about the condition and origin of the original rock that could be billions of years old.
Back to Ronald Regehr:
2. Rocks Origin: “The chemical composition of the dust upon which the rocks sat differed remarkably from the rocks themselves, contrary to accepted theories that the dust resulted from weathering and breakup of the rocks themselves. The rocks had to have come from somewhere else.” The origin of the Moon is also controversial with several theories that all have drawbacks.
3. Heavier Elements on Surface: “Normal planetary composition results in heavier elements in the core and lighter materials at the surface; not so with the moon. According to Wilson, “The abundance of refractory elements like titanium in the surface areas is so pronounced that several geologists proposed the refractory compounds were brought to the moons surface in great quantity in some unknown way. They don’t know how, but that it was done cannot be questioned.” No one knows what a “normal planetary composition” is because no one has ever dug into any planet other than the Earth. The idea that the Earth is a model for all planetary formation is an assumption and most probably wrong. The Earth is a model because it has been so since Victorian times and because scientists are ultra-conservative.
4. Water Vapour: “On March 7, 1971, lunar instruments placed by the astronauts recorded a vapour cloud of water passing across the surface of the moon. The cloud lasted 14 hours and covered an area of about 100 square miles. As recently as 2006 the settled value for the lunar bulk water content was below 1 part per billion. Most values now discussed (2012) well exceed 1 part per million,” Not enough for a 100 square miles of vapour though? There are some more up-to-date reports of water found by probes, but never enough to explain the original sighting.
Just as an aside, water on the Moon was one of the many scientifically dreaded Immanuel Velikovsky’s predictions proven to be true. 6 There is now some evidence that the Moon has an atmosphere of some kind, but this is waved away by scientists who point to the one sixth Earth gravity of the Moon being incapable of retaining an atmosphere. However, the reader will see below that the accepted Newtonian Lunar gravity gradient is also questionable. The gravity my be much more than predicted and an atmosphere is not so impossible! At the time of writing 2015 the author has found further evidence that some scientists are now admitting that the moon does have a tenuous atmosphere. Give it time and we will have an atmosphere that will support a 100 square miles of vapour?
5. Magnetic Rocks: “The Moon rocks were magnetized. This is odd because there is no magnetic field on the moon itself. This could not have originated from a “close call” with Earth, such an encounter would have ripped the moon apart.” The Moon’s anomalous magnetism was one more of Velikovsky’s many 1950’s predictions. All of them have been denied or called lucky guesses by astronomers, but all of them have been proven by scientific exploration of the Moon. If you happen to be a scientist this is called prediction but if you are a non scientist it’s called a lucky guess, because “you are unqualified”. Therefore: thinking for yourself is the exclusive domain of the qualified scientist and all who repeat the consensus theory paradigm. Independent thinking is outlawed by science.
6. No Volcanoes: “Some of the moons craters originated internally, yet there is no indication that the moon was ever hot enough to produce volcanic eruptions. However, many features of the Moon’s surface are described scientifically as volcanoes and lava tubes.”
Update: Brian Handwerk for National Geographic News October 26, 2009. “A “skylight” found on the moon’s surface could provide access to a cosy underground shelter for future humans on the moon, scientists say. Japan’s Kaguya spacecraft recently captured pictures of the curious dark hole, which may open onto a large underground lava tube… …Researchers believe the Moon’s volcanoes were active until about three billion years ago, although recent data from Kaguya indicate there might have been volcanic activity as recently as 2.5 million years ago. Due to the moon’s volcanic past, scientists have long expected that lava tubes exist in the lunar underground.” 7 When the latest rehashed theory of the Moon’s origin was trotted-out it was realised that volcanism was OK after-all, even though the theory is older than the scientists.
The National Geographic “skylight” picture has now been reduced to the size of a postage stamp.
The central peak of Tycho crater may hold volcanic clues, according to a report from an Indian research team. Credit: NASA Goddard/Arizona State University
7. Moon Mascons: “Mascons, which are large, dense, circular masses lying twenty to forty miles beneath the centres of the moons maria, “These are broad, disk-shaped objects that could be possibly some kind of artificial construction. For huge circular disks are not likely to be beneath each huge maria, centred like bulls-eyes in the middle of each, by coincidence or accident”.”
The artificial construction idea started with an idea that originally came from NASA itself with the ‘Hollow Moon theory’. Mascons are now used by NASA to explain-away all anomalous crash-landings and even some that were not attributed to gravitational effects at the time, like the Apollo 11 near disaster that we will examine.
