Tags, 상세검색
PJ 57CHAPTER 1REC #1 HATONNSAT., JUNE 20, 1992 9:49 A.M. YEAR 5, DAY 309SATURDAY, JUNE 20, 1992HARD THOUGHTS FOR TODAYHatonn present today for some "hard introspection suggestions". I am literally "buried" in influx of inquirers--ALMOST ALL of personal nature and "What to do"? "Should I cancel trips during the period of July 25th to 30th?", "Should I stay home?", "Now that the scientists are saying it will happen on the 15th, what do I do?" and most abundant in the complaint departments is:
"HATONN IS SO CONFUSING AS TO NOT ALLOW ME TO MAKE ANY REASONABLE CHOICES!!!" Oh? Hatonn is confusing? Hatonn is sent to attend each one's desires and personal indecisions for some 6-1/2 billion persons? Confusing? I am giving you what YOUR PEOPLE (SCIENTISTS) ARE "LEAKING TO YOU. I AM ALSO GIVING YOU WHAT HAS BEEN PUBLISHED ABOUT YOUR ENEMY'S PLANS AND CAPABILITIES FOR DECADES! DOES THIS MAKE "HATONN" CONFUSING? Further, how do you expect to get answers to the overall if you require ALL OF OUR TIME in responding to your individual travel dates? I GIVE YOU WHAT INFORMATION I CAN AND MAY--YOU WILL DECIDE THAT WHICH YOU WILL DO WITH IT.
THERE ARE AT LEAST A DOZEN WAYS TO IMPACT THAT NULL-TIME PRIOR TO PHOTON ENTRY. (YOU ARE ALREADY RECEIVING A LOT OF PHOTON ENERGY WHICH IS CAUSING MUTANT CELLULAR STRUCTURES IN YOUR SPECIES, SO WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?) AT LEAST ELEVEN OF THOSE "WAYS" ARE BY EARTH HUMAN ACTION--WHY IS IT HATONN THAT GETS THE "RAP"? DO I HAVB TO STOP TELLING YOU TRUTH SO AS NOT TO SPOIL YOUR EMOTIONAL ATTITUDES ABOUT YOUR VACATION PLANS? IS IT MORE IMPORTANT TO VISIT ANCIENT RUINS OR STAY ALIVE TO SERVE? IT IS STRICTLY UP TO YOU!
WEIGH THAT WHICH IS "REASON" FOR YOUR ACTIONS AND NEEDS AND SEE WHERE PRIORITIES IN "POSSIBILITIES" ARE LOCATED AND YOU WILL REALIZE WHETHER YOUR INTENT IS SELF-ORIENTED OR IF "STAYING ALIVE TO SERVE" IS THE INTENT. I CANNOT DO THAT FOR YOU, CHELAS-NOR DO I HAVE ANY INTENTION WHATSOEVER OF EFFORTING TO DO SO. ANOTHER PRIME CONSIDERATION IS, "WHY ARE YOU GOING AND WHAT REAL IMPORTANCE IS INVOLVED?"
If I tell you NOT to go somewhere and nothing happens--who gets blamed for spoiling your fun? If you are traveling and end up with terrible inconvenience, who gets blamed? You see, chelas--you want to set it up so you can have it BOTH WAYS--without responsibility for own actions!!
FOURTH OF JULYI observe that which you ones plan, including my own "crew", and am appalled. I have also told you that from every direction reports are flooding me from "insiders"--that a major "happening" set up by your own world governments is planned and rehearsed for your Independence Day(s) of celebration. And yet, our own Motion Picture producer and the one whom all else revolves around at this time--intends to fly from Canada ON THE FOURTH OF JULY.
Well, do you STOP LIVNG? I can't answer that for you--but if you do not take heed of nudges and inner warnings--you very well may do so! Would I stop a "happening" to save one of my own workers?--No! I will however, if need be, save the worker but the "condition" (Physical) may be subject to alteration and not considered to be comfortable. Most often I WILL NOT EVEN DO THAT, FOR IT IS NOT MY BUSINESS WHAT YOU DO! I am a Commander of a fleet of ships--not your guardian angle--you have your own guardian angels. To some of you I serve a major part in that system but with very few indeed for YOU HAVE YOUR OWN APPOINTED GUARDIANS. THE POINT IS TO LEARN RIGHT NOW--LISTEN TO THEM AND HEED THEIR INPUT.
There is no point in quarreling with me about it--those things are between God and you and are none of my business. To deliberately defy the warnings as if some little birdie will snatch you from never, never land is indeed being unwise. You can argue your points regarding "Mary Ann can't get off work except at that time" to " ...it's my only vacation time"--if you can't control THOSE things then why should I do it for you? The adversarial troops are indeed clever, chelas, the very King-led troops of surprise and deceit--you are in charge of your choices. Therefore, if I am confusing to your senses--I cannot change it for--while you individually chatter and whim--a world goes farther into the darkness. Darkness is defined in many ways, chelas--you had best check up on all the definitions.
You do not need to ask me about children in stuffy rooms and/or "Will it be cold or will it be hot?" Look at that which is and prepare accordingly. If I take time to respond to Masheewa, South Africa and Henson, Alaska on particular cases--we won't even get to the "next catastrophe which is already taking shape and is far more impacting on your beings than any null-time, dark or light." I simply am not going to do this FOR YOU.
