Odyessy Mars Mission

Wingnut · Mar 14, 2002

RanchMan ... obviously doing my taxes irritated me more than it usually does as I obviously came across differently than I intended. I was trying to make a case for that phantom "everyman".
All this Hard Science investigation certainly does provide high paid employment for scientists and others ... but I don't see a lot of benefit to the mass of people who aren't given a choice on supporting it.
Anyway ... let's see ...
1) golly, I'm sorry that I have the utter gall to demand some value back from providing employment to others. Heck, if knowing what Helen of Troy had for breakfast will improve chain saw efficiency ... I'm all for it. My "bitterness" isn't at the quest for knowledge ... it's the government dollars that are wasted in studies of the mating habits of the devonian lutefisk.

2) The only rats patoot I give about fossil fiel consumption is removing revenue from our "friends" in Saudia Arabia. Let me know when I can buy a resonably priced vehicle with anti-grav or a nuclear powerplant ... although my engine now has more compter control than my toaster over (almost, anyway) ... the fuel mileage is about the same as my non-computer controlled cars back in the late 70's.
3) No ... I don't claim to be clairvoyent ... I'll leave that to Cleo. Your point? My point was I'd like to see that amount of money applied to .. say ... clean drinking water, or eradicating mosquitos than seeing of you could bounce a lander all over Mars' surface.
4) yep ... based on services provided me by the various levels of government, they're far too high
5) yep ... haven't seen any indications of a pol with scruples yet ... although the law of averages says one might possibly exist somewhere. For some reason, I get rather suspicious of people who will spend $50 mill to get a $100k/yr job. Even with my obviously severly limited imagination and math ability ... it looks odd.

I won't waste a lot of bits to examine each of your examples ... but I will say that a large of improvements or inventions have come about because of military funding ... so, I guess that another war would really benefit us a lot by getting a new slew of inventions ... but, I'd rather not, thank you
Maybe some day when I'm in the hospital, etc ...
Nope, sorry, no personal benefit there ... I happen to be n endangered species. I do not want to live forever. I would like a cure for the common cold, though .... any chance they'll find one on Pluto or Europa?

my opinions are not popular ... but they're mine ... mostly just to stick needles in others and see if they're awake. I can easily be swayed with logic and proof but not with "faith".

I'm puzzled ... if you thnk everyone's taxes are too high ... how come you obviously support high cost projects that would be unlikely to happen unless government sponsored?

Chuck52 · Mar 14, 2002

Bob,

I guess I am terminally out of the loop. What information is NASA denying us? Was that face on Mars really Jesus? Seriously though, what is it they are supposed to be hiding?

Wingnut, Wazzup? Clean drinking water? Solar energy? What are you, some kind of crypto-democrat?

Chuck

Youare · Mar 14, 2002

A man I work with will not use a cell phone, he truly believes that NASA is programing people with micro waves every time they used the phone, planting sub-limital messages to get you to carry out the objectives the secret government is planning.

Then there is the theroy that man never really landed on the moon, it was all a staged play to fool I don't know who.

Oh by the way, this same man also believes the flu shot is also a medium for injecting every one with tiny transponders so "they" can keep track of you with GPS. Who was it that said "the paranoids got me"?/w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

Randy

Egon · Mar 14, 2002

Global warming:

Just a note of interest but about 6 to 10 thousand years ago the earth was warmer than it is today.

Egon

Bob_Trevithick · Mar 14, 2002

...Recently ABC news reported that Mars was warming. Provided that Mars has no industry or pollution to contribute to a "greenhouse" effect, what would cause this warming? If the answer is (duh) the sun, doesn't it logically stand then that the global warming experienced here on Earth (the next closest planet to the sun) is caused by the same thing and not "greenhouse gases"?

You want my best guess? Hoagland's hyperdimensional physics paper discusses this in some detail.. we probably haven't discovered all the planets in this solar system yet. There may be a big one, or some small ones, way out there.. with a huge angular momentum contribution. Check out the Hoagland paper. If you have to, skim it.. it gets kind of heavy (no pun intended) in spots. /w3tcompact/icons/grin.gif

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.enterprisemission.com/hyper1.html>http://www.enterprisemission.com/hyper1.html</A>

And yes, I would guess that "greenhouse" effects are a minimul part of the warming, for both earth and mars.

Bob_Trevithick · Mar 14, 2002

...I guess I am terminally out of the loop. What information is NASA denying us?

