Re: Is NASA a US "Defence Agency"?

On Nov 13, 12:55 pm, SEN...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
NASA must cooperate with the Department of Defense in the United States.
According to the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, Section
305à (i):
"The National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall be considered
a Defense Agency of the United States for the purpose of Chapter 17,
Title 35 of the United States code"

Ken Johnston at:http://www.enterprisemission.com/NPC-Russia.htm
I do not want any discussion about the slides there. I regard em as the
result of a bad adjusted copy device.

But this law statement surprised me. Is it still actual? If so NASA PAO
did a good job 40 years to present it as research agency.

## CrossPoint v3.12d R ##


Our NASA is more like a faith-based multitasking puppet agency, doing
pretty much whatever their mostly semitic puppeteers would like them
to do. Besides, where's all the supposed warm and fuzzy Usenet love
and affection? Oviously such Yids of a feather don't even love one
another, much less of any outsider. Remember they'd put one of their
own kind on a stick for that sick faith-based PR stunt, and still
going strong wiothout a speck of remorse.

Interesting that if our moon and of its L1 is supposedly so gosh darn
taboo/nondisclosure rated, then perhaps Venus or that of Venus L2
isn't.

In addition to moon banishment and especially of anything getting
contributed by Japan or China, it also seems the ESA Venus Express/
VIRTIS mission team of such all-knowing wizards has either fallen off
the edge of Earth or at least out of favor within their very own ESA
home webpage.

ESA is still not sharing any byte worth of anything as getting
released from their robust PFS instrument, of which they claim has
been faulty/broken from nearly the very get go. (I rather doubt this
is entirely true, because they can't share as to the internal workings
of that PFS instrument, in that there's absolutely no technical
accounting or any other measure on behalf of those internal mechanics
other than going by their word, which simply doesn't make any sense)
http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?mission=Venus+Express&type=I
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/area/index.cfm?fareaid=64

In spite of the Venus EXPRESS having supposedly lost all use of their
robust PFS, as representing nearly 90% worth of their mission's
science capability, whereas in spite of that handicap or intentional
banishment it's still offering darn good though much lower resolution
results of the IR mapping:
http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?b=b&type=I&mission=Venus%20Express&single=y&start=4
http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?b=b&type=I&mission=Venus%20Express&single=y&start=4&size=b

Notice how there's never one scientific word as to the specific
thermal temperatures of those IR obtained images, but instead a whole
lot of careful wordings that manage to divert as much attention as
possible away from the matter of fact that Venus has been losing
roughly 20.5 w/m2 (256 fold greater than Earth) away from its
geothermally toasty surface. Further notice how the all-knowing
wizards of Usenet or even those rusemasters of NASA's very own
uplink.space.com are entirely without an honest thought, clue or much
less having been asking any questions as to why there's still no
public information getting shared as to the wide differentials of
those surface and atmospheric temperatures of Venus. Even though the
remaining IR instruments of ESA's Venus Express are of extremely poor
resolution doesn't exclude those kinds of low resolution IR readings
from providing a sufficient degree of thermal mapping, as to the best
available extent that's possible, and yet we've seen almost nothing of
their supposed science in sharing IR specifics of such thermal issues
other than IR ratios which can be without a basic reference to a given
spectrum of temperature interpreted as to mean damn near anything.

Of course from the long shot of Venus L2 is where a modern day radar
and IR imaging pair of instruments as of the last decade could have
accomplished a whole lot better results, and if from within that nifty
and relatively cool halo station-keeping location sending in probes of
the rigid airship kind, that which would obviously cruise below those
thick acidic clouds and subsequently get those absolutely terrific
closeup look-see mappings of the Venus surface down to less than 0.1
meter/pixel, and of visual spectrum imaging down to as tight as a few
mm, which technically could have by now been doable.

There are still those extremely interesting pixels of previous radar
mapping of what looks entirely intelligent and/or artificially
rational, as though representing a community of substantial structures
and otherwise of extremely interesting natural terrain/geology
features (including an active fluid arch and of multiple reservoirs)
like none other. For those with an honestly serious mindset of
considering all such options, I have had exactly what you're looking
for as of nearly the past 8 years, and I also have the other proof
positive as to how those in charge have been doing all they can in
order to disqualify, exclude or rather banish any such notions that
Venus has been technically a viable planet for accommodating
intelligent other life.

This doesn't require that such be of an intelligent other life as
having locally evolved within that newish planetology of such a
geothermally forced environment, although technically even that's a
remote possibility for those of us residing outside of the mainstream
status quo of naysayville's bigots-R-us mindset.
--
Brad Guth
.

Quantcast