Did NASA really make it to Mars?

"*" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 22:33:59 +0000 (UTC),
(Eric
Chomko) wrote:

Again you confuse earth science with spy satellites.

You're confusing NASA technology with a shoe.

So, let me get this straight. NASA satellites can defy the laws of optics
and read a serial number off of a dollar bill, but can't land on Mars.

Right.



Eric

Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) ) wrote:

: "*" wrote in message
: ...
: On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:27:40 GMT, "Alan Erskine"
:
: wrote:
:
: Well just what IS Lockheed/NASA doing with all their technology, eh?
:
: AND (!) Lockheed can find anyone on the planet by their brain wave
: pattern
: -- and WE STILL can't find bin Laden.
:
: plonk for being an absolute ****wit, troll, moron and general fool
:
: You should get an academy award for your pretentious performance.
:
: Oh you never plonk anyone, you can't afford to, you'll just manifest as
: another sock puppet.
:
: So tell me why is it you can't address the questions raised?
:
: No answer, huh. Of course you can't answer the hard questions.

: Let's assume for a minute your paranoid delusion is true.

: Then why hasn't Lockheed tracked you down and "taken care of you" since
: you're obviously a security threat to their operation.

: Perhaps it's because they can't find anyone on the planet by their brain
: wave pattern?

The guy's confused into thinking that all technology by the government is
sinister or potenially so. No science for science sake is possible.

How about NOAA? Why do you leave them out?

Eric

* ) wrote:
: On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 00:21:41 GMT, lid (John
: Savard) wrote:

: On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 20:10:06 GMT, * wrote, in part:
:
: How do we really know NASA made it to Mars other than taking NASA's word for
: it?
:
: A lot of people work for NASA. They seem to be nice people. And they
: are well educated, and thus not easy to fool.

: You're not into double standards are you?

: Cause some NASA employees already know what's on Mars, and it's not what
: NASA is publicly admitting.

Okay, what is it, then?

: So which is it -- are NASA employees well educated and not easily fooled?

: Or is NASA public relations conning the public?

Why do that? What is it that would make them want to con the public.

: Or are NASA employees stupid?

: Thus, unless I had some compelling reason to think that Mars could not
: be reached, I fail to see why I would even begin to doubt NASA's word.

: So if a NASA employee says something then it must be true, right?

That is not what he's saying. He's stating as an institution as a whole;
why would you doubt the entire agency?

: 'Cause a NASA employee told me there's ruins of a previous civilization on
: Mars and they also told me that a decision was made not to tell the public.

Where is THAT able to be corroborated?

Eric

:
: John Savard
: http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 03:06:23 +0000 (UTC), (Eric
Chomko) wrote:

[...]

: You are missing the point. And the point is, the only way we can be sure
: NASA made it to Mars is to believe it.

Of course ALL of 'reality' works that way.

So because I can't see the surface of Mars for myself, that means NASA never
went to Mars, right? Or I take their word for it, when I have already been
told by other NASA employees that NASA is hiding the fact there's ruins of a
civilization on Mars.


So which way is it, eh?


{,,,}

Much of NASA work is not classified.

But some of it is classified -- and why is that????????

snip

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 03:10:12 +0000 (UTC), (Eric
Chomko) wrote:

{snip}

: 'Cause a NASA employee told me there's ruins of a previous civilization on
: Mars and they also told me that a decision was made not to tell the public.

Where is THAT able to be corroborated?

Your corroborated it:

"A lot of people work for NASA. They seem to be nice people. And they
are well educated, and thus not easy to fool."

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 02:55:16 +0000 (UTC), (Eric
Chomko) wrote:

[...]

The guy's confused into thinking that all technology by the government is
sinister or potenially so. No science for science sake is possible.

What's sinister about reading brain wave patterns?

Unless the purpose is not scientific but manipulative.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 00:01:56 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Let's assume for a minute your paranoid delusion is true.

Then why hasn't Lockheed tracked you down and "taken care of you" since
you're obviously a security threat to their operation.

Perhaps it's because they can't find anyone on the planet by their brain
wave pattern?

Well, I wouldn't bet much money that Mr. Asterisk *has* a brain-wave
pattern. Based on the totality of his posts, he wouldn't seem to have
the equipment to generate one. That's how he's escaped.

I was giving him the benefit of the doubt after all. :-)

"*" wrote in message
...

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB35/

http://www.spacetoday.net/Summary/2068

Lockheed wins military launch contract

And your point?




Posted: Wed, Dec 10, 2003, 10:50 AM ET (1550 GMT)
The US Air Force announced Tuesday that it has awarded a launch contract
to
Lockheed Martin for a single classified payload launch. The $100-million
contract covers the Atlas 5 launch of the National Reconnaissance Office
East Coast Mission NRO L-30. The contract announcement does not specify
the
date of the launch, although Space News reported Wednesday that the launch
will take place from Cape Canaveral in 2006. The contract was awarded on a
sole-source basis because of the continued suspension of Boeing's launch
business from Defense Department contracts. This award is separate from
the
seven launches that were stripped from Boeing this summer and awarded to
Lockheed Martin as a penalty for ethical misconduct by Boeing during the
initial EELV competition.

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 03:33:28 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 00:01:56 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Let's assume for a minute your paranoid delusion is true.

Then why hasn't Lockheed tracked you down and "taken care of you" since
you're obviously a security threat to their operation.

Perhaps it's because they can't find anyone on the planet by their brain
wave pattern?

Well, I wouldn't bet much money that Mr. Asterisk *has* a brain-wave
pattern. Based on the totality of his posts, he wouldn't seem to have
the equipment to generate one. That's how he's escaped.

I was giving him the benefit of the doubt after all. :-)

You'd better save that benefit of the doubt for the assholes who are hiding
your saucer at Groom Lake.

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 03:35:33 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:


"*" wrote in message
.. .

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB35/

http://www.spacetoday.net/Summary/2068

Lockheed wins military launch contract

And your point?

There is no NASA, it;s in name only. It's all Lockheed.




Posted: Wed, Dec 10, 2003, 10:50 AM ET (1550 GMT)
The US Air Force announced Tuesday that it has awarded a launch contract
to
Lockheed Martin for a single classified payload launch. The $100-million
contract covers the Atlas 5 launch of the National Reconnaissance Office
East Coast Mission NRO L-30. The contract announcement does not specify
the
date of the launch, although Space News reported Wednesday that the launch
will take place from Cape Canaveral in 2006. The contract was awarded on a
sole-source basis because of the continued suspension of Boeing's launch
business from Defense Department contracts. This award is separate from
the
seven launches that were stripped from Boeing this summer and awarded to
Lockheed Martin as a penalty for ethical misconduct by Boeing during the
initial EELV competition.