8. Seismic Activity: “Hundreds of “moonquakes” are recorded each year that cannot be attributed to meteor strikes. In November, 1958, Soviet astronomer Nikolay A. Kozyrev of the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory photographed a gaseous eruption of the Moon near the crater Alphonsus. He also detected a reddish glow that lasted for about an hour. In 1963, astronomers at the Lowell Observatory also saw reddish glows on the crests of ridges in the Aristarchus region.”
9. NASA’s Hollow Moon: “The moons mean density is 3.34 gm/cm3 (3.34 times an equal volume of water) whereas the Earth’s is 5.5. What does this mean? In 1962, NASA scientist Dr. Gordon MacDonald stated, “If the astronomical data are reduced, it is found that the data require that the interior of the moon is more like a hollow than a homogeneous sphere.” Nobel chemist Dr. Harold Urey suggested the Moon’s reduced density is because of large areas inside the moon where there is “simply a cavity.”
MIT’s Dr. Sean C. Solomon wrote, “the Lunar Orbiter experiments vastly improved our knowledge of the moons gravitational field . . . indicating the frightening possibility that the moon might be hollow.” In Carl Sagan’s treatise, Intelligent Life in the Universe, the famous astronomer stated, “A natural satellite cannot be a hollow object.”” He was quick to notice things like that. The hollow Moon idea is now played down. Wiki says: “The Hollow Moon theory is a pseudo-scientific theory that suggests that Earth’s Moon is a large hollow sphere. The concept is a recurring plot device in science fiction, although no scientific evidence exists to support the idea”. 8 Well that cannot be true and it’s not pseudo-scientific because the idea originated with academics and academic scientists say they are science. Seismic observations have been shown to be so unreliable on Earth that it staggers the imagination, as we will read in another blog, but notwithstanding the data suggests that the Moon is more dense at its surface than below.
10. Moon Echoes: “On November 20, 1969, the Apollo 12 crew jettisoned the lunar module ascent stage causing it to crash onto the moon. The LM’s impact (about 40 miles from the Apollo 12 landing site) created an artificial moonquake with startling characteristics; the Moon reverberated like a bell for more than an hour. This phenomenon was repeated with Apollo 13 (intentionally commanding the third rocket stage to impact the moon), with even more startling results. Seismic instruments recorded that the reverberations lasted for three hours and twenty minutes and travelled to a depth of twenty-five miles, leading to the conclusion that the moon has an unusually light or even no core.” Supporting the “Hollow Moon” idea that is pseudo-scientific according to Wiki wimps!
11. Unusual Metals: “The moons crust is much harder than presumed. Remember the extreme difficulty the astronauts encountered when they tried to drill into the maria? Surprise! The maria is composed primarily illeminite, a mineral containing large amounts of titanium, the same metal used to fabricate the hulls of deep-diving submarines and the skin of the SR-71 “Blackbird”. Uranium 236 and neptunium 237 (elements not found in nature on Earth) were discovered in lunar rocks, as were rustproof iron particles.”
I can’t find any mention of rustproof iron from NASA or science in general and this usually means that they have assumed/hoped that the question is long forgotten. Eventually it will be consigned to the realm of conspiracy theory and scientists will wave the question away.
12. Moons Origin: “Before the astronaut’s moon rocks conclusively disproved the theory, the Moon was believed to have originated when a chunk of Earth broke off aeons ago. Another theory was that the moon was created from leftover “space dust” remaining after the Earth was created. Analysis of the composition of moon rocks disproved this theory also. Another popular theory is that the moon was somehow “captured” by the Earth’s gravitational attraction, but no evidence exists to support this theory. Isaac Asimov stated, “Its too big to have been captured by the Earth. The chances of such a capture having been effected and the moon then having taken up nearly circular orbit around our Earth are too small to make such an eventuality credible.”
More Lunar History, Origin and Age
The collision theory is back in vogue, with Earth allegedly having been struck by a Mars-sized planet with the material ejected from it coalescing to form the Moon. We all wonder how long it will be before this theory is replaced. The sad truth is, that scientists do not have a clue about the lunar origin but find it impossible to admit such a seemingly basic omission. One recalls their confidence in declaring the structure of things unseen, unobserved, theoretical constructs like pulsars that “prove” Albert Einstein’s theories and yet are unable to provide a plausible origin for our nearest cosmic neighbour.
