| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Brad Guth" |
| Date: |
20 Oct 2006 08:16:57 AM |
| Object: |
Earth's moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ??? |
Fresh topic, as I still have a few pesky questions. Such as, where's
Earth's moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ???
GOT 10,000 BC NOON ???
GOT 10,000 BC MOON-GOD/GODDESS ???
GOT MOON TIDES prior to 10,000 BC ???
GOT SEASONS prior to 10,000 BC ???
GOT VAST SALTY OCEANS prior to 10,000 BC ???
According to the infomercial Gods and wizards of Usenet:
All is expanding for ever and ever, we've always had that pesky moon
along with having our slaty oceans, tides and seasons, Cathars that
simply didn't deserve to live any more so than Christ or Muslims, only
Columbus discovered America first, only Shakespeare wrote every last
word, intelligent life only got created and coexisted as of here on
Earth, a mere 60:1 ratio of rocket/payload having a 30% inert GLOW is
far more than sufficient for doing our passive moon, Kodak film works
entirely different while on or anywhere near our moon, global warming
has absolutely nothing to do with humanity, and apparently God is Jewish
(period, end of discussion). The matter fact of there being hard
scientific evidence stipulating otherwise isn't even allowed to coexist,
much less advance towards the front of the line.
Evidence excluding works every time:
Earth may in fact be the most alive or at least the most screwed up
planet in the known universe (of course we only know extremely slight
and insignificant bits about 0.0000000000000000001% [1e-21] of this
universe), whereas no matters how much we clean up our act Earth will
never again see another ice age, especially as we retain our own nearby
orbiting mascon that's tidal and IR/FIR warming us to death, plus that
little pesky matter as our solar system orbits us closer to the Sirius
star/solar system, which by the way isn't exactly going to put any spare
ice upon Earth unless we're getting hit by another icy snowball from
encountering the Sirius Kuiper/Oort hell, or perhaps if somehow this
interstellar encounter manages to skew an icy Sedna into heading our
way.
No boat rocking allowed:
The likes of our MESSENGER and NEW HORIZONS are each in the process
doing their spendy wag-thy-dog missions, and unfortunately the ESA Venus
EXPRESS mission is still flying low in their usual need-to-know
taboo/nondisclosure stealth mode, playing it extra damage-control safe
and cozy until their PFS instruments gets into action, if ever, so
there's not actually good or bad news to report.
God forbid, don't tell the truth:
Our mascon worthy moon is still physically dark, as well an extremely
hot/cold environment and otherwise unavoidably being it's terribly
reactive self in more ways than just gamma and hard-X-rays, however
Venus may have become the rarest of any planet that's hosting
intelligent other life, but then Earth may soon enough become just as
rare, as it's not only going to eventually become a world w/o sufficient
magnetosphere and otherwise w/o sufficient atmosphere, as well as it
used to be w/o our global warming moon, but at least it's inhabitance
are clearly operating as though w/o hardly a stitch of remorse and as
though w/o so much as hosting half a village idiot Usenet mind of it's
own (I believe it's called faith based base jumping, except without a
bungy cord or parachute).
Usenet MIB are still kicking our butts:
The vast bulk of topics within this Usenet naysay land of what's
typically mainstream denial upon denial have become absolutely silly
and/or wussy, of no actual importance to much of anything that matters.
The potentially serious topics are those most often being systematically
stalked, bashed, infomercial skewed and/or having been intentionally
mutated in order to effectively banish such topics until otherwise
forced to suit the all-knowing mainstream status quo, especially getting
tormented to death if it isn't something 100+% pro-Jewish.
Where's the truth and nothing but the truth:
It has been so freaking obvious that we're being given and forced to
accept such infomercial butt loads of mainstream intellectual crapolla,
at best published upon used toilet paper and at our expense instead of
simply allowing and sharing the truth, in so much as only the truly dumb
and dumber souls that are well past their dumbfounded point of no return
are the ones still thinking their corrupted and/or bogus systems of
governments, agencies and of their religious puppeteers can somehow be
fixed with yet another ruse, another sting, another lie, another
perpetrated war, and if need be having Christ put back on that stick for
good measure.
Truth only has to be that which is deduced from the best available
science of the day, and such truth can also become new and improved as
long as it fits the historical record and rather nicely within the
regular laws of physics, whereas infomercial-science needs only to beget
itself because, it only has to comply as to whatever fits into their
social/religious conditional laws of physics and of history that's
revised in order to suit. Any lack of evidence that should have existed
in support of the status quo is therefore standing as good as it gets,
and simply can't be added to, revised nor argued or even suggested as
being any part of their grand ruse/sting that has most of us firmly
gripped by our private parts, and the likes of this Usenet and NASA's
Uplink.Space has become the eGod(s) that's in charge of enforcing such.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth's moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ??? |
22 Nov 2006 03:47:52 PM |
|
|
"Status: Your message has been refused."
Apparently "The Ghost In The Machine" has become taboo/nondisclosure
worthy.
Now it seems that even my replies to those having kindly contributed to
my own topics are getting Usenet blocked. So, I'll try posting this one
to myself, and if that effort doesn't work, I'll try a few other methods
of getting my dyslexic encrypted words posted.
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message news:a8bd34-ak7.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net
I don't know about the atmosphere, but that only increases the
moon's volume by about 52.4%. The shell would also be about 1.15
* 10^19 m^3 or 1.15 * 10^22 kg. The moon's current mass is 7.3477
* 10^22 kg.
Excluding whatever Titan like protomoon atmosphere (which should have
existed with such an icy covered protomoon, especially if some of that
was either salty or dry ice and unavoidably getting warmed up by it's
new sol), the added ice loading would bring the total mass to roughly
8.5e22 kg (possibly into the dirty composite of salty and dry ice realm
of 9e22 kg).
I'd also give Earth a bit more robust atmosphere (perhaps 1.5
bar) of whatever might have existed as of 10,500 BC, or of
whatever date of glancing impact you'd care to start off with.
I take it your hypothesis is, therefore, that this ice-coated body
came from somewhere in the vicinity of Sirius (declination 16
degrees 42'58.017", right ascension 6h45m08.9173s, according to
Wiki), decided to basically bounce off the Earth (shedding some of
its ice or water in the process), and then settled into its current
orbit.
Except for your AI/decided consideration, that's basically the glancing
blow sort of ice ball from hell of my lithobraking idea, as a somewhat
rear-ender or sucker-punch that could have been having to catch up with
our 30 km/s. Thus you might have to try subtracting 30 km/s from
whatever's the merging velocity.
