jan 2010 qustion from Joe Brookes. (re Adams)

(1)The face of the Moon.

It the mare on the face of the Moon which is turned to Earth consist of
the outer crust opening up and showing a lower crust of lesser density,
then, especially compared to the back side of the Moon which is simply
pockmarked with craters, the side facing earth would be lighter weight
than the back side. 

Astronomers maintain that the face of the Moon is the heavier side, and
therefore it is permanently facing Earth. That does not match the
condition of having a side with greater density facing away. 

You have a way of bringing up interesting questions, which cause me to
rethink things, or add details.

OK, my thinking on the Moon:

The "Annals od Shu" have Moon born in 2317 BC. The "Chilam Balam" relates
it to the putative 'flood of Noah,' thus 2349 BC, "the earth shook and
they saw the moon." Other 'legends' have this happen also after the
so-called 'flood.'

The sculptures at Palenque have the Moon "let blood" in 2325 BC, and
become a ruler in 2305 BC. The "Annals of Shu" have the Moon join
rulership with Yao (Jupiter) in 2287 BC, die and "go on high" in 2207 BC.

Some of these dates need to be corrected, since the dates for the "Annals
of Shu" were guessed during the Han dynasty of China. The dates of
Palenque (ca AD 700) were retrocalculated on the basis of a 365.24 day
year. 

OK, here we go:

The Moon shows up near Earth in or directly after 2349 BC when Earth moves
to a larger orbit. It is still rotating. Earth pelts the Moon incessantly
with electrical contacts, resulting in 'craters' on both sides.

In 2193 BC, Earth gets hit by another electrical contact from Venus.
Earth's orbit enlarges again, the Moon's orbit also enlarges, he "goes on
high." The electrical damage depletes the charge of the Moon, "he dies."
The Moon stops rotating with respect to the Earth. 

The mare are molten surface material; the damage done in 776 BC by Venus,
recounted in the Illiad, where Venus (Athena) wacked the Moon (Aphrodite)
in the breast. "And her heart bled [or melted]," reads the "Iliad."

This doesn't place Venus between Earth and the Moon. It could be done just
by the fact that the Moon travels far above (and below) Earth at times.
Most times. Could have been Mars also, which came closer. 

Mars, in fact, 'lies' with the Moon in a tale told within the Odyssey.
Juergens thinks that surface electron streamers is the cause behind the
various streaks that are identified by Neal Adams as "ejecta streams." But
ejecta goes up and falls, if it falls at all (on the Moon), far from the
"impact sites." I'll buy that. 

Juergens then has the lesser cathode marks ("meteor impacts" by Neal
Adams) resulting from a close approach. That I don't buy. The Moon would
have been obliterated. Some may be after the initial strikes by Mars, but
most were made a thousand years earlier. He was trying to account for the
marks on the back of the Moon. 
See http://saturniancosmology.org/juergens.htm and juergens2.htm

(2) Earth's spreading in along north-south axis. The more-or-less open
ocean in the south is coincidental. The real mark of tearing continents is
their pointy ends looking like "orange peels" -- Africa, South America.
That is not seen on the Moon or Mars. Take a look at the last of my list
of links (I don't know, however, if any are still active). The ocean floor
spreading started just above the equator. 
See http://saturniancosmology.org/bin/images7.jpg 
and http://saturniancosmology.org/bin/images5.jpg  

The open ocean in the south or the balance of land mass in the north did
not come about because of the proximity of Saturn for a thousand years. It
is an accident resulting from nearly 200,000,000 years of ocean floor
spreading. I would suggest only that the opening of the Bosporus is due to
Saturn. See http://saturniancosmology.org/polar.php#h22

(3) 'Something' was seen in the south, but it wasn't Saturn. See
http://saturniancosmology.org/cos.php#s12 for how this idea started. Then
see http://saturniancosmology.org/arch.php#a6 to see how I have
incorporated this information It just fell into place.

You wrote, "they aren't sure one way or the other whether Saturn would
have been in the north or in the south, but are going with NORTH from
there on out." Can you source that? (I need a working URL.) I've been
wondering what their current position is.

