'conclusive categorical conspiracy compendium' is STILL crap.

I know...I was just injecting some sarcasm.  There never seems to be enough on here.  I'm gonna have to check out the other site.

I know...I was just injecting some sarcasm.  There never seems to be enough on here.  I'm gonna have to check out the other site.

Not really too much over there either.

Of course, if you think that this thread is a crappy thread, try this one...

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=379.0

Of course, if you think that this thread is a crappy thread, try this one...

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=379.0

That thread has satisfied my RDLA (recomended daily lolz allowance.) for a whole week. 

I'm insanely late on this... whatever

Quote

How about the vast output of research from the BAS? Did three people at NASA do all that as well, on top of faking all the research output of NASA?

I haven't seen any "vast output of research" coming from the Antarctic bases. Those bases just seem to be wasting taxpayer money.

Okay... maybe not Antartic,  but NASA: the Smoke Detector, Water Filters, Memory Foam, "invisible Braces", Scratch Resistant glasses, Ear Thermometers, shoe insoles, Long Distance phone calls, grooved tires, cordless tools.   those are just the top 10. and NASA collects on each one.

I know the rebuttal already  "NASA just took credit"... ok fine but let me tell you an anecdote(if you don't want to hear a story my point is in all caps bold big and green) my grandfather worked for Reynolds wrap He helped make Tin foil a household item, he suggested hershey kisses before they were made (we have a documented letter where he refuses the profits), he invented a cigarette filter/ holder at a time when cigarettes were no longer seen as healthy but still fashionable that one is in my grandmother's name.... why you may ask?  because the COMPANY OWNS THE PATENTS THAT ARE MADE BY R&D EMPLOYEES ON OR OFF THE CLOCK so by complying with this conspiracy as the inventors you leave no profits to your children, or the company you work for, so either companies just decide to pour secret money into the government reducing their profit, or all these inventions were made by unemployed single, only children who's parents were deceased or unknown, and no relatives or friends, because otherwise someone else would be there to collect on their patents.   well... either that OR NASA really thought all this through and actually spent unreasonable time and money to invent these technologies and then pretended to use them, just in case someone asked what they used and then waited for other people to buy out the patents to make  profits.

but NASA: the Smoke Detector, Water Filters, Memory Foam, "invisible Braces", Scratch Resistant glasses, Ear Thermometers, shoe insoles, Long Distance phone calls, grooved tires, cordless tools.   those are just the top 10. and NASA collects on each one.

It just goes to show that NASA spent its public money making products to sell and profit from on a massive scale instead of going into space.

Since NASA was using our money to make even more money, it's curious how much money they truly have.

Quote

but NASA: the Smoke Detector, Water Filters, Memory Foam, "invisible Braces", Scratch Resistant glasses, Ear Thermometers, shoe insoles, Long Distance phone calls, grooved tires, cordless tools.   those are just the top 10. and NASA collects on each one.

It just goes to show that NASA spent its public money making products to sell and profit from on a massive scale instead of going into space.

False dilemma. The fact that NASA invented (or aided in the invention of) certain technologies does not mean they cannot have gone to space at the same time. Spending money on invention and spending money on going into space are not mutually exclusive.

The fact that NASA invented (or aided in the invention of) certain technologies does not mean they cannot have gone to space at the same time. Spending money on invention and spending money on going into space are not mutually exclusive.

Since NASA was so focused on making money off of products and patents, it suggests that the organization was profit driven. It doesn't sound like the happy "for the good of all mankind" propaganda they sell to the media and schools.

Why are they so profit driven? Being a profit organization suggests that they do things cost-effectively. Is it more cost effective to go into space, or is it more cost effective to not and say you did?

Everyone knows that it's cheaper to fake space travel than to actually go into space. Just ask George Lucas.

Quote

The fact that NASA invented (or aided in the invention of) certain technologies does not mean they cannot have gone to space at the same time. Spending money on invention and spending money on going into space are not mutually exclusive.

Since NASA was so focused on making money off of products and patents, it suggests that the organization was profit driven. It doesn't sound like the happy "for the good of all mankind" propaganda they sell to the media and schools.

Why are they so profit driven? Being a profit organization suggests that they do things cost-effectively. Is it more cost effective to go into space, or is it more cost effective to not and say you did?

Everyone knows that it's cheaper to fake space travel than to actually go into space. Just ask George Lucas.

How do you know NASA isn't using the funds from their research to bolster their budget? As you say, space travel isn't cheap. Your conclusion that they are profit driven is pure conjecture and weak at best.