Just for keeping you and your CRAY CPUs on their toes, I'll include the
extra complicated little notion that it may actually have belonged to
Venus, and as such having first merged as a team effort without either
orb having directly impacted anything, and say those two arrivals having
parallel parked at roughly Earth L1, whereas from that time on it was
only a short matter of time before Earth's gravity distorted that lunar
orbit away from Venus or away whatever original planet that our
protomoon had belonged to, whereas then we'd gotten ourselves impacted
by that extra complicated fiasco, though at a greatly moderated
velocity.
Are you asserting that the impact tilted the Earth's axis as well?
This could be problematic.
Life as we know it is rather "problematic", although as to how much of
our global tilt can be contributed isn't by any means nailed down.
However, as of whatever intelligent human life within and/or prior to
the last ice age seems to have been surviving within a somewhat
monoseason, as there's no recorded or any other indications of human
migration as forced upon their survival by way of their having whatever
summer/winter seasons to deal with. I'm still asking about and thereby
researching as to learning when the first indications of Earth having
seasons existed?
The angular momentum of a planet (or any rotating body,
such as a gyroscope) is the moment of inertia multiplied
by the speed of rotation. The moment of inertia of a
uniform sphere is 2/5 * M * r^2, where r is the sphere's
radius. This gives I = 2/5*5.976*10^24*(6.378*10^6)^2 =
9.724*10^37 kg-m^2.
The Earth's rotation is once a day (we'll ignore sidereal issues)
and therefore that's 2*Pi/86400 = 72.722 microradians a second.
Total angular momentum is therefore 7.071 * 10^33 kg-m^2-rad/sec.
Traditionally, this is representable as a vector, pointing along
the axis of rotation.
If one takes the Y axis as perpendicular to the ecliptic and on the
Earth's generally northern side, and X and Z as somewhat arbitrary
(but perpendicular) vectors on the ecliptic proper, then the Earth's
current tilt of about 24 degrees means that the angular momentum
vector is resolvable into at least two parts. The first part, of
course, is the Y part, which is 7.071 * 10^33 * cos(24) = 6.460 *
10^33. This part is not a big issue.
The second part, however, one might call the not-Y part. This part
is of course 7.071 * 10^33 * sin(24) = 2.876 * 10^33.
In order for an item -- top, gyroscope, planet -- to change
its angular momentum, one has to apply a torque. I'm not
sure of the details admittedly but it's fairly obvious
that the torque the moon can apply is on the order of
(1.15 + 7.3477) * 10^22 * (6.378 * 10^6) * 12000 = 6.504 * 10^33
kg-m^2/sec. Therefore, it is theoretically possible,
if my scanty knowlege of rotational mechanics is correct,
for the colliding moon to tilt the Earth's axis; it would
need to contact the Earth for at most a few seconds.
Perhaps by cranking that original icy impactor up to representing 8.5e22
kg or possibly 9e22 kg is going to be more than sufficient, not to
mention whatever a few secondary impacts of those multi-teratonne salty
icebergs could have imposed, and of the mega tsunami class of ocean
displacements and whatever antipode (surface reforming) events
transpiring at roughly 180 degrees had to contribute.
(I say 12000 because 30*sqrt(2) = 42.46 m/s is the speed
required for a parabolic orbit, assuming 30 m/s at the
Earth's radius from Sol; the Moon would be overtaking the
Earth in this scenario, since otherwise it's far from clear
how the Earth could capture the Moon and make its orbit
less elliptical. If one does assume a retrograde Moon,
one has more potential torque but also far more energy to
deal with -- about 34 times more. Unless a good chunk
of that kinetic energy is somehow "bled off", the Moon,
after hitting Earth, will continue on its merry way, more
or less in the direction prior to impact.)
I'm not sure that we were situated all that far away from the Sirius
star/solar system when the likes of Venus and our moon were ejected and
set on their interstellar migration path towards us. Well, we know for
a fact, besides the moon's polar impact crater itself that has to
represent a great deal of displaced mass, we also know for a fact that
absolutely none of all that salty ice remains on deck. (how's that for a
healthy "bled off" mass?)
Whether the moon would then slow down enough to be captured into a
nearly circular orbit 12,000 years later, while furthermore
shedding its icy outer layer, is far from clear. There is also
the shift of the Earth's orbit to consider, and the Earth would
also impart a torque on the Moon as well, changing its spin.
All good points that I might take to offering my limited swag upon.
and certainly the salty and icy protomoon had it's own frosty
atmosphere to spare,
It may or may not have been all that frosty. The Moon's day side
is very hot -- over the temperature of 1 atmosphere boiling water,
in fact. Basically, the Moon would be a rather large comet as it
came in approaching impact.
You're getting yourself back into your fail-safe box mode of thinking.
As if arriving with the likes of hosting the 262 km worth of salty ice
on deck (possibly a mix or thinner surface or subsurface layer of dry
ice), and by way of having a sufficient amount of gravity should
represent that our protomoon came along with having an atmosphere, that
only got substantially greater as that icy orb got itself closer to our
sun.
It would take some doing to resolve the issues properly.
Basically, there are several.
[1] The axis tilt of the Earth. This appears resolvable, although
I frankly am not sure of the details.
[2] The orbital shift of the Earth. The game of marbles is
illustrative; one hits an orb with a shooter and things shift.
[3] Various deformation effects. A rubber ball or tire can be
squeezed (and in fact, *is* squeezed if it bounces off a hard
surface such as cement, storing some energy for a short time and
then giving it back to push the ball or tire off the surface).
This doesn't look all that simple.
No kidding. GOT CRAY ?
Thanks for all of your topic constructive math and best efforts at all
the weird science, that's essentially asking us all of those pesky
questions. Unfortunately, I'm not the least bit smart enough nor have I
the necessary minions of nerd certified staffing or CRAY like
supercomputer capability at my disposal, though I'll be certain and
quite a happy camper as to share all the credits for your constructive
expertise in helping to nail this one down.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth's moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ??? |
04 Dec 2006 07:17:41 AM |
|
|
"Steve Marcus" <smarcus_spamout_@cox.net> wrote in message
news:CTSch.42859$2t1.7703@newsfe18.lga
They say that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Be that as it
may, lying is certainly the first refuge of a scoundrel.
The words are neither silly nor representative of a subjective
interpretation. If you disagree, post your *thinking* and analysis in
support of your *thinking*.
My subjective thinking has been posted and reposted, as it'll be the
case until those rad-hard NASA/Apollo cows manage to come home. Of
course much of my thinking is based upon the utter lack of your side of
this argument having forked over any such replicated evidence that can't
be otherwise interpreted as to mean anything other.