I also have youngsters planning a long trip North during the holidays--with one of my children. Well, they must take into consideration the possibilities and act accordingly. If the worst thing possible is to be stalled out in a distant place, so be it. But it seems to me that you are nearing a time, if nothing more than politically caused, to stay very close to security and HOME. I am not going to make it convenient for you so that you can postpone actions of properness until the last confounded minute for ability to act. Do whatever makes you happy is the only answer I can possibly give you--or succumb to "unhappiness", whichever you choose.
WHAT ARE THOSE TROOPS FOR?Those bits of military equipment and placement of troops all over the place--especially foreign ones (for "exercises") ARE FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAINTAINING ORDER AT ALL COSTS WITH SHOOT TO KILL ORDERS no matter what takes place for MUCH WILL BE TAKING PLACE, BE IT MILITARY, POLITICAL OR PRONOUNCED "NATURAL". NO, NONE OF IT HAS TO BE, even in the "natural order", for the "natural order" would not happen as it is unfolding and you take so much time on the little tree that you give us NO TIME to point out the trees in the forest!
HURT FEELINGS?I cannot deal with your "hurt feelings" which are nothing but EGO manifestations. If you are offended by my writings, then you are not mature in your "judgments". The remainder of the population and species will NOT be pleased to await while you make up your individual vacation and holiday plans.
SHOCKING STUFF FROM 1980Dharma, herein is a good place to re-publish a writing by Dr. Peter David Beter on November 30, 1980. It is picked at random and not nearly the better of the choices available--simply the one handy at the moment of this presentation. The "stealth" submarines with missile launchers and "placement" of missiles is "interesting" but we will look at what was then labeled as "The New Age of Warfare by Stealth".
Dharma, this is not going to be on any of the subjects given prior to now so: To the Editors, please just publish it as is in the LIBERATOR and the TANGLED WEBS series and let it go out of placement by "index". We are writing ongoing JOURNALS which means "regular entries of information and/or data" and I choose the subjects according to need and not according to your computer indexes. Mine is not to cause you convenience--it is to get you information in the best and fastest way possible with that which we have with which to work and make presentation. Our people are totally overworked and weary of complaints from readers who object to the WAY we structure "literature". Forget "literature" and think "save your assets!".
The following is from the Dr. Peter David Beter presentation #60, recorded November 30, 1980. It is an interruption of sequence--taken completely out of sequence of presentation--but you ones must understand that information has been available to you in hard copy regarding the subject about which we write for decades. This information in point was made public to all who would hear on Nov. 30, 1980 and wasn't new information on THAT date. This is for example and, I hope, to shake you up a bit.
In dealing with the term "Stealth" let us utilize it as a good word to apply to the century of Planning for a one-world Federation and a one-world church as presented in definition at the Colombian Expo. (1893).
QUOTE:
Topic #3--Several months ago there were big headlines about a supposed new American secret weapon. It's called the "Stealthplane". The weapon which is actually involved is a specialized hybrid machine called a "Subcraft". It's the same weapon that I [remember: Beter, not Hatonn] described two years earlier in Audio Letter No. 37. And early this year, January 1980, the Bolsheviks here tried to use it against Russia. The result was a disaster, as I reported in Audio Letters No's. 53 and 54. So now the spectacular sounding SteaIthplane has become just a publicity tool to make nuclear war sound less suicidal.
To judge by all the recent publicity, one would think that stealth is a radical new concept in warfare; but stealth, trickery, deception, and surprise have been the prime ingredients in military strategy since ancient times. And today, my friends, we live in an age of stealth--stealth in politics, stealth in economics, and above all stealth in weaponry in warfare. During the past six years or so I have made public many secret developments in weapons and warfare. I revealed the secrets of both Russia and the United States because I believe you need to know, and knowledge is power.
A secret war is raging right now, and already you and I are suffering the consequences; and if it is not stopped, it will soon explode into all-out thermonuclear war. There is only one way to stop the deadly cycle of war now under way. That way is to put an end to stealth and trickery, and replace it with the TRUTH--the truth about America's gold scandal, the truth about stealing of elections and unregulated voting machines, and the truth about a whole new age of secret weapons which are unknown to the public. The new age of stealth in warfare is everywhere today. It makes up a complete spectrum from deep beneath the sea to outer space.
To begin with, consider Submarines. From the very beginning submarines have always been weapons of stealth. Their outstanding advantage has always been their ability to escape detection. The modern age of nuclear submarines was inaugurated by the United States in 1954 and it was America that conceived a ballistic missile submarine, first launched in 1959. Today our leaders still reassure us that American submarines remain second to none. They have to admit that Russia has several times more "subs" than we do, but they gloss over that with stories that Russian subs are noisy, or leaky, or their crews are not very smart. So, in effect, they tell us, "Don't worry. We can handle a submarine war with Russia." There was a time when quality was in our favor but that time is long gone. Today the United States is losing badly in the secret war to control the world's oceans.
