Origin of Lunar Maria: Fountains of the Deep?

NOTE: I tried to discuss this topic HERE at the Internet Infidels Forum, a forum where many PhD level scientists from various fields post regularly. The moderators shut the thread down — you can read their excuse in the final post. But the moderator who shut down the topic shows no evidence of ever having even read the Hydroplate Theory at all and none of the scientists who post there have taken the challenge to actually read the theory and engage Dr. Brown in a telephone debate although at least 4 of them said they would initially. Interesting behavior. I think many of them are AFRAID of Dr. Brown and AFRAID that his Hydroplate Theory might be correct. One notable exception is “Jet Black,” a highly respected poster and former moderator and administrator at IIDB who holds a PhD in physics and is not afraid at all to engage me regarding the Hydroplate Theory. He lodged a complaint HERE for the mods closing the thread.


Maria? No, we’re not speaking Spanish for the mother of Jesus here … the term “maria” is plural for “mare” which is the Latin word for sea … which is what ancient astronomers believed the dark spots on the near side of the moon were.
Let’s take a look at these “maria” … The NEAR side of the moon (always faces earth by the way) is shown in the top picture … and the FAR side of the moon is shown in the lower picture …

Here’s what Walt Brown, originator of the Hydroplate Theory, has to say about the topic …

If the impacts that produced these volcanic features occurred slowly from any or all directions other than Earth, both near and far sides would be equally hit. If the impacts occurred rapidly (within a few weeks), large impact features would not be concentrated on the near side unless the projectiles came from Earth. Evidently, the impactors came from Earth.

Of course, large impacts would kick up millions of smaller rocks that would themselves create impacts or go into orbit around the Moon and later create other impacts—even on Earth. Today, both sides of the Moon are saturated with smaller craters. Can we test this conclusion that the large lunar impactors came from Earth?Yes. The Moon as a whole has relatively few volatile elements, including nitrogen, hydrogen, and the noble gases. Surprisingly, lunar soil is rich in these elements, which implies their extralunar origin. Furthermore, the relative abundances of isotopes of these elements in lunar soils correspond not to the solar wind but to what is found on Earth.16 This further supports the conclusion that most impactor mass came from Earth. If large impactors came from Earth recently, most moonquakes should be on the near side, and they should still be occurring. They are. http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Comets3.html

And here is an extract from the Nature article he refers to …

Nature 436, 655-659 (4 August 2005) | doi:10.1038/nature03929; Received 16 November 2004; ; Accepted 9 June 2005Terrestrial nitrogen and noble gases in lunar soils

M. Ozima1, K. Seki2, N. Terada2,5, Y. N. Miura3, F. A. Podosek4 and H. Shinagawa2,5
Top of page

The nitrogen in lunar soils is correlated to the surface and therefore clearly implanted from outside. The straightforward interpretation is that the nitrogen is implanted by the solar wind, but this explanation has difficulties accounting for both the abundance of nitrogen and a variation of the order of 30 per cent in the 15N/14N ratio. Here we propose that most of the nitrogen and some of the other volatile elements in lunar soils may actually have come from the Earth’s atmosphere rather than the solar wind. We infer that this hypothesis is quantitatively reasonable if the escape of atmospheric gases, and implantation into lunar soil grains, occurred at a time when the Earth had essentially no geomagnetic field. Thus, evidence preserved in lunar soils might be useful in constraining when the geomagnetic field first appeared. This hypothesis could be tested by examination of lunar farside soils, which should lack the terrestrial component.

So these researchers believe the nitrogen came from earth, not from the solar wind. Of course, Walt’s theory has probably never occurred to them, hence their theory is that it came from earth’s atmosphere, not earth’s rocks ejected into space by the FOTD. But nevertheless, the important point is that they say the nitrogen came from EARTH, which of course is quite convenient for the Hydroplate Theory.

So I think that the Lunar Maria were created by rocks impacting the lunar surface which were ejected from the Fountains of the Deep.

What do you think? And why? Can you support your idea with evidence?

8 Responses to “Origin of Lunar Maria: Fountains of the Deep?”

  1. jukia says:

    The IIDB posters are afraid of Walt Brown? Not likely, unless they are concerned that reading his incredibly stupid and totally nonsupported “theory” (read wild ass guess) will rot their brains.
    Brown is a coward and a fraud.

  2. rumplesnitz says:

    My idea is that the Kupier Belt is the remains of an unstable planet that broke up and resulted in the bombardment of Earth and the moon which brought about Noah’s Flood, and perhaps later phenomena recorded in both the Bible and other historical sources. In reading your ideas I suppose it is possible that during the terrestrial cataclysm it is possible that both water and rock were expelled violently enough to form comets and impact the moon – after all scientists claim to have found rocks from Mars on Earth which they account to simple Martian volcanic activity – but I have to question whether a rock from Earth would have space enough to develop the impact power to cause the vast lunar seas visible from earth. Just what are the Maria? Gigantic impact craters, or less severe craters with vast strewnfields of non-lunar (possibly terrestrial) material? It seems like samples of the matter would contain some form of vegetation remnants. Have there been any samples taken of this material? Indeed, would there not be visible fossil record among the matter of plant or animal remains? Perhaps that last is a bit of an over-expectation considering the energy involved in the transfer and impact, but surely at least some traces of charcoal would be present.

    Evidence of course would include the Kupier Belt, coal, oil, and fossil deposits, multi-cultural historical cataclysm accounts, ancient terrestrial impact signatures and the global oceanic trenching phenomenon, the Carolina ‘bays’, your own comparison of the near and far sides of the moon, the Siberian ice-encasement of vast numbers of live animals, and perhaps – again your own observation – comets. What say you?

  3. lordkalvan says:

    Insofar as current theories suggest that the Earth-Moon system formed as the result of a collision between two planets some 4.6 billion years ago, Brown’s interpretation of the evidence from the Moon is far from conclusive.

  4. lordkalvan says:

    Further to my earlier comment, the University of Oregon has an interesting site dealing with both the Moon and Mercury at


    There is relevant information posted there that reflects on the lunar maria being concentrated for the most part in that hemisphere of the Moon that is tidally locked facing Earth.

    The pertinent fact is that the nearside (to Earth) crust of the Moon is thinner than the farside (from Earth crust). This is due to the tidal interaction between Earth and the Moon when the Moon was formed. This thinner nearside crust is more easily fractured than the thicker farside crust and consequently more likely to be prone to the basaltic lava flows lthat led to the formation of lunar maria.

    Thus it is the case that the lunar nearside most likely suffered no more (nor less) impacts than the lunar nearside, the key fact being that physical differences in the Moon’s crust made the formation of the lunar maria more likely on the nearside. Brown’s hydroplate bombardment theory fails to offer a plausible explanation for the lunar maria, not least because of the lack of evidence in its support, and so has no need to be invoked either to explain lunar nitrogen.

  5. lordkalvan says:

    Sorry, but there were a couple of typos in my last post that made it (more?) confusing to read:

    Penultimate para, 2nd line, parentheses should be ‘farside (from Earth) crust’ not ‘farside (from Earth crust)’.

    Last para, 2nd line, ‘lunar nearside’ should be ‘lunar farside’.

    My apologies again.

  6. ninewands says:

    Well, Dave, I believe you brought this subject up at http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=229736 and fairly well got handed your head by those who understand the science. Does truth REALLY matter to you, Dave?

  7. rumplesnitz says:

    Dave ain’t here man…

  8. rumplesnitz says:

    a. Recent creation + cataclysm = b. most coherent and reasonable explanation of observable phenomena = c. culpability for personal actions.

    Anything else is a dodge to avoid ‘c’.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>