UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2003 > Dec > Dec 13

Re: Congress and Disclosure - Knize

From: Francis Knize <Frankknee@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:09:05 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:07:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Congress and Disclosure - Knize

>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

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


>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.


Thank you for informing me of the NASA update for their DQA
guidelines. Upon the first glance of the document I see plenty
of room to place an inquiry and making a request for
accountability. Any claim of exemption from NASA would have to
be proved by them and this would require their answer as such
during the start of a hearing. I could deal with that just fine

Please allow me the weekend to review the document in order to
give an educated response to you. Off the bat I can say that on
one hand you seem to praise the relevance of a lawsuit, yet then
you quickly discount that a DQA inquiry will ever hold any

I believe NASA was very worried when I instituted the first DQA
down there. I had them between a rock and a hard place. It
didn't matter to me which way the inquiry went, whether Keith
Laney's discovery of blocking paterning showed structures on
Mars or whether it turned out to be a hoax. If it was a hoax
NASA would have to be held accountable. But if the blocking was
determined anomalous then this would open doors to new
discovery. A win/win situation.

Had I appealed their completely ridiculous first ruling, I
believe I would have prevailed in getting the inquiry on the
road. This is to not to say that anything about artificiality on
Mars would have been proven, but that the integrity of the data
would have had to be reviewed by a panel of some sort. However,
losing the support of the primary affected parties, who were
Richard Hoagland and Keith Laney, I admit that the inquiry did
die. but remain unfettered and ready to try again.

>LAN: 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

I have learned much in the process. Public challenges as you
know are very necessary. I am perfecting my approaches so that I
will not be wasting anybody's time. After review and
contemplation of your thoughts I will make a more appropriate

Thanks for the time you put into your explanation. It was very

Very Truly Yours,

Francis C. P. Knize