Book Review:

My friends and I are paranormal investigators, and have been on numerous ghost hunts and investigations in Gloucestershire, England.  We have captured many strange images on our cameras over the years. Martin is a physical medium and sees ghosts and spirits regularly.

Today, we gave a talk to an elderly community group in Cheltenham.  It went down really well.  We discussed the many local hauntings and famous ghosts of the area, and described some of our best ghost-hunts.  But what really got things going was when Mart talked about his psychic experiences.  The audience were very interested in this, and many of them told us o their own anomalous experiences.

One man described, with a tear in his eye, about how his late wife visits him and they chat about the children.  He was totally genuine.  We found out about several new hauntings to investigate, and ended the talk with a power-point presentation of our best images of orbs, strange mists, and apparitions. 

Great stuff.  Hope to do some more talks like this soon.  We have loads of our material, including images, on this website:

http://www.darkstar1.co.uk/glosterghosts.htm

If water ice in the lunar soil is from comets, then there's other
stuff in there too - organic stuff. In which case, why didn't NASA
realise this when they analysed the returned lunar rocks decades ago?


NASA's data about Moon rock composition over the last 40 years has
been very consistent. The non-polar regions of the Moon are dry,
desiccated, dead. Until yesterday. NASA announced that data from the
Indian Chandrayaan-1 lunar orbitor indicates that there is a relative
abundance of lunar water - even in areas exposed to the Sun's rays.
At 750 parts per million, a ton of lunar rock would yield about a
litre of water (1). Helpful for future missions.

But, how on earth did NASA get this so wrong for the last 40 years?
The Apollo astronauts brought back piles of Moon rocks, many of which
were analysed for water. Traces were found at the time, but NASA
claimed that "most of the boxes containing the lunar samples leaked
which led scientists to assume traces of water found came from Earth
air that had entered the containers". 750ppm is not a trace. And how
about the boxes which did not leak? What of the water composition in
them?

Then there are the NASA probes in the late 1990s,which deliberately
set out to discover water on the Moon. They found frozen water in
deep polar craters. But Clementine, and particularly Prospector, were
set up with spectrometers capable of detecting water across the
surface. How did they miss it? They certainly shouldn't have!
Here's the Mission guidelines for Prospector's spectrometers:

"Lunar Prospector (LP), which was launched on January 6, 1998, carries
an integrated suite of three spectrometers. A Gamma-Ray Spectrometer
(GRS) and a Neutron Spectrometer (NS) are providing global maps of the
major and trace elemental composition of the lunar surface, with
special emphasis on the search for polar water-ice deposits, implied
by the H abundance...Global mapping of elemental abundances by the LP
GRS and NS will impose major new constraints on the bulk composition
of the lunar crust, on compositional variations over the lunar
surface, and on the existence of lunar resources including polar water
ice" (2)

The map opposite shows Prospector data from 1998 (3), which has still
not been properly peer-reviewed over ten years on, according to the
PDS website (4). The equatorial map indicates that a fairly detailed,
surface wide analysis was undertaken. So - it begs the question: Why
is the Indian data (and also Deep Impact data, we learn) so radically
different? How is it that 40 years of scientific opinion about Moon
soil and rock composition has been so fundamentally overturned? Did
God just pee on the Moon? Or is there something fundamentally wrong
with the data that NASA has been making public for the last 40 years?
The BBC news report about the discovery heard that NASA scientists
were 'very sceptical' about the Indian finding at first, simply
because it so comprehensively overturned their previously held beliefs
about water on the Moon (5).

It beggars belief that two American probes sent to comprehensively
survey the Moon just a decade ago could have come up with the wrong
data - wrong data that is consistent with a scientific belief about
the composition of Moon rock dating back to the 1960s. Are we to
believe that in the last decade the Indians have made a quantum leap
forward in technology above and beyond NASA and the U.S. Department of
Defense (which controlled Clementine)? I don't think so.