Your class of evidence is simply chuck full of more holes than SpongeBob
SquarePants.
Any damn fool can post a document that's supportive of the mainstream
status quo, and as such it'll obviously get promoted and even big-time
published, just like Hitler would have done the very same for anyone in
support of his agenda.
As per usual, we get nothing but m.o.s. silly words of purely subjective
interpretations that rather nicely fit into those very same Old
Testament and/or singular Big-Bang rules, whereas everything local has
to be of the very same age, or else it just doesn't fly.
< http://uplink.space.com/ubbthreads.php >
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2002AM/finalprogram/session_2672.htm
https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/1811/5084/1/V65N04_161.pdf
All is based upon the same old subjective science that offers no actual
hard scientific matter of facts, other than the typical infomercial
hyped crapolla that would have made even Hitler proud. Any mainstream
scientist having come to an alternative conclusion would have lost all
credit and would have otherwise become banished for life.
You can't avoid the words by gainsaying them. Post your *thinking* and
your analysis in support of your thinking.
Yes I can, because that's exactly what science has done to one another
all the stinking time.
BTW; not that there shouldn't be megatonnes if not gigatonnes of
whatever moon-rock here on Earth (especially if that big old and badly
impacted mascon has been around us from the very get go), and not that
the moon itself isn't as old if not much older or even less old than
Earth, but what hocus-pocus and/or phony fuckology "moon rocks" are they
talking about? (where's the salt?)
I mean, since we haven't actually walked on our cosmic morgue of that
physically dark and TBI nasty moon which should have contained much
older and more interesting debris than Earth, whereas instead they must
be talking about terrestrial moon rocks, or what?
How does the age of our moon (be it a billion or 10 billion years old)
even relate to any specific time of having been in orbit about Earth?
I'd certainly like to know, how exactly is a lunar forced tidal layer
interpreted as being entirely different than an elliptical solar orbit
forced tidal layer?
Read the papers. Then you'll know why lunar effects were involved. It is
neither my intent, nor my job, to educate you, but for the others out there,
please note that a search on "elliptical solar" modified by "forced tidal"
yields zero hits. Obviously, you coined a term for the occasion.
I did, and as such I found nothing that couldn't have been just as
easily interpreted otherwise. Which means that you're a liar just like
your good Skull and Bones buddy GW Bush.
When exactly (down to the year or better) did Earth first have any
fluids or other viable sorts of muck on deck?
Evidence shows seas existing several billion years ago.
Who's evidence, and besides, down to several billion years isn't hardly
good enough scientific resolution if you're talking about such mascon
forced layers that can only be interpreted as derived from our having
that extremely nearby moon.
What caused the Arctic ocean basin, and when exactly did that little
indent transpire?
At what specific date did Earth obtain it's nifty seasonal forcing tilt?
What's the lead dating process, and replicated results as having matched
to whatever others accomplished from their having taken on a different
interpretation.
Analysis of the sedimentary rock.
Once again, where's the hard scientific evidence that'll supposedly only
interpret as such, and why not for using lead dating?
Sorry to have to keep sharing this analogy, but at least 99% of Usenet
land is phony, as in being almost as phony and hocus-pocus perpetrating
as that of our NASA's space.com infomercial site
<http://uplink.space.com/ubbthreads.php>.
Even the Usenet Jesus freaks are phony, especially the Old Testament
ones.
Which has exactly what to do with your ***** thesis about the moon not
existing earlier than 10,000 BC?
First of all, those using phony names are typically every bit as phony
as a $3 bill, and many of those as having been using their real names
that typically still don't actually exist as for real and having more
than demonstrated via their past actions that they too are just as
phony, therefore perhaps it's as bad off as 99.9% of Usenet that's as
phony baloney as is our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush).
Our NASA is still being their usual anti-intellectual black hole of
naysay on a stick, especially whenever it comes down to sharing anything
that's new and improved about our moon or Venus. Our NASA is nothing
but an institutionalized bigot that's on infomercial spewing steroids.
This is just a friendly Usenet reminder as to a few of those Venusian
volcano sites, which supposedly have little if anything to do with why
the surface of Venus is so freaking hot, and why the nighttime season of
that thick and thermally conductive atmosphere is so gosh darn cold.
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/project/virtis/venus-vol.html
Must be all of that pesky S8 element that's skewing their scientific
readings.
Too bad their Venus Express/VIRTIS PFS instrument is still pretending at
being broken.
Too bad they still don't have any clue as to what all of their other IR
and FIR images are having to say.
Too bad Venus is still so taboo/nondisclosure, as in off-limits and/or
X-rated.
Too bad the ESA VIRTIS team of our Skull and Bones butt-licking minions
are w/o balls.
"Steve Marcus" <smarcus_spamout_@cox.net> wrote in message
news:CTSch.42859$2t1.7703@newsfe18.lga
Total kookism.
Bottom line: there is plenty of evidence for earth's moon prior to 10,000
BC.
"chazwin" <chazwyman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1165229499.537325.54930@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com
Because only a fuckwit like you would even consider that, whereas lunar
tides are observable.
How many people do you think you can convince with that sort of crap -
can you even convince yourself??
And I'll simply keep asking; why did those highly intelligent souls of
prior to 10,000 BC, which by the way had to be smarter than most of us
today in order to have survived, yet having so badly failed to notice
seasons (much less forced into migrating due to seasons), those extra
special tides or the absolutely extra vibrant moon itself?
Once again, you folks of NASA's Third Reich and Old Testament spewing
agenda have posted nothing but the usual infomercial crapolla that
wasn't previously known and having been previously rejected because
there's still no replicated proof, as in none whatsoever that supports
your status quo Old Testament arguments.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
|
|
|
| User: "tomcat" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth's moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ??? |
04 Dec 2006 10:37:25 AM |
|
|
Brad Guth wrote:
"Steve Marcus" <smarcus_spamout_@cox.net> wrote in message
news:CTSch.42859$2t1.7703@newsfe18.lga
They say that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Be that as it
may, lying is certainly the first refuge of a scoundrel.
The words are neither silly nor representative of a subjective
interpretation. If you disagree, post your *thinking* and analysis in
support of your *thinking*.
My subjective thinking has been posted and reposted, as it'll be the
case until those rad-hard NASA/Apollo cows manage to come home. Of
course much of my thinking is based upon the utter lack of your side of
this argument having forked over any such replicated evidence that can't
be otherwise interpreted as to mean anything other.
Your class of evidence is simply chuck full of more holes than SpongeBob
SquarePants.
