Phoenix Contaminated Mars
G=EMC^2 Glazier
chemicals.over its landing area. It is now analyzing(scooping up)
these Earth made chemicals and letting us know Mars surface resembles
Earth dirt. Give me a break NASA how stupid can your engineers be??
You have pissed away lots of bucks It could just as well have landed
in Arizona. The findings would be the same,and the money saved would be
great Bert
Sam Wormley
> Its not a joke That lander landed lightly by blasting tons of
> chemicals.over its landing area.
Chemicals such as helium?
It is now analyzing(scooping up)
> these Earth made chemicals and letting us know Mars surface resembles
> Earth dirt. Give me a break NASA how stupid can your engineers be??
Maybe it's Herb that didn't do his homework before spewing that
is stoooopid!
R252628-611614530290
Sanny
They will throw a few bacterias from earth and after a few years
discover them again on Mars. and will say we have found life on Mars?
The lander must have got millions of bacterias from earth and those
will start a new life on planet Mars.
Mars has water so these earth Bacterias can live on Mars very easily
and reproduce.
Bye
Sanny
mauimary
"Sanny" <soft...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:188fb9a3-682d-42d0...@u6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 5, 7:27 pm, herbertglaz...@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
> Its not a joke That lander landed lightly by blasting tons of
>> chemicals.over its landing area. It is now analyzing(scooping up)
>> these Earth made chemicals and letting us know Mars surface resembles
..> You have pissed away lots of bucks It could just as well have landed
>> in Arizona. The findings would be the same,and the money saved would be
>> great Bert
>They will throw a few bacterias from earth and after a few years
>discover them again on Mars. and will say we have found life on Mars?
>The lander must have got millions of bacterias from earth and those
>will start a new life on planet Mars.
>Mars has water so these earth Bacterias can live on Mars very easily
>and reproduce.
>Bye
>Sanny
great. Mars will be GREEN with pond scum in a few years.
Sanny
> >discover them again on Mars. and will say we have found life on Mars?
> >The lander must have got millions of bacterias from earth and those
> >will start a new life on planet Mars.
> >Mars has water so these earth Bacterias can live on Mars very easily
> >and reproduce.
> >Bye
> >Sanny
>
> great. Mars will be GREEN with pond scum in a few years.
And soon in 100,000s of years Dinasaurs will start living on Mars Just
like they appeared on earth.
I think this is the way life goes from one planet to anaother. Send a
few space shuttles to other stars and reproduce lefe there. And even
when our Sun will burn down the life will exist on other planets.
In few years lefe will adapt to different gravitational pull on Mars.
Lefe gets adapted to any change made to environment.
Bye
Sanny
Uncle Al
>
> Its not a joke That lander landed lightly by blasting tons of
> chemicals.over its landing area.
1) Conservation of mass
2) Idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Michael Moroney
>They will throw a few bacterias from earth and after a few years
>discover them again on Mars. and will say we have found life on Mars?
What steps does NASA take to be sure we don't introduce bacteria from
Earth onto Mars? Do they do anything?
Matthew Johnson
Of course they do. They do try to make sure the landers are sterile. But how
good are these procedures at killing the really hardy spores? That I wonder
about.
mauimary
G=EMC^2 Glazier
NASA I still feel they are able to contaminate that landing area. I
heard it had ovens abord for testing?? If so were they filled with
Earth air or were they in an absolute vacuum at take off.? Best to
keep in mind just one molecule of wATER FROM THE eARTH and than
detected on Mars will pop the wine corks at NASA. NASA has a reputation
for being a liar. bert
Sam Wormley
But you don't know NASA, Herb... and the wanted to land with retro
rocket without contaminating the area! NASA can make some stooopid
mistakes, just like you or I can... but they thought about this lander.
My original point is that you, Herb, should look into the details
before making a fool of yourself!
-Sam
Igor
They did land in Arizona. Didn't you ever see Capricorn One?
Sanny
wrote:
> In article <g7a6fi$ja...@pcls6.std.com>, Michael Moroney says...
>
>
>
> >Sanny <softta...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> >>They will throw a few bacterias from earth and after a few years
> >>discover them again on Mars. and will say we have found life on Mars?
>
> >What steps does NASA take to be sure we don't introduce bacteria from
> >Earth onto Mars? Do they do anything?
>
> Of course they do. They do try to make sure the landers are sterile. But how
> good are these procedures at killing the really hardy spores? That I wonder
> about.
Can yo ukill all mosquitoes in your house? No. And bacterias are
100,000 times smaller than mosquito. No way to detect if some are
hiding in the electronic Circuits of the lander.
Bye
Sanny
G=EMC^2 Glazier
straight down and then test the ground under their feet. This Phoenix
did just that. Other landers went over to a rock drilled into it or
looked under the rocks,and after testing a billion parts could not find
one molecule of water. How much did Phoenix weigh? How fast was it
going when this compressed helium gas jets opened up. Was the
helium in the canisters in a liquid state? How were the canisters
INSULATED? We did not use helium for retro rockets on moon landings.