Notwithstanding that puzzling aspect of this story, there are other
implications for the discovery. Water is common throughout the solar
system, it appears. According to theories of planetary formation in
the early solar system, inner worlds tend to have their water veneers
driven off by the strong solar wind of the young vibrant Sun. This is
why Mercury and Venus are dry, and also why the Moon is supposed to be
a desiccated shell. Yet, now it is clear that the Moon is not that
dry at all. If the Moon was formed by an early collision between the
early Earth and a Mars-sized planet, as is currently accepted, then
why does the Moon have this water? It should have been driven off long
ago. NASA argues that this water 'comes and goes' with the long lunar
day - and therefore is part of a continuing chemical process activated
by the Sun's rays.

We return to the great water conundrum that features prominently in my
book 'The Dark Star' (6). Isotopic studies of solar system water are
essential to understand the point of origin of any given water bearing
object, as the ratio changes with distance from the Sun, roughly. This
is complicated by collisions with comets which bring water from the
outer solar system. The Earth is a puzzle in this regard, and I have
suggested that this puzzle is best solved by the recognition that
Earth began at a more distant orbital point, and then migrated in to
its current position, perhaps due to a collision. That the Moon still
holds quantities of water in its surface soil and rocks strengthens
that point.



An essential next step is to establish whether the isotopic ratio for
that Moon-water is more like a planetary object beyond Mars than one
at Earth's current location. The answer to that question would surely
have been solved by the planned impacts of two parts of the LCROSS
spacecraft into the lunar surface. NASA expected a plume of dust and
rock to result from the 5,600 mph collision, but there was no obvious
sign of any plume from either collision (7). However, closer
scientific analysis eventually provided exciting news about ice on the
Moon:

Ice in large quantities on the Moon has been confirmed by NASA as a
result of the LCROSS mission:
"A 'significant amount' of frozen water has been found on the moon,
the U.S. space agency NASA said Friday, boosting hopes of eventually
setting up a permanent lunar base. Preliminary data from a moon probe
"indicates the mission successfully uncovered water in a permanently
shadowed lunar crater," NASA said. "The discovery opens a new chapter
in our understanding of the moon," it added in a statement. The data
was found after NASA sent two spacecraft crashing into the lunar
surface last month in a dramatic experiment to probe for water. One
rocket slammed into the Cabeus crater, near the moon's southern pole,
at around 5,600 miles (9,000 kilometers) per hour. It was followed
four minutes later by a spacecraft equipped with cameras to record the
impact." (8)

Robert Massey of the Royal Astronomical Society speculated that the
'frozen water' was brought to the surface of the Moon by comet
impacts. (9) The large debris plume rose at least one or two
kilometres in altitude. It stayed just below the crater rim, which may
have prevented astronomers from observing it from Earth. (10) Lee
Covino, one of my editors, has a keen interest in data about water
sources in the solar system. He and I agree that the returning data
from comets and asteroid exploration in recent years has consistently
pointed to anomalies which can be explained by planetary migration and
catastrophism in the early solar system, involving a Planet X entity.
He points out that the NASA press release about the LCROSS findings
hint at the prevalence of other volatile materials in the Cabeus
crater. Here are the excerpts themselves:

"In addition, water, and other compounds represent potential resources
that could sustain future lunar exploration."
"The concentration and distribution of water and other substances
requires further analysis, but it is safe to say Cabeus holds water."
"The LCROSS science team along with colleagues are poring over the
data to understand the entire impact event, from flash to crater, with
the final goal being the understanding of the distribution of
materials, and in particular volatiles, within the soil at the impact
site."
"Along with the water in Cabeus, there are hints of other intriguing
substances." (11)

If water was deposited by comets, then there might also be present on
the surface of the Moon organic material from the same source. Given
that the water ice is held within the lunar soil, then it seems
reasonable to suppose that comet-sources organic material and
volatiles might also be prevalent within the lunar soils. Which begs
the question - why was this not realised when the lunar rocks returned
to Earth by Apollo were analysed?