Caveat: With the coming of the space probes, all pre-spaceage astronomical theories of the Moon and indeed those of the whole Solar System had to be abandoned and reconsidered. Therefore, unless some major changes in the astronomer’s mode of thinking has taken place, ALL astronomical theories without direct observations are somewhat suspect: “The Solar System” (Oxford University Press, 1973) “Books written about the solar system before the advent of the space age could as well have been written in Latin or Greek, so dated do they appear to a contemporary reader.” Zdenek Kopal
The next time an astronomer appears on TV and tells us how certain he is about what’s going on 2000 light years away, it would be good to remind him what is not known about the Moon.
Various theories of the Moon’s origin have been conjectured but the one currently in vogue is The Giant Impactor Theory. All of the various other theories are recycled and reused over the years and this is the one fashionable at the moment. The Giant Impactor Theory (sometimes called The Ejected Ring Theory): This theory proposes that a planetesimal (or small planet) the size of Mars struck the Earth just after the formation of the solar system, ejecting large volumes of heated material from the outer layers of both objects. A disk of orbiting material was formed, and this matter eventually stuck together to form the Moon in orbit around the Earth. This theory can explain why the Moon is made mostly of rock and how the rock was excessively heated. 9
Are you sure about that?
Oh yes, absolutely!
What about the heavy metals in the Moon’s crust?
Constraints from Recent Data: A detailed comparison of the properties of lunar and Earth rock samples has placed very strong constraints on the possible validity of these hypotheses. For example, if the Moon came from material that once made up the Earth, then Lunar and Terrestrial rocks should be much more similar in composition than if the Moon was formed elsewhere and only later captured by the Earth.” 10
According to Schmitt: “If the Giant Impact hypothesis is not compatible with this evidence, alternatives to it should be considered, including capture of a small, independent planet from a solar orbit near that of the Earth’s. 11 He should have known better than to ask for multiple theories as science works only with a single consensus theory.
Controversial Moon Origin Theory Rewrites History: The moon may have been adopted by our planet instead of descended from it. If a new twist on a decades-old theory is right, conditions in the early solar system suggest the moon formed inside Mercury’s orbit and migrated out until it was roped into orbit around Earth. (The reader may recall that Isaac Asimov said that this was impossible) The idea flies in the face of a scientific consensus theory, known as the giant impact hypothesis, which holds that the moon formed from red-hot debris left over after a Mars-sized object collided with Earth around 4.5 billion years ago.
Malcuit’s version of events is tantamount to cosmic blasphemy, but scientists have recently found 4 billion-year-old minerals in Australia that suggest our planet was too cool to have sustained a cataclysmic moon-forming impact early in its history. “Everything in the giant impact model is hot, hot, hot,” he said. “It’s incompatible with what we see in the geologic record. Earth is cool enough at that time to have ocean water on its surface. Malcuit’s computer modeling studies, which he has worked on since the 1980’s, show that it is possible for Earth’s gravitational pull to capture the moon.” 12 They come and they go, and then they come back again. It’s origin, formation and how the Moon came to be orbiting the Earth is a complete mystery to astronomers and any theory offered is simply wishful thinking.
Some Velikovsky Stuff and NASA’s Magnetic Flux Ropes.
Even though the universe has been shown to be electrical in nature, as we will see, the scientists continue to insist that electrical forces play little or no part in celestial dynamics. This, in spite of the huge electrical potential of the Sun and that of the Earth having been known about for decades. The plasma in space is electrical in nature although astronomers call such things “magnetic”. School kids know that there is no magnetic field without an electric current – astronomers apparently don’t. But, not long ago, NASA made a discovery it couldn’t ignore and it seems it may force the astronomers, kicking and screaming, to acknowledge something they have denied for decades… or maybe not! This is because of what are called magnetic flux ropes, electric currents that flow from the Sun and throughout the Solar System. However, I would not recommend holding your breath because they still insist in calling them “magnetic” ropes and I’m assured that any electricity is static… Flux is flowing, movement, change?
