UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2003 > Dec > Dec 11

Re: Congress and Disclosure - Fleming

From: Lan Fleming <lfleming5@houston.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 19:34:32 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:57:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Congress and Disclosure - Fleming


>From: Francis Knize <Frankknee@aol.com>
>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
>Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 10:33:10 EST
>Subject: Re: Congress and Disclosure -

>Choose one good Data Quality Act inquiry to pursue based on your
>best research concerning Mars photographic anomalies. There are
>many now in NASA  who would support an honest effort for SETI
>Research.

The NASA "National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
Guidelines for Ensuring the Quality of Information" can be
downloaded from:

http://www.thecre.com/pdf/20021026_nasa-final.pdf

As far as I can tell from reading this document, it would be
futile to pursue corrections of misleading information
disseminated by NASA using the Data Quality Act because of the
vast amount of information that NASA claims is exempt from the
act. The exemptions are stated in Section C.3 of the document.

One of the most debilitating exemptions is information "produced
in responses to requests for Agency records under the Freedom of
Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Federal Advisory Committee
Act, or similar laws".

This apparently means that NASA feels it would not be obligated
to correct or explain the phony time stamps on the STS-48 video,
which is made available to the public _only_ through the Freedom
of Information Act and was never otherwise publicly
disseminated. (The FOIA apparently gives the public a right to
as much bogus information as the government wants to provide
them - a right for which we should all be grateful).

Another critical exemption is: "Communications such as press
releases or press conferences, interviews, speeches, fact
sheets, or similar communications in any medium that announce,
support the announcement, or give public notice of information
that NASA has disseminated elsewhere."

This exemption apparently means that NASA' enhancement of the
1998 Mars Face image or web article on the April 2001 image,
'Unmasking the Face On Mars," with its false and misleading
claims about the resolution of elevation measurements of the
Mars Observer Laser Altimeter that was used to create the
thoroughly bogus "3D perspective" presented in the same article.
All of this stuff appeared as press releases.

These DQA "guidelines" in essence seem to imply that NASA
reserves the right to mislead the public when they see fit to do
so. It's hard to tell if there's any information at all that is
_not_ exempt from the DQA.

The only possible route around all the obstructions that the
government has put in the way of obtaining correct information
under the seems to be in the Guidelines Section C.3 paragraph
that says: "The exemption for press releases and materials
delivered to Congress exists as long as facts backing up the
original press release or information have been previously
disseminated."

So if a member of Congress were, on behalf of a constituent, to
obtain the STS-48 video, or the 'Catbox', etc., then the could
perhaps be invoked if NASA failed to provide "facts" backing up
what they've sent to the Congress member. Other than that, the
only recourse is probably to sue somebody, as the Sci- Fi
Channel is doing to get documents from NASA concerning the
Kecksburg UFO incident.

One thing that definitely will NOT work is haranguing people who
work for NASA or its contractors with private emails and public
"challenges," as Mr. Knize should have learned by now.