[hitch1978]

Ok, so here are my thoughts. They are mostly on terminology, but I think they are pertinent as you are saying that NASA's use of certain words are relevant.

First of all, their use of the word improbable. I would think that anything with a probability of >50% was improbable. It is improbable that I will call in sick tomorrow. It surprises me that the use of this word by NASA has any significance to you, or your arguement.

Stellar - well that's allready been covered a bit, but wouldn't any co-incedence lerating to the solar system be stellar?

And exact/exactly. Well as has been established, the relation of the moon to the sun, as seen from Earth, varies from smaller than the sun, to larger than the sun. In this regard, I see it as similar to the following co-incedence.

A man works at a circle plant. He makes circles all day, every day. He lives 3.4 miles from work. Shortly after leaving his house in the morning he notices that he is exactly 3.1415927 miles from work! (He's an inteligent guy) OMG, he works in a CIRCLE plant! CIRCLES! Every day he is exactly 3.1415927 miles from a CIRCLE plant! TWICE! After he finishes work that day he comes to my house for a beer, and tells me about his improbable co-incidence. I say, 'Whatever man, that's not impressive you live like 4 miles from the plant, beers in the fridge.' He is shocked by my underwhelment.