Chapter 6: Witness to Genesis

[T]he Moon became a constant companion of Earth—the various theories will soon be examined—it, like Earth, belonged to the same Solar System, and the histories of both go back to its creation.

Man has peered at the Moon for eons, first with the naked eye, then with Earth-based instruments. The space age made it possible to probe the Moon more closely…

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 somewhat older rocks, the oldest rocks found on the Moon have thus brought its age to within 100 million years 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.

The Moon, the lunar landings established, was a Witness to Genesis.

Crystals in a Moon rock, and Volcanic matter, from the Apollo Mission.

Crystals in a Moon rock, and Volcanic matter, from the Apollo Mission.

Establishing the age of the Moon, the time of its creation, intensified the debate concerning the question of how the Moon was created.

How would modern science read an uneroded “Rosetta stone” of the Solar System, so close by, so much studied, landed upon six times—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.

Sir George H. Darwin [son of Charles Darwin], was the first to develop a theory of origins for the Sun-Earth-Moon system based on mathematical analysis and geophysical theory [published in 1879]. His 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.

Given a high-tech name [in the twentieth century], 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.

The “thrown-off chunk” theory, whether in its earlier or renewed form, has been conclusively rejected by scientists from various disciplines…

Proponents of the Fission theory have offered various variants thereof in order to overcome the distance problems, 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…

Mr. Sitchin presents other various theories and several studies in his book; including the theory of “Capture”; and “Coaccretion.”

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…

What nevertheless makes scientists 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 its diameter. This relationship is out of all proportion to what has been found elsewhere in the Solar System… (Useful charts are showed in the book).

With all three basic theories unable to meet some of the required criteria, one may end up wondering how Earth ended up with its satellite at all… Such a conclusion, in fact, does not bother some; they point to the fact that none of the terrestrial planets [Mercury, Venus, Mars] (other than Earth) have satellites: the two tiny bodies that orbit Mars, are all agreed, captured asteroids… Should not Earth, too, being within this moonless zone, have been without a moon? But the fact remains that Earth as we know it and where we know it does have a moon, and an extremely large one (in proportion) to boot. So how do we account for that?

Another finding of the Apollo program also stands in the way of accepting the coaccretion theory. The Moon’s surface as well as its mineral content suggest a “magma ocean” created by partial melting of the Moon’s interior. For that, a source of heat great enough to melt the magma is called for. Such heat can result only from cataclysmic or catastrophic event; in the coaccretion scenario no such heat is produced. How then explain the magma ocean and other evidence on the Moon of a cataclysmic heating?

The Big Whack Theory—developed by the suggestion by William Hartmann, a geochemist at the Planetary Science Institute in Tucson, Arizona, and his colleague Donald R. Davis in 1975 that collisions and impacts played a role in the creation of the Moon…

The idea was taken by two astrophysicists, Alastair G.W. Cameron and Harvard and William R. Ward of Caltech… envisioned a planet-sized body—at least as large as the planet Mars—racing toward the Earth at 24,500 miles per hour; coming from the outer reaches of the Solar System, its path raced toward the Sun—but the Earth, in its formative orbit, stood in the way. The “glancing blow” that resulted slightly tilted the Earth, giving it its ecliptic obliquity (currently about 23.5 degrees); it also melted the outer layer of both bodies, sending a plume of vaporized rock into orbit around the Earth… Some of the ejected material fell back to Earth, but enough remained far enough away to eventually coalesce and become the Moon.

(Computer simulations proved the mechanics of this theory; however, Mr Sitchin continues):

Another major departure from the original Big Whack hypothesis was the realization that in order to resolve chemical composition constraints, the impactor had to come from the same place in the heavens as Earth itself did—not from the outer regions of the solar System. But if so, where and how did it acquire the immense momentum it needed for the vaporizing impact?

Subsequent calculations showed that in order to achieve the end results, the impactor had to be three times the size of Mars. This heightened the problem of where and how in Earth’s vicinity such a celestial body could accrete…

Since each variant of the Big Whack hypothesis involved a total meltdown of the Earth, it was necessary that other evidence of such a meltdown be found. But as was overwhelmingly reported at the 1988 Origin of the Earth Conference at Berkeley, California, no such evidence exists. If Earth had melted and resolidified, various elements in its rocks would have crystallized differently from the way they actually are found, and they would have reappeared in certain ratios, but this is not the case. Another result should have been the distortion of the chondrite material—the most primordial matter on Earth that is also found in the most primitive meteorites—but no such distortion has been found…

