iPhone app,    iPad app,    Android phone app,    Android tablet app,     More
Focus:

Secondary menu

You are here

Re; Sean D. Goldman Rebuttal, NASA WRONG AGAIN AS USUAL?

Primary tabs

Tony Elliott's picture

Shawn D. Goldman's rebuttal of my last article "NASA WRONG AGAIN AS USUAL" essentially states that he made the mistake of not making it clear that his report was not in any way part of an official directive by NASA itself, but a piece he wrote independently, having nothing to do with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Shawn admits to working for NASA but does not consider himself a civil servant, as in receiving funding for specific projects. 

Well, Shawn the mistake and resulting misinformation as to your official capacity at NASA in the UK.Guardian article lies completely on you, and the fact that you were working for NASA at both the time of composing the paper and it getting picked up by the UK.Guardian says one of two things.

(1) You are completely irresponsible and inconsiderate of your employer. Or;

(2) You were working on such a theory as directed by your employer, but made the mistake of going public with it at this time.

Either way, none of this is my fault, since you made the error initially. All I did was comment on your misrepresented information that became widely publicized. 

What I have to say to you, is I owe no one apologies for the article "NASA WRONG AGAIN AS USUAL" as I stand by my opinion of NASA itself, based on my research of the organization.

As for you, I think you are smarter than you want to appear, legitimately not capable of making this kind of mistake and are using the publicity to further your theory and status. If you really are that air headed, you shouldn't be working on any level, in any capacity for NASA or any other Federal entity. On the other hand, perhaps you are a prime example of the type of people working at NASA these days. This would explain the rampant incompetency, misrepresentation of actual science facts and general lack of interest in anything not having a political nucleus.

After this, I'm sure you will be a bit more careful of what you get published, as I suspect since your article came out, NASA does not view you as a Saint.

The bottom line is, NASA employed you at the time of the UK.Guardian publication. Thus, you are an employee of the organization and a Civil Servant since NASA is a Federal government entity.

Under these circumstances, what you say or express in writing can be considered official. Whether you, or NASA like it or not.

Categories: 

Author articles