New generations of Russian submarines are entering a new era of their own. For example, there are the new Oscar Class Cruise Missile Submarines. These can launch Cruise Missiles to attack our Aircraft Carriers and other surface ships. They can do this while still submerged, far beyond the horizon. And there are the new Alpha Class Attack Submarines which are without parallel in the world. Submariners always say that a submarine's worst enemy is another submarine, and Russia's new Alpha Subs are the worst enemy yet to our subs. Unlike the United States, Russia has mastered the use of titanium for submarine construction. And unlike America, Russia has big supplies of titanium for use in all kinds of new technologies--and Russia no longer sells titanium to the United States. So the new Alpha Subs have double hulls of titanium, and they are now the deepest diving, fastest operational submarines on earth. Its speed has been estimated in the West at 45 knots but, my friends, it is actually well over 60 knots! In most situations it can actually outrun America's best torpedo, the Mark 48; and it can dive almost a mile deep to escape attack and slip away under complex ocean currents.
But the biggest shock so far in Russia's submarine program took place earlier this fall of 1980. It's a submarine launched from a shipyard near Arkangel on the White Sea. When Western Intelligence officials got their first look at it they could hardly believe their eyes. Traditionally submarines have been known as boats rather than ships because of their relative smallness, but not this submarine. It's a giant, a ballistic missile submarine about the size of an American World War II Aircraft Carrier. Western Intelligence officials are mystified as to why it is so large, but I can reveal the reason to you right now. The giant new Russian submarine, code named "Typhoon", is another "first". It's the world's first ballistic missile submarine with a reload capability. It can empty all 20 of its ballistic missile tubes at a target in war, then it can re-load the tubes with 20 more missiles carried aboard. So, if need be, Russia's Typhoon Sub can mount two nuclear attacks. Like the Alpha Subs, Russia's awesome new Typhoon has a titanium hull. It's not as fast as the sleek Alpha Sub but very fast even so, and it can dive extremely deep.
Meanwhile, what does the United States have to answer all that? The answer is America's new Trident Missile Sub. It carries 24 missiles, compared to the Typhoon's 40. It's slower and cannot dive nearly as deep with its non-titanium hull, and it's also three years behind schedule and still slipping--and there are several reasons for that, some of which have been mentioned in the news lately. But one major reason for our crumbling Trident Submarine program is not in the news--it's the widespread use of narcotics among Trident shipyard workers! Many workers are not involved, but many are and, as a result, there is a tremendous turnover in personnel. Another result is defective welds and mistakes in critical piping. When the mistakes are found they have to be done over, sometimes more than once. And, my friends, absolutely nothing is being done about it.
ANTISUBMARINE WARFAREThe other side of the coin in undersea warfare is-Antisubmarine Warfare, or ASW. Lately we have heard brave stories that , there have recently been ASW breakthroughs by the United States. These are based on extremely complex computerized sonar-listening networks; but as I first revealed some time ago, all new Russian submarines produce artificial noises in normal operation. That's why the new Alpha Subs are thought to be so noisy--the noise is deliberate. When war comes, the noise-makers called "Cavitators", will be retracted. The American sonar nets will listen in vain for the familiar noises. Instead, Alpha Subs and others will swim at high speed toward America whisper quiet and, as they do so, the Russian subs will strike as submarines always strike--by stealth. [H: Something not mentioned herein are the devices which are attached to the subs which can be released and computerized to give off the "same" signals and totally mislead trackers indefinitely!]
The true condition of America's Antisubmarine Warfare was summed up in the New York Times last month on October 5. A senior American naval officer was quoted as saying: "To find a submarine you need to know where to look. Otherwise you'll have to use a large share of your antisubmarine resources just to find and kill one submarine and in wartime that is not practical. You're better off waiting for him to attack." He explained that then we could more easily detect the sub--but he added that a ballistic missile sub could fire its missiles before being caught, quote: "...so it probably doesn't matter."
My friends, it would still be a standoff in submarines if Russia had the same problem we do in finding subs, but they don't.
Five years ago, in 1975, the head of the Russian Navy announced a breakthrough in ASW, and it was not a bluff. He was talking about Psychoenergetic Range Finding, or PRF. I first reported on Russia's PRF in Audio Letter No. 42. It was the key to Russia's destruction of American Subcraft early this year and Russian manned space satellites used PRF to keep track continuously on all United States submarines. When war comes, the positions of our own submarines will be relayed to Russian Attack Submarines. This will be done by means of the world-wide Submarine Communication System, which I revealed in Audio Letter No. 16. Russian Attack Submarines including the new Alphas will be vectored in toward our own Ballistic Missile Subs. Our own subs, older and slower, will be caught by surprise and unable to escape. And without warning, Russian nuclear torpedoes will destroy our Ballistic Missile Submarines.
SUB-PLANTE MISSILES CREATED CRISIS IN 1976When I mentioned Russia's worldwide Submarine Communication System in Audio Letter No. 16, a crisis was under way. It was the Underwater Missile Crisis of 1976. At that time the Russian Navy was planting underwater missiles within our own territorial waters and they were using submarines to do it. The missiles involved were small short-range missiles with nuclear warheads. Once planted, these missiles can be launched from their own underwater resting places by satellite command and they were planted very close to their coastal targets. The result would be zero warning time for an underwater missile attack. The missiles were planted in bays and coves along America's shoreline by a special type of submarine. This was the Missile planting Mini-Sub which I described in Audio Letter No. 16. I mentioned in that tape that, quote: "These special submarines are very difficult for our undersea sonar detection nets to pick up because the hull is created in such a way that it absorbs sonar signals instead of reflecting them."
