2001: The Moon is the Monolith

Our moon, fitting like a glove with the Jovian moons.

A commenter recently raised the topic of the moon, and this is such a juicy topic for a site like ours. I provided my theory then, that our moon was originally one of the moons of Jupiter, placed here with Earth…and I wanted to more formally expand upon that here. Keep in mind, I say “theory” in the strictly scientific sense. This is just an idea, and I welcome feedback (one commenter already very helpful in that regard). Keep reading, and see if you think I might be onto something.

As a framework for this post, I want to use the Stanley Kubrick film 2001: A Space Odyssey. This is not only my favorite film (far and away the best film in the history of film-making), but it is also a message to humanity full of secrets. Kubrick hid secret messages in his movies…this much is known. It should not be surprising considering the company that Kubrick kept, his lifestyle, and the content of his films. By the end of his life, he lived in seclusion and is thought by some to have been murdered for his film Eyes Wide Shut (imagine telling Warner Bros that you were filming a romantic drama and then giving them that). So how is 2001 full of secrets? Below, I hope to explore one such way.

Without ruining the movie too much (spoilers ahead), I want to remind readers what happens in 2001…approximately. In the year 2001 (decades ahead of the 1968 world in which the film was released), the United States and various other earthly powers have built bases on the moon. Space travel is commonplace, especially for high-level government officials. When the United States finds a perfectly rectangular black monolith deliberately buried 4 million years ago on the moon, they quickly hush the whole event up through a cover story of an epidemic on their moon base. A scary sounding “epidemic of unknown origin”. The Russians are displeased and sense some kind of subterfuge.

After a quick few meetings with our main government honcho where he reiterates the importance of the find and explains the need for the cover story (which the government itself created as misdirection), we jump ahead in time to the mission to Jupiter. This is the spaceship that looks like a sperm with HAL-9000 on it. It turns out that when the monolith on the moon was approached by humans, it set off some kind of extremely powerful signal…pointed directly at Jupiter. Attempting to find out the meaning of all this, we find that the US government has sent this mission to explore. This is essentially the framework of 2001.

How does this relate to my theory of the moon? Well, in a nutshell with 2001 we are left with the idea that there is something “deliberately” placed on the moon and pointing to Jupiter (or the moons of Saturn in the book) which implies some kind of intelligence beyond our current understanding. The key details are the deliberate nature of something related to the moon with specific reference to the moons of gas giant planets. Please take another look at the main photo at the top of this post, and consider how perfectly our moon fits as being one of the rocky moons of Jupiter. It has the same size, general appearance, density, and tidal locking indicative of the moons of gas giant planets, such as Jupiter and Saturn…fitting perfectly in size between Io and Europa.

In these still relatively early days of scientific understanding, there is little scientific consensus on how our moon could have formed naturally. The only thing known for sure is that our moon is an oddity of all oddities. Take this quote from a recent article on the moon’s uniqueness, from Forbes:

In most cases, as simulations and observations have taught us, every planet and moon that forms has its own unique elemental composition based on the history of how it formed. Every planet has a unique density and a unique ratio of the different elements, and every Moon has a unique composition as well, distinct from its parent planet. Just like less dense materials float atop denser ones — Earth’s outer core floats atop the inner core, which the mantle floats upon, which the crust floats upon, followed by the ocean and the atmosphere — a gravitational and temperature gradient ensures that the planets and moons have different compositions from one another.

But our Moon seems to be the exception to all the normal rules. Its surface rocks have the same composition as Earth’s; it’s far, far larger and more massive compared to Earth than any other moon compared to its parent planet; it has a small, Earth-like iron core; it orbits out-of-plane of the Earth’s rotation and revolution; and it’s tidally locked to Earth but axially aligned almost perfectly (within 1.5º) with the Sun. The leading theory for how the Moon got to be formed is known as the Giant Impact Hypothesis, which states that a large, Mars-sized protoplanet struck a young Earth early on, kicking up debris which coalesced into the Moon.

