December 9, 1996.
Mr. Daniel S. Goldin
300 'E' Street, S.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20546
Dear Mr. Goldin,
The NASA letter of October 28 (copy attached), signed by Richard
S. Christiansen, is not a response to any of our letters. In particular,
in our letter of October 11, 1996, we presented facts and not opinions,
as your Mr. Christiansen seems to erroneously think.
You and your colleagues swore an oath to uphold the Constitution
for the United States of America. According to the preamble of the aforementioned
Constitution, you are bound to "promote the general welfare".
This is further detailed under Title 42 of the United States Code, Section
2451, with respect to NASA, entitled "Congressional declaration of
policy and purpose" and particularly under subsection (d), to wit:
(d) The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall
be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following
(2)The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety
and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles [emphasis added];
(5)The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader
in aeronautical and space science and technology and in the application
thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere
(h) Purpose of Chapter. It is the purpose of this chapter to carry
out and effectuate the policies declared in subsections (a), (b), (c),
(d), (e), (f) and (g) of this section [see copy of the text attached].
You cannot fulfill these obligations if you are unwilling to acknowledge
facts. You have repudiated your obligations, and you are attempting to
hide this by further denying facts.
The recent Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 767 crash is but the latest
glaring example of NASA's decades old failure to adhere to the mandates
of the Constitution and of 42 USC 2451. In 1935, the spectacular crash of
the Burnelli UB-14, in which the fuselage remained intact,
no fire ensued, and the crew walked away unscathed, demonstrated to the
world that the Burnelli configuration provided unique crashworthiness and
eliminated the common irresponsible practice of hanging engines and landing
gear onto fuel tank supporting structure in combination with excessively
high take-off and landing speeds on overstressed tires. Despite raves from
numerous outstanding professionals, like Dr. Max
Munk and Col. Harold Hartney (1942), and
organizations, like the National Fire Protection Association (1947) and
the Airline Pilots Association (1961), NASA
continued to condone the inherent vices in successive models of the dangerous
streamlined fuselage configurations. The consequences of NASA's discrimination
against the Burnelli Company and its lifting body technology can be measured
by the thousands of unnecessary deaths to air travelers since 1935, and
the hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars wasted on the greatly inferior
conventional designs which continue to plague the traveling public.
Mr. Jean Roche, whose credentials cannot
be questioned, wrote the undersigned in 1965:
"Burnelli was first to recognize and apply the above [lifting
body] principles, and everybody is now sorry they did not think of them
first." (see copy of letter attached)
In our October 11, 1996, letter to you,
we told you flatly that the NASA claim that their Dr. Eggers "conceived
the idea" of the lifting body principle is a lie. Mr. Burnelli not
only conceived the idea of the lifting body principle in 1920, but he reduced
it to practice with his first lifting body airplane
in 1921 and by subsequently building a total of nine flying airplanes
based on this principle before 1946.
In NASA's previous correspondence and in Mr. Christiansen's latest
letter, we have received nothing but obfuscation and denial of the truth.
The factual evidence in our letters remains inviolate, and the letters
require answers. Further, failure to correct the misinformation that Dr.
Eggers "conceived the idea" of the lifting body principle in
the NASA internet FactSheet will make it abundantly clear that you are
compounding the fraud in an effort to cover up your negligence regarding
the Constitution and Congressional mandates leading to what can only be
described as a crime against humanity.
May we now, finally, have proper answers to our letters of
October 7 and October 11, 1996, with an official
retraction of the misinformation issued in the NASA FactSheet on Internet?