Who Built the Moon? (16 page)

The Moon has a beautifully neat 100 Megalithic Yards to each second of arc, which could be a very odd coincidence if it were not for all of the other facts we discovered which point to a whole range of round numbers. And of course the Sun has an incredibly round 40,000 Megalithic Yards to each Megalithic second of arc. What a perfect way to announce an awareness that the Moon is exactly 400 times smaller than the Sun.

We also noted that whilst the Sun has 40,000 Megalithic Yards to a Megalithic second of arc, the metric system was designed so that the Earth’s polar circumference would be 40,000 kilometres.

It had struck us as quite amazing that anyone more than 5,000 years ago could have created a unit of measure that worked as a perfect integer of the planet within such an elegant system of geometry – starting and finishing with the Earth’s PIN number of 366. Whilst this was impressive, we were perplexed at the apparent impossibility of creating a unit and a geometry that produced beautifully round integers on the Earth, Moon and Sun. To do so should be as close to impossible as anything can get.

Units that are integer, within the same geometry, for two heavenly bodies would be very difficult – but three? That’s ridiculous! And yet the sums spoke for themselves. The fact that the approach did not work for any other body in the solar system pointed to a very special relationship for the Earth, Moon and Sun.

The apparent impossibility of the Neolithic inhabitants having had the skills to develop such a marvellous system is now resolved when we introduce the unknown creative agency because, if it started with knowledge of the dimensions of the two original bodies (the Sun and the Earth), it could have engineered the Moon to made it fit the same rules. Our hypothesis was, therefore, to assume that the UCA somehow instructed the Stone-Age builders to adopt the system we call Megalithic geometry.

In our previous book,
Civilization One
, we speculated that the earliest records of the Sumerians and the ancient Egyptians were actually correct when they claimed that their own civilizations had been instructed in the arts and sciences by an external agency. In these records there are references to people called ‘the watchers’ who taught geometry, mathematics, astronomy, agriculture and other sciences. The indigenous population did not know where these people had come from and they described them as having superhuman powers, although they were clearly human beings and not gods.

In around 3100 BC, ancient Egypt became a united kingdom and its period of recorded history began. At the same time, the Sumerians were building their great cities and developing sophisticated techniques of metalworking, glass manufacture and agriculture. In the Indus valley of the Indian subcontinent, the Harappa and Mohenjodaro civilizations were also constructing huge cities and in the British Isles, superb megalithic structures like Newgrange, Maes Howe and the Ring of Brodgar were being built. Is it not very strange indeed, that within such a precise period of time the whole world suddenly decided to step up a gear and enter into a period of true civilization?

We found it more than odd that these unconnected peoples should all take such a large step forward at exactly the same time. And we have recently come across very new information that made our suspicions even greater. On December 23
^rd
2004, new findings were published that markedly revise the dating of the first American civilizations. It reported that evidence now shows that the oldest civilization in the Americas dates back far earlier than previously thought – in fact right back to 3100 BC, at which time complex societies and communal building suddenly appeared in Peru. This emerging culture was the first in the Americas to develop centralized decision-making, formalized religion, social hierarchies and a mixed economy based on agriculture and fishing.

One member of the team that has reported these findings in the pre-eminent scientific journal,
Nature,
is Jonathan Haas of the Department of Anthropology at the Field Museum in Chicago. He said:

‘The scale and sophistication of these sites is unheard of anywhere in the New World at this time, and at almost any time. These dates push back the origins of civilization in the Americas to something more parallel to those of the other great early civilizations.’
²⁶

Some of the settlements that are believed to have had at least 3,000 inhabitants included platform mounds, thought to be pyramids, central plazas, temples and housing. The largest pyramid at Caral, known as the Primade Mayor, is contemporary with the earlier Egyptian pyramids, dating from 2627 BC. From this data, the archaeologists have concluded that there was large-scale communal construction and population concentration across the entire area.

Dr José Oliver, a lecturer in Latin American archaeology at the Institute of Archaeology at University College London, said: ‘This confirms that by 3100 BC monumental buildings were already under way, not just at an isolated site but across a whole region.’

As we have already stated, science is about recognizing patterns. Humans have not changed physically or intellectually over the last hundred thousand years but suddenly, just over 5,000 years ago, unconnected people around the world began building major structures and cities; but apart from some Sumerian–Egyptian interaction, these groups appear to have developed quite independently. Archaeology has not found obvious cross-cultural artefacts so it is assumed that they all blossomed at the same time through sheer coincidence.

But if they appeared worldwide because they had all benefited from the instruction of an unknown creative agency, one shouldn’t necessarily expect an exact commonality of interpretation of these ideas. Nevertheless, it is clear that there are some significant cultural connections such as the building of pyramids and Venus worship.

There is, it seems, some very powerful, albeit circumstantial, evidence for an intervention by a highly advanced group more than 5,000 years ago. We have to admit, however, that we cannot conceive how any agency could have maintained contact with the Earth’s development over several billions of years. Nevertheless, we do not see it as our place to reject information just because we cannot explain it. Everything depends on the ground rules of the observer: if someone refuses to look at obvious patterns because they consider a pattern should not be there, then they will see nothing but the reflection of their own prejudices.

As we reflected on what we had found, the number play involved in the Earth–Moon–Sun system was nothing less than staggering. We were amused by the charm of this virtual machine especially when using the metric system. We looked at this little equation using kilometres:

(Moon x Earth)/100 = Sun

This means that if we multiply the circumference of the Moon by that of the Earth, the result is 436,669,140km. If we then divide this figure by 100 we arrive at 436,669km, which is the circumference of the Sun, correct to 99.9 per cent.

How weird!

