LOL, please, you infer something is wrong with a source rather than show it. Nice.
Why don't you find out if it is affiliated and then show me why this affiliation negates my use of it as a reference and a source.
Can you give me the odds of an object the size of our Craft..err Moon ... finding itself 'captured' by our planet - over say our Suns
pull?
I don't have to give you the odds of the earh capturing anything. The moon( or your fantasy, errr I mean craft) was formed from a
process of aggregation from impact of both the impactor, surrounding debris and the earth. Are you unaware of the masses of materials that are
observed floating through the universe. Are you unaware of comets and meteors, asteroids and such. Can you not agree that this is a possible cause of
the moon?
How about you give me the odds of being able to place your fantasy...err I mean craft there. How about you give me the Odds of a race of ET's
existing and advancing technologically enough that enables them to be able to place your fantas...err I mean Craft in orbit between our Sun and the
earth that maintains the moons orbit.(maybe you can tinker with Drakes equation and add a few variables and factors to help come up with a number.)
How about you give me the odds of you showing me your fanta....err craft(don't know why I keep doing that hehe) as being the far more likely of the
the two odds. My one being a collision between two bodies and your odds that ET's placed the Moon there.
I'm pretty uneducated, as you can tell - never passed an exam to get into the field of Astronomy...
LOL. Sure. Spare me the act.
So you could also say us Earth dwellers know all about the Craft...err Moon (sorry - dunno why I keep doing that!) and that's that?
No, I could not say that. But can you please show me where you know all there is to know about your fanta...err craft.
Please show me the Et's that put the Moon there. You sure sound like you know it all about these Crafty Crafters of Crafts.
Or would you say there are still a few oddities that can't be explained on our Craft ...Moon (old habits you know) such as "classified"
things and the such - I mean you sound like you know it all - I am all for learning something *new*

I would agree that there are oddities, but these do not mean that the moon is a fantasy....damn, I mean craft. I know exactly what you mean by old
habits. LOL.
How are they unexplained? You explain it as a craft, put there by ET's. If they are unexplained-that is simply what they are- but you can explain
them?
As for learning something new, I gave you loads of links in my last post.
Speaking of those links, How is your presentation coming along?
For the Lunar Conferance, where you will present your fant....craft evidence.
Taken from George H. Leonard - Somebody Else Is On The Moon, 1976.
Wrong-Leonard, on page 195-196 in SEOM took it from ISAAC ASIMOV,
not ASMOVIV. Asimov wrote the the quote below in his works Asimov on Astronomy. He wrote this as a group of short essays. Asimov was a brilliant
writer of sceince fiction. He was a biochemist, brilliant writer, but somehow I think you know that.
How did you get his name wrong?
I am surprised you didn't quote from
Our Msterious Spaceship Moon. LOL.
"Isaac Asmoviv says there are nine moons in our solar system that have been captured: one of Neptune, o...........iter, which has a ratio of
1.03. He calls the other satellites "true satellites."
What Asimov is talking about here is Issac Newtons garvitational attraction equation.
With this you can work out a field where satelites(like your craft) sit in relation to the gravitational pull between the Sun and the Planet that the
satelite Orbits..
And then he comes to our Moon. It is important to quote him:
It is a shame that one small thing remains unaccounted for; one trifling thing I have ignored so far, but - WHAT IN BLAZES IS OUR MOON DOING WAY OUT
THERE? It's too far out to be a true satellite of Earth, if we go by my beautiful chain of reasoning -
Do you know what a true satelite is?
Just because the moon sits outside of a definition of a true satelite does not mean it was put there by ET's. Did Asimov include all factors involved
in determining orbits? No. He did not.
which is too beautiful for me to abandon. It's too big to have been captured by the Earth. The chances of such a capture having
been effected and the Moon then having taken up a nearly circular orbit about the Earth are too small to make such an eventuality credible.
Asimov is challenging the conventional thoughts on the Moon as a captured body. Asimov is right not to abandon Newtonian physics, but by only
presenting one possible reason for the moon, the theory that it was captured, is poor science.
The moon is considered a companion because there is a belief, supported by evidence, that the moon is the result of an collision. Of course, YOU will
be showing this to be totally wrong to the world at the next Lunar and Planetary Science convention next year. Won't You?
I can't wait, don't forget to quote Leonard and Youaranazz, or Asmoviv.
There are theories, of course, to the effect that the Moon was once much closer to the Earth (within my permitted limits for a true satellite)
and then gradually moved away as a result of tidal action. Well, I have an objection to that. If the moon were a true satellite that originally had
circled the Earth at a distance of, say, 20,000 miles, it would almost certainly be orbiting in the plane of Earth's equator and it isn't.
But, then, if the Moon is neither a true satellite of the Earth nor a captured one, what is it?...
See, how he challenges the reader to pose
an answer. You insert Craft here, I insert impact, aggregation theory.
Of course, at the confrence next year you will be correcting everyone.
he goes on to conclude the tug-of-war ratio for the Moon: 0.46. We would lose the tug of war with the sun. We - Earth - attract the Moon half
as strongly as does the Sun.
Only from the perspective that it was a captured object- the ratio is towards the sun if we give the gravitaional
influence of the Sun preferance, but it does not work that way.
There is actually a much better explanation and it is complex. It is called the Hills Sphere, Roche Sphere. This is where an orbiting body will be
more influences by the gravitational field of the planet, and not the distant solar body. The earths Hills Sphere is 1.5 million km in radius, the
Moons orbit is 400k. So the moon is well within the Hills Sphere.
Do the Math yourself.
en.wikipedia.org...
Asimov also misses that the suns gravity effects both the earth and the moon. It is not a direct tug-of-war between the two. The moon is
gravitationally bound to the earth within the dominace of the earths Hills Radius, but the suns gravity it effecting the earth and the moon and
actually aids in keeping them together as an orbiting system. The moon stays with the Hills sphere at all times. Add to this that the moons orbit
around the sun is concave at all times and you may begin to see or understand that the forces on the both the moon and the earth, from the sun, are
roughly the same. Maybe a better way to think of it is that the moon is actually in an orbit around the sun. Although the sun is slowly winning(I
think it is a couple of inches per year).
*Isaac Asmoviv, Asmoviv On Astronomy, Mercury Press, Inc, 1963."
It is actually Isaac Asimov. Asimov on Astronomy. He was a biochemist
who wrote alot of stories. This book was one on popular science and his interpretations for a general audience.
Thanks for the laugh.
Asmoviv.
Thanks for the reply.
Please do not respond to this post as I won't be back on this thread, I'll look for your presentation next year. I am sure that will shut me up.