The top theory of present-day for how the moon could have formed naturally with Earth is through some kind of tremendous collision. This site provides a good run-down for how none of the existing theories for moon formation make any sense. Let’s be real here…we may be reaching the technological age, but there is still so little about our planet and our universe that we understand. Even those who espouse the so-called “Giant Impact Hypothesis” for moon formation still remind us how rare this kind of collision would be, and how unusual the resulting moon is. The source puts it well at saying: “This theory requires an extreme amount of fine tuning that makes it highly improbable to impossible.” The Giant Impact Hypothesis is also known to have fatal flaws. A collision of this magnitude should have knocked Earth out of solar orbit, and it does not explain the presence of water in moon samples. So basically, we just have no idea how the moon could have formed around Earth naturally. Perhaps this is because it did not form around Earth naturally?

Rocky, inner planets such as Earth should NOT have such a tremendously large  partner as our moon. They simply should not. It is not natural. I would challenge anyone out there who is familiar with the search for exoplanets to give me an example among the pseudo-Earths where the analog is shown to have a large, rocky, tidally-locked moon such as ours. It goes against the basics of nature. If Earth is already an oddity of near-impossible proportions for harboring intelligent life, then we are a double impossibility for the fact that our rocky, inner planet is paired with such a gigantic and exceptional moon. Our moon does not fit at all…it is a true anomaly. You can find plenty of information out there about this. Scientists are not even able to create a workable hypothesis for how our moon could have formed that explains the wide array of anomalies seen. This is critical.

What does this all mean? The movie 2001 provides us with some clues. In the movie, burying a monolith in a random spot on the moon is like leaving a path of jellybeans on a path that you know very few people will reach. So many things would have to happen for the inhabitants of that planet to actually discover the buried monolith on the moon and understand its implications. They would have to master science, progress along a path that brings them into space exploration, colonize the moon, excavate, find the monolith, and extrapolate the meaning. It would be understood by those who placed the monolith that its discovery would only occur after that society had reached a very specific stage in its development. In a nutshell, it would only be found when that society was actually ready to truly understand its implications.

Densities of various bodies in the Solar System. Shows how perfectly our Moon fits with the Jovian moons again right between Europa and Io, indicating a similar formation. Image credit: Karim Khaidarov, via http://bourabai.kz/solar-e.htm

We need to begin looking at the moon itself in the same way. The moon IS the monolith. Mono-lith meaning “single rock”. The revelation is that the moon itself is the object that has been deliberately placed. By appearance, size, and density our moon is a perfect fit as the rocky moon of a gas giant planet. It is a textbook moon of gas giant, and is a near impossibility as a natural satellite of an inner rocky planet. What is the obvious revelation staring at us there? Why would scientists try to force two puzzle pieces together that obviously do not fit, when there is a clear place that our moon DOES fit as having its origins? It has all the hallmarks of the rocky moons of a gas giant planet and is the anomaly of all anomalies as the natural satellite of Earth. The obvious conclusion there is that we should start to try and understand how the Earth could have captured (or been provided) the moon of a gas giant planet!

We also see all kinds of absurd coincidences beyond this. Think of solar eclipses…the moon being placed at such a perfect distance as to become the exact same size as the sun from our perspective. Another impossible coincidence on top of a pile of 3 others! Our moon is the monolith sitting there, deliberately placed, standing as a constant message to us of its origins as the moon of a gas giant planet. It is a message that few understand, because our science and technology have only recently reached the stage where such a conclusion is nearly undeniable. It takes only the intellectual courage to understand the implications of what is right in front of our faces.

Perhaps the secret is that some intelligence, seeking to guide intelligent life on Earth, scooped up one of the rocky moons of a gas giant and placed it at the perfect distance. They knew that some day, the inhabitants of Earth might be smart enough to realize the significance, so they built in signals (perfect solar eclipse) to tell us what they did. How could an object the size of the moon have been plucked from the heavens? Good question…I personally feel that when we consider the billions of years of the universe, we have to realize that technologies may have developed which would seem God-like to us. We must be humble enough to realize that our moon might have been placed just as well as it might have been captured. When we are dealing with nothing but long-shot probabilities, the “intentionally placed” theory becomes worthy of serious consideration.