Another question just came to mind. How big are these helium canisters?
and does the Phoenix cameras show them? Or is all this helium just more
hot air coming out of NASA? I think if they used for the jet fuel
Hydrogen and oxygen it would be much better for finding water,and if
Jesus is on Mars he could have made lots of red wine. Red wine goes
good with Mars Bert
G=EMC^2 Glazier
it was going to be 100% free of staff virus.It was kept cleaner than any
operating room. But here is the kicker after 5 years this Sidney
hospital was burned to the ground. Because they created a super staff
infection that no chemicals could fight. It was a killer staff. Now
this Phoenix can relate to that scenario The Phoenix carried Earth
gasses in its vacant spaces. Thus it brought water with it Micros with
it etc. Sam is so naive he thinks the shit NASA spreads out is
chocolate ice cream Bert
Sam Wormley
Some details??
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/
G=EMC^2 Glazier
But its true so can you imagine how NASA can con the public. Its known
they steal billions. Two billion in 2002 Toilets on the shuttles cost
$25,000,000 a seat and they don't work very good I was told. Go
figure I am sure Phoenix landed on Mars with Florida red ants
cockroaches,and trillions of virus that are in the very humid Florida
air. Sam they could not help but find ice after all. It
was flown in over 200,000,000 miles. Yes now Mars has surface water
thanks to NASA Bert
Sam Wormley
> Sam It is hard to believe that a smart guy like you can be con by NASA.
> But its true so can you imagine how NASA can con the public. Its known
> they steal billions. Two billion in 2002 Toilets on the shuttles cost
> $25,000,000 a seat and they don't work very good I was told.
Who were you told by?
Go
> figure I am sure Phoenix landed on Mars with Florida red ants
> cockroaches,and trillions of virus that are in the very humid Florida
> air.
Just because you abode is infested, Herb, does not mean the
Phoenix spacecraft was.
Sam they could not help but find ice after all. It
> was flown in over 200,000,000 miles. Yes now Mars has surface water
> thanks to NASA Bert
>
Specifics of the mission
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do?id=2007-034A
G=EMC^2 Glazier
shit coming up out of them This shit was floating around the cabin and
had to be scooped up. Sam think of the smell Sam think of the mess. Sam
think of what dippers could have done or Sam think of depends. Sam after
all this shit it begs this question Do you think the tax payers were
over billed on these 5 toilets? 25,000,000 X 5 is a lot of bucks,but
you never mention this and the reason is you eat NASA shit like it was
chocolate ice cream Oh ya Bert
Sam Wormley
Is "the news" a source of accurate information, Herb? If you waste
say $100B on the ISS and $125M on toilets..... That's 0.125 percent
on toilets... pretty outrageous, huh?
Seto says I'm moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who
doesn't know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows the learned
SRians around like a puppy and eats up their shits like gourmet puppy
chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who disagrees with SR.
What do you think Herb?
G=EMC^2 Glazier
one for GR. He was robed. Bert
Sam Wormley
> Sam I think Einstein should have received Nobel for SR and especially
> one for GR. He was robed. Bert
>
Even though GTR is encompasses SR and is more complete, it was
SR, that was the more important discovery.
No he wasn't robed, Herb. Einstein received the 1921 Nobel Prize
in Physics "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially
for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect."
His work contributed, in part, to many many branches of modern
physics... And a Nobel recognizing that... What could be better
in those years!
G=EMC^2 Glazier
mention his relativity theories,for it would be just crazy stuff and be
an embarrassment to them. So things were not so good in 1922 Bert
Sam Wormley
I took a while for everybody to be convinced of the new reality.
Albert was a pretty gracious guy. Relativity has not become a bed
rock in the physics community.
You know, Einstein would be pretty thrilled today to see some of
the advances we have made. In particular, his cosmological constant
has new life... and may turn out to be valid after all! :-)
G=EMC^2 Glazier
knew GR did not fit in the micro realm. He had his OUTS with Bohr at the
start of the quantum theory. Reality is the quantum theory is humankinds
best theory. Bert
Sam Wormley
By "best", you must mean "most accurate", or "most successful".
G=EMC^2 Glazier
the hard questions. It will never be proven wrong. I(t has uncertainty
in its structure and that gives it reality Bert
Sam Wormley
Does Quantum theory predict the mass increase of a relativistic
proton in the LHC at CERN? Or the corrections used in Global Satellite
Navigation Systems (GNSS)?
My point, Herb, is that one uses the theory that is fruitful for
understanding a phenomenon at hand. Different theories in different
domains... So to say one is "best" should include what it is "best" for!
Understand?