Any damn fool can post a document that's supportive of the mainstream
status quo, and as such it'll obviously get promoted and even big-time
published, just like Hitler would have done the very same for anyone in
support of his agenda.
As per usual, we get nothing but m.o.s. silly words of purely subjective
interpretations that rather nicely fit into those very same Old
Testament and/or singular Big-Bang rules, whereas everything local has
to be of the very same age, or else it just doesn't fly.
< http://uplink.space.com/ubbthreads.php >
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2002AM/finalprogram/session_2672.htm
https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/1811/5084/1/V65N04_161.pdf
All is based upon the same old subjective science that offers no actual
hard scientific matter of facts, other than the typical infomercial
hyped crapolla that would have made even Hitler proud. Any mainstream
scientist having come to an alternative conclusion would have lost all
credit and would have otherwise become banished for life.
You can't avoid the words by gainsaying them. Post your *thinking* and
your analysis in support of your thinking.
Yes I can, because that's exactly what science has done to one another
all the stinking time.
BTW; not that there shouldn't be megatonnes if not gigatonnes of
whatever moon-rock here on Earth (especially if that big old and badly
impacted mascon has been around us from the very get go), and not that
the moon itself isn't as old if not much older or even less old than
Earth, but what hocus-pocus and/or phony fuckology "moon rocks" are they
talking about? (where's the salt?)
I mean, since we haven't actually walked on our cosmic morgue of that
physically dark and TBI nasty moon which should have contained much
older and more interesting debris than Earth, whereas instead they must
be talking about terrestrial moon rocks, or what?
How does the age of our moon (be it a billion or 10 billion years old)
even relate to any specific time of having been in orbit about Earth?
I'd certainly like to know, how exactly is a lunar forced tidal layer
interpreted as being entirely different than an elliptical solar orbit
forced tidal layer?
Read the papers. Then you'll know why lunar effects were involved. It is
neither my intent, nor my job, to educate you, but for the others out there,
please note that a search on "elliptical solar" modified by "forced tidal"
yields zero hits. Obviously, you coined a term for the occasion.
I did, and as such I found nothing that couldn't have been just as
easily interpreted otherwise. Which means that you're a liar just like
your good Skull and Bones buddy GW Bush.
When exactly (down to the year or better) did Earth first have any
fluids or other viable sorts of muck on deck?
Evidence shows seas existing several billion years ago.
Who's evidence, and besides, down to several billion years isn't hardly
good enough scientific resolution if you're talking about such mascon
forced layers that can only be interpreted as derived from our having
that extremely nearby moon.
What caused the Arctic ocean basin, and when exactly did that little
indent transpire?
At what specific date did Earth obtain it's nifty seasonal forcing tilt?
What's the lead dating process, and replicated results as having matched
to whatever others accomplished from their having taken on a different
interpretation.
Analysis of the sedimentary rock.
Once again, where's the hard scientific evidence that'll supposedly only
interpret as such, and why not for using lead dating?
Sorry to have to keep sharing this analogy, but at least 99% of Usenet
land is phony, as in being almost as phony and hocus-pocus perpetrating
as that of our NASA's space.com infomercial site
<http://uplink.space.com/ubbthreads.php>.
Even the Usenet Jesus freaks are phony, especially the Old Testament
ones.
Which has exactly what to do with your ***** thesis about the moon not
existing earlier than 10,000 BC?
First of all, those using phony names are typically every bit as phony
as a $3 bill, and many of those as having been using their real names
that typically still don't actually exist as for real and having more
than demonstrated via their past actions that they too are just as
phony, therefore perhaps it's as bad off as 99.9% of Usenet that's as
phony baloney as is our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush).
Our NASA is still being their usual anti-intellectual black hole of
naysay on a stick, especially whenever it comes down to sharing anything
that's new and improved about our moon or Venus. Our NASA is nothing
but an institutionalized bigot that's on infomercial spewing steroids.
This is just a friendly Usenet reminder as to a few of those Venusian
volcano sites, which supposedly have little if anything to do with why
the surface of Venus is so freaking hot, and why the nighttime season of
that thick and thermally conductive atmosphere is so gosh darn cold.
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/project/virtis/venus-vol.html
Must be all of that pesky S8 element that's skewing their scientific
readings.
Too bad their Venus Express/VIRTIS PFS instrument is still pretending at
being broken.
Too bad they still don't have any clue as to what all of their other IR
and FIR images are having to say.
Too bad Venus is still so taboo/nondisclosure, as in off-limits and/or
X-rated.
Too bad the ESA VIRTIS team of our Skull and Bones butt-licking minions
are w/o balls.
"Steve Marcus" <smarcus_spamout_@cox.net> wrote in message
news:CTSch.42859$2t1.7703@newsfe18.lga
Total kookism.
Bottom line: there is plenty of evidence for earth's moon prior to 10,000
BC.
"chazwin" <chazwyman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1165229499.537325.54930@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com
Because only a fuckwit like you would even consider that, whereas lunar
tides are observable.
How many people do you think you can convince with that sort of crap -
can you even convince yourself??
And I'll simply keep asking; why did those highly intelligent souls of
prior to 10,000 BC, which by the way had to be smarter than most of us
today in order to have survived, yet having so badly failed to notice
seasons (much less forced into migrating due to seasons), those extra
special tides or the absolutely extra vibrant moon itself?
Once again, you folks of NASA's Third Reich and Old Testament spewing
agenda have posted nothing but the usual infomercial crapolla that
wasn't previously known and having been previously rejected because
there's still no replicated proof, as in none whatsoever that supports
your status quo Old Testament arguments.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Once again:
"Proof" is a pretty difficult thing to come by. The entire World could
have sprung into existence a moment ago complete with our cherished
memories and we would not know the difference." -- tomcat
So, PROBABILITIES get involved instead. Also, induction always
precedes deduction for, otherwise, you would have nothing to deduce.
And, with induction we can never be certain. So, probabilities get
involved instead.
Does this mean that the Moon entered Earth orbit exactly 12,000 years
ago? No. But it does mean that one should keep an open mind.
The Moon entering Earth orbit whether by slamming into the Earth or
gently being tugged along matters little. What matters is that this
did happen at some point in Earth's past.
Tidal basins in the past could have been caused by yet another Moon or,
perhaps, a double planet situation or, as Brad has suggested, a solar
tide caused by an elliptical orbit.
We do have a pretty fair probability that strange 'bumps in the night'
occurred within our written history as well as contained in our
legends. Astronomers recorded strange shifting of stars in ancient
times. Then, there was the Great Flood. And there is scientific
evidence of this as well as Biblical passages.