Fundamentally, the evidence tells us that our moon is a perfect fit as the moon of a gas giant planet. This means that it must have either been captured naturally, or must have been placed here by an intelligence far beyond our understanding. Take your pick; the bottom line is that our moon is actually the moon of a gas giant planet. Once you begin to see this, it is hard to NOT see it. Like the coastlines of Africa and South America lining up, our moon seeming to be a perfect fit as the moon of a gas giant planet is hard to ignore…especially when scientists struggle so fundamentally to explain how our moon could have formed naturally around Earth in the first place.

PS: There is an interesting connection to Velikovsky here, since Kubrick actually experimented with using Saturn instead of Jupiter in 2001, but couldn’t get the rings of Saturn looking realistic enough in time. Arthur C. Clarke, writing his book simultaneously with the movie script, actually used Saturn and its moon Iapetus as the source of the mission. The idea of Earth’s moon being connected with the moons of a gas giant planet bring us back to Velikovsky’s Saturn theory (that Saturn used to be MUCH closer to Earth), and all related Saturnian theories. If we imagine that the moon was naturally captured, then we must imagine that Earth has had extremely close calls with Saturn or Jupiter in its past. This is not a currently accepted scientific belief, but the moon itself is physical evidence that supports this.

Not such a bad fit with the Saturnian moons either…

28 thoughts on “2001: The Moon is the Monolith

  1. You really should pursue Saturn on another subject. It is the elites source of enlightenment.


    1. Wonder if this might be related to WHY Saturn is part of the elites source of enlightenment?


    2. Unless you were referring to some specific other subject. Have anything to enlighten us with?


  2. Fauxlex the only thing you didn’t preface was your name. You do realize how badly you’re embarrassing yourself arguing or agreeing with your own comments under different usernames right. You are aware Mark is allowing you free reign because he’s burned out right. You are aware Cutting Through The Fog has no idea what your point is regarding anything you’ve written about Miles Mathis right. And unfortunately your not having a point is not part of your charm. Fauxlex what basis do you have for believing anyone would be remotely interested in reading your ideas about anything. What great mystery have you solved. What great thought piece has made it impossible for you to continue without giving up your real name. What on God’s green earth ever possessed you to think you could hack steal photo of fake rolex and cry more more more.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. By the way Gaia, I have never posted on POM under a different username, and it always amuses me when you claim this.


    1. Thanks for the feedback. Going to have to dig more on exactly how the moon impacts life on earth. Eager to hear if anyone knows a lot about this already.


  3. One thing I remember from years ago is that distance from earth to moon, and then moon to sun, is perfection in terms of solar eclipses. The moon is exactly the right distance so that it blocks out the entirety of the sun, leaving only the golden ring. I thought man, it could not be planned so perfectly. I still imagine it is no coincidence.


    1. Exactly. The questions become why and when. If it was placed there, why was this done? I had always had a belief that the moon’s influence on the Earth’s gravity kept our seasons reliable, but a commenter rightly questioned this.

      This leaves me with WHY? What purpose would some entity have for pairing the Earth up with this moon? Is it a recent thing (think Velikovsky), or something very old? I would guess recent, as the perfection of the solar eclipse will gradually become less perfect over time as the moon drifts away.

      It’s confounding. Why do this? Could some intelligent race have carved out a civilization inside of it? But still…why pair it with Earth? What is the benefit?


      1. There are odd but natural things like the tidal lock that prevent us from seeing the other side, leading to speculation without evidence. But intriguing nonetheless. Once I set aside the theory of evolution as anything more than variation within species, and then read Velikovsky, I did not imagine I understood anything, but was filled with a sense of wonder. Very nice post, by the way.


      2. Good question. if the moon drifts away, There will be no gravitational pull. it will eventually give way to flooding the earth. There will be nothing but the sun left to burn. Any escape between that will be far Fauxlex, for Gaia to explain.


  4. And for that matter all planets are bright white lights in the sky. Not only does gas not reflect light but rocks and dirt do not reflect light very well. The moon itself is way too bright to be reflected light. Also, the law of reflection says that the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection. Therefore, the reflected light on the sides of the moon would never reach earth. There would never be a full moon. The moon is close and produces its own light. There’s no other way around it. Unless the law of reflection is wrong. Can anyone possibly debate this.