Four years later we hear an echo of this concept in the so called Stealth-plane. For aircraft, the treatment is to absorb radar instead of sonar, but otherwise it's the same idea. Russia was planting underwater missiles along our shores by stealth, and our own leaders were responding with equal secrecy (H: Didn't you see Red October, with Sean Connery? Where do you think these "outlandish" stories come from?] instead of warning you! When I made these things public over four years ago, certain newsletter writers and others went into a frenzy. For whatever reason they did their best to tell their readers not to listen about the missiles. They tried to say that waterproof missiles lurking under water are impossible. Likewise they pooh-poohed the very idea of sonar-absorbing submarines.
But today we are four years closer to NUCLEAR WAR ONE and the closer catastrophe looms over us, the more it casts its shadow. The New York Times article of last month, which I mentioned earlier, is a good example. It mentioned, quote: "Soviet subs are usually coated with a material that absorbs sonar impulses." And as for the underwater missiles, listen to some words from a recent letter "To the Editor". It was published on September 25, 1980, in the Washington Star. The writer is Captain John E. Draim, formerly program manager of the Navy's project "Hydra". He says, quote: "We can easily waterproof missiles such as the MX, and launch them from a vertical floating position. The United States Navy's project Hydra demonstrated this launch technique with test missiles of ICBM size in the early 1960's." And a further quote: "A Hydra-type missile can also be floated up from a submerged submarine to the surface and launched from there, the technique used for Soviet SLBM's."
In light of these words recently published, what I first reported in the summer of 1976 becomes almost routine. The things I reported then were well known to be feasible in Intelligence circles. But out of the sheer ignorance, if nothing else, certain Newsletters and organizations wanted people to ignore my warnings. Fortunately large numbers of my listeners did not ignore those warnings. They applied heavy pressure to the Joint Chiefs of Staff as I suggested, and action was taken for a while to defuse the crisis.
In the letter "To the Editor" I just quoted by Captain Draim, the reference to ICBM-size missiles is interesting because a few months after I reported on Russia's underwater missiles, I learned about our own.
RUSSIANS OLD HANDSWhen it comes to stealth in space, the Russians are old hands. About three months ago, on Sept. 1, 1980, a fascinating letter was printed in the Cleveland Plain Dealer. It was written by A. L. Jones, the director of the Sohio Radio Satellite Tracking Station from 1958 to 1964. He said, quote: "The technology for making aircraft invisible to radar detection is neither new nor is it proprietary with the United States Military. In mid summer of 1962, the Soviet Union made a public announcement that it was launching a Cosmos Earth-orbiting Satellite which would be invisible to radar detection. The satellite was successfully launched and it carried on board a radio transmitter which could be used to confirm that it was in orbit." He mentions that NORAD requested radio-tracking data from the Sohio Station and continues, quote: "Normally radio tracking data is not needed by NORAD unless radar and optical methods prove ineffective. Apparently this was the case. After approximately two months, the radio transmitter in the satellite ceased to operate, and the space vehicle became invisible to all methods of tracking. "
My friends, for more than three years now, Russia has controlled the military use of space. Russia now has many satellites, including manned satellites, which are not even being tracked in the West. For this and other reasons, America's military plight has become untenable, and yet the Bolsheviks here are still bent on nuclear war against Russia! They believe they will survive, as I explained prior to this, but they don't care how many of the rest of us suffer and die. One way or another they are determined to set off an American nuclear first strike against Russia.
In a prior writing last June I revealed one of the keystones of Bolshevik nuclear war planning. It is America's secret mobile missile, the Minuteman TX, the traveling Minuteman. TX Missiles are already deployed along existing railroad tracks in our northern states. Meanwhile the elaborate publicity cover-up for the Minuteman TX program is continuing. This includes controversy over the alleged MX Missile. And now it also includes stories about a possible speed-up of the mobile missile program. On Nov. 18 the New York Times reported that this could include, and I quote: "... making some Minuteman Missiles mobile." As usual, the news is far behind the facts.
I can report that the initial deployment of Minuteman TX Missiles is now virtually completed. Now a second phase is under way. [H: You had best get nervous, readers--what do you think they have DONE SINCE 1980!?!] I have described previously a special mobile-launch car that carries each Minuteman TX. Now, one by one, each TX car is being joined by a second car. On the outside it looks just like the TX car, but the missile inside is totally different. The missile in the second car is an Anti-Cosmosphere Missile, or ACM, and it is armed with a cobalt ionization bomb, which I have also described.
I have described the launch sequence that is being planned for the TX Missiles, but now something extra will also be taking place. When the order comes to launch the TX Missiles, the ACM will go into action first. Without waiting to slow down, the cover will be blasted off the ACM railroad car. That will expose the ACM Missile itself resting on its launcher. The ACM is far smaller than the Minuteman, and its launcher is angled upward slightly, so the moment the cover flies off, the ACM will be launched. [H: My scribe is now in attention for I only write recently of things which are very apt to be happening in your own moment of experience so when Dharma gets insight and nervous, perhaps all of you had best heed the twitching!]