Nothing in history is open and shut. New theories abound all the time.
New interpretations of past data.
It is hard to realize fully that we exist on a bouncing ball that
exterminates all life -- or nearly so -- everytime it bounces. Not
only that, but our bouncing ball is in a shooting gallery with BBs
hitting it every day along with shotgun blasts from time to time. The
Gulf of Mexico was the target of one of those "shotgun blasts" -- from
Outer Space.
tomcat
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth's moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ??? |
05 Dec 2006 03:09:57 PM |
|
|
"tomcat" <jlavine@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1165250245.209057.176810@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com
Does this mean that the Moon entered Earth orbit exactly 12,000 years
ago? No.
Got proof otherwise? (didn't think so)
The Moon entering Earth orbit whether by slamming into the Earth or
gently being tugged along matters little. What matters is that this
did happen at some point in Earth's past.
I think it does matter, as to understanding and therefore appreciating
the true geology that came about as due to the true laws of physics,
rather than via the hocus-pocus of whatever suits thy good book.
Tidal basins in the past could have been caused by yet another Moon or,
perhaps, a double planet situation or, as Brad has suggested, a solar
tide caused by an elliptical orbit.
You'd have to be talking about one hell of an elliptical orbit, such as
something worse off than 2:1. (so don't go there)
We do have a pretty fair probability that strange 'bumps in the night'
occurred within our written history as well as contained in our
legends. Astronomers recorded strange shifting of stars in ancient
times. Then, there was the Great Flood. And there is scientific
evidence of this as well as Biblical passages.
Nothing in history is open and shut. New theories abound all the time.
New interpretations of past data.
What's the matter with simply going along with the truth and nothing but
the truth, that we humans are really dumb and dumber buggers of the
worse possible kind?
It is hard to realize fully that we exist on a bouncing ball that
exterminates all life -- or nearly so -- everytime it bounces. Not
only that, but our bouncing ball is in a shooting gallery with BBs
hitting it every day along with shotgun blasts from time to time. The
Gulf of Mexico was the target of one of those "shotgun blasts" -- from
Outer Space.
I believe you are being very correct. However, according to the vast
bulk of this anti-think-tank of such a perverted Usenet from hell that
typically sucks and blows, nothing other than our flat Earth and of the
one and only form of human intelligent life matters (that being Jewish
or at least pro Old Testament certified of course).
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth's moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ??? |
05 Dec 2006 03:13:50 PM |
|
|
In article
<4c444b17062ac52d74bfce793e492ad5.49644@mygate.mailgate.org>,
"Brad Guth" <bradguth@yahoo.com> wrote:
Does this mean that the Moon entered Earth orbit exactly 12,000 years
ago? No.
Got proof otherwise? (didn't think so)
YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE PROOF SEVERAL TIMES YOU FUCKING MORON!
--
Just \int_0^\infty du it!
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth's moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ??? |
05 Dec 2006 03:18:23 PM |
|
|
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com> wrote in
message news:phineaspuddleduck-616BA9.21135005122006@free.teranews.com
Got proof otherwise? (didn't think so)
YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE PROOF SEVERAL TIMES YOU FUCKING MORON!
Obviously you'd accept whatever's officially printed on used
toilet-paper, and call it good, wouldn't you.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth's moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ??? |
05 Dec 2006 03:33:16 PM |
|
|
In article
<12012cb8e43c27ed4e87c338402bf9ab.49644@mygate.mailgate.org>,
"Brad Guth" <bradguth@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com> wrote in
message news:phineaspuddleduck-616BA9.21135005122006@free.teranews.com
Got proof otherwise? (didn't think so)
YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE PROOF SEVERAL TIMES YOU FUCKING MORON!
Obviously you'd accept whatever's officially printed on used
toilet-paper, and call it good, wouldn't you.
You simply cannot accept the overwhelming evidence of your own
stupidity...
--
Just \int_0^\infty du it!
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Timberwoof" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth's moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ??? |
05 Dec 2006 05:40:42 PM |
|
|
In article <phineaspuddleduck-616BA9.21135005122006@free.teranews.com>,
Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com> wrote:
In article
<4c444b17062ac52d74bfce793e492ad5.49644@mygate.mailgate.org>,
"Brad Guth" <bradguth@yahoo.com> wrote:
Does this mean that the Moon entered Earth orbit exactly 12,000 years
ago? No.
Got proof otherwise? (didn't think so)
YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE PROOF SEVERAL TIMES YOU FUCKING MORON!
Settle down. No need to write in all caps, you fucking moron[1].
You have presented a lot of muddled wishful thinking and have failed to
answer a lot of questions about your hypothesis. In other words, what
you believed was proof, we did not accept, you fucking moron[2].
[1] It would be impolite of me to assume that you meant this in anything
other than a friendly manner, so I return it with the same intent you
had. :-)
[2] Again, I intend only the same level of courtesy and respect that you
did when you wrote it above. :-)
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
It's easy to say a war is so important your neighbor should go fight it for you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth's moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ??? |
05 Dec 2006 07:53:09 PM |
|
|
"Timberwoof" <timberwoof.spam@infernosoft.com> wrote in message
news:timberwoof.spam-960905.15404205122006@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net
In article <phineaspuddleduck-616BA9.21135005122006@free.teranews.com>,
Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com> wrote:
YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE PROOF SEVERAL TIMES YOU FUCKING MORON!
Settle down. No need to write in all caps, you fucking moron[1].
You have presented a lot of muddled wishful thinking and have failed to
answer a lot of questions about your hypothesis. In other words, what
you believed was proof, we did not accept, you fucking moron[2].
The intentions of borg "Phineas T Puddleduck" has little if anything to
do with actual evidence as replicated scientific proof.
The Old Testament folks that are in charge of our grand ruse/sting of
our perpetrated cold-war century, are exactly the rusemasters they are.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth's moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ??? |
06 Dec 2006 02:11:11 AM |
|
|
In article
<05686ca7433cdfd3fd269066291b1030.49644@mygate.mailgate.org>,
"Brad Guth" <bradguth@yahoo.com> wrote:
The intentions of borg "Phineas T Puddleduck" has little if anything to
do with actual evidence as replicated scientific proof.
You just keep on denying, kook
--
Just \int_0^\infty du it!
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth's moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ??? |
06 Dec 2006 08:16:33 PM |
|
|
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com> wrote in
message news:phineaspuddleduck-3B5873.08111106122006@free.teranews.com
You just keep on denying, kook
prd; Why is this thread still alive?
