Quote:
|
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
|
In every case, the technology was developed and then used by Nasa or was going to exist anyway. Using that same logic, we could also prove how $1 billion to develop a new grass seed cured human diseases, reduced global warming, discovered hidden archeological treasures, and discovered new miracle plastics. Same bullshit as in Bruce's three classic propaganda citations. Also not in Bruce's list are those other innovations stifled because so much money went to NASA.
Those citations are classic propaganda that works on those who also confuses a treadmill under a planes wheels with airspeed. Meanwhile, we used to have fun making up those same 'look how we saved the world' myths. Then see them published as 'science that would not happen if we did not do it'.
Clearly computers would not exist had the auto industry not spun off so much technoloy. Steel manufacturers used to prove that the plastic industry was only a spinoff from their innovations - when big steel was really doing no innovation. Amzaing how we could make this stuff up and get other to believe we were therefore saving the world with our spinoffs. Contest was to see which myth would actually get printed. Clearly Henry Ford saved the computer industry. It is nonsense and it is propaganda that works - just like proof that Saddam had WMDs.
Meanwhile, those who grasp reality would be more concerned about relevant science such as the constellation of deep space observatories. 10% of Nasa's budget does almost all the science. And that is being diminished for what? Tang? Lighweight blankets? These clearly would not have existed if not for a manned space program. Bull.