Written by Andy Lloyd, 25/9/09, and 13/11/09, author of 'The Dark
Star' and 'Ezekiel One'

www.darkstar1.co.uk

References:

1) Claire Bates "'Widespread water' found on the Moon, opening the
way for man to live there full-time" Daily Mail, 24/9/09

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1215721/Water-moon--Indias-lunar-mission-detects-it.html#ixzz0S1TxnrKX
2) Lunar Prospector Data Maps  http://lunar.arc.nasa.gov/dataviz/
datamaps/index.html
3) The Los Alamos Built Spectrometers http://lunar.lanl.gov/pages/spectros.html
4) Lunar Prospector Reduced Spectrometer Data
http://pds-geosciences.wustl.edu/missions/lunarp/reduced.html
5) BBC Radio 4 News, 10pm 24/9/09
6) Andy Lloyd, 'The Dark Star -The Planet X Evidence', Timeless
Voyager Press 2005, see also http://www.darkstar1.co.uk/water.html
7) Ian Sample "Moon Crash Landing Fails to Raise Dust" The Guardian,
10/10/09, p5
8) "NASA finds frozen water on the moon" 13/11/09
http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/news/story.html?id=2219767
9) 'P.M.', BBC Radio 4, 13/11/09
10) 'Large Amounts of Water on Moon' BBC News, 13/11/09,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8359744.stm, includes a video clip
of the LCROSS impact
11) Jonas Dino, 'LCROSS' http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LCROSS/main/prelim_water_results.html
with thanks to Lee

from http://www.darkstar1.co.uk/heliopause.html (with images)

On 16th October 2009 the latest findings about the Heliopause
interactions were published in the journal Science. This image,
released by the Southwest Research Institute, shows the extent of
interaction of SOMETHING with the Heliopause. The image is absolutely
incredible, and the anomalous data was so unexpected that the
scientists working on the IBEX project initially thought the data was
incorrect. But after verification, they were left with the grim task
of trying to explain an anomaly that extends across a substantial part
of the sky between the Voyager 1 and 2 probes.

David McComas [IBEX principal investigator at the Southwest Research
Institute] said when he first saw the IBEX results he thought,
"'Something's wrong'...It was quite a long time before we convinced
ourselves that we were right," he said. "[The ribbon is] aligned by
and dominated by the external magnetic field. That's a huge clue as
to what's going on. But still we're missing some really fundamental
aspect of the interaction - some fundamental physics is missing from
our understanding." (1)

NASA scientists are trying to grapple with how such an evidently
strongly local interaction could be caused by the galactic fields
interacting with the heliosheath (5). Frankly, I don't think this is
the approach they should be taking at all. The ribbon is running
perpendicular to the galactic field, rather than in line with it.
Apart from that, this interaction is simply too extreme, and was not
predicted by theoretical models.

Without the presence of a Dark Star there simply is no way to explain
this emission of anomalous neutral particles from the Heliopause. It
is the simplest and best explanation in town. I am confident that
this new data is extremely strong evidence for the existence of a sub-
brown dwarf beyond the Heliopause in this region of the sky. This
kind of scientific result is exactly the kind of evidence I have been
predicting since my book 'The Dark Star' was released in 2005.

The Dark Star is located beyond the heliopause, in the direction of
the centre of this ribbon. I think this large interaction is the Dark
Star's extensive magnetic field, and associated particle bombardment,
interacting with the Sun's Heliosheath boundary.  The Dark Star's
lateral movement is very slow, so this does not indicate movement, but
more like an aurora effect, like you would see when looking at the
Northern Lights.


Written by Andy Lloyd, author of 'The Dark Star' (2005) and 'Ezekiel
One' (2009)
Published by Timeless Voyager Press © 16th October 2009
from http://www.darkstar1.co.uk/heliopause.html (with
accompanying images)

1) Clara Moskowitz, Mystery Emissions Spotted at Edge of Solar System,
15th October 2009
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/091015-space-bubble.html With
thanks to Craig and Mart

2) NASA press release, "Giant Ribbon Discovered at the Edge of the
Solar System" 15th October 2009, http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1300605
With thanks to Shad