Post Info TOPIC: Refuting Smith & Gentempo- Point by Point
Innate Defender

Date:
Refuting Smith & Gentempo- Point by Point
Permalink   



The following is a response to lies put out by Patrick Gentempo:


1. The letter from Courtney Graham of NASA General Counsels Office (regarding CLAs Insight Subluxation Station) completely contradicts the official position of NASA Headquarters, which oversees the General Counsels office.

2. General Counsels Office was publicly alerted to CLAs implied endorsement by NASA via the NASA Spinoff publication almost a year ago, and failed to act on the false claims being made.

3. In her letter, she says that NASA has made no statements regarding the nature or character of the CLA product itself nor has NASA otherwise characterized CLA or its claim. Yet, there is a letter from NASA Headquarters, now a matter of public record (view at www.myovision.com under news), that clearly refers to the nature and character of the CLA product. It is impossible for Ms. Graham -- or anyone else -- to deny that this letter from NASA Headquarters exists. And, since the General Counsels Office works for and under NASA Headquarters, NASA Headquarters' public statement overrides anything coming from the General Counsels office.

3. The document from NASA Headquarters contains the following statement: .the NASA Office of General Counsel (OCG) conducted a thorough evaluation of the claims made by the CLA of a partnership connection between Agency research and their Insight Subluxation Station: NASA has been unable to adequately corroborate those claims, and as a result, will no longer recognize the Insight Subluxation Station as a Spinoff (a product developed as a result of NASA research). In light of this, NASA has taken immediate measures to post an errata on the Spinoff website."

4. NASA Headquarters further states in the same letter that . this is the first known instance in the history of the NASA Spinoff, with over 1600 documented spinoffs, in which this unfortunate situation has occurred.

5. The bottom line is that CLA no longer is recognized by NASA Headquarters as a NASA derived product. Period. The official position of NASA Headquarters is a matter of public record, and was the result of a year and a half of investigating.

6. NASA headquarters did in fact remove any implied endorsement of the Insight Subluxation Station, definitively stating that the Insight does not meet the criteria as a NASA Spinoff.

7. Space Foundation is NOT NASA but does an excellent job of appearing as such. Do not be confused: The Space Foundation endorses everything from mattresses to the Insight Subluxation Station for a fee.


__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard