Foreword 1 
1 The Host of Heaven 3 2 It Came from Outer Space 23 3 In the Beginning 40 4 The Messengers of Genesis 62 5 Gaia: The Cleaved Planet 89 6 Witness to Genesis 108 7 The Seed of Life 133 8 The Adam: A Slave Made to Order 157 9 The Mother Called Eve 183 10 When Wisdom Was Lowered from Heaven 203 11 A Space Base on Mars 228 12 Phobos: Malfunction or Star Wars 268 13 In Secret Anticipation 296 Index 331 
FOREWORD 
The last decades of the twentieth century have witnessed anupsurge of human knowledge that boggles the mind. Our advances in every field of science and technology are no longermeasured in centuries or even decades but in years and even months, and they seem to surpass in attainments and scopeanything that Man has achieved in the past.
But is it possible that Mankind has come out of the DarkAges and the Middle Ages; reached the Age of Enlightenment;experienced the Industrial Revolution; and entered the era ofhigh-tech, genetic engineering, and space flight—only to catchup with ancient knowledge?
For many generations the Bible and its teachings have servedas an anchor for a searching Mankind, but modern scienceappeared to have cast us ail adrift, especially in the confron- tation between Evolution and Creationism. In this volume it will be shown that the conflict is baseless; that the Book of Genesis and its sources reflect the highest levels of scientificknowledge.
Is it possible, then, that what our civilization is discoveringtoday about our planet Earth and about our corner of the uni- verse, the heavens, is only a drama that can be called "GenesisRevisited"—only a rediscovery of what had been known to amuch earlier civilization, on Earth and on another planet?
The question is not one of mere scientific curiosity; it goesto the core of Mankind's existence, its origin, and its destiny.It involves the Earth's future as a viable planet because itconcerns events in Earth's past; it deals with where we are going because it reveals where we have come from. And theanswers, as we shall see, lead to inevitable conclusions that some consider too incredible to accept and others too awesome to face. 
1 
The Host of Heaven 
In the beginning
God created the Heaven and the Earth.

The very concept of a beginning of all things is basic to modernastronomy and astrophysics. The statement that there was a void and chaos before there was order conforms to the verylatest theories that chaos, not permanent stability, rules the universe. And then there is the statement about the bolt of lightthat began the process of creation.
Was this a reference to the Big Bang, the theory according to which the universe was created from a primordial explosion,a burst of energy in the form of light, that sent the matter fromwhich stars and planets and rocks and human beings are formedflying in all directions and creating the wonders we see in the heavens and on Earth? Some scientists, inspired by the insightsof our most inspiring source, have thought so. But then, how did ancient Man know the Big Bang theory so long ago? Orwas this biblical tale the description of matters closer to home,of how our own little planet Earth and the heavenly zone calledthe Firmament, or "hammered-out bracelet," were formed? 
Indeed, how did ancient Man come to have a cosmogony atall? How much did he really know, and how did he know it?
It is only appropriate that we begin the quest for answerswhere the events began to unfold—in the heavens; where also,from time immemorial, Man has felt that his origins, higher values—God, if you will—are to be found. As thrilling as discoveries made by the use of microscopes are, it is what telescopes enable us to see that fills us with the realization ofthe grandeur of nature and the universe. Of all recent advances,the most impressive have undoubtedly been the discoveries inthe heavens surrounding our planet. And what staggering ad
3 
Figure I 
vances they have been! In a mere few decades we Earthlingshave soared off the face of our planet; roamed Earth's skies hundreds of miles above its surface; landed on its solitarysatellite, the Moon; and sent an array of unmanned spacecraft to probe our celestial neighbors, discovering vibrant and activeworlds dazzling in their colors, features, makeup, satellites, rings. For the first time, perhaps, we can grasp the meaningand feel the scope of the Psalmist's words: 
The heavens bespeak the glory of the Lord 
and the vault of heaven reveals His handiwork. 
A fantastic era of planetary exploration came to a magnificentclimax when, in August 1989, the unmanned spacecraft designated Voyager 2 flew by distant Neptune and sent back to Earth pictures and other data. Weighing just about a ton but ingeniously packed with television cameras, sensing and meas- uring equipment, a power source based on nuclear decay, transmitting antennas, and tiny computers (Fig. 1), it sent back whisperlike pulses that required more than four hours to reachEarth even at the speed of light. On Earth the pulses were captured by an array of radiotelescopes that form the Deep Space Network of the U.S. National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration (NASA); then the faint signals were translatedby electronic wizardry into photographs, charts, and other forms of data at the sophisticated facilities of the Jet Propulsion 
Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, which managed the project for NASA.
Launched in August 1977, twelve years before this final mission—the visit to Neptune—was accomplished. Voyager2 and its companion. Voyager I, were originally intended to reach and scan only Jupiter and Saturn and augment data obtained earlier about those two gaseous giants by the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 unmanned spacecraft. But with remarkableingenuity and skill, the JPL scientists and technicians took advantage of a rare alignment of the outer planets and, using the gravitational forces of these planets as "slingshots," man-aged to thrust Voyager 2 first from Saturn to Uranus and thenfrom Uranus to Neptune (Fig. 2). 
Figure 2 
Thus it was that for several days at the end of August 1989,headlines concerning another world pushed aside the usualnews of armed conflicts, political upheavals, sports results,and market reports that make up Mankind's daily fare. For afew days the world we call Earth took time out to watch another world; we, Earthlings, were glued to our television sets, thrilledby closeup pictures of another planet, the one we call Neptune. 
As the dazzling images of an aquamarine globe appeared on our television screens, the commentators stressed repeatedlythat this was the first time that Man on Earth had ever reallybeen able to see this planet, which even with the best Earth-based telescopes is visible only as a dimly lit spot in the dark- ness of space almost three billion miles from us. They reminded the viewers that Neptune was discovered only in 1846, afterperturbations in the orbit of the somewhat nearer planet Uranusindicated the existence of another celestial body beyond it. They reminded us that no one before that—neither Sir IsaacNewton nor Johannes Kepler, who between them discoveredand laid down the laws of celestial motion in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; neither Copernicus, who in the sixteenth century determined that the Sun, not the Earth, was inthe center of our planetary system, nor Galileo, who a centurylater used a telescope to announce that Jupiter had four moons—no great astronomer until the mid-nineteenth centuryand certainly no one in earlier times knew of Neptune. Andthus not only the average TV viewer but the astronomers themselves were about to see what had been unseen before—it would be the first time we would learn the true hues and makeup of Neptune.
But two months before the August encounter, I had writtenan article for a number of U. S., European, and South Americanmonthlies contradicting these long-held notions: Neptune wasknown in antiquity, I wrote; and the discoveries that were aboutto be made would only confirm ancient knowledge. Neptune,I predicted, would be blue-green, watery, and have patches the color of "swamplike vegetation"!
The electronic signals from Voyager 2 confirmed all thatand more. They revealed a beautiful blue-green, aquamarineplanet embraced by an atmosphere of helium, hydrogen, andmethane gases, swept by swirling, high-velocity winds thatmake Earth's hurricanes look timid. Below this atmospherethere appear mysterious giant "smudges" whose coloration is sometimes darker blue and sometimes greenish yellow, perhapsdepending on the angle at which sunlight strikes them. Asexpected, the atmospheric and surface temperatures are belowfreezing, but unexpectedly Neptune was found to emit heatthat emanates from within the planet. Contrary to the previous 
consideration of Neptune as being a "gaseous" planet, it wasdetermined by Voyager 2 to have a rocky core above whichthere floats, in the words of the JPL scientists, "a slurry mixture of water ice." This watery layer, circling the rocky core asthe planet revolves in its sixteen-hour day, acts as a dynamothat creates a sizable magnetic field.
This beautiful planet (see Neptune, back cover) was found tobe encircled by several rings made up of boulders, rocks, anddust and is orbited by at least eight satellites, or moons. Ofthe latter, the largest, Triton, proved no less spectacular than its planetary master. Voyager 2 confirmed the retrograde mo- tion of this small celestial body (almost the size of Earth's Moon): it orbits Neptune in a direction opposite to that of thecoursing of Neptune and all other known planets in our Solar System, not anticlockwise as they do but clockwise. Besides its very existence, its approximate size, and its retrograde motion, astronomers knew nothing else of Triton. Voyager 2 re- vealed it to be a "blue moon," an appearance resulting from methane in Triton's atmosphere. The surface of Triton showedthrough the thin atmosphere—a pinkish gray surface with rug- ged, mountainous features on one side and smooth, almost craterless features on the other side. Close-up pictures suggested recent volcanic activity but of a very odd kind: whatthe active, hot interior of this celestial body spews out is not molten lava but jets of slushy ice. Even preliminary assess- ments indicated that Triton had flowing water in its past, quite possibly even lakes that may have existed on the surface until relatively recent times, in geological terms. The astronomershad no immediate explanation for "double-tracked ridge lines" that run straight for hundreds of miles and, at one or even two points, intersect at what appears to be right angles, suggesting rectangular areas (Fig. 3).
The discoveries thus fully confirmed my prediction: Neptuneis indeed blue-green; it is made up in great part of water; andit does have patches whose coloration looks like "swamplike vegetation." This last tantalizing aspect may bespeak morethan a color code if the full implication of the discoveries on Triton is taken into consideration: there, "darker patches with brighter halos" have suggested to the scientists of NASA theexistence of "deep pools of organic sludge." Bob Davis re
Figure 3 
ported from Pasadena to The Wall Street Journal that Triton,whose atmosphere contains as much nitrogen as Earth's, maybe spewing out from its active volcanoes not only gases andwater ice but also '"organic material, carbon-based compoundswhich apparently coat parts of Triton."
Such gratifying and overwhelming corroboration of my prediction was not the result of a mere lucky guess. It goes backto 1976 when The 12th Planet, my first book in The EarthChronicles series, was published. Basing my conclusions on millennia-old Sumerian texts, I had asked rhetorically: "Whenwe probe Neptune someday, will we discover that its persistentassociation with waters is due to the watery swamps" that hadonce been seen there? 
This was published, and obviously written, a year before Voyager 2 was even launched and was restated by me in anarticle two months before the Neptune encounter.
How could I be so sure, on the eve of Voyager's encounter with Neptune, that my 1976 prediction would be corroborated—how dared I take the chance that my predictions wouldbe disproved within weeks after submitting my article? Mycertainty was based on what happened in January 1986, whenVoyager 2 flew by the planet Uranus.
Although somewhat closer to us—Uranus is "only" about two billion miles away—it lies so far beyond Saturn that it cannot be seen from Earth with the naked eye. It was discoveredin 1781 by Frederick Wilhelm Herschel, a musician turnedamateur astronomer, only after the telescope was perfected.At the time of its discovery and to this day, Uranus has beenhailed as the first planet w/iknown in antiquity to be discoveredin modern times; for, it has been held, the ancient peoplesknew of and venerated the Sun, the Moon, and only five planets(Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn), which they believed moved around the Earth in the "vault of heaven"; nothing could be seen or known beyond Saturn.
But the very evidence gathered by Voyager 2 at Uranus proved the opposite: that at one time a certain ancient peopledid know about Uranus, and about Neptune, and even aboutthe more-distant Pluto! 
Scientists are still analyzing the photographs and data fromUranus and its amazing moons, seeking answers to endless 
Plate A 
puzzles. Why does Uranus lie on its side, as though it was hit by another large celestial object in a collision? Why do itswinds blow in a retrograde direction, contrary to what is normalin the Solar System? Why is its temperature on the side thatis hidden from the Sun the same as on the side facing the Sun?And what shaped the unusual features and formations on someof the Uranian moons? Especially intriguing is the moon calledMiranda, "one of the most enigmatic objects in the Solar Sys
Figure 4 
tern," in the words of NASA's astronomers, where an elevated, flattened-out plateau is delineated by 100-mile-long escarp- ments that form a right angle (a feature nicknamed "the Chev- ron" by the astronomers), and where, on both sides of thisplateau, there appear elliptical features that look like racetracksploughed over by concentric furrows (Plate A and Fig. 4).
Two phenomena, however, stand out as the major discov- eries regarding Uranus, distinguishing it from other planets.One is its color. With the aid of Earth-based telescopes andunmanned spacecraft we have become familiar with the gray-brown of Mercury, the sulphur-colored haze that envelops Venus, the reddish Mars, the multihued red-brown-yellow Jupiter and Saturn. But as the breathtaking images of Uranus began 
to appear on television screens in January 1986, its most striking feature was its greenish blue color—a color totally differentfrom that of all the previous planets seen (see Uranus, backcover).
The other different and unexpected finding had to do with what Uranus is made of. Defying earlier assumptions by astronomers that Uranus is a totally "gaseous" planet like the giants Jupiter and Saturn, it was found by Voyager 2 to be covered not by gases but by water; not just a sheet of frozen ice on its surfacebut an ocean of water. A gaseous atmosphere, it was found, in- deed enshrouds the planet; but below it there churns an immense layer—6,000 miles thick!—of "super-heated water, its tempera- ture as high as 8,000 degrees Fahrenheit" (in the words of JPLanalysts). This layer of liquid, hot water surrounds a molten rocky core where radioactive elements (or other, unknown processes) produce the immense internal heat.
As the images of Uranus grew bigger on the TV screen the closer Voyager 2 neared the planet, the moderator at the JetPropulsion Laboratory drew attention to its unusual green-bluecolor. I could not help cry out loud, ' 'Oh, my God, it is exactlyas the Sumerians had described it!" I hurried to my study,picked up a copy of The 12th Planet, and with unsteady handslooked up page 269 (in the Avon paperback edition). I readagain and again the lines quoting the ancient texts. Yes, there was no doubt: though they had no telescopes, the Sumerianshad described Uranus as MASH.SIG, a term which I had translated "bright greenish."
A few days later came the results of the analysis of Voyager 2's data, and the Sumerian reference to water on Uranus was also corroborated. Indeed, there appeared to be water all overthe place: as reported on a wrap-up program on the televisionseries NOVA ('The Planet That Got Knocked on Its Side"), "Voyager 2 found that all the moons of Uranus are made upof rock and ordinary water ice" This abundance, or even themere presence, of water on the supposed "gaseous" planets and their satellites at the edges of the Solar System was totallyunexpected.
Yet here we had the evidence, presented in The 12th Planet,that in their texts from millennia ago the ancient Sumerianshad not only known of the existence of Uranus but had accurately described it as greenish blue and watery! 
What did all that mean? It meant that in 1986 modern science did not discover what had been unknown; rather, it rediscovered and caught up with ancient knowledge. It was, therefore,because of that 1986 corroboration of my 1976 writings andthus of the veracity of the Sumerian texts that I felt confidentenough to predict, on the eve of the Voyager 2 encounter withNeptune, what it would discover there.
The Voyager 2 flybys of Uranus and Neptune had thus confirmed not only ancient knowledge regarding the very existenceof these two outer planets but also crucial details regardingthem. The 1989 flyby of Neptune provided still more corroboration of the ancient texts. In them, Neptune was listed beforeUranus, as would be expected of someone who is coming into the Solar System and sees first Pluto, then Neptune, and thenUranus. In these texts or planetary lists Uranus was called Kakkab shanamma, "Planet Which Is the Double'' of Neptune.The Voyager 2 data goes far to uphold this ancient notion.Uranus is indeed a look-alike of Neptune in size, color, and watery content; both planets are encircled by rings and orbitedby a multitude of satellites, or moons. An unexpected similarityhas been found regarding the two planets' magnetic fields: bothhave an unusually extreme inclination relative to the planets' axes of rotation—58 degrees on Uranus, 50 degrees on Neptune. "Neptune appears to be almost a magnetic twin of Ura- nus," John Noble Wilford reported in The New York Times.The two planets are also similar in the lengths of their days: each about sixteen to seventeen hours long.
The ferocious winds on Neptune and the water ice slurrylayer on its surface attest to the great internal heat it generates,like that of Uranus. In fact, the reports from JPL state thatinitial temperature readings indicated that "Neptune's tem- peratures are similar to those of Uranus, which is more thana billion miles closer to the Sun." Therefore, the scientists assumed "that Neptune somehow is generating more of itsinternal heat than Uranus does"—somehow compensating forits greater distance from the Sun to attain the same temperaturesas Uranus generates, resulting in similar temperatures on bothplanets—and thus adding one more feature "to the size and other characteristics that make Uranus a near twin of Neptune.''
"Planet which is the double," the Sumerians said of Uranus in comparing it to Neptune. "Size and other characteristics 
that make Uranus a near twin of Neptune," NASA's scientists announced. Not only the described characteristics but even theterminology—"planet which is the double," "a near twin of Neptune"—is similar. But one statement, the Sumerian one, was made circa 4,000 B.C., and the other, by NASA, in AD . 1989, nearly 6,000 years later. . . .
In the case of these two distant planets, it seems that modernscience has only caught up with ancient knowledge. It soundsincredible, but the facts ought to speak for themselves. More- over, this is just the first of a series of scientific discoveries in the years since The 12th Planet was published that corroborateits findings in one instance after another. 
Those who have read my books (The Stairway to Heaven,The Wars of Gods and Men, and The Lost Realms followed the first one) know that they are based, first and foremost, on the knowledge bequeathed to us by the Sumerians.
Theirs was the first known civilization. Appearing suddenlyand seemingly out of nowhere some 6,000 years ago, it iscredited with virtually all the "firsts" of a high civilization: inventions and innovations, concepts and beliefs, which formthe foundation of our own Western culture and indeed of all other civilizations and cultures throughout the Earth. The wheeland animal-drawn vehicles, boats for rivers and ships for seas,the kiln and the brick, high-rise buildings, writing and schoolsand scribes, laws and judges and juries, kingship and citizens' councils, music and dance and art, medicine and chemistry,weaving and textiles, religion and priesthoods and temples— they all began there, in Sumer, a country in the southern partof today's Iraq, located in ancient Mesopotamia. Above all, knowledge of mathematics and astronomy began there.
Indeed, all the basic elements of modern astronomy are ofSumerian origin: the concept of a celestial sphere, of a horizon and a zenith, of the circle's division into 360 degrees, of acelestial band in which the planets orbit the Sun, of groupingstars into constellations and giving them the names and pictorialimages that we call the zodiac, of applying the number 12 tothis zodiac and to the divisions of time, and of devising acalendar that has been the basis of calendars to this very day.All that and much, much more began in Sumer. 
Figure 5 
The Sumerians recorded their commercial and legal transactions, their tales and their histories, on clay tablets (Fig. 5a);they drew their illustrations on cylinder seals on which the depiction was carved in reverse, as a negative, that appearedas a positive when the seal was rolled on wet clay (Fig. 5b). In the ruins of Sumerian cities excavated by archaeologists inthe past century and a half, hundreds, if not thousands, of thetexts and illustrations that were found dealt with astronomy.Among them are lists of stars and constellations in their correctheavenly locations and manuals for observing the rising andsetting of stars and planets. There are texts specifically dealingwith the Solar System. There are texts among the unearthed tablets that list the planets orbiting the Sun in their correctorder; one text even gives the distances between the planets.And there are illustrations on cylinder seals depicting the Solar System, as the one shown in Plate B that is at least 4,500 years old and that is now kept in the Near Eastern Section of theState Museum in East Berlin, catalogued under number VA/243.
If we sketch the illustration appearing in the upper left-handcomer of the Sumerian depiction (Fig. 6a) we see a complete Solar System in which the Sun (not Earth!) is in the center, 
Plate B 
orbited by all the planets we know of today. This becomes clear when we draw these known planets around the Sun intheir correct relative sizes and order (Fig. 6b). The similaritybetween the ancient depiction and the current one is striking; it leaves no doubt that the twinlike Uranus and Neptune wereknown in antiquity.
The Sumerian depiction also reveals, however, some differences. These are not artist's errors or misinformation; on the contrary, the differences—two of them—are very significant. 
The first difference concerns Pluto. It has a very odd orbit—too inclined to the common plane (called the Ecliptic) in whichthe planets orbit the Sun, and so elliptical that Pluto sometimes (as at present and until 1999) finds itself not farther but closerto the Sun than Neptune. Astronomers have therefore specu- lated, ever since its discovery in 1930, that Pluto was originallya satellite of another planet; the usual assumption is that it wasa moon of Neptune that "somehow"—no one can figure out how—got torn away from its attachment to Neptune and attained its independent (though bizarre) orbit around the Sun.
This is confirmed by the ancient depiction, but with a significant difference. In the Sumerian depiction Pluto is shownnot near Neptune but between Saturn and Uranus. And Su- merian cosmological texts, with which we shall deal at length,relate that Pluto was a satellite of Saturn that was let loose to 
Figure 6 
eventually attain its own "destiny"—its independent orbit around the Sun. 
The ancient explanation regarding the origin of Pluto revealsnot just factual knowledge but also great sophistication in matters celestial. It involves an understanding of the complexforces that have shaped the Solar System, as well as the de
velopment of astrophysical theories by which moons can become planets or planets in the making can fail and remain moons. Pluto, according to Sumerian cosmogony, made it; ourMoon, which was in the process of becoming an independentplanet, was prevented by celestial events from attaining the independent status.
Modern astronomers moved from speculation to the conviction that such a process has indeed occurred in our Solar Systemonly after observations by the Pioneer and Voyager spacecraftdetermined in the past decade that Titan, the largest moon of Saturn, was a planet-in-the-making whose detachment from Saturn was not completed. The discoveries at Neptune reinforced the opposite speculation regarding Triton, Neptune's moon that is just 400 miles smaller in diameter than Earth's Moon. Its peculiar orbit, its volcanism, and other unexpectedfeatures have suggested to the JPL scientists, in the words ofthe Voyager project's chief scientist Edward Stone, that "Tri- ton may have been an object sailing through the Solar Systemseveral billion years ago when it strayed too close to Neptune,came under its gravitational influence and started orbiting the planet."
How far is this hypothesis from the Sumerian notion that planetary moons could become planets, shift celestial positions, or fail to attain independent orbits? Indeed, as we continue toexpound the Sumerian cosmogony, it will become evident thatnot only is much of modern discovery merely a rediscovery ofancient knowledge but that ancient knowledge offered explanations for many phenomena that modern science has yet tofigure out.
Even at the outset, before the rest of the evidence in support of this statement is presented, the question inevitably arises:How on Earth could the Sumerians have known all that so long ago, at the dawn of civilization?
The answer lies in the second difference between the Sumerian depiction of the Solar System (Fig. 6a) and our present knowledge of it (Fig. 6b). It is the inclusion of a large planetin the empty space between Mars and Jupiter. We are not aware of any such planet; but the Sumerian cosmological, astronom- ical, and historical texts insist that there indeed exists one more planet in our Solar System—its twelfth member: they included 
the Sun, the Moon (which they counted as a celestial body inits own right for reasons stated in the texts), and ten, not nine, planets. It was the realization that a planet the Sumerian textscalled NIBIRU ("Planet of the Crossing") was neither Mars nor Jupiter, as some scholars have debated, but another planetthat passes between them every 3,600 years that gave rise to my first book's title, The 12th Planet—the planet which is the "twelfth member" of the Solar System (although technicallyit is, as a planet, only the tenth).
It was from that planet, the Sumerian texts repeatedly andpersistently stated, that the ANUNNAKI came to Earth. The term literally means "Those Who from Heaven to Earth Came." They are spoken of in the Bible as the Anakim, and in Chapter 6 of Genesis are also called Nefilim, which in Hebrew means the same thing: Those Who Have Come Down, from the Heavens to Earth. 
And it was from the Anunnaki, the Sumerians explained—as though they had anticipated our questions—that they had learnt all they knew. The advanced knowledge we find in Sumerian texts is thus, in effect, knowledge that was possessedby the Anunnaki who had come from Nibiru; and theirs must have been a very advanced civilization, because as I havesurmised from the Sumerian texts, the Anunnaki came to Earth about 445,000 years ago. Way back then they could alreadytravel in space. Their vast elliptical orbit made a loop—this is the exact translation of the Sumerian term—around all the outer planets, acting as a moving observatory from which theAnunnaki could investigate all those planets. No wonder thatwhat we are discovering now was already known in Sumeriantimes. 
Why anyone would bother to come to this speck of matterwe call Earth, not by accident, not by chance, not once butrepeatedly, every 3,600 years, is a question the Sumerian texts have answered. On their planet Nibiru, the Anunnaki/Nefilimwere facing a situation we on Earth may also soon face: ecological deterioration was making life increasingly impossible.There was a need to protect their dwindling atmosphere, andthe only solution seemed to be to suspend gold particles above it, as a shield. (Windows on American spacecraft, for example,are coated with a thin layer of gold to shield the astronauts 
from radiation). This rare metal had been discovered by theAnunnaki on what they called the Seventh Planet (countingfrom the outside inward), and they launched Mission Earth to obtain it. At first they tried to obtain it effortlessly, from thewaters of the Persian Gulf; but when that failed, they embarkedon toilsome mining operations in southeastern Africa.
Some 300,000 years ago, the Anunnaki assigned to the Af- rican mines mutinied. It was then that the chief scientist and the chief medical officer of the Anunnaki used genetic manipulation and in-vitro fertilization techniques to create "primitive workers"—the first Homo sapiens to take over the backbreaking toil in the gold mines.
The Sumerian texts that describe all these events and their condensed version in the Book of Genesis have been extensively dealt with in The 12th Planet. The scientific aspects ofthose developments and of the techniques employed by theAnunnaki are the subject of this book. Modern science, it willbe shown, is blazing an amazing track of scientific advances—but the road to the future is replete with signposts, knowledge,and advances from the past. The Anunnaki, it will be shown,have been there before; and as the relationship between themand the beings they had created changed, as they decided to give Mankind civilization, they imparted to us some of their knowledge and the ability to make our own scientific advances.
Among the scientific advances that will be discussed in the ensuing chapters will also be the mounting evidence forthe existence of Nibiru. If it were not for The 12th Planet, the discovery of Nibiru would be a great event in astronomy but no more significant for our daily lives than, say, the discoveryin 1930 of Pluto. It was nice to learn that the Solar System has one more planet "out there," and it would be equallygratifying to confirm that the planetary count is not nine but ten; that would especially please astrologers, who need twelvecelestial bodies and not just eleven for the twelve houses of the zodiac. 
But after the publication of The 12th Planet and the evidencetherein—which has not been refuted since its first printing in 1976—and the evidence provided by scientific advances since then, the discovery of Nibiru cannot remain just a matter involving textbooks on astronomy. If what I have written is so— 
if, in other words, the Sumerians were correct in what theywere recording—the discovery of Nibiru would mean not onlythat there is one more planet out there but that there is Lifeout there. Moreover, it would confirm that there are intelligentbeings out there—people who were so advanced that, almost half a million years ago, they could travel in space; people who were coming and going between their planet and Earth every 3,600 years.
It is who is out there on Nibiru, and not just its existence,that is bound to shake existing political, religious, social, economic, and military orders on Earth. What will the repercus- sions be when—not if—Nibiru is found? 
It is a question, believe it or not, that is already being pondered. 
GOLD MINING—HOW LONG AGO? 
Is there evidence that mining took place, in southern Africa, during the Old Stone Age? Archaeological studies indicate that it indeed was so. 
Realizing that sites of abandoned ancient mines may indicate where gold could be found, South Africa's leading mining corporation, the Anglo-American Corporation, in the 1970s engaged archaeologists to look for such ancient mines. Published reports (in the corporation's journal Op- tima) detail the discovery in Swaziland and other sites in South Africa of extensive mining areas with shafts to depthsof fifty feet. Stone objects and charcoal remains established dates of 35,000, 46,000, and 60,000 B.C. for these sites. The archaeologists and anthropologists who joined in datingthe finds believed that mining technology was used in southern Africa "during much of the period subsequent to 100,000 B.C." 
In September 1988, a team of international physicistscame to South Africa to verify the age of human habitatsin Swaziland and Zululand. The most modern techniques indicated an age of 80,000 to 115,000 years.
Regarding the most ancient gold mines of Monotapa in southern Zimbabwe, Zulu legends hold that they were worked by "artificially produced flesh and blood slaves created by the First People." These slaves, the Zulu legends recount, "went into battle with the Ape-Man" when "the great war star appeared in the sky" (see Indaba My Chil- dren, by the Zulu medicine man Credo Vusamazulu Mutwa). 

IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE 
"It was Voyager [project] that focused our attention on theimportance of collisions," acknowledged Edward Stone of the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), the chief scientistof the Voyager program. "The cosmic crashes were potentsculptors of the Solar System."
The Sumerians made clear, 6,000 years earlier, the verysame fact. Central to their cosmogony, world view, and religionwas a cataclysmic event that they called the Celestial Battle. It was an event to which references were made in miscellaneous Sumerian texts, hymns, and proverbs—just as we find in the Bible's books of Psalms, Proverbs, Job, and various others. But the Sumerians also described the event in detail, step bystep, in a long text that required seven tablets. Of its Sumerianoriginal only fragments and quotations have been found; the mostly complete text has reached us in the Akkadian language,the language of the Assyrians and Babylonians who followedthe Sumerians in Mesopotamia. The text deals with the formation of the Solar System prior to the Celestial Battle andeven more so with the nature, causes, and results of that awesome collision. And, with a single cosmogonic premise, it explains puzzles that still baffle our astronomers and astrophysicists.
Even more important, whenever these modern scientists havecome upon a satisfactory answer—it fits and corroborates theSumerian one! 
Until the Voyager discoveries, the prevailing scientific view- point considered the Solar System as we see it today as the way it had taken shape soon after its beginning, formed byimmutable laws of celestial motion and the force of gravity.There have been oddballs, to be sure—meteorites that come from somewhere and collide with the stable members of the 
23 
Solar System, pockmarking them with craters, and comets thatzoom about in greatly elongated orbits, appearing from somewhere and disappearing, it seems, to nowhere. But these ex- amples of cosmic debris, it has been assumed, go back to the very beginning of the Solar System, some 4.5 billion years ago, and are pieces of planetary matter that failed to be in- corporated into the planets or their moons and rings. A littlemore baffling has been the asteroid belt, a band of rocks thatforms an orbiting chain between Mars and Jupiter. According to Bode's law, an empirical rule that explains why the planetsformed where they did, there should have been a planet, atleast twice the size of Earth, between Mars and Jupiter. Is the orbiting debris of the asteroid belt the remains of such a planet? The affirmative answer is plagued by two problems: the totalamount of matter in the asteroid belt does not add up to the mass of such a planet, and there is no plausible explanationfor what might have caused the breakup of such a hypothetical 
Figure 7 
planet; if a celestial collision—when, with what, and why?The scientists had no answer. 
The realization that there had to be one or more major col- lisions that changed the Solar System from its initial form became inescapable after the Uranus flyby in 1986, as Dr. Stone has admitted. That Uranus was lilted on its side was already known from telescopic and other instrumental observations even before the Voyager encounter. But was it formedthat way from the very beginning, or did some external force— a forceful collision or encounter with another major celestialbody—bring about the tilting?
The answer had to be provided by the closeup examinationof the moons of Uranus by Voyager 2. The fact that thesemoons swirl around the equator of Uranus in its tilted position—forming, all together, a kind of bull's-eye facing the Sun (Fig. 7)—made scientists wonder whether these moons werethere at the time of the tilting event, or whether they formedafter the event, perhaps from matter thrown out by the force of the collision that tilted Uranus. 
The theoretical basis for the answer was enunciated, priorto the encounter with Uranus, among others by Dr. ChristianVeillet of the French Centre d'Etudes et des Recherches Geodynamiques. If the moons formed at the same time as Uranus,the celestial "raw material" from which they agglomeratedshould have condensed the heavier matter nearer the planet; there should be more of heavier, rocky material and thinner ice coats on the inner moons and a lighter combination ofmaterials (more water ice, less rocks) on the outer moons. Bythe same principle of the distribution of material in the SolarSystem—a larger proportion of heavier matter nearer the Sun,more of the lighter matter (in a "gaseous" state) farther out—the moons of the more distant Uranus should be proportionatelylighter than those of the nearer Saturn.
But the findings revealed a situation contrary to these expectations. In the comprehensive summary reports on the Uranus encounter, published in Science, July 4, 1986, a team offorty scientists concluded that the densities of the Uranus moons (except for that of the moon Miranda)' 'are significantlyheavier than those of the icy satellites of Saturn." Likewise, the Voyager 2 data showed—again contrary to what "should 
have been"—that the two larger inner moons of Uranus, Arieland Umbriel, are lighter in composition (thick, icy layers; small, rocky cores) than the outer moons Titania and Oberon,which were discovered to be made mostly of heavy rockymaterial and had only thin coats of ice.
These findings by Voyager 2 were not the only clues sug- gesting that the moons of Uranus were not formed at the sametime as the planet itself but rather some lime later, in unusualcircumstances. Another discovery that puzzled the scientists was that the rings of Uranus were pitch-black, "blacker than coal dust," presumably composed of "carbon-rich material, asort of primordial tar scavenged from outer space" (the emphasis is mine). These dark rings, warped, tilted, and "bizarrely elliptical," were quite unlike the symmetrical bracelets of icy particles circling Saturn. Pitch-black also were six ofthe new moonlets discovered at Uranus, some acting as "shepherds" for the rings. The obvious conclusion was that the ringsand moonlets were formed from the debris of a "violent event in Uranus's past." Assistant project scientist at JPL Ellis Miner stated it in simpler words: "A likely possibility is that an interloper from outside the Uranus system came in and struck a once larger moon sufficiently hard to have fractured it."
The theory of a catastrophic celestial collision as the event that could explain all the odd phenomena on Uranus and itsmoons and rings was further strengthened by the discovery thatthe boulder-size black debris that forms the Uranus rings circlesthe planet once every eight hours—a speed that is twice thespeed of the planet's own revolution around its axis. This raises the question, how was this much-higher speed imparted to thedebris in the rings?
Based on all the preceding data, the probability of a celestialcollision emerged as the only plausible answer. "We must takeinto account the strong possibility that satellite formation conditions were affected by the event that created Uranus's large obliquity," the forty-strong team of scientists stated. In simplerwords, it means that in all probability the moons in question were created as a result of the collision that knocked Uranus on its side. In press conferences the NASA scientists weremore audacious. "A collision with something the size of Earth,traveling at about 40,000 miles per hour, could have done it," 
they said, speculating that it probably happened about four billion years ago.
Astronomer Garry Hunt of the Imperial College, London,summed it up in seven words: "Uranus took an almighty bangearly on."
But neither in the verbal briefings nor in the long writtenreports was an attempt made to suggest what the "something"was, where it had come from, and how it happened to collide with, or bang into, Uranus.
For those answers, we will have to go back to the Sumer- ians... . 
Before we turn from knowledge acquired in the late 1970sand 1980s to what was known 6,000 years earlier, one moreaspect of the puzzle should be looked into: Are the oddities atNeptune the result of collisions, or ' 'bangs,'' unrelated to those of Uranus—or were they all the result of a single catastrophicevent that affected all the outer planets?
Before the Voyager 2 flyby of Neptune, the planet wasknown to have only two satellites, Nereid and Triton. Nereidwas found to have a peculiar orbit: it was unusually tiltedcompared with the planet's equatorial plane (as much as 28 degrees) and was very eccentric—orbiting the planet not in a near-circular path but in a very elongated one, which takes the moon as far as six million miles from Neptune and as close asone million miles to the planet. Nereid, although of a size thatby planetary-formation rules should be spherical, has an oddshape like that of a twisted doughnut. It also is bright on oneside and pitch-black on the other. All these peculiarities have led Martha W. Schaefer and Bradley E. Schaefer, in a major study on the subject published in Nature magazine (June 2,1987) to conclude that "Nereid accreted into a moon aroundNeptune or another planet and that both it and Triton wereknocked into their peculiar orbits by some large body or planet." "Imagine," Brad Schaefer noted, "that at one time Neptune had an ordinary satellite system like that of Jupiter orSaturn; then some massive body comes into the system and perturbs things a lot."
The dark material that shows up on one side of Nereid could be explained in one of two ways—but both require a collision 
in the scenario. Either an impact on one side of the satelliteswept off an existing darker layer there, uncovering lighter material below the surface, or the dark matter belonged to theimpacting body and "went splat on one side of Nereid." That the latter possibility is the more plausible is suggested by the discovery, announced by the JPL team on August 29, 1989,that all the new satellites (six more) found by Voyager 2 at Neptune "are very dark" and "all have irregular shapes,"even the moon designated 1989N1, whose size normally wouldhave made it spherical.
The theories regarding Triton and its elongated and retrograde (clockwise) orbit around Neptune also call for a collision event. 
Writing in the highly prestigious magazine Science on the eve of the Voyager 2 encounter with Neptune, a team of Caltechscientists (P. Goldberg, N. Murray. P. Y. Longaretti, and D.Banfield) postulated that "Triton was captured from a heli- ocentric orbit"—from an orbit around the Sun—"as a result of a collision with what was then one of Neptune's regular satellites." In this scenario the original small Neptune satellite "would have been devoured by Triton," but the force of the collision would have been such that it dissipated enough ofTriton's orbital energy to slow it down and be captured by Neptune's gravity. Another theory, according to which Tritonwas an original satellite of Neptune, was shown by this studyto be faulty and unable to withstand critical analysis.
The data collected by Voyager 2 from the actual flyby ofTriton supported this theoretical conclusion. It also was in accord with other studies (as by David Stevenson of Caltech)that showed that Triton's internal heat and surface features could be explained only in terms of a collision in which Tritonwas captured into orbit around Neptune.
"Where did these impacting bodies come from?" rhetori-cally asked Gene Shoemaker, one of NASA's scientists, on the NOVA television program. But the question was left with- out an answer. Unanswered too was the question of whether the cataclysms at Uranus and Neptune were aspects of a singleevent or were unconnected incidents. 
It is not ironic but gratifying to find that the answers to allthese puzzles were provided by the ancient Sumerian texts. 
and that all the data discovered or confirmed by the Voyager flights uphold and corroborate the Sumerian information andmy presentation and interpretation thereof in The 12th Planet.The Sumerian texts speak of a single but comprehensiveevent. Their texts explain more than what modern astronomershave been trying to explain regarding the outer planets. Theancient texts also explain matters closer to home, such as theorigin of the Earth and its Moon, of the Asteroid Belt andthe comets. The texts then go on to relate a tale that combinesthe credo of the Creationists with the theory of Evolution, atale that offers a more successful explanation than either mod- ern conception of what happened on Earth and how Man andhis civilization came about. 
It all began, the Sumerian texts relate, when the Solar Systemwas still young. The Sun (APSU in the Sumerian texts, mean- ing "One Who Exists from the Beginning"), its little companion MUM. MU ('' One Who Was Born,'' our Mercury) andfarther away TI.AMAT ("Maiden of Life") were the first members of the Solar System; it gradually expanded by the "birth" of three planetary pairs, the planets we call Venus andMars between Mummu and Tiamat, the giant pair Jupiter andSaturn (to use their modern names) beyond Tiamat, and Uranusand Neptune farther out (Fig. 8).
Into this original Solar System, still unstable soon after its formation (I estimated the time about four billion years ago), an Invader appeared. The Sumerians called it NIBIRU; the Babylonians renamed it Marduk in honor of their national god.It appeared from outer space, from "the Deep," in the wordsof the ancient text. But as it approached the outer planets ofour Solar System, it began to be drawn into it. As expected,the first outer planet to attract Nibiru with its gravitational pull was Neptune—E.A ("He Whose House Is Water") in Su- merian. "He who begot him was Ea," the ancient text explained.
Nibiru/Marduk itself was a sight to behold; alluring, sparkling, lofty, lordly are some of the adjectives used to describe it. Sparks and flashes bolted from it to Neptune and Uranus as it passed near them. It might have arrived with its own satellitesalready orbiting it, or it might have acquired some as a result 
Figure 8 
of the gravitational pull of the outer planets. The ancient textspeaks of its "perfect members. . .difficult to perceive"— "four were his eyes, four were his ears."
As it passed near Ea/Neptune, Nibiru/Marduk's side began to bulge "as though he had a second head." Was it thenthat the bulge was torn away to become Neptune's moon Triton? One aspect thai speaks strongly for this is the fact thatNibiru/Marduk entered the Solar System in a retrograde (clock- wise) orbit, counter to that of the other planets (Fig. 9). Only 
Figure 9 
this Sumerian detail, according to which the invading planetwas moving counter to the orbital motion of all the otherplanets, can explain the retrograde motion of Triton, the highlyelliptical orbits of other satellites and comets, and the othermajor events that we have yet to tackle.
More satellites were created as Nibiru/Marduk passed byAnu/Uranus. Describing this passing of Uranus, the text statesthat "Anu brought forth and begot the four winds"—as clear a reference as one could hope for to the four major moons ofUranus that were formed, we now know, only during the collision that tilted Uranus. At the same time we learn from a later passage in the ancient text that Nibiru/Marduk himselfgained three satellites as a result of this encounter.
Although the Sumerian texts describe how, after its eventualcapture into solar orbit, Nibiru/Marduk revisited the outer planets and eventually shaped them into the system as we knowit today, the very first encounter already explains the variouspuzzles that modern astronomy faced or still faces regarding Neptune, Uranus, their moons, and their rings.
Past Neptune and Uranus, Nibiru/Marduk was drawn evenmore into the midst of the planetary system as it reached the immense gravitational pulls of Saturn (AN.SHAR, "Foremostof the Heavens") and Jupiter (KI.SHAR, "Foremost of theFirm Lands"). As Nibiru/Marduk "approached and stood as 
though in combat" near Anshar/Saturn, the two planets "kissed their lips." It was then that the "destiny," the orbital path, of Nibiru/Marduk was changed forever. It was also thenthat the chief satellite of Saturn, GA.GA (the eventual Pluto), was pulled away in the direction of Mars and Venus—a direction possible only by the retrograde force of Nibiru/Marduk. Making a vast elliptical orbit, Gaga eventually returned to the outermost reaches of the Solar System. There it "addressed"Neptune and Uranus as it passed their orbits on the swing back.It was the beginning of the process by which Gaga was to become our Pluto, with its inclined and peculiar orbit that sometimes takes it between Neptune and Uranus. 
The new "destiny," or orbital path, of Nibiru/Marduk wasnow irrevocably set toward the olden planet Tiamat. At that time, relatively early in the formation of the Solar System, it was marked by instability, especially (we learn from the text)in the region of Tiamat. While other planets nearby were still wobbling in their orbits, Tiamat was pulled in many directionsby the two giants beyond her and the two smaller planetsbetween her and the Sun. One result was the tearing off her, or the gathering around her, of a "host" of satellites "furious with rage," in the poetic language of the text (named by schol- ars the Epic of Creation). These satellites, "roaring monsters," were "clothed with terror" and "crowned with halos," swirling furiously about and orbiting as though they were "celestialgods"—planets.
Most dangerous to the stability or safety of the other planets was Tiamat's "leader of the host," a large satellite that grewto almost planetary size and was about to attain its independent"destiny"—its own orbit around the Sun. Tiamat "cast a spellfor him, to sit among the celestial gods she exalted him." It was called in Sumerian KIN.GU—"Great Emissary."
Now the text raised the curtain on the unfolding drama; I have recounted it, step by step, in The 12th Planet. As in aGreek tragedy, the ensuing "celestial battle" was unavoidable as gravitational and magnetic forces came inexorably into play,leading to the collision between the oncoming Nibiru/Mardukwith its seven satellites ("winds" in the ancient text) and Tiamat and its "host" of eleven satellites headed by Kingu.
Although they were headed on a collision course, Tiamat orbiting counterclockwise and Nibiru/Marduk clockwise, the 
Figure 10 
two planets did not collide—a fact of cardinal astronomicalimportance. It was the satellites, or "winds," (literal Sumerian meaning: "Those that are by the side") of Nibiru/Marduk that smashed into Tiatnat and collided with her satellites. 
In the first such encounter (Fig. 10), the first phase of the Celestial Battle, 
The four winds he stationed 
that nothing of her could escape:
The South Wind, the North Wind, 
the East Wind, the West Wind. 
Close to his side he held the net, 
the gift of his grandfather Anu who brought forth
the Evil Wind, the Whirlwind and the Hurricane. . . . 
He sent forth the winds which he had created, 
the seven of them; to trouble Tiamat within 
they rose up behind him. 
These "winds," or satellites, of Nibiru/Marduk, "the seven of them," were the principal "weapons" with which Tiamatwas attacked in the first phase of the Celestial Battle (Fig. 10). But the invading planet had other "weapons" too: 
In front of him he set the lightning,
with a blazing flame he filled his body;
He then made a net to enfold Tiamat therein. . . . 
A fearsome halo his head was turbaned. 
He was wrapped with awesome terror as with a cloak. 
As the two planets and their hosts of satellites came close enough for Nibiru/Marduk to "scan the inside of Tiamat" and ' 'perceive the scheme of Kingu,'' Nibiru/ Marduk attacked Tiamat with his "net" (magnetic field?) to "enfold her," shooting at the old planet immense bolts of electricity ("divine light- nings"). Tiamat "was filled with brilliance"—slowing down,heating up, "becoming distended." Wide gaps opened in itscrust, perhaps emitting steam and volcanic matter. Into one widening fissure Nibiru/Marduk thrust one of its main satellites, the one called "Evil Wind." It tore Tiamat's "belly, cut through her insides, splitting her heart."
Besides splitting up Tiamat and "extinguishing her life,"the first encounter sealed the fate of the moonlets orbiting her—all except the planetlike Kingu. Caught in the "net"—the magnetic and gravitational pull—of Nibiru/Marduk, "shattered, broken up," the members of the "band of Tiamat" were thrown off their previous course and forced into new orbital paths in the opposite direction: "Trembling with fear, they turned their backs about." 
Thus were the comets created—thus, we learn from a 6,000- year-old text, did the comets obtain their greatly elliptical andretrograde orbits. As to Kingu, Tiamat's principal satellite, the text informs us that in that first phase of the celestial collision Kingu was just deprived of its almost-independent orbit. Nibiru/Marduk took away from him his "destiny." Ni-biru/Marduk made Kingu into a DUG.GA.E, "a mass of life
less clay," devoid of atmosphere, waters and radioactive matter and shrunken in size; and "with fetters bound him," to remain in orbit around the battered Tiamal. 
Having vanquished Tiamat, Nibiru/Marduk sailed on on his new "destiny." The Sumerian text leaves no doubt that theerstwhile invader orbited the Sun: 
He crossed the heavens and surveyed the regions,
and Apsu's quarter he measured;
The Lord the dimensions of the Apsu measured. 
Having circled the Sun (Apsu), Nibiru/Marduk continued into distant space. But now, caught forever in solar orbit, ithad to turn back. On his return round, Ea/Neptune was thereto greet him and Anshar/Saturn hailed his victory. Then his new orbital path returned him to the scene of the CelestialBattle, "turned back to Tiamat whom he had bound." 
The Lord paused to view her lifeless body.
To divide the monster he then artfully planned. 
Then, as a mussel, he split her into two parts. 
With this act the creation of "the heaven" reached its final 
stage, and the creation of Earth and its Moon began. First the
new impacts broke Tiamat into two halves. The upper part, 
her "skull," was struck by the Nibiru/Marduk satellite called
North Wind; the blow carried it, and with it Kingu, "to places
that have been unknown"—to a brand-new orbit where there 
had not been a planet before. The Earth and our Moon were
created (Fig. 11)!
The other half of Tiamat was smashed by the impacts into bits and pieces. This lower half, her "tail," was "hammered together" to become a "bracelet" in the heavens: 
Locking the pieces together,
as watchmen he stationed them. . . . 
He bent Tiamat's tail to form the Great Band 
as a bracelet. 
Thus was "the Great Band," the Asteroid Belt, created. 
Having disposed of Tiamat and Kingu, Nibiru/Marduk once

Figure II 
again "crossed the heavens and surveyed the regions." Thistime his attention was focused on the "Dwelling of Ea" (Nep- tune), giving that planet and its twinlike Uranus their final makeup. Nibiru/Marduk also, according to the ancient text, provided Gaga/Pluto with its final "destiny," assigning to it"a hidden place"—a hitherto unknown part of the heavens.It was farther out than Neptune's location; it was, we are told, "in the Deep"—far out in space. In line with its new positionas the outermost planet, it was granted a new name: US.MI—"He Who Shows the Way," the first planet encountered com- ing into the Solar System—that is, from outer space towardthe Sun. 
Thus was Pluto created and put into the orbit it now holds.
Having thus "constructed the stations" for the planets, Ni
Figure 12 
Figure 13 
biru/Marduk made two "abodes" for itself. One was in the "Firmament," as the asteroid belt was also called in the ancient texts; the other far out "in the Deep" was called the "Great/Distant Abode," alias E.SHARRA ("Abode/Home ofthe Ruler/Prince"). Modern astronomers call these two pla- netary positions the perigee (the orbital point nearest the Sun)and the apogee (the farthest one) (Fig. 12). It is an orbit, asconcluded from the evidence amassed in The 12th Planet, that takes 3,600 Earth-years to complete.
Thus did the Invader that came from outer space become the twelfth member of the Solar System, a system made up ofthe Sun in the center, with its longtime companion Mercury;the three olden pairs (Venus and Mars, Jupiter and Saturn,Uranus and Neptune); the Earth and the Moon, the remains ofthe great Tiamat, though in a new position; the newly independent Pluto; and the planet that put it all into final shape,Nibiru/Marduk (Fig. 13).
Modern astronomy and recent discoveries uphold and corroborate this millennia-old tale. 
WHEN EARTH HAD NOT BEEN FORMED 
In 1766 J. D. Titius proposed and in 1772 Johann Elert Bodepopularized what became known as "Bode's law," which showed that planetary distances follow, more or less, the progression 0, 2, 4, 8, 16, etc., if the formula is manipulated bymultiplying by 3, adding 4, and dividing by 10. Using as a measure the astronomical unit (AU), which is the distance of Earth from the Sun, the formula indicates that there should be a planet between Mars and Jupiter (the asteroids are found there) and a planet beyond Saturn (Uranus was discovered). The formula shows tolerable deviations up until one reaches Uranus but gets out of whack from Neptune on. 
Planet Distance Bode 'sLaw 
(AU) Distance Deviation 
Mercury 0.387 0.400 3.4%
Venus 0.723 0.700 3.2%
Earth 1.000 1.000
Mars 1.524 1.600 5.0%
Asteroids 2.794 2.800
Jupiter 5.203 5.200
Saturn 9.539 10.000 4.8%
Uranus 19.182 19.600 2.1%
Neptune 30.058 38.800 36.3%
Pluto 39.400 77.200 95.9%

Planet Distance Bode's Law 
______ (AU) Distance  Deviation Mercury 0.387 0.400 3.4% Venus 0.723 0.700 3.2% Earth 1.000 1.000 Mars 1.524 1.600 5.0% Asteroids 2.794 2.800 Jupiter 5.203 5.200 Saturn 9.539 10.000 4.8% Uranus 19.182   19.600 2.1% Neptune 30.058      38.800  36.3% Pluto 39.400      77.200  95.9% 
Bode's law, which was arrived at empirically, thus uses Earthas its arithmetic starting point. But according to the Sumerian cosmogony, at the beginning there was Tiamat between Mars and Jupiter, whereas Earth had not yet formed.
Dr. Amnon Sitchin has pointed out that if Bode's law is stripped of its arithmetical devices and only the geometricprogression is retained, the formula works just as well if Earthis omitted—thus confirming Sumerian cosmogony: 
Planet Distance from Ratio of
_____ ______________ Sun (miles) Increase
Mercury 36,250,000 —
Venus 67,200,000 1.85
Mars 141,700,000         2.10
Asteroids (Ti.Amat)260,400,000    1.84
Jupiter 484,000,000    1.86
Saturn 887,100,000    1.83
Uranus 1.783,900,000 2.01

IN THE BEGINNING 
In the beginning
God created the heaven and the earth. 
And the earth was without form and void 
and darkness was upon the face of the deep,
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said. Let there be light; and there was light. 
For generations this majestic outline of the manner in which our world was created has been at the core of Judaism as well as of Christianity and the third monotheistic religion Islam, the latter two being outgrowths of the first. In the seventeenthcentury Archbishop James Ussher of Armagh in Ireland calculated from these opening verses of Genesis the precise dayand even the moment of the world's creation, in the year 4004 
B.C. Many old editions of the Bible still carry Ussher's chro- nology printed in the margins; many still believe that Earthand the Solar System of which it is a part are indeed no older than that. Unfortunately, this belief, known as Creationism,has taken on science as its adversary; and science, firmly wedto the Theory of Evolution, has met the challenge and joined the battle. 
It is regrettable that both sides pay little heed to what hasbeen known for more than a century—that the creation tales of Genesis are edited and abbreviated versions of much more detailed Mesopotamian texts, which were in turn versions ofan original Sumerian text. The battle lines between the Creationists and Evolutionists—a totally unwarranted demarcation,as the evidence herewith presented will show—are undoubt- edly more sharply etched by the principle of the separation between religion and state that is embodied in the U.S. Constitution. But such a separation is not the norm among the 
40 
Earth's nations (even in enlightened democracies such as England), nor was it the norm in antiquity, when the biblicalverses were written down. 
indeed, in ancient times the king was also the high priest,the state had a national religion and a national god, the templeswere the seat of scientific knowledge, and the priests were thesavants. This was so because when civilization began, the godswho were worshipped—the focus of the act of being "religious"—were none other than the Anunnaki/Nefilim, who were the source of all manner of knowledge, alias science, onEarth. 
The merging of state, religion, and science was nowhere more complete than in Babylon. There the original SumerianEpic of Creation was translated and revised so that Marduk, the Babylonian national god, was assigned a celestial counterpart. By renaming Nibiru "Marduk" in the Babylonian ver- sions of the creation story, the Babylonians usurped for Mardukthe attributes of a supreme "God of Heaven and Earth." Thisversion—the most intact one found so far—is known as Enuma elish ("When in the heights"), taken from its opening words. It became the most hallowed religious-political-scientificdocument of the land; it was read as a central part of the NewYear rituals, and players reenacted the tale in passion plays tobring its import home to the masses. The clay tablets (Fig. 14) on which they were written were prized possessions of templesand royal libraries in antiquity.
The decipherment of the writing on the clay tablets discov- ered in the ruins of ancient Mesopotamia more than a centuryago led to the realization that texts existed that related biblicalcreation tales millennia before the Old Testament was com- piled. Especially important were texts found in the library ofthe Assyrian king Ashurbanipal in Nineveh (a city of biblicalrenown); they recorded a tale of creation that matches, in someparts word for word, the tale of Genesis. George Smith of the British Museum pieced together the broken tablets that held the creation texts and published, in 1876, The Chaldean Genesis, it conclusively established that there indeed existed an Akkadian text of the Genesis tale, written in the Old Babyloniandialect, that preceded the biblical text by at least a thousandyears. Excavations between 1902 and 1914 uncovered tablets 
Figure 14 
with the Assyrian version of the creation epic, in which thename of Ashur, the Assyrian national god, was substituted for that of the Babylonian Marduk. Subsequent discoveries established not only the extent of the copying and translation, inantiquity, of this epic text, but also its unmistakable Sumerianorigin. 
It was L. W. King who, in 1902, in his work The SevenTablets of Creation, showed that the various fragments add up to seven tablets; six of them relate the creation process; theseventh tablet is entirely devoted to the exaltation of "theLord" — Marduk in the Babylonian version, Ashur in the As
syrian one. One can only guess that this seven-tablet divisionsomehow is the basis of the division of the biblical story into a seven-part timetable, of which six parts involve divine handiwork and the seventh is devoted to a restful and satisfactorylook back at what had been achieved. 
It is true that the Book of Genesis, written in Hebrew, uses the term yom, commonly meaning and translated as "day," to denote each phase. Once, as a guest on a radio talk showin a "Bible Belt" city, I was challenged by a woman whocalled in about this very point. I explained that by "day" the Bible does not mean our term of twenty-four hours on Earthbut rather conveys the concept of a phase in the process ofcreation. No, she insisted, that is exactly what the Bible means: twenty-four hours. I then pointed out to her that the text of the first chapter of Genesis deals not with a human timetable butwith that of the Creator, and we are told in the Book of Psalms 
(90:4) that in God's eyes "a thousand years are like yesterday." Would she concede, at least, that Creation might havetaken six thousand years? I asked. To my disappointment, there was no concession. Six days means six days, she insisted. 
Is the biblical tale of creation a religious document, its contents to be considered only a matter of faith to be believed or disbelieved; or it is a scientific document, imparting to us essential knowledge of how things began, in the heavens andon Earth? This, of course, is the core of the ongoing argumentbetween Creationists and Evolutionists. The two camps would have laid down their arms long ago were they to realize thatwhat the editors and compilers of the Book of Genesis haddone was no different from what the Babylonians had done:using the only scientific source of their time, those descendantsof Abraham—scion of a royal-priestly family from the Su- merian capital Ur—also took the Epic of Creation, shortenedand edited it, and made it the foundation of a national religion glorifying Yahweh "who is in the Heavens and on Earth."
In Babylon, Marduk was a dual deity. Physically present,resplendent in his precious garments (Fig. 15), he was worshipped as Ilu (translated "god" but literally meaning "the Lofty One"); his struggle to gain supremacy over the other Anunnaki gods has been detailed in my book The Wars of Gods and Men. On the other hand, "Marduk" was a celestial deity. 
Figure 15 
a planetary god, who in the heavens assumed the attributes,role, and credit for the primordial creations that the Sumerianshad attributed to Nibiru, the planet whose most frequent symbolic depiction was that of a winged disc (Fig. 16). The Assyrians, replacing Marduk with their national god Ashur,combined the two aspects and depicted Ashur as a god within the winged disc (Fig. 17).
The Hebrews followed suit but, preaching monotheism and recognizing—based on Sumerian scientific knowledge—theuniversality of God, ingeniously solved the problem of dualityand of the multitude of Anunnaki deities involved in the events on Earth by concocting a singular-but-plural entity, not an El (the Hebrew equivalent of Ilu) but Elohim—a Creator who is plural (literally "Gods") and yet One. This departure from theBabylonian and Assyrian religious viewpoint can be explained only by a realization that the Hebrews were aware that thedeity who could speak to Abraham and Moses and the celestialLord whom the Sumerians called Nibiru were not one and the same scientifically, although all were part of a universal, ev
In the Beginning 
crlasting, and omnipresent God—Elohim—-in whose grand design for the universe the path of each planet is its predetermined"destiny," and what the Anunnaki had done on Earth was likewise a predetermined mission. Thus was the handiwork of a universal God manifest in Heaven and on Earth. 
These profound perceptions, which lie at the core of the biblical adoption of the creation story, Enuma elish, could bearrived at only by bringing together religion and science while retaining, in the narrative and sequence of events, the scientificbasis. 
But to recognize this—that Genesis represents not just re- ligion but also science—one must recognize the role of the Anunnaki and accept that the Sumerian texts are not "myth"but factual reports. Scholars have made much progress in thisrespect, but they have not yet arrived at a total recognition of the factual nature of the texts. Although both scientists and theologians are by now well aware of the Mesopotamian originof Genesis, they remain stubborn in brushing off the scientificvalue of these ancient texts. It cannot be science, they hold,because "it should be obvious by the nature of things that noneof these stories can possibly be the product of human memory''(to quote N. M. Sama of the Jewish Theological Seminary inUnderstanding Genesis). Such a statement can be challengedonly by explaining, as I have repeatedly done in my writings,that the information of how things began—including how Manhimself was created—indeed did not come from the memoryof the Assyrians or Babylonians or Sumerians but from the knowledge and science of the Anunnaki/Nefilim. They too,of course, could not "remember"1 how the Solar System wascreated or how Nibiru/Marduk invaded the Solar System, because they themselves were not yet created on their planet. Butjust as our scientists have a good notion of how the SolarSystem came about and even how the whole universe came into being (the favorite theory is that of the Big Bang), the Anunnaki/Nefilim, capable of space travel 450,000 years ago,surely had the capacity to arrive at sensible scenarios of creation; much more so since their planet, acting as a spacecraftthat sailed past all the outer planets, gave them a chance atrepeated close looks that were undoubtedly more extensive thanour Voyager "peeks." 
Several updated studies of the Enumu elish, such as The Babylonian Genesis by Alexander Heidel of the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, have dwelt on the parallels intheme and structure between the Mesopotamian and biblicalnarratives. Both indeed begin with the statement that the tale takes its reader (or listener, as in Babylon) to the primordial time when the Earth and "the heavens" did not yet exist. But whereas the Sumerian cosmogony dealt with the creation of the Solar System and only then set the stage for the appearanceof the celestial Lord (Nibiru/Marduk), the biblical versionskipped all that and went directly to the Celestial Battle andits aftermath. 
With the immensity of space as its canvas, here is how the Mesopotamian version began to draw the primordial picture: 
When in the heights Heaven had not been named
And below earth had not been called, 
Naught but primordial Apsu, their Begetter, 
Mummu, and Tiamat, she who bore them all. 
Their waters were mingled together. 
No reed had yet been formed, 
No marshland had appeared. 
Even in the traditional King James version, the biblical open- ing is more matter-of-fact, not an inspirational religious opusbut a lesson in primordial science, informing the reader thatthere indeed was a time when Heaven and the Earth did not yet exist, and that it took an act of the Celestial Lord, his "spirit" moving upon the "waters." to bring Heaven and Earth about with a bolt of light.
The progress in biblical and linguistic studies since the time of King James has moved the editors of both the Catholic The New American Bible and The New English Bible of the churchesin Great Britain to substitute the word "wind"—which is what the Hebrew ru'ach means—for the "Spirit of God," so that the last verse now reads "a mighty wind swept over the waters." They retain, however, the concept of "abyss" forthe Hebrew word Tehom in the original Bible; but by now even theologians acknowledge that the reference is to no other entitythan the Sumerian Tiamat. 
With this understanding, the reference in the Mesopotamianversion to the mingling "waters" of Tiamat ceases to be al- legorical and calls for a factual evaluation. It goes to the question of the plentiful waters of Earth and the biblical assertion(correct, as we shall soon realize) that when the Earth was formed it was completely covered by water. If water was so abundant even at the moment of Earth's creation, then only ifTiamat was also a watery planet could the half that becameEarth be watery!
The watery nature of Tehom/Tiamat is mentioned in variousbiblical references. The prophet Isaiah (51:10) recalled "the primeval days" when the might of the Lord "carved the Haughty One, made spin the watery monster, drained offthe waters of the mighty Tehom." The psalmist extolled theLord of Beginnings who "by thy might the waters thou didstdisperse, the leader of the watery monsters thou didst break up."
What was the "wind" of the Lord that "moved upon theface of the waters" of Tehom/Tiamat? Not the divine "Spirit"but the satellite of Nibiru/Marduk that, in the Mesopotamian texts, was called by that term! Those texts vividly describedthe flashes and lightning strokes that burst off Nibiru/Mardukas it closed in on Tiamat. Applying this knowledge to thebiblical text, its correct reading emerges: 
When, in the beginning,
The Lord created the Heaven and the Earth, 
The Earth, not yet formed, was in the void,
and there was darkness upon Tiamat.
Then the Wind of the Lord swept upon its waters
and the Lord commanded, "Let there be lightning!"
and there was a bright light. 
The continuing narrative of Genesis does not describe theensuing splitting up of Tiamat or the breakup of her host of satellites, described so vividly in the Mesopotamian texts. Itis evident, however, from the above-quoted verses from Isaiahand Psalms, as well as from the narrative in Job (26:7-13),that the Hebrews were familiar with the skipped-over portions of the original tale. Job recalled how the celestial Lord smote"the helpers of the Haughty One," and he exalted the Lord 
The hammered canopy He stretched out 
in the place of Tehom,
The Earth suspended in the void;
He penned waters in its denseness,
without any cloud bursting. . . .

His powers the waters did arrest,
His energy the Haughty One did cleave.
His wind the Hammered Bracelet measured out,
His hand the twisting dragon did extinguish.

The Mesopotamian texts continued from here to describe how Nibiru/Marduk formed the asteroid belt out of Tiamat's lower half: 
The other half of her
he set up as a screen for the skies;
Locking them together
as watchmen he stationed them. . . .
He bent Tiamat's tail
to form the Great Band as a bracelet.

Genesis picks up the primordial tale here and describes theforming of the asteroid belt thus: 
And Elohim said:
Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters
and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And Elohim made the Firmament,
dividing the waters which are under the Firmament
from the waters which are above the Firmament.
And Elohim called the Firmament "Heaven."

Realizing that the Hebrew word Shama'im is used to speakof Heaven or the heavens in general, the editors of Genesiswent into some length to use two terms for "the Heaven" created as a result of the destruction of Tiamat. What separated the "upper waters" from the "lower waters." the Genesis text stresses, was the Raki'a; generally translated "Firmament," it literally means "Hammered-out Bracelet." Then Genesis goes on to explain that Elohim then called the Raki'a, the so- called Firmament, Shama'im, "the Heaven"—a name that in its first use in the Bible consists of the two words sham and ma'im, meaning literally "where the waters were." In the creation tale of Genesis, "the Heaven" was a specific celestiallocation, where Tiamat and her waters had been, where the asteroid belt was hammered out. 
That happened, according to the Mesopotamian texts, whenNibiru/Marduk returned to the Place of Crossing—the second phase of the battle with Tiamat: "Day Two," if you wish, asthe biblical narrative does. 
The ancient tale is replete with details, each of which isamazing by itself. Ancient awareness of them is so incredible that its only plausible explanation is the one offered by theSumerians themselves—namely, that those who had come to Earth from Nibiru were the source of that knowledge. Modernastronomy has already corroborated many of these details; bydoing so, it indirectly confirms the key assertions of the ancientcosmogony and astronomy: the Celestial Battle that resulted inthe breakup of Tiamat, the creation of Earth and the asteroidbelt, and the capture of Nibiru/Marduk into permanent orbit around our Sun. 
Let us look at one aspect of the ancient tale—the "host" of satellites, or "winds," that the "celestial gods" had.
We now know that Mars has two moons, Jupiter sixteen moons and several more moonlets, Saturn twenty-one or more,Uranus as many as fifteen, Neptune eight. Until Galileo dis- covered with his telescope the four brightest and largest sat- ellites of Jupiter in 1610, it was unthinkable that a celestial body could have more than one such companion-—evidenceEarth and its solitary Moon.
But here we read in the Sumerian texts that as Nibiru/Marduk's gravity interacted with that of Uranus, the Invader "begot" three satellites ("winds") and Anu/Uranus"brought forth" four such moons. By the time Nibiru/Mardukreached Tiamat, it had a total of seven "winds" with which to attack Tiamat, and Tiamat had a "host'' of eleven—among 
them the "leader of the host," which was about to become an independently orbiting planet, our eventual Moon.
Another element of the Sumerian tale, of great significanceto the ancient astronomers, was the assertion that the debris from the lower half of Tiamat was stretched out in the space where she had once existed. 
The Mesopotamian texts, and the biblical version thereof inGenesis, are emphatic and detailed about the formation of the asteroid belt—insisting that such a "bracelet" of debris exists and orbits the Sun between Mars and Jupiter. But our astronomers were not aware of that until the nineteenth century. The first realization that the space between Mars and Jupiter was not just a dark void was the discovery by Giuseppe Piazzi on January 1, 1801, of a small celestial object in the space between the two planets, an object that was named Ceres and that has the distinction of being the first known (and named) asteroid. Three more asteroids (Pallas, Juno, and Vesta) were discoveredby 1807, none after that until 1845, and hundreds since then,so that almost 2,000 are known by now. Astronomers believethat there may be as many as 50,000 asteroids at least a milein diameter, as well as many more pieces of debris, too smallto be seen from Earth, which number in the billions. 
In other words, it has taken modern astronomy almost twocenturies to find out what the Sumerians knew 6,000 years ago.
Even with this knowledge, the biblical statement that the "Hammered-out Bracelet," the Shama'im—alias "the Heaven," divided the "waters which are below the Firma- ment" from the "waters which are above the Firmament" remained a puzzle. What, in God's name, was the Bible talking about? 
We have known, of course, that Earth was a watery planet, but it has been assumed that it is uniquely so. Many will undoubtedly recall science-fiction tales wherein aliens come toEarth to carry off its unique and life-giving liquid, water. So even if the ancient texts had in mind Tiamat's, and hence Earth's, waters, and if this was what was meant by the "water which is below the Firmament," what water was there to talk about regarding that which is "above the Firmament"?
We know—don't we?-—that the asteroid belt had, indeed, 
as the ancient text reported, divided the planets into two groups. 
"Below" it are the Terrestrial, or inner, Planets; "above" it the gaseous, or Outer, Planets. But except for Earth the formerhad barren surfaces and the latter no surfaces at all, and the long-held conventional wisdom was that neither group (again,excepting Earth) had any water.
Well, as a result of the missions of unmanned spacecraft toall the other planets except Pluto, we now know better. Mercury, which was observed by the spacecraft Mariner 10 in1974/75, is too small and too close to the Sun to have retainedwater, if it ever had any. But Venus, likewise believed to be waterless because of its relative proximity to the Sun, surprisedthe scientists. It was discovered by unmanned spacecraft, bothAmerican and Soviet, that the extremely hot surface of the planet (almost 900 degrees Fahrenheit) was caused not so muchby its proximity to the Sun as by a "greenhouse" effect: the planet is enshrouded in a thick atmosphere of carbon dioxide and clouds that contain sulphuric acid. As a result the heat ofthe Sun is trapped and does not dissipate back into space duringthe night. This creates an ever-rising temperature that wouldhave vaporized any water that Venus might have had. But did it ever have such water in its past?
The careful analysis of the results of unmanned probes ledthe scientists to answer emphatically, yes. The topographicalfeatures revealed by radar mapping suggested erstwhile oceansand seas. That such bodies of water might have indeed existedon Venus was indicated by the finding that the "hell-like at- mosphere," as some of the scientists termed it, contained tracesof water vapor.
Data from two unmanned spacecraft that probed Venus foran extended period after December 1978, Pioneer-Venus I and2, convinced the team of scientists that analyzed the findingsthat Venus "may once have been covered by water at an average depth of thirty feet"; Venus, they concluded (Science,May 7, 1982), once had "at least 100 times as much water inliquid form as it does today in the form of vapor.'' Subsequentstudies have suggested that some of that ancient water was used up in the formation of the suphuric acid clouds, whilesome of it gave up its oxygen to oxidize the rocky surface of the planet.
"The lost oceans of Venus" can be traced in its rocks; that was the conclusion of a joint report of U.S. and Soviet scientists 
Plate C 
published in the May 1986 issue of Science. There was indeed water "below the Firmament," not only on Earth but also on Venus. 
The latest scientific discoveries have added Mars to the list of inner planets whose waters corroborate the ancient statement. 
At the end of the nineteenth century the existence of enigmatic "canals" on Mars was popularized by the telescopicobservations of the Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli and the American Percival Lowell. This was generally laughedoff; and the conviction prevailed that Mars was dry and barren.The first unmanned surveys of Mars, in the 1960s, seemed toconfirm the notion that it was a "geologically lifeless planet, like the Moon." This notion was completely discredited whenthe spacecraft Mariner 9 launched in 1971, went into orbitaround Mars and photographed its entire surface, not just the10 percent or so surveyed by all the previous probes. Theresults, in the words of the astronomers managing the project,"were astounding." Mariner 9 revealed that volcanoes, can- yons, and dry river beds abound on Mars (Plate C). "Waterhas played an active role in the planet's evolution," stated Harold Masursky of the U.S. Geological Survey, who headed 
the team analyzing the photographs. "The most convincingevidence was found in the many photographs showing deep,winding channels that may have once been fast-flowingstreams. ... We are forced to no other conclusion but that we are seeing the effects of water on Mars."
The Mariner 9 findings were confirmed and augmented bythe results of the Viking 1 and Viking 2 missions launched fiveyears later; they examined Mars both from orbiters and fromlanders that descended to the planet's surface. They showedsuch features as evidence of several floodings by large quantities of water in an area designated Chryse Planitis; channels that once held and were formed by running water coming fromthe Vallis Marineris area; cyclical meltings of permafrost inthe equatorial regions; rocks weathered and eroded by the forceof water; and evidence of erstwhile lakes, ponds, and other"water basins." 
Water vapor was found in the thin Martian atmosphere;Charles A. Barth, the principal scientist in charge of Mariner 9's ultraviolet measurements, estimated that the evaporationamounted to the equivalent of 100,000 gallons of water daily.Norman Horowitz of Caltech reasoned that "large amounts ofwater in some form have in past eons been introduced to thesurface and into the atmosphere of Mars," because that was required in order to have so much carbon dioxide (90 percent)in the Martian atmosphere. In a report published in 1977 bythe American Geographical Union (Journal of Geophysical Research, September 30, 1977) on the scientific results of the Viking project, it was concluded that "a long time ago giant flash floods carved the Martian landscape in a number of places;a volume of water equal to Lake Erie poured . . . scouring greatchannels." 
The Viking 2 lander reported frost on the ground where it came to rest. The frost was found to consist of a combination of water, water ice, and frozen carbon dioxide (dry ice). Thedebate about whether the polar ice caps of Mars contain waterice or dry ice was resolved in January 1979 when JPL scientistsreported at the 2nd International Colloquium on Mars, held atthe California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in Pasadena,that "the north pole consists of water ice," though not so the south pole.
The final NASA report after the Viking missions (Mars: The Viking Discoveries) concluded that "Mars once had enoughwater to form a layer several meters deep over the whole surfaceof the planet." This was possible, it is now believed, becauseMars (like Earth) wobbles slightly as it spins about its axis.This action results in significant climatic changes every 50,000 years. When the planet was warmer it may have had lakes aslarge as Earth's Great Lakes in North America and as muchas three miles deep. 'This is an almost inescapable conclusion," stated Michael H. Carr and Jack McCauley of the U.S.Geological Survey in 1985. At two conferences on Mars heldin Washington, DC, in July 1986 under the auspices of NASA. Walter Sullivan reported in The New York Times, scientists expressed the belief that ' 'there is enough water hiddenin the crust of Mars to theoretically flood the entire planet toan average depth of at least 1,000 feet." Arizona State University scientists working for NASA advised Soviet scientists in charge of their country's Mars landing projects that somedeep Martian canyons may still have flowing water in theirdepths, or at least just below the dry riverbeds.
What had started out as a dry and barren planet has emerged, in the past decade, as a planet where water was once abundant—not just passively lying about but flowing and gushing and shaping the planet's features. Mars has joined Venus andEarth in corroborating the concept of the Sumerian texts ofwater "below the Firmament," on the inner planets. 
The ancient assertion that the asteroid belt separated thewaters that were below the Firmament from those that were above it implies that there was water on the celestial bodiesthat are located farther out. We have already reviewed thelatest discoveries of Voyager 2 that confirm the Sumerian de- scription of Uranus and Neptune as "watery." What about the other two celestial bodies that are orbiting between those twoouter planets and the asteroid belt, Saturn and Jupiter?
Saturn itself, a gaseous giant whose volume is more thaneight hundred times greater than that of Earth, has not yet beenpenetrated down to its surface—assuming it has, somewhere below its vast atmosphere of hydrogen and helium, a solid orliquid core. But its various moons as well as its breathtaking rings (Fig. 18) are now known to be made, if not wholly then in large part, of water ice and perhaps even liquid water. 
Figure 18 
Originally, Earth-based observations of Saturn showed onlyseven rings; we now know from space probes that there aremany more, with thinner rings and thousands of ringlets fillingthe spaces between the seven major rings; all together theycreate the effect of a disk that, like a phonograph record, is "grooved" with rings and ringlets. The unmanned spacecraftPioneer 11 established in 1979 that the rings and ringlets consist of icy material, believed at the time to be small pieces of ice a few inches in diameter or as small as snowflakes. What was originally described as "a carousel of bright icy particles" was revealed, however, by the data from Voyager 1 and Voyager2 in 1980 and 1981 to consist of chunks of ice ranging fromboulder size to that of "big houses." We are seeing "a sea of 
sparkling ice," JPL's scientists said. The ice, at some primordial time, had been liquid water.
The several larger moons of Saturn at which the three space- craft, especially Voyager 2, took a peek, appeared to have much more water, and not only in the form of ice. Pioneer 11reported in 1979 that the group of inner moons of Saturn—Janus, Mimas, Enceladus, Tethys, Dione, and Rhea—appeared to be "icy bodies . . . consisting largely of ice." Voyager 1 confirmed in 1980 that these inner satellites as well asthe newly discovered moonlets were "spheres of ice." OnEnceladus, which was examined more closely, the indicationswere that its smooth plains resulted from the filling in of oldcraters with liquid water that had oozed up to the surface andthen frozen. 
Voyager 1 also revealed that Saturn's outer moons were ice covered. The moon lapetus, which puzzled astronomers because it showed dark and bright portions, was found to be "coated with water ice" in the bright areas. Voyager 2 confirmed in 1981 that lapetus was "primarily a ball of ice with some rock in its center." The data, Von R. Eshleman of Stanford University concluded, indicated that lapetus was 55 per- cent water ice, 35 percent rock, and 10 percent frozen methane.Saturn's largest moon, Titan—larger than the planet Mercury—was found to have an atmosphere and a surface rich inhydrocarbons. But under them there is a mantle of frozen ice,and some sixty miles farther down, as the internal heat of thiscelestial body increases, there is a thick layer of water slush.Farther down, it is now believed, there probably exists a layer of bubbling hot water more than 100 miles deep. All in all,the Voyagers' data suggested that Titan is 15 percent rock and85 percent water and ice.
Is Saturn itself a larger version of Titan, its largest moon?Future missions might provide the answer. For the time beingit is clear that wherever the modern instruments could reach— moons, moonlets, and rings—there was water everywhere.Saturn did not fail to confirm the ancient assertions. 
Jupiter was investigated by Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 and by the two Voyagers. The results were no different than atSaturn. The giant gaseous planet was found to emit immenseamounts of radiation and heat and to be engulfed by a thick atmosphere that is subject to violent storms. Yet even this 
Figure 19 
impenetrable envelope was found to be constituted primarilyof hydrogen, helium, methane, ammonia, water vapor, and probably droplets of water, somewhere farther down inside the thick atmosphere there is liquid water, the scientists have con- cluded. 
As with Saturn, the moons of Jupiter proved more fascinating, revealing, and surprising than the planet itself. Of the four Galilean moons, Io, the closest to Jupiter (Fig. 19), revealed totally unexpected volcanic activity. Although what thevolcanoes spew is mostly sulphur based, the erupted materialcontains some water. The surface of Io shows vast plains withtroughs running through them, as if they had been carved byrunning water. The consensus is that Io has "some internal sources of water.'' 
Europa, like Io, appears to be a rocky body, but its somewhatlower density suggests that it may contain more internal water 
than Io. Its surface shows a latticework of veinlike lines that suggested to the NASA teams shallow fissures in a sea of frozen ice. A close look at Europa by Voyager 2 revealed a layer ofmushy water ice under the cracked surface. At the December 1984 meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco, two scientists (David Reynolds and Steven Squyres) ofNASA's Ames Research Center suggested that under Europa'sice sheet there might exist warmer oases of liquid water thatcould sustain living organisms. After a reexamination of Voyager 2 photographs, NASA scientists tentatively concluded thatthe spacecraft witnessed volcanic eruptions of water and ammonia from the moon's interior. The belief now is that Europahas an ice covering several miles thick "overlaying an oceanof liquid water up to thirty miles deep, kept from freezing byradioactive decay and the friction of tidal forces."
Ganymede, the largest of Jupiter's moons, appears to be covered with water ice mixed with rock, suggesting it hasundergone moonquakes that have cracked its crust of frozen ice. It is thought to be made almost entirely of water ice, withan inner ocean of liquid water near its core. The fourth Galileanmoon, Callisto—about the size of the planet Mercury—alsohas an ice-rich crust; under it there are mush and liquid water surrounding a small, rocky core. Estimates are that Callisto ismore than 50 percent water. A ring discovered around Jupiter is also made mostly, it not wholly, of ice particles.
Modern science has confirmed the ancient assertion to the fullest: there indeed have been "waters above the Firmament." 
Jupiter is the Solar System's largest planet—as large as1,300 Earths. It contains some 90 percent of the mass of thecomplete planetary system of the Sun. As stated earlier, theSumerians called it KI.SHAR, "Foremost of the Firm Lands," of the planetary bodies. Saturn, though smaller than Jupiter,occupies a much larger portion of the heavens because of its rings, whose "disk" has a diameter of 670,000 miles. The Sumerians called it AN.SHAR, "Foremost of the Heavens." 
Evidently they knew what they were talking about. 
SEEING THE SUN 
When we can see the Sun with the naked eye, as at dawn or at sunset, it is a perfect disk. Even when viewed with telescopes, it has the shape of a perfect globe. Yet the Sumerians depicted it as a disk with a triangular rays extending from its round surface, as seen on cylinder seal VA/243 (Plate B and Fig. 6a). Why?
In 1980 astronomers of the High Altitude Observatory ofthe University of Colorado took pictures of the Sun with a special camera during an eclipse observed in India. The pictures revealed that because of magnetic influences, the Sun's corona gives it the appearance of a disk with triangular rays extending from its surface—just as the Sumerians had depicted millennia earlier.
In January 1983, I brought the "enigmatic representation" on the Sumerian cylinder seal to the attention of the editor of Scientific American, a journal that reported the astronomers' discovery. In response, the editor, Dennis Flanagan, wrote to me on January 27, 1983:
"Thank you for your letter of January 25."What you have to say is most interesting, and we may well be able to publish it."
"In addition to the many puzzles posed by this depiction," 1 had written in my letter, "foremost of which is the source of the Sumerian knowledge, is now their apparent familiarity with the true shape of the Sun's corona." 
Is it the need to acknowledge the source of Sumerian knowledge that is still holding up publication of what Scientific American has deemed "most interesting"? 

THE MESSENGERS OF GENESIS 
In 1986 Mankind was treated to a oncc-in-a-lifetime event: the appearance of a messenger from the past, a Messenger of Genesis. Its name was Halley's comet. 
One of many comets and other small objects that roam theheavens, Halley's comet is unique in many ways; among themis the fact that its recorded appearances have been traced tomillennia ago, as well as the fact that modern science was able,in 1986, to conduct for the first time a comprehensive, close-up examination of a comet and its core. The first fact underscores the excellence of ancient astronomy; because of the second, data was obtained that—-once again—corroborated ancient knowledge and the tales of Genesis.
The chain of scientific developments that led Edmund Hal- ley, who became British Astronomer Royal in 1720, to deter- mine, during the years 1695-1705, that the comet he observedin 1682 and that came to bear his name was a periodic one,the same that had been observed in 1531 and 1607, involved the promulgation of the laws of gravitation and celestial motionby Sir Isaac Newton and Newton's consulting with Halleyabout his findings. Until then the theory regarding comets wasthat they crossed the heavens in straight lines, appearing at oneend of the skies and disappearing in the other direction, neverto be seen again. But based on Newtonian laws, Halley concluded that the curve described by comets is elliptical, even- tually bringing these celestial bodies back to where they hadbeen observed before. The "three" comets of 1531, 1607, and 1682 were unusual in that they were all orbiting in the "wrong" direction—clockwise rather than counterclockwise; had similar deviations from the general orbital plane of the planets aroundthe Sun—being inclined about 17 to 18 degrees—and were 
61 
Figure 20 
similar in appearance. Concluding they were one and the samecomet, he plotted its course and calculated its period (the length of time between its appearances) to be about seventy-six years.He then predicted that it would reappear in 1758. He did not live long enough to see his prediction come true, but he washonored by having the comet named after him.
Like that of all celestial bodies, and especially because of a comet's small size, its orbit is easily perturbed by the grav- itational pull of the planets it passes (this is especially true of Jupiter's effect). Each time a comet nears the Sun, its frozenmaterial comes to life; the comet develops a head and a longtail and begins to lose some of its material as it turns to gas and vapor. All these phenomena affect the comet's orbit; therefore, although more precise measurements have somewhat narrowed the orbital range of Halley's comet from the seventy-four to seventy-nine years that he had calculated, the periodof seventy-six years is only a practical average; the actual orbitand its period must be recalculated each time the comet makes an appearance. 
With the aid of modern equipment, an average of five or six comets are reported each year; of them, one or two are cometson return trips, while the others are newly discovered. Mostof the returning comets are short-period ones, the shortest known being that of Encke's comet, which nears the Sun and then returns to a region slightly beyond the asteroid belt (Fig.20) in a little over three years. Most short-period comets av- erage an orbital period of about seven years, which carriesthem to the environs of Jupiter. Typical of them is comet Giacobini-Zinner (named, like other comets, after its discoverers), which has a period of 6 1/2 years; its latest passage withinEarth's view was in 1985. On the other hand there are the very-long-period comets like comet Kohoutek, which was discovered in March 1973, was fully visible in December 1973 and January 1974, and then disappeared from view, perhapsto return in 75,000 years. By comparison, the cycle of 76 yearsfor Halley's comet is short enough to remain in living mem- ories, yet long enough to retain its magic as a once-in-a-lifetime celestial event. 
When Halley's comet appeared on its next-to-last passagearound the Sun, in 1910, its course and aspects had been wellmapped out in advance (Fig. 21). Still, the Great Comet of 
Figure 21 Figure 22 
1910, as it was then hailed, was awaited with great apprehension. There was fear that Earth or life on it would not survive the anticipated passage because Earth would be enveloped in the comet's tail of poisonous gases. There was also alarm at the prospect that, as was believed in earlier times, the appearance of the comet would be an ill omen of pestilence,wars, and the death of kings. As the comet reached its greatest magnitude and brilliance in May of 1910, its tail stretchingover more than half the vault of heaven (Fig. 22), King EdwardVII of Great Britain died. On the European continent, a series 
of political upheavals culminated in the outbreak of World WarI in 1914. 
The belief, or superstition, associating Halley's comet with wars and upheavals was fed by much that was coming to lightabout events that coincided with its previous appearances. TheSeminole Indians' revolt against the white settlers of Florida in 1835, the Great Lisbon Earthquake of 1755, the outbreakof the Thirty Years' War in 1618, the Turkish siege of Belgradein 1456, the outbreak of the Black Death (bubonic plague) in1347—all were accompanied or preceded by the appearanceof a great comet, which was finally recognized as Halley's Comet, thus establishing its role as the messenger of God's wrath. 
Figure 23 
Whether divinely ordained or not, the coincidence of thecomet's appearance in conjunction with major historic events seems to grow the more we go back in time. One of the mostcelebrated appearances of a comet, definitely Halley's, is that of 1066, during the Battle of Hastings in which the Saxons,under King Harold, were defeated by William the Conqueror. The comet was depicted (Fig. 23) on the famous Bayeux tap- estry, which is thought to have been commissioned by Queen 
Figure 24 
Matilda, wife of William the Conqueror, to illustrate his victory. The inscription next to the comet's tail, Isti mirant stella, means, "They are in awe of the star," and refers to the de- piction of King Harold tottering on his throne.
The year A.D. 66 is considered by astronomers one in which Halley's comet made an appearance; they base their conclusion sion on at least two contemporary Chinese observations. Thatwas the year in which the Jews of Judea launched their GreatRevolt against Rome. The Jewish historian Josephus (Wars of the Jews, Book VI) blamed the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of its holy Temple on the misinterpretation by the Jews of the heavenly signs that preceded the revolt: "a starresembling a sword which stood over the city, a comet that continued a whole year."
Until recently the earliest certain record of the observation of a comet was found in the Chinese Chronological Tables ofShih-chi for the year 467 B.C., in which the pertinent entryreads, "During the tenth year of Ch'in Li-kung a broom-starwas seen." Some believe a Greek inscription refers to the samecomet in that year. Modern astronomers are not sure that the467 B.C. Shih-chi entry refers to Halley's comet; they are moreconfident regarding a Shih-chi entry for the year 240 B.C. (Fig.24). In April 1985, F. R. Stephenson, K. K. C. Yau, and H. Hunger reported in Nature that a reexamination of Babylonianastronomical tablets that had been lying in the basement of theBritish Museum since their discovery in Mesopotamia morethan a century ago, shows that the tablets recorded the appearance of extraordinary celestial bodies—probably comets,they said—in the years 164 B.C. and 87 B.C. The periodicityof seventy-seven years suggested to these scholars that the unusual celestial bodies were Halley's comet. 
The year 164 B.C., as none of the scholars who have beenpreoccupied with Halley's comet have realized, was of great significance in Jewish and Near Eastern history. It was the veryyear in which the Jews of Judea, under the leadership of theMaccabees, revolted against Greek-Syrian domination, recaptured Jerusalem, and purified the defiled Temple. The Temple rededication ceremony is celebrated to this day by Jews as the festival of Hanukkah ("Rededication"). The 164 B.C. tablet (Fig. 25), numbered WA-41462 in the British Museum, isclearly dated to the relevant year in the reign of the Seleucid(Greek-Syrian) king Antiochus Epiphanes, the very evil KingAntiochus of the Books of Maccabees. The unusual celestial object, which the three scholars believe was Halley's comet, is reported to have been seen in the Babylonian month of Kislimu, which is the Jewish month Kislev and, indeed, the one in which Hanukkah is celebrated. 
Figure 25 
In another instance, the comparison by Josephus of the cometto a celestial sword (as it seems to be depicted also inthe Bayeux tapestry) has led some scholars to suggest that theAngel of the Lord that King David saw "standing between the earth and heaven, having a sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem'' (I Chronicles 21:16) might have been in reality Halley's comet, sent by the Lord to punish the king for havingconducted a prohibited census. The time of this incident, circa1000 B.C., coincides with one of the years in which Halley'scomet should have appeared.
In an article published in 1986,1 pointed out that the Hebrew name for "comet" is Kokhav shavit, a "Scepler star." Thishas a direct bearing, I wrote, on the biblical tale of the seerBilam. When the Israelites ended their wanderings in the desertafter the Exodus and began the conquest of Canaan, the Moa-bite king summoned Bilam to curse the Israelites. But Bilam,realizing that the Israelite advance was divinely ordained, blessed them instead. He did so, he explained (Numbers24:17), because he was shown a celestial vision: 
I see it, though not now;
I behold it, though it is not near: 
A star of Jacob did course, 
A scepter of Israel did arise.

In The Stairway to Heaven I provided a chronology that fixed the date of the Exodus at 1433 B.C.; the Israelite entryinto Canaan began forty years later, in 1393 B.C. Halley's comet, at an interval of 76 or 77 years, would have appearedcirca 1390 B.C. Did Bilam consider that event as a divine signalthat the Israelite advance could not and should not be stopped?If, in biblical times, the comet we call Halley's was considered the Scepter Star of Israel, it could explain why the Jewish revolts of 164 B.C. and A.D. 66 were timed to coincide with the comet's appearances. It is significant that in spite of the crushing defeat of the Judean revolt by the Romans in A.D. 66, the Jews took up arms again some seventy years later ina heroic effort to free Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple. The leader of that revolt, Shimeon Bar Kosiba, was renamed bythe religious leaders Bar Kokhba, "Son of the Star," specifically because of the above-quoted verses in Numbers 24.
One can only guess whether the revolt the Romans put down after three years, in A.D. 135, was also intended as was the Maccabean one, to achieve the rededication of the Temple bythe time of the return of Halley's comet, in A.D. 142. The realization that we, in 1986, have seen and experienced thereturn of a majestic celestial body that had great historic impactin the past, should send a shudder down some spines, mineamong them.
How far back does this messenger of the past go? According 
Figure 26 
to the Sumerian creation epics, it goes all the way back to the time of the Celestial Battle. Halley's comet and its like are truly the Messengers of Genesis. 
The Solar System, astronomers and physicists believe, was formed out of a primordial cloud of gaseous matter; like everything else in the universe, it was in constant motion—circling about its galaxy (the Milky Way) and rotating around its own center of gravity. Slowly the cloud spread as it cooled; slowlythe center became a star (our Sun) and the planets coalescedout of the rotating disc of gaseous matter. Thenceforth, the motion of all parts of the Solar System retained the originaldirection of the primordial cloud, anticlockwise. The planets orbit the Sun in the same direction as did the original nebula;so do their satellites, or moons; so should also the debris that either did not coalesce or that resulted from the disintegration of bodies such as comets and asteroids. Everything must keepgoing anticlockwise. Everything must also remain within the plane of the original disk, which is called the Ecliptic. 
Nibiru/Marduk did not conform to all that. Its orbit, as previously reviewed, was retrograde—in the opposite direction, clockwise. Its effect on Pluto—which according to theSumerian texts was GA.GA and was shifted by Nibiru to itspresent orbit, which is not within the ecliptic but inclined 17degrees to it—suggests that Nibiru itself followed an inclinedpath. Sumerian instructions for its observation, fully discussedin The 12th Planet, indicate that relative to the ecliptic it arrivedfrom the southeast, from under the ecliptic; formed an arcabove the ecliptic; then plunged back below the ecliptic in itsjourney back to where it had come from.
Amazingly, Halley's comet shows the same characteristics, and except for the fact that its orbit is so much smaller thanthat of Nibiru (currently about 76 years compared with Nibiru' s 3,600 Earth-years), an illustration of Halley's orbit (Fig. 26) could give us a good idea of Nibiru's inclined and retrograde path. Looking at Halley's comet, we see a miniature Nibiru! This orbital similarity is but one of the aspects that make thiscomet, and others too, messengers from the past—not onlythe historic past, but all the way back to Genesis.
Halley's comet is not alone in having an orbit markedly inclined to the ecliptic (a feature measured as an angle ofDeclination) and a retrograde direction. Nonperiodic comets—comets whose paths form not ellipses but parabolas or even hyperbolas and whose orbits are so vast and whose limits are so far away they cannot even be calculated—have marked declinations, and about half of them move in a retrogradedirection. Of about 600 periodic comets (which are now giventhe letter "P" in front of their name) that have been classifiedand catalogued, about 500 have orbital periods longer than 200years; they all have declinations more akin to that of Halley's than to the greater declinations of the nonperiodic comets, andmore than half of them course in retrograde motion. Comets with medium orbital periods (between 200 and 20 years) andshort periods (under 20 years) have a mean declination of 18degrees, and some, like Halley's, have retained the retrograde motion in spite of the immense gravitational effects of Jupiter.It is noteworthy that of recently discovered comets, the one designated P/Hartley-IRAS (1983v) has an orbital period of21 years, and its orbit is both retrograde and inclined to theecliptic. 
Where do comets come from, and what causes their odd orbits, of which the retrograde direction is the oddest in as- tronomers' eyes? In the 1820s the Marquis Pierre-Simon deLaplace believed that comets were made of ice and that their glowing head ("coma") and tail that formed as they neared the Sun, were both made of vaporized ice. This concept wasreplaced after the discovery of the extent and nature of the asteroid belt, and theories developed that comets were "flyingsandbanks"—pieces of rock that might be the remains of a disintegrated planet. The thinking changed again in the 1950s mainly because of two hypotheses: Fred L. Whipple (then at Harvard) suggested that comets were "dirty snowballs" of ice (mainly water ice) mixed with darker specks of sandlike ma- terial; and Jan Oort, a Dutch astronomer, proposed that long-period comets come from a vast reservoir halfway between the Sun and the nearer stars. Because comets appear from all directions (traveling prograde, or anticlockwise; retrograde; andat different declinations), the reservoir of comets—billions ofthem—is not a belt or ring like the asteroid belt or the ringsof Saturn but a sphere that surrounds the Solar System. This"Oort Cloud," as the concept came to be named, settled at a mean distance, Oort calculated, of 100,000 astronomical units (AU) from the Sun, one AU being the average distance (93 million miles) of the Earth from the Sun. Because of perturbations and intercometal collisions, some of the cometary hordemay have come closer, to only 50,000 AU from the Sun (which is still ten thousand times the distance of Jupiter from the Sun).Passing stars occasionally perturb these comets and send them flying toward the Sun. Some, under the gravitational influenceof the planets, mainly Jupiter, become medium-or short-periodcomets; some, especially influenced by the mass of Jupiter,are forced into reversing their course (Fig. 27). This, briefly,is how the Oort Cloud concept is usually stated.
Since the 1950s the number of observed comets has increased by more than 50 percent, and computer technology has madepossible the projection backward of cometary motions to determine their source. Such studies, as one by a team at the Harvard-Smithsonian Observatory under Brian G. Marsden, have shown that of 200 observed comets with periods of 250 years or more, no more than 10 percent could have entered the 
Figure 27 
Solar System from outer space; 90 percent have always beenbound to the Sun as the focus of their orbits. Studies of cometary velocities have shown, in the words of Fred L. Whipple in his book, The Mystery of Comets, that "if we are reallyseeing comets coming from the void, we should expect themto fly by much faster than just 0.8 kilometers per second,"which they do not. His conclusion is that "with few exceptions,comets belong to the Sun's family and are gravitationally at- tached to it." 
"During the past few years, astronomers have questionedthe simple view of Oort's Cloud," stated Andrew Theokas of Boston University in the New Scientist (February 11, 1988);"astronomers still believe that the Oort Cloud exists, but the new results demand that they reconsider its size and shape. 
They even reopen the questions about the origin of the OortCloud and whether it contains "new' comets that have come from interstellar space." As an alternative idea Theokas mentions that of Mark Bailey of the University of Manchester, who suggested that most comets "reside relatively close to the Sun, just beyond the orbits of the planets." Is it perhaps, one mayask, where Nibiru/Marduk's "distant abode"—its aphelion—is? 
The interesting aspect of the "reconsideration" of the Oort Cloud notion and the new data suggesting that comets, by andlarge, have always been part of the Solar System and not just outsiders occasionally thrust into it, is that Jan Oort himselfhad said so. The existence of a cloud of comets in interstellar space was his solution to the problem of parabolic and hyperbolic cometal orbits, not the theory he had developed. In thestudy that made him and the Oort Cloud famous ("The Structure of the Cloud of Comets Surrounding the Solar System anda Hypothesis Concerning its Origin," Bulletin of the Astronomical Institutions of the Netherlands vol. 11, January 13,1950) Oort's new theory was called by him a "hypothesis ofa common origin of comets and minor planets" (i.e., aster-oids). The comets are out there, he suggested, not becausethey were "born" there but because they were thrust out tothere. They were fragments of larger objects, "diffused away" by the perturbations of the planets and especially by Jupiter—just as more recently the Pioneer spacecraft were made to flyoff into space by the "slingshot" effects of Jupiter's and Saturn's gravitation.
"The main process now," Oort wrote, "is the inverse one, that of a slow transfer of comets from a large cloud into short-period orbits. But at the epoch at which the minor planets(asteroids) were formed . . . the trend must have been the opposite, many more objects being transferred from the asteroidregion to the comet cloud. ... It appears far more probable thatinstead of having originated in the faraway regions, cometswere born among the planets. It is natural to think in the firstplace of a relation with the minor planets (asteroids). There are indications that the two classes of objects"—comets andasteroids—"belong to the same 'species.' . . . It seems reasonable to assume that the comets originated together with the minor planets." Summing up his study, Oort put it this way: 
The existence of the huge cloud of comets finds a naturalexplanation if comets (and meteorites) are considered asminor planets escaped, at an early stage of the planetarysystem, from the ring of asteroids. 
It all begins to sound like the Enuma elish. . . . 
Placing the origin of the comets within the asteroid belt andconsidering both comets and asteroids as belonging to the same"species" of celestial objects—objects of a common birth— still leaves open the questions: How were these objects created?What gave "birth" to them? What "diffused" the comets? What gave comets their inclinations and retrograde motions?
A major and outspoken study on the subject was made publicin 1978 by Thomas C. Van Flandern of the U.S. Naval Observatory, Washington, D.C. (Icarus, 36). He titled the study,"A Former Asteroidal Planet as the Origin of Comets," and openly subscribed to the nineteenth-century suggestions thatthe asteroids, and the comets, come from a former planet thathad exploded. It is noteworthy that in the references to Oort's work, Van Flandern picked out its true essence: "Even the father of the modern 'cloud of comets' theory was led to conclude," Van Flandern wrote, "on the basis of evidence then available, that a solar system origin for these comets, perhaps in connection with 'the occurrence which gave birth to the beltof asteroids,' was still the least objectionable hypothesis." He also referred to studies, begun in 1972, by Michael W. Oven-den, a noted Canadian astronomer who introduced the conceptof a "principle of least interaction action," a corollary of which was the suggestion that "there had existed, between Mars andJupiter, a planet of a mass of about 90 times that of Earth, andthat this planet had 'disappeared' in the relatively recent past, about 107 [10,000,000] years ago." This, Ovenden further explained in 1975 ("Bode's Law—Truth or Consequences?"vol. 18, Vistas in Astronomy), is the only way to meet the requirement that "the cosmogonic theory must be capable ofproducing retrograde as well as direct" celestial motions.
Summarizing his findings, Van Flandern said thus in 1978: 
The principal conclusion of this paper is that the comets
originated in a breakup event in the inner solar system. 
In all probability it was the same event which gave rise
to the asteroid belt and which produced most of the me- 
teors visible today. 
He said that it was less certain that the same "breakup event"may have also given birth to the satellites of Mars and theouter satellites of Jupiter, and he estimated that the "breakupevent" occurred five million years ago. He had no doubt,however, that the "breakup event" took place "in the asteroidbelt." Physical, chemical, and dynamic properties of the re- sulting celestial bodies, he stated emphatically, indicate "that a large planet did disintegrate'' where the asteroid belt is today.
But what caused this large planet to disintegrate? "The mostfrequently asked question about this scenario," Van Flandern wrote, "is 'how can a planet blow up?'... There is presently,"he conceded, "no satisfactory answer to this question." 
No satisfactory answer, that is, except the Sumerian one: the tale of Tiamat and Nibiru/Marduk, the Celestial Battle,the breakup of half of Tiamat, the annihilation of its moons(except for "Kingu"), and the forcing of their remains into a retrograde orbit...
A key criticism of the destroyed-planet theory has been the problem of the whereabouts of the planet's matter; when astronomers estimate the total mass of the known asteroids and comets it adds up to only a fraction of the estimated mass ofthe broken-up planet. This is especially true if Ovenden's estimate of a planet with a mass ninety times that of Earth isused in the calculations. Ovenden's response to such criticismhas been that the missing mass was probably swept up byJupiter; his own calculations (Monthly Notes of the Royal Astronomical Society, 173, 1975) called for an increase in the mass of Jupiter by as much as 130 Earth-masses as a result ofthe capture of asteroids, including Jupiter's several retrograde moons. To allow for the discrepancy between the mass (ninetytimes that of Earth) of the broken-up planet and the accretionof 130 Earth-sized masses to Jupiter, Ovenden cited other studies that concluded that Jupiter's mass had decreased some time in its past.
Rather than to first inflate the size of Jupiter and then shrinkit back, a better scenario would be to shrink the estimated size of the destroyed planet. That is what the Sumerian texts have 
put forth. If Earth is the remaining half of Tiamal, then Tiamatwas roughly twice the size of Earth, not ninety times. Studiesof the asteroid belt reveal not only capture by Jupiter but adispersion of the asteroids from their assumed original site atabout 2.8 AU to a zone so wide that it occupies the space between 1.8 AU and 4 AU. Some asteroids are found between Jupiter and Saturn; a recently discovered one (2060 Chiron) islocated between Saturn and Uranus at 13.6 AU. The smashupof the destroyed planet must have been, therefore, extremelyforceful—as in a catastrophic collision.
In addition to the voids between groups of asteroids, astronomers discern gaps within the clusters of asteroids (Fig. 28). The latest theories hold that there had been asteroids inthe gaps but they were ejected, all the way to outer space except for those that may have been captured on the way bythe gravitational forces of the outer planets; also, the asteroidsthat used to be in the "gaps" were probably destroyed "by catastrophic collisions"! (McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of As- tronomy, 1983). In the absence of valid explanations for suchejections and catastrophic collisions, the only plausible theoryis that offered by the Sumerian texts, which describe the orbitof Nibiru/Marduk as a vast, elliptical path that brings it periodically (every 3,600 Earth years, by my calculations) backinto the asteroid belt. As Figures 10 and 11 show, the conclusion drawn from the ancient texts was that Nibiru/Marduk 
Figure 28 
passed by Tiamat on her outer, or Jupiter, side; repeated returnsto that celestial zone can account for the size of the "gap"there. It is the periodic return of Nibiru/Marduk that causesthe "ejecting" and "sweeping."
By the acknowledgment of the existence of Nibiru and itsperiodic return to the Place of the Battle, the puzzle of the"missing matter" finds a solution. It also addresses the theories that place the accretions of mass by Jupiter at a relatively recenttime (millions, not billions, of years ago). Depending on whereJupiter was at the times of Nibiru's perihelion, the accretions might have occurred during various passages of Nibiru and notnecessarily as a one-and-only event at the time of the cata- strophic breakup of Tiamat. Indeed, spectrographic studies ofasteroids reveal that some of them "were heated within the first few hundred million years after the origin of the solar system" by heat so intense as to melt them; "iron sank to their centers, forming strong stony-iron cores, while basaltic lavas floated to their surface, producing minor planets like Vesta"(McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Astronomy). The suggestedtime of the catastrophe is the very time indicated in The 12thPlanet—some 500 million years after the formation of the Solar System. 
Recent scientific advances in astronomy and astrophysics gobeyond corroborating the Sumerian cosmogony in regard to the celestial collision as the common origin of the cometsand the asteroids, the site of that collision (where the remainsof the asteroid belt still orbit), or even the time of the cata- strophic event (about 4 billion years ago). They also corroborate the ancient texts in the vital matter of water. 
The presence of water, the mingling of waters, the separationof waters—all somehow played an important role in the taleof Tiamat, Nibiru/Marduk, and the Celestial Battle and itsaftermath. Part of the puzzle was already answered when weshowed that the ancient notion of the asteroid belt as a divider of the waters "above" and the water "below" is corroborated by modern science. But there was more to this preoccupation with water. Tiamat was described as a "watery monster," andthe Mesopotamian texts speak of the handling of her watersby Nibiru/Marduk: 
Half of her he stretched as a ceiling to be Sky,
As a bar at the Place of Crossing he posted it to guard;
Not to allow her waters to escape was its command. 
The concept of an asteroid belt not only as a divider between the waters of the planets above and below it but also as a "guardian" of Tiamat's own waters is echoed in the biblical verses of Genesis, where the explanation is given that the "Hammered-out bracelet" was also called Shama'im, the place "where the waters were." References to the waters where the Celestial Battle and the creation of the Earth and the Shama'im took place are frequent in the Old Testament, indicating millennia-old familiarity with Sumerian cosmogony even at the time of the Prophets and Judean kings. An example is foundin Psalm 104, which depicts the Creator as the Lord 
Who has stretched out the Shama'im as a curtain, 
Who in the waters for His ascents put a ceiling. 
These verses are almost a word-for-word copy of the versesin Enuma dish; in both instances, the placing of the asteroidbelt "where the waters were" followed the earlier acts of the splitting up of Tiamat and having the invader's "wind" thrust the half that became Earth into a new orbit. The waters of Earth would explain the whereabouts of some or most of Tiamat's waters. But what about the remains of her other part andof her satellites? If the asteroids and comets are those remains, should they not also contain water?
What would have been a preposterous suggestion when these objects were deemed "chunks of debris" and "flying sandbanks" has turned out, as the result of recent discoveries, to be not so preposterous: the asteroids are celestial objects inwhich water—yes, water—is a major component.
Most asteroids belong to two classes. About 15 percent belong to the S type, which have reddish surfaces made up ofsilicates and metallic iron. About 15 percent are of the C type: they are carbonaceous (containing carbon), and it is these thathave been found to contain water. The water discovered in such asteroids (through spectrographic studies) is not in liquid form; since asteroids have no atmospheres, any water on their surface would quickly dissipate. But the presence of watermolecules in the surface materials indicates that the minerals that make up the asteroid have captured water and combinedwith it. Direct confirmation of this finding was observed in August 1982, when a small asteroid that came too close to Earth plunged into the Earth's atmosphere and disintegrated;it was seen as "a rainbow with a long tail going across the sky." A rainbow appears when sunlight falls on a collectionof water drops, such as rain, fog, or spray.
When the asteroid is more like what its name originally implied, "minor planet," actual water in liquid form couldwell be present. Examination of the infrared spectrum of the largest and first-to-be-discovered asteroid Ceres shows an extra dip in the spectral readings that is the result of free water rather than water bound to minerals. Since free water even on Ceres will quickly evaporate, the astronomers surmise that Ceres must have a constant source of water welling up from its interior. "If that source has been there throughout the career ofCeres," wrote the British astronomer Jack Meadows (SpaceGarbage—Cornels, Meteors and Other Solar-System Debris),"then it must have started life as a very wet lump of rock."He pointed out that carbonaceous meteorites also "show signs of having been extensively affected by water in times past."
The celestial body designated 2060 Chiron, interesting in many ways, also confirms the presence of water in the remnants of the Celestial Battle. When Charles Kowal of the Hale Ob- servatories on Mount Palomar, California, discovered it in November 1977, he was not certain what it was. He simplyreferred to it as a planetoid, named it temporarily "O-K" for "Object Kowal," and opined that it might be a wayward sat- ellite of either Saturn or Uranus. Several weeks of follow-up studies revealed an orbit much more elliptical than that of planets or planetoids, one closer to that of comets. By 1981 the object was determined to be an asteroid, perhaps one ofothers to be found reaching as far out as Uranus, Neptune orbeyond, and was given the designation 2060 Chiron. However,by 1989, further observations by astronomers at Kitt Peak National Observatory (Arizona) detected an extended atmo- sphere of carbon dioxide and dust around Chiron, suggesting that it is more cometlike. The latest observations have also 
established that Chiron "is essentially a dirty snowball com- posed of water, dust and carbon-dioxide ice."
If Chiron proves to be more a comet than an asteroid, it willonly serve as further evidence that both classes of these remnants of the Genesis event contain water. 
When a comet is far away from the Sun, it is a dark andinvisible object. As it nears the Sun, the Sun's radiation brings the comet's nucleus to life. It develops a gaseous head (the coma) and then a tail made up of gases and dust ejected bythe nucleus as it heats up. It is the observation of these emis- sions that has by and large confirmed Whipple's view of comets as "dirty snowballs," first by determining that the onset ofactivity in comets as the nucleus begins to heat up is consistentwith the thermodynamic properties of water ice, and then byspectroscopic analysis of the gaseous emissions, which have invariably shown the presence of the compound H2O (i.e.,water).
The presence of water in comets has been definitely established in recent years through enhanced examination of arriving comets. Comet Kohoutek (1974) was studied not only from Earth but also with rockets, from orbiting manned spacecraft(Skylab), and from the Mariner 10 spacecraft that was on itsway to Venus and Mercury. The findings, it was reported at the time, provided "the first direct proof of water" in a comet."The water finding, as well as that of two complex molecules in the comet's tail, are the most significant to date," statedStephen P. Moran, who directed the scientific project for NASA. And all scientists concurred with the evaluation byastrophysicists at the Max Planck Institute for Physics and Astrophysics in Munich that was seen were "the oldest and essentially unchanged specimens of the material from the birthof the Solar System."
Subsequent cometary observations confirmed these findings. However, none of those studies, accomplished with a varietyof instruments, match the intensity with which Halley's comet was probed in 1986. The Halley findings established unequivocally that the comet was a watery celestial body.
Apart from several only partly successful efforts by the United States to examine the comet from a distance, Halley's comet was met by a virtual international welcoming flotilla of 
Figure 29 
five spacecraft, all unmanned. The Soviets directed to a CometHalley rendezvous Vega 1 and Vega 2 (Fig. 29a), the Japanesesent the spacecraft Sakigake and Suisei, and the EuropeanSpace Agency launched Giotto (Fig. 29b)—so named in honorof the Florentine master painter Giotto di Bondone (fourteenth century), who was so enchanted by Halley's comet when it appeared in his time that he included it, streaking across the 
sky, in his famous fresco Adoration of the Magi, suggestingthat this comet was the Star of Bethlehem in the tale of the birth of Christ (Fig. 30).
As intensive observations began when Halley's comet de- veloped its coma and tail in November 1985, astronomers atthe Kitt Peak Observatory tracking the comet with telescopesreported it was certain "that the comet's dominant constituent is water ice, and that much of the tenuous 360,000-mile-wide cloud surrounding it consisted of water vapor." A statement by Susan Wyckoff of Arizona State University claimed that 
Figure 30 
"this was the first strong evidence that water ice was preva- lent." These telescopic observations were augmented in Jan- uary 1986 by infrared observations from high-altitude aircraft,whereupon a team made up of NASA scientists and astrono- mers from several American universities announced "direct confirmation that water was a major constituent of Halley's comet." 
By January 1986, Halley's comet had developed an immensetail and a halo of hydrogen gas that measured 12.5 millionmiles across—fifteen times bigger than the diameter of the Sun. It was then that NASA's engineers commanded the spacecraft Pioneer-Venus (which was orbiting Venus) to turn its instruments toward the nearing comet (at its perihelion Halley'spassed between Venus and Mercury). The spacecraft's spectrometer, which "sees" the atoms of its subject, revealed that"the comet was losing 12 tons of water per second." As itneared perihelion on March 6, 1986, Ian Stewart, the directorof NASA's Halley's project at the Ames Research Center, reported that the rate of water loss "increased enormously," first to 30 tons a second and then to 70 tons a second; he assured the press, however, that even at this rate Halley's comethad "enough water ice to last thousands of more orbits."
The close encounters with Halley's comet began on March6, 1986, when Vega 1 plunged through Halley's radiant atmosphere and, from a distance of less than 6,000 miles, sentthe first-ever pictures of its icy core. The press dutifully notedthat what Mankind was seeing was the nucleus of a celestialbody that had evolved when the Solar System began. On March9, Vega 2 flew within 5,200 miles of Halley's nucleus and confirmed the findings of Vega 1. The spacecraft also revealedthat the comet's "dust" contained chunks of solid matter, some boulder size, and that this heavier crust or layer enveloped anucleus where the temperature—almost 90 million miles fromthe Sun—was a hot 85 degrees Fahrenheit.
The two Japanese spacecraft, designed to study the effect of the solar wind on the comet's tail and the comet's huge hydrogen cloud, were targeted to pass at substantial distancesfrom Halley's. But Giotto's mission was to meet the comet virtually head-on, swooping at an immense encounter speedwithin 300 mites from the comet's core. On March 14 (Eu
ropean time), Giotto streaked past the heart of Halley's comet and revealed a "mysterious nucleus," its color blacker than coal, its size bigger than had been thought (about half the sizeof Manhattan Island). The shape of the nucleus was rough andirregular (Fig. 31), some describing it as "two peas in a pod" and some as an irregularly shaped "potato." From the nucleusfive main jets were emitting streams of dust and 80 percent water vapor, indicating that within the carbonaceous crust the comet contained "melted ice"—liquid water. 
Figure 31 
The first comprehensive review of the results of all these close-up observations was published in Nature's special supplement of 15-21 May, 1986. In the series of very detailed reports, the Soviet team confirmed the first findings that water (H2O) is the comet's major component, followed by carbon and hydrogen compounds. The Giotto report stated repeatedlythat "H2O is the dominant parent molecule in Halley's coma," and that "water vapor accounts for about 80% of the volumeof gases escaping from the comet." These preliminary con- clusions were reaffirmed in October 1986, at an international 
conference in Heidelberg, West Germany. And in December 1986, scientists at the John Hopkins University announced thatevaluation of data collected in March 1986 by the small Earth-orbiting satellite IUE (International Ultraviolet Explorer) re- vealed an explosion on Hailey's Comet that blew 100 cubicfeet of ice out of the comet's nucleus. 
There was water everywhere on these Messengers of Genesis! 
Studies have shown that comets coming in from the cold"come to life" as they reach a distance of between 3 to 2.5AU, and that water is the first substance to unfreeze there. Little significance has been given to the fact that this distancefrom the Sun is the zone of the asteroid belt, and one must wonder whether it is there that comets come to life because it is where they were born—whether water comes to life there because there is where it had been, on Tiamat and her wateryhost ___ 
In the discoveries concerning the comets and the asteroids, something else came to life: the ancient knowledge of Sumer. 
CELESTIAL "SEEING EYES" 
When the Anunnaki's Mission Earth reached its full complement, there were six hundred of them on Earth, while three hundred remained in orbit, servicing the shuttle craft. The Sumerian term for the latter was IGI.GI, literally "Those who observe and see." 
Archaeologists have found in Mesopotamia many objects they call "eye idols" (a), as well as shrines dedicated to these "gods" (b). Texts refer to devices used by the Anunnaki to "scan the Earth from end to end." These texts and depictions imply the use by the Anunnaki of Earth-orbiting, celestial "seeing eyes"—satellites that "observe and see." 
Perhaps it is no coincidence that some of the Earth-scanning, and especially fixed-position communications satellites launched in our own modern times, such as Intelsat- IV and Intelsat IV-A (c, d), look so much like these millennia-old depictions. 

GAIA: THE CLEAVED PLANET 
Why do we call our planet "Earth"?
In German it is Erde, from Erda in Old High German; Jordhin Icelandic, Jord in Danish. Erthe in Middle English, Airtha in Gothic; and going eastward geographically and backward intime, Ereds or Aratha in Aramaic, Erd or Ertz in Kurdish, Eretz in Hebrew. The sea we nowadays call the Arabian Sea,the body of water that leads to the Persian Gulf, was called inantiquity the Sea of Erythrea; and to this day, ordu means anencampment or settlement in Persian. Why?
The answer lies in the Sumerian texts that relate the arrival of the first group of Anunnaki/Nefilim on Earth. There were fifty of them, under the leadership of E.A ("Whose Home isWater"), a great scientist and the Firstborn son of the ruler ofNibiru, ANU. They splashed down in the Arabian Sea andwaded ashore to the edge of the marshlands that, after theclimate warmed up, became the Persian Gulf (Fig. 32). Andat the head of the marshlands they established their first settlement on a new planet; it was called by them E.RI.DU— "Home In the Faraway"—a most appropriate name.
And so it was that in time the whole settled planet came tobe called after that first settlement—Erde, Erthe, Earth. To this day, whenever we call our planet by its name, we invoke the memory of that first settlement on Earth; unknowingly, weremember Eridu and honor the first group of Anunnaki whoestablished it. 
The Sumerian scientific or technical term for Earth's globe and its firm surface was KI. Pictographically it was representedas a somewhat flattened orb (Fig. 33a) crossed by vertical linesnot unlike modern depictions of meridians (Fig. 33b). SinceEarth does indeed bulge somewhat at its equator, the Sumerian 
88 Figure 32 
Figure 33 
representation is more correct scientifically than the usual modern way of depicting Earth as a perfect globe. . . .
After Ea had completed the establishment of the first five of the seven original settlements of the Anunnaki, he was giventhe title/epithet EN.KI, "Lord of Earth." But the term KI, as a root or verb, was applied to the planet called "Earth" for a reason. It conveyed the meaning "to cut off, to sever, to hollowout." Its derivatives illustrate the concept: KI.LA meant "excavation," KI.MAH "tomb," KI.IN.DAR ''crevice, fissure." In Sumerian astronomical texts the term KI was prefixed with the determinative MUL ("celestial body"). And thus when they spoke of mul.KI, they conveyed the meaning, "the ce- lestial body that had been cleaved apart."
By calling Earth KI, the Sumerians thus invoked their cosmogony—the tale of the Celestial Battle and the cleaving of Tiamat. 
Unaware of its origin we continue to apply this descriptive epithet to our planet to this very day. The intriguing fact isthat over time (the Sumerian civilization was two thousand years old by the time Babylon arose) the pronunciation of theterm ki changed to gi, or sometimes ge. It was so carried into the Akkadian and its linguistic branches (Babylonian, Assyrian, Hebrew), at all times retaining its geographic or topographic connotation as a cleavage, a ravine, a deep valley.Thus the biblical term that through Greek translations of the Bible is read Gehenna stems from the Hebrew Gai-Hinnom, the crevicelike narrow ravine outside Jerusalem named after Hinnom, where divine retribution shall befall the sinners via an erupting subterranean fire on Judgment Day.
We have been taught in school that the component geo inall the scientific terms applied to Earth sciences—geo-graphy,goo-metry, geo-logy, and so on—comes from the Greek Gaia(or Gaea), their name for the goddess of Earth. We were nottaught where the Greeks picked up this term or what its realmeaning was. The answer is, from the Sumerian KI or GI.
Scholars agree that the Greek notions of primordial eventsand of the gods were borrowed from the Near East, throughAsia Minor (at whose western edge early Greek settlementslike Troy were located) and via the island of Crete in the easternMediterranean. According to Greek tradition Zeus, who was 
Figure 34 
the chief god of the twelve Olympians, arrived on the Greekmainland via Crete, whence he had fled after abducting the beautiful Europa, daughter of the Phoenician king of Tyre.Aphrodite arrived from the Near East via the island of Cyprus.Poseidon (whom the Romans called Neptune) came on horseback via Asia Minor, and Athena brought the olive to Greecefrom the lands of the Bible. There is no doubt that the Greek alphabet developed from a Near Eastern one (Fig. 34). Cyrus 
H. Gordon (Forgotten Scripts: Evidence for the Minoan Language and other works) deciphered the enigmatic Cretan scriptknown as Linear A by showing that it represented a Semitic,Near Eastern language. With the Near Eastern gods and theterminology came also the "myths" and legends.
The earliest Greek writings concerning antiquity and theaffairs of gods and men were the Iliad, by Homer; the Odesof Pindar of Thebes; and above all the Theogony ("DivineGenealogy") by Hesiod, who composed this work and another(Works and Days). In the eighth century B.C., Hesiod beganthe divine tale of events that ultimately led to the supremacyof Zeus—a story of passions, rivalries, and struggles covered in The Wars of Gods and Men, third book of my series The Earth Chronicles—and the creation of the celestial gods, of Heaven and Earth out of Chaos, a tale not unlike the biblical Beginning: 
Verily, at first Chaos came to be,
and next the wide-bosomed Gaia— 
she who created all the immortal ones 
who hold the peaks of snowy Olympus:
Dim Tartarus, wide-pathed in the depths,
and Eros, fairest among the divine immortals. . . .
From Chaos came forth Erebus and black Nyx;
And of Nyx were born Aether and Hemera. 
At this point in the process of the formation of the "divine immortals"—the celestial gods—"Heaven" does not yet exist, just as the Mesopotamian sources recounted. Accordingly,the "Gaia" of these verses is the equivalent of Tiamat, "shewho bore them all" according to the Enuma elish. Hesiod liststhe celestial gods who followed "Chaos" and "Gaia" in three pairs (Tartarus and Eros, Erebus and Nyx, Aether and Hemera).The parallel with the creation of the three pairs in Sumeriancosmogony (nowadays named Venus and Mars, Saturn and Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune) should be obvious (though thiscomparability seems to have gone unnoticed).
Only after the creation of the principal planets that made upthe Solar System when Nibiru appeared to invade it does the tale by Hesiod—as in the Mesopotamian and biblical texts— speak of the creation of Ouranos, "Heaven." As explained in 
the Book of Genesis, this Shama'im was the Hammered-Out-Bracelet, the asteroid belt. As related in the Enuma elish, this was the half of Tiamat that was smashed to pieces, while the other, intact half became Earth. All this is echoed in the ensuingverses of Hesiod's Theogony: 
And Gaia then bore starry Ouranos
—equal to herself—
to envelop her on every side, 
to be an everlasting abode place for the gods. 
Equally split up. Gaia ceased to be Tiamat. Severed from the smashed-up half that became the Firmament, everlasting abode of the asteroids and comets, the intact half (thrust intoanother orbit) became Gaia, the Earth. And so did this planet, first as Tiamat and then as Earth, live up to its epithets: Gaia, Gi, Ki—the Cleaved One. 
How did the Cleaved Planet look in the aftermath of the Celestial Battle, now orbiting as Gaia/ Earth? On one side therewere the firm lands that had formed the crust of Tiamat; on the other side there was a hollow, an immense cleft into which the waters of the erstwhile Tiamat must have poured. As Hesiodput it, Gaia (now the half equivalent to Heaven) on one side"brought forth long hills, graceful haunts of the goddess-Nymphs"; and on the other side "she bare Pontus, the fruitless deep with its raging swell.'"
This is the same picture of the cleaved planet provided bythe Book of Genesis: 
And Elohim said, 
"Let the waters under the heaven 
be gathered together into one place,
and let the dry land appear."
And it was so. 
And Elohim called the dry land "Earth,"
and the gathered-together water He called "Seas." 
Earth, the new Gaia, was taking shape. 
Three thousand years separated Hesiod from the time when the Sumerian civilization had blossomed out; and it is clear 
that throughout those millennia ancient peoples, including theauthors or compilers of the Book of Genesis, accepted theSumerian cosmogony. Called nowadays "myth," "legend," or "religious beliefs," in those previous millennia it was science—knowledge, the Sumerians asserted, bestowed by the Anunnaki. 
According to that ancient knowledge, Earth was not an original member of the Solar System. It was the cleaved-off halfof a planet then called Tiamat, "she who bore them all." TheCelestial Battle that led to the creation of Earth occurred several hundred million years after the Solar System with its planetshad been created. Earth, as a part of Tiamat, retained muchof the water that Tiamat, "the watery monster," was known for. As Earth evolved into an independent planet and attainedthe shape of a globe dictated by the forces of gravity, the waterswere gathered into the immense cavity on the torn-off side, and dry land appeared on the other side of the planet
This, in summary, is what the ancient peoples firmly be- lieved. What does modern science have to say?
The theories concerning planetary formation hold that theystarted as balls congealing from the gaseous disk extendingfrom the Sun. As they cooled, heavier matter—iron, in Earth's case—sank into their centers, forming a solid inner core. A less solid, plastic, or even fluid outer core surrounded the innerone; in Earth's case, it is believed to consist of molten iron. The two cores and their motions act as a dynamo, producing the planet's magnetic field. Surrounding the solid and fluidcores is a mantle made of rocks and minerals; on Earth it is estimated to be some 1,800 miles thick. While the fluidity andheat generated at the planet's core (some 12,000 degrees Fahrenheit in the Earth's center) affect the mantle and what is on top of it, it is the uppermost 400 miles or so of the mantle (onEarth) that mostly account for what we see on the surface ofthe planet—its cooled crust. 
The processes that produce, over billions of years, a spherical orb—the uniform force of gravity and the planet's rotation around its axis—should also result in an orderly layering. Thesolid inner core, the flexible or fluid outer core, the thick lower mantle of silicates, the upper mantle of rocks, and the upper- most crust should encompass one another in ordered layers, 
Figure 35 
like the skin of an onion. This holds true for the orb called Earth (Fig. 35)—but only up to a point; the main abnormalitiesconcern Earth's uppermost layer, the crust.
Ever since the extensive probes of the Moon and Mars inthe 1960s and 1970s, geophysicists have been puzzled by the paucity of the Earth's crust. The crusts of the Moon and ofMars comprise 10 percent of their masses, but the Earth's crust comprises less than one half of 1 percent of the Earth's landmass. In 1988, geophysicists from Caltech and the Universityof Illinois at Urbana, led by Don Anderson, reported to theAmerican Geological Society meeting in Denver, Colorado,that they had found the "missing crust." By analyzing shockwaves from earthquakes, they concluded that material that belongs in the crust has sunk down and lies some 250 miles belowthe Earth's surface. There is enough crustal material there,these scientists estimated, to increase the thickness of the Earth's crust tenfold. But even so, it would have given Eartha crust comprising no more than about 4 percent of its land- mass—still only about half of what seems to be the norm(judging by the Moon and Mars); half of the Earth's crust wi!i 
still be missing even if the findings by this group prove correct.The theory also leaves unanswered the question of what forcecaused the crustal material, which is lighter than the mantle'smaterial, to "dive"—in the words of the report—hundreds of miles into the Earth's interior. The team's suggestion was that the crustal material down there consists of "huge slabs of crust" that "dived into the Earth's interior" where fissures exist in the crust. But what force had broken up the crust intosuch "huge slabs"? 
Figure 36 
Another abnormality of the Earth's crust is that it is notuniform. In the parts we call "continents," its thickness varies from about 12 miles to almost 45 miles; but in the parts takenup by the oceans the crust is only 3.5 to five miles thick. Whilethe average elevation of the continents is about 2,300 feet, theaverage depth of the oceans is more than 12,500 feet. Thecombined result of these factors is that the much thicker con- tinental crust reaches much farther down into the mantle, whereas the oceanic crust is just a thin layer of solidified ma- terial and sediments (Fig. 36).
There are other differences between the Earth's crust where the continents are and where the oceans are. The composition 
of the continental crust, consisting in large part of rocks re- sembling granite, is relatively light in comparison with thecomposition of the mantle: the average continental density is2.7-2.8 grams per cubic centimeter, while that of the mantleis 3.3 grams per cubic centimeter. The oceanic crust is heavier and denser than the continental crust, averaging a density of
3.0 to 3.1 grams per cubic centimeter; it is thus more akin tothe mantle, with its composition of basaltic and other dense rocks, than to the continental crust. It is noteworthy that the "missing crust" the scientific team mentioned above suggested had dived into the mantle is similar in composition to the oceanic crust, not to the continental crust. 
This leads to one more important difference between theEarth's continental and oceanic crusts. The continental part ofthe crust is not only lighter and thicker, it is also much older than the oceanic part of the crust. By the end of the 1970s theconsensus among scientists was that the greater part of today's continental surface was formed some 2.8 billion years ago.Evidence of a continental crust from that time that was about as thick as today's is found in all the continents in what geologists term Archean Shield areas; but within those areas, crustal rocks were discovered that turned out to be 3.8 billion years old. In 1983, however, geologists of the Australian National University found, in western Australia, rock remains ofa continental crust whose age was established to be 4.1 to 4.2billion years old. In 1989, tests with new, sophisticated methods on rock samples collected a few years earlier in northernCanada (by researchers from Washington University in St. Louis and from the Geological Survey of Canada) determined the rocks' age to be 3.96 billion years; Samuel Bowering of Washington University reported evidence that nearby rocks inthe area were as much as 4.1 billion years old.
Scientists are still hard put to explain the gap of about 500million years between the age of the Earth (which meteor fragments, such as those found at Meteor Crater in Arizona,show to be 4.6 billion years) and the age of the oldest rocks thus far found; but no matter what the explanation, the factthat Earth had its continental crust at least 4 billion years agois by now undisputed. On the other hand, no part of the oceaniccrust has been found to be more than 200 million years old. 
This is a tremendous difference that no amount of speculationabout rising and sinking continents, forming and vanishing seascan explain. Someone has compared the Earth's crust to the skin of an apple. Where the oceans are, the "skin" is fresh— relatively speaking, born yesterday. Where the oceans beganin primordial times, the "skin," and a good part of the "apple" itself, appear to have been shorn off.
The differences between the continental and oceanic crusts must have been even greater in earlier times, because the con- tinental crust is constantly eroded by the forces of nature, anda good deal of the eroded solids are carried into the oceanicbasins, increasing the thickness of the oceanic crust. Further- more, the oceanic crust is constantly enhanced by the upwelling of molten basaltic rocks and silicates that flow up from themantle through faults in the sea floor. This process, which putsdown ever-new layers of oceanic crust, has been going on for200 million years, giving the oceanic crust its present form.What was there at the bottom of the seas before then? Was there no crust at all, just a gaping "wound" in the Earth's surface? And is the ongoing oceanic crust formation akin tothe process of blood clotting, where the skin is pierced andwounded? 
Is Gaia—a living planet—trying to heal her wounds?
The most obvious place on the surface of the Earth whereit was so "wounded" is the Pacific Ocean. While the average plunge in the crust's surface in its oceanic parts is about 2.5miles, in the Pacific the crust has been gouged out to a presentdepth reaching at some points 7 miles. If we could remove from the Pacific's floor the crust built up there over the last 200 million years, we would arrive at depths reaching 12 milesbelow the water's surface and between some 20 to nearly 60miles below the continental surface. This is quite a cavity. . . .How deep was it before the crustal buildup over the past 200million years—how large was the "wound" 500 million yearsago, a billion years ago, 4 billion years ago? No one can evenguess, except to say that it was substantially deeper.
What can be said with certainty is that the extent of thegouging was more extensive, affecting a vastly greater part of the planet's surface. The Pacific Ocean at present occupiesabout a third of Earth's surface; but (as far as can be ascertained for the past 200 million years) it has been shrinking. The reason 
for the shrinkage is that the continents flanking it—the Americas on the east, Asia and Australia on the west—are movingcloser to each other, squeezing out the Pacific slowly but relentlessly, reducing its size inch by inch year by year. 
The science and explanations dealing with this process havecome to be known as the Theory of Plate Tectonics. Its originlies, as in the study of the Solar System, in the discarding ofnotions of a uniform, stable, permanent condition of the planetsin favor of the recognition of catastrophism, change, and evenevolution—concerning not only flora and fauna but the globeson which they evolved as "living" entities that can grow andshrink, prosper and suffer, even be born and die.
The new science of plate tectonics, it is now generally rec- ognized, owes its beginning to Alfred Wegener, a German meteorologist, and his book Die Entstehung der Kontinenteund Ozeane, published in 1915. As it was for others beforehim, his starting point was the obvious "fit" between the contours of the continents on both sides of the southern At- lantic. But before Wegener's ideas, the solution had been to postulate the disappearance, by sinking, of continents or landbridges: the belief that the continents have been where theyare from time immemorial, but that a midsection sank below sea level, giving the appearance of continental separation. Augmenting available data on flora and fauna with considerable geological "matches" between the two sides of the Atlantic, Wegener came up with the notion of Pangaea—a supercontinent, a single huge landmass into which he could fit all thepresent continental masses like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle. Pan- gaea, which covered about one half of the globe, Wegenersuggested, was surrounded by the primeval Pacific Ocean.Floating in the midst of the waters like an ice floe, the singlelandmass underwent a series of liftings and healings until a definite and final breakup in the Mesozoic Era, the geological period that lasted from 225 to 65 million years ago. Graduallythe pieces began to drift apart. Antarctica, Australia, India,and Africa began to break away and separate (Fig. 37a). Sub- sequently, Africa and South America split apart (Fig. 37b) as North America began to move away from Europe and India was thrust toward Asia (Fig. 37c); and so the continents continued to drift until they rearranged themselves in the patternwe know today (Fig. 37d). 
Figure 37 
The split-up of Pangaea into several separate continents was accompanied by the opening up and closing down of bodiesof water between the separating pieces of the landmass. In time the single "Panocean" (if I may be allowed to coin a term) also separated into a series of connecting oceans or enclosed seas (such as the Mediterranean, Black, and Caspian seas),and such major bodies of water as the Atlantic and the Indianoceans took shape. But all these bodies of water were "pieces"of the original "Panocean," of which the Pacific Ocean still remains. 
Wegener's view of the continents as "pieces of a crackedice floe" shifting atop an impermanent surface of the Earth was mostly received with disdain, even ridicule, by the ge- ologists and paleontologists of the time. It took half a centuryfor the idea of Continental Drift to be accepted into the hallsof science. What helped bring about the changed attitude weresurveys of the ocean floors begun in the 1960s that revealedsuch features as the Mid-Atlantic Ridge that, it was surmised,was formed by the rise of molten rock (called "magma") from 
the Earth's interior. Welling up, in the case of the Atlantic,through a fissure in the ocean floor that runs almost the whole ocean's length, the magma cooled and formed a ridge of basaltic rock. But then as one welling up followed another, theold sides of the ridge were pushed to either side to make wayfor the new magma flow. A major advance in these studies of the ocean floors took place with the aid of Seasat, an oceanographic satellite launched in June 1978 that orbited the Earthfor three months; its data were used to map the sea floors,giving us an entirely new understanding of our oceans, withtheir ridges, rifts, seamounts, underwater volcanoes, and fracture zones. The discovery that as each upwelling of magmacooled and solidified it retained the magnetic direction of itsposition at that time was followed by the determination that a series of such magnetic lines, almost parallel to one another,provided a time scale as well as a directional map for theongoing expansion of the ocean's floor. This expansion of thesea floor in the Atlantic was a major factor in pushing apart Africa and South America and in the creation of the Atlantic Ocean (and its continuing widening).
Other forces, such as the gravitational pull of the Moon, theEarth's rotation, and even movements of the underlying mantle, also are believed to act to split up the continental crust andshift the continents about. These forces also exert their influence, naturally, in the Pacific region. The Pacific Ocean revealed even more midocean ridges, fissures, underwater volcanoes, and other features like those that have worked to expand the Atlantic Ocean. Why, then, as all the evidenceshows, have the landmasses flanking the Pacific not movedapart (as the continents flanking the Atlantic have done) but rather keep moving closer, slowly but surely, constantly reducing the size of the Pacific Ocean?
The explanation is found in a companion theory of continental drift, the Theory of Plate Tectonics. The continents, ithas been postulated, rest upon giant movable "plates" of the Earth's crust, and so do the oceans. When the continents drift, when oceans expand (as the Atlantic) or contract (as the Pacific), the underlying cause is the movement of the plates onwhich they ride. At present scientists recognize six major plates(some of which are further subdivided): the Pacific, American,Eurasian, African, Indo-Australian, and Antarctic (Fig. 38). 
Figure 38 
The spreading seafloor of the Atlantic Ocean is still distancingthe Americas from Europe and Africa, inch by inch. The concomitant shrinking of the Pacific Ocean is now recognized tobe accommodated by the dipping, or "subduction," of thePacific plate under the American plate. This is the primarycause of the crustal shifts and earthquakes all along the Pacificrim, as well as of the rise of the major mountain chains along that rim. The collision of the Indian plate with the Eurasianone created the Himalayas and fused the Indian subcontinentto Asia. In 1985, Cornell University scientists discovered the"geological suture" where a part of the western African plate remained attached to the American plate when the two brokeapart some fifty million years ago, "donating" Florida andsouthern Georgia to North America.
With some modifications, almost all scientists today acceptWegener's hypothesis of an Earth initially consisting of a singlelandmass surrounded by an all-embracing ocean. Notwithstanding (geologically) the young age (200 million years) of the present seafloor, scholars recognize that there had been aprimeval ocean on Earth whose traces can be found not in thenewly covered depths of the oceans but on the continents. TheArchean Shield zones, where the youngest rocks are 2.8 billion years old, contain belts of two kinds: one of greenstone, anotherof granite-gneiss. Writing in Scientific American of March,1977, Stephen Moorbath ('The Oldest Rocks and the Growth of Continents"") reported (hat geologists "believe that the 
greenstone belt rocks were deposited in a primitive oceanic environment and in effect represent ancient oceans, and thatthe granite-gneiss terrains may be remnants of ancient oceans.'' Extensive rock records in virtually all the continents indicate that they were contiguous to oceans of water for more thanthree billion years; in some places, such as Zimbabwe in southern Africa, sedimentary rocks show that they accreted withinlarge bodies of water some 3.5 billion years ago. And recentadvances in scientific dating have extended the age of the Archean belts—those that include rocks that had been deposited in primeval oceans—back to 3.8 billion years (ScientificAmerican, September, 1983; special issue: "The Dynamic Earth"). 
How long has continental drift been going on? Was there a Pangaea?
Stephen Moorbath, in the above-mentioned study, offeredthe conclusion that the process of continental breakup began some 600 million years ago: "Before that there may have been just the one immense supercontinent known as Pangaea, orpossibly two supercontinents: Laurasia to the north and Gondwanaland to the south." Other scientists, using computer sim- ulations, suggest that 550 million years ago the landmassesthat eventually formed Pangaea or its two connected parts were no less separate than they are today, that plate-tectonic processes of one kind or another have been going on since at leastabout four billion years ago. But whether the mass of dry landwas first a single supercontinent or separate landmasses that then joined, whether a superocean surrounded a single mass of dry land or bodies of water first stretched between severaldry lands, is, in the words of Moorbath, like the chicken-andthe-egg argument: "Which came first, the continents or the oceans?" 
Modern science thus confirms the scientific notions that were expressed in the ancient texts, but it cannot see far enoughback to resolve the land mass/ocean sequence. If every modern scientific discovery seems to have corroborated this or thataspect of ancient knowledge, why not also accept the ancientanswer in this instance: that the waters covered the face of the Earth and—on the third "day," or phase—were "gatheredinto" one side of the Earth to reveal the dry land. Was the 
uncovered dry land made up of isolated continents or one supercontinent, a Pangaea? Although it really matters not asfar as the corroboration of ancient knowledge is concerned, it is interesting to note that Greek notions of Earth, although theyled to a belief that the Earth was disklike rather than a globe,envisioned it as a landmass with a solid foundation surrounded by waters. This notion must have drawn on earlier and moreaccurate knowledge, as most of Greek science did. We findthat the Old Testament repeatedly referred to the "founda- tions" of Earth and expressed knowledge of the earlier timesregarding the shape of Earth in the following verses praisingthe Creator: 
The Lord's is the Earth and its entirety,
the world and all that dwells therein. 
For He hath founded it upon the seas
and established it upon the waters. 
(Psalms 24:1-2) 
In addition to the term Eretz which means both planet "Earth" and "earth, ground." the narrative in Genesis employs the term Yabashah—literally, "the dried-out landmass"—when it states that the waters "were gathered togetherinto one place" to let the Yabashah appear. But throughoutthe Old Testament another term, Tebel, is frequently used to denote that part of Earth that is habitable, arable, and usefulto Mankind (including being a source of ores). The term Tebel—usually translated as either "the earth" or "the world"—- is mostly employed to indicate the part of Earth distinct fromits watery portions; the "foundations" of this Tebel were in juxtaposition to the sea basins. This was best expressed in theSong of David (2 Samuel 22:16 and Psalms 18:16): 
The Lord thundered from the heavens, 
the Most High his sounds uttered.
He loosed his arrows, sped them far and wide;
a shaft of lightning, and disconcerted them.
The channels of the seabed were revealed, 
the foundation of Tebel were laid bare. 
With what we know today about the "foundations of the Earth," the word Tebel clearly conveys the concept of continents whose foundations—tectonic plates-—are laid in the midst of the waters. What a thrill to discover the latest geophysical theories echoed in a 3,000-year-old psalm!
The Genesis narrative states clearly that the waters were "gathered together" to one side of the Earth so that the dryland could emerge; this implies the existence of a cavity into which the waters could be gathered. Such a cavity, somewhatover half the Earth's surface, is still there, shrunken and reduced, in the shape of the Pacific Ocean.
Why is the crustal evidence that can be found not older thanabout 4 billion years, rather than the 4.6 billion years that isthe presumed age of the Earth and of the Solar System? The first Conference on the Origins of Life, held in Princeton, NewJersey, in 1967, under the sponsorship of NASA and the Smithsonian Institution, dwelt at length on this problem. The onlyhypothesis the learned participants could come up with was that, at the time the oldest rock specimens that have been found were formed, Earth was subjected to a "cataclysm." In the discussion of the origins of Earth's atmosphere, the consensuswas that it did not result from a "continuous outgassing"through volcanic activity but was (in the words of Raymond Siever of Harvard University) the result of "a rather early andrather large outgassing episode . . . a great big belch of the gasesthat are now characteristic of the Earth's atmosphere and sediments." This "big belch" was also dated to the same timeas the catastrophe recorded by the rocks. 
It thus becomes evident that in its specifics—the breakup of the Earth's crust, the process of plate tectonics, the differences between the continental and the oceanic crusts, the emergence of a Pangaea from under the waters, the primordial encircling ocean—the findings of modern science have corroborated theancient knowledge. They have also led scientists from all disciplines to conclude that the only explanation of the way in which Earth's landmasses, oceans, and atmosphere have evolved is to assume a cataclysm occurring about four billionyears ago—about half a billion years after the initial formation of Earth as part of the Solar System.
What was that cataclysm? Mankind has possessed theSumerian answer for six thousand years: the Celestial Battlebetween Nibiru/Marduk and Tiamat.
In that Sumerian cosmogony, the members of the Solar Systern were depicted as celestial gods, male and female, whosecreation was compared to birth, whose existence was that ofliving creatures. In the Enuma elish text, Tiamat in particularwas described as a female, a mother who gave birth to a hostof eleven satellites, her "horde," led by Kingu "whom she elevated." As Nibiru/Marduk and his horde neared her, "infury Tiamat cried out aloud, her legs shook to their roots . . .against her attacker she repeatedly cast a spell." When the "Lord spread his net to enmesh her" and "the Evil Wind,which followed behind, he let loose in her face, Tiamat openedher mouth to consume it"; but then other "winds" of Nibiru/Marduk "charged her belly" and "distended her body." Indeed, "go and cut off the life of Tiamat" was the order given by the outer planets to the Invader; he accomplished that by "cutting through her insides, splitting her heart. . . . Havingthus subdued her, he extinguished her life."
For a long time this view of the planets, and especially of Tiamat, as living entities that could be born and could die has been dismissed as primitive paganism. But the exploration ofthe planetary system in recent decades has, in fact, revealed worlds for which the word "alive" has been repeatedly used.That Earth itself is a living planet was forcefully put forth asthe Gaia Hypothesis by James E. Lovelock in the 1970s (Gaia—A New Look at Life on Earth) and was most recentlyreinforced by him in The Ages of Gaia: A Biography of OurLiving Earth. It is a hypothesis that views the Earth and thelife that has evolved upon it as a single organism; Earth is not just an inanimate globe upon which there is life; it is a coherentif complex body that is itself alive through its mass and land surface, its oceans and atmosphere, and through the flora andfauna which it sustains and which in turn sustain Earth. "The largest living creature on Earth." Lovelock wrote, "is the Earth itself." And in that, he admitted, he was revisiting the ancient "concept of Mother Earth, or as the Greeks called her longago, Gaia."
But in fact he had gone back to Sumerian times, to theirancient knowledge of the planet that was cleaved apart. 
WITNESS TO GENESIS 
Perhaps as an overreaction to Creationism, scientists have con- sidered the biblical tale of Genesis as a subject of faith, notfact. Yet when one of the rocks brought back from the Moonby Apollo astronauts turned out to be almost 4.1 billion yearsold, it was nicknamed "the Genesis rock." When a tiny pieceof green glass shaped like a lima bean turned up in lunar soilsamples gathered by the Apollo 14 astronauts, the scientistsdubbed it "the Genesis bean." It thus appears that in spite ofall the objections and reservations, even the scientific com- munity cannot escape the age-old faith, belief, gut feelings, orperhaps some genetic memory of the species called Mankind,that a primordial truth underlies the narrative of the Book ofGenesis. 
However the 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 bothgo back to its creation. On Earth, erosion caused by the forcesof nature as well as by the life that has evolved on it hasobliterated much of the evidence bearing on that creation, tosay nothing of the cataclysmic event that changed and revamped the planet. But the Moon, so it was assumed, hadremained in its pristine condition. With neither winds, atmos- phere, nor waters, there were no forces of erosion. A look at theMoon was tantamount to a peek at Genesis.
Man has peered at the Moon for eons, first with the nakedeye, then with Earth-based instruments. The space age made it possible to probe the Moon more closely. Between 1959 and1969, a number of Soviet and American unmanned spacecraftphotographed and otherwise examined the Moon either by or- biting it or by landing on it. Then Man finally set foot on the 
107 Plate D 
Moon when the landing module of Apollo 11 touched downon the Moon's surface on July 20, 1969, and Neil Armstrong announced, for all the world to hear: "Houston! TranquilityBase here. The Eagle has landed!"
In all, six Apollo spacecraft set down a total of twelve astronauts on the Moon; the last manned mission was that of Apollo 17, in December 1972. The first one was admittedlyintended primarily to "beat the Russians to the Moon"; butthe missions became increasingly scientific as the Apollo program progressed. The equipment for the tests and experimentsbecame more sophisticated, the choice of landing sites wasmore scientifically oriented, the areas covered increased withthe aid of surface vehicles, and the length of stay increasedfrom hours to days. Even the crew makeup changed, to includein the last mission a trained geologist, Harrison Schmitt; hisexpertise was invaluable in the on-the-spot selection of rocks and soil to be taken back to Earth, in the description andevaluation of dust and other lunar materials left behind, and 
in the choice and description of topographic features—hills, valleys, small canyons, escarpments, and giant boulders (PlateD)—without which the true face of the Moon would have remained inscrutable. Instruments were left on the Moon to measure and record its phenomena over long periods; deepersoil samples were obtained by drilling into the face of the Moon; but most scientifically precious and rewarding were the838 pounds of lunar soil and Moon rocks brought back to Earth.Their examination, analysis, and study were still in progress as the twentieth anniversary of the first landing was being celebrated. 
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 bepicked 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 untilthen was surmised only from the age of meteorites that struckthe Earth. 
The Moon, the lunar landings established, was a Witness to Genesis. 
Establishing the age of the Moon, the time of its creation, intensified the debate concerning the question of how the Moonwas created. 
"The hope of establishing the Moon's origin was a primaryscientific rationale for the manned landings of the Apollo proj- ect in the 1960s," James Gleick wrote in June 1986 for The New York Times Science Service. It was, however, "the greatquestion that Apollo failed to answer."
How could 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 tothe basic question? The answer to the puzzle seems to be thatthe 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.
One of the earliest scientific theories regarding the Moon's origin was published in 1879 by Sir George H. Darwin, secondson of Charles Darwin. Whereas his father put forth the theoryregarding the origin of species on Earth, Sir George was thefirst to develop a theory of origins for the Sun-Earth-Moonsystem based on mathematical analysis and geophysical theory.His specialty was the study of tides; he therefore conceived ofthe Moon as having been formed from matter pulled off Earthby 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.
Although, as the Encyclopaedia Britannica puts it so mildly,it is "a hypothesis now considered unlikely to be true," theidea reappeared in the twentieth century as one of three contenders for being proved or disproved by the lunar findings.Given a high-tech name, the Fission Theory, it was revivedwith a difference. In the reconstructed theory, the simplisticidea of the tidal pull of the Sun was dropped; instead it wasproposed that the Earth divided into two bodies while spinningvery rapidly during its formation. The spinning was so rapidthat 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 biggertwin brother as its permanent satellite (Fig. 39).
The "thrown-off chunk" theory, whether in its earlier or renewed form, has been conclusively rejected by scientists from various disciplines. Studies presented at the third Conference on the Origins of Life (held in Pacific Palisades, California, in 1970) established that tidal forces as the cause ofthe fission could not account for the origin of the Moon beyonda distance of five Earth radii, whereas the Moon is some 60 Earth radii away from the Earth. Also, scientists consider a study by Kurt S. Hansen in 1982 (Review of Geophysics and Space Physics, vol. 20) as showing conclusively that the Mooncould never have been closer to Earth than 140,000 miles; this would rule out any theory that the Moon was once part of Earth(the Moon is now an average distance of about 240,000 milesfrom Earth, but this distance has not been constant). 
Figure 39 
Proponents of the Fission Theory have offered various variants thereof in order to overcome the distance problem, whichis further constrained by a concept termed the Roche limit (thedistance within which the tidal forces overcome the gravita- tional force). But all variants of the fission theory have been rejected because they violate the laws of the preservation ofenergy. The theory requires much more angular momentumthan has been preserved in the energy that exists to spin theEarth and the Moon around their axes and to orbit around the Sun. Writing in the book Origin of (he Moon (1986), John A.Wood of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (" 'A Review of Hypotheses of Formation of Earth's Moon") summed up this constraint thus: "The fission model has verysevere dynamic problems: In order to fission, the Earth had tohave about four times as much angular momentum as the Earth- Moon system now has. There is no good explanation why theEarth had such an excess of angular momentum in the first 
place, or where the surplus angular momentum went after fission occurred." 
The knowledge about the Moon acquired from the Apolloprogram has added geologists and chemists to the lineup of scientists rejecting the fission theory. The Moon's compositionis in many respects similar to that of Earth, yet different inkey respects. There is sufficient "kinship" to indicate they are very close relatives, but there are enough differences to showthey are not twin brothers. This is especially true of the Earth's crust and mantle, from which the Moon had to be formed, according to the fission theory. Thus, for example, the Moonhas too little of the elements called "siderophile," such as tungsten, phosphorus, cobalt, molybdenum, and nickel, compared with the amount of these substances present in the Earth's mantle and crust; and too much of the "refractory" elements such as aluminum, calcium, titanium, and uranium. In a highlytechnical summary of the various findings ("The Origin of the Moon," American Scientist, September-October 1975), Stuart 
R. Taylor stated: "For all these reasons, it is difficult to matchthe composition of the bulk of the Moon to that of the terrestrialmantle." 
The book Origin of the Moon, apart from its introductionsand summaries (such as the above-mentioned article by J. A. Wood), is a collection of papers presented by sixty-two scientists at the Conference on the Origin of the Moon held atKona, Hawaii, in October 1984—the most comprehensive since the conference twenty years earlier that had mapped outthe scientific goals of the unmanned and manned Moon probes.In their papers, the contributing scientists, approaching the problem from various disciplines, invariably reached conclusions against the fission theory. Comparisons of the compo- sition of the upper mantle of the Earth with that of the Moon,Michael J. Drake of the University of Arizona stated, "rigorously exclude" the Rotational Fission hypothesis.
The laws of angular momentum plus the comparisons of the composition of the Moon with that of Earth's mantle also ruled out, after the landings on the Moon, the second favored theory,that of Capture. According to this theory, the Moon was formednot near the Earth but among the outer planets or even beyondthem. Somehow thrown off into a vast elliptical orbit around the Sun, it passed loo closely to the Earth, was caught by theEarth's gravitational force, and became Earth's satellite.
This theory, it was pointed out after numerous computerstudies, required an extremely slow approach by the Moontoward the Earth. This capture process not unlike that of thesatellites we have sent to be captured and remain in orbit around Mars or Venus, fails to take into account the relative sizes of Earth and Moon. Relative to the Earth, the Moon (about one- eightieth the mass of Earth) is much too large to have beensnared from a vast elliptical orbit unless it was moving veryslowly; but then, all the calculations have shown, the resultwould be not a capture but a collision. This theory was furtherlaid to rest by comparisons of the compositions of the twocelestial bodies: the Moon was too similar to Earth and too dissimilar to the outer bodies to have been born so far awayfrom Earth. 
Extensive studies of the Capture Theory suggested that theMoon would have remained intact only if it had neared Earth,not from way out, but from the very same part of the heavenswhere Earth itself was formed. This conclusion was acceptedeven by S. Fred Singer of George Mason University—a proponent of the capture hypothesis—in his paper ("Origin of theMoon by Capture") presented at the above-mentioned Con- ference on the Origin of the Moon. "Capture from an eccentricheliocentric orbit is neither feasible nor necessary," he stated;the oddities in the Moon's composition "can be explained in terms of a Moon formed in an Earthlike orbit": the Moon was "captured" while forming near Earth.
These admissions by proponents of the fission and the capture theories lent support to the third main theory that waspreviously current, that of Coaccretion, a common birth. This theory has its roots in the hypothesis proposed at the end of the eighteenth century by Pierre-Simon de Laplace, who saidthat the Solar System was born of a nebular gas cloud thatcoalesced in time to form the Sun and the planets—a hypothesisthat has been retained by modern science. Showing that lunaraccelerations are dependent on eccentricities in the Earth's orbit, Laplace concluded that the two bodies were formed sideby side, first the Earth and then the Moon. The Earth and theMoon, he suggested, were sister planets, partners in a binary, 
or two-planet, system, in which they orbit the Sun togetherwhile one "dances" around the other. 
That natural satellites, or moons, coalesce from the remainder of the same primordial matter of which their parent planetwas formed is now the generally accepted theory of how planetsacquired moons and should also apply to Earth and the Moon.As has been found by the Pioneer and Voyager spacecraft, themoons of the outer planets—that had to be formed, by andlarge, out of the same primordial material as their "parents"—are both sufficiently akin to their parent planets and at the sametime reveal individual characteristics as "children" do; this might well be true also for the basic similarities and sufficientdissimilarities between the Earth and the Moon. 
What nevertheless makes scientists reject this theory whenit is applied to the Earth and the Moon is their relative sizes.The Moon is simply too large relative to the Earth—not onlyabout 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. When the mass ofall the moons of each planet (excluding Pluto) is given as a ratio of the planet's mass, the result is as follows: 
Mercury 0.0 (no moons) 
Venus 0.0 (no moons) 
EARTH 0.0122 
Mars 0.00000002 (2 asteroids) 
Jupiter 0.00021 
Saturn 0.00025 
Uranus 0.00017 
Neptune 0.00130 
Mercury 0.0 (no moons) Venus 0.0 (no moons) EARTH 0.0122 Mars 0.00000002 (2 asteroids) Jupiter 0.00021 Saturn 0.00025 Uranus 0.00017 Neptune 0.00130 
A comparison of the relative sizes of the largest moon ofeach of the other planets with the size of the Moon relative toEarth (Fig. 40) also clearly shows the anomaly. One result of this disproportion is that there is too much angular momentumin the combined Earth-Moon system to support the BinaryPlanets hypothesis.
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 
Figure 40 
not bother some; they point to the fact that none of the terrestrialplanets (other than Earth) have satellites: the two tiny bodiesthat orbit Mars are, all are agreed, captured asteroids. If conditions in the Solar System were such that none of the planetsformed between the Sun and Mars (inclusive) obtained satellites in any one of the considered methods—Fission, Capture,Coaccretion—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 to account tor that? 
Another finding of the Apollo program also stands in theway of accepting the coaccretion theory. The Moon's surfaceas 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. Suchheat can result only from cataclysmic or catastrophic event; in the coaccretion scenario no such heat is produced. How thenexplain the magma ocean and other evidence on the Moon ofa cataclysmic heating? 
Figure 41 
The need for a birth of the Moon with the right amount ofangular momentum and a cataclysmic, heat-producing eventled to a post-Apollo program hypothesis that has been dubbedthe Big Whack Theory. It developed from the suggestion byWilliam Hartmann, a geochemist at the Planetary Science In- stitute in Tucson, Arizona, and his colleague Donald R. Davis in 1975 that collisions and impacts played a role in the creationof the Moon ("Satellite-sized Planetesimals and Lunar Ori- gin," Icarus, vol. 24). According to their calculations, the rate at which planets were bombarded by small and large asteroidsduring the late stages of the planets' formation was much higher than at present; some of the asteroids were big enough to deliver a blow that could chip off parts of the planet they hit; in Earth's case, the blown-off chunk became the Moon. 
The idea was taken up by two astrophysicists, Alastair G. W.Cameron of Harvard and William R. Ward of Caltech. Their study, "The Origin of the Moon" (Lunar Science, vol. 7,1976) 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 patharced toward the Sun—but the Earth, in its formative orbit, stood in the way. The "glancing blow" that resulted (Fig. 41)slightly tilted the Earth, giving it its ecliptic obliquity (currentlyabout 23.5 degrees); it also melted the outer layers of both bodies, sending a plume of vaporized rock into orbit aroundthe Earth. More than twice as much material as was needed 
to form the Moon was shot up, with the force of the expanding vapor acting to distance the debris from Earth. Some of theejected material fell back to Earth, but enough remained farenough away to eventually coalesce and become the Moon. 
This Collision-Ejection theory was further perfected by its authors as various problems raised by it were pointed out; it was also modified as other scientific teams tested it throughcomputer simulations (the leading teams were those of A. C.Thompson and D. Stevenson at Caltech, H. J. Melosh and M.Kipp at Sandia National Laboratories, and W. Benz and W. L.Slattery at Los Alamos National Laboratory).
Under this scenario (Fig. 42 shows a simulated sequence, 
Figure 42 
lasting about eighteen minutes in all), the impact resulted inimmense heat (perhaps 12,000 degrees Fahrenheit) that caused a melting of both bodies. The bulk of the impactor sank to the center of the molten Earth; portions of both bodies were vaporized and thrust out. On cooling, the Earth re-formed withthe iron-rich bulk of the impactor at its core. Some of theejected material fell back to Earth; the rest, mostly fromthe impactor, cooled and coalesced at a distance—resulting inthe Moon that now orbits the Earth. 
Another major departure from the original Big Whack hypothesis was the realization that in order to resolve chemicalcomposition constraints, the impactor had to come from thesame place in the heavens as Earth itself did—not from theouter regions of the Solar System. But if so, where and howdid it acquire the immense momentum it needed for the va- porizing impact?
There is also the question of plausibility, which Cameron himself recognized in his presentation at the Hawaii conference. "Is it plausible," he asked, "that an extraplanetary body with about the mass of Mars or more shouldhave been wandering around in the inner solar system at anappropriate time to have participated in our postulated colli- sion?" He felt that about 100 million years after the planetswere formed, there were indeed enough planetary instabilities in the newborn Solar System and enough "protoplanetary remnants" to make the existence of a large impactor and the postulated collision plausible.
Subsequent calculations showed that in order to achieve theend results, the impactor had to be three times the size of Mars.This heightened the problem of where and how in Earth'svicinity such a celestial body could accrete. In response, astronomer George Wetherill of the Carnegie Institute calculatedbackward and found that the terrestrial planets could haveevolved from a roaming band of some five hundred planetes- imals. Repeatedly colliding among themselves, the small moonlets acted as the building blocks of the planets and of the bodies that continued to bombard them. The calculations supported the plausibility of the Big Whack theory in its modifiedCollision-Ejection scenario, but it retained the resulting im- mense heat. "The heat of such an impact," Wetherill con
cluded, "would have melted both bodies." This, it seemed, could explain a) how the Earth got its iron core and b) how the Moon got its molten magma oceans.
Although this latest version left many other constraints un- met, many of the participants in the 1984 Conference on theOrigin of the Moon were ready, by the time the conferenceended, to treat the collision-ejection hypothesis as the leading contender—not so much out of conviction of its correctness as out of exasperation. "This happened," Wood wrote in his summary, "mainly because several independent investigatorsshowed that coaccretion, the model that had been most widelyaccepted by lunar scientists (at least at a subconscious level),could not account for the angular momentum content of the Earth-Moon system." In fact, some of the participants at the conference, including Wood himself, saw vexing problems inherent in the new theory. Iron, Wood pointed out, "is actually quite volatile and would have suffered much the samefate as the other volatiles, like sodium and water"; in other words, it would not have sunk intact into the Earth's core as the theory postulates. The abundance of water on Earth, to saynothing of the abundance of iron in the Earth's mantle, would not have been possible if Earth had melted down.
Since each variant of the Big Whack hypothesis involved atotal meltdown of the Earth, it was necessary that other evi- dence of such a meltdown be found. But as was overwhelmingly reported at the 1988 Origin of the Earth Conference atBerkeley, 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, butthis is not the case. Another result should have been the distortion of the chondrite material—the most primordial matteron Earth that is also found in the most primitive meteorites—but no such distortion has been found. One investigator, A. E.Ringwood of the Australian National University, extended these tests to more than a dozen elements whose relative abun- dance should have been altered had the first crust of Earth been formed after an Earth meltdown; but there was no such alter- ation to any significant extent. In a review of these findings inScience (March 17, 1989) it was pointed out that at the 1988 
conference the geochemists "contended that a giant impact andits inevitable melting of Earth do not jibe with what they knowof geochemistry. In particular, the composition of the upperfew hundred kilometers of the mantle implies it has not beentotally molten at any time." "Geochemistry," the authors of the article in Science concluded, "would thus seem to be a potential stumbling block for the giant-impact origin of the moon." In "Science and Technology," (The Economist, July22, 1989) it was likewise reported that numerous studies haveled geochemists "to be skeptical about the impact story."
Like the previous theories, the Big Whack also ended upmeeting some constraints but failing others. Still, one shouldask whether, while this theory of impact-meltdown ran intoproblems when applied to Earth, did it not at least solve theproblem of the melting that is evident on the Moon?
As it turned out, not exactly so. Thermal studies did, indeed,indicate the Moon had experienced a great meltdown. "Theindications are that the Moon was largely or totally moltenearly in lunar history," Alan B. Binder of NASA's Johnson Space Center said at the 1984 Conference on the Origin of theMoon. "Early," but not "initial," countered other scientists. This crucial difference was based on studies of stresses in the Moon's crust (by Sean C. Solomon of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology), as well of isotope ratios (when atomicnuclei of the same element have different masses because theyhave different numbers of neutrons) studied by D. L. Turcotteand L. H. Kellog of Cornell University. These studies, the 1984 conference was told, "support a relatively cool origin for the Moon." 
What, then, of the evidence of meltings on the Moon? There is no doubt that they have occurred: the giant craters, some ahundred 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 andgrains of the Moon's surface that resulted from shock melting of the surface caused by high-velocity impacts (as distinct fromheated lava as a source). At the third Conference on the Originsof Life, a whole day was devoted to the subject of "Glass on 
the Moon," so important was this clue held to be. EugeneShoemaker of NASA and Caltech reported that such evidenceof "shock vitrified" glasses and other types of melted rockwere found in abundance on the Moon; the presence of nickelin the glassy spheres and beads suggested to him that theimpactor had a composition different from that of the Moon,since the Moon's own rocks lack nickel. 
When did all these impacts that caused the surface melting take place? Not, the findings showed, when the Moon wascreated 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 evo- lution. . . . The most cataclysmic period came 4 billion yearsago, when celestial bodies the size of large cities and small countries came crashing into the Moon and formed its hugebasins and towering mountains. The huge amounts of radio- active minerals left by the collisions began heating the rockbeneath the surface, melting massive amounts of it and forcing seas of lava through cracks in the surface. . . . Apollo 15found rockslides in the crater Tsiolovsky six times greater thanany rockslide on Earth. Apollo 16 discovered that the collision that created the Sea of Nectar deposited debris as much as 1,000 miles away. Apollo 17 landed near a scarp eight times higher than any on Earth."
The oldest rocks on the Moon were judged to be 4.25 billionyears old; soil particles gave a date of 4.6 billion years. Theage of the Moon, all 1,500 or so scientists who have studied the rocks and soil brought back agree, dates back to the timethe Solar System first took shape. But then something happenedabout 4 billion years ago. Writing in Scientific American (January 1977), William Hartmann, in his article "Cratering in the Solar System," reported that "various Apollo analysts havefound that the age of many samples of lunar rocks cuts off rather sharply at four billion years; few older rocks have survived." The rocks and soil samples that contained the glassesformed by the intense impacts were as old as 3.9 billion years."We know that a widespread cataclysmic episode of intense bombardment destroyed older rocks and surfaces of the planets," Gerald J. Wasserburg of Caltech stated on the eveof the last Apollo mission; the remaining question, then, was "what happened between the origin of the Moon about 4.6billion years ago and 4 billion years ago," when the catastropheoccurred. 
So the rock found by astronaut David Scott that was nicknamed "the Genesis Rock" was not formed at the time the Moon was formed, it was actually formed as a result of thatcatastrophic event some 600 million years later. Even so, it was appropriately named; for the tale in Genesis is not that ofthe primordial forming of the Solar System 4.6 billion yearsago, but of the Celestial Battle of Nibiru/Marduk with Tiamatsome 4 billion years ago. 
Unhappy with all the theories that have so far been offered for the origin of the Moon, some have attempted to select the best one by grading the theories according to certain constraintsand criteria. A "Truth Table" prepared by Michael J. Drake of the University of Arizona Lunar and Planetary Laboratoryhad the Coaccretion theory far ahead of all others. In John A.Wood's analysis it met all the criteria except that of the Earth-Moon angular momentum and the melting on the Moon; oth- erwise it bettered all others. The consensus has now focused again on the Coaccretion theory, with some elements borrowedfrom the Giant Impact and Fission theories. According to the theory offered at the 1984 Conference by A. P. Boss of theCarnegie Institute and S. J. Peale of the University of Cali- fornia, the Moon is indeed seen as coaccreting with Earth fromthe same primoridal matter, but the gas cloud within which the coaccretion took place was subjected to bombardments by planetesimals, which sometimes disintegrated the forming Moonand sometimes added foreign material to its mass (Fig. 43). The net result was an ever-larger Moon attracting and absorbing other moonlets that were forming within the circumterrestrial ring—a Moon both akin to and somewhat different from theEarth. 
Having swung from theory to theory, modern science nowembraces as a theory for the origin of our Moon the sameprocess that gave the outer planets their multimoon 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. 
Figure 43 
For the answer, we have to go back to Sumerian cosmogony.The first help it offers modern science is its assertion that theMoon originated not as a satellite of Earth but of the muchlarger 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 be- yond Mars, which would qualify her as an outer planet; andthe "celestial horde" was acquired by her no differently thanby the other outer planets.
When we compare the latest scientific theories with Sumerian cosmogony, we find not only that modern scientists havecome around to accepting the same ideas found in the Sumerianbody of knowledge but are even using terminology that mimicsthe Sumerian texts. . . . 
Just as the latest modern theories do, the Sumerian cos- mogony also describes the scene as that of an early, unstableSolar System where planetesimals and emerging gravitationalforces disturb the planetary balance and, sometimes, causemoons to grow disproportionately. In The 12th Planet, I described the celestial conditions thus: "With the end of the 
majestic drama of the birth of the planets, the authors of theCreation Epic now raise the curtain on Act II, on a drama ofcelestial turmoil. The newly created family of planets was farfrom being stable. The planets were gravitating toward eachother; they were converging on Tiamat, disturbing and endangering the primordial bodies." In the poetic words of the En- uma elish, 
The divine brothers banded together;
They disturbed Tiamat as they surged back and forth.
They were troubling the belly of Tiamat
by their antics in the dwellings of heaven.
Apsu [the Sun] could not lessen their clamor;
Tiamat was speechless at their ways.
Their doings were loathsome . . .
Troublesome were their ways;
they were overbearing. 
"We have here obvious references to erratic orbits," I wrote in The 12th Planet. The new planets "surged back and forth";they got too close to each other ("banded together"); theyinterfered with Tiamat's orbit; they got too close to her "belly"; their "ways"—orbits—"were troublesome"; their gravitational pull was "overbearing"—excessive, disregard- ing the others' orbits.
Abandoning earlier concepts of a Solar System slowly cooling and gradually freezing into its present shape out of the hotprimordial cloud, scientific opinion has now swung in the opposite direction. "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." He quoted such studies asthat by Gerald J. Sussman and Jack Wisdom of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in which they went back bycomputer simulations and discovered that "many orbits thatlie between Uranus and Neptune become chaotic," and that"the orbital behavior of Pluto is chaotic and unpredictable." 
J. Laskar of the Bureau des Longitudes in Paris found originalchaos throughout the Solar System, "but especially among theinner planets, including Earth." 
George Wetherill, updating his calculations of multicollisions by some five hundred planetesimals (Science, May 17,1985), described the process in the zone of the terrestrial planetsas the accretion of "lots of brothers and sisters" that collided to form "trial planets." The process of accretion—crashinginto one another, breaking up, capturing the material of others, until some grew larger and eventually became the terrestrial planets—he said, was nothing short of a "battle royal" thatlasted most of the first 100 million years of the Solar System.
The eminent scientist's words are astoundingly similar tothose of the Enutna elish. He speaks of "lots of brothers and sisters" moving about, colliding with each other, affectingeach other's orbits and very existence. The ancient text speaks of "divine brothers" who "disturbed," "troubled," "surged back and forth" in the heavens in the very zone where Tiamatwas, near her "belly." He uses the expression "battle royal" to describe the conflict between these "brothers and sisters." The Sumerian narrative uses the very same word—"battle"—- to describe what happened, and recorded for all time the eventsof Genesis as the Celestial Battle. 
We read in the ancient texts that as the celestial disturbances increased, Tiamat brought forth her own "host" with which"to do battle" with the celestial "brothers" who were encroaching on her: 
She has set up an Assembly
and is furious with rage. . . . 
Withall, eleven of this kind she brought forth. . . .

They thronged and marched at the side of Tiamat;Enraged, they plot ceaselessly day and night. They are set for combat, fuming and raging; They have assembled, prepared for conflict. 
Just as modern astronomers are troubled by the disproportionately large size of the Moon, so were the authors of the Enuma elish. Putting words in the mouths of the other planets,they point to the expanding size and disturbing mass of "Kingu" as their chief complaint: 
From among the gods who formed her hosther first-born, Kingu, she elevated;In their midst she made him great.To be head of her ranks, to command her host, to raise weapons for the encounter,to be in the lead for combat, in the battle to be the commander— these to the hand of Kingu she entrusted.As she caused him to be in her host, "I have cast a spell for thee," she said to him;"I have made thee great in the assembly of the gods;Dominion over the gods I have given unto thee.Verily, thou art supreme!" 
According to this ancient cosmogony, one of the eleven moons of Tiamat did grow to an unusual size because of the ongoing perturbations and chaotic conditions in the newlyformed Solar System. How the creation of this monstrous moon affected these conditions is regrettably not clear from the ancient text; the enigmatic verses, with some of the original words subject to different readings and translations, seem to say thatmaking Kingu "exalted" resulted in "making the fire subside" (per E. A. Speiser), or "quieting the fire-god" (per A. Heidel)and humbling /vanquishing the "Power-weapon which is so potent in its sweep"—a possible reference to the disturbingpull of gravitation.
Whatever quieting effect the enlargement of "Kingu" mayhave had on Tiamat and her host, it proved increasingly disruptive to the other planets. Especially disturbing to them wasthe elevation of Kingu to the status of a full-fledged planet: 
She gave him a Tablet of Destinies, 
fastened it on his breast. . . . 
Kingu was elevated, 
had received a heavenly rank.

It was this "sin" of Tiamat, her giving Kingu his own orbital"destiny," that enraged the other planets to the point of "calling in" Nibiru/Marduk to put an end to Tiamat and her out-of-line consort. In the ensuing Celestial Battle, as described 
earlier, Tiamat was split in two: one half was shattered; theother half, accompanied by Kingu, was thrust into a new orbit to become the Earth and its Moon. 
We have here a sequence that conforms with the best points of the various modern theories regarding the origin, evolution,and final fate of the Moon. Though the nature of the "powerweapon . . . so potent in its sweep" or that of "the fire-god" that caused Kingu to grow disproportionately large remains unclear, the fact of the disproportionate size of the Moon (evenrelative to the larger Tiamat) is recorded in all its disturbing details. All is there-—except that it is not Sumerian cosmogonythat corroborates modern science, but modern science that catches up with ancient knowledge.
Could the Moon have indeed been a planet-in-themaking, as the Sumerians said? As reviewed in earlier chapters, this was quite conceivable. Did it in fact assume planetaryaspects? Contrary to long-held views that the Moon was alwaysan inert object, it was found, in the 1970s and 1980s, to possessvirtually all the attributes of a planet except its own independentorbit around the Sun. Its surface has regions of rugged andtangled mountains; it has plains and "seas" that, if not formed by water, were probably formed by molten lava. To the sci- entists' surprise the Moon was found to be layered, as the Earthis. In spite of the depletion of its iron by the catastrophic eventdiscussed earlier, it appears to have retained an iron core. Scientists debate whether the core is still molten, for to their astonishment the Moon was found to have once possessed amagnetic field, which is caused by the rotation of a molteniron core, as is true of the Earth and other planets. Significantly,as studies by Keith Runcorn of Britain's University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne indicate, the magnetism "dwindled awaycirca four billion years ago"-—the time of the Celestial Battle.
Instruments installed on the Moon by Apollo astronauts re- layed data that revealed "unexpectedly high heat flows from beneath the lunar surface," indicating ongoing activity inside the "lifeless orb." Vapor—water vapor—was detected by Rice University scientists, who reported (in October 1971)seeing "geysers of water vapor erupting through cracks in the lunar surface.'' Other unexpected findings reported at the Third Lunar Science Conference in Houston in 1972 disclosed on
going volcanism on the Moon, which "'would imply the simultaneous existence near the lunar surface of significant quantities of heat and water."
In 1973, "bright flashes" sighted on the Moon were found to be emissions of gas from the Moon's interior. Reportingthis, Walter Sullivan, science editor of The New York Times, observed that it appeared that the Moon, even if not a "living celestial body... is at least a breathing one," Such puffs ofgas and darkish mists have been observed in several of the Moon's deep craters from the very first Apollo mission and at least through 1980.
The indications that lunar volcanism may still be going onhave led scientists to assume that the Moon once had a full-fledged atmosphere whose volatile elements and compoundsincluded hydrogen, helium, argon, sulfur, carbon compounds,and water. The possibility that there may still be water belowthe Moon's surface has raised the intriguing question of whether water once flowed on the face of the Moon—water that, as a very volatile compound, evaporated and was dissi- pated into space.
Were it not for budgetary constraints, NASA would havebeen willing to adopt the recommendations of a panel of scientists to explore the Moon with a view to begin mining its mineral resources. Thirty geologists, chemists, and physicists who met in August 1977 at the University of California in San Diego pointed out that research on the Moon—both from orbit and on its surface—had been limited to its equatorial regions;they urged the launching of a lunar polar orbiter, not onlybecause such an orbiter could collect data from the entire Moon, but also with a view to discovering if there is now water onthe Moon. "One target of the orbiter's observations," ac-cording to James Arnold of the University of California,"would be small areas near each pole where the Sun nevershines. It has been theorized by scientists that as much as 100billion tons of water in the form of ice are likely to be found in those places. ... If you're going to have large-scale activitiesin space, like mining and manufacturing, it's going to involvea lot of water, the Moon's polar regions could be a goodsource." 
Whether the Moon still has water, after all the cataclysmic events it has undergone, is still to be ascertained. But the increasing evidence that it may still have water in its interior and may have had water on its surface should not be surprising.After all, the Moon—alias Kingu—was the leading satelliteof the "watery monster" Tiamat.
On the occasion of the last Apollo mission to the Moon,The Economist (Science and Technology, December 11,1972)summed up the program's discoveries thus: "Perhaps the mostimportant of all, exploration of the moon has shown that it isnot a simple, uncomplicated sphere but a true planetary body.'' 
"A true planetary body." Just as the Sumerians described millennia ago. And just as they stated millennia ago, the planet- to-be was not to become a planet with its own orbit aroundthe Sun because it was deprived of that status as a result of the Celestial Battle. Here is what Nibiru/Marduk did to "Kingu": 
And Kingu, who had become chief among them,
he made shrink, as a DUG.GA.E god he counted him.
He took from him the Tablet of Destinies 
which was not rightfully his;
He sealed on it his own seal 
and fastened it to his own breast. 
Deprived of its orbital momentum, Kingu was reduced to the status of a mere satellite—our Moon. 
The Sumerian observation that Nibiru/Marduk made Kingu "shrink" has been taken to refer to its reduction in rank and importance. But as recent findings indicate, the Moon has beendepleted of the bulk of its iron by a cataclysmic event, resulting in a marked decrease in its density. "There are two planetarybodies within the Solar System whose peculiar mean densityimplies that they are unique and probably the products of unusual circumstances," Alastair Cameron wrote in Icarus (vol.64, 1985); "these are the Moon and Mercury. The former has a low mean density and is greatly depleted in iron." In otherwords, Kingu has indeed shrunk!
There is other evidence that the Moon became more compactas a result of heavy impacts. On the side facing away fromEarth-—its far side—the surface has highlands and a thick 
Figure 44 
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, es- pecially where the surface had been flattened out. Thoughoutwardly the Moon (as do all celestial bodies larger than aminimal size) has a spherical shape, the mass in its core appearsto have the shape of a gourd, as a computer study shows (Fig.44). It is a shape that bears the mark of the "big whack" that compressed the Moon and thrust it into its new place in theheavens, just as the Sumerians had related.
The Sumerian assertion that Kingu was turned into a DUG.GA.E is equally intriguing. The term, I wrote in The12th Planet, literally means "pot of lead." At the time I tookit to be merely a figurative description of the Moon as " a massof 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 onthe Moon was so-called "parentless lead." The Apollo pro
gram revealed that the top few miles of the Moon's crust are unusually rich in radioactive elements such as uranium. Therewas also evidence of the existence of extinct radon. These elements decay and become lead at either final or intermediarystages 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 Sumerianassertion 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 accuracyof ancient knowledge. 
IN THE ASTRONAUTS' OWN WORDS 
Feeling changes of "almost a spiritual nature" in their views of themselves, of other humans, and of the possibilityof intelligent life existing beyond Earth have been reported by almost all the American astronauts.
Gordon Cooper, who piloted Mercury 9 in 1963 and copiloted Gemini 5 in 1965, returned with the belief that "intelligent, extraterrestrial life has visited Earth in ages past" and became interested in archaeology. Edward G. Gibson, a scientist aboard Skylab 3 (1974), said that orbiting the Earth for days "makes you speculate a little more about lifeexisting elsewhere in the universe."
Especially moved were the astronauts of the Apollo missions to the Moon. "Something happens to you out there," stated Apollo 14 astronaut Ed Mitchell. Jim Irwin fApollo 15) was "deeply moved ... and felt the presence of God." His comrade on the mission, Al Worden, speaking on thetwentieth anniversary of the first landing on the Moon on aTV program ("The Other Side of the Moon" produced by Michael G. Lemle) compared the lunar module that was used to land on and take off vertically from the Moon tothe spaceship described in Ezekiel's vision. 
"In my mind," said Al Worden, "the universe has to be cyclic; in one galaxy there is a planet becoming unlivableand in another part or a different galaxy there is a planetthat is perfect for habitation, and I see some intelligentbeing, like us, skipping around from planet to planet, as South Pacific Indians do on islands, to continue the species.I think that's what the space program is all about. ... 1 thinkwe may be a combination of creatures that were living hereon Earth some time in the past, and had a visitation bybeings from somewhere else in the universe; and those twospecies getting together and having progeny. . . . In fact, a very small group of explorers could land on a planet and create successors to themselves who would eventually take up the pursuit of inhabiting the rest of the universe,"
And Buzz Aldrin (Apollo 11) expressed the belief that"one of these days, through telescopes that may be in orbit,like the Hubble telescope, or other technical breakthroughs,we may learn that indeed we are not alone in this marvelous 
THE SEED OF LIFE 
Of all the mysteries confronting Mankind's quest for knowledge, the greatest is the mystery called "life."
Evolution theory explains how life on Earth evolved, all theway from the earliest, one-celled creatures to Homo sapiens;it does not explain how life on Earth began. Beyond the question, Are we alone? lies the more fundamental question: Is lifeon Earth unique, unmatched in our Solar System, our galaxy,the whole universe? 
According to the Sumerians, life was brought into the Solar System by Nibiru; it was Nibiru that imparted the "seed of life" to Earth during the Celestial Battle with Tiamat. Modern science has come a long way toward the same conclusion.
In order to figure out how life might have begun on theprimitive Earth, the scientists had to determine, or at least assume, what the conditions were on the newly born Earth.Did it have water? Did it have an atmosphere? What of life'smain building blocks—molecular combinations of hydrogen,carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, and phosphorus? Were theyavailable on the young Earth to initiate the precursors of living organisms? At present the Earth's dry air is made up of 79percent nitrogen (N2), 20 percent oxygen (O2) and 1 percentargon (Ar), plus traces of other elements (the atmosphere contains water vapor in addition to the dry air). This docs not reflect the relative abundance of elements in the universe, where hydrogen (87 percent) and helium (12 percent) make up 99 percent of all abundant elements. It is therefore believed (among other reasons) that the present earthly atmosphere isnot Earth's original one. Both hydrogen and helium are highlyvolatile, and their diminished presence in Earth's atmosphere,as well as its deficiency of "noble" gases such as neon, argon, 
133 
krypton, and xenon (relative to their cosmic abundance), suggest to scientists that the Earth experienced a "thermal episode" sometime before 3.8 billion years ago—an occurrencewith which my readers are familiar by now. . . .
By and large the scientists now believe that Earth's atmo- sphere was reconstituted initially from the gases spewed outby the volcanic convulsions of a wounded Earth. As clouds thrown up by these eruptions shielded the Earth and it began to cool, the vaporized water condensed and came down in torrential rains. Oxidation of rocks and minerals provided the first reservoir of higher levels of oxygen on Earth; eventually,plant life added both oxygen and carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere and started the nitrogen cycle (with the aid of bacteria).
It is noteworthy that even in this respect the ancient textsstand up to the scrutiny of modern science. The fifth tablet ofEnutna elish, though badly damaged, describes the gushing lava as Tiamat's "spittle" and places the volcanic activityearlier than the formation of the atmosphere, the oceans, and the continents. The spittle, the text states, was "laying inlayers" as it poured forth. The phase of "making the cold"and the "assembling of the water clouds" are described; afterthat the "foundations" of Earth were raised and the oceans were gathered—just as the verses in Genesis have reiterated.It was only thereafter that life appeared on Earth: green herbageupon the continents and '"swarms" in the waters. 
But living cells, even the simplest ones, are made up ofcomplex molecules of various organic compounds, not just of separate chemical elements. How did these molecules come about? Because many of these compounds have been foundelsewhere in the Solar System, it has been assumed that theyform naturally, given enough time. In 1953 two scientists at the University of Chicago, Harold Urey and Stanley Miller, conducted what has since been called "a most striking experiment." In a pressure vessel they mixed simple organic mol- ecules of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor,dissolved the mixture in water to simulate the primordial watery"soup," and subjected the mixture to electrical sparks to emulate primordial lightning bolts. The experiment produced several amino and hydroxy acids—the building blocks of proteins. 
which are essential to living matter. Other researchers later subjected similar mixtures to ultraviolet light, ionizing radiation, or heat to simulate the effects of the Sun's rays as well as various other types of radiation on the Earth's primitive atmosphere and murky waters. The results were the same.
But it was one thing to show that nature itself could, under certain conditions, come up with life's building blocks—notjust simple but even complex organic compounds; it was another thing to breathe life into the resulting compounds, which remained inert and lifeless in the compression chambers. "Life" is defined as the ability to absorb nutrients (of anykind) and to replicate, not just to exist. Even the biblical taleof Creation recognizes that when the most complex being on Earth, Man, was shaped out of "clay," divine intervention was needed to "breathe the spirit/breath of life" into him. Without that, no matter how ingeniously created, he was notyet animate, not yet living.
As astronomy has done in the celestial realm, so, in the1970s and 1980s, did biochemistry unlock many of the secretsof terrestrial life. The innermost reaches of living cells have been pried open, the genetic code that governs replication hasbeen understood, and many of the complex components that make the tiniest one-celled being or the cells of the most advanced creatures have been synthesized. Pursuing the research, Stanley Miller, now at the University of California at SanDiego, has commented that "we have learned how to make organic compounds from inorganic elements; the next step isto learn how they organize themselves into a replicating cell."
The murky-waters, or "primordial-soup," hypothesis for the origin of life on Earth envisions a multitude of those earliestorganic molecules in the ocean, bumping into each other asthe result of waves, currents, or temperature changes, andeventually sticking to one another through natural cell attrac- tions to form cell groupings from which polymers—longchained molecules that lie at the core of body formation— eventually developed. But what gave these cells the genetic memory to know, not just how to combine, but how to rep- licate, to make the ultimate bodies grow? The need to involveihe genetic code in the transition from inanimate organic matterto an animate state has led to a "Made-of-Clay" hypothesis. 
The launching of this theory is attributed to an announcementin April 1985 by researchers at the Ames Research Center, a NASA facility at Mountainview, California; but in fact the ideathat clay on the shores of ancient seas played an important role in the origin of life on Earth was made public at the October 1977 Pacific Conference on Chemistry. There James A. Lawless, who headed a team of researchers at NASA's Ames fa- cility, reported on experiments in which simple amino acids(the chemical building blocks of proteins) and nucleotides (thechemical building blocks of genes)—assuming they had al- ready developed in the murky "primordial soup" in the sea— began to form into chains when deposited on clays that contained traces of metals such as nickel or zinc, and allowed to dry. 
What the researchers found to be significant was that thetraces of nickel selectively held on only to the twenty kinds ofamino acids that are common to all living things on Earth,while the traces of zinc in the clay helped link together the nucleotides, which resulted in a compound analogous to acrucial enzyme (called DNA-polymerase) that links pieces ofgenetic material in all living cells.
In 1985 the scientists of the Ames Research Center reportedsubstantial advances in understanding the role of clay in theprocesses that had led to life on Earth. Clay, they discovered,has two basic properties essential to life: the capacity to store and the ability to transfer energy. In the primordial conditionssuch energy might have come from radioactive decay, among other possible sources. Using the stored energy, clays mighthave acted as chemical laboratories where inorganic raw matefials were processed into more complex molecules. There was more: one scientist, Armin Weiss of the University ofMunich, reported experiments in which clay crystals seemedto reproduce themselves from a "parent crystal"—a primitivereplication phenomenon; and Graham Cairns-Smith of the University of Glasgow held that the inorganic "proto-organisms"in the clay were involved in "directing" or actually acting as a "template" from which the living organisms eventually evolved. 
Explaining these tantalizing properties of clay-—even common clay—Lelia Coyne, who headed one research team, said 
that the ability of the clays to trap and transmit energy wasdue to "mistakes" in the formation of clay crystals; these defects in the clays' microstructure acted as the sites where energy was stored and from which the chemical directions for the formation of the proto-organisms emanated.
"If the theory can be confirmed," The New York Times commented in its report of the announcements, "it would seemthat an accumulation of chemical mistakes led to life on Earth.'' So the "life-from-clay" theory, in spite of the advances it offered, depended, as the "murky-soup" theory did, on random occurrences—microstructural mistakes here, occasional lightning strikes and collisions of molecules there—to explain the transition from chemical elements to simple organic molecules to complex organic molecules and from inanimate to animate matter. 
The improved theory seemed to do another thing, which didnot escape notice. "The theory," The New York Times continued, "is also evocative of the biblical account of the Creation. In Genesis it is written, 'And the Lord God formed man of dust of the ground,' and in common usage the primordialdust is called clay." This news story, and the biblical parallel implicit in it, merited an editorial in the venerablenewspaper. Under the headline "Uncommon Clay," the edi-torial said: 
Ordinary clay, it seems, has two basic properties essentialto life. It can store energy and also transmit it. So, thescientists reason, clay could have acted as a "chemicalfactory" for turning inorganic raw materials into more complex molecules. Out of those complex molecules arose life—and, one day, us.
That the Bible's been saying so all along, clay being what Genesis meant by the "dust of the ground" thatformed man, is obvious. What is not so obvious is how often we have been saying it to one another, and withoutknowing it. 
The combined murky-soup and life-from-clay theories, fewhave realized, have gone even further in substantiating theancient accounts. Further experiments by Lelia Coyne together 
with Noam Lahab of the Hebrew University, Israel, haveshown that to act as catalysts in the formation of short strings of amino acids, the clays must undergo cycles of wetting anddrying. This process calls for an environment where water canalternate with dryness, either on dry land that is subjected toon-and-off rains or where seas slosh back and forth as a result of tides. The conclusion, which appeared to gain support from experiments aimed at searching for "protocells" that were conducted at the Institute for Molecular and Cellular Evolution at the University of Miami, pointed to primitive algae as thefirst one-celled living creatures on Earth. Still found in ponds and in damp places, algae appear little changed in spite of the passage of billions of years.
Because until a few decades ago no evidence for land life older than about 500 million years had been found, it wasassumed that the life that evolved from algae was limited tothe oceans. "There were algae in the oceans but the land wasyet devoid of life," textbooks used to state. But in 1977 ascientific team led by Elso S. Barghoorn of Harvard discovered in sedimentary rocks in South Africa (at a site in Swazilandcalled Figtree) the remains of microscopic, one-celled creaturesthat were 3.1 (and perhaps as much as 3.4) billion years old; they were similar to today's blue-green algae and pushed backby almost a billion years the time when this precursor of morecomplex forms of life evolved on Earth.
Until then evolutionary progression was believed to haveoccurred primarily in the oceans, with land creatures evolvingfrom maritime forms, with amphibian life forms as an inter- mediary. But the presence of green algae in sedimentary rocksof such a great age required revised theories. Though there is no unanimity regarding the classification of algae as either plantor nonplant, since it has backward affinities with bacteria and forward affinities with the earliest fauna, either green or blue-green algae is undoubtedly the precursor of chlorophyllicplants—the plants that use sunlight to convert their nutrients to organic compounds, emitting oxygen in the process. Greenalgae, though without roots, stems, or leaves, began the plant family whose descendants now cover the Earth.
It is important to follow the scientific theories of the ensuing evolution of life on Earth in order to grasp the accuracy of the 
biblical record. For more complex life forms to evolve, oxygenwas needed. This oxygen became available only after algae orproto-algae began to spread upon the dry land. For these green plantlike forms to utilize and process oxygen, they needed anenvironment of rocks containing iron with which to "bind" the oxygen (otherwise they would have been destroyed byoxidation; free oxygen was still a poison to these life forms). Scientists believe that as such "banded-iron formations'1 sank into ocean bottoms as sediments, the single-celled organismsevolved into multicelled ones in the water. In other words, the covering of the lands with green algae had to precede the emergence of maritime life.
The Bible, indeed, says as much: Green herbage, it states, was created on Day Three, but maritime life not until DayFive. It was on the third "day," or phase, of creation thatElohim said: 
Let the Earth bring forth green herbage, 
and grasses that yield seeds, and fruit trees 
that bear fruit of all kinds 
in accordance with the seeds thereof.

The presence of fruits and seeds as the green growth ad- vanced from grasses to trees also illustrates the evolution fromasexual reproduction to sexual reproduction. In this, too, the Bible includes in its scientific account of evolution a step that modern science believes took place, in algae, some two billionyears ago. That is when the "green herbage" began to increasethe air's oxygen. 
At that point, according to Genesis, there were no "crea- tures" on our planet—neither in the waters, nor in the air, noron dry land. To make the eventual appearance of vertebrate(inner-skeleton) "creatures" possible, Earth had to set the pattern of the biological clocks that underlie the life cycles of allliving forms on Earth. The Earth had to settle into its orbitaland rotational patterns and be subjected to the effects of theSun and the Moon, which were primarily manifested in thecycles of light and darkness. The Book of Genesis assigns thefourth "day" to this organization and to the resulting year, 
Figure 45 
month, day, and night repetitious periods. Only then, with all celestial relationships and cycles and their effects firmly established, did the creatures of the sea, air, and land make their appearance.
Modern science not only agrees with this biblical scenario but, may also provide a clue to the reason the ancient authorsof the scientific summary called Genesis inserted a celestial "chapter" ("day four") between the evolutionary record of "day three"—time of the earliest appearance of life forms—and "day five," when the "creatures" appeared. In modern 
science, too, there is an unfilled gap of about 1.5 billion years—from about 2 billion years to about 570 million years ago—about which little is known because of the paucity ofgeological and fossil data. Modem science calls this era "Pre- cambrian"; lacking the data, the ancient savants used (his gapto describe the establishment of celestial relationships and biological cycles.
Although modern science regards the ensuing Cambrian pe- riod (so named after the region in Wales where the first geologicdata for it were obtained) as the first phase of the Paleozoic("Old Life") era, it was not yet the time of vertebrates—thelife forms with an inner skeleton that the Bible calls "creatures." The first maritime vertebrates appeared about 500 million years ago, and land vertebrates followed about 100 million years later, during periods that are regarded by scientists asthe transition from the Lower Paleozoic era to the Upper Pa- leozoic era. When that era ended, about 225 million years ago,(Fig. 45) there were fish in the waters as well as sea plants,and amphibians had made the transition from water to dry landand the plants upon the dry lands attracted ihe amphibians to evolve into reptiles; today's crocodiles are a remnant of that evolutionary phase.
The following era, named the Mesozoic ("Middle Life"),embraces the period from about 225 million to 65 million yearsago and has often been nicknamed the '' Age of the Dinosaurs.'' Alongside a variety of amphibians and marine lizards there evolved, away from the oceans and their teeming marine life,two main lines of egg-laying reptilians: those who took to flyingand evolved into birds; and those who, in great variety, roamedand dominated the Earth as dinosaurs ("terrible lizards") (Fig.46).
It is impossible to read the biblical verses with an open mindwithout realizing that the creational events of the fifth "day"of Genesis describe the above-listed development: 
And Elohim said: 
"Let the waters swarm with living creatures,
and let aves fly above the earth, under the dome of the sky.''
And Elohim created the large reptilians,

and all the living creatures that crawl 
and that swarmed in the waters,
all in accordance with their kinds,
and all the winged aves by their kinds.
And Elohim blessed them, saying:
"Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters of the seas,
and let the aves multiply upon the earth."

The tantalizing reference in these verses of Genesis to the "large reptilians" as a recognition of the dinosaurs cannot bedismissed. The Hebrew term used here, Taninim (plural ofTanin) has been variously translated as "sea serpent," "sea monsters," and "crocodile." To quote the Encyclopaedia Britannica, "the crocodiles are the last living link with the dinosaur-like reptiles of prehistoric times; they are, at the same 
Figure 46 Figure 47 
time, the nearest living relatives of the birds." The conclusion that by "large Taninim"' the Bible meant not simply large reptilians but dinosaurs seems plausible—not because the Sumerians had seen dinosaurs, but because Anunnaki scientists had surely figured out the course of evolution on Earth at leastas well as twentieth-century scientists have done.
No less intriguing is the order in which the ancient text lists the three branches of vertebrates. For a long time scientistsheld that birds evolved from dinosaurs, when these reptilesbegan to develop a gliding mechanism to ease their jumpingfrom tree branches in search of food or, another theory holds,when ground-bound heavy dinosaurs attained greater runningspeed by reducing their weight through the development of hollow bones. A fossil confirmation of the origin of birds from the latter, gaining further speed for soaring by evolving twoleggedness, appeared to have been found in the remains of Deinonychus ("terrible-clawed" reptile), a fast runner whose tail skeleton assumed a featherlike shape (Fig. 47). The dis- covery of fossilized remains of a creature now called Ar- chaeopteryx ("old feather"—Fig. 48a) was deemed to have provided the "missing link" between dinosaurs and birds andgave rise to the theory that the two-—dinosaurs and birds—hadan early common land ancestor at the beginning of the Triassicperiod. But even this antedating of the appearance of birds hascome into question since additional fossils of Archaeopteryx 
Figure 48 
were discovered in Germany; they indicate that this creaturewas by and large a fully developed bird (Fig. 48b) that hadnot evolved from the dinosaurs but rather directly from a much earlier ancestor who had come from the seas. 
The biblical sources appear to have known all that. Not onlydoes the Bible not list the dinosaurs ahead of birds (as scientistsdid for awhile); it actually lists birds ahead of the dinosaurs. With so much of the fossil record still incomplete, paleontologists may still find evidence that will indeed show that earlybirds had more in common with sea life than with desert lizards. 
About 65 million years ago the era of the dinosaurs came to an abrupt end; theories regarding the causes range fromclimatic changes to viral epidemics to destruction by a "DeathStar." Whatever the cause, there was an unmistakable end of one evolutionary period and the beginning of another. In thewords of Genesis, it was the dawn of the sixth "day." Modernscience calls it the Cenozoic ("current life") era, when mam- mals spread across the Earth. This is how the Bible put it: 
And Elohim said: 
"Let the Earth bring forth living animals
according to their kind:
bovines, and those that creep,
and beasts of the land, 
all according to their kind,"
And it was so. 
Thus did Elohim make all the animals of the land 
according to their kinds,
and all the bovines according to their kinds,
and all those that creep upon the earth by their kinds. 
There is full agreement here between Bible and Science. The conflict between Creationists and Evolutionists reaches its crux in the interpretation of what happened next—-the appear- ance of Man on Earth. It is a subject that will be dealt with in the next chapter. Here it is important to point out that althoughone might expect that a primitive or unknowing society, seeinghow Man is superior to all other animals, would assume Man to be the oldest creature on Earth and thus the most developed,the wisest. But the Book of Genesis does not say so at all. On 
the contrary, it asserts that Man was a latecomer to Earth. We are not the oldest story of evolution but only its last few pages.Modem science agrees.
That is exactly what the Sumerians had taught in theirschools. As we read in the Bible, it was only after all the"days" of creation had run their course, after "all the fishes of the sea and all the fowl that fly the skies and all the animalsthat fill the earth and all the creeping things that crawl upon the earth" that "Elohim created the Adam." 
On the sixth "day" of creation, God's work on Earth wasdone. "This," the Book of Genesis states, "is the way the Heavenand the Earth have come to be." 
Up to the point of Man's creation, then, modern science and ancient knowledge parallel each other. But by charting thecourse of evolution, modern science has left behind the initial question about the origin of life as distinct from its developmentand evolution. 
The murky-soup and life-from-clay theories only suggest that, given the right materials and conditions, life could arisespontaneously. This notion, that life's elemental building blocks, such as ammonia and methane (the simplest stablecompounds of nitrogen and hydrogen and of carbon and hydrogen, respectively) could have formed by themselves as partof nature's processes, seemed fortified by the discovery in recent decades that these compounds are present and evenplentiful on other planets. But how did chemical compounds become animate? 
That the feat is possible is obvious; the evidence is that life did appear on Earth. The speculation that life, in one form oranother, may also exist elsewhere in our Solar System, andprobably in other star systems, presupposes the feasibility ofthe transition from inanimate to animate matter. So, the question is not can it happen but how did it happen here on Earth?
For life as we see it on Earth to happen, two basic molecules are necessary: proteins, which perform all the complex metabolic functions of living cells; and nucleic acids, which carrythe genetic code and issue the instructions for the cell's processes. The two kinds of molecules, as the definition itself 
suggests, function within a unit called a cell—quite a complexorganism in itself, which is capable of triggering the replicationnot only of itself but of the whole animal of which the single cell is but a minuscule component. In order to become proteins, amino acids must form long and complex chains. In the cell they perform the task according to instructions stored in one nucleic acid (DNA—deoxyribonucleic acid) and transmittedby another nucleic acid (RNA—ribonucleic acid). Could random conditions prevailing on the primordial Earth have causedamino acids to combine into chains? In spite of varied attemptsand theories (notable experiments were conducted by CliffordMatthews of the University of Illinois), the pathways sought by the scientists all required more "compressive energy" than would have been available. 
Did DNA and RNA, then, precede amino acids on Earth?Advances in genetics and the unraveling of the mysteries ofthe living cell have increased, rather than diminished, the prob- lems. The discovery in 1953 by James D. Watson and Francis 
H. Crick of the "double-helix" structure of DNA opened up vistas of immense complexity regarding these two chemicalsof life. The relatively giant molecules of DNA are in theform of two long, twisted strings connected by "rungs" madeof four very complex organic compounds (marked on genetic charts by the initials of the names of the compounds,A-G-C-T). These four nucleotides can combine in pairs insequences of limitless variety and are bound into place (Fig. 49) by sugar compounds alternating with phosphates. The nucleic acid RNA, no less complex and built of four nucleotideswhose initials are A-G-C-U, may contain thousands of combinations. 
How much time did evolution take on Earth to develop thesecomplex compounds, without which life as we know it wouldhave never evolved? 
The fossil remains of algae found in 1977 in South Africawere dated to 3.1 to 3.4 billion years ago. But while thatdiscovery was of microscopic, single-celled organisms, otherdiscoveries in 1980 in western Australia deepened the wonderment. The team, led by J. William Schopf of the Universityof California at Los Angeles, found fossil remains of organismsthat not only were much older—3.5 billion years—but that 
Figure 49 
were multicelled and looked under the microscope like chain-like filaments (Fig. 50). These organisms already possessedboth amino acids and complex nucleic acids, the replicatinggenetic compounds, 3.5 billion years ago; they therefore hadto represent, not the beginning of the chain of life on Earth,but an already advanced stage of it.
What these finds had set in motion can be termed the search for the first gene. Increasingly, scientists believe that before algae there were bacteria. "We are actually looking at cells which are the direct morphological remains of the bugs them- selves," stated Malcolm R. Walter, an Australian member of the team. "They look like modern bacteria," he added. In fact, they looked like five different types of bacteria whose structures, amazingly, "were almost identical to several modern-day bacteria." 
Figure 50 
The notion that self-replication on Earth began with bacteriathat preceded algae seemed to make sense, since advances ingenetics showed that all life on Earth, from the simplest tothe most complex, has the same genetic "ingredients" and the same twenty or so basic amino acids. Indeed, much ofthe early genetic research and development of techniques ingenetic engineering were done on the lowly bacterium Escherichia coli (E. coli, for short), which can cause diarrhea in humans and cattle. But even this minuscule, single-celled bacterium that reproduces not sexually but simply by dividing, has almost 4,000 different genes!
That bacteria have played a role in the evolutionary process is apparent, not only from the fact that so many marine, plant and animal higher organisms depend on bacteria for many vital processes, but also from discoveries, first in the Pacific Oceanand then in other seas, that bacteria did and still make possible life forms that do not depend on photosynthesis but metabolizesulfur compounds in the oceans' depths. Calling such earlybacteria "archaeo-bacteria," a team led by Carl R. Woese ofthe University of Illinois dated them to a time between 3.5 and4 billion years ago. Such an age was corroborated in 1984 by 
finds in an Austrian lake by Hans Fricke of the Max PlanckInstitute and Karl Stetter of the University of Regensburg (bothin West Germany).
Sediments found off Greenland, on the other hand, bear chemical traces that indicate the existence of photosynthesisas early as 3.8 billion years ago. All these finds have thusshown that, within a few hundred million years of the impenetrable limit of 4 billion years, there were prolific bacteria andarchaeo-bacteria of a marked variety on Earth. In more recentstudies (Nature, November 9, 1989), an august team of sci- entists led by Norman H. Sleep of Stanford University concluded that the "window of time" when life on Earth beganwas just the 200 million years between 4 and 3.8 billion years ago. "Everything alive today," they stated, "evolved from organisms that originated within that Window of Time." Theydid not attempt, however, to establish how life originated at such a time. 
Based on varied evidence, including the very reliable iso- topic ratios of carbon, scientists have concluded that no matter how life on Earth began, it did so about 4 billion years ago.Why then only and not sooner, when the planets were formedsome 4.6 billion years ago? All scientific research, conducted on Earth as well as on the Moon, keeps bumping against the4-billion-year date, and all that modern science can offer inexplanation is some "catastrophic event." To know more, read the Sumerian texts.... 
Since the fossil and other data have shown that celled and replicating organisms (be they bacteria or archaeobacteria) already existed on Earth a mere 200 million years after the "Window of Time" first opened, scientists began tosearch for the "essence" of life rather than for its resultingorganisms: for traces of DNA and RNA themselves. Viruses,which are pieces of nucleic acids looking for cells in which toreplicate, are prevalent not only on land but also in water, andthat has made some believe that viruses may have precededbacteria. But what gave them their nucleic acids?
An avenue of research was opened a few years ago by LeslieOrgel of the Salk Institute in La Jolla, California, when heproposed that the simpler RNA might have preceded the muchmore complex DNA. Although RNA only transmits the genetic 
messages contained in the DNA blueprint, other researchers,among them Thomas R. Cech and co-workers at the Universityof Colorado and Sidney Altman of Yale University concludedthat a certain type of RNA could catalyze itself under certainconditions. All this led to computerized studies of a type of RNA called transfer-RNA undertaken by Manfred Eigen, aNobel-prize winner. In a paper published in Science (May 12,1989) he and his colleagues from Germany's Max Planck Institute reported that by sequencing transfer-RNA backward on the Tree of Life, they found that the genetic code on Earthcannot be older than 3.8 billion years, plus or minus 600 millionyears. At that time, Manfred Eigen said, a primordial genemight have appeared "whose message was the biblical in- junction 'Go out into the world, be fruitful and multiply'." If the leeway, as it appears, had to be on the plus side—i.e.,older than 3.8 billion years—"this would be possible only in the case of extraterrestrial origin," the authors of the learned paper added.
In her summation of the fourth Conference on the Origin ofLife, Lynn Margulis had predicted this astounding conclusion."We now recognize that if the origin of our self-replicating system occurred on the early Earth, it must have occurred quitequickly—millions, not billions of years," she stated. And she added: 
The central problem inspiring these conferences, perhapsslightly better defined, is as unsolved as ever. Did ourorganic matter originate in interstellar space? The infantscience of radioastronomy has produced evidence that some of the smaller organic molecules are there. 
Writing in 1908, Svante Arrhenius (Worlds in the Making)proposed that life-bearing spores were driven to Earth by thepressure of light waves from the star of another planetary system where life had evolved long before it did on Earth. Thenotion came to be known as "the theory of Panspermia"; itlanguished on the fringes of accepted science because, at thetime, one fossil discovery after another seemed to corroboratethe theory of evolution as an unchallenged explanation for theorigin of life on Earth. 
These fossil discoveries, however, raised their own questionsand doubts; so much so that in 1973 the Nobel laureate (nowSir) Francis Crick together with Leslie Orgel, in a paper titled"Directed Panspermia" (Icarus, vol. 19), revived the notionof the seeding of Earth with the first organisms or spores froman extraterrestrial source—not, however, by chance but as"the deliberate activity of an extraterrestrial society." Whereasour Solar System was formed only some 4.6 billion years ago,other solar systems in the universe may have formed as much as 10 billion years earlier; while the interval between the for- mation of Earth and the appearance of life on Earth is much too short, there has been as much as six billion years available for the process on other planetary systems. "The time available makes it possible, therefore, that technological societies existedelsewhere in the galaxy even before the formation of the Earth," according to Crick and Orgel. Their suggestion wastherefore that the scientific community "consider a new 'in- fective' theory, namely that a primitive form of life was de- liberately planted on Earth by a technologically advancedsociety on another planet." Anticipating criticism—which indeed followed—that no living spores could survive the rigorsof space, they suggested that the microorganisms were not sentto just drift in space but were placed in a specially designedspaceship with due protection and a life-sustain ing environment. 
In spite of the unquestionable scientific credentials of Crickand Orgel, their theory of Directed Panspermia met with disbe- lief and even ridicule. However, more recent scientific advances changed these attitudes; not only because of thenarrowing of the Window of Time to a mere couple of hundredmillion years, almost ruling out the possibility that the essentialgenetic matter had enough time to evolve here on Earth. Thechange in opinion was also due to the discovery that of themyriad of amino acids that exist, it is only the same twenty or so that are part of all living organisms on Earth, no matterwhat these organisms are and when they evolved; and that the same DNA, made up of the same four nucleotides—that and no other—is present in all living things on Earth.
It was therefore that the participants of the landmark eighthConference on the Origins of Life, held at Berkeley, California, 
in 1986. could no longer accept the random formation of lifeinherent in the murky-soup or life-from-clay hypotheses, foraccording to these theories, a variety of life forms and geneticcodes should have arisen. Instead, the consensus was that "all life on Earth, from bacteria to sequoia trees to humans, evolvedfrom a single ancestral cell."
But where did this single ancestral cell come from? The 285scientists from 22 countries did not endorse the cautious suggestions that, as some put it, fully formed cells were plantedon Earth from space. Many were, however, willing to consider that "the supply of organic precursors to life was augmentedfrom space." When all was said and done, the assembled scientists were left with only one avenue that, they hoped,might provide the answer to the puzzle of the origin of life onEarth: space exploration. The research should shift from Earthto Mars, to the Moon, to Saturn's satellite Titan, it was suggested, because their more pristine environments might havebetter preserved the traces of the beginnings of life.
Such a course of research reflects the acceptance, it must beobvious, of the premise that life is not unique to Earth. Thefirst reason for such a premise is the extensive evidence thatorganic compounds permeate the Solar System and outer space.The data from interplanetary probes have been reviewed in an earlier chapter; the data indicating life-related elements and compounds in outer space are so voluminous that only a fewinstances must suffice here. In 1977, for example, an international team of astronomers at the Max Planck Institute discovered water molecules outside our own galaxy. The densityof the water vapor was the same as in Earth's galaxy, and OttoHachenberg of the Bonn Institute for Radio Astronomy considered that finding as support for the conclusion that "conditions exist at some other place which, like those on Earth, are suitable for life." In 1984 scientists at the Goddard Space Center found ' 'a bewildering array of molecules, including thebeginning of organic chemistry" in interstellar space. They had discovered "complex molecules composed of the same atoms that make up living tissue," according to Patrick Thad- deus of the Center's Institute for Space Studies, and it was"reasonable to assume that these compounds were deposited on Earth at the time of its forming and that life ultimately came 
from them." In 1987, to give one more instance, NASA instruments discovered that exploding stars (supernovas) produced most of the ninety-odd elements, including carbon, thatare contained in living organisms on Earth.
How did such life-essential compounds, in forms that enabled life to sprout on Earth, arrive on Earth from space, near or distant? Invariably, the celestial emissaries under consideration are comets, meteors, meteorites, and impacting asteroids. Of particular interest to scientists are meteorites containing carbonaceous chondrites, believed to represent themost primordial planetary matter in the Solar System. One,which fell near Murchison in Victoria, Australia, in 1969, revealed an array of organic compounds, including amino acids and nitrogenous bases that embraced all the compounds involved in DNA. According to Ron Brown of Monash University in Melbourne, researchers have even found "formationsin the meteorite reminiscent of a very primitive form of cell structure." 
Until then, carbonaceous chondrite meteorites, first collected in France in 1806, were dismissed as unreliable evidence be- cause their life-related compounds were explained away as terrestrial contamination. But in 1977 two meteorites of this type were discovered buried in the icy wilderness of Antarctica, where no contamination was possible. These, and meteorite fragments collected elsewhere in Antarctica by Japanese sci- entists, were found to be rich in amino acids and to contain at least three of the nucleotides (the A, G, and U of the genetic"alphabet") that make up DNA and/or RNA. Writing in Scientific American (August 1983), Roy S. Lewis and EdwardAnders concluded that "carbonaceous chondrites, the most primitive meteorites, incorporate material originating outside the Solar System, including matter expelled by supernovas andother stars." Radiocarbon dating has given these meteoritesan age of 4.5 to 4.7 billion years; it makes them not only asold as but even older than Earth and establishes their extraterrestrial origin.
Reviving, in a way, the old beliefs that comets cause plagueson Earth, two noted British astronomers. Sir Fred Hoyle andChandra Wickramasinghe, suggested in a study in the NewScientist (November 17, 1977) that "life on Earth began when stray comets bearing the building blocks of life crashed into the primitive Earth." In spite of criticism by other scientists, the two have persisted in pressing this theory forward at scientific conferences, in books (Lifecloud and others) and inscholarly publications, offering each time more supportive arguments for the thesis that "about four billion years ago lifearrived in a comet." 
Recent close studies of comets, such as Halley's, have shown that the comets, as do the other messengers from far out inspace, contain water and other life-building compounds. Thesefindings have led other astronomers and biophysicists to concede the possibility that cometary impacts had played a rolein giving rise to life on Earth. In the words of Armand Del- semme of the University of Toledo, "A large number of cometshitting Earth contributed a veneer of chemicals needed for theformation of amino acids; the molecules in our bodies were likely in comets at one time."
As scientific advances made more sophisticated studies of meteorites, comets, and other celestial objects possible, the results included an even greater array of the compounds es- sential to life. The new breed of scientists, given the name "Exobiologists," have even found isotopes and other elementsin these celestial bodies that indicate an origin preceding theformation of the Solar System. An extrasolar origin for the life that eventually evolved on Earth has thus become a more acceptable proposition. The argument between the Hoyle-Wickramasinghe team and others has by now shifted its focus towhether the two are right in suggesting that "spores"—actualmicroorganisms—rather than the antecedent life-forming compounds were delivered to Earth by the cometary/meteoriticimpacts.
Could "spores" survive in the radiation and cold of outer space? Skepticism regarding this possibility was greatly dispelled by experiments conducted at Leiden University, Holland, in 1985. Reporting in Nature (vol. 316) astrophysicist J.Mayo Greenberg and his associate Peter Weber found that thiswas possible if the "spores" journeyed inside an envelope ofmolecules of water, methane, ammonia, and carbon monoxide—all readily available on other celestial bodies. Panspermia, they concluded, was possible. 
How about directed panspermia, the deliberate seeding ofEarth by another civilization, as suggested earlier by Crick andOrgel? In their view, the "envelope" protecting the sporeswas not made up just of the required compounds, but was aspaceship in which the microorganisms were kept immersedin nutrients. As much as their proposal smacks of sciencefiction, the two held fast to their "theorem." "Even though it sounds a bit cranky," Sir Francis Crick wrote in The New York Times (October 26, 1981), "all the steps in the argumentare scientifically plausible." Foreseeing that Mankind mightone day send its "seeds of life" to other worlds, why couldit not be that a higher civilization elsewhere had done it toEarth in the distant past?
Lynn Margulis, a pioneer of the Origin of Life conferencesand now a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, held in her writings and interviews that many organisms, whenfaced with harsh conditions, "release tough little packages"—she named them "Propagules"—"that can carry genetic ma- terial into more hospitable surroundings" (Newsweek, October2, 1989). It is a natural "strategy for survival" that has accounted for "space age spores"; it will happen in the futurebecause it has happened in the past.
In a detailed report concerning all these developments, headlined "NASA to Probe Heavens for Clues to Life's Originson Earth" in The New York Times (September 6, 1988), SandraBlakeslee summed up the latest scientific thinking thus: 
Driving the new search for clues to life's beginnings is
the recent discovery that comets, meteors and interstellar 
dust carry vast amounts of complex organic chemicals as
well as the elements crucial to living cells.
Scientists believe that Earth and other planets have been
seeded from space with these potential building blocks of
life. 
"Seeded from space"—the very words written down millennia ago by the Sumerians!
It is noteworthy that in his 'presentations, Chandra Wickramasinghe has frequently invoked the writings of the Greekphilosopher Anaxagoras who, about 500 B.C., believed that 
the "seeds of life" swarm through the universe, ready to sproutand create life wherever a proper environment is found. Coming as he did from Asia Minor, his sources, as was true for somuch of early Greek knowledge, were the Mesopotamian writings and traditions.
After a detour of 6.000 years, modem science has comeback to the Sumerian scenario of an invader from outer spacethat brings the seed of life into the Solar System and impartsit to "Gaia" during the Celestial Battle.
The Anunnaki, capable of space travel about half a millionyears before us, discovered this phenomenon long before us; in this respect, modem science is just catching up with ancientknowledge. 
THE ADAM: A SLAVE MADE 
TO ORDER 

The biblical tale of Man's creation is, of course, the crux of the debate—at times bitter—between Creationists and Evolutionists and of the ongoing confrontation between them—at times in courts, always on school boards. As previously stated,both sides had better read the Bible again (and in its Hebreworiginal); the conflict would evaporate once Evolutionists recognized the scientific basis of Genesis and Creationists realizedwhat its text really says.
Apart from the naive assertion by some that in the account of Creation the "days" of the Book of Genesis are literallytwenty-four-hour periods and not eras or phases, the sequencein the Bible is, as previous chapters should have made clear,a description of Evolution that is in accord with modern science. The insurmountable problem arises when Creationistsinsist that we. Mankind, Homo sapiens sapiens, were createdinstantaneously and without evolutionary predecessors by"God." "And the Lord God formed Man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, andMan became a living soul." This is the tale of Man's creation as told in chapter 2, verse 7 of the Book of Genesis—according to the King James English version; and this is what the Cre- ationist zealots firmly believe.Were they to learn the Hebrew text—which is, after all, the 
original—they would discover that, first of all, the creative act
is attributed to certain Elohim—a plural term that at the least
should be translated as "gods," not "God." And second, they
would become aware that the quoted verse also explains why
"The Adam" was created: "For there was no Adam to till the 
land.'' These are two important—and unsettling—hints to who had created Man and why. 158 
Then, of course, there exists the other problem, that ofanother (and prior) version of the creation of Man, in Genesis1:26-27. First, according to the King James version, "God said, Let us make men in our image, after our likeness"; thenthe suggestion was carried out: "And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created He him; male andfemale created He them." The biblical account is further com- plicated by the ensuing tale in Chapter 2, according to which"The Adam" was alone until God provided him with a female counterpart, created of Adam's rib.
While Creationists might be hard put to decide which particular version is the sine qua non tenet, there exists the problemof pluralism. The suggestion for Man's creation comes froma plural entity who addresses a plural audience, saying, "Letus make an Adam in our image and after our likeness." What,those who believe in the Bible must ask, is going on here?
As both Orientalists and Bible scholars now know, what went on was the editing and summarizing by the compilers of the Book of Genesis of much earlier and considerably moredetailed texts first written down in Sumer. Those texts, reviewed and extensively quoted in The 12th Planet with all sources listed, relegate the creation of Man to the Anunnaki.It happened, we learn from such long texts as Atra Basis, when the rank-and-file astronauts who had come to Earth for its gold mutinied. The backbreaking work in the gold mines, in south- east Africa, had become unbearable. Enlil, their commander-in-chief, summoned the ruler of Nibiru, his father Anu, to an Assembly of the Great Anunnaki and demanded harsh punishment of his rebellious crew. But Anu was more understanding."What are we accusing them of?" he asked as he heard the complaints of the mutineers. "Their work was heavy, their distress was much!" Was there no other way to obtain thegold, he wondered out loud.
Yes, said his other son Enki (Enlil's half brother and rival), the brilliant chief scientist of the Anunnaki. It is possible torelieve the Anunnaki of the unbearable toil by having someoneelse take over the difficult work: Let a Primitive Worker be created! 
The idea appealed to the assembled Anunnaki. The more they discussed it, the more clear their clamor grew for such a 
Primitive Worker, an Adamu, to take over the work load. But, they wondered, how can you create a being intelligent enoughto use tools and to follow orders? How was the creation or "bringing forth," of the Primitive Worker to be achieved? Was it, indeed, a feasible undertaking?
A Sumerian text has immortalized the answer given by Enkito the incredulous assembled Anunnaki, who saw in the creation of an Adamu the solution to their unbearable toil: 
The creature whose name you uttered— IT EXISTS! 
All you have to do, he added, is to 
Bind upon it the image of the gods. 
In these words lies the key to the puzzle of Man's creation, the magical wand that removes the conflict between Evolutionand Creationism. The Anunnaki, the Elohim of the biblical verses, did not create Man from nothing. The being was alreadythere, on Earth, the product of evolution. All that was neededto upgrade it to the required level of ability and intelligence was to "bind upon it the image of the gods," the image of the Elohim themselves. 
For the sake of simplicity let us call the "creature" that already existed then Apeman/Apewoman. The process envisioned by Enki was to "bind" upon the existing creature the "image"—the inner, genetic makeup—of the Anunnaki; inother words, to upgrade the existing Apeman/Apewoman through genetic manipulation and, by thus jumping the gun onevolution, bring "Man"—Homo sapiens—into being.
The term Adamu, which is clearly the inspiration for the biblical name "Adam," and the use of the term "image" in the Sumerian text, which is repeated intact in the biblical text,are not the only clues to the Sumerian/Mesopotamian origin of the Genesis creation of Man story. The biblical use of theplural pronoun and the depiction of a group of Elohim reachinga consensus and following it up with the necessary action alsolose their enigmatic aspects when the Mesopotamian sourcesare taken into account. 
In them we read that the assembled Anunnaki resolved lo proceed with the project, and on Enki's suggestion assignedthe task to Ninti, their chief medical officer: 
They summoned and asked the goddess,
the midwife of the gods, the wise birthgiver,
[saying:]
"To a creature give life, create workers!
Create a Primitive Worker,
that he may bear the yoke!
Let him bear the yoke assigned by Enlil,
Let The Worker carry the toil of the gods!"

One cannot say for certain whether it was from the AtraHasis text, from which the above lines are quoted, or frommuch earlier Sumerian texts that the editors of Genesis got their abbreviated version. But we have here the background ofevents that led to the need for a Primitive Worker, the assemblyof the gods and the suggestion and decision to go ahead andhave one created. Only by realizing what the biblical sources were can we understand the biblical tale of the Elohim—the Lofty Ones, the "gods"—saying: "Let us make the Adam in our image, after our likeness," so as to remedy the situationthat "there was no Adam to till the land." 
In The 12th Planet it was stressed that until the Bible beginsto relate the genealogy and history of Adam, a specific person, the Book of Genesis refers to the newly created being as "The Adam," a generic term. Not a person called Adam, but, literally, "the Earthling," for that is what "Adam" means, coming as it does from the same root as Adamah, "Earth." But the term is also a play on words, specifically dam, which means "blood" and reflects, as we shall soon see, the manner in which The Adam was "manufactured." 
The Sumerian term that means "Man" is LU. But its root meaning is not "human being"; it is rather "worker, servant," and as a component of animal names implied "domesticated."The Akkadian language in which the Atra Hasis text was written (and from which all Semitic languages have stemmed) applied to the newly created being the term lulu, which means,as in the Sumerian, "Man" but which conveys the notion of mixing. The word lulu in a more profound sense thus meant"the mixed one." This also reflected the manner in which The Adam—"Earthling" as well as "He of the blood"—-was created. 
Numerous texts in varying states of preservation or fragmentation have been found inscribed on Mesopotamian claytablets. In sequels to The 12th Planet the creation "myths" of other peoples, from both the Old and New Worlds, have beenreviewed; they all record a process involving the mixing of agodly element with an earthly one. As often as not, the godlyelement is described as an "essence" derived from a god'sblood, and the earthly element as "clay" or "mud." There can be no doubt that they all attempt to tell the same tale, for they all speak of a First Couple. There is no doubt that theirorigin is Sumerian, in whose texts we find the most elaborate descriptions and the greatest amount of detail concerning thewonderful deed: the mixing of the "divine" genes of the An- unnaki with the "earthly" genes of Apeman by fertilizing the egg of an Apewoman.
It was fertilization in vitro—in glass tubes, as depicted inthis rendering on a cylinder seal (Fig. 51). And, as I have beensaying since modern science and medicine achieved the featof in vitro fertilization, Adam was the first test-tube baby. . . . 
Figure 51 
There is reason to believe that when Enki made the surprisingsuggestion to create a Primitive Worker through genetic manipulation, he had already concluded that the feat was possible.His suggestion to call in Ninti for the task was also not a spur- of-the-moment idea. 
Laying the groundwork for ensuing events, the Atra Hasis text begins the story of Man on Earth with the assignment of tasks among the leading Anunnaki. When the rivalry betweenthe two half brothers. Enlil and Enki, reached dangerous levels,Anu made them draw lots. As a result, Enlil was given masteryover the old settlements and operations in the E.DIN (the biblical Eden) and Enki was sent to Africa, to supervise the AB.ZU, the land of mines. Great scientist that he was, Enki was bound to have spent some of his time studying the flora andfauna of his surroundings as well as the fossils that, some 300,000 years later, the Leakeys and other paleontologists havebeen uncovering in southeastern Africa. As scientists do today,Enki, too, must have contemplated the course of evolution onEarth. As reflected in the Sumerian texts, he came to the con- clusion that the same "seed of life" that Nibiru had brought with it from its previous celestial abode had given rise to lifeon both planets; much earlier on Nibiru, and later on Earth, once the latter had been seeded by the collision. 
The being that surely fascinated him most was Apeman—a step above the the other primates, a hominid already walking erect and using sharpened stones as tools, a proto-Man—but not yet a fully evolved human. And Enki must have toyed withthe intriguing challenge of "playing God" and conducting experiments in genetic manipulation.
To aid his experiments he asked Ninti to come to Africa andbe by his side. The official reason was plausible. She was thechief medical officer; her name meant "Lady Life" (later on she was nicknamed Mammi, the source of the universal Mamma/Mother). There was certainly a need for medical services, considering the harsh conditions under which the minerstoiled. But there was more to it: from the very beginning, Enliland Enki vied for her sexual favors, for both needed a male heir by a half sister, which she was. The three of them werechildren of Anu, the ruler of Nibiru, but not of the same mother; and according to the succession rules of the Anunnaki (later 
adopted by the Sumerians and reflected in the biblical tales of the Patriarchs), it was not necessarily the Firstborn son but ason bom by a half sister from the same royal line who becamethe Legal Heir. Sumerian texts describe torrid lovemaking be- tween Enki and Ninti (with unsuccessful results, though: the offspring were all females); there was thus more than an interestin science that led to Enki's suggestion to call in Ninti and assign the task to her.
Knowing all this, we should not be surprised to read in the creation texts that, first, Ninti said she could not do it alone, that she had to have the advice and help of Enki; and second,that she had to attempt the task in the Abzu, where the rightmaterials and facilities were available. Indeed, the two must have conducted experiments together there long before the suggestion was made at the assembly of the Anunnaki to ''let us make an Adamu in our image." Some ancient depictionsshow "Bull-Men" accompanied by naked Ape-men (Fig. 52) or Bird-Men (Fig. 53). Sphinxes (bulls or lions with humanheads) that adorned many ancient temples may have been morethan imaginary representations; and when Berossus, the Ba- bylonian priest, wrote down Sumerian cosmogony and tales of creation for the Greeks, he described a prehuman period when 
Figure 52 Figure 53 
"men appeared with two wings," or "one body and two heads," or with mixed male and female organs, or "some withthe legs and horns of goats" or other hominid-animal mixtures.That these creatures were not freaks of nature but the result of deliberate experiments by Enki and Ninti is obvious from the Sumerian texts. The texts describe how the two came upwith a being who had neither male nor female organs, a manwho could not hold back his urine, a woman incapable ofbearing children, and creatures with numerous other defects.Finally, with a touch of mischief in her challenging announcement, Ninti is recorded to have said: 
How good or bad is man's body?
As my heart prompts me,
I can make its fate good or bad.

Having reached this stage, where genetic manipulation wassufficiently perfected to enable the determination of the re- sulting body's good or bad aspects, the two felt they could master the final challenge: to mix the genes of hominids. Apemen, not with those of other Earth creatures but with the genes of the Anunnaki themselves. Using all the knowledge they had amassed, the two Elohim set out to manipulate and speed upthe process of Evolution. Modern Man would have undoubtedly eventually evolved on Earth in any case, just as he haddone on Nibim, both having come from the same "seed oflife." But there was still a long way and a long time to gofrom the stage hominids were at 300,000 years ago to the levelof development the Anunnaki had reached at that time. If, in the course of 4 billion years, the evolutionary process had beenearlier on Nibiru just 1 percent of that time, Evolution wouldhave been forty million years ahead on Nibiru compared with the course of evolution on Earth. Did the Anunnaki jump the gun on evolution on our planet by a million or two million years? No one can say for sure how long it would have takenHomo sapiens to evolve naturally on Earth from the earlier hominids, but surely forty million years would have been more than enough time.
Called upon to perform the task of "fashioning servants forthe gods"—"to bring to pass a great work of wisdom." in the words of the ancient texts—Enki gave Ninti the followinginstructions: 
Mix to a core the clay
from the Basement of the Earth, 
just above the Abzu,
and shape it into the form of a core.
I shall provide good, knowing young Anunnaki
who will bring the clay to the right condition. 
In The 12th Planet, I analyzed the etymology of the Sumerianand Akkadian terms that are usually translated "clay" or "mud" and showed that they evolved from the Sumerian TI.IT, literally, "that which is with life," and then assumed the derivative meanings of "clay" and "mud," as well as "egg." The earthly element in the procedure for "bindingupon" a being who already existed "the image of the gods"was thus to be the female egg of that being—of an Apewoman.
All the texts dealing with this event make it clear that Nintirelied on Enki to provide the earthly element, this egg of afemale Apewoman, from the Abzu, from southeast Africa. Indeed, the specific location is given in the above quote: notexactly the same site as the mines (an area identified in The12th Planet as Southern Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe) but a place 
"above" it, farther north. This area was, indeed, as recent finds have shown, where Homo sapiens emerged. . . .
The task of obtaining the "divine" elements was Ninti's. Two extracts were needed from one of the Anunnaki, and a young "god" was carefully selected for the purpose. Enki'sinstructions to Ninti were to obtain the god's blood and shiru,and through immersions in a "purifying bath" obtain their "essences." What had to be obtained from the blood was termed TE.E.MA, at best translated "personality," a term that expresses the sense of the word: that which makes a person what he is and different from any other person. But the translation "personality" does not convey the scientific precisionof the term, which in the original Sumerian meant "That which houses that which binds the memory." Nowadays we call it a "gene."
The other element for which the young Anunnaki was selected, shiru, is commonly translated "flesh." In time, the word did acquire the meaning "flesh" among its various connotations. But in the earlier Sumerian it referred to the sex or reproductive organs; its root had the basic meaning "to bind," "that which binds." The extract from the shiru was referred to in other texts dealing with non-Anunnaki offspring of the"gods" as kisru; coming from the male's member, it meant "semen," the male's sperm.
These two divine extracts were to be mixed well by Nintiin a purifying bath, and it is certain that the epithet lulu ("The mixed one") for the resulting Primitive Worker stemmed fromthis mixing process. In modern terms we would call him ahybrid.
All these procedures had to be performed under strict sanitaryconditions. One text even mentions how Ninti first washed her hands before she touched the "clay." The place where theseprocedures were carried out was a special structure called inAkkadian Bit Shimti, which, coming from the Sumerian SHI.1M.TI literally meant "house where the wind of life isbreathed in"—the source, no doubt, of the biblical assertion that after having fashioned the Adam from the clay, Elohim "blew in his nostrils the breath of life." The biblical term, sometimes translated "soul" rather than "breath of life," is Nephesh. The identical term appears in the Akkadian account 
The god who purifies the napishtu, Enki,
spoke up.
Seated before her [Ninti] he was prompting her.
After she had recited her incantation, 
she put her hand to the clay. 
A depiction on a cylinder seal (Fig. 54) may well haveillustrated the ancient text. It shows Enki seated, "prompting"Ninti (who is identified by her symbol, the umbilical cord),with the "test-tube" flasks behind her. 
The mixing of the "clay" with all the component extractsand "essences" was not yet the end of the procedure. The eggof the Apewoman, fertilized in the "purifying baths" with the sperm and genes of the young Anunnaki "god," was thendeposited in a "mold," where the "binding" was to be completed. Since this part of the process is described again laterin connection with the determining of the sex of the engineeredbeing, one may surmise that was the purpose of the ' 'binding'' phase.
The length of time the fertilized egg thus processed stayed 
Figure 54 
in the "mold" is not stated, but what was to be done with it was quite clear. The fertilized and "molded" egg was to be reimplanted in a female womb—but not in that of its originalApewoman. Rather, it was to be implanted in the womb of a"goddess," an Anunnaki female! Only thus, it becomes clear,was the end result achievable. 
Could the experimenters, Enki and Ninti, now be sure that, after all their trial-and-error attempts to create hybrids, theywould then obtain a perfect lulu by implanting the fertilizedand processed egg in one of their own females—that what shewould give birth to would not be a monster and that her own life would not be at risk? 
Evidently they could not be absolutely sure; and as often happens with scientists who use themselves as guinea pigs fora dangerous first experiment calling for a human volunteer, Enki announced to the gathered Anunnaki that his own spouse,Ninki ("Lady of the Earth") had volunteered for the task."Ninki, my goddess-spouse," he announced, "will be the one for labor"; she was to be the one to determine the fate of the new being: 
The newborn's fate thou shalt pronounce; 
Ninki would fix upon it the image of the gods; 
And what it will be is "Man." 
The female Anunnaki chosen to serve as Birth Goddesses if the experiment succeeded, Enki said, should stay and observewhat was happening. It was not, the texts reveal, a simple andsmooth birth-giving process: 
The birth goddesses were kept together.
Ninti sat, counting the months.
The fateful tenth month was approaching,
The tenth month arrived— 
the period of opening the womb had elapsed. 
The drama of Man's creation, it appears, was compoundedby a late birth; medical intervention was called for. Realizing what had to be done, Ninti "covered her head" and, with an instrument whose description was damaged on the clay tablet, 
"made an opening." This done, "that which was in the womb came forth." Grabbing the newborn baby, she was overcomewith joy. Lifting it up for all to see (as depicted in Fig. 51),she shouted triumphantly: 
I have created!
My hands have made it!

The first Adam was brought forth. 
The successful birth of The Adam—by himself, as the firstbiblical version states—confirmed the validity of the process and opened the way for the continuation of the endeavor. Now,enough "mixed clay" was prepared to start pregnancies in fourteen birth goddesses at a time: 
Ninti nipped off fourteen pieces of clay, 
Seven she deposited on the right, 
Seven she deposited on the left; 
Between them she placed the mold. 
Now the procedures were genetically engineered to come up with seven males and seven females at a time. We read on another tablet that Enki and Ninti, 
The wise and learned,
Double-seven birth-goddesses had assembled.
Seven brought forth males,
Seven brought forth females;
The birth-goddesses brought forth
the Wind of the Breath of Life.

There is thus no conflict among the Bible's various versions of Man's creation. First, The Adam was created by himself; but then, in the next phase, the Elohim indeed created the firsthumans "male and female." 
How many times the "mass production" of Primitive Work- ers was repeated is not stated in the creation texts. We read elsewhere that the Anunnaki kept clamoring for more, and thateventually Anunnaki from the Edin—Mesopotamia—came tothe Abzu in Africa and forcefully captured a large number of Primitive Workers to take over the manual work back in Mesopotamia. We also learn that in time, tiring of the constantneed for Birth Goddesses, Enki engaged in a second geneticmanipulation to enable the hybrid people to procreate on theirown; but the story of that development belongs in the nextchapter. 
Bearing in mind that these ancient texts come to us acrossa bridge of time extending back for millennia, one must admire the ancient scribes who recorded, copied, and translated theearliest texts-—as often as not, probably, without really knowing what this or that expression or technical term originallymeant but always adhering tenaciously to the traditions thatrequired a most meticulous and precise rendition of the copied texts. 
Fortunately, as we enter the last decade of the twentiethcentury of the Common Era, we have the benefit of modern science on our side. The "mechanics" of cell replication and human reproduction, the function and code of the genes, the cause of many inherited defects and illnesses—all these andso many more biological processes are now understood; perhaps not yet completely but enough to allow us to evaluate theancient tale and its data. 
With all this modern knowledge at our disposal, what is the verdict on that ancient information? Is it an impossible fantasy,or are the procedures and processes, described with such at- tention to terminology, corroborated by modern science?
The answer is yes, it is all the way we would do it today—the way we have been following, indeed, in recent years.
We know today that to have someone or something ' 'brought forth" in the "image" and "after the likeness" of an existingbeing (be it a tree, a mouse, a man) the new being must havethe genes of its creator; otherwise, a totally different being would emerge. Until a few decades ago all that science wasaware of was that there are sets of chromosomes lurking withinevery living cell that impart both the physical and mental/ emotional characteristics to offspring. But now we know that the chromosomes are just stems on which long strands of DNAare positioned. With only four nucleotides at its disposal, theDNA can be sequenced in endless combinations, in short or 
long stretches interspersed with chemical signals that can mean"stop" or "go" instructions (or, it seems, to do nothing atall anymore). Enzymes are produced and act as chemical busybodies, launching chemical processes, sending off RNAs todo their job, creating proteins to build body and muscles,produce the myriad differentiated cells of a living creature, trigger the immune system, and, of course, help the being procreate by bringing forth offspring in its own image and afterits likeness. 
The beginnings of genetics are now credited to Gregor Jo- hann Mendel, an Austrian monk who, experimenting with planthybridization, described the hereditary traits of common peasin a study published in 1866. A kind of genetic engineering has of course been practiced in horticulture (the cultivation of flowers, vegetables, and fruits) through the procedure calledgrafting, where the part of the plant whose qualities are desiredto be added to those of another plant is added via an incision to the recipient plant. Grafting has also been tried in recent years in the animal kingdom, but with limited success betweendonor and recipient due to rejection by the recipient's immune system.
The next advance, which for a while received great publicity,was the procedure called Cloning. Because each cell—let ussay a human cell—contains all the genetic data necessary toreproduce that human, it has the potential forgiving rise, withina female egg, to the birth of a being identical to its parent. Intheory, cloning offers a way to produce an endless number ofEinsteins or, heaven help us. Hitlers.
Experimentally the possibilities of cloning began to be testedwith plants, as an advanced method to replace grafting. Indeed,the term cloning comes from the Greek klon which means"twig." The procedure began with the notion of implantingjust one desired cell from the donor plant in the recipient plant.The technique then advanced to the stage where no recipientplant was needed at all; all that had to be done was to nourishthe desired cell in a solution of nutrients until it began to grow, divide, and eventually form the whole plant. In the 1970s one of the hopes pinned on this process was that whole forests oftrees identical to a desired species will be created in test tubes,then shipped in a parcel to the desired location to be plantedand grow. 
Adapting this technique from plants to animals proved more tricky. First, cloning involves asexual reproduction. In animalsthat reproduce by fertilizing an egg with a sperm, the reproductive cells (egg and sperm) differ from all other cells in thatthey do not contain all the pairs of chromosomes (which carrythe genes as on stems) but only one set each. Thus, in afertilized human egg ("ovum") the forty-six chromosomes thatconstitute the required twenty-three pairs are provided half bythe mother (through the ovum) and half by the father (in thesperm). To achieve cloning, the chromosomes in the ovum must be removed surgically and a complete set of pairs insertedinstead, not from a male sperm but from any other human cell.If all succeeds and the egg, nestled in the womb, becomes firstan embryo, then a fetus and then a baby—the baby will be identical to the person from whose single cell it has grown.
There were other problems inherent in the process, too technical to detail here, but they were slowly overcome with theaid of experimentation, improved instruments, and progress inunderstanding genetics. One intriguing finding that aided theexperiments was that the younger the source of the transplantednucleus the better the chances of success. In 1975 British sci- entists succeeded in cloning frogs from tadpole cells; the procedure required the removal of a frog egg's nucleus and its replacement with a tadpole cell's nucleus. This was achieved by microsurgery, possible because the cells in question areconsiderably larger than, say, human cells. In 1980 and 1981Chinese and American scientists claimed to have cloned fish with similar techniques; flies were also experimented on.
When the experiments shifted to mammals, mice and rabbitswere chosen because of their short reproductive cycles. Theproblem with mammals was not only the complexity of their cells and cell nuclei but also the need to nestle the fertilized egg in a womb. Better results were obtained when the egg'snucleus was not removed surgically but was inactivated byradiation; even better results followed when this nucleus was "evicted" chemically and the new nucleus also introduced chemically; the procedure, developed through experiments onrabbit eggs by J. Derek Bromhall of Oxford University, becameknown as Chemical Fusion. 
Other experiments relating to the cloning of mice seemed to indicate that for a mammal's egg to be fertilized, to start dividing, and, even more important, to begin the process ofdifferentiation (into the specialized cells that become the dif- ferent parts of the body), more than the donor's set of chromosomes is needed. Experimenting at Yale, Clement L. Markert concluded that there was something in the male sperm that promoted these processes, something beside the chromosomes; that "the sperm might also be contributing some unidentified spur that stimulates development of the egg."
In order to prevent the sperm's male chromosomes from merging with the egg's female chromosomes (which wouldhave resulted in a normal fertilization rather than in cloning),one set had to be removed surgically just before the mergerbegan and the remaining set "excited" by physical or chemical means to double itself. If the sperm's chromosomes were chosen for the latter role, the embryo might become either maleor female; if the egg's set were chosen and duplicated, theembryo could only be female. While Markert was continuinghis experiments on such methods of nuclear transfer, two otherscientists (Peter C. Hoppe and Karl Illmensee) announced in1977 the successful birth, at the Jackson Laboratory in BarHarbor, Maine, of seven "single-parent mice." The process,however, was more accurately designated parthenogenesis,"virgin birth," than cloning; since what the experimenters didwas to cause the chromosomes in the egg of a female mouseto double, keep the egg with the full set of chromosomes incertain solutions, and then, after the cell had divided several times, introduce the self-fertilized cell into the womb of a female mouse. Significantly, the recipient mouse had to be a different female, not the mouse whose own egg had been used.
Quite a stir was caused early in 1978 by the publication of a book that purported to relate how an eccentric American millionaire, obsessed by the prospect of death, sought immortality by arranging to be cloned. The book claimed that thenucleus of a cell taken from the millionaire was inserted into a female egg, which was carried through pregnancy to a successful birth by a female volunteer; the boy, fit and healthy inall respects, was reported at the time of publication to have been fourteen months old. Though written as a factual report, the tale was received with disbelief. The scientific community's 
skepticism stemmed not from the impossibility of the feat—indeed, that it would one day be possible almost all concernedagreed—-but from doubts whether the feat could have beenachieved by an unknown group in the Caribbean when the bestresearchers had only, at that time, achieved the virgin birth ofmice. There was also doubt about the successful cloning of amale adult, when all the experiments had indicated that theolder the donor's cell, the lower the chances of success. 
With the memory of the horrors inflicted on Mankind byNazi Germany in the name of a "master race" still fresh, even the possibility of cloning selected humans for evil purposes (a theme of Ira Levin's best-selling novel The Boys from Brazil)was reason enough to dampen interest in this avenue of geneticmanipulation. One alternative, which substituted the "Should man play God?" outcry with what one might call the "Canscience play husband?" idea, was the process that led to thephenomenon of "Tesi-tube babies."
Research conducted at Texas A & M University in 1976showed that it was possible to remove an embryo from a mammal (a baboon, in that instance) within five days of ovulation and reimplant it in the uterus of another female baboon in atransfer that led to a successful pregnancy and birth. Otherresearchers found ways to extract the eggs of small mammalsand fertilize them in test tubes. The two processes, that ofEmbryo Transfer and In vitro Fertilization, were employed inan event that made medical history in July, 1978, when LouiseBrown was born at the Oldham and District General Hospitalin northwest England. The first of many other test-tube babies,she was conceived in a test tube, not by her parents but bytechniques employed by Doctors Patrick Steptoe and RobertEdwards. Nine months earlier they had used a device with alight at its end to suck out a mature egg from Mrs. Brown's ovary. Bathed in a dish containing life-support nutrients, theextracted egg was "mixed"—the word was used by Dr. Edwards-—with the husband's sperm. Once a sperm succeeded in fertilizing the egg, the egg was transferred to a dish con- taining other nutrients, where it began to divide. After fiftyhours it had reached an eight-celled division; at that point, theegg was re-implanted in Mrs. Brown's womb. With care andspecial treatment, the embryo developed properly; a caesarean 
delivery completed the feat, and a couple who before this couldnot have a child because of the wife's defective fallopian tubes now had a normal daughter.
"We have a girl and she's perfect!" the gynecologist whoperformed the caesarean delivery shouted as he held up the baby.
"I have created, my hands have made it!" Ninti cried out as she delivered the Adam by caesarean section, an eon earlier. ... 
Also reminiscent of the ancient reports of the long road of trial and error taken by Enki and Ninti was the fact that theBaby Louise "breakthrough'' about which the media went wild (Fig. 55) came after twelve years of trial and error, in thecourse of which fetuses and even babies turned out defective. Undoubtedly unbeknown to the doctors and researchers wasthe fact that, in discovering also that the addition of blood serum to the mixture of nutrients and sperm was essential to 
Figure 55 
success, they were following (he very same procedures that Enki and Ninti had employed. . . 
Although the feat gave new hope to barren women (it also opened the way to surrogate motherhood, embryo freezing,semen banks, and new legal entanglements), it was just adistant cousin of the feat accomplished by Enki and Ninti. Yetit had to employ the techniques of which we have read in theancient texts—just as the scientists engaged in nucleus transfershave found that the male donor must be young, as the Sumeriantexts have stressed. 
The most obvious difference between the test-tube baby variants and what the ancient texts describe is that in the former the natural process of procreation is emulated: human malesperm fertilize a human female egg that then develops in the womb. In the case of the creation of The Adam, the geneticmaterial of two different (even if not dissimilar) species wasmixed to create a new being, positioned somewhere betweenthe two "parents."
In recent years modern science has made substantial ad- vances in such genetic manipulation. With the aid of increasingly sophisticated equipment, computers, and evermore minute instruments, scientists have been able to "read" the genetic code of living organisms, up to and including thatof Man. Not only has it become possible to read the A-G-CT of DNA and the A-G-C-U "letters" of the genetic "al- phabet," but we can now also recognize the three-letter "words" of the genetic code (like AGG, AAT, GCC, GGG—and so on in myriad combinations) as well as the segments ofthe DNA strands that form genes, each with its specific task—for example, to determine the color of the eyes, to directgrowth, or to transmit a hereditary disease. Scientists have alsofound that some of the code's "words" simply act to instructthe replication process where to start and when to stop. Gradually, scientists have become able to transcribe the geneticcode to a computer screen and to recognize in the printouts (Fig. 56) the "stop" and "go" signs. The next step was totediously find out the function of each segment, or gene—ofwhich the simple E. colt bacterium has about 4,000 and humanbeings well over 100,000. Plans are now afoot to "map" the 
Figure 56 
complete human genetic makeup ("Genome"); the enormityof the task, and the extent of the knowledge already gained,can be appreciated by the fact that if the DNA in all humancells were extracted and put in a box, the box need be no bigger than an ice cube; but if the twisting strands of DNA were stretched out, the string would extend 47 million miles. . . .
In spite of these complexities, it has become possible, with the aid of enzymes, to cut DNA strands at desired places, remove a "sentence" that makes up a gene, and even insertinto the DNA a foreign gene; through these techniques anundesired trait (such as one that causes disease) can be removed 
or a desired one (such as a growth-hormone gene) added. The advances in understanding and manipulating this fundamental chemistry of life were recognized in 1980 with the award ofthe Nobel prize in chemistry to Walter Gilbert of Harvard and Frederick Sanger of Cambridge University for the developmentof rapid methods for reading large segments of DNA, and to Paul Berg of Stanford University for pioneering work in "genesplicing." Another term used for the procedures is "Recom- binant DNA technology," because after the splicing, the DNAis recombined with newly introduced segments of DNA.
These capabilities have made possible gene therapy, the removal from or correction within human cells of genes causing inherited sicknesses and defects. It has also made possibleBiogenetics: inducing, through genetic manipulation, bacteriaor mice to manufacture a needed chemical (such as insulin)for medical treatment. Such feats of recombinant technologyare possible because all the DNA in all living organisms onEarth is of the same makeup, so that a strand of bacteria DNAwill accept ("recombine" with) a segment of human DNA. (Indeed, American and Swiss researchers reported in July 1984 the discovery of a DNA segment that was common to humanbeings, flies, earthworms, chickens, and frogs—further corroboration of the single genetic origin of all life on Earth.)
Hybrids such as a mule, which is the progeny of a donkeyand a horse, can be born from the mating of the two becausethey have similar chromosomes (hybrids, however, cannot procreate). A sheep and a goat, though not too distant relatives, cannot naturally mate; however, because of their genetic kinship, experiments have brought them together to form (in 1983)a "geep" (Fig. 57)—a sheep with its woolly coat but with a goat's horns. Such mixed, or1 "mosaic," creatures are called chimeras, after the monster in Greek mythology that had the forepart of a lion, the middle of a goat, and the tail of a dragon(Fig. 58). The feat was attained by "Cell Fusion," the fusingtogether of a sheep embryo and a goat embryo at the stage oftheir early divisions into four cells each, then incubating the mixture in a test tube with nutrients until it was time to transfer the mixed embryo to the womb of a sheep that acted as asurrogate mother.
In such cell fusions, the outcome (even if a viable offspring 
Figure 57 
Figure 58 
is born) cannot be predicted; it is totally a matter of chance which genes will end up where on the chromosomes, and whattraits—"images" and "likenesses"—will be picked up from which cell donor. There is little doubt that the monsters of Greek mythology, including the famous Minotaur (half bull,half man) of Crete, were recollections of the tales transmittedto the Greeks by Berossus, the Babylonian priest, and that hissources were the Sumerian texts concerning the trial-and-error experiments of Enki and Ninti which produced all kinds of chimeras. 
The advances in genetics have provided biotechnology withother routes than the unpredictable chimera route; it is evidentthat in doing so, modern science has followed the alternate(though more difficult) course of action undertaken by Enki and Ninti. By cutting out and adding on pieces of the geneticstrands, or Recombinant Technology, the traits to be omitted,added, or exchanged can be specified and targeted. Some ofthe landmarks along this progress in genetic engineering werethe transfer of bacterial genes to plants to make the latterresistant to certain diseases and, later (in 1980), of specificbacteria genes into mice. In 1982 growth genes of a rat were spliced into the genetic code of a mouse (by teams headed byRalph L. Brinster of the University of Pennsylvania and Richard D. Palmiter of Howard Hughes Medical Institute), resultingin the birth of a "Mighty Mouse" twice the size of a normal mouse. In 1985 it was reported in Nature (June 27) that ex- perimenters at various scientific centers had succeeded in in- serting functioning human growth genes into rabbits, pigs, andsheep; and in 1987 (New Scientist, September 17) Swedishscientists likewise created a Super-Salmon. By now, genescarrying other traits have been used in such "trans-genic"recombinations between bacteria, plants, and mammals. Tech- niques have even progressed to the artificial manufacture ofcompounds that perfectly emulate specific functions of a givengene, mainly with a view to treating diseases.
In mammals, the altered fertilized female egg ultimately must be implanted in the womb of a surrogate mother—the function that was assigned, according to the Sumerian tales,to the "Birth Goddesses." But before that stage, a way had to be found to introduce the desired genetic traits from themale donor into the egg of the female participant. The mostcommon method is micro-injection, by which a female egg,already fertilized, is extracted and injected with the desiredadded genetic trait; after a short incubation in a glass dish, the egg is reimplanted in a female womb (mice, pigs, and other mammals have been tried). The procedure is difficult, has manyhurdles, and results in only a small percentage of successes—but it works. Another technique has been the use of viruses,which naturally attack cells and fuse with their genetic cores: the new genetic trait to be transferred into a cell is attachedby complex ways to a virus, which then acts as the carrier; the 
problem here is that the choice of the site on the chromosome stem to which the gene is to be attached is uncontrollable, and in most cases chimeras have resulted. 
In June 1989 a report in Cell by a team of Italian scientistsheaded by Corrado Spadafora of the Institute of Biomedical Technology in Rome announced success in using sperm to actas the carriers of the new gene. They reported procedureswhereby sperm were induced to let down their natural resis- tance to foreign genes; then, after being soaked in solutionscontaining the new genetic material, the sperm incorporatedthe genetic material into their cores. The altered sperm werethen used to impregnate female mice; the offspring containedthe new gene in their chromosomes (in this case a certain bacterial enzyme).
The use of the most natural medium—sperm—to carry genetic material into a female egg astounded the scientific community in its simplicity and made front-page news even in TheNew York Times. A follow-up study in Science of August 11,1989, reported mixed successes by other scientists in dupli- cating the Italian technique. But all the scientists involved inrecombinant technologies concurred that, with some modifi- cations and improvements, a new technique—and the most simple and natural one—has been developed.
Some have pointed out that the ability of sperm to take upforeign DNA was suggested by researchers as early as 1971,after experiments with rabbit sperm. Little is it realized thatthe technique had been reported even earlier, in Sumerian textsdescribing the creation of The Adam by Enki and Ninti, whohad mixed the Apewoman's egg in a test tube with the spermof a young Anunnaki in a solution also containing blood serum.
In 1987 the dean of anthropology at the University of Florence, Italy, raised a storm of protests by clergymen and humanists when he revealed that ongoing experiments could leadto the "creation of a new breed of slave, an anthropoid witha chimpanzee mother and a human father." One of my fanssent me the clipping of the story with the comment, "Well, Enki, here we go again!"
This seems to best sum up the achievements of modern microbiology. 
WASPS, MONKEYS, AND BIBLICAL PATRIARCHS 
Much of what has happened on Earth, and especially its earliest wars, stemmed from the Succession Code of the Anunnaki that deprived the firstborn son of the succession if another son was born to the ruler by a half sister.
The same succession rules, adopted by the Sumerians, are reflected in the tales of the Hebrew Patriarchs. The Bible relates that Abraham (who came from the Sumerian capital city of Ur) asked his wife Sarah (a name that meant "Prin- cess") to identify herself, when meeting foreign kings, as his sister rather than as his wife. Though not the whole truth it was not a lie, as explained in Genesis 20:12: "Indeed she is my sister, the daughter of my father but not the daughter of my mother, and she became my wife."
Abraham's successor was not the firstborn Ishmael, whose mother was the handmaiden Hagar, but Isaac, the son of the half sister Sarah, though he was born much later.
The strict adherence to these succession rules in antiquityin all royal courts, whether in Egypt of the Old World orin the Inca empire in the New World, suggest some "bloodline," or genetic, assumption that appears odd and contraryto the belief that mating with close relatives is undesirable.
But did the Anunnaki know something modern science has yet to discover?
In 1980 a group led by Hannah Wu at Washington University found that, given a choice, female monkeys preferred to mate with half brothers. "The exciting thing about this experiment," the report stated, "is that although the preferred half brothers shared the same father, they had dif- ferent mothers." Discover magazine (December 1988) reported studies showing that "male wasps ordinarily mate with their sisters." Since one male wasp fertilizes many females, the preferential mating was found to be with half sisters: same father but different mother. 
It appears thus that there was more than whim to the succession code of the Anunnaki. 
9 
THE MOTHER CALLED EVE 
By tracing Hebrew words in the Bible through their Akkadianstem to their Sumerian origin it has been possible to understandthe true meaning of biblical tales, especially those in the Bookof Genesis. The fact that so many Sumerian terms had more than one meaning, mostly but not always derived from a common original pictograph, constitutes a major difficulty in un- derstanding Sumerian and requires reading them carefully incontext. On the other hand, the propensity of Sumerian writersto use that for frequent plays of words, makes their texts anintelligent reader's joy. 
Dealing, for example, with the biblical tale of the "upheavaling" of Sodom and Gomorrah in The Wars of Gods andMen, 1 pointed out that the notion that Lot's wife was turned into a "pillar of salt" when she stayed back to watch whatwas happening, in fact meant "pillar of vapor" in the originalSumerian terminology. Since salt was obtained in Sumer from vapor-filled swamps, the original Sumerian term NI.MUR came to mean both "salt" and "vapor." Poor Lot's wife was vaporized, not turned into salt, by the nuclear blasts that causedthe upheaval of the cities of the plain.
Regarding the biblical tale of Eve, it was the great Sumerologist Samuel N. Kramer who first pointed out that her name,which meant in Hebrew "She who has life," and the tale of her origin from Adam's rib in all probability stemmed fromthe Sumerian play on the word TI, which meant both "life"and "rib." Some other original or double meanings in the creation taleshave already been mentioned in a previous chapter. More canbe gleaned about "Eve" and her origins from comparisons of 184 the biblical tales with the Sumerian texts and an analysis of Sumerian terminology.
The genetic manipulations, we have seen, were conductedby Enki and Ninti in a special facility called, in the Akkadianversions, Bit Shimti—"House where the wind of life is breathed in"; this meaning conveys a pretty accurate idea of what the purpose of the specialized structure, a laboratory,was. But here we have to invite into the discussion the Sumerian penchant for word play, thereby throwing fresh light on the source of the tale of Adam's rib, the use of clay, and the breaths of life. 
The Akkadian term, as earlier stated, was a rendering of theSumerian SHI.IM.T1. a compound word in which each of thethree components conveyed a meaning that combined with, strengthened, and expanded the other two. SHI stood for what the Bible called Nephesh, commonly translated "soul" but more accurately meaning "breath of life." IM had severalmeanings, depending on the context. It meant "wind," but itcould also mean "side." In astronomical texts it denoted a satellite that is "by the side" of its planet; in geometry it meantthe side of a square or triangle; and in anatomy it meant "rib."To this day the parallel Hebrew word Sela means both the sideof a geometric shape and a person's rib. And, lo and behold,IM also had a totally unrelated fourth meaning: "clay." . . .
As if the multiple meanings "wind"/"side"/"rib"/"clay"of IM were not enough, the term TI added to the Sumerians' linguistic fun. It meant, as previously mentioned, both "life"and "rib"—the latter being the parallel of the Akkadian situ,from which came the Hebrew Sela. Doubled, TI.TI meant "belly"—that which held the fetus; and, lo and behold, inAkkadian titu acquired the meaning "clay," from which the Hebrew word Tit has survived. Thus, the component TI of thelaboratory's Sumerian name, SHI.IM.TI, we have the meanings "life"/"clay'7"belly'7"rib." 
In the absence of the original Sumerian version from whichthe compilers of Genesis might have obtained their data, onecannot be sure whether they had chosen the " 'rib'' interpretation because it was conveyed by both IM and TI or because it gavethem an opening to making a social statement in the ensuing verses: 
And Yahweh Elohim caused a deep sleep
upon the Adam, and he slept.
And He look one of his ribs 
and closed up the flesh in its place.
And Yahweh Elohim constructed of the rib 
which He had taken from the Adam a woman, 
and He brought her to the Adam.
And the Adam said, 
"This is now bone of my bones,
flesh of my flesh." 
Therefore is the being called Ish-sha ["Woman"]
because out of Ish ["Man"] was this one taken.
Therefore doth a man leave his father and his mother 
and shall cleave unto his wife 
to become as one flesh. 
This tale of the creation of Man's female counterpart relateshow the Adam, having already been placed in the E.DIN to till it and tend its orchards, was all alone. "And Yahweh Elohim said, it is not good that the Adam is by himself; letme make him a mate." This obviously is a continuation of theversion whereby The Adam alone was created, and not part ofthe version whereby Mankind was created male and femaleright away.
In order to resolve this seeming confusion, the sequence ofcreating the Earthlings must be borne in mind. First the malelulu, "mixed one" was perfected; then the fertilized eggs of Apewoman, bathed and mixed with the blood serum and spermof a young Anunnaki, were divided into batches and placed in a "mold," where they acquired either male or female characteristics. Reimplanted in the wombs of Birth Goddesses, theembryos produced seven males and seven females each time.But these "mixed ones" were hybrids, which could not procreate (as mules cannot). To get more of them, the processhad to be repeated over and over again.
At some point it became apparent that this way of obtainingthe serfs was not good enough; a way had to be found to getmore of these humans without imposing the pregnancies anddeliveries on female Anunnaki. That way was a second genetic 
manipulation by Enki and Ninti, giving The Adam the abilityto procreate on his own. To be able to have offspring, Adamhad to mate with a fully compatible female. How and why she was brought into being is the story of the Rib and of the Gardenof Eden. 
The tale of the Rib reads almost like a two-sentence summaryof a report in a medical journal. In no uncertain terms it de- scribes a major operation of the kind that makes headlinesnowadays, when a close relative (for example, a father or a sister) donates an organ for transplant. Increasingly, modernmedicine resorts to the transplantation of bone marrow whenthe malady is a cancer or affects the immune system.
The donor in the biblical case is Adam. He is given generalanesthesia and is put to sleep. An incision is made and a rib is removed. The flesh is then pulled together to close up the wound, and Adam is allowed to rest and recover. 
The action continues elsewhere. The Elohim now use the piece of bone to construct a woman; not to create a woman,but to "construct" one. The difference in terminology is significant; it indicates that the female in question already existed but required some constructive manipulation to become a matefor Adam. Whatever was needed was obtained from the rib, and the clue to what the rib supplied lies in the other meaningsof IM and TI—life, belly, clay. Was an extract of Adam'sbone marrow implanted in that of a female Primitive Worker's "clay" through her belly? Regrettably, the Bible does not describe what was done to the female (named Eve by Adam),and the Sumerian texts that have surely dealt with this pointhave not been found so far. That something of the kind didexist is certain from the fact that the best available translation of the Atra Hasis text into Early Assyrian (about 850 B.C.)contains lines that parallel some of the biblical verses about aman leaving his father's house and becoming as one with his wife as they lie in bed together. The tablet that carries this textis too damaged, however, to reveal all that the Sumerian orig- inal text had to say. 
But we do know nowadays, thanks to modern science, thatsexuality and the ability to procreate lie in human chromosomes; each person's cell contains twenty-three pairs—in the case of a woman a pair of X chromosomes and in the case of 
Figure 59 
men one X and one Y chromosome (Fig. 59). However, thereproductive cells (female egg, male sperm) each contain onlyone set of chromosomes, not pairs. The pairing takes place when the egg is fertilized by the sperm; the embryo thus has the twenty-three pairs of chromosomes, but only half of themcome from the mother and only half from the father. Themother, having two X chromosomes, always contributes an X.The father, having both an X and a Y, may end up contributing either one; if it is an X, the baby will be female; if a Y, it willbe a male. 
The key to reproduction thus lies in the fusion of the twosingle sets of chromosomes; if their number and genetic codediffer, they will not combine and the beings will not procreate.Since both female and male Primitive Workers already existed, 
their sterility was not due to the lack of X or Y chromosomes.The need for a bone—the Bible stresses that Eve was "bone of the bones" of Adam—suggests that there was a need toovercome some immunological rejection by the female Prim- itive Workers of the males' sperms. The operation carried outby the Elohim overcame this problem. Adam and Eve discovered their sexuality, having acquired "knowing"—a biblicalterm that connoted sex for the purpose of procreation ("AndAdam knew Eve his wife and she conceived and gave birth toCain."). Eve, as the tale of the two of them in the Garden of Eden relates, was thenceforth able to become pregnant byAdam, receiving from the deity a blessing combined with acurse: "In suffering shall thou bear children."
With that, "The Adam," Elohim said, "has become as one of us." He was granted "Knowing." Homo sapiens was ableto procreate and multiply on his own. But though he was givena good measure of the genetic makeup of the Anunnaki, whomade Man in their image and after their likeness even in thisrespect of procreation, one genetic trait was not transmitted.That was the longevity of the Anunnaki. Of the fruit of the"Tree of Life," partaking of which would have made Manlive as long as the Anunnaki, he was not even to taste. Thispoint is clearly spelled out in the Sumerian tale of Adapa, the Perfect Man created by Enki: 
Wide understanding he perfected for him. ... 
Wisdom he had given him. . . .
To him he had given Knowing;
Eternal life he had not given him. 
Ever since publication of The 12th Planet in 1976, I havespared no effort to explain the seeming "immortality" of the "gods." Using flies in my home as an example, I have beenwont to say that if flies could talk, Papa Fly would tell SonFly, "You know, this man here is immortal; as long as I havelived, he has not aged at all; my father told me that his father, all our forefathers as far as we can remember, have seen this man the way he is: ever-living, immortal!"
My "immortality" (in the eyes of the talking flies) is, ofcourse, simply a result of the different life cycles. Man lives 
so many decades of years; flies count their lives in days. But what are all these terms? A "day" is the time it takes our planet to complete one revolution about its axis; a "year" is the time it takes our planet to complete one orbit around theSun. The length of time activities by the Anunnaki took onEarth was counted in sars, each one equivalent to 3,600 Earth-years. A sar, I have suggested, was the "year" on Nibiru— the time it took that planet to complete one orbit around theSun. So when the Sumerian King Lists reported, for example,that one leader of the Anunnaki administered one of their cities for 36,000 years, the text actual states ten sars. if a singlegeneration for Man is twenty years, there would be 180 generations of Man's progeny in one Anunnaki "year"—making them appear to be Forever Living, "immortal."
The ancient texts make clear that this longevity was not passed on to Man, but intelligence was. This implies a beliefor knowledge, in antiquity, that the two traits, intelligence andlongevity, could somehow be bestowed upon or denied to Manby those who had genetically created him. Not surprisingly,perhaps, modem science agrees. "Evidence amassed over the past 60 years suggests that there is a genetic component to intelligence," Scientific American reported in its March 1989issue. Besides giving examples of geniuses in various fields who had bequeathed their talents to children and grandchildren,the article highlighted a report by researchers from the University of Colorado at Boulder and Pennsylvania State University (David W. Fulker, John C. DeFries, and Robert Plomin), who had established a "close biological correlation" in mental abilities attributable to genetic heredity. ScientificAmerican headlined the article, "More Evidence Links Genes and Intelligence." Other studies, recognizing that "memories are made of molecules," have led to the suggestion that ifcomputers are ever to match human intelligence, they ought to be "molecular computers." Updating suggestions made inthis direction by Forrest Carter of the Naval Research Labo- ratories in Washington, D.C., John Hopfield of Caltech and AT&T's Bell Laboratories outlined in 1988 (Science, vol. 241)a blueprint for a "biological computer."
Evidence has also been mounting for the genetic source ofthe life cycles of living organisms. The various stages in the 
life of insects and the length of time they live are clearlygenetically orchestrated. So is the fact that so many creatures—but not mannals—die after reproducing. Octopuses, for ex- ample, it was discovered (by Jerome Wodinsky of Brandeis University) are genetically programmed to "self-destruct" after reproduction through chemicals found in their opticalglands. The studies were carried out in the course of researchon the aging process in animals, not on the life of octupusesper se. Many other studies have shown that some animalspossess the capacity to repair damaged genes in their cells andthus halt or reverse the aging process. Every species clearlyhas a life span fixed by its genes—a single day for the mayfly,about six years for a frog, a limit of about fifteen for a dog.Nowadays the human limit lies somewhere not much beyondone hundred years but in earlier times human life spans weremuch longer.
According to the Bible, Adam lived to be 930 years old, hisson Seth 912 years, and his son Enosh, 905. Although thereis reason to believe that the editors of Genesis reduced by a factor of 60 the much greater life spans reported in the Sumerian texts, the Bible does acknowledge that mankind had muchlonger lifetimes before the Deluge. Patriarchal life spans beganto shorten as the millennia raced on. Terah, Abraham's father, died at the age of 205. Abraham lived 175 years; his son Isaacdied at age 180. Isaac's son Jacob lived to be 147 but Jacob's son passed away at age 110.
While it is believed the genetic errors that accumulate asDNA keeps reproducing itself in the cells contribute to theaging process, scientific evidence indicates the existence of a biological "clock" in all creatures, a basic, built-in genetictrait that controls the life span of each species. What that geneor group of genes is, what makes it tick, what triggers it to"express" itself, are still matters of intense research. But that the answer lies in the genes has been shown by numerous studies. Some, on viruses, show that they possess fragments of DNA that can literally "immortalize" them.
Enki must have known all that, so that when it came to perfecting The Adam—creating a true, procreating Homo sap- iens—he gave Adam intelligence and "Knowing," but not thefull longevity that the Anunnaki genes possessed. 
As Mankind keeps distancing itself from the days of its creation as a Lulu, a "mixed" being who carried the geneticheritage of both the Earth and the Heavens, the shortening ofits average life span might be seen as a symptom of the minute loss, from generation to generation, of what some consider "divine" elements and the increasing preponderance of the "animal which is within us." The existence in our genetic makeup of what some call "nonsense" DNA—segments of DNA that seem to have lost their purpose—is an apparent leftover from the original "mixing." The two independent,though connected, parts of the brain—one more primitive andemotional, the other newer and more rational—are another attestation to the mixed genetic origin of Mankind.
The evidence that corroborates the ancient tales of creation, massive as it has been so far, does not end with genetic manipulation. There is more to come, and it is all above Eve! 
Modern anthropology, with the aid of fossil finds by paleontologists and advances in other fields of science, has madegreat strides in tracing back the origin of Man. By now the question "Where did we come from?" has been clearly answered: Mankind arose in southeastern Africa. 
The story of Man, we now know, did not begin with Man; the "chapter" that tells of the group of mammals called "Pri- mates" takes us back some forty-five or fifty million years, when a common ancestor of monkeys, apes, and Man appearedin Africa. Twenty-five or thirty million years later—that is how slowly the wheels of evolution turn—a precursor of theGreat Apes branched off the primate line. In the 1920s fossilsof this early ape, "Proconsul," were found by chance on an island in Lake Victoria (see map), and the find eventuallyattracted to the area the best-known husband-wife team of paleontologists, Louis S. B. and Mary Leakey. Besides Pro- consul fossils they also discovered in the area remains of Ra- mapithecus, the first erect ape or manlike primate; it was somefourteen million years old—some eight or ten million years up the evolutionary tree from Proconsul.
These discoveries meant more than finding a few fossils;they unlocked the door to nature's secret laboratory, the hideaway where Mother Nature keeps forging ahead with the ev
Figure 60 
olutionary march that has led from mammal to primate to greatapes to hominids. The place was the rift valley that slashesthrough Ethiopia, Kenya, and Tanzania—part of the rift systemthat begins in the Jordan Valley and the Dead Sea in Israel,includes the Red Sea, and runs all the way to southern Africa(map, Fig. 60).
Numerous fossil finds have been made at sites that the Leakeys and other paleoanthropologists have made famous. Therichest finds have been in Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania; near Lake Rudolf (renamed Lake Turkana) in Kenya; and in theAfar province of Ethiopia, to name the best-known sites. There have been many discoverers from many nations, but some—prominent in the scholarly debates regarding the meaning andtime scales of the finds—ought to be mentioned: the Leakeys' son Richard (curator of the National Museums of Kenya),Donald C. Johanson (curator at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History at the time of his discoveries), Tim White, and J.Desmond Clark (University of California at Berkeley), Alan Walker (John Hopkins University), Andrew Hill and David Pilbeam of Harvard, and Raymond Dart and Phillip Tobias of South Africa. 
Putting aside the problems raised by pride of discovery,different interpretations of finds, and a propensity for splitting species and genuses into smaller subdivisions, it is safe to statethat the branch leading to humans separated from that of four-legged apes some fourteen million years ago and that it tookanother nine million years or so until the first apes with hominidaspects, called Australopithecus, showed up—-all where nature had chosen its "man-making" laboratory to be.
While the fossil record for those intervening ten million yearsis almost blank, paleoanthropologists (as the new group ofscientists has come to be called) have been quite ingenious inpiecing together the record in the ensuing three million years.Sometimes with only a jawbone, a fractured skull, a pelvisbone, the remains of some fingers, or, with luck, even partsof skeletons, they have been able to reconstruct the beingsthese fossils represented; with the aid of other finds, such asanimal bones or stones crudely shaped to serve as tools, theyhave determined the developmental stage and customs of thebeings; and by dating the geologic strata in which the fossilsare found, they have been able to date the fossils themselves.
Among the outstanding road markers have been such findsas skeletal parts of a female nicknamed "Lucy" (who might have looked like the hominid in Fig. 61)—believed to havebeen an advanced Australopithecus who lived some 3.5 millionyears ago; a fossil known by its catalog number as "Skull1470" of a male from perhaps 2 million years ago and considered by its finders to be a "near man," or Homo habilis ("Handy Man")—a term to whose implications many object; 
Figure 61 
and skeletal remains of a "strapping young male" catalogedWT.15000 of a Homo erectus from about 1.5 million years ago, probably the first true hominid. He ushered in the OldStone Age; he began to use stones as tools, and migrated via the Sinai peninsula, which acts as a land bridge between Africaand Asia, to southeast Asia on the one hand and to southern Europe on the other. 
The trail of the Homo genus is lost after that; the chapter between about 1.5 million years to about 300,000 years agois missing, except for traces of Homo erectus on the peripheriesof this hominid's migrations. Then, about 300,000 years ago,without any evidence of gradual change, Homo sapiens madehis appearance. At first it was believed that Homo sapiensneanderthalis. Neanderthal man (so named after the site of his first discovery in Germany), who came into prominence in Europe and parts of Asia about 125,000 years ago, was theancestor of the Cro-Magnons, Homo sapiens sapiens, who tookover the lands about 35,000 years ago. Then it was held that 
the more "brutish" and thus "primitive'" Neanderthal stemmed from a different Homo sapiens branch, that Cro-Magnon had developed somewhere on his own. Now it isknown that the latter notion is more correct, but not entirely.Related but not the offspring of each other, the two lines ofHomo sapiens lived side by side as far back as 90,000 or even100,000 years ago. 
The evidence was found in two caves, one on Mount Carmel and the other near Nazareth, in Israel; they are among a numberof caves in the area where prehistoric man had made himselfa home. The first finds in the 1930s were believed to be about 70,000 years old and only of Neanderthal Man, thus fittingwell with the theories then held. In the 1960s a joint Israeli- French team reexcavated the cave at Qafzeh, the one near Nazareth, and discovered that the remains were not only ofNeanderthals but also of Cro-Magnon types. In fact, the layering indicated that Cro-Magnons had used the cave before theNeanderthals—a fact that pushed back the appearance of theCro-Magnons from the supposed 35,000 years ago to wellbefore 70,000 years ago.
Themselves incredulous, the scientists at Hebrew Universityin Jerusalem turned for verification to the remains of rodents found in the same layers. Their examination gave the same incredible date: Cro-Magnons, Homo sapiens sapiens, whowere not supposed to have made an appearance before 35,000years ago, had reached the Near East and settled in what isnow Israel more than 70,000 years ago. Moreover, for a long time they shared the area with the Neanderthals.
At the end of 1987 the finds at Qafzeh and Kebara, the cave on Mount Carmel, were dated by new methods, includingThermoluminescence, a technique that gives reliable dates much further back than the 40,000 to 50,000 year limit of radiocarbon dating. As reported in two issues (vols. 330 and 340) of Nature by the leader of the French team, Helene Val-lades of the National Research Center at Gif sur Yvette, the results showed without doubt that both Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons dwelt in the area between 90,000 and 100,000 yearsago (scientists now use 92,000 years as the mean date). Thesefindings were confirmed later at another site in the Galilee.
Devoting an editorial in Nature to the findings, Christopher Stringer of the British Museum acknowledged that the conventional view that Neanderthals preceded Cro-Magnons hadto be discarded. Both lines appeared to stem from an earlierform of Homo sapiens. "Wherever the original 'Eden1 for modern humans might have been," the editorial stated, it now appeared that for some reason Neanderthals were the first tomigrate northward, about 125.000 years ago. Joined by hiscolleague, Peter Andrews, and Ofer Bar-Yosef of Hebrew University and Harvard, they forcefully argued for an "Out ofAfrica" interpretation of these finds. A northward migration by these first Homo sapiens from an African birthplace wasconfirmed by the discovery (by Fred Wendorf of SouthernMethodist University, Dallas) of a Neanderthal skull near the Nile in Egypt that was 80,000 years old.
"Does it all mean an earlier dawn for humans'?" a Science headline asked. As scientists from other disciplines joined the search, it became clear the answer was yes. The Neanderthals,it was determined, were not just visitors to the Near East butlong-time dwellers there. And they were not the primitivebrutes that earlier notions had made them out to be. They buriedtheir dead in rituals that indicated religious practices and "at least one type of spiritually motivated behavior that allies themwith modern humans" (Jared M. Diamond of the Universityof California Medical School at Los Angeles). Some, as the discoverer of Neanderthal remains at the Shanidar cave, Ralph
S. Solecki of Columbia University, believe that the Neander- thals knew how to use herbs for healing—60,000 years ago.Skeletal finds in the Israeli caves convinced anatomists that, contrary to previously held theories. Neanderthals could speak:"Fossil brain casts show a well-developed language area," stated Dean Falk of the State University of New York at Albany. And "Neanderthal's brain was bigger than ours ... hewas not dull-witted and inarticulate," concluded neuroanato- mist Terrence Deacon of Harvard. 
All these recent discoveries have left no doubt that Neanderthal man was without doubt a Homo sapiens—not an ancestor of Cro-Magnon man but an earlier type from the samehuman stock. 
In March 1987 Christopher Stringer of the British Museum,along with a colleague, Paul Mellars, organized a conference 
at Cambridge University to update and digest the new findingsconcerning "The Origins and Dispersal of Modern Man." As reported by J. A. J. Gowlett in Antiquity (July 1987), the conferees first considered the fossil evidence. They concluded thatafter a hiatus of 1.2 to 1.5 million years by Homo erectus.Homo sapiens made a sudden appearance soon after 300,000years ago (as evidenced by fossil remains in Ethiopia, Kenya,and South Africa). Neanderthals "differentiated" from those early Homo sapiens ("Wise man") about 230,000 years agoand may have begun their northward migrations 100,000 yearslater, perhaps coinciding with the appearance of Homo sapienssapiens.
The conference also examined other lines of evidence, in- cluding the brand-new data provided by the field of biochemistry. Most exciting were the findings based on genetics. Theability of geneticists to trace parentage through comparisonsof DNA "sentences" has been proven in paternity lawsuits.It was inevitable that the new techniques would be extendedto trace not only child-parent relationships but also whole lineages of species. It was this new science of molecular geneticsthat enabled Allan C. Wilson and Vincent M. Sarich (both of the University of California at Berkeley) to establish with greataccuracy that hominids differentiated from apes about 5 million, not 15 million years ago, and that the hominids' closest "next of kin" were chimpanzees and not gorillas.
Because a person's DNA keeps getting mixed by the genesof the generational fathers, comparisons of the DNA in thenucleus of the cell (which come half from mother, half from father) do not work well after several generations. It was discovered, however, that in addition to the DNA in the cell's nucleus, some DNA exists in the mother's cell but outside the nucleus in bodies called "mitochondria" (Fig. 62). This DNAdoes not get mixed with the father's DNA; instead, it is passed on "unadulterated" from mother to daughter to granddaughter,and so on through the generations. This discovery, by DouglasWallace of Emory University in the 1980s, led him to compare this "mtDNA" of about 800 women. The surprising conclusion, which he announced at a scientific conference in July1986, was that the mtDNA in all of them appeared to be sosimilar that these women must have all descended from a single female ancestor. 
Figure 62 
The research was picked up by Wesley Brown of the University of Michigan, who suggested that by determining therate of natural mutation of mtDNA, the length of time that hadpassed since this common ancestor was alive could be calculated. Comparing the mtDNA of twenty-one women from di- verse geographical and racial backgrounds, he came to the conclusion that they owed their origin to "a single mitochondrial Eve" who had lived in Africa between 300,000 and 180,000 years ago.
These intriguing findings were taken up by others, who setout to search for "Eve." Prominent among them was RebeccaCann of the University of California at Berkeley (later at HawaiiUniversity). Obtaining the placentas of 147 women of different races and geographical backgrounds who gave birth at San Francisco hospitals, she extracted and compared their mtDNA.The conclusion was that they all had a common female ancestorwho had lived between 300,000 and 150,000 years (dependingon whether the rate of mutation was 2 percent or 4 percent permillion years). "We usually assume 250,000 years," Cannstated. 
The upper limit of 300,000 years, palcoanthropologistsnoted, coincided with the fossil evidence for the time Homo sapiens made his appearance. "What could have happened 300,000 years ago to bring this change about?" Cann and AllanWilson asked, but they had no answer. 
To further test what has come to be called the "Eve Hypothesis," Cann and her colleagues, Wilson and Mark Stone-king, proceeded to examine placentas of about 150 women inAmerica whose ancestors came from Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, as well as placentas from aborigine womenin Australia and New Guinea. The results indicated that the African mtDNA was the oldest and that all those different women from various races and the most diverse geographicand cultural backgrounds had the same sole female ancestor who had lived in Africa between 290,000 and 140,000 years ago.
In an editorial in Science (September 11,1987) in which all these findings were reviewed, it was stated that the overwhelming evidence showed that "Africa was the cradle of modem humans. . . . The story molecular biology seems to be tellingis that modern humans evolved in Africa about 200,000 yearsago."
These sensational findings—since then corroborated by other studies—made worldwide headlines. "The questionWhere did we come from? has been answered" the National Geographic (October, 1988) announced: out of southeasternAfrica. "The Mother of Us All" has been found, headlined the San Francisco Chronicle. "Out of Africa: Man's Route to Rule the World," announced the London Observer. Newsweek (January 11, 1988) in what was to be its best-selling issue everdepicted an "Adam" and an "Eve" with a serpent on its front cover, headlining it "The Search for Adam and Eve."
The headline was appropriate, for as Allan Wilson observed,"Obviously where there was a mother there had to be a father.'' 
All these very recent discoveries go a long way indeed inconfirming the biblical claim regarding the first couple of Homosapiens: 
And Adam called his wife's name Chava ["She of Life"—"Eve" in English]for she was the mother of all who live. 
Several conclusions are offered by the Sumerian data. First,the creation of the Lulu was the result of the mutiny of the 
Anunnaki about 300,000 years ago. This date as the upperlimit for the first appearance of Homo sapiens has been corroborated by modem science.
Second, the forming of the Lulu had taken place "above the Abzu," north of the mining area. This is corroborated by thelocation of the earliest human remains in Tanzania, Kenya,and Ethiopia—north of the gold-mining areas of southern Africa. 
Third, the full emergence of the first type of Homo sapiens, the Neanderthals—-about 230,000 years ago—falls well withinthe 250.000 years suggested by the mtDNA findings for thedata of "Eve," followed later by the emergence of Homosapiens sapiens, "modern Man."
There is no contradiction at all between these later dates and the 300,000-year date of the mutiny. Bearing in mind thatthese were Earth-years, whereas for the Anunnaki 3,600 Earth-years amounted to only one of theirs, we should first recallthat a period of trial and error followed the decision to ' 'create the Adam," until the "perfect model" was achieved. Then,even after the Primitive Workers were brought forth, sevenmales and seven females at a time, pregnancies by Birth God- desses were required, as the new hybrid was unable to pro- create. 
Clearly, the tracing of mtDNA accounts for the"Eve" whocould bear children, not a female Lulu unable to procreate.The granting to mankind of this ability, it was shown earlier,took place as a result of a second genetic manipulation by Enkiand Ninti which, in the Bible, is reflected in the story of Adam,Eve, and the Serpent in the Garden of Eden.
Did that second genetic manipulation take place about 250,000 years ago, the data for "Eve" suggested by RebeccaCann, or 200,000 years ago, as the article in Science prefers?
According to the Book of Genesis, Adam and Eve began tohave children only after their expulsion from "Eden." Weknow nothing of whether Abel, their second son who was killedby his elder brother Cain, had any offspring. But we do readthat Cain and his descendants were ordered to migrate to faraway lands. Were these descendants of the "accursed line of Cain" the migrating Neanderthals? It is an intriguing possibility that must remain a speculation. 
What seems certain is that the Bible does recognize the finalemergence of Homo sapiens sapiens, modern human beings.It tells us that the third son of Adam and Eve, Seth, had a son named Enosh, of whom the lineage of Mankind is descended.Now, Enosh in Hebrew means "human, human being"—youand me. It was in the time of Enosh, the Bible states, that "men began to call the name of Yahweh. It was then, in otherwords, that fully civilized Man and religious worship were established. 
With that, all the aspects of the ancient tale stand corrob- orated . 
THE EMBLEM OF ENTWINED SERPENTS 
In the biblical tale of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, the antagonist of the Lord God who had caused them to acquire "knowing" (the ability to procreate) was the Serpent, Nahash in Hebrew.
The term has two other meanings: "he who knows se- crets" and "he who knows copper." These other meanings or word plays are found in the Sumerian epithet BUZURfor Enki, which meant "he who solves secrets" and "he of the metal mines." I have therefore suggested in previouswritings that, in the original Sumerian version, the "Serpent" was Enki. His emblem was entwined serpents; it wasthe symbol of his "cult center" Eridu (a), of his African domains in general (b), and of the pyramids in particular(c); and it appeared on Sumerian illustrations on cylinderseals of the events described in the Bible. 
What did the emblem of entwined serpents—the symbolfor medicine and healing to this very day—represent? Thediscovery by modern science of the double-helix structureof DNA (see Fig. 49) offers the answer: the Entwined Serpents emulated the structure of the genetic code, the secretknowledge of which enabled Enki to create The Adam and then grant Adam and Eve the ability to procreate.
The emblem of Enki as a sign of healing was invoked byMoses when he made a nahash nehosheth—-a "copper serpent"—to halt an epidemic afflicting the Israelites. Was the involvement of copper in the triple meanings of the term 
and in the making of the copper serpent by Moses due tosome unknown role of copper in genetics and healing?
Recent experiments, conducted at the universities of Minnesota and St. Louis, suggest that it is indeed so. They showed that radionucleide copper-62 is a "positron-emitter," valuable in imaging blood flow, and that other copper compounds can carry Pharmaceuticals to living cells, in- cluding brain cells. 
10 
WHEN WISDOM WAS LOWERED FROM HEAVEN 
The Sumerian King Lists—a record of rulers, cities, and eventsarranged chronologically—divide prehistory and history into two distinct parts: first the long record of what had happenedbefore the Deluge, then what transpired after the Deluge. One was the time when the Anunnaki "gods" and then their sons by the "daughters of Man," the so-called demigods, ruled upon the Earth; the other was when human rulers—kings selected by Enlil—were interposed between the "gods" and the people. In both instances the institution of an organized societyand orderly government, "Kingship," was stated to have been "lowered from heaven"—the emulation on Earth of the so- cietal and governmental organization on Nibiru.
"When kingship was lowered from heaven," begins the Sumerian King List, "kingship was in Eridu. In Eridu, Alulimbecame king and ruled 28,800 years." After listing the otherantediluvial rulers and cities, the text states that "then the Flood swept over the Earth." And it continues: "After the Flood had swept over the Earth, when kingship was lowered again from heaven, kingship was in Kish." From then on, the lists takeus into historical times. 
Although the subject of this volume is what we call Scienceand the ancients called Wisdom, a few words about "Kingship"—the good order of things, an organized society and its institutions—will not be out of place, because without themno scientific progress or the dissemination and preservation of "Wisdom" could be possible. "Kingship" was the "portfolio" of Enlil, the Chief Administrator of the Anunnaki on Earth. It is noteworthy that as in so many scientific fields wherewe still live off and build upon the Sumerian bequests, so does 
204 
the institution of kings and kingship still exist, having servedMankind for so many millennia. Samuel N. Kramer, in HistoryBegins at Sumer, listed scores of "firsts" begun there, including a bicameral chamber of elected (or selected) deputies. 
Various aspects of an organized and orderly society were incorporated into the concept of kingship, first and foremostamong them the need for justice. A king was required to be"righteous" and to promulgate and uphold the laws, for Sumerian society was one that lived by the law. Many have learntin school of the Babylonian king Hammurabi and his famouslaw code, dating back to the second millenium B.C.; but atleast two thousand years before him Sumerian kings had already promulgated codes of law. The difference was that Ham- murabi's was a code of crime and punishment: if you do this, your punishment will be that. The Sumerian law codes, on the other hand, were codes of just behavior; they stated that "you should not take away a widow's donkey" or delay the wagesof a day laborer. The Bible's Ten Commandments were, likethe Sumerian codes, not a list of punishments but a code of what is right to do and what is wrong and should not be done.
The laws were upheld by a judicial administration. It is fromSumer that we have inherited the concept of judges, juries,witnesses, and contracts. The unit of society we call the "fam- ily," based on a contractual marriage, was instituted in Sumer;so were rules and customs of succession, of adoption, of the rights of widows. The rule of law was also applied to economicactivities: exchange based on contracts, rules for employment,wages, and—how else—taxation. We know much of Sumer's foreign trade, for example, because there had been a customs station at a city called Drehem where meticulous records were kept of all commercial movements of goods and animals.
All that and more came under the umbrella of "Kingship." As the sons and grandchildren of Enlil entered the stage of relations between Man and his gods, the functions of kingshipand the supervision of kings were gradually handed over tothem, and Enlil as the All Beneficent became a cherished memory. But to this day what we call a "civilized society" still owes its foundations to the time when "kingship was loweredfrom heaven." 
"Wisdom"—sciences and the arts, the activities that required know-how—were the domain first of Enki, the Chief Scientist of the Anunnaki, and later on, of his children. 
We learn from a text scholars call "Inanna and Enki: The Transfer of the Arts of Civilization" that Enki possessed certainunique objects called ME—a kind of computer or data disks—which held the information needed for the sciences, the han- dicrafts, and the arts. Numbering more than a hundred, theyincluded such diverse subjects as writing, music, metalwork- ing, construction, transportation, anatomy, medical treatments,flood control, and urban decay; also, as other lists make clear,astronomy, mathematics, and the calendar.
Like Kingship, Wisdom was "lowered to Earth from Heaven," granted to Mankind by the Anunnaki "gods." Itwas by their sole decision that scientific knowledge was passedon to Mankind, usually through the medium of selected individuals; the instance of Adapa, to whom Enki granted "wide understanding," has already been mentioned. As rule, how- ever, the chosen person belonged to the priesthood—another "first" that stayed with Mankind for millennia through the Middle Ages, when priests and monks were still also the scientists. 
Sumerian texts tell of Enmeduranki who was groomed bythe gods to be the first priest, and relate how the gods 
Showed him how to observe oil and water, 
secrets of Anu, Enlil and Enki. 
They gave him the Divine Tablet,
the engraved secrets of Heaven and Earth.
They taught him how to make calculations with numbers. 
These brief statements disclose considerable information. The first subject Enmeduranki was taught, the knowledge of"oil and water," concerned medicine. In Sumerian times physicians were called either an A.ZU or a IA.ZU, meaning "Onewho knows water" and "One who knows oil," and the difference was the method by which they administered medica- ments: mixed and drunk down with water, or mixed with oil and administered by an enema. Next, Enmeduranki was givena "divine," or celestial, tablet on which were engraved the 
"secrets of Heaven and Earth"—information about the planetsand the Solar System and the visible constellations of stars, aswell as knowledge about "Earth sciences"-—geography, ge- ology, geometry and—since the Enuma etish was incorporatedinto the temple rituals on New Year's Eve—cosmogony andevolution. And, to be able to understand all that—the third subject, mathematics: "calculations with numbers."
In Genesis the story of the antediluvial patriarch called Enochis summed up in the statement that he did not die but was taken up to the Lord when he was 365 years old (a number thatcorresponds to the number of days in a year); but considerablymore information about Enoch is provided in the Book of Enoch (of which several renderings have been found), which was notmade part of the Bible. In it the knowledge imparted by angelsto Enoch is described in much detail; it included mining and metallurgy and the secrets of the Lower World, geography andthe way Earth is watered, astronomy and the laws governingcelestial motions, how to calculate the calendar, knowledge ofplants and flowers and foods and so on—all shown to Enochin special books and on "heavenly tablets."
The biblical Book of Proverbs devotes a good deal of its teachings to Man's need for Wisdom and to the realization that it is granted by God only to the righteous, "for it is the Lord who giveth wisdom." The many secrets of Heaven and Earth that Wisdom encompasses are highlighted in an Ode to Wisdomfound in chapter 8 of Proverbs. The Book of Job likewise extols the virtues of Wisdom and all the abundance Man can obtain by it, but pointedly asks: "But whence cometh Wisdom,and where is the source of Understanding?" To which the answer is. "It is God who understands the way thereof"; theHebrew word translated "God" is Elohim, the plural term firstused in the creation tales. It is certain that the inspiration forthese two biblical books, if not their actual source, was Su-merian and Akkadian texts of proverbs and of the Sumerianequivalent of the Book of Job; the latter, interestingly, wastitled "I Will Praise the Lord of Wisdom." 
There was no doubt in ancient times that scientific knowledge was a gift and a teaching from the "gods"—the Anunnaki,Elohim—to Mankind. The assertions that astronomy was a major subject are self-evident statements, since, as must be 
evident from earlier chapters in this book, the astounding knowledge in Sumerian times of the complete Solar Systemand the cosmogony that explained the origin of Earth, theasteroid belt, and the existence of Nibiru could have come onlyfrom the Anunnaki. 
While I have seen a gratifying increase—to some extent, Iwould like to think, due to my writings—in the recognition of the Sumerian contribution to the beginnings and concept oflaws, medical treatment, and cuisine, the parallel recognition of the immense Sumerian contribution to astronomy has notcome about; this, I suspect, because of the hesitation in crossingthe "forbidden threshold" of the inevitable next step: if youadmit what the Sumerians knew about celestial matters, youmust admit the existence not only of Nibiru but also of itspeople, the Anunnaki. . . .Nevertheless, this "fear of cross- ing" (a nice play on words, since Nibiru's name meant "Planet of the Crossing" . . .) in no way negates the fact that modem astronomy owes to the Sumerians (and through them, to the Anunnaki) the basic concept of a spherical astronomy with allits technicalities; the concept of an ecliptic as the belt around the Sun in which the planets orbit; the grouping of stars intoconstellations; the grouping of the constellations seen in the ecliptic into the Houses of the Zodiac; and the application of the number 12 to these constellations, to the months of the year, and to other celestial, or "divine," matters. This emphasis on the number 12 can be traced to the fact that the Solar System has twelve members, and each leading Anunnaki wasassigned a celestial counterpart, forming a pantheon of twelve "Olympians" who were also each assigned a constellation anda month. Astrologers certainly owe much to these celestial divisions, since in the planet Nibiru astrologers find the twelfthmember of the Solar System that they have been missing forso long.
As the Book of Enoch details and as the biblical reference to the number 365 attests, a direct result of the knowledge ofthe interrelated motions of the Sun, the Moon, and the Earth was the development of the calendar: the counting of the days(and their nights), the months, and the years. It is now generallyrecognized that the Western calendar we use nowadays harkensback to Mankind's first-ever calendar, the one known as the 
Calendar of Nippur. Based on the alignment of its start withthe spring equinox in the zodiac of Taurus, scholars have concluded that this calendar was instituted at the beginning of the fourth millennium B.C. Indeed, the very concept of a calendar that is coordinated with the Earth-Sun occurrences of the equinoxes (the time the Sun crosses the equator and day and nightare equal) or, alternatively, with the solstices (when the Sunappears to have reached its farthest point north or south)—concepts that are found in all calendars in both the Old Worldand the New World—come to us from Sumer. 
The Jewish calendar, as I have repeatedly pointed out inbooks and articles, still adheres to the calendar of Nippur notonly in its form and structure but also in its count of years. In 
A.D. 1990 the Jewish calendar counts the year 5750; and it is not from "the creation of the world," as the explanation hasbeen, but from the start of the calendar of Nippur in 3760 B.C.
It was in that year, I have suggested in The Lost Realms,that Anu, Nibiru's king, came to Earth on a state visit. His name, AN in Sumerian and Anu in Akkadian, meant "heaven," "The Heavenly One." and was a component ofnumerous astronomical terms, such as AN.UR ("celestial horizon") and AN.PA ("point of zenith"), as well as being a component of the name "Anunnaki," "Those Who From Heaven to Earth Came." Archaic Chinese, whose syllables were written and pronounced in a manner that reveals their Sumerian origin, used for example the term kuan to denote a temple that served as an observatory; the Sumerian kernel ofthe term, KU.AN, had meant "opening to the heavens." (TheSumerian origin of Chinese astronomy and astrology was discussed by me in the article "The Roots of Astrology," whichappeared in the February 1985 issue of East-West Journal).Undoubtedly, the Latin annum ("year") from which the French annee ("year"), the English annual ("yearly"), andso on stem from the time when the calendar and the count of years began with the state visit of AN.
The Chinese tradition of combining temples with observa- tories has, of course, not been limited to China; it harkens back to the ziggurats (step pyramids) of Sumer and Babylon.Indeed, a long text dealing with that visit by Anu and his spouseAntu to Sumer relates how the priests ascended to the ziggurat's 
Figure 63 
topmost level to observe the appearance of Nibiru in the skies.Enki imparted the knowledge of astronomy (and of other sciences) to his firstborn son Marduk, and the renowned zigguratof Babylon, built there after Marduk gained supremacy in Mesopotamia, was built to serve as an astronomical observatory(Fig. 63).
Enki bestowed the "secrets" of the calendar, mathematics, and writing on his younger son Ningishzidda, whom the Egyp- tians called Thoth. In The Lost Realms I present substantial evidence to show that he was one and the same Mesoamerican god known as Quetzalcoatl, "The Plumed Serpent." This god's name, which means (in Sumerian) "Lord of the Tree ofLife," reflected the fact that it was to him that Enki entrusted medical knowledge, including the secret of reviving the dead.A Babylonian text quotes the exasperated Enki as telling Marduk he had taught him enough, when Marduk also wanted to learn the secret of reviving the dead. That the Anunnaki could achieve that feat (at least in so far as their own were concerned) 
Figure 64 
is clear from a text titled "The Descent of Inanna to the Lower World," where she was put to death by her own sister. Whenher father appealed to Enki to revive the goddess, Enki directedat the corpse "that which pulsates" and "that which radiates"and brought her back to life. A Mesopotamian depiction of apatient on a hospital table shows him receiving radiation treatment (Fig. 64).
Putting aside the ability to revive the dead (which is men- tioned as fact in the Bible), it is certain that the teaching ofanatomy and medicine was part of priestly training, as stated in the Enmeduranki text. That the tradition continued into later times is clear from Leviticus, one of the Five Books of Moses, which contains extensive instructions by Yahweh to the Israelite priests in matters of health, medical prognosis, treatment and hygiene. The dietary commandments regarding "appropriate" (kosher) and non-appropriate foods undoubtedlystemmed from health and hygienic considerations rather thanfrom religious observance; and many believe that the importantrequirement of circumcision was also rooted in medical reasons. These instructions were not unlike those in numerous earlier Mesopotamian texts that served as medical manuals for the A.ZUs and IA.ZUs, which instructed the physician-priests to first observe the symptoms; next stated which remedyhad to be applied; and then gave a list of the chemicals, herbs, 
Basic to the science of astronomy and the workings of the calendar, as well as to commerce and economic activity, wasthe knowledge of mathematics—the "making of calculationswith numbers," in the words of the Enmeduranki text. 
The Sumerian numbers system is called sexagesimal, mean- ing "base 60." The count ran from 1 to 60, as we now do with 1 to 100. But then, where we say "two hundred," the Sumerians said (or wrote) "2 gesh," meaning 2 x 60, whichequaled 120. When in their calculations the text said "take half" or "take one-third," the meaning was one-half of 60 = 30, one-third of 60 = 20. This might seem to us, rearedon the decimal system ("times 10"), which is geared to thenumber of fingers on our hands, cumbersome and complicated;but to a mathematician, the sexagesimal system is a delight. 
The number 10 is divisible by very few other whole numbers (by 2 and 5 only, to be precise). The number 100 is divisible only by 2, 4, 5, 10, 20, 25, and 50. But 60 is divisible by 2,3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, and 30. Inasmuch as we have inherited the Sumerian 12 in our counting of the daily hours, 60 in our counting of time (60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutesin an hour), and 360 in geometry (360 degrees in a circle), thesexagesimal system is still the only perfect one in the celestialsciences, in time reckoning, and in geometry (where a trianglehas angles adding up to 180 degrees and a square's angles addup to 360 degrees). In both theoretical and applied geometry(such as the measuring of field areas) this system made itpossible to calculate the areas of diverse and complex shapes (Fig, 65), the volumes of vessels of all kinds (needed to holdgrains or oil or wine), the length of canals, or the distancesbetween planets.
When record keeping began, a stylus with a round tip was used to impress on wet clay the various symbols that stood forthe numbers 1, 10, 60, 600, and 3,600 (Fig. 66a). The ultimate numeral was 3,600, signified by a large circle; it was calledSAR (Shar in Akkadian)—the "princely," or "royal," num
Figure 65 
Figure 66 
ber, the number of Earth-years it took Nibiru to complete oneorbit around the Sun. 
With the introduction of cuneiform ("wedge-shaped") writing, in which scribes used a wedge-shaped stylus (Fig. 66b),the numerals were also written in wedge-shaped signs (Fig. 66c). Other cuneiform signs denoted fractions or multiples (Fig. 66d); together with combination signs that instructed the calculator to add, subtract, divide, or multiply, problems inarithmetic and algebra that would baffle many of today's students were correctly solved. These problems included the squaring, cubing, or finding the square root of numbers. Asshown by F. Thureau-Dangin in Textes mathematiques Ba- byloniens, the ancients followed prescribed formulas, with twoor even three unknowns, that are still in use today.
Although dubbed "sexagesimal," the Sumerian system ofnumeration and mathematics was in reality not simply basedon the number 60 but on a combination of 6 and 10. While in the decimal system each step up is accomplished by multiplying the previous sum by 10 (Fig. 67a), in the Sumerian system thenumbers increased by alternate multiplications: once by 10,then by 6, then by 10, then again by 6 (Fig. 67b). This methodhas puzzled today's scholars. The decimal system is obviouslygeared to the ten digits of the human hands (as the numbers, too, are still called), so the 10 in the Sumerian system can beunderstood; but where did the 6 come from, and why? 
Figure 67 
There have been other puzzles. Among the thousands ofmathematical tablets from Mesopotamia, many held tables of 
ready-made calculations. Surprisingly, however, they did notrun from smaller numbers up (like 1, 10, 60, etc.) but randown, starting from a number that can only be described asastronomical: 12,960,000. An example quoted by Th.G. Pinches (Some Mathematical Tablets of the British Museum)began with the following lines at the top: 
12960000 its 2/3 part 8640000 
its half part       6480000 
its third " 4320000 
its fourth " 3240000 