The main reason behind this denial is the “Velikovsky Affair” that started with the publication of the book, ‘Worlds in Collision’ (WIC) in 1950. In it Velikovsky insisted that the universe is electrical and that it was electricity rather than gravity that played the major role in its formation. For unexplained reasons, astronomers went a little mad after his theory became public knowledge and they have never recovered. It may seem strange to younger readers that a book published in 1950 should so cloud the judgement of modern-day astronomers, but one must read the history to understand. Velikovsky was a latter-day version of Nikola Tesla when it came to making scientists look like monkeys – and they are still smarting. Both Velikovsky and the astronomers made predictions about the Moon before the first landings. Velikovsky’s predictions turned-out to be right and those of the astronomers were wrong. As a result, the astronomical community devised a campaign of debunking and character assassination that persists to this day. Most of Velikovsky’s critics have never read his books, relying on second hand accounts from peer reviewed writers who use their authority to support lies about his undeniable predictive achievements. The obvious solution is to actually read Wolds in Collision (WIC) with an unbiased mind, something the sceptics seem incapable of doing.
Headline NowPublic.com “It’s okay to Call the
“Magnetic Flux Ropes” Found Connecting the Sun and Earth an Electric Current! ”
In science, we would like to think that there are no taboos and that all subjects should be available for research. Not so, unfortunately… What do the terms “cold fusion,” “UFO,” “Velikovsky” stir in the minds of academics? The simple answers is often nothing short of contempt. Contempt is an ugly word, but not far off the mark.
Preconceptions about particular topics, especially so-called “hot-button issues” (religion, politics, etc.), are a natural part of human existence. Everyone has opinions and one’s own opinions often colour one’s assessment of others and their opinions. In some cases, a simple difference of opinions blossoms into something more onerous. An extreme difference of opinions on a polarising issue may lead to one or the other side developing contempt for the other, at which point communications may break down or cease altogether.
One such instance is the curious case of electricity in space, or the presumed lack thereof despite compelling evidence to the contrary. It seems there has been a breakdown in communications between the field of astronomy and the fields of plasma physics and electrical engineering. Astronomers appear to be operating under the presupposition that charges cannot be separate in space and that currents do not exist between ponderable bodies in the sparse plasma medium between them. This may be at least partially an effect of the backlash relating to the so-called “Velikovsky affair.”
To wit, it appears that astronomers have taken this presupposition so far that they steadfastly refuse to mention electric currents they have detected, preferring to refer only to their magnetic field byproducts in their press releases, except when the evidence becomes incontrovertible. As though simply refusing to mention them by their proper name (much as an ostrich hides its head in the sand when faced with a threat) somehow validates the view that either they’re “not there” or “do nothing.” The electromagnetic field is a physical field produced by electrically charged objects. It affects the behaviour of charged objects in the vicinity of the field.
The electromagnetic field extends indefinitely throughout space and describes the electromagnetic interaction. It is one of the four fundamental forces of nature (the others are gravitation, the weak interaction, and the strong interaction). The field can be viewed as the combination of an electric field and a magnetic field. The electric field is produced by stationary charges, and the magnetic field by moving charges (moving currents, not static); these two are often described as the sources of the field. The way in which charges and currents interact with the electromagnetic field is described by Maxwell’s equations and the Lorentz force law.” 13
Astronomers have allowed the Velikovsky affair to cloud their judgement and in doing so have themselves become scientifically unstable and unreliable as we see below. Make no mistake, this and many other issues continue today. 14
Time magazine named NowPublic.com (the sorce of the above) one of the Top 50 websites of 2007. In 2009, the site was nominated for an Emmy in Advanced Technology. The site is now inactive as of 2013.
Earth’s ‘net’ electric charge:
All scientists tend to dodge questions about the Earth’s ‘net electric charge’ by referring to the charge at the surface compared to the charge of the ionosphere. As the ionosphere is part of the Earth we obviously need the net charge of both, but this is not forthcoming. Velikovsky proposed that there were planetary close encounters in the distant although historical past of our planet. At the closest point there would be an equalisation of the voltage – a spark would flash planet to planet and this is why the net charge of the Earth is a taboo subject.
Velikovsky and some hilarious history, the 1950’s-60’s
Donald Menzel (US astronomer and UFO debunker extraordinaire) was angered by the Bargmann-Motz letter in Science, 14a (supporting the predictions of Velikovsky) considering it to be ‘uncalled for. ‘ He seemed infuriated that Larrabee, Velikovsky’s book reviewer, in one noncommittal passage had called attention to an ironical situation: in 1952, in the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Menzel had offered calculations to show that if Velikovsky were right about electromagnetic forces in the solar system, the sun would have to have a surface electric potential of 10 to the 19 (10 raised to 19th power, 10 billion billion) volts – an absolute impossibility, according to the astronomer; but in 1960, V. A. Bailey, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Sydney, claimed that the sun is electrically charged, and that it has a surface potential of 10 to the 19 volts — precisely the value calculated by Menzel. Bailey, at the time his theory was first published, was entirely unaware of Velikovsky’s work and of Menzel’s repudiation of it.