(4) Growth in size is long term.. spans 100's of millions of years. I
don't see growth on the Moon, or Mars. Some of the other satellites Neal
Adams points to seem to be covered with electrical scars, not evidence of
growth. My opinion perhaps, but I'll wait for more and better images. It
certainly would not be due to Earth, for the Moon. Or due to Saturn for
Earth, for it would imply unbelievable long spans of time. No Earth growth
since 560,000,000 years (Precambrian) to 200,000,000 years (end of 
the Permian) -- only after that. Yet I think that Earth was a equatorial
satellite of Saturn during that time. And the growth is so slow that it
cannot be detected even in a million years (amounting to only a percent or
so). I think Neal Adams is just facinated by his computer animation
images. 

(5) Gravity has increased, but not decreased, but maybe I am reading your
sentence backward. The large animals came to an end during the Younger
Dryas. Read the Popol Vu to see what this was like for humans. See 
http://saturniancosmology.org/ice.php#e6

(6)Giant humans, as well as tiny humans. Diet would do that. Gravity has
not changed even 1/10th of a percent during all of human existance. Well,
as far as I would guess. 

(7) Growing universe.. The REciprocal System people (followers of Dewey
Larson, http://www.reciprocalsystem.com) insist that all matter and
radiation are the direct result of the space expanding, both in cartesian
coordinates as well as time (including negative time). But an expansion of
space then creates the conditions of a voltage difference from place to
place and the resulting current flow (not, however, covered by them).
Interestingly, that means everything is indeed created out of nothing. 

More questions? I will do some rewrites to include the early rotation of
the Moon, now that your questions have suggested it. Will take a few
weeks. And thanks.  later /jno


On Sun, 3 Jan 2010, Joe Brookes wrote:

> JNO,
> 
> He does repeat endlessly and is very disorganized and it's all a mess,
> however I found the part that got my attention as far as a question about
> the Earth was concerned, and that was this clip:
> http://www.continuitystudios.net/clip03.html
(1)
> Mostly the second half where he goes into the differences between the far
> and the close sides of the moon.  Basically it is showing that the spreading
> or 'opening up' happened primarily or exclusively on the side close to the
> Earth.
> 
(2)
> Well, as you might have already noticed, or as you can see in this beautiful
> music video ( http://www.continuitystudios.net/clip12.html ), Earth has its
> own spreading and opening occuring in the south.  For example, if you look
> at a typical classroom globe on a stand and hold it up above you, you can
> see it also.
> 
(3)
> I remember from when I was reviewing some of the articles on the
> "Thunderbolts of the gods" website, some of the main characters from whom
> you've quoted from time to time, made an off side comment that they aren't
> sure one way or the other whether Saturn would have been in the north or in
> the south, but are going with NORTH from there on out.
> 
(4)
> With that in my mind it raised the question to myself whether the growing
> pattern of the moon in relation to the Earth could help us, or even correct
> us if it isn't seen as a question, with the question of the placement of
> Saturn in the past, even being another clue that something else was here
> besides Sol, and that things were different before.
> 
(5)
> Anyway, it wasn't so long ago that animals like Mammoths and Sabertooths
> finally found their end here, and I would imagine that with gravity less and
> less, you would need to be a bit more stalky to survive.  For example, if
> you or I were to go jogging on the moon, it might be pretty easy for some
> monster to grab us every time we were waiting to land again.
> 
(6)
> There are actually even reports here and there that there were also giant
> humans in the past.
> 
(7)
> I don't pay much attention to his TIME-LINE, because it looks to me like
> just about everyone else has it all wrong except you, and I get mighty
> suspicious when I come across something in mainstream science that is
> reported to be actually true.  The idea of a growing and evolving universe
> at galactic and planetary scales simply tastes better than the idea of a big
> explosion landing us all here in one shot.  And you have noticed that at
> least the last part didn't happen that way.
> 
> Love,
> Joe
> 
> Also whether the odds of something like humanity developing in this universe
> are as remote as you say, or as likely as the evolution of single blade
> green grass and perhaps teeth to eat it with is something that I wonder
> about a lot but will save that for another time if you like.
> 
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 4:11 PM, jno <jno@blight.com> wrote:
....