Because of Old Testament thumping farts and/or the sorts of born-again
Skull and Bones rusemasters like yourself and "prd", that's why.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
|
|
|
| User: "tomcat" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth's moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ??? |
06 Dec 2006 11:15:02 PM |
|
|
Brad Guth wrote:
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com> wrote in
message news:phineaspuddleduck-3B5873.08111106122006@free.teranews.com
You just keep on denying, kook
prd; Why is this thread still alive?
Because of Old Testament thumping farts and/or the sorts of born-again
Skull and Bones rusemasters like yourself and "prd", that's why.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
"You just keep on denying, kook" -- Phineas T Puddleduck
Well, Brad does do that from time to time. But he is not a "kook". He
still believes that the Apollo Moon Missions were faked despite the
fact that the Apollo 15 landing site has been located, by lunar
satellite, and shows a rocket burn mark.
But Brad Guth thinks for himself and there is, of course, 1 chance in a
thousand that he might be right.
"Why is this thread still alive?" -- prd
Prd, this thread is still alive because our perception of history is
never completely accurate.
Abraham Lincoln was opposed to freeing the slaves until it became
politically advantageous. FDR knew about the coming Japanese attack
but kept quiet because he wanted to use it to get us into the war.
And, the Romans were the left-wingers of the Ancient World -- they
believed in 'duty', not barbarism.
What Brad has suggested may have merit. We have always 'assumed' that
the Moon has swung around the Earth for millions of years. But do we
really know this? I think not. And, the Bible says differently.
tomcat
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth's moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ??? |
07 Dec 2006 11:33:28 AM |
|
|
"tomcat" <jlavine@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1165468502.271583.158410@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com
Well, Brad does do that from time to time. But he is not a "kook". He
still believes that the Apollo Moon Missions were faked despite the
fact that the Apollo 15 landing site has been located, by lunar
satellite, and shows a rocket burn mark.
Silly brown nosed boy, as how pathetic, that so badly wants to believe
in those having "the right stuff" in spite of the fact of their
infomercial science having been printed on used toilet-paper, and then
having lost 700 boxes worth of that used toilet-paper to boot.
But Brad Guth thinks for himself and there is, of course, 1 chance in a
thousand that he might be right.
I think you can honestly afford to give me better odds than that, say at
least one in ten seems fair.
"Why is this thread still alive?" -- prd
Prd, this thread is still alive because our perception of history is
never completely accurate.
With folks as snookered and every bit as summarily dumbfounded as
'tomcat" running amuck, where's the big surprise in that statement? Of
course "history is never completely accurat", especially if whatever
religion or of their puppet government/politics is involved.
Abraham Lincoln was opposed to freeing the slaves until it became
politically advantageous. FDR knew about the coming Japanese attack
but kept quiet because he wanted to use it to get us into the war.
And, the Romans were the left-wingers of the Ancient World -- they
believed in 'duty', not barbarism.
But you're still leaving out so much of the really good stuff that makes
us souch born-again Americans w/o a stitch of remorse.
What Brad has suggested may have merit. We have always 'assumed' that
the Moon has swung around the Earth for millions of years. But do we
really know this? I think not. And, the Bible says differently.
That's our warm and fuzzy 'tomcat' coming only part way out of the box,
though just a wee bit.
I tend to agree with the geological factors of true geology and of human
history as having been recorded by those of us as having survived within
and obviously after the last ice age, and of the various bible/koran
thumping sorts of folks as having been around ever since.
Thus far we have no absolute proof of Earth's environment having to deal
with that horrific orbiting mascon until shortly after the last ice age.
There's also no indication of tilt forced seacons priot to the last ice
age.
Of course, if we had actually walked upon that absolute cosmic morgue of
our still salty yet physically dark moon, as such there wouldn't be much
further doubt.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth's moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ??? |
07 Dec 2006 03:12:56 PM |
|
|
prd; Ahh, I see,
I take it that you are the @$$#01E responsible for crossposting this
garbage back into sci.arch. Ever get the feeling you are disliked, and
contemplate why you are disliked, for example your propensity to fart
in packed elevators, this kind of thing.
When someone decreases the propogation of a thread by despamming the NG
line, they do it for a reason. When you add groups back to the NG line
its generally because you are a flagrant crossposting troll that is
desperate for attention.
Go suckle your mommies nipple if you need attention, leave the rest
of the world alone.
You see, "prd" ***** does flow up hill.
Obviously your incest mutated DNA is acting up again, isn't it.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth's moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ??? |
07 Dec 2006 04:14:46 AM |
|
|
"tomcat" <jlavine@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1165468502.271583.158410@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
Brad Guth wrote:
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com> wrote in
message news:phineaspuddleduck-3B5873.08111106122006@free.teranews.com
You just keep on denying, kook
prd; Why is this thread still alive?
Because of Old Testament thumping farts and/or the sorts of born-again
Skull and Bones rusemasters like yourself and "prd", that's why.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
"You just keep on denying, kook" -- Phineas T Puddleduck
Well, Brad does do that from time to time. But he is not a "kook".
Yes he is.
He
still believes that the Apollo Moon Missions were faked despite the
fact that the Apollo 15 landing site has been located, by lunar
satellite, and shows a rocket burn mark.
But Brad Guth thinks for himself and there is, of course, 1 chance in a
thousand that he might be right.
Not even that high. Probably in the region of 1 in 1x10^10.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth's moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ??? |
07 Dec 2006 02:09:48 AM |
|
|
In article <1165468502.271583.158410@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
"tomcat" <jlavine@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"You just keep on denying, kook" -- Phineas T Puddleduck
Well, Brad does do that from time to time. But he is not a "kook". He
still believes that the Apollo Moon Missions were faked despite the
fact that the Apollo 15 landing site has been located, by lunar
satellite, and shows a rocket burn mark.
But Brad Guth thinks for himself and there is, of course, 1 chance in a
thousand that he might be right.
He's a kook.
--
Just \int_0^\infty du it!
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth's moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ??? |
07 Dec 2006 11:40:43 AM |
|
|
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com> wrote in
message news:phineaspuddleduck-5A2C19.08094807122006@free.teranews.com
In article <1165468502.271583.158410@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
"tomcat" <jlavine@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Well, Brad does do that from time to time. But he is not a "kook". He
still believes that the Apollo Moon Missions were faked despite the
fact that the Apollo 15 landing site has been located, by lunar
satellite, and shows a rocket burn mark.
But Brad Guth thinks for himself and there is, of course, 1 chance in a
thousand that he might be right.
He's a kook.
