#11
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:45:17 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote: {...} But why is the below off topic? Because these are SCIENCE. Support your claims. Show us the proof, not the rumors. You mean science isn't interested in facts? Here's the facts and they're already proven by NASA/Lockheed. (Though they did forget to tell the public about them) --------------------------------------------------- Is Hoagland a fraud? Yes he is. He's being paid by Lockheed to be a diversion and to make NASA/Lockheed secret discoveries on Mars look ridiculous. What secret discoveries? 1) Ruins of a previous sophisticated and technologically advanced civilization on Mars. This extinct Martian civilization shows evidence of being more technologically advanced than current earth. 2) Evidence of a sudden, catastrophic mass extinction of that civilization on Mars. 3). A breathable atmosphere on Mars. 4). Vegetation on Mars. 5). Grey aliens currently have established a base on Mars. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"*" wrote in message ... On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:45:17 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote: {...} But why is the below off topic? Because these are SCIENCE. Support your claims. Show us the proof, not the rumors. You mean science isn't interested in facts? Boy, you just failed logic 101. Here's the facts and they're already proven by NASA/Lockheed. (Though they did forget to tell the public about them) Now, these are claims. You have yet to provide the evidence. Try again or go away and stop bothering us. You obviously don't understand the basics of science. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:49:51 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote: "*" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:45:17 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote: {...} But why is the below off topic? Because these are SCIENCE. Support your claims. Show us the proof, not the rumors. You mean science isn't interested in facts? Boy, you just failed logic 101. Um, no, sweetie, I didn't. Here's the facts and they're already proven by NASA/Lockheed. (Though they did forget to tell the public about them) Now, these are claims. You'll have to ask NASA/Lockheed why they failed to tell you. You have yet to provide the evidence. NASA/Lockheed has the evidence, I'm just the messenger. Try again or go away and stop bothering us. lol Is science a little club or something? Does that mean all the science I learned in school is no good unless I belong to your science club? You obviously don't understand the basics of science. It's about peer review, huh. And speaking of that, why isn't NASA allowing scientific peer review of their Mars MOC photographs? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
* wrote: , (George William Herbert) wrote: Note followups. In article , * wrote: Hey anything to keep the thread in the public eye. Actually, no. "Anything" is, in fact, grossly off topic in sci.space.policy and sci.space.history . But why is the below off topic? Because it fails to meet the standards of verifyability and repeatability required for it to be scientific evidence or data. What standards you chose to use in your life are your concern. What standards you use posting to sci.space newsgroups are subject to existing charters and community standards. Your postings do not meet those standards. Again: this is grossly off topic in the sci.space newsgroups and because of that in violation of your internet service provider's acceptable use policy. If you keep posting this, eventually, everyone who normally posts in the sci.space groups will complain to Earthlink and your account will go poof. Newsgroups are different groups for a reason. They have differing standards and topic areas. It is not at all infringing on your beliefs or right to discuss them for us to insist that you do it in places where it is on topic and on charter. By posting this over and over again, you are grossly disrespecting our groups, our beliefs, and wasting our time. It is rude and intolerant to post or crosspost off topic over and over again. -george william herbert |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
* wrote: Abuse complaint filed. -- Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer Columbia Loss FAQ: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
* wrote: On 16 Mar 2004 15:09:43 -0800, (George William Herbert) wrote: {...} Again: this is grossly off topic in the sci.space newsgroups and because of that in violation of your internet service provider's acceptable use policy. If you keep posting this, eventually, everyone who normally posts in the sci.space groups will complain to Earthlink and your account will go poof. Okay Mr. Arrogant Scientist, why did the scientific community allow this: NASA never allowed independent scientific peer review of Malin's Mars MOC photographs and instead allowed Malin to keep and own US government property which is against the law. That is a false statement. All the MOC images older than the proprietary period are in the National Space Science Data Center set, which can be accessed by the public or independent researchers. http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/...1996-062A&ds=* They are also on Malin's website: http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery -george william herbert |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
On 16 Mar 2004 15:46:34 -0800, (George William
Herbert) wrote: In article , * wrote: On 16 Mar 2004 15:09:43 -0800, (George William Herbert) wrote: {...} Again: this is grossly off topic in the sci.space newsgroups and because of that in violation of your internet service provider's acceptable use policy. If you keep posting this, eventually, everyone who normally posts in the sci.space groups will complain to Earthlink and your account will go poof. Okay Mr. Arrogant Scientist, why did the scientific community allow this: NASA never allowed independent scientific peer review of Malin's Mars MOC photographs and instead allowed Malin to keep and own US government property which is against the law. That is a false statement. No at all, and you're hedging and not being honest. I doubt you're a scientist at all. Science is supposed to be about honesty. All the MOC images older than the proprietary period are in the National Space Science Data Center set, which can be accessed by the public or independent researchers. Please explain 'proprietary period' and who owns the photographs during that period. http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/...1996-062A&ds=* They are also on Malin's website: http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery Why aren't any independent scientists allowed to peer review NASA's raw data? Why aren't any independent scientists not employed by NASA, Lockheed or under contract by the same allowed to view the raw Mars MOC data as it is being transmitted? -george william herbert |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
On 16 Mar 2004 15:46:34 -0800, (George William
Herbert) wrote: In article , * wrote: On 16 Mar 2004 15:09:43 -0800, (George William Herbert) wrote: {...} Again: this is grossly off topic in the sci.space newsgroups and because of that in violation of your internet service provider's acceptable use policy. If you keep posting this, eventually, everyone who normally posts in the sci.space groups will complain to Earthlink and your account will go poof. Okay Mr. Arrogant Scientist, why did the scientific community allow this: NASA never allowed independent scientific peer review of Malin's Mars MOC photographs and instead allowed Malin to keep and own US government property which is against the law. That is a false statement. No at all, and you're hedging and not being honest. I doubt you're a scientist at all. Science is supposed to be about honesty. All the MOC images older than the proprietary period are in the National Space Science Data Center set, which can be accessed by the public or independent researchers. Please explain 'proprietary period' and who owns the photographs during that period. http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/...1996-062A&ds=* They are also on Malin's website: http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery Why aren't any independent scientists allowed to peer review NASA's raw data? Why aren't any independent scientists not employed by NASA, Lockheed or under contract by the same allowed to view the raw Mars MOC data as it is being transmitted? -george william herbert |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hoagland a fraud? | * | Policy | 129 | March 30th 04 06:20 AM |
Electric Gravity&Instantaneous Light | ralph sansbury | Astronomy Misc | 8 | August 31st 03 02:53 AM |