On Tuesday, September 24, 2013 11:53:13 AM UTC-7, Dean Markley wrote:
On Tuesday, September 24, 2013 11:57:02 AM UTC-4, Brad Guth wrote:



Our moon wasn't likely made of Earth, as we've been purely indoctrinated to



believe, but then you'll believe anything your ZNR buddies have to say.





The size of item which created its 2500 km crater was perhaps one of 6371 km







radius, that was a glancing blow also responsible for creating our Arctic







ocean basin. Its paramagnetic basalt and carbonado crust is nothing like







Earth has to offer.















*** Look, moron ... at least they ran computer aided tests on the oblique







impact of planet X and the subesquent formation of the Moon and its







gradually increasing orbital distance ... so it makes a lot more sense than







your pulled-out-of-your-ass tlithobreaking theory (whatever that means) and







your incessant rants about the imminent encounter with Sirius and how the







moon came from ... you have not documentation on any of your brainfatrz, nor







any supportive data ... just like the Liberal you are ... trust me, even







though I am a Community Organizer, I cam make it all better ... just trust







me. Right.















Until definitive proof is offered to the contrary, Mr. Hartmann's theory







stands the test of logic and repeatability by simulations.







They are so deathly afraid to run any alternative simulations, that they keep running out of Depends. Even the very best impactor simulations of extremely large and massive items is woefully deficient and thus untrustworthy.







Your Operation Paperclip buddies still can not explain what created that 2500 km diameter crater nor whatever happened to its impactor, much less telling us how and when our planet got its Arctic ocean basin and seasonal tilt. As discovered and interpreted thus far, there has been none of those extremely survival intelligent and artistically talented humans as of prior to 10,000 BC as having depicted their version of their natural environment with any moon, even though their having accomplished far better resolution paintings or depictions of smaller items of much less survival importance..







Your public funded computer simulations are just that, and there's nothing the least bit objective about any of it. So, considering alternatives seems only logical, especially since the Apollo era (extensively run by those of Operation Paperclip) accomplished nothing of any objective proof that can be independently verified.







A lithobraking encounter via a glancing blow would have created our Arctic ocean basin, the antipode of Antarctica and having tilted our icy planet if it were impacted by a 7.5e22 kg icy planetoid. As to exactly when this took place is what needs to be further researched and estimated as based upon the best available evidence instead of simply based entirely upon computer simulations that can be made and/or modified in order to suit whatever end results are being paid for.







Are you going to suggest that early humans (like those of your kind) were all badly nearsighted, and didn't even know the difference between day or night, summer or winter?



How do you know they didn't run alternative simulations? For cripes sake, Guthball, how do you think the current model is the MOST LIKELY?

I've nicely asked of those in charge, to allow us outsiders to run a few thousand alternative simulations, and thus far they and their brown-nosed minions like yourself have refused.

Remember that we have already paid for everything published thus far (multiple times over), including our having paid for those supercomputers and of wherever they are set up, as well as we get to pay for their energy consumption, maintenance and upgrades along with picking up the tab for most those running whatever simulations. So, perhaps the very least they should do is entertain us with some of our own spendy stuff.