On Mar 16, 12:54 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
The early or proto-human species as of during and then shortly after
the very last ice-age this Earth w/moon is ever going to see, as such
were extremely survival intelligent, much better off at their
surviving than the vast majority of supposedly highly educated humans
as of today could muster. As such they had often recorded whatever
was of keen interest or of whatever else was shock and awe worthy of
their era.

Hm. And your evidence for this is what, exactly?

I've been there and done that, as well as just having explained within
the entro-statement as to what's oddly missing from the scientific
record, that seems to fail us if trying to give this planet that
extremely big old moon as of prior to 12,500 BP.

How about a moon encounter, somewhat like Apophis 99942, except 4000
km in diameter and 8.5e22 kg worth of icy mass.


However, apparently as of prior to 12,500 BP, or even of somewhat more
recent times, there simply was not until some time after 12,500 BP

* as of prior to 12,500 BP
* somewhat more recent
* some time after

Make up your mind! If you're so uncertain about the date (and so keen on
accurate supercomputer simulations) when why do y ou present it with
three digits of accuracy?

I'm uncertain about a great many things, especially as of lately, in
my old age and all.


that human notice was taken of any significant ocean tidal issues, of
any seasonal tilt variation worth their having to migrate, and of
absolutely nothing ever got recorded or otherwise noted as to their
environment having that terrifically vibrant moon, as so often from
time to time allowing them to see, hunt and gather by winter night
nearly as clear as by day.

Seems if they were in fact survival smart enough and so good at having
depicted their environment and of anything that truly mattered,
whereas such you'd have to rethink as to why such intelligent and
highly survival skilled folks were so otherwise entirely dumbfounded
and/or oblivious, as to their having excluded seasonal changes, ocean
tides and of that terrifically big old and bright looking moon of
ours.

Seems as if they didn't keep very good records of any kind about
anything before, oh, several thousand years BC.

You can't read? or are you also claiming as being legally blind as
well as dumb and dumber?


What if a nearly monoseason Earth and of its somewhat elliptical orbit
of our passive sun simply didn't have that moon as of prior to 12,500
BP?

What if you explain where the moon came from and by what mechanism it
achieved such a nicely almost-circular orbit?

For that I'll need to access our public supercomputer that's on lone
to NASA, and I'll even require some of your expertise for setting up a
few million simulations. Are you game?


How do you propose that every living thing on earth suddenly adapted to
this fundamental change in the environment?

If you were relocated to another planet, say Mars or Venus; wouldn't
you adapt, or at least die trying?


Why as of today are such public owned supercomputer simulations on
behalf of running this alternative interpretation of the best
available science being sequestered or kept as taboo/nondisclosure
rated?

I don't grant your premise that this is the "best available science".
The notion that the moon arrived recently is scientific quackery for
which there is zero evidence and for which there is plenty of evidence
the other way.

Is that why you're so deathly afraid to try? (because you mainstream
status quo doesn't like having its boat rocked?)


I also don't grant your premises that such simulations are being run or
that they are being kept secret. It wouldn't take a supercomputer to
show that the moon arrived recently, so no one's wasting supercomputer
time on that problem. And if someone were doing that work, he'd publish
his results.

You have a right to think whatever you like.


BTW, what public-owned supercomputers? Do you mean ones at universities?
(Please visithttp://www.top500.org/and tell us which ones you're
talking about. Then please explain what sort of math you think this
would take and which type of supercomputer would be most appropriate.)

You know exactly what I'm speaking of when I say public owned
supercomputer, such as the spendy 2048 CPU monster that's on lone to
our NASA.

Is there anything of our NASA or of most other government or state/
federal/tax funded whatever that isn't public owned?

Don't most corporations tend to lease and/or trade within their group
of sub-corporations or of their tax-avoidance offshore operations, so
as to wright off at least twice of whatever they paid for their
supercomputers, just so that the rest of us get to pay for absolutely
everything, and then some?

A whole lot better question is; how many entirely private
supercomputers (meaning as privately purchased as retail and having
since paid their full share of income and sales taxes on that amount)
and without their having since taken income or property tax
depreciation deductions are there?
.. - Brad Guth