and continued all the way down through "its 80th part 180000'' to the 400th part "[which is] 32400." Other tablets carried theprocedure down to the 16,000th part (equals 810), and thereis no doubt that this series continued downward to 60, the 216,000th part of the initial number 12,960,000.
H. V. Hilprecht (The Babylonian Expedition of the Universityof Pennsylvania), after studying thousands of mathematical tablets from the temple libraries of Nippur and Sippar and fromthe library of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal in Nineveh, con- cluded that the number 12,960,000 was literally astronomi- cal—that it stemmed from the phenomenon of Precession, which retards the zodiac constellation against which the Sunrises by a full House once in 2,160 years. The complete circleof the twelve Houses, by which the Sun returns to its originalbackground spot, thus takes 25,920 years; the number 12,960,000 represented five hundred such complete Precessional circles. 
It was incredible to learn, as Hilprecht and others have, thatthe Sumerians were not only aware of the phenomenon ofprecession but also knew that a shift from House to House inthe zodiac required 2,160 years; it was doubly incomprehensible that they chose as the base of their mathematics a numberrepresenting five hundred complete twelve-House cycles, eachone of which required the fantastic (as far as human beings areconcerned) time span of 25,920 years. In fact, while modern astronomy accepts the existence of the phenomenon and itsperiods as calculated in Sumer, there is no scientist now or informer times who can or could confirm from personal expc
rience the shift of even one House (a shift to Aquarius is nowanticipated); and all the scientists put together have yet to witness one complete cycle. Stilt, there it is in the Sumerian tablets. 
It seems to me that a solution to all these puzzles can befound if modern science will accept the existence of Nibiruand its Anunnaki as fact. Since it was they who had granted mathematical "wisdom" to Mankind, the astronomical base number and the sexagesimal system were developed by theAnunnaki for their own use and from their own viewpoint— and then were scaled down to human proportions.
As Hilprecht has correctly suggested, the number 12,960,000 indeed stemmed from astronomy—the time (25,920 years) required for a full precessional cycle. But thatcycle could be broken down to more human-sized proportions,that of the precessional shift by one zodiacal House. Althougha complete shift in 2,160 years was also beyond an Earthling'slifetime, the gradual shift of one degree every 72 years wasan observable phenomenon (which the astronomer-priests witnessed and dealt with). This was the "earthly" element in the formulation. 
Then there was the orbital period of Nibiru, which the Anunnaki knew equaled 3,600 Earth-years. Here, then, were two basic and immutable phenomena, cycles of a certain lengththat combined the movements of Nibiru and Earth in a ratio of 3,600:2,160. This ratio can be reduced to 10:6. Once in 21,600 years, Nibiru completed six orbits around the Sun and Earth shifted ten zodiacal houses. This, I suggest, created the 6x10 x 6 x 1 0 system of alternating counting that is called "sexagesimal."
The sexagesimal system, as has been noted, still lies at thecore of modern astronomy and time-keeping. So has the legacyof the 10:6 ratio of the Anunnaki. Having perfected architectureand the eye-pleasing plastic arts, the Greeks devised a canonof proportions called the Golden Section. They held that aperfect and pleasing ratio of the sides of a temple or great chamber was reached by the formula AB:AP = AP:PB, which gives a ratio of the long part or side to the shorter one of 100 to 61.8 (feet, cubits, or whatever unit of measure is chosen).It seems to me that architecture owes the debt for this Golden 
Section not to the Greeks but to the Anunnaki (via the Su- merians), for this ratio is really the 10:6 ratio on which the sexagesimal system was based.
The same can be said of the mathematical phenomenonknown as the Fibonacci Numbers, wherein a series of numbers grows in such a way that each successive number (e.g., 5) is the sum of its two preceding numbers (2 + 3); then 8 is thesum of 3 + 5, and so on. The fifteenth century mathematicianLucas Pacioli recognized the algebraic formula for this seriesand called the quotient—1.618-—the Golden Number and itsreciprocal—0.618—the Divine Number. Which brings us backto the Anunnaki. . . . 
Having explained how, in my opinion, the sexagesimal system was devised, let us look at what Hilprecht concluded wasthe upper base of the system, the number 12,960,000.
It is easy to show that this number is simply the square ofthe real basic number of the Anunnaki—3,600—which is the length in Earth-years of Nibiru's orbit. (3,600 x 3,600 =12,960,000). It was from dividing 3,600 by the earthly ten thatthe easier-to-handle number of 360 degrees in a circle wasobtained. The number 3,600, in turn, is the square of 60; thisrelationship provided the number of minutes in an hour and(in modern times) the number of seconds in a minute, and of course the basic sexagesimal number.
The zodiacal origin of the astronomical number 12,960,000can, 1 believe, explain a puzzling biblical statement. It is inPsalm 90 that we read that the Lord—the reference is to the "Celestial Lord"—who has had his abode in the heavens for countless generations and from the time "before the mountains were brought forth, before Earth and continents were created," considers a thousand years to be merely a single day: 
A thousand years in thine eyes
are but a day, a yesterday past. 
Now if we divide the number 12,960,000 by 2,160 (thenumber of years to achieve a shift from one zodiac House),the result is 6,000—a thousand times six. Six as a number of "days" is not unfamiliar—we came upon it at the beginningof Genesis and its six days of creation. Could the psalmist 
have seen the mathematical tablets in which he would have 
found the line listing "12,960,000 the 2160th part of which
is a thousand times six"? It is indeed intriguing to find that
the Psalms echo the numbers with which the Anunnaki had 
toyed.
In Psalm 90 and other relevant psalms, the Hebrew word translated as "generation" is Dor. It stems from the root dur,"to be circular, to cycle." For human beings it does mean ageneration; but for celestial bodies it means a cycle around thesun—an orbit. It is with this understanding that the true mean- ing of Psalm 102, the moving prayer of a mortal to the Everlasting One, can be grasped: 
But thou, O Lord, shalt abide forever, 
and thy remembrance from cycle to cycle. 
For He hath looked down from his sanctuary on high: 
From Heaven did Yahweh behold the Earth. 
1 say. my God,
"Do not ascend me in the midst of my days,"
thou whose years arc in a cycle of cycles. 
Thou art unchanged; 
Thine years shalt have no end. 
Relating it all to the orbit of Nibiru, to its cycle of 3,600Earth-years, to the precessional retardation of Earth in its orbit around the Sun—this is the secret of the Wisdom of Numbers that the Anunnaki lowered from Heaven to Earth. 
Before Man could "calculate with numbers," the other two of the "three Rs"—reading and 'riting—had to be mastered.We take it for granted that Man can speak, that we have languages by which to communicate to our fellow men (or clansmen). But modern science has not held it so; in fact, until quiterecently, the scientists dealing with speech and languages be- lieved that "Talking Man" was a rather late phenomenon that may have been one reason the Cro-Magnons—who could speak 
and converse with each other—took over from the nonspeaking Neanderthals. 
This was not the biblical view. The Bible took it for granted, for example, that the Elohim who were on Earth long beforeThe Adam could speak and address each other. This is apparentfrom the statement that The Adam was created as a result of a discussion among the Elohim, in which it was said, "Let usmake The Adam in our image and after our likeness." This implies not only the ability to speak but also a language withwhich to communicate. 
Let us now look at The Adam. He is placed in the Garden of Eden and is told what to eat and what to avoid. The instructions were understood by The Adam, as the ensuing conversation between the Serpent and Eve makes clear. The Serpent(whose identity is discussed in The Wars of Gods and Men) "said unto the woman: Hath Elohim indeed said, Ye shall not eat of all the trees in the garden?" Eve says yes, the fruit ofone tree was forbidden on penalty of death. But the Serpent assures the woman it is not so, and she and Adam eat of the forbidden fruit. 
A lengthy dialogue then ensues. Adam and Eve hide whenthey hear the footsteps of Yahweh, "strolling in the garden inthe cool of the day." Yahweh calls out to Adam, "Where are you?" and the following exchange takes place: 
Adam:  "I heard the sound of you in the garden
and I was afraid because 1 am naked, and 
I hid." 
Yahweh:   "Who told you that you are naked? Did
you eat of the tree of which I ordered you
not to eat?" 
Adam:   "The woman whom you placed with me,
she is the one who gave me of the tree, and
I ate." 
Yahweh: [to the woman] "What have you done?" 
Woman: "The serpent beguiled me, and I ate." 
This is quite a conversation. Not only the Deity can speak;Adam and Eve can also speak and understand the Deity'slanguage. So, in what language did they converse, for there must have been one (according to the Bible). If Eve was the 
First Mother, was there a First Language—a Mother Tongue?
Again, scholars began by differing with the Bible. Theyassumed that language was a cultural heritage rather than anevolutionary trait. It was assumed that Man progressed fromgroans to meaningful shouts (on seeing prey or sensing danger) to rudimentary speech as he formed clans. From words and syllables, languages were born—many languages, arising simultaneously as clans and tribes formed.
This theory of the origin of languages not only ignored thesignificance of the biblical tales of the Elohim and of the in- cident in the Garden of Eden; it denied the biblical assertion that prior to the incident of the Tower of Babel "the wholeEarth was of one language and of one kind of words"; that it was a deliberate act of the Elohim to disperse Mankind all overthe Earth and "confuse" its language "that they may not understand one another's speech."
It is gratifying to note that in recent years, modern science has come around to the belief that there was indeed a Mother Tongue; and that both types of Homo sapiens—Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal—could talk from the very begin- ning.
That many languages have words that sound the same andhave similar meanings has long been recognized, and that certain languages can therefore be grouped into families has beenan accepted theory for over a century, when German scholarsproposed naming these language families "Indo-European," "Semitic," "Hamitic," and so on. But this very grouping held the obstacle to the recognition of a Mother Tongue, be- cause it was based on the notion that totally different andunrelated groups of languages developed independently in different "core zones" from which migrants carried their tonguesto other lands. Attempts to show that there are apparent wordand meaning similarities even between distant groups, such asthe writings in the nineteenth century by the Reverend CharlesFoster (The One Primeval Language, in which he pointed tothe Mesopotamian precursors of Hebrew) were dismissed as no more than a theologian's attempt to elevate the status of the Bible's language, Hebrew.
It was mainly advances in other fields, such as anthropology, biogenetics. and the Earth sciences, as well as computerization, 
that opened new avenues of study of what some call "linguisticgenetics." The notion that languages developed rather late inMan's march to civilization—at one point the beginning oflanguages (not just speech) was put at only five thousand yearsago—obviously had to be amended and the date pushed backto much earlier times when archaeological finds showed thatthe Sumerians could already write six thousand years ago. Asthe dates of ten thousand and twelve thousand years ago werebeing considered, the search for points of similarity, speededup by computers, led scholars to the discovery of protolanguages and thus to larger and less numerous groupings.
Searching for an early affiliation for the Slavic languages,Soviet scientists under the leadership of Vladislav Illich-Svitych and Aaron Dolgopolsky suggested, in the 1960s, a proto-language they termed Nostratic (from the Latin "Our Language") as the core of most European (including Slavic) languages. Later on they presented evidence for a second suchproto-language, which they termed Dene-Caucasian, as the core tongue of the Far Eastern languages. Both began, they estimated from linguistic mutations, about twelve thousand years ago. In the United States, Joseph Greenberg of StanfordUniversity and his colleague Merritt Ruhlen suggested a thirdproto-language, Amerind.
Without dwelling on the significance of the fact, it behoovesme to mention that the date of about twelve thousand yearsago would put the period of the appearance of these protolanguages somewhere around the immediate aftermath of the Deluge, which in The 12th Planet was shown to have occurredabout thirteen thousand years ago; that also conforms to the biblical notion that post-Diluvial Mankind divided into three branches, descended from the three sons of Noah. 
Meanwhile, archaeological discoveries kept pushing back the time of human migrations, and this was especially signif- icant in regard to the arrival of migrants in the Americas. Whena time of twenty thousand years or even thirty thousand yearsago was suggested, Joseph Greenberg created a sensation whenhe demonstrated in 1987 (Language in the Americas) that thehundreds of tongues in the New World could be grouped intojust three families, which he termed Eskimo-Aleut, Na-Dene,and Amerind. The greater significance of his conclusions was 
that these three in turn were brought to the Americas by mi- grants from Africa, Europe, Asia, and the Pacific and thus ineffect were not true proto-languages but offshoots of Old Worldones. The protolanguage he called "Na-Dene," Greenbergsuggested, was related to the Dene-Caucasian group of the Soviet scholars. This family, Merritt Ruhlen wrote in NaturalHistory (March 1987), appears to be "genetically closest" to the group of languages that include "the extinct languagesEtruscan and Sumerian." Eskimo-Aleut, he wrote, is most closely related to the Indo-European languages. (Readers wish- ing to know more about the earliest arrivals in the Americas may want to read The Lost Realms, Book IV of "The EarthChronicles" series).
But did true languages begin only about twelve thousandyears ago—only after the Deluge? It is not only according tothe Bible that language existed at the very beginning of Homosapiens (Adam and Eve), but also the fact that Sumerian texts repeatedly refer to inscribed tablets that dated from before theDeluge. The Assyrian king Ashurbanipal boasted that, knowledgeable as Adapa, he could read "tablets from before the Deluge." If so, there had to be true language even much earlier.
Discoveries by paleontologists and anthropologists make linguists push their estimations back in time. The discoveries inthe Kebara cave, mentioned earlier, indeed forced a complete reevaluation of previous timetables.
Among the finds in the cave was an astounding clue. Theskeletal remains of a sixty-thousand-year-old Neanderthal included an intact hyoid bone—the first ever to be discovered. This horned-shaped bone which lies between the chin and thelarynx (voice box) anchors the muscles that move the tongue, lower jaw, and larynx and makes human speech possible (Fig.68).
Combined with other skeletal features, the hyoid bone of- fered unequivocal proof that Man could speak as he does todayat least sixty thousand years ago and probably much earlier.Neanderthal Man, the team of six international scientists led by Baruch Arensburg of Tel-Aviv University stated in Nature(April 27, 1989), "had the morphological basis for humanspeech capability."
If so, how could Indo-European, whose origins are traceable 
Figure 68 
to only a few thousand years ago, be given such a prominentposition on the language tree? Less inhibited about loweringthe claims for Indo-European than their Western colleagues,Soviet scholars continued to search audaciously for a protoproto language. Spearheading the search for a Mother Tonguehave been Aaron Dolgopolsky, now at Haifa University inIsrael, and Vitaly Shevoroshkin, now at the University of Michigan. It was primarily on the latter's initiative that a "break- through" conference was held at the University of Michiganin November 1988. Titled "Language and Prehistory," the conference brought together, from seven countries, more thanforty scholars from the fields of linguistics, anthropology, ar- chaeology, and genetics. The consensus was that there had been a "mono-genesis" of human languages—a Mother Tongue in a "proto-proto-proto stage" at a time about 100,000 years ago.
Still, scientists from other fields relating to the anatomy ofspeech, such as Philip Lieberman of Brown University andDean Falk of the State University of New York at Albany, seespeech as a trait of Homo sapiens from the very first appearanceof these '"Thinking/Wise Men." Brain specialists such as Ron
ald E. Myers of the National Institute of Communicative Disorders and Strokes believe that "human speech developed spontaneously, unrelated to the crude vocalization of other primates," as soon as humans acquired their two-part brains.
And Allan Wilson, who had participated in the genetic re- search leading to the"One-Mother-of-All" conclusion, putspeech back in the mouth of "Eve": "The human capacity forlanguage may have come from a genetic mutation that occurredin a woman who lived in Africa 200,000 years ago," he announced at a meeting in January 1989 of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. 
"Gift of Gab Goes Back to Eve," one newspaper headlinedthe story. Well, to Eve and Adam, according to the Bible. 
And so we arrive at the last of the Rs—writing.
It is now believed that many of the shapes and symbolsfound in Ice Age caves in Europe, attributed to Cro-Magnons living during the period of between twenty thousandand thirty thousand years ago, represent crude pictographs— "picture writing." Undoubtedly, Man learned to write long after he began to speak. The Mesopotamian texts insist thatthere was writing before the Deluge, and there is no reason todisbelieve this. But the first writing discovered in modern timesis the early Sumerian script which was pictographic. It tookbut a few centuries for this script to evolve into the cuneiformscript (Fig. 69), which was the means of writing in all theancient languages of Asia until it was finally replaced, millen- nia later, by the alphabet.
At first glance cuneiform script looks like an impossiblehodgepodge of long, short, and just wedge-point markings(Fig. 70). There are hundreds of cuneiform symbols, and howon Earth the ancient scribes could remember how to write them and what they meant is baffling—but not more so than theChinese language signs are to a non-Chinese. Three generations of scholars have been able to arrange the signs in a logical order and, as a result, have come up with lexicons and dic- tionaries of the ancient languages—Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Hittite, Elamite and so on—that used cuneiform.
But modern science reveals that there was more than some logical order to creating such a diversity of signs. 
Figure 69 
Mathematicians, especially those dealing with graph theory—the study of points joined by lines—are familiar withthe Ramsey Graph Theory, named for Frank P. Ramsey, a British mathematician who, in a paper read to the LondonMathematical Society in 1928, suggested a method of calculating the number of various ways in which points can be connected and the shapes resulting therefrom. Applied togames and riddles as well as to science and architecture, thetheory offered by Ramsey made it possible to show, for ex
Figure 70 
ample, that when six points representing six people are joinedby either red lines (connecting any two who know each other)or blue lines (connecting any two who are strangers), the resultwill always be either a red or a blue triangle. The results of calculating the possibilities for joining (or not joining) points can best be illustrated by some examples (Fig. 71). Underlyingthe resulting graphs (i.e., shapes) are the so-called RamseyNumbers, which can be converted to graphs connecting a certain number of dots. I find that this results in dozens of "graphs" whose similarity to the Mesopotamian cuneiform signs is undeniable (Fig. 72).
The almost one hundred signs, only partly illustrated here, are simple graphs based on no more than a dozen RamseyNumbers. So, if Enki or his daughter Nidaba, the Sumerian "goddess of writing," had known as much as Frank Ramsey, they must have had no problem in devising for the Sumerian 
scribes a mathematically perfect system of cuneiform signs.
"1 will greatly bless thee, and I will exceedingly multiplythy seed as the stars of the heavens," Yahweh told Abraham. And with this single verse, several of the elements of the knowledge that was lowered from heaven were expressed: speech, astronomy, and the "counting with numbers."
Modern science is well on its way to corroborating all that. 
THE FRUITS OF EDEN 
What was the Garden of Eden, remembered in the Bible for its variety of vegetation and as the place where still-unnamed animals were shown to Adam? 
Modem science teaches that Man's best friends, the crops and animals we husband, were domesticated soon after 10000 B.C. Wheat and barley, dogs and sheep (to cite someexamples) in their domesticated and cultivable forms ap- peared, then, within no more than two thousand years. This, it is admitted, is a fraction of the time that natural selection alone would require.
Sumerian texts offer an explanation. When the Anunnaki landed on Earth, they state, there were none of such "domesticated" crops and animals; it was the Anunnaki who brought them forth, in their "Creation Chamber.'' Together with Lahar ("woolly cattle") and Anshan ("grains") they also brought forth "vegetation that luxuriates and multiplies." It was all done in the Edin; and after The Adam was created, he was brought there to tend it all.
The amazing Garden of Eden was thus the bio-genetic farm or enclave where "domesticated" crops, fruits, and animals were brought forth.
After the Deluge (about thirteen thousand years ago) the Anunnaki provided Mankind with the crop and animal seeds, which they had preserved, to get started again. But this time, Man himself had to be the husbandman. The Bible confirms this and attributes to Noah the honor of having been the first husbandman. It also states that the first cultivated food after the Deluge was the grape. Modern science confirms the grape's antiquity; science has also discovered that besides being a nourishing food, the grape's wine is a strong gastrointestinal medicine. So, when Noah drank the wine (in excess), he was, in a manner of speaking, takinghis medicine. 
11 
A SPACE BASE ON MARS 
Having been to the Moon, Earthlings are eager to set foot on Mars. 
It was on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of thefirst landing by Man on the Moon that the President of theUnited States outlined his country's stepping stones to Earth's nearest outer planet. Speaking at the National Air and SpaceMuseum in Washington and flanked by the three Apollo 11astronauts—Neil A. Armstrong, Edwin E. Aldrin, Jr., and Michael Collins—President George Bush outlined America's way stations to Mars. First, progress from the shuttlecraft program to the emplacement in permanent Earth orbit of a SpaceStation, where the larger vehicles necessary for the onwardflights would be assembled. Then would come the establish- ment of a space base on the Moon, where materials, equipment,and fuels necessary for the long space voyages would be developed and tested, and experience would be gained in Man's living and working for extended periods in outer space. Andfinally, the actual expedition to Mars, 
Vowing to make the United States "a spacefaring nation," the goal, the President said, will be "back to the Moon, back to the future . . . and then, a journey into tomorrow, to another planet: a manned mission to Mars."
"Back to the future." The choice of words may or may nothave been coincidental; the premise that going to the futureinvolves going back to the past might have been more than a speech writer's choice slogan.
For there is evidence that "A Space Base on Mars," this chapter's heading, should apply not to the discussion of futureplans but to a disclosure of what has already taken place inthe past: Evidence that a space base existed on the planet Mars 
230 
in antiquity; and what is even more startling, that it might have been reactivated before our very eyes.
If Man is to venture from planet Earth into space, it is onlylogical and technologically called for to make Mars the firstplanet on the outbound voyage. The road to other worlds musthave way stations due to the laws of celestial motion, the constraints of weight and energy, the requirements for humansurvival, and limitations on human physical and mental en-durance. A spaceship capable of carrying a team of astronautsto Mars and back might have to weigh as much as four millionpounds. Lifting such a massive vehicle off the surface of Earth(a planet with a substantial gravitational pull, compared withits immediate neighbors) would require a commensurately large load of fuel that, together with the tanks to hold it, wouldfurther increase the lift-off weight and make the launch impractical. (U.S. space shuttles now have a payload capacity of sixty-five thousand pounds.)
Such lift-off and fuel problems would be greatly reduced ifthe spaceship will be assembled in weightless orbit around theEarth. This scenario envisions an orbiting, manned space station, to which shuttle craft will ferry the knocked-down spaceship. Meanwhile, astronauts stationed on the Moon at a permanent space base would develop the technology requiredfor Man's survival in space. Man and vehicle would then be joined for the voyage to Mars.
The round trip may take between two and three years, depending on the trajectory and Earth-Mars alignments. Thelength of stay on Mars will also vary according to these constraints and other considerations, beginning with no stay at all(just several orbits around Mars) to a long stay in a permanentcolony served or sustained by shifts of spacecraft and astronauts. Indeed, many advocates of "The Case for Mars," asthis approach has come to be called after several scientific conferences on the subject, consider a manned mission to Marsjustified only if a permanent space base is established there,both as a prelude to manned missions to even more distantplanets and as the forerunner of a colony, a permanent settlement of Earthlings on a new world.
The progression from shuttlecraft to an orbiting space stationto landings on the Moon and the establishment of a space base 
thereon, all as stepping-stones or way stations toward a landingon Mars, has been described in scenarios that read like science fiction but are based on scientific knowledge and attainabletechnology. Bases on the Moon and on Mars, even a colonyon Mars, have been in the planning for a long time and are deemed entirely feasible. Sustaining human life and activityon the Moon is certainly challenging, but the studies show how it could be achieved. The tasks are more challenging for Mars,since resupply from Earth (as the Moon projects envision) is more difficult and costly. Nevertheless, the vital resources needed by Man to survive and function are available on Mars,and scientists believe that Man could live "off the land" there. 
Mars, it has been concluded, is habitable—because it was habitable in the past.
Mars appears nowadays as a cold, half-frozen planet inhospitable to anything living upon its surface, with bitter-coldwinters and temperatures rising above freezing only at theequator in the warmest season, with vast areas covered eitherwith permafrost or with rusted iron rocks and gravel (whichgive the planet its reddish hue), with no liquid water to sustainlife or oxygen to breathe. But not so long ago in geological terms, it was a planet with relatively pleasant seasons, flowing water, oceans and rivers, cloudy (blue!) skies, and perhaps—just perhaps—even some forms of indigenous simple plantlife. 
All the various studies converge toward the conclusion thatMars is now going through an ice age, not unlike the ice agesthat Earth has experienced periodically. The causes of Earth'sice ages, attributed to many factors, are now believed to stemfrom three basic phenomena that relate to Earth's orbit aroundthe Sun. The first is the configuration of the orbit itself: theorbit, it has been concluded, changes from more circular tomore elliptical in a cycle of about one hundred thousand years;this brings the Earth at times closer to the Sun and at timesfarther away from it. Earth has seasons because the axis ofEarth is not perpendicular to its orbital plane (ecliptic) but istilted, bringing the northern hemisphere under a stronger in-fluence of the Sun's rays during the (northern) summer (during winter in the southern hemisphere), and vice versa (Fig. 73); but this tilt, now about 23.5 degrees, is not stable; the Earth, 
Figure 73 
like a rolling ship, changes its tilt by about 3 degrees back andforth in a cycle that takes about forty-one thousand years tocomplete. The greater the tilt the more extreme are the wintersand summers; air and water flows change and aggravate theclimatic changes that we call "ice ages" and " interglacial"warm periods. A third contributing cycle is that of the Earth's wobble as it spins, its axis forming an imaginary circle in theheavens; this is the phenomenon of Precession of the Equinoxes, and the duration of this cycle is about twenty-six thousand years.
The planet Mars is also subject to all three cycles, exceptthat its larger orbit around the Sun and greater tilt differentialcause more extreme climatic swings. The cycle, as we havementioned, is believed to last some fifty thousand years on Mars (although shorter and longer durations have also been suggested).
When the next Martian warm period, or interglacial, arrives,the planet will literally flow with water, its seasons will not be as harsh, and its atmosphere will not be as alien to Earthlingsas it is today. When was the last "interglacial" epoch on Mars?The time could not have been too distant, because otherwise the dust storms on Mars would have obliterated more, if not most, of the evidence on its surface of once flowing rivers,ocean shorelines, and lake basins; and there would not be as much water vapor still in the Martian atmosphere as is foundtoday. "Running water must have existed on the red planet inrelatively recent times, geologically speaking," according to Harold Masursky of the U.S. Geological Survey. Some believethe last change occurred no more than ten thousand years ago.Those who are planning the landings and extended stays onMars do not expect the climate there to revert to an interglacialepoch within the next two decades; but they do believe thatthe basic requirements for life and survival on Mars are locallyavailable. Water, as has been shown, is present as permafrostin vast areas and could be found in the mud of what from spaceappear to be dry riverbeds. When geologists at Arizona StateUniversity working for NASA were suggesting Mars landingsites to Soviet scientists, they pointed to the great canyon in the Lunae Planum basin as a place where a roving vehicle "could visit former riverbeds and dig into the sediments of adelta where an ancient river flowed into a basin," and find there liquid water. Aquifers—subterranean water pools—area sure source of water in the opinion of many scientists. Newanalyses of data from spacecraft as well as from Earth-basedinstruments led a team headed by Robert L. Huguenin of the University of Massachusetts to conclude, in June 1980, thattwo concentrations of water evaporation on Mars south of itsequator suggest the existence of vast reservoirs of liquid water just a few inches below the Martian surface. Later that yearStanley H. Zisk of the Haystack Observatory in Westford,Massachusetts, and Peter J. Mouginis-Mark of Brown University, Rhode Island, reported in Science and Nature (November 1980) that radar probing of areas in the planet's southern hemisphere indicated "moist oases" of "extensive liquid water" beneath the surface. And then, of course, thereis all the water captured in the ice cap of the northern pole,which melts around its rims during the northern summer, creating large, visible darkish patches (Fig. 74). Morning fogs 
Figure 74 
and mists that have been observed on Mars suggest to scientiststhe existence of dew, a source of water for many plants andanimals on Earth in arid areas. 
The Martian atmosphere, at first sight inhospitable and evenpoisonous to Man and life, could in fact be a source of vital resources. The atmosphere has been found to contain somewater vapor, which could be extracted by condensation. Itcould also be a source of oxygen for breathing and burning.It consists on Mars primarily of carbon dioxide (CO2) with 
small percentages of nitrogen, argon, and traces of oxygen (Earth's atmosphere consists primarily of nitrogen, with a large percentage of oxygen and small amounts of other gases). Theprocess of converting carbon dioxide (C02) to carbon monoxide(CO), thereby releasing oxygen (CO + O) is almost elementaryand could easily be performed by astronauts and settlers. Carbon monoxide can then serve as a simple rocket fuel.
The planet's reddish-brown, or "rusty," hue is also a clueto the availability of oxygen, for it is the result of the actualrusting of iron rocks on Mars. The product is iron oxide—ironthat has combined with oxygen. On Mars it is of a type calledlimonite, a combination of iron oxide (Fe2O3) with several molecules of water (H2O); with the proper equipment, theplentiful oxygen could be separated and extracted. The hydrogen obtainable by breaking down water into its component elements could be used in the production of foods and usefulmaterials, many of which are based on hydrocarbons {hydrogen-carbon combinations).
Although the Martian soil is relatively high in salts, scientistsbelieve it could be washed with water sufficiently to the pointwhere patches would be suitable for plant cultivation in green- houses; local foods could thus be grown, especially from seedsof salt-resistant strains of grains and vegetables; human wastecould be used as fertilizer, as it is used in many Third Worldcountries on Earth. Nitrogen, needed by plants and fertilizers,is in short supply on Mars but not absent: the atmosphere,though 95 percent carbon dioxide, does contain almost 3 percent nitrogen. The greenhouses for growing all this food wouldbe made of inflatable plastic domes; electricity would be obtained from solar-powered batteries; the rover vehicles willalso be solar-powered. 
Another source not just of water but also of heat on Marsis indicated by the past volcanic activity there. Of several notable volcanoes, the one named Olympus, after the Greek mountain of the gods, dwarfs anything on Earth or even in theSolar System. The largest volcano on Earth, Mauna Loa inHawaii, rises 6.3 miles; Olympus Mons on Mars towers 15miles above the surrounding plain; its crater's top measures 45miles across. The volcanoes of Mars and other evidence of volcanic activity on the planet indicate a hot molten core and 
thus the possible existence of warm surface spots, hot-watersprings, and other phenomena resulting from internally generated heat. 
With a day almost exactly the length of a day on Earth, seasons (although about twice as long as Earth's), equatorial regions, icy northern and southern poles, water resources thatonce were seas and lakes and rivers, mountain ranges andplains, volcanoes and canyons, Mars is Earthlike in so manyways. Indeed, some scientists believe that Mars, although created at the same time as the other planets 4.6 billion years ago,is at the stage Earth was at its beginnings, before plant lifebegan to emit oxygen and change Earth's atmosphere. Thisnotion has served as a basis for the suggestion by proponentsof the Gaia Theory of how Man might "jump the gun" on Martian evolution by bringing life to it; for they hold that itwas Life that made Earth hospitable to life.
Writing in The Greening of Mars, James Lovelock and Mi- chael Allaby employed science fiction to describe how microorganisms and "halocarbon gases" would be sent from Earthto Mars in rockets, the former to start the biological chain andthe latter to create a shield in the Martian atmosphere. Thisshield of halocarbon gases, suspended in the atmosphere above the now cold and arid planet, would block the dissipation into space of the warmth Mars receives from the Sun and its own internal heat and would create an artificially induced "greenhouse" effect. The warming and the thickened atmosphere would release Mars's frozen waters, enhance plant growth, andthereby increase the planet's oxygen supply. Each step in thisartificially induced evolution would strengthen the process; thus will the bringing of Life to Mars make it hospitable to life. 
The suggestion by the two scientists that the transformation of Mars into a habitable planet—they called the process "Terraforming"—should begin with the creation of an artificial shieldto protect the planet's dissipating heat and water vapor by artificially suspending a suitable material in the planet's at- mosphere was made by them in 1984.
Whether by coincidence or not, it was once again a case ofmodern science catching up with ancient knowledge. For, in The I2th Planet (1976), it was described how the Anunnakicame to Earth about 450,000 years ago in order to obtain 
The plans proposed by the advocates of the Gaia Hypothesisare based on an assumption and a presumption. The first, thatMars does not have life-forms of its own; the second, that people from one planet have the right to introduce their life- forms to another world, whether or not it has its own life. 
But does Mars have life on it or as some prefer to ask, did it have life on it in its less harsh epochs? The question haspreoccupied those who have planned and executed the variousmissions to Mars; and after all the scanning and photographingand probing, it is evident that Life as it has blossomed onEarth—trees and forests, bushes and grasses, flying birds androaming animals—is just not there. But what about lesser life- forms—lichens or algae or the lowly bacteria? 
Although Mars is much smaller than Earth (its mass is abouta tenth that of Earth, its diameter about half) its surface, nowall dry land, is about the same area as the dry-land portion ofEarth's surface. The area to be explored is thus the same asthe area on Earth with all its continents, mountains, valleys,equatorial and polar zones; its warm and the cold places; itshumid regions and the dry desert ones. When an outline of the United States, coast to coast, is superimposed on the face ofMars (Fig. 75), the scope of the exploration and the variety ofterrains and climates to contend with can well be appreciated.
No wonder when then that the first successful unmanned Mars probes. Mariners 4, 6, and 7 (1965-69), which photographed parts of the planet's surface in the course of flybys,revealed a planet that was heavily cratered and utterly desolate,with little sign of any geologic activity in its past. As it happened, the pictures were almost all of the cratered highlands in the southern hemisphere of Mars. This image, of a planet not only without life on it but itself a lifeless and dead globe,changed completely when Manner 9 went into orbit around Mars in 1971 and surveyed almost its entire surface. It showed a living planet with a history of geologic activity and volcan- ism, with plains and mountains, with canyons in which America's Grand Canyon could be swallowed without a trace, and 
Figure 75 
the marks of flowing water. It was not only a living planet but one that could have life upon it.
The search for life on Mars was thus made a prime objectiveof the Viking missions. Viking 1 and Viking 2 were launchedfrom Cape Canaveral in the summer of 1975 and reached theirdestination in July and August of 1976. Each consisted of anOrbiter that remained in orbit around the planet for ongoingobservation, and of a Lander that was lowered to the planet'ssurface. Although to ensure safe landings, relatively flat sitesin the northern hemisphere, not too distant from each other,were selected for the touchdowns, "biological criteria" (i.e., the possibility of life) "dominated the decision regarding the latitude at which the spacecraft would land." The orbiters have provided a rich array of data about Mars that is still beingstudied and analyzed, with new details and insights constantly 
emerging; the landers sent thrilling photographs of the Martian
landscape at very close range and conducted a series of ex
periments in search of Life.
Besides instruments to analyze the atmosphere and camerasto photograph the areas in which they touched down, each Lander carried a combined gas-chromatograph/mass-spectrometer for analyzing the surface for organic material, as well asthree instruments designed to detect metabolic activity by anyorganism in the soil. The soil was scooped up with a mechanicalarm, put into a small furnace, heated, and otherwise treated and tested. There were no living organisms in the samples;only carbon dioxide and a small amount of water vapor werefound. There were not even the organic molecules that impacting meteorites bring with them; the presumption is that ifsuch molecules had been delivered to Mars, the present highlevel of ultraviolet light that strikes the planet, whose protectiveatmosphere is now almost gone, must have destroyed them.
During the long days of experiments on Mars, drama andexcitement were not absent. In retrospect the ability of the NASA team to manipulate and direct from Earth equipmenton the surface of Mars seems like a fairy tale; but both plannedroutines and emergencies were adroitly tackled. Mechanicalarms failed to work but were fixed by radio commands. There were other malfunctions and adjustments. There was breathtaking suspense when the gas-exchange experiments detecteda burst of oxygen; there was the need to have Viking 2 instruments confirm or disprove the results of experiments carriedout by those of Viking 1 that left open the question of whetherchanges in the scooped-up soil samples were organic or chemical, biological or inanimate. Viking 2 results confirmed the reactions of Viking 1 experiments: when gases were mixed or when soil was added to a "nutrient soup," there were marked changes in the level of carbon dioxide; but whether the changesrepresented a chemical reaction or a biological response remained a puzzle.
As eager as scientists were to find life on Mars, and therebyfind support for their theories of how life on Earth began spontaneously from a primordial soup, most had to conclude regretfully that no evidence of life on Mars was found. NormanHorowitz of Caltech summed up the prevailing opinion when 
he stated (in Scientific American, November 1977) that "at least those areas on Mars examined by the two spacecraft are not habitats of life. Possibly the same conclusion applies tothe entire planet, but that is an intricate problem that cannotyet be addressed."
In subsequent years, in laboratory experiments in which thesoil and conditions on Mars were simulated as best as the researchers could, the reactions indicated biological responses. Especially intriguing were experiments conducted in 1980 atthe Space Biology Laboratory of Moscow University: when Earthly life-forms were introduced into a simulated Martianenvironment, birds and mammals expired in a few seconds,turtles and frogs lived many hours, insects survived for weeks—but fungi, lichens, algae, and mosses quickly adaptedthemselves to the new environment; oats, rye, and beans sprouted and grew but could not reproduce.
Life, then, could take hold on Mars; but had it? With 4.6 billion years at the disposal of evolution on Mars, where are not merely some microorganisms (which may or may not exist) but higher life-forms? Or were the Sumerians right in sayingthat life sprouted on Earth so soon after its formation onlybecause the "Seed of Life" was brought to it, by Nibiru? 
While the soil of Mars still keeps its riddle of whether ornot its test reactions were chemical and lifeless or biologicaland caused by living organisms, the rocks of Mars challengeus with even more enigmatic puzzles.
One can begin with the mystery of Martian rocks found not on Mars but on Earth. Among the thousands of meteoritesfound on Earth, eight that were discovered in India, Egypt, and France between 1815 and 1865 (known as the SNC group, after the initials of the sites' names) were unique in that their age was only 1.3 billion years, whereas meteorites are generally
4.5 billion years old. When several more were discovered in Antarctica in 1979, the gaseous composition of the Martian atmosphere was already known; comparisons revealed that theSNC meteorites contained traces of isotopic Nitrogen-14. Argon-40 and 36, Neon-20, Krypton-84, and Xenon-13 almost identical to the presence of these rare gases on Mars.
How did these meteorites or rocks reach Earth? Why arethey only 1.3 billion years old? Did a catastrophic impact on 
Figure 76 
Mars cause them to somehow defy its gravity and fly off to Earth? 
The rocks discovered in Antarctica are even more puzzling.A photograph of one of them, released by NASA and publishedin The New York Times of September 1, 1987, shows it to benot "football sized" as these rocks had been described, but rather a broken-off block (Fig. 76) of four bricklike, artificiallyshaped and angled stones fitted together—something one would expect to find in pre-Inca ruins in Peru's Sacred Valley(Fig. 77) but not on Mars. Yet all tests on the rock (it is nolonger referred to as a meteorite) attest to its Martian origin. 
To compound the mystery, photographs of the Martian surface have revealed features that, on seeing them, astronomersdubbed "Inca City." Located in the planet's southern part,they represent a series of steep walls made up of squarish or rectangular segments (Fig. 78 is from Mariner-9 photographicframe 4212-15). John McCauley, a NASA geologist, commented that the "ridges" were "continuous, show no breaching, and stand out among the surrounding plains and small hills like walls of an ancient ruin." 
Figure 77 
Figure 78 
This immense wall or series of connected shaped stone blocksbears a striking resemblance to such colossal and enigmatic structures on Earth as the immense wall of gigantic stone blocks that forms the base of the vast platform at Baalbek in Lebanon(Fig. 79) or to the cruder but equally impressive zigzaggingparallel stone walls of Sacsahuaman above Cuzco in Peru (Fig. 
Figure 79 
80). In The Stairway to Heaven and The Lost Realms, I haveattributed both structures to the Anunnaki/Nefilim. The featureson Mars might perhaps be explained as natural phenomena,and the size of the blocks, ranging from three to five miles inlength, might very well indicate the hand of nature rather than of people, of whatever provenance. On the other hand, sinceno plausible natural explanation has emerged, they might be 
Figure 80 
the remains of artificial structures—if the "giants'" of NearEastern and Andean lore had also visited Mars. . . . 
The notion of "canals" on Mars appeared to have been laid to rest when—after decades of ridicule—scientists suggestedthat what Schiaparelli and Lowell had observed and mappedwere in fact channels of dried-up rivers. Yet other featureswere found on the Martian surface that defy easy explanation.These include white "streaks" that run in straight lines for endless miles—-sometimes parallel, sometimes at angles to each other, sometimes crossing other, narrower "tracks" (Fig.81 is a sketched-over photo). Once again, the NASA teams suggested that windblown dust storms may have caused thesefeatures. This may be so, although the regularity and especiallythe intersecting of the lines seem to indicate an artificial origin.Searching for a comparable feature on Earth, one must look to the famous Nazca lines in southern Peru (Fig. 82) whichhave been attributed to "the gods."
Both the Near East and the Andes are known for their various pyramids—the immense and unique ones at Giza, the steppedpyramids or ziggurats of Mesopotamia and of the early American civilizations. As pictures taken by the Mariner and Viking 
Figure 81 
cameras seem to show, even pyramids, or what look like pyramids, have been seen on Mars. 
What appear to be three-sided pyramids in the Elysium (map.Fig. 83) plateau in the region called Trivium Charontis werefirst noticed on Mariner-9 frames 4205-78, taken on February8, 1972 and 4296-23, taken six months later. Attention was focused on two pairs of "tetrahedron pyramidal structures,"to use the cautious scientific terminology; one pair were huge pyramids, while the other pair were much smaller, and theyseemed to be laid out in a rhombus-shaped pattern (Fig. 84).Here again, the size of the "pyramids"—the larger are eachtwo miles across and half a mile high—suggests that they are natural phenomena, and a study in the journal Icarus (vol. 22,1974, by Victor Ablordeppy and Mark Gipson) offered four theories to explain these formations naturally. David Chandler (Life on Mars) and astronomer Francis Graham (in Frontiersof Science, November-December 1980), among others, showed the flaws in each theory. The fact that the features 
Figure 82 
were photographed six months apart, at different sunlights andangles, and yet show their accurate terrahedral shapes, con- vinces many that they are artificial structures, even if we do not understand the reason for their great size. "Given thepresent lack of any easily acceptable explanation," Chandler wrote, "there seems to be no reason to exclude from consideration the most obvious conclusion of all: perhaps they were 
Figure 83 
built by intelligent beings." And Francis Graham, stating that"the conjecture that these are buildings of an ancient race ofMartians must take its place among the theories of their ori- gin," wondered whether future explorers might discover in these structures inner chambers, buried entrances, or inscriptions that might have withstood "ten thousand millennia ofwind erosion." 
More "pyramids" with varying numbers of smooth sideshave been discerned by researchers who have scanned the Mar- tian photographs. Interest, and controversy, have focused mainly on an area named Cydonia (see map, Fig. 83) becausea group of what may be artificial structures appears to bealigned with what some called a Martian "sphinx" to the east of these structures, as can be readily seen in the panoramicNASA photo O35-A-72 (Plate E). What is noticeable is a rockwith the features of a well-proportioned human face, seeminglyof a man wearing some kind of a helmet (Fig. 85), with a 
Plate E 
slightly open mouth and with eyes that look straight out at the viewer—if the viewer happens to be in the skies above Mars.Like the other "monuments"—the features that resemble artificial structures—on Mars, this one, too, is of large proportions: the Face measures almost a mile from top to bottom andhas been estimated to rise almost half a mile above the surrounding plateau, as can be judged by its shadow.
Although it is said that the NASA scientist who examinedthe photographs received from the Viking 1 Orbiter on July25, 1976, "almost fell out of his chair" when he saw this frame and that appropriate "Oh, my God" or expressions tothat effect were uttered, the fact is that the photograph was filed away with the thousands of other Viking photographs without any further action because the similarity to a human face was deemed just a play of light and shadows on a rock 
eroded by natural forces (water, wind). Indeed, when some newsmen who happened to see the transmitted image wonderedwhether it in fact showed a human face, the chief scientist of the Mission asserted that another photograph, taken a few hours later, did not show such a feature at all. (Years later NASAacknowledged that that was an incorrect and misleading statement and an unfortunate one, because the fact was that the area fell into darkness of night "a few hours later" and theredid exist other photographs clearly showing the Face.)
Three years later Vincent DiPietro, an electrical engineerand imaging specialist, who remembered seeing the "Face"in a popular magazine, came face-to-face with the Martianimage as he was thumbing through the archives of the NationalSpace Science Data Center. The Viking photo, bearing thecatalog number 76-A-593/17384, was simply titled "HEAD." Intrigued by the decision to keep the photo in the scientificdata center under that tantalizing caption—the "Head" whose very existence had been denied—he embarked, together withGreg Molenaar, a Lockheed computer scientist, on a search for the original NASA image. They found not one but two,the other being image 070-A-13 (Plate F). Subsequent searchescame up with more photos of the Cydonia area taken by different Viking Orbiter cameras and from both the right and leftsides of the features (there are eleven by now). The Face aswell as more pyramidlike and other puzzling features could beseen on all of them. Using sophisticated computer enhancementand imaging techniques, DiPietro and Molenaar obtained enlarged and clearer images of the Face that convinced them ithad been artificially sculpted. 
Armed with their findings, they attended the 1981 The Casefor Mars conference but instead of acclaiming them the assembled scientists cold-shouldered their assertions—undoubtedlybecause they would have to draw the conclusion that the Face was the handiwork of intelligent beings, "Martians" who had inhabited the planet; and that was a totally unacceptable proposition. Publishing their findings privately (Unusual Mars Surface Features) DiPietro and Molenaar took great pains todissociate themselves from "wild speculations" regarding theorigin of the unusual features. All they claimed, the book'sepilogue stated, was "that the features do not seem natural and 
Plate F 
warrant further investigation." NASA scientists, however, 
strongly rejected any suggestion that future missions should 
include a visit to the Face, since it was clearly just a rock 
shaped by the forces of nature so that it resembled a human 
face. 
The cause of the Face on Mars was thereafter taken up primarily by Richard C. Hoagland, a science writer and onetime consultant at the Goddard Space Flight Center. He or- ganized a computer conference titled The Independent MarsInvestigation Team with the purpose of having the features andall other pertinent data studied by a representative group ofscientists and specialists; the group eventually included Brian O'Leary, a scientist-astronaut, and David Webb, a member ofthe U.S. President's Space Commission. In their conclusions they not only concurred with the view that the "Face" and "pyramids" were artificial structures, they also suggested that other features on (he surface on Mars were the handiwork ofintelligent beings who had once been on Mars.
I was especially intrigued by the suggestion in their reportsthat the orientation of the Face and the principal pyramid in- dicated they were built about half a million years ago in alignment with sunrise at solstice time on Mars. When Hoaglandand his colleague Thomas Rautenberg, a computer specialist, sought my comments on their photographic evidence, I pointedout to them that the Anunnaki/Nefilim, according to my conclusions in The 12th Planet, had first landed on Earth about 450,000 years ago; it was, perhaps, no coincidence that Hoagland and Rautenberg's dating of the monuments on Mars coincided with my timetable. Although Hoagland was careful tohedge his bets, he did devote many pages in his book The Monuments of Mars to my writings and to the Sumerian evidence concerning the Anunnaki.
The publicity accorded the findings of DiPietro, Molenaar,and Hoagland has caused NASA to insist that they were wrong.In an unusual move, the National Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, which supplies the public with copies of NASA data, has been enclosing along with the "Face" photographs copies of rebuttals of the unorthodox interpretations of theimages. These rebuttals include a three-page paper dated June6, 1987, by Paul Butterworth, the Center's Resident Plane tologist. He states that "there is no reason to believe that thisparticular mountain, which is similar to tens of thousands of others on the planet, is not the result of the natural geologicalprocesses which have produced all the other landforms onMars. Among the huge numbers of mountains on Mars it isnot surprising that some should remind us of more familiarobjects, and nothing is more familiar than the human face. Iam still looking for the 'Hand on Mars' and the "Leg onMars'!" 
"No reason to believe" that the feature is other than natural is, of course, not a factual argument in disproving the oppositeposition, whose proponents contend that they do have reason to believe the features are artificial structures. Still, it is true that on Earth there are hills or mountains that give the appearance of a sculpted human or animal head although they 
are the work of nature alone. This, I feel, might well be a valid argument regarding the "pyramids" on the Elysium plateauor the "Inca City." But the Face and some features near it,especially those with straight sides, remain a challenging enigma.
A scientifically significant study by Mark J. Carlotto, an optics scientist, was published in the May 1988 issue of theprestigious journal Applied Optics. Using computer graphic techniques developed in optical sciences, Carlotto employedfour frames from NASA images, taken by the Viking Orbiter with different cameras during four different orbits, to recreatea three-dimensional representation of the Face. The study provided detailed information about the complex optical proce- dures and mathematical formulations of the three-dimensional analysis, and Carlotto's conclusions were that the "Face" was indeed a bisymmetrical human face, with another eye socket in the shaded part and a "fine structure of the mouth suggesting teeth." These, Carlotto stated, "were facial features and not a transient phenomenon" or a trick of light and shadow. "Although the Viking data are not of sufficient resolution to permitthe identification of possible mechanisms of origin for these objects, the results to date suggest that they may not be natural."" 
Applied Optics deemed the study important enough to makeit its front-cover feature, and the scientific journal New Scientist devoted a special report to the published paper and to an interview with its author. The journal echoed his suggestion that"at the very least these enigmatic objects"—the Face and the adjoining pyramidal features that some had dubbed "The City"—"deserve further scrutiny by future Mars probes, suchas the 1988 Soviet Phobos mission or the U.S. Mars Observer." 
The fact that the controlled Soviet press has published andrepublished articles by Vladimir Avinksy, a noted researcherin geology and mineralogy, that support the non-natural originof the monuments, surely indicates the Soviet aerospace atti- tudes on the matter—a subject that will be dealt with at greater length later on. Noteworthy here are two points made by Dr.Avinsky. He suggests (in published articles and privately delivered papers) that in considering the enormous size of the 
Martian formations, one must bear in mind that due to the low gravity of Mars a man could perform gigantic tasks on it; andhe attaches great importance to the dark circle that is clearlyseen in the flat area between the Face and the pyramids. WhileNASA scientists dismissed it as "a water spot on the lens of the Viking Orbiter," Avinsky considers it "the centre of theentire composition" of the "Martian complex" and its layout (Fig. 86). 
Figure 86 
Unless it is assumed that Earthlings possessed, tens of thousands or even half a million years ago, a high civilization anda sophisticated technology that enabled them to engage in spacetravel, arrive on Mars and, among other things, put up mon- uments on it, including the Face, only two other alternativeslogically remain. The first is that intelligent beings had evolvedon Mars who not only could engage in megalithic constructionbut also happened to look like us. But in the absence even ofmicroorganisms in the soil of Mars, nor evidence of plant andanimal life that among other things could provide the humanlike Martians with nourishment, the rise of a Martian population 
akin to Earthlings and one that even duplicated the structuralforms found on Earth seems highly improbable.
The only remaining plausible alternative is that someone, neither from Earth nor from Mars, capable of space travel halfa million years ago, had visited this part of the Solar Systemand had stayed; and then left behind monuments, both on Earth and on Mars. The only beings for which evidence has beenfound—in the Sumerian and biblical texts and in all the ancient "mythologies'"—are the Anunnaki from Nibiru. We know how they looked: they looked like us because they made uslook like them, in their image and after their likeness, to quoteGenesis. 
Their humanlike visages appear in countless ancient depictions, including the famous Sphinx at Giza (Fig. 87). Its face,according to Egyptian inscriptions, was that of Horem-Akhet, the "Falcon-god of the Horizon," an epithet forRa, the firstborn son of Enki, who could soar to the farthest heavens in his Celestial Boat. 
The Giza Sphinx was so oriented that its gaze was aligned 
Figure 87 
precisely eastward along the thirtieth parallel toward the spaceport of the Anunnaki in the Sinai Peninsula. The ancient texts attributed communications functions to the Sphinx (and the purported subterranean chambers under it): 
A message is sent from heaven;
it is heard in Heliopolis and is repeated in Memphis
by the Fair of Face.
It is composed in a dispatch by the writing of Thoth
with regard to the city of Amen. . . .
The gods are acting according to command. 
The reference to the message-transmitting role of the "Fair of Face"—the sphinx at Giza—raises the question of whatthe purpose of the Face on Mars was; for, if it was indeed the handiwork of intelligent beings, then by definition they did notexpend the time and effort to create the Face without a logicalreason. Was the purpose, as the Egyptian text suggests, to sendthe "message from Heaven" to the sphinx on Earth, a "command" according to which the gods acted, sent from one Faceto another Fair-of-Face? 
If such was the purpose of the Face on Mars, then one wouldindeed expect to find pyramids nearby, as one finds at Giza;there, three unique and exceptional pyramids, one smaller andtwo colossal, rise in symmetry with each other and with the Sphinx. Interestingly, Dr. Avinsky discerns three true pyramidsin the area adjoining the Face on Mars. 
As the ample evidence presented in the volumes of "TheEarth Chronicles" series indicates, the Giza pyramids were not the handiwork of Pharaohs but were constructed by the Anunnaki. Before the Deluge their spaceport was in Meso- potamia, at Sippar ("Bird City"). After the Deluge the spaceport was located in the Sinai Peninsula, and the two great pyramids of Giza, two artificial mountains, served as beaconsfor the Landing Corridor whose apex was anchored on MountArarat, the Near East's most visible natural feature. If this was also the function of the pyramids in the Cydonia area, thensome correlation with that most conspicuous natural feature onMars, Olympus Mons, might eventually be found.
When the principal center of gold production by the Anunnaki shifted from southeast Africa to the Andes, their metallurgical center was established on the shores of Lake Titicaca, at what is nowadays the ruins of Tiahuanacu and Puma-Punku. The principal structures in Tiahuanacu, whichwas connected to the lake by canals, were the "pyramid" calledAkapana, a massive mound engineered to process ores, and the Kalasasaya, a square, "hollowed-out" structure (Fig. 88) that served astronomical purposes; its orientation was alignedwith the solstices. Puma-Punku was situated directly on thelakeshore; its principal structures were "golden enclosures"built of immense stone blocks that stood alongside an array ofzigzagging piers (Fig. 89).
Of the unusual features the orbiting cameras captured on the face of Mars, two appear to me to be almost certainly artifi- cial—and both seem to emulate structures found on the shores 
Figure 88 
of Lake Titicaca in the Andes. One, which is akin to the Ka- lasasaya, is the first fealure west of the Face on Mars, justabove (north of) the mysterious darkish circle (see Plate E).As an enlargement thereof indicates (Plate G), its still-standingsouthern part consists of two distinct massive walls, perfectlystraight, meeting at an angle that appears sharp because of the photographic angle but is in fact a true right angle. The structure—which could not possibly be natural no matter how farthe imagination is stretched—appears to have collapsed, in its 
Figure 89 Plate G 
northern part, under the impact of a huge boulder that droppedon it in some catastrophic circumstances.
The other feature that could not be the product of natural erosion is found directly south of the Face, in an area of chaoticfeatures, some of which have amazingly straight sides (PlateH). Separated by what might have been a channel or waterway—all are agreed that the area was on the shores of anancient Martian sea or lake—the prominent feature's side that faces the channel is not straight but is outfitted with a seriesof "indentations" (Plate H). One must keep in mind that allthese photographs were taken from an altitude of about one thousand two hundred miles above the Martian surface; what we observe, then, may well have been an array of large piers-just as one finds at Puma-Punku.
The two features, which cannot be explained away as theresult of the play of light and shadow, thus bear similarities to the facilities and structures on the shores of Lake Titicaca. In this they not only support my suggestion that they are the remains of structures put up by the same visitors—the An
Plate H 
unnaki—they also offer a hypothesis for explaining their purpose and possible function. This conclusion is further supportedby features that can be seen in the Utopia area: a pentagonalstructure (enhanced NASA frame 086-A-07) and a "runway"next to what some deem evidence of mining (NASA frame O86-A-O8)—Plates I and J. 
The spaceports of the Anunnaki on Earth, judging by Sumerian and Egyptian records, consisted of a Mission ControlCenter, Landing Beacons, an underground silo, and a large,flat plain whose natural surface served as runways. The MissionControl Center and certain Landing Beacons were some distance away from the spaceport proper where the runways weresituated; when the spaceport was in the Sinai Peninsula, Mission Control Center was in Jerusalem and the Landing Beaconswere in Giza, Egypt (the underground silo in the Sinai is depicted in Egyptian tomb drawings—-see vignette at end of thischapter—and was destroyed by nuclear weapons in 2024 B.C.).In the Andes, the Nazca lines, I believe, represent the visual 
Plate I 
evidence for the use of that perfect, arid plain as runways for space shuttle takeoffs and landings. The inexplicable criss- crossing lines on the surface of Mars, the so called "tracks" (see Fig. 81) could well represent the same kind of evidence. There are also what appear to be true tracks on the Martiansurface. From the air they look like the markings made by a pointed object on a linoleum floor, more or less straight"scratches" left on the Martian plain. These markings have been explained away as geological features, that is, natural cracks in the Martian surface. But as can be seen in NASA frame 651-A-06 (Plate K), the "cracks," or tracks, appear to lead from an elevated structure of a geometric design with 
Plate J 
straight sides and pierlike "teeth" on one side—a structurenow mostly buried under windblown sands—to the shores ofwhat evidently was once a lake. Other aerial photographs (Fig.90) show some tracks on an escarpment above the great canyonin the Valles Marineris near the Martian equator; these tracksnot only follow the contours of the terrain but also crisscross each other in a pattern that could hardly be natural.
It has been pointed out that if an alien spacecraft were tosearch for signs of life on Earth in areas of the Earth's surface outside the cities, what would give away the presence of in- telligent beings on Earth would be the tracks we call "roads" and the rectilinear patterns of agricultural lands. NASA itself has supplied what might amount to evidence of deliberate agricultural activity on Mars. Frame 52-A-35 (Plate L) shows a 
Plate K 
series of parallel grooves resembling contoured farmland—asone would find in the high mountains of Peru's Sacred Valley.The photo caption prepared by the NASA News Center inPasadena. California, when the photograph was released onAugust 18, 1976, stated thus: 
Peculiar geometric markings, so regular that they appearalmost artificial can be seen in this Mars picture taken byViking Orbiter 1 on August 12 from a range of 2053 kilometers (1273 miles).
The contoured markings are in a shallow depression orbasin, possibly formed by wind erosion. The markings—about one kilometer (one-half mile) from crest to crest—are low ridges and valleys and may be related to the sameerosion process.
The parallel contours look very much like an aerial viewof plowed ground. 
meaning conveyed information regarding the named person orobject. One epithet for Mars was Simug, meaning "smith," honoring the god Nergal with whom the planet was associated in Sumerian times. A son of Enki, he was in charge of Africandomains that included the gold-mining areas. Mars was alsocalled UTU.KA.GAB.A, meaning ''Light Established at theGate of the Waters," which can be interpreted either as its position next to the asteroid belt that separated the Lower Waters from the Upper Waters, or as a source of water for theastronauts as they passed beyond the more hazardous and lesshospitable giant planets Saturn and Jupiter.
Even more interesting are Sumerian planetary lists that describe the planets as the Anunnaki passed them during a spacejourney to Earth. Mars was called MUL APIN—"Planet Where the- Right Course is Set." It was so named also on anamazing circular tablet which copied nothing less than a routemap for the journey from Nibiru to Earth by Enlil, graphicallyshowing the "right turn" at Mars.
Even more enlightening as to what role Mars, or the space facilities upon it, had played in the journeys of the Anunnakito Earth is the Babylonian text concerning the Akitu festival.Borrowed from ancient Sumerian traditions, it outlined the rituals and symbolic procedures during the ten days of the NewYear ceremonies. In Babylon the principal deity who took overthe supremacy from the earlier ones was Marduk; part of thetransfer of the supremacy to him was the renaming by the Babylonians of the Planet of the Gods from the Sumerian Nibiruto the Babylonian Marduk.
The Akitu ceremonies included a reenactment by Mardukof the voyages of the Anunnaki from Nibiru/Marduk to Earth.Each planet passed on the way was symbolized by a way station along the course of the religious processions, and the epithetfor each planet or way station expressed its role, appearance,or special features. The station/planet Mars was termed "TheTraveler's Ship," and I have taken it to mean that it was atMars that the astronauts and cargo coming from Nibiru transferred to smaller spacecraft in which they were transported toEarth (and vice versa), coming and going between Mars and Earth not once in three thousand six hundred years but on amore frequent schedule.  Nearing Earth, these transporters 
linked up with the Earth orbiting station(s) manned by the Igigi;the actual landing on and takeoff from Earth were performedby smaller shuttlecraft that glided down to the natural "run- ways' " and took off by soaring upward as they increased power. 
Planners of the forthcoming steps into space by Mankindenvision almost the same sequence of different vehicles as thebest way to overcome the constraints of Earth's gravity, makinguse of the weightlessness of the orbiting station and the lower gravity of Mars (and, in their plans, also of the Moon). In this,once again, modern science is only catching up with ancientknowledge.
Coupled with these ancient texts and depictions, the photographic data from the surface of Mars, and the similaritiesbetween the Martian structures and those on Earth erected bythe Anunnaki all lead to one plausible conclusion:
Mars, some time in its past, was the site of a space base.
And there is also evidence suggesting that the ancient space base has been reactivated—in our very own time, in these verydays. 
A DRAWING THAT DREW ATTENTION 
When the Egyptian viceroy Huy died, his tomb was decorated with scenes of his life and work as governor of Nubiaand the Sinai during the reign of the renowned Pharaoh Tut-Ankh-Amen. Among the drawings was that of a rocketshipwith its shaft in an underground silo and its conical commandmodule above ground, among palm trees and giraffes.
The drawing, which was reproduced in The 12th Planet together with a comparable Sumerian pictograph of a spacecraft that designated the Anunnaki, caught the eye of Stuart
W. Greenwood, an aerospace engineer then conducting re-search for NASA. Writing in Ancient Skies (July-August 1977), a publication of the Ancient Astronaut Society, he found in the ancient drawing aspects indicating knowledgeof a sophisticated technology and drew attention in particularto four "highly suggestive features": (1) The "airfoil cross-section surrounding the rocket," which appears suitable for"the walls of a duct used for the development of thrust"; 
(2) The rocket head above ground, '"reminiscent of the Gemini space capsule even to the appearance of the windowsand (3) the charred surface and blunt end"; and (4) The unusual spike, which is like spikes tested by NASA for reducing the drag on the space capsule without success, but which in the drawing suggests it was retractable and thus could overcome the overheating problem that NASA was unable to solve. 
He estimated that "if the relative locations of the rocket-head and shaft shown in the drawing are those applying during operation within the atmosphere, the inclined shock wave from the nose of the rockethead would touch the duct 'lip' at about Mach-3 (3 times the speed of sound)." 
PHOBOS: MALFUNCTION OR STAR WARS INCIDENT? 
On October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union launched Earthlings'first artificial satellite. Sputnik 1, and set Mankind on a road that has led Man to the Moon and his spacecraft to the edgeof the Solar System and beyond. 
On July 12, 1988, the Soviet Union launched an unmanned spacecraft called Phobos 2 and may have provided Mankindwith its first Star Wars incident—not the "Star Wars" nickname of America's Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), but a war with people from another world.
Phobos 2 was one of two unmanned satellites, the other being Phobos 1, that were set off from Earth in July 1988, headed toward the planet Mars. Phobos 1, reportedly becauseof a radio command error, was lost two months later. Phobos 2 arrived safely at Mars in January 1989 and entered into orbit around Mars as the first step at its destination toward its ultimategoal-—to transfer to an orbit that would make it fly almost intandem with the Martian moonlet called Phobos (hence the spacecraft's name) and explore the moonlet with highly sophisticated equipment that included two packages of instruments to be placed on the moonlet's surface.
All went well until Phobos 2 aligned itself with Phobos, theMartian moonlet. Then, on March 28, 1989, the Soviet mission control center acknowledged sudden communication "problems" with the spacecraft; and Tass, the official Soviet newsagency, reported that "Phobos 2 failed to communicate with Earth as scheduled after completing an operation yesterdayaround the Martian moon Phobos. Scientists at mission control have been unable to establish stable radio contact." These admissions left the impression that the problem was not incurable and were accompanied by assurances that mission272 control scientists were engaged in maneuvers to reestablish contact with the spacecraft. Soviet space program officials as well as many Western specialists were aware that the Phobosmission represented an immense investment in terms of finance, planning, effort, and prestige. Although launched bythe Soviets, the mission in reality represented an internationaleffort on an unprecedented scale, with more than thirteen European countries (including the European Space Agency andmajor French and West German scientific institutions) partic- ipating officially and British and American scientists participating "personally" (with their governments1 knowledge and blessing). It was thus understandable that the "problem" was at first represented as a break in communications that could beovercome in a matter of days. Soviet television and press reports played down the seriousness of the occurrence, emphasizing that attempts were being made to reestablish links withthe spacecraft. In fact, American scientists associated with the program were not officially informed of the nature of the prob- lem and were led to believe that the communications break- down was caused by the malfunction of a low-power backuptransmitting unit that had been in use since the principal transmitter had failed earlier. 
But on the next day, while the public was still being reas- sured that a resumption of contact with the spacecraft was achievable, a high-ranking official at Glavkosmos, the Sovietspace agency, hinted that there indeed was no such hope. "Phobos 2 is ninety-nine percent lost for good," Nikolai A.Simyonov said; on that day, his choice of words —not that contact with the spacecraft was lost but that the spacecraftitself was "lost for good"—was not paid any particular heed.
On March 30, in a special report from Moscow to The NewYork Times, Esther B. Fein mentioned that Vremya, the mainevening news program on Soviet television, "rapidly rattledoff the bad news about Phobos" and focused its report insteadon the successful research the spacecraft had already accomplished. Soviet scientists appearing on the program "displayedsome of the space images, but said it was still not clear whatclues they offered to understanding Mars, Phobos, the Sun and interplanetary space."
What "images" and what "clues" were they talking about? 
This became clearer the following day, when reports published in the European press (but for some reason not in the 
U.S. media) spoke of an "unidentified object" that was seen "in the final pictures taken by the spaceship," which showedan "inexplicable" object or "elliptical shadow" on Mars.
This was an avalanche of puzzling words out of Moscow!
The Spanish daily La Epoca, for example (Fig. 92), headlined the dispatch by the Moscow correspondent of the European news agency EFE "Phobos 2 Captured Strange Photosof Mars Before Losing Contact With Its Base." The text ofthe dispatch, in translation, read as follows: 
The TV newscast "Vremya" revealed yesterday that thespace probe Phobos 2, which was orbiting above Marswhen Soviet scientists lost contact with it on Monday,had photographed an unidentified object on the Martiansurface seconds before losing contact.
The TV broadcast devoted a long segment to the strange
pictures taken by the spaceship before losing contact, and

Figure 92 
showed the two most important pictures, in which a large 
shadow is visible in one of the pictures and in the other.