When the ACM takes off, it will accelerate with 100 times the force of gravity--minimum. Less than one (1) second after launch, the ACM will be traveling more than 1000 miles per hour and, because it takes off almost horizontally, it will be an impossible target for the Cosmosphere overhead to aim at.
Less than 10 seconds after launch, the COBALT IONIZATION BOMB will explode in the upper atmosphere. That is supposed to disable the Cosmospheres briefly and, with the Cosmospheres even temporarily neutralized, the Minuteman TX Missiles themselves will be launched at Russia-at least that is the plan of the Bolsheviks HERE. [H: BUT--today (1992) the Cosmospbere crews can totally disable the tracking devices and nullify the plan. As far back as 1980--you can see what was already underway.)
But Cosmosphere crews have already been given orders intended to nullify the plan. WHEN THE ACM IS LAUNCHED, THEY WILL NOT EVEN TRY TO SHOOT AT IT. INSTEAD, THEY WILL START FIRING THEIR CHARGED PARTICLE BEAM WEAPONS AT THE MINUTEMAN TX RAILROAD CAR. [H: REMEMBER? I already told you all about this plan.] They will have about 10 seconds to destroy it before the Cobalt Ionization Bombs explode, and that should be more than enough time to vaporize every TX and its locomotive. [H: Not to mention everything within MILES around the area involved.) But by that time the kamikaze nuclear first strike against Russia may be impossible to stop and, if it is, the consequences for America will be TOTAL DESTRUCTION. Stealth and secrecy will end in complete disaster. END.
END OF QUOTING
By the way: Dr. Beter was murdered (taken out) following many, many warnings and threats--on March 14, 1987. And--what do YOU do in your spare time??
* * *Another complaint that one or two have bothered to pay a rather high phone fee for is to effort to "stop Hatonn from using God's name in vain and swearing." When asked what Hatonn says, the response is "B.S." and "damn". All I can respond to this is with the observation that: "This kind of BS is going to get your world damn well blown to dust particles." Swearing and cursing would be represented by my asking God to damn you for your irrational and incredible behavior--I have not yet done this although it HAS crossed my mind! By the way, were I do such a thing--it would not be accidentally "taking the Lord's name in vain"--IT WOULD BE QUITE INTENTIONAL AND WOULD VERY WELL BE HONORED! SO BE IT! And how is YOUR day? Salu.
PJ 57CHAPTER 2REC #2 HATONNSAT., JUNE 20, 1992 1:03 P.M. YEAR 5, DAY 309SATURDAY, JUNE 20, 1992MIS-DIS-INFORMATIONI am not going to buffer wording for you readers--I am not here to quarrel, debate or "straighten up MY thinking". This latter is for you dear ones who in good intent write to "straighten up Hatonn's thinking" and " ... clarify Hatonn's output". My thinking nor my output is shrouded nor "crooked". You want to know about years and what happened, etc., and then set about correcting me when I tell you. That is fine; it would simply seem wiser, to me, to go and look at WHERE YOU ARE TODAY and consider that perhaps I might just be RIGHT. You certainly don't have anything to LOSE by reading my presentations for goodness has never HURT anyone that I know about.
When you consider what happened to Yehwah and Yewah, Yeawow and Jehova as well as Jehovah--I have only this to say to you--WATCH FOR THE CLUES. Speakers who claim to be speaking in the name of these ones and/or disembodied speakers who claim these names in reference--are false! I don't need to carry the argument further but I will, briefly. If these "channels" speaking for these so-named energy forms tell you exactly where to go, what to do and when to do it (specifically and finite)--watch OUT! THIS IS NOT OF GOD IN THESE DAYSI!! These wondrous names given unto God in the Beginning are now utilized almost exclusively by the adversarial troops--you are going to have to get all the information in Truth which you can garner and then measure the output by the guidelines and against the commandments as given by God and Creation. It is total simplicity so I suggest you stop looking for contradictions and follow the guidelines of Truth for they vary not from one speaker to the next. Truth is Truth is Truth and will stand into infinity!
Ask me about this subject tomorrow at the gathering and I shall be happy to further discuss it.
CREATION/CREATIONISTSAs to creationists of this latter day--they tell you that it appears that "creation" took place some 10,000 or 22,000 years ago. That alone should give you ample reason to suspect error--there is, for one thing, a lot of years between 10,000 and 22,000. But it does indicate that the "cycles" as outlaid have a large part to play in the projections of possibilities. Since you have PHYSICAL PROOF of elders beyond 22,000 years past--that would take the edge off the "whole truth". However, when one considers the truth of the presentation and "creation" methods of God and projection of manifested experience--anything COULD be possible??!! Therefore we have to look first at probabilities and then take higher knowledge as viewed by elder travelers and work from that perception.
Perhaps in overreaction to this "Creationism", scientists have considered the biblical tale of Genesis as a subject of faith, not fact. And yet, chelas, when one of the rocks brought back from the Moon by Apollo astronauts turned out to be almost 4.1 billion years old, it was nicknamed "the Genesis rock" so who is efforting to fool who? When a tiny piece of green glass shaped like a lima bean turned up in lunar soil samples gathered by the Apollo 14 astronauts, the scientist dubbed it "the Genesis bean". It therefore appears that, in spite of all the objections and reservations, even the scientific community cannot escape the age old faith (or perhaps truth), belief, inner feelings, or perhaps some "genetic memory" of the species called Mankind, that a primordial truth underlies the narrative of the Books considering Genesis.
