The Cosmic War: Interplanetary Warfare, Modern Physics and Ancient Texts

by Joseph P. Farrell

  For the moment, however, let us return to Van Flandern’s hypothesis, and note its problems, problems he himself ran into as he elaborated the theory.

  3. Problems of the Original Exploded Planet Hypothesis and the Revised Hypothesis

  a. Astronomy versus Geology: The Chronological Problem

  As noted, in its first formulation, Van Flandern proposed that the explosion of the planet occurred some 3,200,000 years ago. But this highlights a clash of sciences, in this case, astronomy and geology.

  (1) Van Flandern’s Initial Reconciliation

  Van Flandern first observed this problem and noted its difficulties in the following fashion:

  Such a major explosion should leave evidence all over the solar system, and apparently has. Yet in the geological record on Earth, there is little to support the hypothesis of a major explosion specifically at 3.2 million years ago. There is evidence for the onset of a series of ice ages about then, after a long span of tropical climate. And the origin of man dates to around then. But one would have expected a global layer of carbon deposits, enrichment in the element iridium, shocked quartz from impacts, multiple impact craters, micro-tektites and micro-diamond formation, enhanced volcanism, atmospheric and ocean changes, a single global fire, mass extinction of species, and many other dramatic changes. Such things are seen in several places in the geological record, but not near 3 million years ago according to the presently adopted geo-chronology. Strikingly, all those features are seen together at the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K/T) boundary, dated at 65 million years ago, when the dinosaurs and many other species became extinct. The expectations from the astronomical evidence and the realization in the geophysical evidence appear to be identical except for dating. 38

  Astronomy and geology, in other words, agreed on the event, but were in profound disagreement as regards its timing.

  Van Flandern’s initial reconciliation of this dilemma is worth citing at length:

  Occam’s Razor virtually demands that the astronomical and geological events be reconciled. This leads naturally to the conjecture that the geological time scale (based as it is on radiometric dating, stratigraphy, magnetic reversals, sea-floor spreading, and a few other techniques) may not be interpreted correctly. For example, among the possibilities for such a drastic rewriting of the geological record, the rocks that are radiometrically dated to 65 million years ago may indeed have formed at that epoch, but were perhaps only deposited into the geological layers where we find then about 3 million years ago. Or radiation from the explosion may have falsified the radiometric ages. To pursue these conjectures, a geologist would have to consider what effect an energetic, irradiating event like the planetary explosion would have had on each type of geological clock, and then determine if there is an alternative way of synchronizing the various geological clocks. Certain existing clues, such as the mystery of the polonium halos in granitic rocks (which shouldn’t exist if the accepted chronology is correct), may be indicating that the accepted chronology does indeed need extensive modification. .39

  That is, in Van Flandern’s initial confrontation of the astronomical versus geological chronologies, geology had to be modified on the basis of the astronomical theory, which in order to account for the discrepancy posited significant modifications of radiometric dating effects as consequences of the event itself.

  (2) The Failure of Van Flandern’ Initial Chronological Reconciliation

  Van Flandern was led to reformulate his hypothesis in order to account for this chronological discrepancy, as well as to account for new classes of evidence not adequately accounted for in the original theory:

  Numerous unusual geological anomalies associated with the K/T boundary layers on Earth closely match the predicted consequences of an exploded planet, especially their global nature. But the geological dating of that layer, (to approximately 65 million years ago)40 and an even more devastating event recorded in geological layers at (250 million years ago), do not match the well-established dating of the most recent solar system explosion event at 3.2 (million years ago). Some meteorites came from a chemically differentiated parent body, while others came from an undifferentiated parent. New findings in the outer solar system strongly hint at a second asteroid belt beyond Neptune. Even main-belt asteroids come in two chemically distinct types. And cosmic ray exposure ages of meteorites have several age clusterings. These and other data, while still favoring an exploded planet origin over the standard model, are inconsistent with a single such event. We here introduce the multiple exploded planet hypothesis (MEPH), and conclude that the most recent and best-defined astronomical event serving as the origin of all comets at 3.2 (million years ago) was the explosion of a modest, probably moon-sized, body. Comets originating from explosions cannot survive in orbits that bring them within observable ranges for longer than 10 million years, so earlier explosions, even of major bodies, show only asteroidal, meteoric, and geological evidence.41

  Thus, as far as the timing of the event was concerned, the conflict between the astronomical and geological models was simply too great to be resolved or reconciled along the lines that he initially suggested, as he himself acknowledges:

  The geological dating of the K/T event at (65 million years ago) by radiometry is confirmed by multiple independent methods yielding similar dates, which makes calibration errors in using the method unlikely. I considered that radiation from the explosion might have falsified the radiometric clocks in rocks used for this dating. But it is difficult to invent a realistic scenario in which the stratigraphic layers on Earth both below and above the K/T boundary layer, typically 5 km below the Earth’s present surface, could still show a continuous pattern of radiometric ages from zero near the present surface to hundreds of millions of years at depths greater than the K/T boundary. So I then considered possibility that all rocks suitable for radiometric dating originated on the planet that exploded, and simply mixed with a large amount of inert terrestrial matter on impact. However, the predicted discontinuity of radiometric dates at the K/T boundary under that scenario is not observed.42

  Thus, for this and other reasons, Van Flandern was led to posit more than one planetary explosion, at different dates, to explain the geological record of the Earth, as well as to square the hypothesis with other types of evidence.