Quote

but NASA: the Smoke Detector, Water Filters, Memory Foam, "invisible Braces", Scratch Resistant glasses, Ear Thermometers, shoe insoles, Long Distance phone calls, grooved tires, cordless tools.   those are just the top 10. and NASA collects on each one.

It just goes to show that NASA spent its public money making products to sell and profit from on a massive scale instead of going into space.

Since NASA was using our money to make even more money, it's curious how much money they truly have.

Hmmm...  NASA invented technologies that they would need in order to effectively travel and work in space.  And by some strange coincidence, some of these technologies are really handy here on earth too.  Who would have thunk it?

By the way, where can I buy a NASA brand smoke alarm?

Since NASA was so focused on making money off of products and patents, it suggests that the organization was profit driven. It doesn't sound like the happy "for the good of all mankind" propaganda they sell to the media and schools.

Why are they so profit driven? Being a profit organization suggests that they do things cost-effectively. Is it more cost effective to go into space, or is it more cost effective to not and say you did?

Everyone knows that it's cheaper to fake space travel than to actually go into space. Just ask George Lucas.

It doesn't suggest any such thing.  Is the FAS a profit-driven organisation, just because it sells the odd book?  NASA is not set up as a commercial organisation, even if it is conspiracy.  Why is all NASA material "public domain?".  -That's shear commercial madness.  It's just a profitable bi-product of a enormous R&D department, silly

Hmmm...  NASA invented technologies that they would need in order to effectively travel and work in space.  And by some strange coincidence, some of these technologies are really handy here on earth too.  Who would have thunk it?

Mmmm, Microsoft inventes technologies that they may need to make software with, then selling off the patents to other companies.  It's not a coincidence, it just a profitable bi-product of a enormous R&D department, silly.

For gawd sake, people.  Coincidences are everywhere if you look hard enough.

Quote from: markjo on September 15, 2008, 05:44:09 AM

[sarcasm]Hmmm...  NASA invented technologies that they would need in order to effectively travel and work in space.  And by some strange coincidence, some of these technologies are really handy here on earth too.  Who would have thunk it?
[/sarcasm]

Mmmm, Microsoft inventes technologies that they may need to make software with, then selling off the patents to other companies.  It's not a coincidence, it just a profitable bi-product of a enormous R&D department, silly.

For gawd sake, people.  Coincidences are everywhere if you look hard enough.

Looks like you missed my sarcasm tag.

Quote from: Moon squirter on September 15, 2008, 06:25:51 AM

Quote from: markjo on September 15, 2008, 05:44:09 AM

[sarcasm]Hmmm...  NASA invented technologies that they would need in order to effectively travel and work in space.  And by some strange coincidence, some of these technologies are really handy here on earth too.  Who would have thunk it?
[/sarcasm]

Mmmm, Microsoft inventes technologies that they may need to make software with, then selling off the patents to other companies.  It's not a coincidence, it just a profitable bi-product of a enormous R&D department, silly.

For gawd sake, people.  Coincidences are everywhere if you look hard enough.

Looks like you missed my sarcasm tag.

OK, OK, apologies. Picking up on irony is not one of my strong points.
-MS

Looks like you missed my sarcasm tag.

Just type sarcastic comments in blue.

Quote from: markjo on September 15, 2008, 07:26:13 AM

Looks like you missed my sarcasm tag.

Just type sarcastic comments in blue.

Personally, I feel that sarcasm is more effective when it's subtle enough that it takes the reader a while to figure it out on their own.

Just type sarcastic comments in blue.

The color coding comments thing just never caught on, so it is typically ignored.  Maybe if there was somewhere that explained the code, people would be more likely to use it.  As it is, a new person won't know the significance of blue text, and it is much more blatant to use the [sarcasm] tag anyway.

Quote from: E.Jack on September 15, 2008, 07:33:09 AM

Quote from: markjo on September 15, 2008, 07:26:13 AM

Looks like you missed my sarcasm tag.

Just type sarcastic comments in blue.

Personally, I feel that sarcasm is more effective when it's subtle enough that it takes the reader a while to figure it out on their own.

Actually agree with that.  I cannot stand the use of  or  .  Mostly people seem to use them as a means of covering themselves, in case offence is taken as a result of their sarcasm, or to sanitise there entire POV.

For example:  "You're wrong in every conceivable way I can think of, you cretinous imbecile  "
Or...             "Sarah Palin, wow "