Why is our resident "Phineas T Puddleduck" spook/mole rusemaster of our
perpetrated cold-war century telling us and much less telling our
snookered and dumbfounded 'tomcat' as to whatever there is to believe
in, or not?
Is your extremely brown nose as a infomercial spewing buttology dipstick
running low?
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth's moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ??? |
07 Dec 2006 12:06:58 PM |
|
|
In article
<7bb3f5ebf43da1297312f5f5d46555bf.49644@mygate.mailgate.org>,
"Brad Guth" <bradguth@yahoo.com> wrote:
Why is our resident "Phineas T Puddleduck" spook/mole rusemaster of our
perpetrated cold-war century telling us and much less telling our
snookered and dumbfounded 'tomcat' as to whatever there is to believe
in, or not?
You've been given proof, and any and every statement that does not
correspond to the delirious fevered rantings between your ears is a
conspiracy. You truly are a fuckwit.
Is your extremely brown nose as a infomercial spewing buttology dipstick
running low?
Brad I give up. You are truly too stupid to be taught. My cat
understands celestial dynamics better then you.
--
Just \int_0^\infty du it!
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "prd" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth's moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ??? |
07 Dec 2006 12:11:38 PM |
|
|
In sci.archaeology message news:7bb3f5ebf43da1297312f5f5d46555bf.49644
@mygate.mailgate.org by "Brad Guth" <bradguth@yahoo.com> . . . :
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com> wrote in
message news:phineaspuddleduck-5A2C19.08094807122006@free.teranews.com
In article <1165468502.271583.158410@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
"tomcat" <jlavine@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Well, Brad does do that from time to time. But he is not a "kook".
He
still believes that the Apollo Moon Missions were faked despite the
fact that the Apollo 15 landing site has been located, by lunar
satellite, and shows a rocket burn mark.
But Brad Guth thinks for himself and there is, of course, 1 chance in
a
thousand that he might be right.
He's a kook.
Why is our resident "Phineas T Puddleduck" spook/mole rusemaster of our
perpetrated cold-war century telling us and much less telling our
snookered and dumbfounded 'tomcat' as to whatever there is to believe
in, or not?
Is your extremely brown nose as a infomercial spewing buttology dipstick
running low?
Ahh, I see,
I take it that you are the @$$#01E responsible for crossposting this
garbage back into sci.arch. Ever get the feeling you are disliked, and
contemplate why you are disliked, for example your propensity to fart
in packed elevators, this kind of thing.
When someone decreases the propogation of a thread by despamming the NG
line, they do it for a reason. When you add groups back to the NG line
its generally because you are a flagrant crossposting troll that is
desperate for attention.
Go suckle your mommies nipple if you need attention, leave the rest of
the world alone.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "prd" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth's moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ??? |
06 Dec 2006 03:27:14 PM |
|
|
In sci.archaeology message news:phineaspuddleduck-3B5873.08111106122006
@free.teranews.com by Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com>
.. . . :
You just keep on denying, kook
Why is this thread still alive?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth's moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ??? |
05 Dec 2006 06:19:51 PM |
|
|
In article
<timberwoof.spam-960905.15404205122006@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>,
Timberwoof <timberwoof.spam@infernosoft.com> wrote:
In article <phineaspuddleduck-616BA9.21135005122006@free.teranews.com>,
Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com> wrote:
In article
<4c444b17062ac52d74bfce793e492ad5.49644@mygate.mailgate.org>,
"Brad Guth" <bradguth@yahoo.com> wrote:
Does this mean that the Moon entered Earth orbit exactly 12,000 years
ago? No.
Got proof otherwise? (didn't think so)
YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE PROOF SEVERAL TIMES YOU FUCKING MORON!
Settle down. No need to write in all caps, you fucking moron[1].
You have presented a lot of muddled wishful thinking and have failed to
answer a lot of questions about your hypothesis. In other words, what
you believed was proof, we did not accept, you fucking moron[2].
[1] It would be impolite of me to assume that you meant this in anything
other than a friendly manner, so I return it with the same intent you
had. :-)
[2] Again, I intend only the same level of courtesy and respect that you
did when you wrote it above. :-)
So you agree with Brad then?
--
Just \int_0^\infty du it!
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth's moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ??? |
05 Dec 2006 08:17:13 PM |
|
|
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com> wrote in
message news:phineaspuddleduck-A3FAEB.00195106122006@free.teranews.com
So you agree with Brad then?
Folks don't actually have to agree with my every dyslexic word, because
unlike yourself, I could be wrong on a given point or two. So, very
much unlike your all-knowing self, I'm willing to hear from and to
consider as to whatever might get that date of our moon's arrival and of
Earth's environment obtaining that nifty tilt down to a given thousand
or possibly hundred whatever year BC window, of that icy protomoon
having smacked into Earth via a glancing sucker punch, that which may
have created the Arctic basin or some other ocean basin.
The planetology and/or natural geology of Earth simply didn't transpire
all by itself. Oceans of salty water didn't emerge from within Earth,
and the forced vertical terrain didn't accomplish such horrific +/-
terrain without a little outside help.
As best I can tell, Mars is simply older than Earth, Venus is much less
old than Earth, and our salty moon that's so physically dark and nasty
wasn't made from Earth (at least you and those of your kind have
absolutely no proof otherwise).
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth's moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ??? |
06 Dec 2006 02:11:58 AM |
|
|
In article
<39e53a862a49d95db0d9f52b3602ed21.49644@mygate.mailgate.org>,
"Brad Guth" <bradguth@yahoo.com> wrote:
Folks don't actually have to agree with my every dyslexic word, because
unlike yourself, I could be wrong on a given point or two.
Understatement of the century - right there
--
Just \int_0^\infty du it!
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth's moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ??? |
06 Dec 2006 02:13:14 AM |
|
|
In article
<39e53a862a49d95db0d9f52b3602ed21.49644@mygate.mailgate.org>,
"Brad Guth" <bradguth@yahoo.com> wrote:
So, very
much unlike your all-knowing self, I'm willing to hear from and to
consider as to whatever might get that date of our moon's arrival and of
Earth's environment obtaining that nifty tilt down to a given thousand
or possibly hundred whatever year BC window, of that icy protomoon
having smacked into Earth via a glancing sucker punch, that which may
have created the Arctic basin or some other ocean basin.
You've been told, with scientific proof. However you dismiss it because
it doesn't fit into your idiotic world view, and of course because you
do not understand it.
The fact you give Velikovsky any credence is telling.
--
Just \int_0^\infty du it!
