The most universally recognised object in the night sky, wherever you may happen to be on earth at any given time, is without a doubt – The Moon.
It can be safely assumed that this heavenly body has been visible for millions of years longer than humankind have inhabited the planet, and has featured throughout all of human history, being represented in many and varied ways.
So how much do we really know about la lune, and how it came into being?
Not an awful lot if the truth is told, and as late as 1964, scientists still had very little understanding of it, and even today, with more than half a century of fairly intensive space research under it’s belt, science still cannot offer an entirely satisfactory theory to explain it’s existence.
At least that is the official story.
What is known for certain though, is that prior to 1969, there were three distinct theories that were what most scientific bodies had subscribed to at one time or another
Firstly, the ‘Binary Planet Theory’, which stated that the Moon was formed at the same time as the earth and that it consisted of flying space debris, which formed the solid mass we see today.
Since the analysis of actual measurements from the moon became possible, this theory became less popular, as for it to be viable, the earth and the moon would need to possess the same density – which they do not.
Secondly, the ‘Fission Theory’, which was first proposed by the mathematician George Darwin in 1879, stated that during it’s formation, the Earth was spinning so quickly, that part of the equator ‘broke off’, settled into a regular orbit and became the Moon as we know it today.
However, this theory has also been shown to be improbable, mainly due to the analysis of returned rock and soil samples, purporting to have come from the moon, which suggest that they are considerably older and of an entirely different composition altogether to those found anywhere on earth.
The samples tested, contained around 50% more iron and around 50% more refractory elements that what the earth’s mantle is composed of.
Thirdly, the ‘Capture Theory’ stated that the moon was formed somewhere else in our solar system and somehow became ‘drawn into the earth’s gravitational field,’ where it became the object which exists today.
This third theory, had probably gained the most support among scientists, despite the fact that any large object (like the moon) captured this way, would have needed to be uniquely placed for this to happen.
Again, the chances of that happening are, even at a conservative estimate – incalculable.
These theories, among many others, were being tossed around long before manned space flight even got off the technical drawing boards, and it was only a matter of time before a ‘definitive’ answer was going to be revealed, which predictably, was going to based around the much heralded, and obscenely expensive, ‘Apollo’ series of missions to the Lunar surface.
So it was NASA, who, in their second ‘Giant Leap For Mankind’ who announced, that ‘No proof existed’ to support any of the earlier scientific theories, as they now had a theory of their own.
NASA’s own ‘Giant Impact Theory’ (GIT), had by the 1990’s, won over much of the scientific world, possibly by pressure from their peers, or even bamboozled into reluctant acceptance by the unrelenting media attention, and carefully-managed promotion of the ‘official’ version of how the moon came to be.
NASA’s Theory, very conveniently solves the momentum problem which invalidated the Fission Theory, as the GIT Theory States that ‘A body with 0.1 the mass of earth, but the size of Mars (approx 2,224 miles diameter) had a near tangential impact with the earth.’
This had the result that the enormous amount of energy released by this impact, vaporised and crushed the surface of both bodies.
This ‘mixed debris’ was then ejected into space and remained in orbit around the earth.
Eventually, the mixture of debris combined, and voila – Hello Moon!
However, as this theory is entirely based on analysis of rocks and soil taken from a very limited area of the surface of the moon, does that mean it is at best an inaccurate representation of the entire surface of the moon?
Also, as the analysed samples have been obtained from, at the most, less than two metres below the surface, how could it be so widely accepted a theory as it has apparently become?
Because NASA says it’s true that’s why.
But…. There is one quite important question that needs to be answered by NASA, who have repeatedly refused to do so.
It’s a simple one, and based on the currently available evidence which shows that the moon, is not only considerably older than our solar system, but also predates the latest time frame which scientists estimate that the ‘Big Bang’ is supposed to have occurred….
NASA is fully aware of this, and for them to know about it, they must either:
Already have in their possession, rocks and soil which are much older than 4.6 billion years.
Or, they know this fact by some other means.
Whistle-blowers have also claimed that NASA are in possession of lunar rocks that are at least 5.3 billion years old, yet instead of discussing any other possibility, their scientists persist in promoting their ‘official’ theory – based on, by their own admission, very limited data.
And round and around it will undoubtedly go.
*NASA, who also happen to be among the most heavily financed and covert organisations in human history, have always, albeit subtly, offered plenty of clues without revealing their real purpose. One only has to do the most basic research on the names chosen for their ‘projects’. For those who know their history and Mythology, the Greek god Apollo for instance, was often linked to the origins and defence of civil order and to the founding of cities…. (or lunar outposts perhaps?). Saturn, which was adopted eventually as the name of the launcher for Project Apollo, was the Roman version of ‘Cronus’, which was associated with limitation and time. The Greeks however, considered Cronus to be the God of Agriculture – which, for some who have studied these connections in any detail, forms a tenuous, but not entirely unconnected link with the Crop Circles found in Southern England…. But that is another story altogether.*