Sigh.. okay.. this will sound crazy.. but remember, you heard it here first! /w3tcompact/icons/grin.gif

There is clear evidence of the ruins of ancient civilizations on both Mars and our own moon. You'll probably hear about this shortly.. at least within the next year or two. NASA is very hesitant to reveal what they've known for decades, probably because of the infamous Brookings report which predicted that civilization could collapse should the public gain knowledge of such things. Most people seem to feel Brookings is wrong, and so there's a movement afoot to speed up the release of the real data. NASA seems to be doing this now, but not saying what they are doing. They are just showing some data, and not commenting. The best is yet to come!

yeah, yeah, I know, it sounds like the ravings of a complete lunatic doesn't it? /w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

Bob

PitbullMidwest · Mar 14, 2002

I don't buy the global warming story at all (at least as far as man is responsible). FOXNEWS.com reported about a year ago in their "Junk Science" column that NOAA has stopped using historical temperature data collected at sea for over a hundred years. Sea water was collected, the temp was checked and a formula applied to correlate it to air temp. But an analysis of the data using computors show that there is no correlation between sea water temps and air temps. It is this data that has always been the foundation for grants into global warming research.

Did any of you get "Weekly Reader" when you were in elementary school? I remember articles about the coming ice age and how the earth was cooling. By the time my younger sister was in elementary school the "Weekly Reader" was reporting that the coasts would be under water due to the melting ice caps.

My daughter brought her science book home a few month's back and it stated that the earth's orbit is not elliptical around the sun and that we go through 11 year cycles of warming and cooling, there are even names for the cycles that I can't remember.

Global cooling or global warming, its all about the research grants and how much they can take from a very gullible public.

PitbullMidwest · Mar 14, 2002

There is clear evidence of the ruins of ancient civilizations on both Mars and our own moon

Sounds like Ray Bradbury's "The Martian Chronicles"

RanchMan · Mar 14, 2002

Wingnut -
A LONG, long one....

I'll try to respond and keep the sarcasm in check (to a degree) and show that "I'm awake".

This WHOLE discussion started with you saying missions to Mars were worthless. My counterpoint was that space exploration, in general, and Mars missions specifically, have benefitted the general population. I never qualified how much to spend, where to go, etc. - just that there was value where you saw none. That being said.....

(1) I never said EVERY program had merit and that we should throw money at every whim or crazy idea. Look at my original message - I even explicity that we shouldn't "go broke" going after every "crazy exploration activity." I agree with you that the government does waste taxpayer money on a bunch of bunk.

Where we seem do disagree here is that you believe unless it makes your life (i.e. "ME, ME, ME" easier in a very tangible way (e.g. power assist on your Kubota's steering, improving your chainsaw's efficiency, lowering your gas bill, etc.) it has 0 value. Somehow I just don't buy your "phantom everyman" statement because some of the "social experimentation" you feel so strongly against may be just what a number of the "phantom everymen" may desire.

It would seem to me that if all you care about is yourself, you would never do a "favor" for a buddy without tracking it so that you can "call it in" at a later date. Additionally, it would follow that you would have no compassion for, say, someone who's car broke down or was stuck in a ditch. Again, unless you got a reward (of whatever type) you wouldn't stop to help, call a tow truck, etc. - after all, "it's their problem." Somehow, I just don't think that you would be that shallow - at least, I'd hope you aren't.

(2) I don't like giving the Saudi's money for their product any more than you do. Would I take a more fuel efficient vehicle? Absolutely IF it is (a) reasonably priced, and (b) it had similar capabilities. But this simply doesn't exist. (e.g. try towing anything with a "environmentally friendly" electric car... <the electric car is a bogus route anyway, but that's another discussion.>)

Regarding your '70's model vs. today? I'd venture a guess that if we didn't have all the smog/enviro-friendly additives, fuel efficiency would go up. So you have to choose your poison on that one.

(3) "My point" here was that you seem to believe all exploration is bogus UNTIL you personally know what "real value" benefits will result from it. How could you know what will result from something that hasn't been invented yet??? Although you explicitly state that you aren't clairvoyant, I don't see how that meshes with your earlier statements.

(4) We agree on something....Amazing!!! Wait, the jab at the end - "How come you obviously support high cost projects that would be unlikely to happen unless government sponsored." Hmmm, I thought I answered this in my previous messages - answers are (1) knowledge itself has intrinsic value; and (2) a lot of technologies (medical, manufacturing, etc.) are developed only because they were initially created to solve an unrelated problem associated with space exploration that nobody would have ever "thought of" to "sit down" and develop otherwise. (e.g How can you create a solution to a problem that doesn't exist?)

