NASA Doesn't Know.

On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 8:12:52 AM UTC-7, Bast wrote:
David Mitchell wrote:
On 29/05/16 11:30, Bast wrote:
David Mitchell wrote:
On 28/05/16 10:41, Bast wrote:
David Mitchell wrote:
On 27/05/16 11:42, Bast wrote:
David Mitchell wrote:
On 26/05/16 11:48, Bast wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
How Big Are Those Killer Asteroids? ... NASA Doesn't Know.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/sc...nasa.html?_r=0



I can tell you a lot of what..NASA Doesn't Know.


but then you would call me a NAZA denier.






Nasa has no reason to provide answers.
They get paid for research,....as long as they say "we are still
looking for the answers", they get paid.
If they suddenly gave us all the answers they would be out of
work. Same reason that money going to cancer research will never
provide a cure for cancer.
Nobody wants to put themselves out of a nice lucrative cushy job.

You're an idiot.

1) Cancer research is neither "lucrative", nor "cushy" for those
actually doing the work.
2) The prognosis for someone with cancer is infinitely better now
than even 20 years ago. Why do you think that is? Sorry, I know
thinking isn't your strong point: it's because of the research.
That's how it works. 3) The people actually doing the research are
almost all what one might describe as "academics". Apart from the
joy of learning, and the knowledge that one is doing something
worthwhile, the one thing which academics prize above all is the
respect of their peers. Having published work cited and used is
the way in which this is expressed. It is absolutely, therefore,
in their best interest to both do good work, and to publish it.

The French have a saying: "A man does not look behind a door where
he would not hide himself"

I know you're not very bright, so I'll explain: for most people,
the first guide they have as to how others will behave is how
they would behave themselves. For some people, it's all they
have, others draw on wider sources. If you believe that a large
number of people would take vast amounts of money, much of it raised
by charities,
and fritter it away whilst pretending to work, thus denying it to
others who might, perhaps, actually do the work, then you belive
that large numbers of people are immoral assholes.

I think that you see too much of yourself in other people.

In summary:
You're an idiot,
"Research" has raised the survival rate for most cancers from
"****-all" to "reasonable".
You're an immoral asshole.




Do you feel better now ?

Well, you're still an asshole, so no.

So which do you work for?, Nasa, or the "medical" industry ?

Neither.


People are still dying of cancer everyday,....no one has a better
prognosis than they did years ago, and far more people are being
diagnosed with cancer, than ever before.

Well yes. That's a good thing. Are you actually reading what you
write 'cos I may have to recalibrate my stupid-o-meter.

It just costs more to keep them alive, for a bit longer. But they
still die,

Well yes, everybody does. The goal of cancer research isn't to
make people immortal.

The goal is to understand the causes of cancer and devise treatments
to either "cure" it or allow more quality time once it's diagnosed.

In fact, cancer survival rates have doubled in the last 40 years,
and now 50% of people survive for more than 10 years (in England and
Wales).
and the reaserch money machine, keeps pumping out more money
So your strawman arguments have no fact, to back them up at all.

Wow. Is this how you "reason" in real life?

You state, yourself, that "far more people are being diagnosed with
cancer, than ever before", which is unquestionably a good thing, and
one of the key factors in cancer treatment.

Cancer survival rates have doubled in the last forty years. Doubled.
So your argument that cancer research is just a money making scam,
and has no real effect must be looking a little foolish now, even
to you. By the way, I think that you should look up what a straw man
argument is.
Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
When you have to resort to wikipedia for credibility,.....YOU LOSE.

When you have to ignore all the salient points of an argument (because
it show that you are wrong), and focus on the use of Wikipedia to
provide an absolutely correct definition of a minor term, YOU LOSE.

This is too easy. You are beginning to bore me.

You did not provide any "salient points"

So, apparently you already believe that "far more people are being
diagnosed with cancer than ever before", and you've not even tried to
disprove that "Cancer survival rates have doubled in the last forty
years".
My work here is done.

That's what happens when you "bore" too easily. A.D.D. is a terrible
thing to bring to a discussion table.

No, it's just that you *are* boring.





But I got your attention, didn't I.
So AGAIN,...you can't keep your story straight.

Now fr round two, would you like to try for,...

A: That Apollo was a hoax, and no men ever went to the moon,..and returned
alive.
B: The 9/11 was an inside job

Bast FIND A LIFE IDIOT TreBert