  (a) A Speculative Reconciliation of the 3,200,000 BC Explosion with the K/T Geological Bounday Layer Data

  By now it is apparent that Van Flandern initially favored a planetary explosion around a mere 3,200,000 years ago, since this was where the preponderance of the astronomical and mathematical data led him, and yet, this could not be conveniently reconciled with the geological data on the basis of the models he initially proposed.

  But in my opinion, he may have abandoned the 3.2 million years ago date as the main event a little too quickly, for another mechanism would seem to be available to explain the relative absence of confirming geological debris on the Earth for such an explosion at that date. It is possible that this explosion took place when the Earth was at or near its farthest point from the exploding planet. In such a case, it is conceivable that the shock wave and debris from the explosion of the planet would have been considerably dissipated by the time it reached the earth, nevertheless leaving the event observable from the Earth. On this model, there would be no need to explain the K/T geological boundary, or rather, the absence of a similar boundary at 3,200,000 years ago. One must look, then, for other types of corroboration of the 3,200,000 years event. Nonetheless, evidence for a planetary explosion at the time of the K/T boundary at 65,000,000 years ago remained.

  b. Two Classes if Asteroids and a New Asteroid Belt?

  One type of evidence unaccounted for in the original hypothesis but explained by the revised version are the two types of asteroid classes, the “C” class, composed mostly carbonaceous material, and the “S” class, composed mostly of silicate material. “The C-type asteroids are found predominantly in the middle and outer main belt, whereas the S-
types are concentrated toward the inner main belt. This is one of a few lines of evidence... that suggests two different origin events for the main belt.”43 Moreover, a recent discovery of another belt of asteroid-like objects beyond Neptune may indicate yet another distinct planetary event as their origin.44

  (1) And Multiple “Events”

  Because of the existence of these two very different and chemically distinct classes of asteroids, and the possible existence of a second asteroid belt beyond Neptune,

  I now consider that there may have been at least two bodies orbiting between Mars and Jupiter (e.g. Planet V and Planet K...) that exploded at different epochs. Indeed, if it turns out that the trans-Neptune belt is a third example of an exploded body in our solar system, it might even be suggested that explosion is a not-infrequent end state for masses of lunar or planetary dimensions everywhere in our galaxy.45

  Note now that what began as an observed problem in the Titius-Bode law, that of a missing planet, has now become a problem of a very different sort, that of two planets in more or less the same orbit, where the law predicts one.46

  (2) The Revised Scenario Outlined

  Van Flandern summarizes the new revised Multiple Exploded Planet Hypothesis this way:

  I thus tentatively associate the earlier, larger mass-extinction event at (250 million years ago) with the explosion of Planet K in the main asteroid belt, with iron meteorites (because of their long cosmic ray exposure ages), and with most cataloged main-belt asteroids. This event occurred so long ago that it gives Mars enough time to clear out most Mars-crossing asteroids from the main belt - thereby neatly explaining the one other line of evidence that did not fit the original hypothesis....

  And I tentatively associate the smaller event at (65 million years ago) with the explosion of Planet V in the inner asteroid belt, with achondritic and stoney-iron meteorites (which have younger exposure ages than iron meteorites, but are also differentiated and apparently came from a planet-sized body), and with many inner-belt asteroids. Comets created by any explosion older than 10 (million years ago) would have long since vanished because of galactic tides and passing stars. The population of Earth-crossing asteroids from this event would now be reduced to a fraction of its original number. And this may have been the event that delivered large quantities of water to the inner solar system, most notably to Mars (which may have still been one of Planet V’s moons at the time of the explosion).

  The event at 3.2 (million years ago) that resulted in all comets that survive to the present must have been the explosion of a much smaller body in the asteroid belt. I associate this latest explosion with chondritic meteorites (which are undifferentiated, and must therefore have come from a smaller parent body), with most present-day Earth-crossing asteroids... The parent body was apparently a moon of another planet(presumably of the former Planet K or Planet V)...in many respects, the body that exploded perhaps resembled the largest asteroid, Ceres, which we have previously suspected of being a former moon of Planet K. 47

  Here the probable abundance of water on one of the (now two) original exploded planets becomes critical, since “evidence of water erosion on achondritic meteorites, presumed here to have originated from Planet V, indicates that the exploded planet contained abundant water as well, much of which would have hit Mars.“48 And that, of course, would explain the evidence for massive, sudden flooding in the southern hemisphere of Mars.49

  In this revised scenario, Van Flandern has both Mars and a smaller body (which he calls C) as satellites of Planet V, which, once released by the explosion, evolve into a small double-planetary system. Then, C exploded ca 3.2 million years ago, peppering Mars with craters and inundating it with water and giving rise to massive volcanism. 50