However the Moon became a constant companion to Earth--the various theories must be examined. It, like Earth, belonged to the same Solar System, and the histories of both go all the way back to its creation. On Earth, erosion caused by the forces of nature as well as by the life that has evolved on it has obliterated much of the evidence bearing on that creation, to say nothing of the cataclysmic events that changed and revamped the planet. But the Moon, so it was assumed, had remained in its pristine condition. With neither winds, atmosphere, nor waters, there were no forces of erosion. A look at the Moon was tantamount to a peek at Genesis.
Man has gazed at the Moon for eons, first with the unaided eye, then with Earth-based magnifying instruments. The Space Age made it possible to probe the Moon more closely. Between 1959 and 1969, a number of Soviet and American unmanned spacecraft photographed and otherwise examined the Moon either by orbiting it or by landing on it. You don't even know about the other "nations" which have likewise visited that orb. Then Man finally set foot on the moon, or so it was stated to you-the-public, when the landing module Apollo 11 touched down on the moon's surface as reported on July 20, 1969. I have no wish to contradict what you have been told for it makes NO DIFFERENCE. You have NEVER been an enemy of the Soviet Union and all information has been shared so that no ONE HAS to go anywhere to get very valid information to push off as "first hand". But we will simply go with the "story". We will remember Neil Armstrong and his announcement for all the world to hear: "Houston! Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed!"
LOTS OF LUNAR HYPEIn all, six Apollo spacecraft presumably set down a total of twelve astronauts on the Moon; the last manned mission was that of Apollo 17, in Dec. 1972. The first one was admittedly intended primarily to "beat the Russians to the Moon", but that didn't work either for the Soviets were already there--waiting-along with a lot of brothers from "out there somewhere" and YOU were invited to withdraw and "don't come back!" The missions became increasingly scientific as the Apollo program progressed. The equipment for the tests and experiments became ever more sophisticated (or at least the reports speculated as much); the choice of landing sites was more scientifically oriented, the areas covered increased with the aid of surface vehicles, and the length of stay increased from hours to days. Even the crew makeup changed to include, in the last mission, a trained geologist, Harrison Schmitt; his expertise was speculated as invaluable in the on-the-spot selection of rocks and soil to be taken back to Earth, in the description and evaluation of dust and other lunar materials left behind, and in the choice and description of topographic features--hills, valleys, small canyons, escarpments, and giant boulders without which the true face of the Moon would have remained inscrutable. Instruments were left on the Moon to measure and record its phenomena over long periods; deeper soil samples were obtained by drilling into the face of the Moon; but most scientifically precious and rewarding were the 838 pounds of lunar soil and Moon rocks brought back to Earth. Their examination, analysis, arid study were still in progress as the twentieth anniversary of the first landing was being celebrated.
As an exercise, herein, walk outside your living quarters right now to a place wherein you can touch "earth". This will be far more expressive if you take someone who lives in rural terrain. Simply first look around you--HOW FAR AND HOW MUCH CAN YOU SEE? Pick up a handful of dirt--is it topsoil added to your lawn or natural in location? Now move twenty or thirty feet or even five miles--and look and dig again. Now, let us assume you are in Montana or Texas--have you just learned a single solitary thing about the Grand Canyon? You could utilize a hundred tons of soil from the spot wherein you stand and how much would learn about the Grand Canyon? How about Yellowstone? The Black. Hills? The Aegean Sea? The Sahara Desert? If you don't harken up, dear ones, you are going to have come, experienced and perished without knowing a single worthwhile thing about your passage, how you began or why you ended.
The notion of "Genesis rocks" to be found on the Moon was proposed to NASA by the Nobel Laureate Harold Urey. The so-called Genesis rock that was one of the very first to be picked up on the Moon proved, as the Apollo program progressed, not to be the oldest one. It was "only" some 4.1 billion years old, whereas the rocks later found on the Moon ranged from 3.3 billion-year-old "youngsters" to 4.5 billion-year "old-timers". Barring a future discovery of some older rocks, they said, the oldest rocks on the Moon brought its age to within 100 million years (give or take a day or so in either direction) of the estimated age of the Solar System--of 4.6 billion years--which until then was surmised only from the age of meteorites that struck the Earth--and the records of the Sumerians of ancient experience and/or the oral traditional teachers of the "ancients" (aboriginal people).
AGE OF THE MOONWho cares? Well, in establishing the age of the Moon, the time of its probable creation, only intensified the debate concerning the question of HOW the Moon was created and "Green Cheese" didn't quite cut it.
"The hope of establishing the Moon's origin was a primary scientific rationale for the manned landings of the Apollo project in the 1960's" (or so they told YOU), wrote a James Gleick in June of 1986 for The New Yom Times Science Service. It was, however, "the great question that Apollo failed to answer."
