Mississippi Embayment Astrobleme

You haven't provided any evidence. You make silly claims which are contradicted by people, thousands of people, with genuine credentials. Othere than that, you've linked a couple of sites which don't say what you claim they say. As the folks in New York sometimes say, don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining.

Ridiculous. Your size matters argument was proven false centuries ago.

http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi166.htm

Actually ALL the eveidence is in favor of these impact scenarios and there is NO evidence to the contrary [and I have posted plenty].
Truthfully, the current, accepted theories have no basis, no evidence at all to counter my arguments. I guess that is why all you can do is postulate?

You just don't accept the current accepted theories that show you your scenario is impossible.


You are attempting to create energy from nothing when you claim the moon hits the earth and regains orbit. It is impossible without an energy source that you haven't identified.

Galileo had balls, but he should have dropped a feather next to the iron ball, as there was not enough distance for his experiment to show proper result, in other words- That experiment was badly flawed! [muscle reactions tend to let go of lighter objects first?- "It turns out when you try to drop them both, your strained muscles fool you. You consistently let go of the lighter one, the one you have been gripping less intently, first. That means Galileo accurately reported what he seen happening..."
-BUT, it doesn't mean objects of different mass fall at the same rate!- Stupid $#!+ like this is the reason for such delusional thinking. I tell you what- You stand beneath the ton of bricks and I'll stand beneath the ton of feathers! LOL
:-]]]]]]]

Show me how any current theories could make my scenario impossible!
What accepted theories? The dating process? Convection break-up? Pressure from ice sheets? Give ME a break. There is NO backing for ANY of the commonly accepted balogny that I have already proven to be flawed!

I gave you several mechanisms for massive amounts of energy release, plenty to send an object the size of the Moon back out into Earth's orbit. A tectonic plate folding in on itself would hold untold amounts of energy. There would be no way to argue with any accuracy against the amount of energy release. It can only be grossly estimated. So, good luck trying to prove me wrong through calculations. They are quite inept to the observable geography, thhe reality that is right in front of you...;-]

What a ridiculous thing to say, such an experiment would only work in a vacuum, (or as near a vacuum as you can get). It did work, Gallileo was proven right.

Let's assume that heavier things fall faster. That is the exact opposite of your argument earlier. You claimed heavier items, the moon, would have an easier time escaping the earth's gravitational force.

Which is it? Is the moon as light as a feather? Or is the moon a heavy object that would fall faster thus making it much harder for it to reach escape velocity?

Gentlemen, why are you trying to make this wacko listen to reason? He's nuts and all he does is irritate everyone with crackpot nonsense.. I understand how frustrating it is and also how difficult it is to ignore this nonsense. But a number of you have very wisely urged me to put certain people on ignore, it was very good advice. I log in to find some amusement, why waste your precious free time on goofy doofus idiots. I say that with love, because of the respect I have for you. But, if he doesn't really drive you nuts, forget what I said. I know there are at least 3 members who get pissed as soon as I post anything, and sometimes I check in just to wind them up, it's so easy. I know it's not nice, but I only do it until I get bored.

Try and understand that the Moon was at a much reduced speed as it entered Earth's atmosphere because of its low orbit at the time. It did not just come straight in, rather it more or less came in for a landing. The Earth is not the only object containing forces in this impact. It was not a dropping ball but line-drive throw. Electromagnetism reduced the speed even further and the spring from the folded in tectonic plate was plenty energy...

P.S. Heavier objects fall faster! [phaulty fysics...LOL ;-]]]]]]]

You have been deceived by false beliefs:-]

Don't be afraid to find the truth. I do not mean to upset you,
just to let you all in on this evidence that proves the Holocene impact was caused by the Moon impacting the Mediterranean, the Hudson Bay was caused by a cometary strike and the Mississippi embayment was formed by the meteor impact from a fragment of Comet C/1811 F1. "Really no biggie"- LOL

Wait.. that doesn't make sense. The moon would have to come in faster based on your physics because the moon is heavier than a pound of feathers. Or are you arguing that light things fall faster?

You're the one "postulating," and posturing, and making your bullshit up as you go along.

How fast was the moon moving? 5 mph? 20 mph? 100mph?
Surely you can provide a speed since you know it was moving slow.

No, I argue that there are other forces at play than just gravity.
First- the Moon was in orbit,
second- it is an iron ball,
third- the impact zone was of much softer matter, even sedimentary,
fourth- electromagnetic forces further slowed the impact.
When it did impact, the force was multiplied by the spring tension of the folded tectonic plate, which may be quite immeasurable...

As I has previously stated- estimated numbers will never negate the observable geography- that is reality!
The numbers are irrelevant and it would take a team of astrophysicists years to get to the start. In other words- calculations can only find a rough estimate and I doubt the numbers would ever find consensus as accurate, no?

Which means it must have a speed greater than 11m/s to be in orbit.

Being an iron ball that means based on it's size it would fall faster according to you.

A soft landing would reduce any spring effect for bouncing the moon back into orbit.
But the moon is an iron ball. That means it can only be attracted by a magnet. It can't be repelled.

Springs can't release more force than was used to compress them. It would mean you are creating energy out of nothing. The moon already didn't hit hard and then it didn't compress anything because it hit in a soft landing area. When I throw an iron ball on a pillow it doesn't bounce higher than if it hits something hard.

Am I making up your satellite view?
Am I making up historical events?
Am I making up the fact that human history has been lost and distorted?
Am I making up the forces at play?
What exactly am I "making up"?!
LOL:-]]]]]]]

Clearly you are correct. Italy is nothing more than the nose of the man in the moon that broke off when he hit the earth.

By the way, the moon hit my street the other night. I have a pot hole that is the exact size of the moon as it looks in the sky. Clearly the moon is the only possible cause of that pot hole.