Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth

On Jun 16, 12:09 pm, wrote:
On Jun 13, 10:02 pm, BradGuth wrote: there's hardly any Mars salt

another baseless statement.

You don't believe bad Zionist exist?

How about bad Catholics, or don't they exist?

How about them other bad faith-based groups, or don't they exist
either?

Where is the objective and thus quantitative resolve as to Mars salt?

Thus far, no Mars water, not even any layer of Mars dead sea salt or
hardly much of any other kind of old evaporated water/erosion
remainders of salts. It's as though Mars was a freshwater swamp, but
only as long as its geothermal core was good enough to keep such mucky
fresh water unfrozen.

Most of what we see on the Mars surface is of comet/meteor deposits.
Earth got loads of salty ice deposited, whereas Mars has far less salt
than our sodium bleeding/leaching moon. So, what the hell gives.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

On Jun 17, 10:38*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Jun 16, 12:09 pm, wrote:

On Jun 13, 10:02 pm, BradGuth wrote: there's hardly any Mars salt

another baseless statement.

You don't believe bad Zionist exist?

diversion noted.


How about bad Catholics, or don't they exist?
and again.


How about them other bad faith-based groups, or don't they exist
either?
we're on a roll


Where is the objective and thus quantitative resolve as to Mars salt?
back to salt but answers questions with questions

Thus far, no Mars water, not even any layer of Mars dead sea salt or
hardly much of any other kind of old evaporated water/erosion
remainders of salts. *It's as though Mars was a freshwater swamp, but
only as long as its geothermal core was good enough to keep such mucky
fresh water unfrozen.
Most of what we see on the Mars surface is of comet/meteor deposits.
finally
And you know all this for sure?

Earth got loads of salty ice deposited, whereas Mars has far less salt
than our sodium bleeding/leaching moon. *So, what the hell gives.
lack of provable information

On Jun 18, 8:41 am, wrote:
On Jun 17, 10:38 pm, BradGuth wrote:

On Jun 16, 12:09 pm, wrote:

On Jun 13, 10:02 pm, BradGuth wrote: there's hardly any Mars salt

another baseless statement.

You don't believe bad Zionist exist?

diversion noted.


How about bad Catholics, or don't they exist?

and again.


How about them other bad faith-based groups, or don't they exist
either?

we're on a roll


Where is the objective and thus quantitative resolve as to Mars salt?

back to salt but answers questions with questions

Thus far, no Mars water, not even any layer of Mars dead sea salt or
hardly much of any other kind of old evaporated water/erosion
remainders of salts. It's as though Mars was a freshwater swamp, but
only as long as its geothermal core was good enough to keep such mucky
fresh water unfrozen.
Most of what we see on the Mars surface is of comet/meteor deposits.

finally
And you know all this for sure?

We know what the regular laws of physics have to say, and we have had
reasonably good science about Mars as of more than a couple decades
ago. Mars is rather old, it's certainly cold, and there's no big sign
of salty water or even the remainders of sodium or Na salts.


Earth got loads of salty ice deposited, whereas Mars has far less salt
than our sodium bleeding/leaching moon. So, what the hell gives.

lack of provable information

Why is there any lack of Mars information? Don't you believe in
anything that rocks your Old Testament boat?

What's the matter with the once-upon-a-time fresh water Mars?

What's the matter with our moon having a good hundred fold more sodium
than Mars?

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

On Jun 18, 9:43*pm, BradGuth wrote:
Why is there any lack of Mars information? *Don't you believe in
anything that rocks your Old Testament boat?

Old Testament boat?
Supply some "facts" for us here.

What's the matter with the once-upon-a-time fresh water Mars?
Theory = fact? What percent of "fresh" water is salt?


What's the matter with our moon having a good hundred fold more sodium
than Mars?
Fill us in. What's the matter with it not having it?

On Jun 19, 2:23 pm, wrote:
On Jun 18, 9:43 pm, BradGuth wrote:

Why is there any lack of Mars information? Don't you believe in
anything that rocks your Old Testament boat?

Old Testament boat?
Supply some "facts" for us here.

You should ask that of your favorite rabbi, or DARPA, as to why their
mainstream status quo is so deathly afraid of utilizing our moon or
even of its Earth-moon L1.



What's the matter with the once-upon-a-time fresh water Mars?

Theory = fact? What percent of "fresh" water is salt?

You obviously like word games, instead of truth. BTW, unless you've
got something as replicated and entirely objective, theory = theory.



What's the matter with our moon having a good hundred fold more sodium
than Mars?

Fill us in. What's the matter with it not having it?

Silly word games and the usual DARPA damage-control, again. Is this
your topic of "Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth"?

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

The NASA./Apollo cartel of scripted science data and thus DARPA
official atmospheric sodium (Na+) atoms per cm3 count had been
suggesting but a trace, meaning practically none. However new and
improved CCD camera technology has long since proven somewhat
otherwise.

At 9r there’s still as much as 10 Na atoms/m3 outside of the sodium
saturated tail, of which isn’t all that much sodium to work with
unless you’re right near the physically dark surface that’s worthy of
offering better than 1,000,000/m3 or 1000+Na atoms/cm3 (at least of
atmosphere that’s near the hot daytime side, and perhaps otherwise as
few as 100 atoms/cm3 in nighttime), clearly representing that the
surface itself is more than sufficiently loaded with the raw element
of sodium.

There is also the sodium rich trail or comet like tail that’s
considerably larger than moon diameter to start off with, and
remarkably 900,000 km long, as obviously providing enough of a sodium
shower to share with Earth each and every time that moon gets between
us and the sun, representing quite a sustained cloud or vapor trail
that’s obviously emanating from the sodium rich moon itself.

Applications of In-Situ Produced Sodium and NaK: “Sodium and NaK (the
eutectic alloy of 22.2% sodium, 77.8% potassium) have several possible
applications in cislunar space.”
http://www.asi.org/adb/02/13/04/sodi...lications.html
“According to the Lunar Sourcebook, sodium is one of the moon's major
elements, with a concentration consistently in excess of 0.5%, and
with selective choice of rocks within polymict breccias, up to and in
excess of 1% concentration. Potassium, which comprises approximately
78% of NaK, also has a concentration reliably in excess of 0.7% in
polymict breccias, and between 0.05% and 0.5% in other rock types.”

This seems to suggest that our crystal vacuum dry moon is actually
considerably more saturated with the low density element of sodium
than Earth, 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. Our unusual moon
seems likely the original source of much of Earth sodium and salt
deposits, as well as reinforcing the proposed theory as the most
likely source of salty cosmic ice that contributed to much of our
oceans upon that icy proto-moon encounter.

This is not to say that other than salty moon ice impacted Earth.
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, as
well as little if anything in objective geology picking up the slack.

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?

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

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!

On Jun 22, 9:24 am, Damien Valentine wrote:
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.

Why did our Zionist/Nazi DARPA put you in charge of their mainstream
status quo damage control?


...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?

The lack of and/or excluded spectrometer readings of the Mars
environment is a whole lot more science telling than you think.


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?)

Then you've got such peer replicated forms of this supposed objective
proof of moon prior to 12,500 BP?

Excluding your clearly subjective skewed interpretation science as
based upon your conditional laws of physics, is there some reason(s)
why this supposed objective terrestrial science is not of public
accessible data?


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!

Yet you accept 100+% of anything government or faith-based published,
as the one and only word(s) of your pagan/Zionist God.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

How about a better topic: Selene w/o Earth

or how about: Earth/Selene binary planets from Sirius

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth


Damien Valentine wrote:
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!