How could modern science read an uneroded "Rosetta stone" of the Solar System, so close by, so much studied, landed upon six times or so--and not come up with an answer to the basic question? The answer to the puzzle seems to be that the findings were applied to a set of preconceived notions and, because none of these notions is correct, the findings appear to leave the question unanswered.
One of the earliest scientific theories regarding the Moon's origin was published in 1879 by Sir George H. Darwin, second son of Charles Darwin. Whereas his father put forth the theory regarding the origin of species on Earth, Sir George was the first to develop a theory of origins for the Sun-Earth-Moon system based on mathematical analysis and geophysical theory. How many of you readers even knew that Charles Darwin HAD sons? Don't you find this interesting? His, George's, specialty was the study of tides; he therefore conceived of the Moon as having been formed from matter pulled off Earth by solar tides. The Pacific basin was later postulated to be the scar that remained after this "pinching off" of part of Earth's body to form the Moon. Is it not interesting to note that the most unlikely theory--the one of Darwin' s evolution, is the controversial absurdity which took root and flourished?
Although it is "a hypothesis now considered unlikely to be true," said the ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, the idea reappeared in the twentieth century as one of three contenders for being proved or disproved by the lunar reports as furnished by whoever and whatever was out there" issuing the information. Given a high-tech name, the Fission Theory, it was revived with a difference. In the reconstructed theory, 'the simplistic idea of the tidal pull of the Sun was dropped; instead it was proposed that the Earth divided into two bodies while spinning very rapidly during its formation. The spinning was so rapid that a chunk of the material of which the Earth was forming was thrown off, coalesced at some distance from the bulk of the Earthly matter, and eventually remained orbiting its bigger twin, brother as its "permanent" satellite. Why would it be permanent? How do YOU know that you both are not just pieces of a giant cosmic fire-breathing dragon's dung-bits? Is it any more unspeculative or uninspired?
The "thrown-off chunk" theory, whether in its earlier or renewed form, has been conclusively rejected by scientists from various disciplines, which is also routinely the way it is and for no better reason than just THAT. Studies presented at the third Conference on the Origins of Life held in Pacific Palisades, California, in 1970-so it must all be true-established that tidal forces as the cause of the fission could not account for the origin of the Moon beyond a distance of five Earth radii, whereas the Moon is some 60 Earth radii away from the Earth. All I see proven is that some idiots gave some opinions in the form of "papers" and "abstracts" which have no basis of merit whatsoever--even if they were presented in New Jersey. Also, scientists consider a study by Kurt S. Hansen in 1982 (Review of Geophysics and Space Physics, vol. 20) [eeh-gads, spare us from the other 19] as showing conclusively that the Moon could never have been closer to Earth than 140,000 miles; this would rule out any theory that the Moon was once part of Earth (the Moon is now an average distance of about 240,000 miles from Earth, but this distance has not been constant).
PROPONENTS OF FISSION THEORYProponents of the Fission Theory have offered various variants thereof in order to overcome the distance problem, (as well as the truth), which is further constrained by a concept termed the Roche limit (the distance within which the tidal forces overcome the gravitational force). But all variants of the fission theory have been rejected because they violate the laws of the preservation of energy. The theory requires much more angular momentum than has been preserved in the energy that exists to spin the Earth and the Moon around their axes and to orbit around the Sun. Writing in the book Origin of the Moon (1986), John A. Wood of Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics ("A Review of Hypotheses of Formation of Earth's Moon") (this is certainly one of your finer constipated Rockefeller institutions) summed up this constraint thus: "The fission model has very severe dynamic problems: In order to fission, the Earth had to have about four times as much angular momentum as the Earth-Moon system now has. There is no good explanation why the Earth had such an excess of angular momentum in the first place, or where the surplus angular momentum went after fission occurred." My, my, and "Hatonn is confusing?"
The knowledge about the Moon supposedly acquired from the Apollo program added geologists and chemists to the lineup of scientists rejecting the fission theory. The Moon's composition is, in many respects, they say, similar to Earth, yet different in key respects. There is sufficient "kinship" to indicate they are very close relatives, but there are enough differences, as reported, to show they are not twin brothers. This is especially true of the Earth's crust and mantle, from which the moon had to be formed, according to the fission theory. Thus, for example, the Moon has too little of the elements caned "siderophile", such as tungsten, phosphorus, cobalt, molybdenum, and nickel, compared with the amount of these substances present in the Earth's mantle and crust (even in the Grand Canyon?) and too much of the "refractory" elements such as aluminum, calcium, titanium and uranium (even in the Florida Everglades?). In a highly technical summary of the various findings ("The Origin of the Moon", American Scientist, Sept.-Oct. 1975), Stuart R. Taylor stated: "For all these reasons, it is difficult to match the composition of the bulk of the Moon to that of the terrestrial mantle. (Even in the Philippines??--how about the Mojave Desert??)
The book ORIGIN OF THE MOON, apart from its introductions and summaries, is a collection of papers presented by some sixty-two scientists at the Conference on the Origin of the Moon held at Kona, Hawaii, in October 1984 (a better location?? At least for a vacation!!)--the most comprehensive since the conference twenty years earlier that had mapped out the scientific goals of the unmanned and manned Moon probes. In their papers, the contributing scientists, approaching the problem from various disciplines, invariably reached conclusions against the fission theory. Comparisons of the composition of the upper mantle of the Earth with that of the Moon, Michael J. Drake of the University of Arizona stated, "rigorously exclude" the Rotational Fission hypothesis (even in South Africa?).