Scientists characterized the final picture taken by the spaceship, in which the thin ellipse can be clearly seen,as "inexplicable."
The phenomenon, it was stated, could not be an opticalillusion because it was captured with the same clarity bothby color cameras as well as by cameras taking infraredimages. 
One of the members of the Permanent Space Commis- sion who had worked around the clock to reestablish contact with the lost space probe stated on Soviet television that in the opinion of the commission's scientists the object"looked like a shadow on the surface of Mars." 
According to calculations by researchers from the Soviet Union the "shadow" that the last photo taken byPhobos 2 shows is some twenty kilometers [about 12.5 miles] long.
A few days earlier, the spaceship had already recorded an identical phenomenon, except that in that instance the "shadow" was between twenty-six to thirty kilometers[about 16 to 19 miles] long.
The reporter from "Vremya" asked one of the membersof the special commission if the shape of the "phenomenon" didn't suggest to him a space rocket, to which thescientist responded, "This is to fantasize." [Here follow details of the mission's original assignments.) 
Needless to say, this is an amazing and literally "out of this world" report that raises as many questions as it answers. The loss of contact with the spacecraft was associated, by impli- cation if not in so many words, with the observation by the spacecraft of "an object on the Martian surface seconds before." The culprit "object" is described as "a thin ellipse" and is also called "a phenomenon" as well as "a shadow." It was observed at least twice—the report does not statewhether in the same location on the surface of Mars—and is capable of changing its size: the first time it was about 12,5miles long; the second and fatal time, about 16 to 19 mileslong. And when the "Vremya" reporter wondered whether it 
was a "space rocket," the scientist responded, "This is to fantasize." So, what was—or is—it? 
The authoritative weekly Aviation Week & Space Technology, in its issue of April 3, 1989, printed a report of the incidentbased on several sources in Moscow, Washington, and Paris (the authorities in the last being deeply involved because an equipment malfunction would have reflected badly on the French contribution to the mission, whereas an "act of God" would exonerate the French space industry). The version givenAW&ST treated the occurrence as a "communications problem" that remained unresolved in spite of a week of attemptsto "re-establish contact." It included the information that pro- gram officials at the Soviet Space Research Institute in Moscowsaid that the problem occurred "after an imaging and data-gathering session," following which Phobos 2 had to changethe orientation of its antenna. "The data-gathering segmentitself apparently proceeded as planned, but reliable contact with Phobos 2 could not be established afterward." At the time, the spacecraft was in a near-circular orbit around Mars and inthe phase of "final preparations for the encounter with Phobos" (the moonlet).
While this version attributed the incident to a "loss-of-com- munications" problem, a report a few days later in Science (April 7, 1989) spoke of "the apparent loss of Phobos 2"— loss of the spacecraft itself, not just of the communications link with it. It happened, the prestigious journal stated, "on 27 March as the spacecraft turned from its normal alignmentwith Earth to image the tiny moon Phobos that was the primarymission target. When it came time for the spacecraft to turnitself and its antenna automatically back toward Earth, nothingwas heard." 
The journal then continued with a sentence that remains asinexplicable as the whole incident and the "thin ellipse" on the surface of Mars. It states: 
A few hours later, a weak transmission was received, but 
controllers could not lock onto the signal. Nothing was
heard during the next week. 
Now, as a rereading of all the previous reports and statementswill confirm, the incident was described as a sudden and total 
loss of the "communications link." The reason given was thatthe spacecraft, having turned its antennas to scan Phobos,failed to turn its antenna back toward Earth due to some un- known reason. But if the antenna remained stuck in a positionfacing away from Earth, how could "a weak transmission"be received "a few hours later"? And if the antenna did in fact turn itself back toward Earth properly, what caused the abrupt silence for several hours, followed by the transmission of a signal too weak to be locked onto?
The question that arises is indeed a simple one: Was the spacecraft Phobos 2 hit by "something" that put it out of commission, except for a last gasp in the form of a weak signalhours later? 
There was one more report, from Paris, in AW&ST of April10, 1989. Soviet space scientists, it said, suggested that Phobos2 "did not stabilize itself on the proper orientation to have the high-gain antenna pointing earthward." This obviously puz- zled the editors of the magazine because, its report said, the Phobos2 spacecraft was "three-axis stabilized" by technologydeveloped for the Soviet Venera spacecraft, which had performed perfectly on Venus missions.
The mystery thus is, what caused the spacecraft to destabilize itself? Was it a malfunction, or was there an extraneous cause— perhaps an impact?
The weekly's French sources provided this tantalizing detail: 
One controller at the Kaliningrad control center said the limited signals received after conclusion of the imagingsession gave him the impression he was "tracking a spinner." 
Phobos 2, in other words, acted as if it was in a spin. 
Now, what was Phobos 2 "imaging" when the incident occurred? We already have a good idea from the "Vremya"and European press agency reports. But here is what theAW&ST report from Paris states, quoting Alexander Dunayev,chairman of the Soviet Glavkosmos space administration: 
One image appears to include an odd-shaped object be
tween the spacecraft and Mars. It may be debris in the 
orbit of Phobos or could be Phobos 2's autonomous propulsion sub-system that was jettisoned after the spacecraft was injected into Mars orbit—we just don't know." 
This statement must have been made with quite a tongue-in-cheek attitude. The Viking orbiters left no debris in Marsorbit, and we know of no other "debris" resulting from Earth-originated activities. The other "possibility," that the objectorbiting Mars between the planet and the spacecraft Phobos 2was a jettisoned part of the spacecraft, can be readily dismissedonce one looks at the shape and structure of Phobos 2 (Fig.93); none of its parts had the shape of a "thin ellipse." Moreover, it was disclosed on the "Vremya" program that the "shadow" was 12.5, 16, or 19 miles long. Now, it is true that an object can throw a shadow much longer than itself, depending on the angle of sunlight; still, a part of Phobos 2 thatwas only a few feet in length could hardly throw a shadowmeasured in miles. Whatever had been observed was neither debris nor a jettisoned part.
At the time I wondered why the official speculation omittedwhat was surely the most natural and believable third possibility, that what had been observed was indeed a shadow—but the shadow of Phobos, the Martial moonlet itself. It has 
Figure 93 
most often been described as "potato-shaped" (Fig. 94) andmeasures about seventeen miles across—just about the size ofthe "shadow" mentioned in the initial reports. In fact. I re- called seeing a Mariner 9 photograph of an eclipse on Mars caused by the shadow of Phobos. Couldn't that be, I thought,what the fuss was all about, at least regarding the "apparition," if not what had caused the spacecraft, Phobos 2, to be lost?The answer came about three months later. Pressed by theirinternational participants in the Phobos missions to providemore definitive data, the Soviet authorities released the tapedtelevision transmission Phobos 2 sent in its last moments— 
Figure 94 
except for the last frames, taken just seconds before the spacecraft fell silent. The television clip was shown by some TVstations in Europe and Canada as part of weekly "diary" pro- grams, as a curiosity and not as a hot news item. 
The television sequence thus released focused on two anomalies. The first was a network of straight lines in the areaof the Martian equator; some of the lines were short, somelonger, some thin, some wide enough to look like rectangularshapes "embossed" in the Martian surface. Arranged in rowsparallel to each other, the pattern covered an area of some sixhundred square kilometers (more than two hundred thirty square miles). The "anomaly" appeared to be far from a nat- ural phenomenon. 
The television clip was accompanied by a live comment byDr. John Becklake of England's Science Museum. He de- scribed the phenomenon as very puzzling, because the pattern seen on the surface of Mars was photographed not with thespacecraft's optical camera but with its infrared camera—a camera that takes pictures of objects using the heat they radiate,and not by the play of light and shadow on them. In other words, the pattern of parallel lines and rectangles covering anarea of almost two hundred fifty square miles was a source ofheat radiation. It is highly unlikely that a natural source of heatradiation (a geyser or a concentration of radioactive minerals under the surface, for example) would create such a perfect geometric pattern. When viewed over and over again, the pattern definitely looks artificial; but what it was, the scientistsaid, "I certainly don't know."
Since no coordinates for the precise location of this "anomalous feature" have been released publicly, it is impossible tojudge its relationship to another puzzling feature on the surfaceof Mars that can be seen in Mariner 9 frame 4209-75. It is also located in the equatorial area (at longitude 186.4) and hasbeen described as "unusual indentations with radial arms protruding from a central hub" caused (according to NASA scientists) by the melting and collapse of permafrost layers. The design of the features, bringing to mind the structure of a modern airport with a circular hub from which the long structures housing the airplane gates radiate, can be better visualizedwhen the photograph is reversed (showing depressions as protrusions—Fig. 95). 
Figure 95 
We now come to the second "anomaly" shown on the television segment. Seen on the surface of Mars was a clearlydefined dark shape that could indeed be described, as it wasin the initial dispatch from Moscow, as a "thin ellipse" (Plate N is a still from the Soviet television clip). It was certainlydifferent from the shadow of Phobos recorded eighteen yearsearlier by Mariner 9 (Plate O). The latter cast a shadow thatwas a rounded ellipse and fuzzy at the edges, as would be cast by the uneven surface of the moonlet. The "anomaly" seenin the Phobos 2 transmission was a thin ellipse with very sharprather than rounded points (the shape is known in the diamondtrade as a "marquise") and the edges, rather than being fuzzy. 
Plate N 
stood out sharply against a kind of halo on the Martian surface.Dr. Becklake described it as "something that is between the spacecraft and Mars, because we can see the Martian surfacebelow it," and stressed that the object was seen both by theoptical and the infrared (heat-seeking) camera.
All these reasons explain why the Soviets have not suggestedthat the dark, "thin ellipse" might have been the shadow ofthe moon let. 
While the image was held on the screen, Dr. Becklake ex- plained that it was taken as the spacecraft was aligning itself with Phobos (the moonlet). "As the last picture was halfwaythrough," he said, "they [Soviets] saw something which should not be there." The Soviets, he went on to state, "have not yet released this last picture, and we won't speculate onwhat it shows." 
Since the last frame or frames have not yet been publiclyreleased even a year after the incident, one can only speculate,surmise, or believe rumors, according to which the last frame, 
Plate O 
halfway through its transmission, shows the "something thatshould not be there" rushing toward Phobos 2 and crashinginto it, abruptly interrupting the transmission. Then there was, according to the reports mentioned earlier, a weak burst of transmission some hours later, too garbled to be clear. (Thisreport, incidentally, belies the initial explanation that the spacecraft could not turn its antennas back to an Earth-transmittingposition).
In the October 19, 1989 issue of Nature, Soviet scientists published a series of technical reports on the experiments Phobos 2 did manage to conduct; of the thirty-seven pages, a merethree paragraphs deal with the spacecraft's loss. The reportconfirms that the spacecraft was spinning, either because of acomputer malfunction or because Phobos 2 was "impacted"by an unknown object (the theory that the collision was with"dust particles" is rejected in the report).
So what was it that collided or crashed into Phobos 2, the "something that should not be there"? What do the last frame 
"One image appears to include an odd-shaped object be- 
tween the spacecraft and Mars." 
If not "debris," or "dust," or a "jettisoned part of Phobos2," what was the "object" that all accounts of the incident now admit collided with the spacecraft—an object with animpact strong enough to put the spacecraft into a spin, an objectwhose image was captured by the last photographic frames?
"We just don't know," said the chief of the Soviet space program.
But the evidence of an ancient space base on Mars and theodd-shaped "shadow" in its skies add up to an awesome conclusion: What the secret frames hide is evidence that the loss of Phobos 2 was not an accident but an incident. 
Perhaps the first incident in a Star Wars—the shooting downby Aliens from another planet of a spacecraft from Earth intruding on their Martian base. 
Has it occurred to the reader that the Soviet space chief's answer, "We just don't know" what the "odd-shaped objectbetween the spacecraft and Mars'' was, is tantamount to calling it a UFO—an Unidentified Flying Object?
For decades now, ever since the phenomenon of what was first called Flying Saucers and later UFOs became a worldwideenigma, no self-respecting scientist would touch the subjecteven with a ten foot pole—except, that is, to ridicule the phenomenon and whoever was foolish enough to take it seriously. 
The "modern UFO era," according to Antonio Huneeus, a science writer and internationally known lecturer on UFOs, began on June 24, 1947, when Kenneth Arnold, an Americanpilot and businessman, sighted a formation of nine silvery disks flying over the Cascade Mountains in the state of Washington.The term "Flying Saucer'' that then came into vogue was based on Arnold's description of the mysterious objects. 
While the "'Arnold incident" was followed by alleged sight- ings across the United States and other parts of the world, theUFO case deemed most significant and one still discussed (and dramatized on television) is the alleged crash of an "alien spacecraft" on July 2, 1947—a week after the Arnold sighting—on a ranch near Roswell, New Mexico. That evening abright, disk-shaped object was seen in the area's skies; the next day a rancher, William Brazel, discovered scattered wreckage in his field northwest of Roswell. The wreckage and the "metal" of which it was made looked odd, and the discoverywas reported to the nearby Army Air Corps base at Roswell Field (which then had the world's only nuclear-weapons squadron.) Major Jesse Marcel, an intelligence officer, together withan officer from the counterintelligence corps, went to examinethe debris. The pieces, engineered in various shapes, lookedand felt like balsa wood but were not wood; they would neither burn nor bend, no matter how the investigators tried. On somebeam-shaped pieces there were geometric markings that werelater referred to as "hieroglyphics." On returning to the base, the officer in charge instructed the base's public relations officer to notify the press (in a release dated July 7, 1947) that AAF personnel had retrieved parts of a "crashed flying saucer."The release made headline news in The Roswell Daily Record(Fig. 96) and was picked up by a press wire service in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Within hours a new official statement, superseding the first, claimed instead that the debris was part of a fallen weather balloon. Newspapers printed the retraction; and, according to some reports, radio stations were ordered to stop broadcasting the first version by being told, "Cease transmission. National security item. Do not transmit." 
In spite of the revised version and ensuing official denialsof any "flying saucer" incident at Roswell, many of those personally involved in that incident persist, to this very day,in adhering to the first version. Many also assert that at a nearbycrash site of another "flying saucer" (in an area west of SocorTo, New Mexico), civilian witnesses had seen not only the wreckage but also several bodies of dead humanoids. Thesebodies, as well as bodies allegedly of "aliens" who crashed after these two events, have been variously reported to have 
Figure 96 
undergone examination at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio. According to a document known in UFO circles as MJ- 12 or Majestic-12 (the two, some claim, are not identical), President Truman formed, in September, 1947, a blue-ribbon,top-secret committee to deal with the Roswell and related in- cidents, but the authenticity of this document remains unverified. What is known for a fact is that Senator Barry Goldwater,who either chaired or was a senior member of U.S. Senate committees on Intelligence, Armed Services, Tactical Warfare,Science, Technology, and Space and others with a bearing on the subject, was repeatedly refused admission to a so-called Blue Room at that air base. "I have long ago given up acquiring access to the so-called blue room at Wright-Patterson, as I have had one long string of denials from chiefafter chief," he wrote to an inquirer in 1981. "This thing has gotten so highly classified ... it is just impossible to get anything on it." 
Reacting to continued reporting of UFO sightings and uneaseabout excessive official secrecy, the U.S. Air Force conductedseveral investigations of the UFO phenomenon through such 
projects as Sign, Grudge, and Blue Book. Between 1947 and1969 about thirteen thousand reports of UFOs were investigated, and they were by and large dismissed as natural phenomena, balloons, aircraft, or just imagination. Some seven hundred sightings, however, remained unexplained. In 1953,the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency's Office of Scientific Intelligence convened a panel of scientists and government officials. Known as the Robertson Panel, the group spent atotal of twelve hours viewing UFO films and studying case histories and other information and found that "reasonable explanations could be suggested for most sightings." The evidence presented, it was reported, showed how the remaining cases could not be explained by probable causes, "leaving 'extra-terrestrials' as the only remaining explanation in many cases," although, the panel noted, "present astronomicalknowledge of the solar system makes the existence of intelli- gent beings. . . elsewhere than on the Earth extremely unlikely."
While official "debunking" of UFO reports continued (another investigation along the same lines and with similar con- clusions was the officially commissioned Scientific Study ofUnidentified Flying Objects by the University of Colorado,conducted from 1966 to 1969), the number of sightings and"encounters" continued to rise, and civilian amateur investi- gative groups have sprung up in numerous countries. The encounters are now classified by these groups; those of the"second kind" are instances where physical evidence (landingmarkings or interference with machinery) is left behind by the UFOs; and those of the "third kind," where contact takes place with the UFO's occupants.
Descriptions of the UFOs once were varied, from "flying saucers" to "cigar-shaped." Now most describe them as cir- cular in construction and, when landing, as resting on three orfour extended legs. Descriptions of the occupants also are moreuniform: "humanoids" three to four feet tall, with large, hair- less heads and very big eyes (Fig. 97a, b). According to apurported eye-witness report by a military intelligence officer who saw "recovered UFOs and alien bodies" at a "secret base in Arizona," the humanoids "were very, very white; therewere no ears, no nostrils. There were only openings: a very 
Figure 97 
small mouth and their eyes were large. There was no facialhair, no head hair, no pubic hair. They were nude. I think thetallest one could have been about three-and-a-half feet, maybea little taller." The witness added that he saw no genitals andno breasts, although some humanoids looked male and somefemale. 
The multitude of people reporting sightings or contacts comefrom every geographical or occupational background. President Jimmy Carter, for example, disclosed in a campaign speechin 1976 that he had seen a UFO. He moved to "make everypiece of information this country has about UFO sightingsavailable to the public and the scientists"; but for reasons thatwere never given, his campaign promise was not kept.
Besides the official U.S. policy of "debunking" UFO reports, what has irked UFO believers in the United States is the official tendency to give the impression that government agen- cies have lost interest even in investigating UFO reports, whereas it has repeatedly come to light that this or that agency,including NASA, is keeping a close eye on the subject. In theSoviet Union, on the other hand, the Institute of Space Researchpublished in 1979 an analysis of ' 'Observations of Anomalous 
Atmospheric Phenomena in the USSR" ("'anomalous atmospheric phenomena" is the Russian term for UFOs), and in 1984 the Soviet Academy of Sciences formed a permanentcommission to study the phenomena. On the military side, the subject came under the jurisdiction of the GRU (Chief Intelligence Directorate of the Soviet General Staff); its orders wereto discover whether UFOs were "secret vehicles of foreign powers," unknown natural phenomena, or "manned or unmanned extraterrestrial probes engaged in the investigation ofEarth." 
Numerous reported or purported sightings in the Soviet Union included some by Soviet cosmonauts. In September1989, the Soviet authorities took the significant step of havingTass, the official news agency, report a UFO incident in the city of Voronezh in a manner that made front pages worldwide;in spite of the usual disbelief, Tass stood by its story.
The French authorities have also been less "debunkative" (to coin a word) than U.S. officials. In 1977 the French National Space Agency (CNES), headquartered in Toulouse, established the Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena Study Group(GEPAN); it was recently renamed the Service d'Expertise desPhenomenes de Rentree Atmospherique, with the same task offollowing up and analyzing UFO reports. Some of the morecelebrated UFO cases in France included follow-up analyses of the sites and soils where the UFOs were seen to have landed, and the results showed the "presence of traces for which there is no satisfactory explanation." Most French scientists haveshared the disdain of their colleagues from other countries forthe subject, but among those who did get involved and voicedan opinion, the consensus has been to see in the phenomena "a manifestation of the activities of extraterrestrial visitors." 
In Great Britain, the veil of secrecy over the UFO phenomenon has held tight in spite of such efforts as the inquiringUFO Study Group of the House of Lords initiated by the Earlof Clancarty (a group I had the privilege to address in 1980).The British experience, as well as that of many other countries,is reported in some detail in Timothy Good's book Above TopSecret (1987). The wealth of documents quoted or reproducedin Good's book leads to the conclusion that at first the various governments "covered up" their findings because UFOs were 
suspected of being advanced aircraft of another superpower,and admission of the enemy's superiority was not in the nationalinterest. But once the extraterrestrial nature of the UFOs be- came the primary guess (or knowledge), the memory of suchpanics as was caused by Orson Welles" "War of the Worlds'1 radio broadcast was used as the rationale for what so manyUFO enthusiasts call a cover up. 
The real problem many have with UFOs is the lack of a cohesive and plausible theory to explain their origin and purpose. Where do they come from? Why? 
I myself have not encountered a UFO, to say nothing of being abducted and experimented upon by humanlike beingswith elliptical heads and bulging eyes—incidents witnessedand experienced, if such claims be true, by many others. Butwhen asked for my opinion, whether I "believe in UFOs," 1 sometimes answer by telling a story. Let us imagine, 1 say tothe people in the room or the auditorium in which I am speaking, that the entrance door is thrust open and a young man bursts in, breathless from running and obviously agitated, whoignores the proceedings and just shouts, "You wouldn't believe what happened to me!" He then goes on to relate that he was out in the countryside hiking, that it was getting dark and he was tired, that he found some stones and put his knapsack onthem as a cushion, and that he fell asleep. Then he was suddenlyawakened, not by a sound but by bright lights. He looked upand saw beings going up and down a ladder. The ladder led skyward, toward a hovering, round object. There was a doorway in the object through which light from inside shone out. Silhouetted against the light was the commander of the beings.The sight was so awesome that our lad fainted. When he cameto, there was nothing to be seen. Whatever had been there was gone.
Still excited by his experience, the young man finishes the story by saying he was no longer sure whether what he hadseen was real or just a vision, perhaps a dream. What do wethink? Do we believe him? 
We should believe him if we believe the Bible, I say, becausewhat I had just related is the tale of Jacob's vision as told in Genesis, chapter 7. Though it was a vision seen in a dreamlike trance, Jacob was certain that the sight was real, and he said, 
Surely Yahweh is present in this place, 
and I knew it not. . . . 
This is none other but an abode of the gods, 
and this is the gateway to heaven. 
I once pointed out at a conference where other speakersdelved into the subject of UFOs that there is no such thing asUnidentified Flying Objects. They are only unidentified or unexplainable by the viewer, but those who operate them knowvery well what they are. Obviously, the hovering craft thatJacob saw was readily identified by him as belonging to the Elohim, the plural gods. What he did not know, the Bible makes clear, was only that the place where he had slept wasone of their lift-off pads.
The biblical tale of the heavenward ascent of the Prophet Elijah describes the vehicle as a Fiery Chariot. And the ProphetEzekiel, in his well-documented vision, spoke of a celestial orairborne vehicle that operated as a whirlwind and could landon four wheeled legs.
Ancient depictions and terminology show that a distinctionwas made even then between the different kinds of flying machines and their pilots. There were the rocketships (Fig. 98a) that served as shuttle craft and the orbiters, and we have alreadyseen what the Anunnaki astronauts and the orbiting Igigi lookedlike. And there were the "whirlbirds" or "sky chambers" that we now call VTOLs (Vertical Take-Off and Landing aircraft)and helicopters; how these looked in antiquity is depicted in a mural at a site on the east side of the Jordan, near the place from which Elijah was carried heavenward (Fig. 98b). The goddess Inanna/Ishtar liked to pilot her own "sky chamber," at which time she would be dressed like a World War I pilot(Fig. 98c).
But other depictions were also found—clay figurines of human-looking beings with elliptical heads and large, slanting eyes (Fig. 99)—an unusual feature of whom was their bisexuality (or lack of it): their lower parts depicted the male member overlaid or dissected by the opening of a female vagina.
Now, as one looks at the drawings of the "humanoids" bythose who claim to have seen the occupants of UFOs, it is 
Figure 98 
obvious they do not look like us—which means they do notlook like the Anunnaki. Rather, they look like the odd humanoids depicted by the ancient figurines.
This similarity may hold an important clue to the identityof the small creatures with smooth skins, no sex organs, nohair, elliptical heads, and large odd eyes that are supposed tobe operating the purported UFOs. If the tales be true, thenwhat the "contactees" have seen are not the people, the in- telligent beings, from another planet—but their anthropoid robots. 
And if even a tiny percentage of the reported sightings istrue, then the relatively large number of alien craft visitingEarth in recent times suggests that they could not possiblycome, in such profusion and frequency, from a distant planet. If they come, they must come from somewhere relatively closeby.
And the only plausible candidate is Mars—and its moonlet Phobos. 
Figure 99 
The reasons for the use of Mars as a jumping-off base for spacemen's visits to Earth should be clear by now. The evidence for my suggestion that Mars had served in the past as aspace base for the Anunnaki has been presented. The circum- stances in which Phobos 2 was lost indicate that someone is back there on Mars—someone ready to destroy what to themis an "alien" spacecraft. How does Phobos, the moonlet, fit into all this? 
Simply put, it tits very well.
To understand why, we ought to backtrack and list the reasons for the 1989 mission to Phobos. At present Mars has twotiny satellites named Phobos and Deimos. Both are believed to be not original moons of Mars but asteroids that were captured into Mars orbit. They are of the carbonaceous type (seethe discussion of asteroids in chapter 4) and therefore contain water in substantial amounts, mostly in the form of ice justunder the moonlets' surfaces. It has been proposed that withthe aid of solar batteries or a small nuclear generator, the ice could be melted to obtain water. The water could then be 
separated into oxygen and hydrogen, for breathing and as fuel.The hydrogen could also be combined with the moonlets" carbon to make hydrocarbons. As do other asteroids and comets,these planetisimals contain nitrogen, ammonia, and other organic molecules. All in all, the moonlets could become self-supporting space bases, the gift of nature.
Deimos would be less convenient for such a purpose. It isonly nine by eight by seven miles in size and orbits some15,000 miles away from Mars. The much larger Phobos (seventeen by thirteen by twelve miles) is only some 5,800 miles away from Mars—a short hop for a shuttlecraft or transporterfrom one to the other. Because Phobos (as does Deimos too)orbits Mars in the equatorial plane, Phobos can be observedfrom Mars (or observe goings on upon Mars), between the sixty fifth parallels north and south—a band that includes all the unusual and artificial-looking features on Mars except'' Inca City.'' Moreover, because of its proximity, Phobos completes about 3.5 orbits around Mars in a single Martian day—an almost constant presence.
Further recommending Phobos as a natural orbiting stationaround Mars is its minuscule gravity, compared with that ofEarth and even of Mars. The power required for take-off fromPhobos is no greater than that required to develop an escapevelocity of fifteen miles an hour; conversely, very little poweris needed to brake for a landing on it.
These are the reasons the two Soviet spacecraft, Phobos 1 and 2, were sent there. It was an open secret that the missionwas a scouting expedition for the intended landing of a "roboticrover" on Mars in 1994 and the launching of a manned missionto Mars after that, with a view to establishing a base thereonwithin the following decade. Prearrival briefings at mission control in Moscow revealed that the spacecraft carried equipment to locate "the heat-emitting areas on Mars" and to obtain"a better idea of what kind of life exists on Mars." Althoughthe provision, "if any," was quickly added, the plan to scan both Mars and Phobos not only with infrared equipment butalso with gamma-ray detectors hinted at a very purposeful search. 
After scanning Mars the two spacecraft were to turn their attention entirely to Phobos. It was to be probed by radar aswell as by the infrared and gamma-ray scanners and was to be 
photographed by three television cameras. Apart from such orbital scanning, the spacecraft were to drop two types of landers to the surface of Phobos: one, a stationary device thatwould have anchored itself to the surface and transmitted data over the long term; the other, a "hopper" device with springylegs that was meant to hop and skip about the moonlet andreport its findings from all over it.
There were still other experiments in the bag of tricks of Phobos 2. It was equipped with an ion emitter and a laser gunthat were to shoot their beams at the moonlet, stir up its surface dust, pulverize some of the surface material, and enable equipment aboard the spacecraft to analyze the resultant cloud. Atthat point the spacecraft was to hover a mere 150 feet abovePhobos, and its cameras were to photograph features as small as six inches. 
What exactly were the mission planners expecting to discover at such close range? It must have been an importantobjective, because it later transpired that the "individual scientists" from the United States who were involved in the mis- sion's planning and equipping included Americans with experience in Mars research whose roles were officially sanctioned by the United States government within the frameworkof the improvement in U.S.-Soviet relations. Also, NASA hadput at the mission's disposal its Deep Space Network of radiotelescopes which has been involved not only in satellite communications but also in the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelli- gence (SETI) programs; and scientists at the JPL in Pasadena,California, were helping track the Phobos spacecraft and monitor their data transmissions. It also became known that the British scientists who were participating in the project were infact assigned to the mission by the British National SpaceCentre. 
With the French participation, guided by its National SpaceAgency in Toulouse; the input by West Germany's prestigiousMax Planck Institute; and the scientific contributions from a dozen other European nations, the Phobos Mission was nothingshort of a concerted effort by modern science to lift the veil from Mars and enlist it in Mankind's course on the road to Space.
But was someone there, at Mars, who did not welcome this intrusion? 
GENESIS REVISITED lt is noteworthy that Phobos. unlike the smaller and smooth-surfaced Deimos, has peculiar features that have led some scientists in the past to suspect that it was artificially fashioned. There are peculiar "track marks" (Fig. 100) that run almost straight and parallel to each other. Their width is almost uniform, some 700 to 1,000 feet, and their depth, too. is a uniform 75 to 90 feet (as far as could be measured from the Viking orbiters). The possibility that these "'trenches," or tracks, were caused by flowing water or by wind has been ruled out, since neither exist on Phobos. The tracks seem to lead to or from a crater that covers more than a third of the moonlet's diameter and whose rim is so perfectly circular that it looks artificial (see Fig. 94). What are these tracks or trenches, how did they come about, why do they emanate from the circular crater, and does the crater lead into the moonlet's interior? Soviet scientists have thought that there was something artificial about Phobos in general, because its almost perfect circular orbit around Mars at such proximity to the planet defies the laws of celestial motion: Phobos, and to some extent Deimos, too, should have elliptical orbits that would have either thrown them off into space or made them crash into Mars a long time ago. The implication that Phobos and Deimos might have been placed in Mars orbit artificially by "someone" seemed preposterous. In fact, however, the capture of asteroids and towing them to where they would stay in Earth orbit has been deemed a technologically achievable feat; so much so that such a plan was presented at the Third Annual Space Development Con- ference held in San Francisco in 1984. Richard Gertsch of the Colorado School of Mines, one of several presenters of the plan, pointed out that "a startling variety of materials exist" out in space; "asteroids are particularly rich in strategic minerals such as chromium, germanium and gallium." "I believe that we have identified asteroids that are accessible and could be exploited," stated another presenter, Eleanor F. Helin of JPL. Have others, long ago, carried out ideas and plans that modern science envisions for the future—bringing Phobos and Deimos, two captured asteroids, into orbit around Mars to burrow into their interiors? In the 1960s it was noticed that Phobos was speeding up its 
Figure 100 orbit around Mars; this led Soviet scientists to suggest that Phobos was lighter than its size warrants. The Soviet physicist 
I. S. Shklovsky then offered the astounding hypothesis that Phobos was hollow. 
Other Soviet writers then speculated (hat Phobos was an "artificial satellite" put into Mars orbit by "an extinct race ofhumanoids millions of years ago." Others ridiculed the idea of a hollow satellite and suggested that Phobos was accelerating because it is drifting closer to Mars. The detailed report inNature now includes the finding that Phobos is even less dense than has been thought, so that its interior is either made of iceor is hollow. 
Were a natural crater and interior faults artificially enlargedand carved out by "someone" to create inside Phobos a shelter, shielding its occupants from the cold and radiation of space?The Soviet report does not speculate on that; but what it saysregarding the "tracks" is illuminating. It calls them "grooves," reports that their sides are of a brighter material than the moonlet's surface, and, what is indeed a revelation, that in the area west of the large crater, "new grooves can beidentified"—-grooves or tracks that were not there when Mariner 9 and the Vikings took pictures of the moonlet.
Since there is no volcanic activity on Phobos (the crater inits natural shape resulted from meteorite impacts, not volcan- ism), no wind storms, no rain, no flowing water-—how did thenew grooved tracks come about? Who was there on Phobos (and thus on Mars) since the 1970s? Who is on it now?
For, if there is no one there now, how to explain the March27, 1989, incident? 
The chilling possibility that modern science, catching up with ancient knowledge, has brought Mankind to the first in- cident in a War of the Worlds, rekindles a situation that has lain dormant almost 5,500 years.
The event that parallels today's situation has come to be known as the Incident of the Tower of Babel. It is described in Genesis, chapter 11, and in The Wars of Gods and Men I refer to Mesopotamian texts with earlier and more detailedaccounts of the incident. I have placed it in 3450 B.C. andconstrued it as the first attempt by Marduk to establish a space base in Babylon as an act of defiance against Enlil and his sons. 
In the biblical version, the people whom Marduk had gottento do the job were building, in Babylon, a city with a "tower 
Figure 101 
whose head shall reach the heaven" in which a Shem—a spacerocket—was to be installed (quite possibly in the manner depicted on a coin from Byblos; see Fig. 101). But the otherdeities were not amused by this foray of Mankind into the space age; so 
Yahweh came down to see the city 
and the tower which the humans were building. 
And he said to unnamed colleagues: 
This is just the beginning of their undertakings; 
From now on, anything that they shall scheme to do
shall no longer be impossible for them.
Come, let us go down and confuse their language
so that they should not understand each other's speech. 
Almost 5,500 years later, the humans got together and "spoke one language," in a coordinated international missionto Mars and Phobos. 
And, once again, someone was not amused. 
IN SECRET ANTICIPATION 
Are we unique? Are we alone?
These were the central questions posed in The 12th Planetback in 1976, and the book proceeded to present the ancientevidence regarding the Anunnaki (the biblical Nefilim) andtheir planet Nibiru.
Scientific advances since 1976, reviewed in previous chapters, have gone a long way in corroborating ancient knowledge.But what about the two pillars of that knowledge and that ancient answer to the central questions? Has modern scienceconfirmed the existence of one more planet in our Solar System,and has it found other intelligent beings outside Earth?
That a search has been going on, both for another planetand for other beings, is a matter of record. That it has intensifiedin recent years can be gleaned from publicly available documents. But now it is also evident that when the mists of leaks, rumors, and denials are pierced, if not the public, then theworld's leaders have been aware for some time first, that there is one more planet in our Solar System and second, that we are not alone. 
ONLY THIS KNOWLEDGE CAN EXPLAIN THE INCREDIBLE CHANGES IN WORLD AFFAIRS THAT HAVE BEEN TAKING PLACE WITH EVEN MORE INCREDIBLE SPEED. 
ONLY THIS KNOWLEDGE CAN EXPLAIN THE AC- TUAL PREPARATIONS BEING MADE FOR THE DAY, WHICH IS SURELY COMING, WHEN THE TWO FACTS WILL HAVE TO BE DROPPED LIKE BOMBSHELLS ON THE PEOPLE OF THIS PLANET EARTH. Suddenly, all that had divided and preoccupied the world powers for decades seems not to matter anymore. Tanks, aircraft, armies are withdrawn and disbanded. One regional con300 flict after another is unexpectedly settled. The Berlin Wall, a symbol of Europe's division, is gone. The Iron Curtain thathas divided West from East militarily, ideologically, and economically is being dismantled. The head of the atheistic Com- munist empire visits the Pope—with a medieval painting of aUFO as the centerpiece of the room's decoration. An Americanpresident, George Bush, who began his presidency in 1989with a cautious wait-and-see policy, has by year's end thrown all caution to the winds and has become an ardent partner of his Soviet counterpart, Mikhail Gorbachev, in clearing thedesks of the old agendas; but clearing them for what?
The Soviet president, who a few years ago made any progress in disarmament absolutely dependent on the United States dropping its Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI)—the so-called StarWars defense in space against enemy missiles and spacecraft—agreed to unprecedented troop withdrawals and reductions aweek after the same U.S. president, amidst reductions in the American military spending, asked the Congress to increasefunds for SDI/Star Wars by 4.5 billion dollars in the next fiscalyear. And before the month was out, the two superpowers andtheir two major wartime allies. Great Britain and France, have agreed to let German unification proceed. For forty-five yearsthe vow never to see a unified, resurgent Germany again wasa basic tenet of European stability; now, suddenly, that seemed to matter no more. 
Suddenly, inexplicably, there seem to be more important,more urgent subjects on the agenda of the world's leaders. But what? 
As one looks for answers, the clues point in one direction:Space. Surely, the turmoil in Eastern Europe has long beenbuilding up. Certainly, economic failures have necessitated long-overdue reforms. But what is astounding is not the outbreak of change, but the unexpected lack of almost any resistance to it in the Kremlin. Since about the middle of 1989, all that had been vigorously defended and brutally suppressed nolonger seemed important; and after the summer of 1989, areticent and go-slow American government shifted into high- gear cooperation with the Soviet leadership, rushing a previously take-our-time summit meeting between President Bushand President Gorbachev. 
Was it only a coincidence that the Phobos 2 incident inMarch 1989 was conceded in June to have been the result of spinning caused by an impact? Or that it was in that same Junethat Western audiences were shown the enigmatic televisionpictures from Phobos 2 (minus the last frame or frames) revealing the heat-emitting pattern on the surface of Mars andthe "thin, elliptical shadow" for which there was no explanation? Was it a mere coincidence in timing that the hurriedchange of U.S. policy occurred after the Voyager 2's flyby of Neptune, in August 1989, which relayed back pictures of mysterious "double tracks" on Neptune's moon Triton (see Fig.3)—tracks as enigmatic as those photographed on Mars inprevious years and on Phobos in March 1989?
A review of world events and space-related activities afterthe March/June/August series of space discoveries in 1989 traces a pattern of bursts of activity and course changes thatbespeak the impact of these discoveries.
After the loss of Phobos 2 on the heels of the misfortune with Phobos 1, Western experts speculated that the USSRwould give up its plans to proceed with their reconnaisance mission to Mars in 1992 and the plan to land rovers there in1994. But Soviet spokesmen brushed such doubts aside and reaffirmed strongly that in their space program they "have given priority to Mars." They were determined to go on toMars, and to do it jointly with the United States.
Was it mere coincidence that within days of the Phobos 2incident the White House took unexpected steps to reverse aDefense Department decision to cancel the 3.3-billion-dollarNational Aero-Space Plane program, under which NASA wasto develop and build, by 1994, two X-30 hypersonic planes that could take off from Earth and soar into orbit, becoming self-launching spaceships for military space defense? This wasone of the decisions made by President Bush together withVice President Dan Quayle, the newly appointed chairman ofthe National Space Council, at the very first NSC meeting inApril 1989. In June, the NSC instructed NASA to accelerate the Space Station preparations, a program funded in fiscal year1990 at 13.3 billion dollars. In July of 1989 the Vice Presidentbriefed Congress and the space industry on the specific proposals for the manned missions to the Moon and to Mars. Itwas made clear that of five options, that of "developing a lunar 
base as a stepping-stone to Mars is receiving the greatest at- tention." A week later it was disclosed that instruments lofted by a military rocket successfully fired a "neutral-particlebeam"—a "death ray"—in space as part of the SDI space-defense program.
Even an outside observer could sense that the White House, the President himself, was now in charge of the direction ofthe space program, its links with SDI, and their acceleratedtimetable. And so it was that immediately after his hurriedsummit meeting with the Soviet leader in Malta, President Bushsubmitted to Congress his next annual budget, with its increaseof billions of dollars for "Star Wars." The media wondered how Mikhail Gorbachev would react to this "slap in the face,"But rather than criticism from Moscow, there was accelerated cooperation. Evidently, the Soviet leader knew what SDI isall about: President Bush, in their joint press conference, ac- knowledged that SDI was discussed, both "defensive" and "offensive"—"rockets as well as people ... a wide discussion." 
The budget proposal also asked 24 percent more funds for NASA, specifically for carrying out what by then had becomethe President's "commitment" to "return astronauts to the Moon and to the eventual exploration of Mars by humans." That commitment, it should be recalled, was made in the Pres- ident's speech in July 1989 on the occasion of the twentiethanniversary of the first landing on the Moon—a commitmentpuzzling by its timing. When the Challenger shuttle was ac- cidentally destroyed in January 1986, all space work was puton hold. But in July 1989, just a few months after the Phobos2 loss, the United States, rather than pull in its horns, reiterateda determination to go to Mars. There must have been a compelling reason... .
Under the Human Exploration Initiative part of the proposed
budget, an Administration official said, space efforts would be
expanded in accordance with a program developed by the White
House's National Space Council; that program included the 
development of new launch facilities, "opening up new fron
tiers for manned and unmanned exploration" and "insuring
that the space program contributes to the national military se
curity." Human exploration of the Moon and Mars were de
fined assignments. 
Concurrently with these developments, NASA has been ex- panding its network of space telescopes, both ground basedand orbital, and has equipped some of the shuttles with sky-scanning devices. The Deep Space Network of radio telescopeswas expanded by the reactivation of unused facilities as wellas by arrangements with other nations, with stress on obser- vation of the southern skies. Up to 1982, the U.S. Congress has grudgingly allocated funds for SETI programs, reducing them from year to year until they were completely cut off in1982. But in 1983—again that pivotal year, 1983—the fundingwas abruptly restored. In 1989 NASA managed to have thefunding for the "Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence"doubled and tripled, in part due to the active support of SenatorJohn Garn of Utah, a former shuttle astronaut who became convinced of the existence of extraterrestrial beings. Significantly, the funding was sought by NASA for new scanningand search devices to analyze emissions in the microwave bandand in the skies above Earth, rather than only (as SETI haddone before) listening in for radio emissions from distant stars or even galaxies. In its explanatory brochure, NASA quotes,in regard to the "Sky Survey," the formulation by Thomas 
O. Paine, its former Administrator: 
"A continuing program to search for evidence that life exists—or has existed—beyond Earth, by studying otherbodies of the Solar System, by searching for planets circling other stars, and by searching for signals broadcast 
by intelligent life elsewhere in the Galaxy. 
Commenting on these developments, a spokesman for theFederation of American Scientists in Washington said, "The future is starting to arrive." And The New York Times ofFebruary 6, 1990, headlined the report of the invigorated SETI programs "HUNT FOR ALIENS IN SPACE: THE NEXT GENERATION." A small but symbolic change: no longer a search for an extraterrestrial "intelligence," but for Aliens.
A search in secret anticipation. 
The 1989 shock was preceded by a marked change at theend of 1983. 
In retrospect it is evident that the diminution of superpower 
adversity was the other side of the coin of cooperation in space 
efforts and that from 1984 on, the only joint effort that was
paramount in all minds was "Going to Mars, Together."
We have already reviewed the extent of the U.S. endorse
ment of. and participation in, the Phobos mission. When the
role of American scientists in this mission became known, it 
was explained that it was "officially sanctioned due to the 
improvement in Soviet-American relations." It was also re- 
vealed that American defense experts were concerned about 
the Soviet intent to use a powerful laser in space (to bombard
the surface of Phobos), fearing it would give the Soviets an
advantage in their own ' 'Star Wars'' program of space defense; 
but the White House overruled the defense experts and gave
its consent. 
Such cooperation was quite a change from what had been
the norm before then. In the past the Soviets not only guarded
their space secrets zealously but also made every effort to
upstage the Americans. In 1969 they launched Luna 15 in a
failed attempt to beat the Americans to the Moon; in 1971 they
sent to Mars not one but three spacecraft intending to put 
orbiters on Mars just days ahead of Mariner 9. When the two
superpowers paused for detente, they signed a space cooper
ation agreement in 1972; its only visible result was the Apollo- 
Soyuz linkup in 1975. Ensuing events, such as the suppression
of the Solidarity movement in Poland and the invasion of Af
ghanistan, renewed cold war tensions. In 1982 President Rea
gan refused to renew the 1972 agreement, and launched
instead a massive U.S. rearmament effort against the "Evil 
Empire."
When President Reagan, in a televised address in March 1983, surprised the American people, the world's nations (and, it later became known, most top officials of his own admin
istration) with his Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI)—the concept of a protective shield in space against missiles andspaceships—it was natural to assume that its sole purpose wasto attain military superiority over the Soviet Union. That wasthe Soviet reaction, and it was vehement. When Mikhail Gorbachev followed Konstantin Chernenko as Soviet leader in 1985, he adhered to the position that any improvement in East
West relations depended first and foremost on the abandonmentof SDI. But, as it now seems clear, before the year was out,a new mood began to take hold as the true reasons for SDIwere communicated to the Soviet leader. Antagonism was replaced by an attitude of "Let's Talk"; and the talk was to be about cooperation in space and, more specifically, about goingtogether to Mars.
Observing that the Soviets suddenly "shed their habit... of being obsessively secretive about their space program," the Economist (June 15, 1985) remarked that recently Soviet scientists had been astonishing Western scientists by their openness, "talking frankly and enthusiastically about their plans." The weekly noted that the prime subject was the missions toMars. 
The marked change was even more puzzling, since in 1983and 1984 the Soviet Union appeared to be moving far aheadof the United States in space achievements. It had by thenlofted a series of Salyut space stations into Earth orbit, mannedthem with cosmonauts who achieved record long stays in space,and practiced linking to these stations a variety of service andresupply spacecraft. Comparing the two national programs, a 
U.S. Congressional study reported, at the end of 1983, that they were like an American tortoise and a Soviet hare. Still,by the end of 1984, the first sign of renewed cooperation wasgiven when a U.S. device was included in the Soviet Vega spacecraft that was launched to encounter Halley's comet. 
There were other manifestations, semiofficial and official, of the new spirit of cooperation in space, despite SDI. In January 1985 scientists and defense officials, meeting in Washington to discuss SDI, invited a top Soviet space official (latera key adviser to Gorbachev), Roald Sagdeyev, to attend. Atthe same time then U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz met his Soviet counterpart in Geneva, and they agreed to renewthe defunct U.S.-Soviet space cooperation agreement.
In July 1985 scientists, space officials, and astronauts fromthe United States and the Soviet Union met in Washington, ostensibly to commemorate the Apollo-Soyuz linkup of 1975. In reality, it was a seminar held to discuss a joint mission toMars. A week later Brian T. O'Leary, the former astronautwho became active in the Aerospace Systems Group of Science 
Applications International Corporation, told a meeting of the Society for (he Advancement of Science in Los Angeles thatMankind's next giant step should be to one of the moons ofMars: "What would be a better way to celebrate the millennium's end than with a return human trip from Phobos and Deimos, especially if it was an international mission?" Andin October of that same year, 1985, several American Congressmen, government officials, and former astronauts were invited by the Soviet Academy of Sciences to visit, for thefirst time ever, Soviet space facilities.
Was it all just an evolutionary process, part of new policiesby a new leader in the USSR, changing conditions behind theIron Curtain—deepening restlessness, mounting economic hardships that had increased the Soviet need for Western help?No doubt. But did it necessitate the rush to unveil the plansand secrets of the Soviet space program? Was there perhaps also some other cause, some significant occurrence that suddenly made a major difference, that changed the agenda, thatcalled for new priorities—that necessitated the revival of a World War II alliance? But if so, who was now the common enemy? Against whom were the United States and the USSRaligning their space programs? And why the priority, given byboth nations, to going to Mars?
For sure, there have been objections, in both nations, to suchcoziness. In the United States many defense officials and conservative politicians opposed "lowering the guard" in the ColdWar, especially in space. In the past President Reagan agreed;for five years he refused to meet the leader of the "Evil Em- pire." But now there were compelling reasons to meet and toconfer—in private. In November 1985 Reagan and Gorbachevmet and emerged as friendly allies, pronouncing a new era ofcooperation, trust, understanding.
How could he explain this U-turn, Reagan was asked. Hisanswer was that what made a common cause was space. Morespecifically, a danger from space to all the nations on Earth.
At the first opportunity to elaborate publicly, PresidentReagan said, in Fallston, Maryland, on December 4, 1985: 
As you know, Nancy and I returned almost two weeks 
ago from Geneva, where I had several lengthy meetings with General Secretary Gorbachev of the Soviet Union.
I had more than fifteen hours of discussions with him, including five hours of private conversation just betweenthe two of us. I found him to be a determined man, but one who is willing to listen. And 1 told him about Amer- ica's deep desire for peace and that we do not threatenthe Soviet Union and that I believe the people of both ourcountries want the same thing—a safer and better futurefor themselves and their children. . . . 
I couldn't but—one point in our discussion privatelywith General Secretary Gorbachev—when you stop tothink that we're all God's children, wherever we may live in the world—I couldn't help say to him,
"Just think how easy his task and mine might be inthese meetings that we held if suddenly there was a threat to this world from some other species from another planet outside in the universe. We'd forget allthe little local differences that we have between our countries and we would find out once and for all that we are all human beings here on this earth together."
I also stressed to Mr. Gorbachev how our nation's commitment to the Strategic Defense Initiative—our researchand development of a non-nuclear, high-tech shield thatwould protect us against ballistic missiles, and how weare committed to that. 1 told him that SDI was a reason to hope, not to fear. 
Was this statement an irrelevant detail or a deliberate disclosure by the U.S. President that in his private session withthe Soviet leader he had brought up the "threat to this world from some other species from another planet" as the reason for bringing the two nations together and the cessation of Sovietopposition to SDI?
Looking back, it is clear that the "threat" and the need fora defense in space against it preoccupied the American President. In Journey Into Space, Bruce Murray, who was Directorof the NASA/Caltech Jet Propulsion Laboratory from 1976 to1982 (and cofounder with Carl Sagan of The Planetary Society), recounts how at a meeting at the White House in March1986 with a select group of six space scientists to brief President 
Reagan on the discoveries of Voyager at Uranus, the presidentinquired, "You gentlemen have investigated a lot of things inspace; have you found any evidence that there may be otherpeople out there?" When they answered negatively, he concluded the meeting by saying he hoped they would have "moreexcitement as time went on." 
Were these ruminations of an aging leader, destined to bedismissed with a grin by the youthful and "determined man" now leading the Soviet empire? Or did Reagan convince Gorbachev, in their private five-hour meeting, that the threat ofaliens from space was no joke?
What we know from the public record is that on February16, 1987, in a major address to an international "Survival ofHumanity" forum at the Grand Kremlin Palace in Moscow,Gorbachev recalled his discussion with President Reagan in words almost identical to those the American President had used. "The destiny of the world and the future of humanityhave concerned the best minds from the time man first beganthinking of the future," he said at the very beginning of hisaddress. "Until relatively recently these and related reflectionshave been seen as an imaginative exercise, as other-worldlypursuits of philosophers, scholars, and theologians. In the pastfew decades, however, these problems have moved onto ahighly practical plane." After pointing to the risks of nuclearweapons and the common interests of "human civilization,"he went on to say, 
At our meeting in Geneva, the U.S. President said that
if the earth faced an invasion by extraterrestrials, the 
United States and the Soviet Union would join forces
to repel such an invasion.
I shall not dispute the hypothesis, though I think it's 
early yet to worry about such an intrusion. 
In choosing "not to dispute this hypothesis," the Soviet leader appeared to define the threat in starker terms than President Reagan's smoother talk: he spoke of "an invasion by extraterrestrials"' and disclosed that in the private conversationat Geneva President Reagan did not merely talk philosophicallyabout the merits of a united Mankind but proposed that '"'the 
United States and the Soviet Union would join forces to repelsuch an invasion." 
Even more significant than this confirmation, at an international forum, of the potential threat and the need to "join forces" was its timing. Just one year earlier, on January 28, 1986, the United States suffered its terrible setback when the space shuttle Challenger exploded soon after launch, killingits seven astronauts and grounding America's space program. On the other hand, on February 20, 1986, the Soviet Union launched its new space station Mir, a substantially more advanced model than the previous Salyut series. In the followingmonths, rather than taking advantage of the situation and as- serting Soviet independence of U.S. space cooperation, the Soviets increased it; among the steps taken was the invitation to U.S. television networks to witness the next space launch from their hitherto top-secret spaceport at Baikonur. On March 4 the Soviet spacecraft Vega 1, having swung by Venus todrop off scientific probes, kept its date with Halley's comet; Europeans and Japanese were also up there, but not the United States. Still, the Soviet Union, through Roald Sagdeyev, the director of the Institute for Space Research who had- beeninvited to Washington in 1985 to discuss SD1, insisted thatgoing to Mars be a joint effort with the United States.
Amid the gloom of the Challenger disaster, all the space programs were suspended except those pertaining to Mars. Toremain on the road to the Moon and Mars, NASA appointeda study group under the chairmanship of astronaut Dr. Sally
K. Ride to reevaluate the plans and their feasibility. The panelstrongly recommended the development of celestial ferryboatsand transfer ships to carry astronauts and cargoes for "humansettlement beyond Earth orbit, from the highlands of the Moonto the plains of Mars." 
This eagerness to go to Mars, as evidence at Congressionalhearings made clear, necessitated joint U.S.-Soviet efforts andcooperation between their space programs. Not everyone inthe United States was for it. in particular, defense plannersconsidered the setback to the manned shuttle program to meana change to greater reliance on ever more powerful unmannedrockets; and to gain public and Congressional support, somedata about the Air Force's new booster rockets to be used in the "Star Wars" defenses was released. 
Overriding objections, the United States and the USSR signed, in April 1987, a new agreement for cooperation inspace. Immediately after signing the agreement, the WhiteHouse ordered NASA to suspend work on the Mars Observerspacecraft that was to be launched in 1990; thenceforth, therewere to be joint efforts with the Soviet Union in support of itsPhobos mission. 
In (he United States opposition to sharing space secrets withthe Soviet Union nevertheless continued, and some experts viewed the repeated Soviet invitations to the United States to join in their missions to Mars simply as attempts to gain accessto Western technology. Prompted, no doubt, by such objec- tions, President Reagan once again spoke up publicly of the extraterrestrial threat. The occasion was his address to the General Assembly of the United Nations on September 21, 1987. Speaking of the need to turn swords into plowshares,he said: 
In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment we 
often forget how much unites all the members of hu
manity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal 
threat to recognize this common bond.
I occasionally think how quickly our differences
would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from 
outside this world. 
As reported at the time in The New Republic by its senioreditor Fred Barnes, President Reagan, during a White House luncheon on September 5, sought confirmation from the Sovietforeign minister that the Soviet Union would indeed join the United States against an alien threat from outer space; and Shevardnadze responded, "Yes, absolutely."
While one can only guess what debates might have takenplace in the Kremlin in the next three months that led to thesecond Reagan-Gorbachev summit meeting in December1987, some of the conflicting views current in Washingtonwere publicly known. There were those who questioned Sovietmotives and found it difficult to draw a clear distinction be- tween sharing scientific technology and sharing military secrets. And there were those, like the chairman of the House of Representatives' Science, Space and Technology Commit