  5. Fauxlex, your hypothesis is fine. It’s just been done before. I’ve read ideas like this for years. The collision theory is ridiculous I agree. This is all level 1 conspiracy though. Kubrick and 2001 has been done to death. Do you believe the moon landings were fake? Just curious. And also, what are your opinions on my previous statements. As a former science teacher, I’ve questioned the existence of outer space for years. It all just doesn’t jive with the basic laws of science we see here on Earth.


    1. Where has it been hypothesized before that Earth’s moon is originally the moon of a gas giant?


      1. Maybe it hasn’t. I was mainly talking about it being “placed”. Because of the improbable relationship with the sun. But again, what are your opinions on my previous posts? No one can ever seem to answer those questions.


        1. I do not believe that space itself is fake, but I definitely believe that the Apollo moon images are not legitimate.


      1. Appreciate the link. Obviously the moon landings are fake. Don’t think we need to go there. I’m more interested in what y’all think about what I said about Jupiter and the moon. How does Jupiter reflect light if it’s made of gas? How does the moon reflect ligh while breaking the law of reflection? And a new one. How is it possible to see the unlit part of the moon when it is in the crescent phase? All of these are impossibilities under are current understanding of basic science laws. One of the most basic rules of science is that the laws we experience on Earth must be assumed to be the same in the universe. Would love some opinions on this.


        1. Kyle, have you ever heard of the idea that gas giant planets are basically just failed brown dwarf stars?


      2. I’m stumped by your excellent questions. All I can come up with is jovian water vapor would reflect light but its albedo effect would be marginal at best and despite nasa’s supposed discovery of lunar water I don’t believe the lights in the sky contain water anyfeckinway.

        I’m out of my depth of course seeing as cosmology is storytime. It’s the realm of the irrational where the best story eventually wins and unfortunately I’m still fettered by my logical shackles despite faux’s kind admonitions.


        1. You’re my favorite paradox SMJ. What’s the furthest you’ll go with science? Are there any scientific subjects that you hold to be true?


  6. I see you edited your response, which was initially “Yawn.”

    You should’ve left it at that.

    I don’t know what CTTF is.

    Again you’ve provided no actual data nor links to where you found yours, whatever it is.

    Regarding Kubrick you respond with “I’m not alone in this opinion”, i.e. taking refuge in perceived consensus.

    If you’re claiming your “challenge” was intended for experts, i.e. not your readers, why include it? (Though nowhere do you say that. In fact, you challenge “anyone familiar with the search for exoplanets”. But, hey, yawn amirite?)

    No one can say that the formation of life is a statistical impossibility. Or at least no one but you could say it with a straight face. To prove such a thing would require absolute knowledge. (Though Douglas Adams managed by clever use of statistics versus infinity to prove that no life actually exists in the Universe. Is your article intended as comedy, then?)

    Nowhere did I ridicule the possible existence of advanced intelligence. What I ridiculed was your conjuration of such from thin air and your subsequent assignment to that intelligence of arbitrary qualities and abilities.

    That you’ve decided I’m “unwilling to even hear” should be a signal to you that you’re not listening. I’ve alread “heard”, and was quite willing to “hear”: I read the article. Every last word. Yet because I ask you for actual data and not conjecture, because I ask you to support your conclusions, you label me a coward, a “mathesite”, and a nasty little underminer.

    But you didn’t need me to undermine your premise. You had that well in hand before I ever “heard” a word from you. At the end of the day, or more precisely at 20:44 on the 2nd of March, 2020, I thank you for that, and your response, because now I know you that much better.


    1. Still very yawnish there. Out of thin air? As in, a fresh idea? I’m “hiding” behind the fact that I’m not the first to state this of Kubrick? Boring. So boring. This trolling of yours. Attacking premises that you yourself have called interesting. Nitpicking random fringe details like the Kubrick thing. Better get that 500 pound troll off your back, Joki. He’s starting to control your actions.


    2. If I’m stating the challenge was for experts, why include it? You can’t be saying that with a straight face. OK Joki, I will make sure to only include things from now on if they pass your twisted undermining attacks. As trolls go, you are second-rate.


    3. BTW, you should Google CTTF. I think you’d like it there. Just a recommendation. I want you to be happy, Joki. How’s that for trolling? Did I do good?


Comments are closed.