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Timberwoof" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth's moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ??? |
05 Dec 2006 09:38:55 PM |
|
|
In article <phineaspuddleduck-A3FAEB.00195106122006@free.teranews.com>,
Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com> wrote:
In article
<timberwoof.spam-960905.15404205122006@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>,
Timberwoof <timberwoof.spam@infernosoft.com> wrote:
In article <phineaspuddleduck-616BA9.21135005122006@free.teranews.com>,
Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com> wrote:
In article
<4c444b17062ac52d74bfce793e492ad5.49644@mygate.mailgate.org>,
"Brad Guth" <bradguth@yahoo.com> wrote:
Does this mean that the Moon entered Earth orbit exactly 12,000 years
ago? No.
Got proof otherwise? (didn't think so)
YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE PROOF SEVERAL TIMES YOU FUCKING MORON!
Settle down. No need to write in all caps, you fucking moron[1].
You have presented a lot of muddled wishful thinking and have failed to
answer a lot of questions about your hypothesis. In other words, what
you believed was proof, we did not accept, you fucking moron[2].
[1] It would be impolite of me to assume that you meant this in anything
other than a friendly manner, so I return it with the same intent you
had. :-)
[2] Again, I intend only the same level of courtesy and respect that you
did when you wrote it above. :-)
So you agree with Brad then?
Sorry, Phineas. I had a two-filling-and-Valium-induced frain bart. My
apologies. Now I'm clear-headed and grumpy because my jaw hurts. I want
to have a word with whoever designed my teeth, but that's for another
newsgroup.
But still ... I think the all-caps and the Anglo-Saxon was a bit
excessive, even given Brad's knack for irritation.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
It's easy to say a war is so important your neighbor should go fight it for you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth's moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ??? |
06 Dec 2006 02:16:43 AM |
|
|
In article
<timberwoof.spam-348E26.19385505122006@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>,
Timberwoof <timberwoof.spam@infernosoft.com> wrote:
Sorry, Phineas. I had a two-filling-and-Valium-induced frain bart. My
apologies. Now I'm clear-headed and grumpy because my jaw hurts. I want
to have a word with whoever designed my teeth, but that's for another
newsgroup.
But still ... I think the all-caps and the Anglo-Saxon was a bit
excessive, even given Brad's knack for irritation.
I lost my temper. Idiocy makes me do that ;-)
--
Just \int_0^\infty du it!
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Timberwoof" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth's moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ??? |
04 Dec 2006 12:00:33 PM |
|
|
In article <1165250245.209057.176810@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>,
"tomcat" <jlavine@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Once again:
"Proof" is a pretty difficult thing to come by. The entire World could
have sprung into existence a moment ago complete with our cherished
memories and we would not know the difference." -- tomcat
So, PROBABILITIES get involved instead. Also, induction always
precedes deduction for, otherwise, you would have nothing to deduce.
And, with induction we can never be certain. So, probabilities get
involved instead.
Word salad.
Does this mean that the Moon entered Earth orbit exactly 12,000 years
ago? No. But it does mean that one should keep an open mind.
Open, but not so wide open that your brains fall out.
The Moon entering Earth orbit whether by slamming into the Earth or
gently being tugged along matters little. What matters is that this
did happen at some point in Earth's past.
The most likely scenario is soon after the initial formation of the
Earth and the Iron Catastrophe.
Tidal basins in the past could have been caused by yet another Moon or,
perhaps, a double planet situation or, as Brad has suggested, a solar
tide caused by an elliptical orbit.
You're grasping at straws.
We do have a pretty fair probability that strange 'bumps in the night'
occurred within our written history as well as contained in our
legends. Astronomers recorded strange shifting of stars in ancient
times.
They're not strange at all if you actually realize that they observed
the precession of the equinox.
Then, there was the Great Flood. And there is scientific
evidence of this as well as Biblical passages.
There are Bible stories which are borrowed wholesale from other cultures
nearby. But there is no geological evidence of a single worldwide flood
of the magnitude proposed in the Flood story. Neither is there any place
for the water to come from or go.
Nothing in history is open and shut. New theories abound all the time.
New interpretations of past data.
I see how you avoided adding "room for silly pet theories that no
rational scientist or historian would consider."
It is hard to realize fully that we exist on a bouncing ball that
exterminates all life -- or nearly so -- everytime it bounces. Not
only that, but our bouncing ball is in a shooting gallery with BBs
hitting it every day along with shotgun blasts from time to time. The
Gulf of Mexico was the target of one of those "shotgun blasts" -- from
Outer Space.
Wooooh. I'm skeeert.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
It's easy to say a war is so important your neighbor should go fight it for you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth's moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ??? |
05 Dec 2006 03:15:51 PM |
|
|
"Timberwoof" <timberwoof.spam@infernosoft.com> wrote in message
news:timberwoof.spam-EB1672.10003304122006@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net
The most likely scenario is soon after the initial formation of the
Earth and the Iron Catastrophe.
Horsepucky or rather el crapolla on a stick. Via infomercial science,
you get exactly whatever results you're looking for.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth's moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ??? |
13 Nov 2006 12:36:06 AM |
|
|
As per usual, the mainstream status quo borgs that are specifically
cloned via incest are seriously worried that some of their infomercial
spewing butts are not sufficiently covered.
Too bad that Earth's moon isn't actually made of Earth, and as such
hasn't always been around to thaw us out and essentially global warm us
up, except ever since the last ice age.
So far there's been no alternative science as to proving that Earth has
had that moon all along, and as such the religious freaks and sicko
perverts of this Usenet from hell are coming unglued.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth's moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ??? |
13 Nov 2006 12:56:51 AM |
|
|
On 2006-11-13 06:36:06 +0000, "Brad Guth" <bradguth@yahoo.com> said:
As per usual, the mainstream status quo borgs that are specifically
cloned via incest are seriously worried that some of their infomercial
spewing butts are not sufficiently covered.
Timberwoof asked you for some math, as did I. You fail to answer. Whose
butt is naked, k0ky?
Too bad that Earth's moon isn't actually made of Earth, and as such
hasn't always been around to thaw us out and essentially global warm us
up, except ever since the last ice age.
Totally unsubstantiated nonesense claim
So far there's been no alternative science as to proving that Earth has
had that moon all along, and as such the religious freaks and sicko
perverts of this Usenet from hell are coming unglued.
-
Brad Guth
Yep - I agree with " the religious freaks and sick perverts of this
Usenet from hell are coming unglued" However you fail to relaise you
fall into this category.
--
The biggest enemy of science is pseudo science. Oh, and Jeff Relf too...
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
