On Jun 21, 10:19 am, BradGuth wrote:

This seems to suggest that our crystal vacuum dry moon is actually
considerably more saturated with the low density element of sodium
than Earth...

...Because the mainstream impact formation theory is the correct one,
and light elements like sodium and potassium stayed in orbit longer,
thereby having more chance to accrete into the Moon 4.5 billion years
ago.

...and otherwise way more so than Mars that has hardly its
fair share of sodium or much less the remainders of sea-salts which
should not have evaporated or otherwise gone away.

How do you know Mars has "hardly its fair share"? Compared with what?

Instead this interpretation merely represents the mostly likely
culprit, especially since there’s no apparent human created
representations of our having that moon as of prior to 12,500 BP...

Except there are, but you refuse to acknowledge them. You gladly
claim that some Paleolithic artifacts depict the sun, athough you
haven't actually shown us any of your "many examples worth
interpreting", or told us why you prefer to interpret them as solar
symbols. But when archaeologists claim that other Paleolithic
artifacts depict the moon, you reject their claims without good
reason. (I take it from the newsgroups you've chosen to post to, that
you haven't actually discussed your hypothesis with an archaeologist,
like I suggested you should? Much less read a textbook or journal
about Paleolithic archaeology?)

In a further stretch of interpretation; Could some of our human
species and other complex forms of DNA life have successfully
interstellar migrated via such an icy proto-moon?

Oh, let's not go multiplying entities unecessarily. You haven't made
a case for your first "interpretation", let alone a second!