It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA Hoax

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Plumbo
Why does nasa gets billions of $$$?

People like being lied to, they just don't realize it.

People want to trust the words of other people in higher authority.
There is a denial mechanism embedded in each one of us. We feel insecure. Not sure what the future holds, what catastrophic event may occur. However, there is an ultimate demise to the one trusting in other men/women. Jeremiah 17:5 curses the man who trusts in man.

There also is an evil force in this world. It is governed by the being the bible calls Lucifer. According to Isaiah 14, it is Lucifer's desire to be like his Creator, to take his place. However, His Creator kicked him out of his Presence. So, this Lucifer and his associates influence the minds of the men in power who have sold their souls for this power.

But God is right there, in the heart of the earth, literally speaking. He hides behind the veiled curtain of the celestial sphere. He's covered with dark waters and thick clouds. Lucifer's control on the minds of this world has people everywhere believing the lie that the universe is an infinite realm and ther is no physical, bodily presence of any sort of Creator. He uses the "sciences" to back this claim. And yet, God is right there, no less than 4,000 miles away.

The world will eventually know the truth about this.

One way or another.

Once this happens, nasa and all governing agencies that have supported this global lie will be shamefully defeated.

-sjc


NASA gets billions to lie? And what lie is it that conflicts with your religous ramblings? Landing on the Moon or NASA's tech achievements?




posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Here's my next assholey reply.

You have no idea what you are talking about so I will ignore all your future post.

By spin-off of course you mean the theft of someone's patent with a slight change.


Well then SHOW ME through some links you arrogant jerk. You think I value your OPINION on this forum without anything but your big mouth to back it up? Sorry to break it to you buddy, but your opinion means zip. Your ATS points mean nothing more than you have a lot of opinions and rude comments in forums but says nothing about your complete lack of balls to back any of it up with sources.

All I can say is view the NASA spinoff database, and type in any of the items I've mentioned and see what comes up. *shrug*

And dont come back with some lunatic reponse about NASA being some giant government conspiracy, I've heard all the delusional ranting before.

Deny ignorance indeed...

[edit on 30-7-2005 by CatHerder]



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 04:54 PM
link   
k, this discussion is not progressing any further. My advice is to step out of that NASA website and look up all the things i mentioned, they have absolutely no connection with nasa.



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   
You post in a forum your opinions, and don't provide links to anything. What is it you are saying to look at? Please provide some links here to legitimate websites and not fantasy crap like rense.



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Easy everyone. Please no profanity or flaming other members. Let’s try to have a civil discussion here.



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Last warning -- KEEP IT CIVIL!



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lanotom
By spin-off of course you mean the theft of someone's patent with a slight change.[/QUOTE]
Actually, no.

My spouse works for a high tech company and a number of people hold patents there. The government does contract them to develop ideas and after a certain time period they are allowed to sell the patent commercially. Some that I know specifically about include the Cadillac's "heads up night vision" display system. The patent holders got money from the government to develop this for tanks and then when the agreement was over, they sold a nonmilitary version of it to various manufacturers.

The government also gives grant money for scientists to develop applications (National Science Foundation.) There's a number of them available for robotics designers and, of course, you can sell your research to the government if you like.

The engineering world isn't quite as simple as it's made out to be. A few good patents sold for space/military applications that can be resold to the public have made any number of engineers relatively wealthy.


(which is why, if I had any sense and high level math skills, I'd run off to be a PhD engineer. But I don't, and I don't, so I can't.)



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Whether NASA invented them or not, they made improvements to a lot of them. I've been hearing about integrated circuits that had transistors built in orbit that were faster and more efficient, etc.



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Nah, I just read a website that said NASA isn't responsible for anything at all. Nothing. One website said it, so it must be true!

That's my opinion on it now. There's no sense looking at 50 sources, just pick the one source that works for ya I say!



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Sometimes I wish some of you could question Mike Griffin...he'd love you.

There are alot of things we've invented that come from the space program, either there or a spin-off. My least favorite happens to be Tang, I can't stand the stuff



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by T_Jesus
Sometimes I wish some of you could question Mike Griffin...he'd love you.

There are alot of things we've invented that come from the space program, either there or a spin-off. My least favorite happens to be Tang, I can't stand the stuff

No kidding!

It has, to be fair, improved from the first days. And I kinda like the freeze-dried ice cream (so I'm weird!)

I also like the little solar blankets. And aren't the folding windowshades for your car something that developed because of this heat shielding technology? (you know the ones; you get them unfolded and they spring apart and then it's like wrestling a python to get them back in the proper configuration to put away)



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Yes I'm sorry. I should never follow one's lead when it comes to profanity.
I'm above that and for my repeating the word I'm sorry.




Originally posted by Byrd
Last warning -- KEEP IT CIVIL!



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
No kidding!

It has, to be fair, improved from the first days. And I kinda like the freeze-dried ice cream (so I'm weird!)

I also like the little solar blankets. And aren't the folding windowshades for your car something that developed because of this heat shielding technology? (you know the ones; you get them unfolded and they spring apart and then it's like wrestling a python to get them back in the proper configuration to put away)


I work at KSC, which obviously means I live in Florida, so I am very familiar with the window shades. It's even worse when you have someone sitting in the back seat of your car, and you can't help but smack them in the face with the things. For all their trouble, they at least are effective.