Of course, if we divide the circumference of the Sun by that of the Moon and multiply by 100 we get the polar circumference of the Earth. And, as we have pointed out, if we divide the size of the Sun by the size of the Earth and multiply by 100 we get the size of the Moon.

None of this is magic or pointless numerology. It may well be nothing more than an amusing coincidence but, given all of the ratio patterning we have observed, it would be foolish to ignore it.

However, the idea that kilometres can be meaningful to issues regarding the Moon is hard to swallow. Any reader could be forgiven for doubting what they read here. Nevertheless if anyone chooses to check out the numbers – it all works. And if you are still not sure about the idea, have a look at this fact; it certainly astounded us when we came across it.

The Moon has a sidereal rotation period of 655.728 hours, which means it rotates once every 27.322 Earth days. Given that the Moon has an equatorial circumference of 10,920.8 kilometres, this means that the Moon is turning at 400 kilometres per Earth day!

Just consider these unquestionable facts as a whole:

The Moon is one 400
^th
the size of the Sun.

The Moon is 400 times closer to the Earth than the Sun.

The Moon is rotating at a rate of 400km per Earth day.

Coincidence? Well, maybe – or maybe not.

The Earth is rotating at 40,000 kilometres a day and the Moon is turning at a rather precise 100 times less. The Moon always faces the Earth as it travels on its orbit around our planet and yet the average distance is such that the equatorial rotational speed is precisely one per cent of an Earth day. These figures are entirely checkable and indisputable. How could all this be accidental?

Surely, only a fool would not wish to examine this situation further. Yet we have to be realistic about how some people will view our decision to consider the apparently impossible. We are well aware that many, and possibly most, experts will turn a blind eye.

Terence Kealey
,
a clinical biochemist and the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Buckingham, wrote an article in the (London)
Times
on November 15
^th
2004 under the title
‘
Who says science is about facts? They only get in the way of a good theory’. In this he recollected as follows:

‘When Charles Moore was editing
The Spectator
he once asked me why, of his contributors, it was those trained in science who were the least honest… Charles Moore had supposed that scientists would revere facts, but that supposition is a myth: scientists actually treat facts the way barristers treat hostile witnesses – with suspicion.

The mythmaker was Karl Popper. Popper was not a scientist but a political philosopher who proposed that science works by ‘falsifiability’: scientists discover facts; they create a theory to explain them; and the theory is accepted until it is falsified by the discovery of incompatible facts that then inspire a new theory… Yet it is a myth that working scientists always respect falsifiability. Scientists often ignore inconvenient findings.’

We could not agree more, and therefore we will not be surprised if people ignore the possibility that the metric system just might be (crazy though it sounds) fundamental in some way to the Sun and the Moon as well as to the Earth. The fact remains that, for some reason, the kilometre demonstrates the essence of the Sun–Moon–Earth relationship, both in terms of size and orbital characteristics.

As if all of this isn’t incredible enough we must also address the fact that the Moon has an orbit that makes it a ‘mirror of time’. As we observed earlier, the Moon mimics the Sun at key points in the year. For example, whilst the Sun sets in the north at the time of the summer solstice, the Moon sets in the south and when the Sun sets in the south at the time of the winter solstice, the Moon unerringly sets in the north. This is an aspect of Sun and Moon associations that undoubtedly seemed like magic to our ancient ancestors and is yet another reflection of the current position and orbital characteristics of the Moon.

We have a constructed a scenario that fits all the facts but has deliberately ignored some of the challenging consequences that have arisen. We now need to deal with the reasons why this scenario might be wrong. Without the intellectual tether of having to conform to ideas that are within the bounds of what is already accepted, we have argued that an intelligent agency constructed the Moon to enable life to develop upon the planet we call Earth. We have taken a holistic view and we have not ignored any facts that we do not wish to have in our picture of what might have been.

The first problem that we thought we confronted – that of motivation, has been potentially answered in that it might be part of a grand quest to convert the Universe into an intelligent, self-aware single entity at the end of time. Such an idea would certainly seem to sit well with the principles of some Eastern belief systems such as Hinduism.

The Moon was already outrageously impossible before we introduced the issues of the intricate web of interrelated values, which we have argued is a deliberate message. With the number values that exist in the ratios alone, we fail to understand how anyone could seriously claim that they are coincidences. But the biggest challenge we have to confront is the issue of how the Megalithic Yard and the metric system came to be involved with an artificial Moon constructed as a life-support system for the Earth.

We cannot hide from the problem that, if our deductions are accurate, our unidentified creative agency has had contact with us at least once over the last 6,000 years. If this agency wished humans to know what they had done – and they (or it) are capable of making contact so recently – then why don’t they just turn up right now and tell us what was done in the distant past, instead of leaving messages on the Moon?

We were puzzled. This did not seem to make sense.

As we debated this tricky point, we considered an alternative scenario that would not require direct contact from the UCA. Perhaps, we mused, the rise of the Megalithic system and even the metric system were programmed into our planet, to the extent that humans respond to these values quite naturally and without knowing why. Perhaps the gravitational effects of the Sun and the Moon interact with the Earth’s own gravity and the effects of its spinning journey through space. It is known that the spinning orbit of the Earth does cause a disturbance in time-space, so maybe the value that we have called the PIN number, the value 366, is actually the heartbeat of our planet. Perhaps we cannot help but follow certain numerical patterns?

We were raising questions faster than we were solving problems but there was a strong logic to this notion. We knew that the ancient Sumerians had used a system virtually identical to the metric system in the middle of the third millennium BC, with a double kush that was 99.88 per cent of a metre. This unit was accompanied by others that were virtually a litre and a kilo.