What, then, of the evidence of meltings on the Moon? There is no doubt that they have occurred: the giant craters, some a hundred or more miles in diameter, are silent witnesses visible to all. There are the maria (“seas”), that, it is now known, were not bodies of water but areas of the Moon’s surface flattened by immense impacts. There are the magma oceans. There are glass and glassy material embedded in the rocks and grains of the Moon’s surface that resulted from shock melting of the surface caused by high-velocity impacts (as distinct from heated lava as a source)…

When did all these impacts that caused the surface melting take place? Not, the findings showed, when the Moon was created but some 500 million years afterward. It was then NASA scientists reported at a 1972 press conference and subsequently, that the Moon had undergone a convulsive evolution…

Having swung from theory to theory, modern science now embraces as a theory for the origin of our Moon the same process that gave the outer planets their multi-moon systems. The hurdle still to be overcome is the need to explain why, instead of a swarm of smaller moons, a too-small Earth has ended up with a single, too-large Moon.

For the answer, we have to go back to Sumerian cosmogony. The first help it offers modern science is its assertion that the Moon originated not as a satellite of Earth but of the much larger Tiamat. Then—millennia before Western civilization had discovered the swarms of moons encircling Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune—the Sumerians ascribed to Tiamat a swarm of satellites, “eleven in all.” They placed Tiamat beyond Mars, which would qualify her as an outer planet; and the “celestial horde” was acquired by her no differently than by other outer planets…

(If you desire to read more about Tiamat please review The 12th Planet.)

"As faster computers allow celestial mechanicians longer looks at the behavior of the planets,” Richard A Kerr wrote in Science (“Research News,” April 14, 1989), “chaos is turning up everywhere… “many orbits that lie between Uranus and Neptune become chaotic,” and “the orbital behavior of Pluto is chaotic and unpredictable.” J. Laskar of the Bureau des Longitudes in Paris found original chaos throughout the Solar System, “but especially among the inner planets, including Earth.”

Just as the modern astronomers are troubled by the disproportionately large size of the Moon, so were the authors of the Enuma elish.

According to this ancient cosmogony (Enuma elish), one of the eleven moons of Tiamat did grow to an unusual size because of the ongoing perturbations and chaotic conditions in the newly formed Solar System. How the creation of this monstrous moon affected these conditions is regrettably not clear from the ancient text…

…the fact of the disproportionate size of the Moon (even relative to the larger Tiamat) is recorded in all its disturbing details. All is there—except that it is not Sumerian cosmogony that corroborates modern science, but modern science that catches up with ancient knowledge.

After presenting more studies about the Moon, by modern scientists, and comparing them to the Sumerian cosmogony, Mr. Sitchin continues:

On the occasion of the last Apollo mission to the Moon, The Economist (Science and Technology, December 11, 1972) summed the program’s discoveries thus: “Perhaps the most important of all, exploration of the moon has shown that it is not a simple, uncomplicated sphere but a true planetary body.”

“A true planetary body.” Just as the Sumerian described millennia ago…

There is other evidence that the Moon became more compact as a result of heavy impacts. On the side facing away from the Earth—its far side—the surface has highlands and a thick crust, while the near side—the side facing Earth—shows large, flat plains, as though the elevated features had been wiped off. Inside the Moon, gravitational variations reveal the existence of compacted, heavier masses in several concentrations, especially where the surface had been flattened out. Though outwardly the Moon ( as do all celestial bodies larger than a minimal size) has a spherical shape, the mass in its core appears to have the shape of a gourd, as a computer study shows. It is a shape that bears the mark of the “big whack” that compressed the Moon and thrust it into its new place in the heavens, just as the Sumerians had related.

The Sumerian assertion that Kingu (original companion of Tiamat, our Moon today) was turned into a DUG.GA.E is equally intriguing. The term, I wrote in The 12th Planet, literally means “pot of lead.” At the time I took it to be merely a figurative description of the Moon as “a mass of lifeless clay.” But the Apollo discoveries suggest that the Sumerian term was not just figurative but was literally and scientifically correct. One of the initial puzzles encountered on the Moon was so-called “parentless lead.” The Apollo program revealed that the top few miles of the Moon’s crust unusually rich in radioactive elements such as uranium. There was all evidence of the existence of extinct radon. These elements decay and become lead at either final or intermediary stages of the radioactive-decay process.

How the Moon became so enriched in radioactive elements remains an unresolved puzzle, but that these elements had mostly decayed into lead is now evident. Thus, the Sumerian assertion that Kingu was turned into a “pot of lead” is an accurate scientific statement.

The Moon was not only a Witness to Genesis. It is also a witness to the veracity of the biblical Genesis—to the accuracy of ancient knowledge.

Continue to Chapter 7: The Seed of Life