MARS SPECIAL INTEREST MISSIONS: NASA NOW WORKS FOR HALLIBURTON

* wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 01:35:12 GMT, Michael Davis
wrote:


Well who are the experts on drilling holes after all? But just
because the story was in Petroleum News doesn't mean it was about
drilling for oil, silly kook. The story is clearly about drilling
for water.


You idiot troll. No where in the article does it mention drilling for
water.

Sure it does, oh delusional one. Right there in the very first
paragraph.

"If there is life on Mars, it would probably be microorganisms in
water deep
below the surface of the planet. Dr. Geoffrey Briggs, director,
Center for
Mars Exploration at the NASA Ames Center, told “Meet Alaska” that
NASA is
looking at ways to drill on Mars to look for water — and the life
it might
contain."

What part of "NASA is looking at ways to drill on Mars to look for
water" don't you understand, kook?

By the way, I see you are still dodging the issue of no Oxygen on
Mars, which totally debunks your fantasies about using oil as an
energy source on Mars.

Get a clue, kook.

--
The Evil Michael Davis(tm)
http://www.mdpub.com/scopeworks/
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Member #33 1/3 of The "I Have Been Killfiled By Tommy" Club

"There's a sucker born every minute" - David Hannum (often
erroneously attributed to P. T. Barnum)

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 22:50:29 GMT, * wrote:

IMO, they're planning on living on Mars and they need fuel. Earth is shot
anyway, so the oil company moguls are trying to escape certain death on
Earth.

hydrocarbons don't combust with opinions, they combust with oxygen.
you should be a little kinder to others, especially when you are so
lacking in understanding of the basic scientific underpinnings of your
argument. one cannot burn hydrocarbon to make release their energy
without oxygen. any oxygen generated on Mars would need to be used by
explorers, because the rate of oxygen burn for combusting hydrocarbons
would use up any oxygen they could chemically generate or recover.

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 22:47:35 GMT, * wrote:

i read your nonsense and asked you how a corporation on earth could
make use of oil on another planet. you didn't answer, because your
kookrant bears no scrutiny.

Why the **** are you asking me, dumb ****? Ask Halliburton.

i'm asking you because you're making a statement that makes no sense.
you're just another "the gubmint is after us all" nut. you'd be
willing to believe ANYTHING that implies a government-industry
conspiracy.

Michael Davis wrote:

* wrote:
http://www.petroleumnews.com/pnarch/010228-49.html

NASA Ames Center looks at problem of drilling on Mars


Kristen Nelson

PNA Editor-in-Chief


[]

And as a side note: There's be no reason to expect oil on Mars if NASA
didn't have prior undisclosed knowledge that Mars once had abundant planet
and animal life.

This story isn't about oil, you ****-stupid, kook. It's about
drilling for water. HTH.

yup, Halliburton likes water just about as much as oil.
since people depend on it, big corporations want all of it.


db

ffarkas wrote:

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 21:16:34 GMT, * wrote:

No NASA is lying to the public big time and Halliburton and Shell oil are
getting the benefit.

how do they benefit? they cannot sell oil millions of miles away.

they could get the buyers to go over there though.
colonize mars, but first monopolize the water and any other valuable
resources that might be there.

db

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 16:29:26 +0100, db wrote:

colonize mars, but first monopolize the water and any other valuable
resources that might be there.

no doubt any group doing work on mars now will want to capitalize on
it later. so techniques used today could be pay-for services
tomorrow. i'm not sure that makes today's scientific work looking for
traces of life on mars a contractor conspiracy.

opm circular a-76 says that the us government must contract to the
private sector those jobs that are not inherently governmental...and
the bushies are pushing to enforce it. so contractors are all over
mars exploration. it's not a conspiracy, it's the law and it's been
the law for years.

at least we're talking water now.

"Michael Davis" wrote in message
news.com...
* wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 01:35:12 GMT, Michael Davis
wrote:


Well who are the experts on drilling holes after all? But just
because the story was in Petroleum News doesn't mean it was about
drilling for oil, silly kook. The story is clearly about drilling
for water.


You idiot troll. No where in the article does it mention drilling for
water.