I guess we're really not satisfying the person who wanted justification for NASA spending billions of dollars, when all we've described is window shades and Tang.


Alot of good has come from the space program, though, whether directly or indirectly. Plus, it gives alot of people jobs, even people who just want to be a librarian, gift shop cashier, or cook and serve me the god awful food they put out (I think I was served better food in high school). Plus, you don't want to make me unemployed, would you?



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lanotom
Yes I'm sorry. I should never follow one's lead when it comes to profanity.
I'm above that and for my repeating the word I'm sorry.


"He said it first"? What are you ten?


I don't care if some mod takes all my points away and kicks me from this server, my opinion of your response(s) is still completely valid. All words, no proof.

Seriously, get back to the subject where you were 100% wrong. I'm still waiting for links, and proof that what I said was invalid, wrong, lies, etc etc etc. Contrary to your over active imagination, I happen to know that NASA doesn't steal IP from people -- if they did they would not be able to engage thousands of tiny to large companies to work on products for them (nobody would want to!). I also happen to know at least a half dozen people who own the patents to over a dozen different technologies ranging from air conditioning systems to plastic packaging -- all thanks to an initiative (request to solve a problem for NASA - otherwise known as what an engineer does for a living) and funding by, you guessed it, NASA.

I happen to have worked in a hightech field for over 15 years and also happen to know quite a few engineers, programmers, scientists and even CEOs of a wide range of companies. I even know a few level Q people and have worked with them on projects. NASA doesn't screw people out of intellectual property (IP), and they don't take credit away from people -- they promote it, and, after NASA has been able to use whatever technology they requested and funded, they even help put IP holders together with money people/corporations. It's those money people/corporations that sometimes screw the IP holders.

I think you just don't know enough about the hightech world, or what you do know comes from movies and suspense/thriller novels. Most of us are extremely happy to get projects from NASA. It means guaranteed funding without the worry of no residuals if your product/tech is of value outside of the original agreement. Whereas, if you were contracted by some corporation (i.e. any fortune 500 company) 99% of the time regardless of what you work on you first must agree that THEY own all the rights to the IP before accepting the engagement.

Don't believe it? Well don't take my word for it. Go search and find any evidence of an invidivual or corporation that had their IP stolen by NASA and post that information here. Movies like Armageddon don't count as "sources" btw.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 08:26 AM
link   
If you've seen Armageddon, the building they all come out of before they go on their mission is where I work.

It is also the building where the real astronauts come out of, except they go through a different door and onto a bus which takes them to the shuttle.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by T_Jesus


(3) We have gone to the moon a few times after the original. We stopped progress because of politics, and because robotic missions were more efficient.

Excuse me Jesus, when exactly have we gone to the moon since the original?



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lastday Prophet
I can keep this very simple, this is why I consider it to be a "HOAX"
If they really went to the moon in 1969, all they had to do is make an "EXACT DUPLICATE" of that Spacecraft and they would not have the problems they are having now, 35 years later.



You seem to have forgotten the small but important fact, that NASA is not doing now what they did 35 years ago.
Sure, they could build a new batch of Apollo capsules, but what would be their use? They can't be used to do what the shuttle does.
I'm sure you've noticed that the russians are flying essentially the same Soyuz derivatives (Progress) to service ISS than what they've been flying since the 60s. And their track record is pretty impressive too.
But those can't do what the shuttle does, either.

The cargo capacity&volume of a Progress is 2350kg (Progress M) or 2230-3200kg (Progress M1), 6.6 cubic meters.

The cargo capacity&volume of a shuttle is around 29 metric tons maximum, 1,160 cubic meters.

It's pretty clear for me that you need different tools for different missions.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by dollmonster
(3) We have gone to the moon a few times after the original. We stopped progress because of politics, and because robotic missions were more efficient.

Excuse me Jesus, when exactly have we gone to the moon since the original?


Manned moon landings

"The program continued into the early 1970s to carry out the initial hands-on scientific exploration of the Moon, with a total of six successful landings. "

Apollo 17 was the last manned landing on the moon from the US.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 09:59 PM
link   
If NASa hadn't "stolen" and "improved" on inventions, would they be half as commercialized or efficient as they are now? Would they be used for the purposes they are used for now?

[edit on 7/31/2005 by Lifeadventurer]



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lifeadventurer
If NASa hadn't "stolen" and "improved" on inventions, would they be half as commercialized or efficient as they are now? Would they be used for the purposes they are used for now?

[edit on 7/31/2005 by Lifeadventurer]


No, because if it weren't for Von Braun and Huntsville, Al the USSR could be sending over ICBMs packed with tritium. NASA gave the US military its current missile tech witch it uses to defend itself. If we hadn't started the missile program in the mid-50's, we would probably be 30 years behind the USSR in missile launching tech. Half the US could be covered in uninhabital radiation if it weren't for NASA. IT's not as if NASA spends billions to send probes out past the heliosphere, rovers to Mars, and helps collide research tools into comets without giving back to the public arena.




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join