Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth

On Thu, 22 May 2008 23:24:19 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:

On May 22, 10:34 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2008 14:13:25 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
I couldn't agree more, but just try telling that to most any of these
DARPA puppets as brown-nosed clowns and minions of their Usenet/
newsgroups.

Now you see that's an example. If you were Jewish, that would still
be incoherent gibbering.

I don't think so. Just like with your precious Einstein, whereas he'd
be receiving all sorts of prior expert Zionist/Jewish insider support

Incoherent paranoid gibbering.

Your encrypted reply of "Incoherent paranoid gibbering"

There's no encryption about it. You are paranoid because you assume
everything is controlled by evil conspiracies and that's the reason
nobody takes you seriously.

On Thu, 22 May 2008 23:29:20 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:

On May 22, 10:37 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2008 09:53:13 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth



wrote:
On May 21, 10:45 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2008 22:08:20 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
On May 21, 9:26 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
On May 21, 1:44 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
josephus wrote:

the big whack was a mars sized object. (according to one of the
theories) and it deposited its core with us and scattered lighter
debris from it and us in a near earth ring.

According to the theory, the two cores melded into one after the impact.

Pat

As per usual, the key word: theory

I wonder if you are using the same definition of "theory" as everyone
else in scientific world does. Enlighten us: tell us what it really
means.

It means giving it your best subjective swag. If it was based upon
purely objective science, it would not be a "theory".

Oh really? So what would it be then?

Now you want us to believe that even objective science that's fully
peer replicated is at risk?

Of what?



Good grief, what else is left?

Isn't an honestly subjective train of though worth anything nowadays?
If not, then most of whatever came associated with the name of
Einstein is certainly at risk.

Of what?

Of his being a Jewish intellectual cartel puppet.

Oh. So nothing real then.

On Thu, 22 May 2008 23:27:10 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:

On May 22, 10:35 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2008 12:51:29 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On May 20, 12:30 pm, David Johnston wrote:

How would it survive the collision and why would it would end up in
such a circular orbit? - Hide quoted text -

Obviously, humans couldn't.

I'm asking how the moon could survive a collision with the Earth. Is
it made out of rubber?

Don't know about moon rubber, but Earth was certainly a soft touch.

That icy proto-moon was also somewhat physically protected by the
thick layer of salty ice.

No degree of thickness of ice would keep the moon from shattering from
such an impact.

On May 23, 7:43*am, David Johnston wrote:

No degree of thickness of ice would keep the moon from shattering from
such an impact.

Absolutely, but what ice?

Where's all that ice today?

On May 23, 8:21 am, wrote:
On May 23, 7:43 am, David Johnston wrote:

No degree of thickness of ice would keep the moon from shattering from
such an impact.

Absolutely, but what ice?

Where's all that ice today?

Your manic bipolar mindset is showing its ugly head again. And here
you've boldly stated that Einstein was essentially a phony from the
very get go. Now I'm not exactly certain which mainstream puppet is
telling the truth, or even the half truth.

Is that why you and others of your DARPA kind wouldn't dare run off
those simulations?
.. - Brad Guth

On May 23, 7:43 am, David Johnston wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2008 23:27:10 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth



wrote:
On May 22, 10:35 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2008 12:51:29 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On May 20, 12:30 pm, David Johnston wrote:

How would it survive the collision and why would it would end up in
such a circular orbit? - Hide quoted text -

Obviously, humans couldn't.

I'm asking how the moon could survive a collision with the Earth. Is
it made out of rubber?

Don't know about moon rubber, but Earth was certainly a soft touch.

That icy proto-moon was also somewhat physically protected by the
thick layer of salty ice.

No degree of thickness of ice would keep the moon from shattering from
such an impact.

And your archive of all those fully interactive 3D simulations as
based entirely upon the regular laws of physics is represented exactly
where?
.. - Brad Guth

On Fri, 23 May 2008 16:08:43 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:

On May 23, 7:43 am, David Johnston wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2008 23:27:10 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth



wrote:
On May 22, 10:35 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2008 12:51:29 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On May 20, 12:30 pm, David Johnston wrote:

How would it survive the collision and why would it would end up in
such a circular orbit? - Hide quoted text -

Obviously, humans couldn't.

I'm asking how the moon could survive a collision with the Earth. Is
it made out of rubber?

Don't know about moon rubber, but Earth was certainly a soft touch.

That icy proto-moon was also somewhat physically protected by the
thick layer of salty ice.

No degree of thickness of ice would keep the moon from shattering from
such an impact.

And your archive of all those fully interactive 3D simulations as
based entirely upon the regular laws of physics is represented exactly
where?

Tell me, are you familiar with the Roche Limit?

In article ,
David Johnston wrote:

On Fri, 23 May 2008 16:08:43 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:

On May 23, 7:43 am, David Johnston wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2008 23:27:10 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth



wrote:
On May 22, 10:35 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2008 12:51:29 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On May 20, 12:30 pm, David Johnston wrote:

How would it survive the collision and why would it would end up in
such a circular orbit? - Hide quoted text -

Obviously, humans couldn't.

I'm asking how the moon could survive a collision with the Earth. Is
it made out of rubber?

Don't know about moon rubber, but Earth was certainly a soft touch.

That icy proto-moon was also somewhat physically protected by the
thick layer of salty ice.

No degree of thickness of ice would keep the moon from shattering from
such an impact.

And your archive of all those fully interactive 3D simulations as
based entirely upon the regular laws of physics is represented exactly
where?

Tell me, are you familiar with the Roche Limit?

No, he isn't, despite it having been explained to him.

(Brad, you are, of course, free to dispute that by telling us what it is
and how it applies--or why it does not--to your little hypothesis.)

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

On May 23, 4:06*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On May 23, 8:21 am, wrote:

On May 23, 7:43 am, David Johnston wrote:

No degree of thickness of ice would keep the moon from shattering from
such an impact.

Absolutely, but what ice?

Where's all that ice today?

Your manic bipolar mindset is showing its ugly head again. *And here
you've boldly stated that Einstein was essentially a phony from the
very get go. *Now I'm not exactly certain which mainstream puppet is
telling the truth, or even the half truth.

Is that why you and others of your DARPA kind wouldn't dare run off
those simulations?
. - Brad Guth

No hidden agendas or motives, just trying to see where the ice came
from and where it went. Evasion noted.

On May 23, 7:52 pm, wrote:
On May 23, 4:06 pm, BradGuth wrote:



On May 23, 8:21 am, wrote:

On May 23, 7:43 am, David Johnston wrote:

No degree of thickness of ice would keep the moon from shattering from
such an impact.

Absolutely, but what ice?

Where's all that ice today?

Your manic bipolar mindset is showing its ugly head again. And here
you've boldly stated that Einstein was essentially a phony from the
very get go. Now I'm not exactly certain which mainstream puppet is
telling the truth, or even the half truth.

Is that why you and others of your DARPA kind wouldn't dare run off
those simulations?
. - Brad Guth

No hidden agendas or motives, just trying to see where the ice came
from and where it went. Evasion noted.

Dumb and dumber noted, as well as your denial of being in denial, or
rather DARPA damage-control noted.

When will you spooks and moles of the mainstream status quo (aka Dark
Side) ever learn?

BTW, I'd thought Oort clouds were icy (somewhat worse off than those
icy Saturn rings). So, how exactly does one migrate through the
realms of such Oort clouds without getting icy?
.. - Brad Guth