(5) While there are a lot of crooked politicians out there, I don't believe everyone is one of Satan's minions. (of course, by your definition, everyone from Washington to Bush was inherently "evil" - along with anyone elected for all of time.) That means every member of Congress, your State Legislature, your elected judges, your mayor, your dog-catcher, your Lyons's club president, your R/C club treasurer, etc. Sorry, I think there is more than a single politician in the world who has scruples. I would never go as high as saying 95% are good or something like that- but I don't subscribe to the "one in a million" mentality either.

War: Should we have one just to "advance technology"? Nope. A pretty silly statement... Should we take advantage of the things we learn due to war? Yep.

Hospital: Either you are pulling my leg with this whole thing or you are truly serious. By the cynical perspective, I don't think you believe what you stated here for a second. Medical conditons and the heartache it can cause individuals/families are a sensitive subject. Therefore, I'll just say based on what I have seen so far in my lifetime, I am happy those technologies have been developed.

Unpopular Opinions: WOW! We agree again! Yes, I do believe that your ideas are generally unpopular, although there may be different "twists" to it (see my initial message regarding use of funds). And Yes, they "are your own", which I take to mean that you have the right to have & express your ideas.

As far as your statement of "I can easily be swayed with logic and proof...." I don't think that is the case, not by a long shot.

Your basic claim is that nothing useful has come from the space program (except "coolers" and "freeze-dried food"). When specific items have been cited, you dismiss them out of hand and come back with "quippy" remarks, such as how there is a 0% chance of you ("phantom everyman" alert!) ever benefitting from medical advances that resulted from the space program, ergo, you will never have an accident, get a serious illness, or anything else "bad" will happen to you until it's "your time" and you'll be "turned off" like a lightbulb. I honestly hope that is the case for you (and everyone else out there)- but let's be real here, life isn't always pretty or fair, and lots of "good people" have less than pleasent things happen to them before they finally expire.

If you REALLY believed all of this, then it follows logically you have no need for health insurance, no need for car insurance, no need for safety equipment, no need to have "regular checkups", etc... Somehow, I'd be willing to be that you probably have/use all of those things.

It's really been interesting, but I've come to the conclusion (based on your own admission) that all you were really ever interested in was "stirring up trouble" (e.g. mostly just to stick needles in others)

I intially thought you might be open to some other perspectives and interested in a real discussion, but instead of trying to have a true conversation, you thought it would be more fun to try and make me "jump through logical hoops" to prove my case - when you had no intention of logically making your arguments, but instead just giving sarcastic remarks.

Quite frankly, I just don't think I'm interested in forcing this any further. I'm not your "pet" and owe you no "tricks" for entertainment value. You also seem to lack the desire for a substantiative conversation to convince me of your opinion with anything other than snide remarks.

I just don't think this effort is worth it because (a) I'm not your jester and (b) if you honestly believe that there is nothing wrong with your debate approach, there is no point in trying to "beat a dead horse" and convince you otherwise.

I believe I've made my point logically, used supportive evidence, and also made it clear that there were no "absolutes". I believe I even made my argument stronger by incorporating some of your points, but for you at least, that doesn't matter. That's the best I can do - and it's good enough for me.

Hillbilly · Mar 14, 2002

Ditto that................

MikePA · Mar 14, 2002

I am sure the environmental wackos will tie warming on Mars to something we're doing here on Earth. /w3tcompact/icons/sad.gif

Chuck52 · Mar 15, 2002

Yep! We've been here all these years and never polluted a single stream or lake. The air in all our cities is so pristine and clear that we rural types often travel there to simply inhale that good stuff. Our fresh water aquifers are all perfectly safe...just ask Franz. How could any sane person possibly believe man could do anything to harm the environment? Why the ocean is obvously benefitting from the fertilizer we provide. What are these idiots thinking? And those jerks who think their data may possibly indicate that man's activities might be affecting the atmosphere! And global warming! Don't those fools know that the earth has gone through temperature cycles since it's creation? Are they unaware of solar cycles? They must be, or perhaps they're all in the pay of the windmill industry! Yes! That's it! That's the ticket! It's the great windmill-solar energy industrial complex! Hoo Haa! We got 'em now!

Chuck

PitbullMidwest · Mar 15, 2002

Chuck,

I can't find any reference in this thread to anyone claiming that man had not polluted the earth. What I have said, and others agreed with, is that extremist enviromentalists manipulate gullible people for the sake of obtaining large grants. You obviously swallow the global warming claims hook line and sinker. A single volcanic eruption produces more ozone depleting gases than does all of the world's industry. Maybe the UN could fund a study into banning all volcanos, fine those countries that have volcanos and give grants to developing countries who don't have the technology to prevent volcanic eruptions.