Sure it does, oh delusional one. Right there in the very first
paragraph.

"If there is life on Mars, it would probably be microorganisms in
water deep
below the surface of the planet. Dr. Geoffrey Briggs, director,
Center for
Mars Exploration at the NASA Ames Center, told “Meet Alaska” that
NASA is
looking at ways to drill on Mars to look for water — and the life
it might
contain."

What part of "NASA is looking at ways to drill on Mars to look for
water" don't you understand, kook?

By the way, I see you are still dodging the issue of no Oxygen on
Mars, which totally debunks your fantasies about using oil as an
energy source on Mars.

Oops, there's that logic thing, again. Looks like Alexa's beating her
head up against the wall of science. Perhaps we can truck that "oil"
down here on the extraterrestrial hiway (tee-hee).

Get a clue, kook.

--
The Evil Michael Davis(tm)
http://www.mdpub.com/scopeworks/
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Member #33 1/3 of The "I Have Been Killfiled By Tommy" Club

"There's a sucker born every minute" - David Hannum (often
erroneously attributed to P. T. Barnum)

db wrote:

ffarkas wrote:

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 21:16:34 GMT, * wrote:

No NASA is lying to the public big time and Halliburton and Shell oil are
getting the benefit.

how do they benefit? they cannot sell oil millions of miles away.

they could get the buyers to go over there though.
colonize mars, but first monopolize the water and any other valuable
resources that might be there.

db

There's at least 3 ways to benifit:

a) The contractor gets to keep the technology it was paid to developed,
no matter if it was used or not for the intended purpose.
b) No matter what is attempted, and no matter if it is a success or not,
the contractor still gets paid a profit for trying.
c) When oil on earth is all used up, and if no viable alternative is
found by that time, and if there actually is oil on mars, then it may be
worth the cost of transorting the oil back to earth, not because it will
make a buck, but because it will give the country (or empire) the energy
it needs to remain in power. Obviously, the cost would be far too high
to makeit worthwhile at this point in time. It's not even technically
feasible using current available technology.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 20:12:48 GMT, WTF wrote:

I posted a response to this in a previous post. It simply does not
matter if the drilling even proceeds or not, insiders will benifit
handsomely from the effort.

no doubt. plenty of technology was developed for the apollo missions
and found it's way into common use, at a profit for those who sold it.
what i'm trying to get at is this: without a benefit to be found for
drilling in the first place, such a project would not be undertaken.
drilling for water, yes. oil, no. and given the billions of barrels
of oil used by industrialized nations yearly, bringing it back from
another planet will never be reasonable.

as to why president bush put forward this plan now...hell, it's an
election year. in 1991-92 his father was criticized for what he
called "the vision thing." he was seen as having no grand vision for
the country. g.w. bush laid out a plan to go to the moon and mars in
order to inspire voters. it also lends a framework to nasa's manned
spaceflight initiative, which seems to have been adrift in space
shuttle-land for a couple decades now. as to whether the voters buy
into the notion of mr. bush, man of vision, or not is anyone's guess.
this voter doesn't. not from the smirking fratboy lacky of corporate
america.

db wrote:
Michael Davis wrote:

* wrote:

http://www.petroleumnews.com/pnarch/010228-49.html

NASA Ames Center looks at problem of drilling on Mars


Kristen Nelson

PNA Editor-in-Chief



[]

And as a side note: There's be no reason to expect oil on Mars if NASA
didn't have prior undisclosed knowledge that Mars once had abundant planet
and animal life.

This story isn't about oil, you ****-stupid, kook. It's about
drilling for water. HTH.


yup,

So now you are backpedaling and admitting the story is just about
drilling for water? How about apologizing to everyone who you
barked at for trying to correct your idiocy?

Halliburton likes water just about as much as oil.
since people depend on it, big corporations want all of it.

Does your kooky, pathological, paranoia know no bounds, kook?

--
The Evil Michael Davis(tm)
http://www.mdpub.com/scopeworks/
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Member #33 1/3 of The "I Have Been Killfiled By Tommy" Club

"There's a sucker born every minute" - David Hannum (often
erroneously attributed to P. T. Barnum)