On Jun 25, 8:54 am, Stevep...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On Jun 19, 9:24 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:> 33% is not
half, but then my math isn't nearly as good as yours.
>
> Evidently not .. apollo = 50% of NASS's work to date? 33%?
>
> > If it's of replicated science outside of anything DARPA/NASA, as such
> > there's a good chance that it's believable.
>
> Cite.
Obviously you have no option but to believe whatever your DARPA status
quo has scripted for your cultivated mindset to think, or else. Good
luck with that. Perhaps your next orchestrated 9/11 or ringworm
treatments will not have to involve those of your own kind.
>
> > RKA, ESA and JAXA are not independent of the DARPA/NASA thumb (aka
> > MIB).
>
> They're more trustworthy?
Yes, it seems ESA, RKA and JAXA are technically more trustworthy than
our NASA, except when they're often used as toilet paper by our
DARPA. I'd tend to trust what little China has to offer, as much if
not more than our NASA.
- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
|