Of course your fossile fuel burning tractor doesn't pollute. Isn't that the way it always is? It's always the other guy's tractor, you know the guy that doesn't care nearly as much about the earth as you do. Maybe we should all use oxen or horses instead of tractors, less we be hypocrits. Oops! Can't do that, enviromentalists say that the methane produced by cow poop in Australia is depleting the ozone layer.

What are we to do? Where is Ed Beggly Jr. when you need him.

Chuck52 · Mar 15, 2002

Pitbull,

I swallow nothing hook line and sinker, including the lines you just quoted which apparently presume all those who think we might be changing the environment are extremists. I also never claimed to care more about the earth than anyone else in this group. Yes indeed, I drive a tractor and I drive a truck and I drive a minivan. All pollute. I'm aware of that. In fact, since my tractor is pretty old, I wouldn't be surprised if it pollutes more than yours. I don't see any hypocrisy in my remarks, but "the eye of the beholder" applies I guess. What I was attempting to get across is my view that if one agrees with the concept that man's activities have resulted in damage to some parts of the environment....can I assume you agree with that?....then it is not such a stretch to think that we might also be contributing to the effect called Global Warming. Perhaps I read more into the previous posts than was there, as I think you did with mine, but it seemed to me that honest scientists, who are doing their best to measure these things, are being unfairly characterized as either fools or cheats. Is that too holier than thou for you? So far as I can see, most of the folks who think we might be contributing to Global Warming suggest only that we try to decrease our dependence on fossil fuels and maybe try to limit use of some chemicals which may be particularly harmful. These same folks also admit not knowing for sure, for instance, just which chemicals might be at fault. That's part of what they study, and I can't see blaming them for not having all the answers. Certainly there are extremists who take these studies and use them for their own purposes. However, it is not just or correct to lump everyone who studies global warming in with the nut cases.

Chuck

PitbullMidwest · Mar 15, 2002

Agreed, but then again a debate between 2 moderates isn't much fun is it? /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

Wingnut · Mar 15, 2002

oops, from the tone of yoru reply, RanchMan ... you took me a lot more seriously than I'd intended, and I do apologize if I offended or upset you.
A lot (not all, mind you) of my "opinion" was intended to keep stirring the pot ... just hate it when everyone is "me, too'ing".
And thanks for ignoring the spelling errors resulting from typing too fast in that small window.

I won't make this as long as your's .. we don't want out host to curtail our free speech.

I never said no exploration had merit ... all I said is "where's the beef" ... show me the business plan outlining what you expect to respolve ... and how you plan to get some benefit back to the taxpayer. Are you seriously trying to tell me that the nifty cooler in my van with the outre cooling system was PLANNED to result - or was it a happy accident.
As I see your comments, you're practcing the "good defence" rukle by asking me to explain my occassional optimism ,,, instead of "you" (NASA, gov, FDA, whomever) having to explain why you deserve my tax dollars.

Again ... do I have to be ashamed to ask "what's in it for me?" when "you" come with hat in hand (well, actually, the IRS doesn't beg, they threaten) for my tax dollars? Yes, tongue in cheek I said "me, me, me" ... and you reacted like a true liberal .... where my idea of a true liberal is one who wants to have society do good ... with MY tax dollars (and usually the good liberal is in a tax exempt organization). Please believe that when I say "you" , I am NOT trying to personally (ad hominim) attack YOU ... I'm generalizing.
Favors? Me ... nope, not ever. I have no time for favors, what with cleaning neighbors drives, working on the boards of clubs and organizations, helping others with computer problems ... and working way too many hours ... have no time to do favors at all. But ... if you need one, feel free to ask ... I;m well known for getting myself in more hot water because I apparently don't know the meaning of "no".
You are absolutely right, sir, about me NOT representing "phantom everyman" ... I guess I should more correctly have said "phantom taxpayer" to exclude the vast majority of citizenry that depend on our government rather than supporting it.
I'm not sure about wither the smog or other "something"fighting additives and whether fuel would be better or not. Again ... all these were mandated by that government for which you realize I am overly fond of ..... (sorry, I seldom use emoticons, so you have to guess when I'm smiling ... of which I stand accused most of the time).
Hospitals ... yes it is a serious subject and yes, I'm actually quite serious. I am anti-artificailly-life-supporting ... but support, fully, your right be to pro-. I came by my aversion to enforced life and pain honestly - watching my wife painfully suffer through three VERY long years before she finally releived herself of the pain. Served to give me a somewhat different outlook than others ... but, unlike many others - especially the liberal media and public ... I apply it to myself and don't consider others subject to my feelings.
No need to feel bad about bringing it up, if you do, my feelings aren't easily hurt and I've learned that you live life while you have it and don't seweat the small stuff ... and the big stuff you have no control over ...
I'm sorry you disbief my assertion that I can be swayed by logic and proof. The fact that I don't immediately change sides when you say "boo" may only signify that you haven't presented me with (what I consider) adequate proof or logic. Or I may not have reread your comments yet ... or I may not yet consider the topic discussed enough. If you do ... lack of response is enough to terminate the "discussion" ... I usally leave that to the other party since I was brainwashed by my mother to be polite and not walk away from a conversation. Makes me hate sales calls since I can't turn off being olite (which forces my wife to be nice to me and take most phone calls).
Politicians. Sorry ... I guess I was too far out on that one ... my meaning was high level ... country and state governments .. although I have my suspicians about that clown that was jut recall as mayor of Flint. Most dogcatchers, I don't consider as politicians. Rmember, I'm still carrying the baggage of having lived most of my life in Alberta, where jobs like DA, sheriff, dogcatcher, etc are not elected. They're appointed or "real" jobs. I certainly don't consider myself, president of the local chapter of APICS, to be a politician ... I just accepted the position because the chapter would have folded had I refused (no, I'm not that self-important, no one else on the board was willing ...)