Professor Bailey died December 7, 1964, in Switzerland – he was en route to the United states, where he hoped to see experiments carried out in space to test his hypotheses
The idea that his ‘quantitative refutation of Velikovsky’s wild hypothesis’ – Menzel’s own description of his contribution to the Proceedings in 1952 – should now be brought to Velikovsky’s support was intolerable to the Harvard astronomer. So, when he mailed his paper to Harper’s in 1963, he also sent a copy to Bailey in Sydney and asked him in a covering letter to revoke his theory of electric charge on the sun. That theory was casting doubt on the continuing efforts of Menzel and other American scientists to discredit Velikovsky, and Menzel pointed out what he conceived to be an error in Bailey’s work.
Professor Bailey, taking exception to the idea that his own work should be abandoned to accommodate the anti-Velikovsky forces, prepared an article in rebuttal of Menzel’s piece and submitted it to Harper’s for publication in the same issue with Menzel’s. Bailey had discovered a simple arithmetical error in Menzel’s calculations, which invalidated his argument.” 15
A true and honest, scientific appraisal was never considered as a possibility and then as now science is abandoned in favour of the face-saving antics of Donald Menzel and other scientists. A letter from astronomer Dr. Harlow Shapley to publisher Macmillan threatened a boycott of the company’s textbook division if they continued to publish Velikovsky’s book WIC. Shapley then director the Harvard Observatory, branded the book “nonsense and rubbish,” without reading it.
From letters to the ‘Oil Is Mastery – blog’ ‘Harlow Shapley: Portrait of Deception’, “I just read the most interesting anecdote about the Harvard University pseudoscientist crackpot Harlow Shapley… ( Shapley was convinced that spiral nebulae (galaxies) are inside our Milky Way and therefore the whole universe was confined to the Milky Way.)”
“According to Milton Humason, the astronomer [Humason] had given him [Harlow Shapley] plates of M31, the great Andromeda nebula, for examination on the stereocomparator. During the process of blinking the plates, the night assistant [Humason] discerned images never before seen. He marked their locations in ink and sought out Shapley for confirmation. If he was not mistaken, the plates contained Cepheid variables from beyond the Milky Way. Shapley, who was certain of himself, was having none of this. He launched into a shortened version of the same arguments he employed during the Great Debate [where Shapley argued that all galaxies were inside the Milky Way], then calmly took out his handkerchief, turned the plates over, and wiped them clean ….” — Gale E. Christianson, historian, Edwin Hubble: Mariner of the Nebulae, 1996. 15b
What we have here is is an astronomical display of breathtaking authoritarianism and hubris that sees itself as right even when clearly shown to be wrong. That in the presence of a senior scientist no one has the right to publish an opinion if they do not posses the right qualifications and even if they do, and decide to dissent they are still wrong. The idea that astronomers can dictate what we all read and what we are allowed to think is utterly preposterous. Their pointless efforts resulted in Velikovsky’s book becoming a best seller that is still on booksellers shelves today. The astronomers still lie awake at night plotting Velikovskian character assassinations, in other words conspiracies.
Back to Ronald Regehr:
13. Weird Orbit: “Our moon is the only moon in the solar system that has a stationary, near-perfect circular orbit. Stranger still, the moon’s centre of mass is about 6000 feet closer to the Earth than its geometric centre (which should cause wobbling), but the moons bulge is on the far side of the moon, away from the Earth. “Something, somehow” had to put the moon in orbit with its precise altitude, course, and speed… Unknown!”
14. Moon Diameter:“How does one explain the “coincidence” that the moon is just the right distance, coupled with just the right diameter, to completely cover the sun during an eclipse? Again, Isaac Asimov responds, “There is no astronomical reason why the moon and the sun should fit so well. It is the sheerest of coincidences, and only the Earth among all the planets is blessed in this fashion.”
