FYI, periodically reports come out that cast a long shadow over the giant impact model for the origin of the Moon, this space.com article is another example. We have this metal report and recently carbon report too.
Carbon emissions on the moon put theory of moon birth in doubt, ""The findings by the researchers suggest that the moon has a large amount of ancient carbon beneath its surface, and it has likely been there since the moon was formed. How it could have persisted on a very hot early moon remains a mystery. " Another example is,
Reconsidering the Moon's Formation and Tidal Evolution, "The Giant Impact theory of lunar formation, in which Earth and Moon are product of a collision between two proto-planets, has been widely accepted for over three decades. It is the only scenario that simultaneously explains the Moon's low iron content and the angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system. In the course of the last few decades, theorists have recognized how important giant impacts are for terrestrial planet formation, making the Earth-Moon system less of a special case. However, in the 21st century, new and more precise analyses of isotope make-up of lunar samples collected during the Apollo landing have revealed that the Moon is remarkably Earth-like in its isotopic signature. This is in conflict with the "classical" Giant Impact theory, in which the Moon is mostly made from debris originating in a Mars-sized protoplanet that collided with proto-Earth."
Good investigative reporting requires both sides to be heard concerning the giant impact model.