wow ... this is getting far too personal ... I guess I'm overly worried about your opinion of my ... which I am NOT usually wont to be.
As for the rest ... again, not going over them point by point is not because you don't have good points ... but because this si a tractor board and I haven't even mentioned my trusty L3710 ... so I'll just finsih by noting that ... yes, I have become pretty much a libertarian and do not personally happen to believe the car insurance is the necessity it has become .. but I obey laws and therefore am insured ... even though many state Democrat voters are not ... costing me an extra $92 per vehicle for uninsured motorist ... oops, no that the catastrophic iunjury pool ... oh well, some liberal fund that I'm forced to support. Personal choices ... now that a different thing, I wear safety equipment - always - because I'm logical - and think people who don't wear seatbelts are idiots and should not be covered by socilaized medicine ... but should have a right to be idiots if they choose.

Again, I do apologize for the fact that you took me more seriously than I'd intended as evidenced by you refusing to be my "pet". Too bad ... my pets get more treats than I do ...

Wing(and a prayer) nut

Chuck52 · Mar 15, 2002

Wingnut,

Maybe I'm mis-reading you, but do you really think that conservatives are more likely to support death-with-dignity laws than liberals? This is probably not one of those cut and dried, liberal vs conservative issues, which are pretty non existent anyway, but my impression is that the "liberal" press by-and-large supports such laws. I certainly do, as does my nurse wife, who will make sure I have the needed paperwork ready if I get to that point.

Chuck

Wingnut · Mar 15, 2002

Chuck, Chuck, Chuck ... you KNOW I label everyone who doesn't immediately agree with me a liberal, ha.
Remember that in my lifetime (in Canada), Liberals and Conservatives are actual parties. (Actually the conservatives are PC or progressive conservatives). As opposed to labels to stick on people.
So, yes, in my pre-Michigan world at least, Liberals were the ones fighting for more socialized medicine where you have little or no say in what treatment you get. The conservative Conservative party on the other hand, want less social (i.e. bureaucrat-controlled) medicine and more patient input and responsibility.
The Liberal laws ensured that when my previous wife attempted to abate her pain by taking her life, and failed, she was arrested "for her own protection".
Personally, my belief is that I have no right to tell you what to do with your life .... unless you're endangering mine (and then you better have your will made out) ... and therefore, nobody has a right to dictate my life ... unless I'm endangering others.
I fully realize that I have to make sacrifices to co-exist in thuis society ... but some bug me more than others.
The "liberal press" (gosh, you think one actually exists? I thought that was some kind of "hate speech") supports anything that conservatives are against, nicht wahr? So, yes, they glorify Holland because it irritates the religeous right. Don't however, mistake the beliefs of the vocal minority in the religious right with the ranks of the generally conservative and the libertarians. Some of us prefer common sense to rules nobody had input to.
I somehow have a problem believing that the Oregon I've visited so often is a real hotbed or liberalism.
On the other hand ... I don't see a real death-with-dignity movement in the "red" states of Mass., Cal. or NY?
I think this subject, as is medical care in general, is a personal choice issues that transcends political or philosophical beliefs .... and could quickly change should the unthinkable happen as was suggested by RanchMan.
I know that my beliefs certainly solidified when Dorothy's health deteriorated to the extent that she would think death would at least relieve me of a "burden".

as the chinese curse goes: "may you live in interesting times"

Wingnut