CAPTURE THEORY (OR "GOTCHA")The laws of angular momentum plus the comparisons of the composition of the Moon with that of Earth's mantle also ruled out, after the landings on the moon, the second favored theory, that of Capture. According to this particular theory, the Moon was formed not near the Earth but among the outer planets or even beyond them. Somehow thrown off into a vast elliptical orbit around the Sun, it passed too closely to the Earth, was caught by the Earth's gravitational force, and became Earth's satellite. Hot-dog-"gotcha" in action.
This theory, it was pointed out after numerous computer studies, required an extremely slow approach by the Moon toward the Earth. This capture process, not unlike that of the satellites you have sent to presumably be captured and remain in orbit around Mars or Venus, etc., fails to take into account the relative sizes of Earth and Moon. Relative to the Earth, the Moon (about one-eightieth the mass of Earth) is much too large to have been snared from a vast elliptical orbit unless it was moving very slowly; but then, as all the calculations have shown, the result would be not a capture but a collision. This theory was further laid to rest by comparisons of the compositions of the two celestial bodies: the Moon was too similar to Earth and too dissimilar to the outer bodies to have been born so far away from Earth.
Extensive studies of the "Capture" Theory suggested that the Moon would have remained intact only if it had neared Earth, not from way out, but from the very same part of the heavens where Earth itself was formed. This conclusion was accepted even by another famous(?) scientist, S. Fred Singer of George Mason University--a proponent of the capture hypothesis--in his paper ("Origin of the Moon by Capture") presented at the above-mentioned Conference on the Origin of the Moon. "Capture from an eccentric heliocentric orbit is neither feasible nor necessary," he stated; the oddities of the Moon's composition "can be explained in terms of a Moon formed in an Earthlike orbit": the Moon was "captured" while forming near Earth. Do you feel like you are in a "B-Grade" movie plot? So be it for these are CURRENT MODERN PROJECTIONS!
COACCRETIONThese admissions by proponents of the fission and the capture theories lent support to the third main theory that was previously current, that of Coaccretion, a common birth. This theory has its roots in the hypothesis proposed at the end of the eighteenth century of one Pierre-Simmon de Laplace, who said that the Solar System was born of a nebular gas cloud that coalesced in time to form the Sun and the planets--a hypothesis that has been retained by modern science. Showing that lunar accelerations are dependent on eccentricities in the Earth's orbit, Laplace concluded that the two bodies were formed side by side, first the Earth and then the Moon. The Earth and the Moon, he suggested, were sister planets, partners in a binary, or two-planet, system, in which they orbit the Sun together while one "dances" around the other. Would it be a Waltz or a Texas Two-Step?
That natural satellites, or moons, coalesce from the remainder of the same primordial matter of which their parent planet was formed is now the generally accepted theory of how planets acquired moons and should also apply to Earth and the Moon somehow. As reported found by the Pioneer and Voyager spacecraft, the moons of the outer planets--that had to be formed, by and large, out of the same primordial material as their "parents" -are both sufficiently akin to their parent planets and at the same time reveal individual characteristics as "children" do; this might well be true also for the basic similarities and sufficient dissimilarities between the Earth and the Moon--at least this does begin to enter the realm of possibilities.
ALSO REJECT THIS THEORYWhat makes scientists now reject this theory when it is applied to the Earth and the Moon is their relative sizes. The Moon is simply too large relative to the Earth--not only about one-eightieth of its mass but about one quarter of it diameter. This relationship is all out of proportion to what is KNOWN to be elsewhere in the Solar System. When the mass of all the moons of each planet (excluding Pluto) is given as a ratio of the planet's mass, the results clearly present the anomaly in point. A comparison of the relative sizes of the largest moon of each of the other planets with the size of the Moon relative to Earth shows great disproportion and too much angular momentum in the combined Earth-Moon system to readily support the Binary Planets Hypothesis.
OOPS! THEORYWhat you now end up in conclusion of the above is that all three basic theories are unable to meet some of the required criteria to the point that you can wonder how Earth ended up with its satellite at all. Such a conclusion, in fact, does not bother some; they point to the presumed fact that none of the terrestrial planets (other than Earth) have satellites: the two tiny bodies that orbit Mars are, all are agreed, captured asteroids. If conditions in the Solar System were such that none of the planets formed between the Sun and Mars (inclusive) obtained satellites in anyone of the considered methods--Fission, Capture, Coaccretion-should not Earth, too, being within this moonless zone, have been without a moon? But there remains the obvious fact that Earth as you know it and wherein you CAN know it at all, does have a moon, and an extremely large one at that. So might it not be wise to effort to account for that?
Well Dharma, we won't "account" for it at this sitting for I need you elsewhere and you need a respite from the keyboard. We need to finish tape 6 please before continuing on with writing today. Thank you for your patience. Don't concern about your getting behind in the work-load. We will take what we can as we can do so. Mankind must also make his priorities listings and "their" priorities are not "your" priorities. Thank you.
Hatonn to stand by. Salu.
