The Moon: 100M years younger than thought

On Monday, September 23, 2013 8:18:31 AM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:
Even though the Earth/Planet X impact theory hasn't changed, the time of the

event has slipped by a 100 Million years, a mere blink of the eye in the

Solar System's elapsed-time table ...



http://news.yahoo.com/moon-100-milli...121148745.html

The likely planets, planetoids and asteroids of the Sirius star system are only at most 256 million years old, and at least some of that stuff having survived Sirius(b) when it converted from an enormous red giant and became a white dwarf as of roughly 64 million years ago.

Can gold deposits be carbon dated, or even lead dated?

How about the age dating of carbonado, or even paramagnetic basalt?

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
...
On Monday, September 23, 2013 8:18:31 AM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:
Even though the Earth/Planet X impact theory hasn't changed, the time of
the

event has slipped by a 100 Million years, a mere blink of the eye in the

Solar System's elapsed-time table ...



http://news.yahoo.com/moon-100-milli...121148745.html

The likely planets, planetoids and asteroids of the Sirius star system are
only at most 256 million years old, and at least some of that stuff having
survived Sirius(b) when it converted from an enormous red giant and became a
white dwarf as of roughly 64 million years ago.

Can gold deposits be carbon dated, or even lead dated?

How about the age dating of carbonado, or even paramagnetic basalt?

*** What does any of your insanity laced ranting and raving have to do with
the Moon ???

Notice to Moron GuthBall:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius
It's a fun read, but I doubt it'll do anything for your creeping insanity.

On Monday, September 23, 2013 10:53:05 AM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:
"Brad Guth" wrote in message

...

On Monday, September 23, 2013 8:18:31 AM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:

Even though the Earth/Planet X impact theory hasn't changed, the time of

the



event has slipped by a 100 Million years, a mere blink of the eye in the



Solar System's elapsed-time table ...







http://news.yahoo.com/moon-100-milli...121148745.html



The likely planets, planetoids and asteroids of the Sirius star system are

only at most 256 million years old, and at least some of that stuff having

survived Sirius(b) when it converted from an enormous red giant and became a

white dwarf as of roughly 64 million years ago.



Can gold deposits be carbon dated, or even lead dated?



How about the age dating of carbonado, or even paramagnetic basalt?



*** What does any of your insanity laced ranting and raving have to do with

the Moon ???



Notice to Moron GuthBall:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius

It's a fun read, but I doubt it'll do anything for your creeping insanity..

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.

On Tuesday, September 24, 2013 7:17:45 AM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:
"Brad Guth" wrote in message

...

On Monday, September 23, 2013 10:53:05 AM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:

"Brad Guth" wrote in message



...



On Monday, September 23, 2013 8:18:31 AM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:



Even though the Earth/Planet X impact theory hasn't changed, the time of



the







event has slipped by a 100 Million years, a mere blink of the eye in the







Solar System's elapsed-time table ...















http://news.yahoo.com/moon-100-milli...121148745.html







The likely planets, planetoids and asteroids of the Sirius star system are



only at most 256 million years old, and at least some of that stuff having



survived Sirius(b) when it converted from an enormous red giant and became

a



white dwarf as of roughly 64 million years ago.







Can gold deposits be carbon dated, or even lead dated?







How about the age dating of carbonado, or even paramagnetic basalt?







*** What does any of your insanity laced ranting and raving have to do

with



the Moon ???







Notice to Moron GuthBall:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius



It's a fun read, but I doubt it'll do anything for your creeping insanity.



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?

On Tuesday, September 24, 2013 11:03:59 AM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:
"Brad Guth" wrote in message

...

On Tuesday, September 24, 2013 7:17:45 AM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:

"Brad Guth" wrote in message



...



On Monday, September 23, 2013 10:53:05 AM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:



"Brad Guth" wrote in message







...







On Monday, September 23, 2013 8:18:31 AM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:







Even though the Earth/Planet X impact theory hasn't changed, the time

of







the















event has slipped by a 100 Million years, a mere blink of the eye in

the















Solar System's elapsed-time table ...































http://news.yahoo.com/moon-100-milli...121148745.html















The likely planets, planetoids and asteroids of the Sirius star system

are







only at most 256 million years old, and at least some of that stuff

having







survived Sirius(b) when it converted from an enormous red giant and

became



a







white dwarf as of roughly 64 million years ago.















Can gold deposits be carbon dated, or even lead dated?















How about the age dating of carbonado, or even paramagnetic basalt?















*** What does any of your insanity laced ranting and raving have to do



with







the Moon ???















Notice to Moron GuthBall:







http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius







It's a fun read, but I doubt it'll do anything for your creeping

insanity.







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?





*** So, other than a lot of hot air, idiotic babble and the nebulous phrase

"must be further researched", which in scientific terms means that you're

totally clueless, you have NOTHING but your cock-eyed, homebrewed "it came

from Sirius" postulation. Don't even bother to answer, unless you have

links to proof your hare-brained schemes ... but then, having no facts never

stopped you before. Read it and weep, you dip****:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis

That paramagnetic and physically dark moon could be a hundred million years newer than previously thought, or it could even be of only 256 million years old if it were contributed to our solar system by the recent demise of Sirius(b).

Until we actually get ourselves there and proceed to dig/excavate into it, we really don't seem to know what it's made of, or much less of how new or old it actually is.

Perhaps China will help us out.

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?

On Tuesday, September 24, 2013 2:22:04 PM UTC-4, Brad Guth wrote:


That paramagnetic and physically dark moon could be a hundred million years newer than previously thought, or it could even be of only 256 million years old if it were contributed to our solar system by the recent demise of Sirius(b).



Until we actually get ourselves there and proceed to dig/excavate into it, we really don't seem to know what it's made of, or much less of how new or old it actually is.



Perhaps China will help us out.

LOL, and there's two Guthball hallmarks: 1. His cut & paste remark about "paramagnetic and physically dark moon" and 2. His insinuating we've never actually been to the moon.

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.

On Tuesday, September 24, 2013 3:04:02 PM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:
"Brad Guth" wrote in message

...

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.





*** So you're saying they should let low-life, under the table payola, leaky

boat repair bozos like you run their Supercomputers, when you're too stupid

to fix your News Reader so that it doesn't display hundreds of empty lines

with nothing but insert arrow sign in them ???

Yea right. You need a Frontal Lobotomy.

Your mainstream LLPOF status quo is noted, as is your Zionist Nazi version of being a republican redneck FUD-master.

On Tuesday, September 24, 2013 4:26:52 PM UTC-4, Brad Guth wrote:
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.

LOL, you'd know just how to walk in and run such simulations on a supercomputer?