Many thanks to Ronald Regehr
Greek authors Aristotle and Plutarch, and Roman authors Apolllonius Rhodius and Ovid all wrote of a group of people called the Proselenes who lived in the central mountainous area of Greece called Arcadia The Proselenes claimed title to this area because their forebears were there “before there was a moon in the heavens.” This claim is substantiated by symbols on the wall of the Courtyard of Kalasasaya, near the city of Tiahuanaco, Bolivia, which record that the moon came into orbit around the Earth between 11,500 and 13,000 years ago, long before recorded history.”15A
A few more anomalies:
The Moon’s Magnetic Field
“The Moon has an external magnetic field that is very weak in comparison with that of the Earth. Other major differences are that the Moon does not currently have a dipolar (two pole) magnetic field (as would be generated by a geodynamo in its core) and the varying magnetisation that is present is almost entirely crustal in origin.” 16 The remnant magnetism of lunar iron-rich rocks was an unwelcome surprise to NASA and to science in general. Velikovsky had written to NASA prior to the missions, asking that the positions of magnetic rocks be recorded; yet another of his predictions in his book WIC. The Earth’s geodynamo theory is something totally unproven by science, but because no one has access to the core of the Earth it remains in place. Basing speculation upon this presumed theory, it was postulated by scientists that the Moon would have no magnetic field. However, around this time Venus was also found to have no magnetic field and one would expect a drive to modify the theory? Venus has always been considered as being Earth’s twin as far as size, Solar System position and assumed composition is concerned. Additionally, as if this was not enough to explode the theory, it was found that Mercury most probably had a magnetic field, quite the reverse to what would be expected from theory.
Venus: “The lack of an intrinsic magnetic field at Venus was surprising given it is similar to Earth in size, and was expected also to contain a dynamo at its core. A dynamo requires three things: A conducting liquid, rotation, and convection. The core is thought to be electrically conductive and, while its rotation is often thought to be too slow, simulations show it is adequate to produce a dynamo.” 17 In other words: a computer simulation can be manipulated to show a dynamo operating in all but a stationary planet.
Mercury: “At the first close approach, instruments detected a magnetic field, to the great surprise of planetary geologists—Mercury’s rotation was expected to be much too slow to generate a significant dynamo effect. The second close approach was primarily used for imaging, but at the third approach, extensive magnetic data were obtained. The data revealed that the planet’s magnetic field is much like the Earth’s, which deflects the solar wind around the planet. The origin of Mercury’s magnetic field is still the subject of several competing theories.” 17a
Scientists invented all manner of theory-patches and even stood on their heads to explain the reason why Venus has no magnetic field while Mercury has one:
Venus according to astronomers: This implies the dynamo is missing because of a lack of convection in the Venusian core. On Earth, convection occurs in the liquid outer layer of the core because the bottom of the liquid layer is much hotter than the top. On Venus, a global resurfacing event may have shut down plate tectonics and led to a reduced heat flux through the crust. This caused the mantle temperature to increase, thereby reducing the heat flux out of the core. As a result, no internal geodynamo is available to drive a magnetic field. Instead, the heat energy from the core is being used to reheat the crust. They can also persuade pigs to fly.
One possibility is Venus has no solid inner core, or its core is not currently cooling, so the entire liquid part of the core is at approximately the same temperature. Another possibility is its core has already completely solidified. The state of the core is highly dependent on the concentration of sulphur, which is unknown at present.” 18 The unlikelihood of ever finding an answer is most likely to be eternal as boring down to Venus’ core is not possible. And so the theory stands forever and drives other theories in the wrong direction.
Mercury: “The origins of the magnetic field (of Mercury) can be explained by dynamo theory; i.e., by the convection of electrically conductive molten iron in the planet’s outer core. A dynamo is generated by a large iron core that has sank to a planet’s centre of mass, has not cooled over the years, an outer core that has not been completely solidified, and circulates around the interior.” 19 This shameless statement by Wiki keeps geology going as a science and removes the need to change the text-books. All of the above is pure “may have been” speculation and not one jot of empirical proof supports any of this intellectualising. But it is entered as fact and used in support of further theorising. We see a clear example of how science moves ever further from reality as reality is replaced by theory.