  4. Problems of the Revised Hypothesis

  a. The Commonality of Planetary Explosions

  It will now be evident what the problem of the revised “multiple exploded planet hypothesis” is. Simply put, it is that explosions of planets, having been a rare occurrence in the original version of the theory, the one that prevailed from Olbers to Van Flandern’s first version, is now a disquietingly commonplace occurrence in the revised theory: “The recent discovery of another belt of asteroid-like objects orbiting the Sun beyond Neptune has forcibly brought back to our attention the possibility that planetary explosions may be relatively common events, as uncomfortable as that thought is.”51

  b. Mars

  (1) And “the Flood”

  As has been evident throughout the discussion of Van Flandern’s exploded planet hypothesis both in its original and in its revised forms, Mars plays a crucial role, for the hypothesis is the only rational contender for the strong evidence of a massive, sudden planetary inundation by water that Mars exhibits. Indeed, as I have remarked elsewhere, Mars alone of all the planets in the solar system has the best geological evidence for the type of Flood described in the Old Testament and in other ancient legends and traditions. Indeed, the severe hemispherical disparity one encounters on Mars is exactly explained by the hypothesis, for “one hemisphere would have been heavily bombarded, and the other barely touched by the explosion.”52

  (2) Debris

  Under such conditions as these, one would expect not only that Mars’ atmosphere, magnetic poles, but also its polar alignment would be severely effected. More importantly, the explosion of a nearby planet, whether V or C, would strew Mars with craters and debris of the event, at once inundating it, and possibly stripping it, of water, atmosphere, and whatever life might have existed there. And if, as we have speculated, the original Planet V supported intelligent life, then Mars may have been inundated with debris of a very different, artificial, nature.

  And this raises the question of the so-called “Face” on Mars and the equally, if not much more mysterious and apparently anomalous structures nearby in the Cydonia region of Mars, namely, the so-called “Fort”, “Tholus” and the various pyramidal and tetrahedral structures, including the famous “D and M” five-sided Pyramid. By the nature of the case, Van Flandern believes that these structures, if articificial, were built by some civilization prior to the event at 3.2 million years ago. 53

  (3) Mars’ Excess Xenon 129

  But there is an even more anomalous feature about Mars that must be explained than some anomalous formations and possible structures on the surface of Mars. Mars, as it turns out, not only has an unusually thin atmosphere for a planet of its mass - a consequence of the fact that most of it was literally blown away in the explosion54 - but its content of the isotope Xenon 129 is almost three times that on any other planetary body. But Xenon 129 is a by-product of nuclear fission and does not ordinarily arise from normal processes. 55 Mars’ proximity to an exploding planet might explain such a phenomenon.

  c. What Mechanism Can Explode a Planet?

  But Van Flandern’s mention of the anomalous Xenon 129 content of Mars’ atmosphere raises the possibility of other explanations for its occurrence. As I have already noted in my previous book The Giza Death Star Deployed, Mars researcher Richard Hoagland points out that the phenomenon of double-cratering and odd damage patterns on the D and M pyramid might indicate a non-natural mechanism was at work on Mars: nuclear war. And this highlights what is the most basic problem with the Exploded Planet Hypothesis - in whatever version one encounters it - and that is, what mechanism can explain why planets should suddenly explode?

  The problem is not a small one, nor will it go away, for while the Exploded Planet Hypothesis does explain a tremendous amount of data, it does not do so well when it comes to explain why a planet should explode to begin with. After all, while exploding planets may be a common occurrence in the revised theory, they are not so common that they have ever been observed in modern astronomical history.

  One mechanism for exploding a planet, that favored by Zechariah Sitchin and many other catastrophists, is that a large body entered the solar system, and collided with the now missing planet, causing both to explode and consume thems
elves. Van Flandern dispenses with this possibility rather quickly before proceeding to outline his own speculations:

  Unless the exploded planet was a lot less massive than the evidence suggests, chemical or collisional processes do not generate enough energy to blow it apart. Nuclear processes are indicated by the meteoric evidence. It has been objected that planets are not hot enough even in their cores for nuclear reactions. Yet natural fission reactors have been known to operate even on the Earth’s surface in the geologic past, suggesting related possibilities.56

  True enough, but one must also mention that for a full order nuclear explosion to occur by fissional processes, rather pure uranium 235 or plutonium 239 must be assembled into a critical mass rather quickly, and one simply would not be able to assemble enough critical mass of any known fissionable substance quickly enough to produce an explosion large enough to explode a planet of even modest size. There simply is no model for it.

  Perhaps sensing this difficulty, Van Flandern immediately goes on to suggest a more viable mechanism:

  But the most natural way to produce the isotopic anomalies observed in meteorites, and supply abundant energy, is by a matter-antimatter explosion. This speculative possibility might result from a magnetic separation and storage of the antimatter in a planet over billions of years before the explosion; or from some sort of chain-reaction high-energy antimatter generation process.57