Stars hanging on the Moon’s limb
Astronomers make various measurements with stars and planets occulted by the limb of the Moon. In other words, they use the edge of the Moon’s disk to cover the star: “The term occultation is most frequently used to describe those relatively frequent occasions when the Moon passes in front of a star during the course of its orbital motion around the Earth. Since the Moon, with an angular speed with respect to the stars of 0.55 arcsec/s or 2.7 µrad/s, has no atmosphere and stars have an angular diameter of at most 0.057 arc-seconds or 0.28 µrad, a star that is occulted by the moon will disappear or reappear in 0.1 seconds or less on the moon’s edge, or limb. Events that take place on the Moon’s dark limb are of particular interest to observers, because the lack of glare allows these occultations to more easily be observed and timed.” 20
A theoretical problem arises when a star hangs too long at the point of occultation (limb), sometimes some distance away from the Moon or even appears to pass onto the Moon herself. John Herschel is said to have observed such an effect:
On September 3rd 1905, H. P. Hollis (Royal Observatory) grew tired of waiting for the stars to occult. The first record I have of this is on May the 4th 1783 with around twenty other reports up to 1956. Modern astronomers it seems ignore such mavericks, probably because they cast doubt on Einstein’s ‘light bending in a gravitational field’. These observations certainly cast doubt on the science of occultation. This is probably an optical phenomenon, but are the so called “proofs of relativity” also optical non relativistic? 21 Can this be the proof of a lunar atmosphere that would completely disrupt the textbook of both lunar and Newtonian science? The hundred mile water vapour cloud had to float in something?
Radio waves do the same thing: On December 15th 1972 the Apollo spacecraft Endeavour passed behind the Moon. The radio signals continued when there should have been none. 22
Nature, “The reception of radio signals from the orbiting lunar spaceship America after its occultation behind the lunar limb is a confirmation of results reported for the Apollo 15 ship Endeavour 1. Similar observations arranged with the lunar command module during the Apollo 16 mission were unsuccessful because transmissions from the command module did not occur while the Moon was above our horizon.” 23 Can it be that there is an unrecognised process operating here? Surely not, physics knows everything. But the two phenomena appear to be part of the same (optical?) effect? Why arrange for observations to be made at a time when the Moon was below the horizon? Don’t the know where the Moon is during a space mission?
Transient lunar phenomenon (TLP)
“Claims of short-lived lunar phenomena go back at least 1,000 years, with some having been observed independently by multiple witnesses or reputable scientists. Nevertheless, the majority of transient lunar phenomenon reports are irreproducible and do not possess adequate control experiments that could be used to distinguish among alternative hypotheses. Few reports concerning these phenomena are ever published in peer reviewed scientific journals, and the lunar scientific community rarely discusses these observations. Most lunar scientists will acknowledge that transient events such as outgassing and impact cratering do occur over geologic time: the controversy lies in the frequency of such events.” 24
Transient lunar phenomenon typify the things that science refuses to acknowledge. The reason, we are told, is because of unpredictability and the inability to reproduce and control. Reproduction and control are impossible in any astronomy and this is a get-out-of-jail explanation that fails to include the serious problem of new areas of study. How, under any conceivable circumstances would it be possible to do repeatable experiments on a transient phenomena? If science refuses to look at an event it will usually conclude that ‘we didn’t look because it probably never happened’. Such ultra-conservative scepticism cannot, by any standards, be considered as part of a search for knowledge.
And then we find:
“NASA’s Operation Moon Blink detected 28 lunar events in a relatively short period of time.” 25 Not so long ago, anyone claiming to see flashes of light on the Moon would be viewed with deep suspicion by professional astronomers. Such reports were filed under “L” … for lunatic.” 26
Ages of Flashes: “Aristarchus, Plato, Eratosthenes, Biela, Rabbi Levi, and Posidonius all reported anomalous lights on the moon. NASA, one year before the first lunar landing, reported 570+ lights and flashes were observed on the Moon from 1540 to 1967.” 27 But as we will see below, academic science is very thin on the ground at NASA.
Professional astronomers are more interested in the mathematics of the universe and have little time to actually look at a body like the Moon. They do tend to tell others “how things ought to be” even though the ‘ought to be’ has little in common with reality.
“The is–ought problem, as articulated by Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume (1711–76), states that many writers make claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is. Hume found that there seems to be a significant difference between descriptive statements (about what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (about what ought to be), and that it is not obvious how one can coherently move from descriptive statements to prescriptive ones. The is–ought problem is also known as Hume’s law and Hume’s guillotine.” 28 … something with which science has yet to come to grips.
21 William Corliss, The Moon and Planets – Moon ALX8
22 William Corliss, The Moon and Planets – Moon ALX10
33 The Washington Post, Nov. 22, 1966, p.1.
34 The Moon and Planets, William Corliss