Yay. In trouble with ITAR...

52 views
Skip to first unread message

Scott Lowther

unread,
Jul 27, 2007, 8:31:13 PM7/27/07
to
While I was out today, a voicemail came in from a General Dynamics
Export Control Compliance guy at NASA/KSC. Wanted to ahve a chat with me
about my web page here:
http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/drawndocspace.htm

Didn't leave details, and by the time I heard the message, he had long
since left for the weekend. So I get to wait until Monday, I suppose.

So I did the obvious thing... lookeda t that page to see what was on
there that might be ITAR-problematic. I don;t see nuthin' but mostly
Saturn stuff, witha bit of Shuttle and Dyna Soar. I figured maybe he
got the wrong page, and instead meant this page:
http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/drawndocair.htm

That, at least, has some Convair nuclear powered aircraft stuff. Figured
that must be it, the guy being from General Dynamicws and all.

But then I got this message from a contact who worked at KSC:

"However, just before we left KSC, a guy from the NASA Export Control
Office (which is run by some contractor, maybe Analex?) came by our
office on an "inspection" and told us we had to take down all the
Saturn V drawings we had around ... now, these were just old NAA public
relation drawings, plus a few commercially-purchased posters showing
the Saturn V internals in very rough detail. He said they were all
covered by ITAR and therefore had to be locked up! We kept telling him
some were purchased at the Visitor Center Gift Shop, but he did not
care. He ended up coming around with an armed security cop until we
took them down and shredded them."


WTF??? Saturn V is under ITAR control? Has anyone told David Weeks?

--
-------
The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake. - H.L. Mencken

OM

unread,
Jul 27, 2007, 9:02:49 PM7/27/07
to
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 00:31:13 GMT, Scott Lowther
<scottl...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote:

>"However, just before we left KSC, a guy from the NASA Export Control
>Office (which is run by some contractor, maybe Analex?) came by our
>office on an "inspection" and told us we had to take down all the
>Saturn V drawings we had around ... now, these were just old NAA public
>relation drawings, plus a few commercially-purchased posters showing
>the Saturn V internals in very rough detail. He said they were all
>covered by ITAR and therefore had to be locked up! We kept telling him
>some were purchased at the Visitor Center Gift Shop, but he did not
>care. He ended up coming around with an armed security cop until we
>took them down and shredded them."

...Fuck'im. Send *me* copies, and I'll post them on my website, daring
the catamite to order me to take them down. I'll be more than happy to
explain where he can shove his insane attitude.

>WTF??? Saturn V is under ITAR control? Has anyone told David Weeks?

...Have you contacted him yet about this?

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

Scott Lowther

unread,
Jul 27, 2007, 9:07:00 PM7/27/07
to
OM wrote:
...Fuck'im. Send *me* copies, and I'll post them on my website, 
Well, now, that *would* tend to defeat the whole purpose in *selling* them on CD-ROM. However, if you've bought a copy, and they come down on me like a hammer and make me stop selling them (though I'm not quite sure how they could do that), then, why, I can hardly say as that I'd be odffended at them popping up online.



WTF??? Saturn V is under ITAR control? Has anyone told David Weeks?
    
...Have you contacted him yet about this?

No. But Monday comes, and their trouble *is* the Saturn drawings... you damned betcha I'll be contacting him. Right after I get done laughing my ass off. Unless they send me to federal PMITA prison for selling 40-year-old drawings of long obsolete launch vehicles.

Danny Deger

unread,
Jul 27, 2007, 9:15:50 PM7/27/07
to
On Jul 27, 7:31 pm, Scott Lowther

<scottlowt...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote:
> While I was out today, a voicemail came in from a General Dynamics
> Export Control Compliance guy at NASA/KSC. Wanted to ahve a chat with me
> about my web page here:http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/drawndocspace.htm
>
> Didn't leave details, and by the time I heard the message, he had long
> since left for the weekend. So I get to wait until Monday, I suppose.
>
> So I did the obvious thing... lookeda t that page to see what was on
> there that might be ITAR-problematic. I don;t see nuthin' but mostly
> Saturn stuff, witha bit of Shuttle and Dyna Soar. I figured maybe he
> got the wrong page, and instead meant this page:http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/drawndocair.htm
>
> That, at least, has some Convair nuclear powered aircraft stuff. Figured
> that must be it, the guy being from General Dynamicws and all.
>
> But then I got this message from a contact who worked at KSC:
>
> "However, just before we left KSC, a guy from the NASA Export Control
> Office (which is run by some contractor, maybe Analex?) came by our
> office on an "inspection" and told us we had to take down all the
> Saturn V drawings we had around ... now, these were just old NAA public
> relation drawings, plus a few commercially-purchased posters showing
> the Saturn V internals in very rough detail. He said they were all
> covered by ITAR and therefore had to be locked up! We kept telling him
> some were purchased at the Visitor Center Gift Shop, but he did not
> care. He ended up coming around with an armed security cop until we
> took them down and shredded them."
>
> WTF??? Saturn V is under ITAR control? Has anyone told David Weeks?
>

I got into some hotwater for Shuttle display software. When did they
start putting people on ICBMs that need displays? This is all
documented in my book, "Houston, You Have a Problem" that you can
download at www.dannydeger.net The summary is: ANY data on a launch
vehicle is ITAR.

Danny Deger


Scott Lowther

unread,
Jul 27, 2007, 9:19:11 PM7/27/07
to
Danny Deger wrote:

> The summary is: ANY data on a launch
>
>vehicle is ITAR.
>
>

That's a bit loopy. It would imply that a *photo* of a Shuttle is ITAR.
It would imply that mentioning that the Saturn I had a payload of X lbs
to Y orbit is ITAR. Even when said data comes from public domain sources.

Pat Flannery

unread,
Jul 28, 2007, 2:29:07 AM7/28/07
to

Scott Lowther wrote:
>
> "However, just before we left KSC, a guy from the NASA Export Control
> Office (which is run by some contractor, maybe Analex?) came by our
> office on an "inspection" and told us we had to take down all the
> Saturn V drawings we had around ... now, these were just old NAA
> public relation drawings, plus a few commercially-purchased posters
> showing the Saturn V internals in very rough detail. He said they
> were all covered by ITAR and therefore had to be locked up! We kept
> telling him some were purchased at the Visitor Center Gift Shop, but
> he did not care. He ended up coming around with an armed security cop
> until we took them down and shredded them."
>
>
> WTF??? Saturn V is under ITAR control? Has anyone told David Weeks?

You just can't make this shit up, can you?
This reminds me of them taking the Fat Man and Little Boy off display at
the National Atomic Museum because some terrorist might learn how to
make a nuclear weapon by studying them. "So that's what we've been doing
wrong! The fins go at the _back_ end!"
Somebody might want to point out to them that the Saturn V, and all
drawings of the Saturn V, were financed by taxpayers as part of a
civilian space project by a civilian agency, and therefore are public
property every bit as much as photos taken on the Moon's surface by the
astronauts are.
They are probably concerned that Iran or China will back-engineer a
Saturn V from the drawings and get to the Moon before we return.
This administration is completely off its rocker when it comes to
security and classifying things. Most of this seems to emanate from
Cheney's office, who I am becoming increasingly convinced is clinically
mentally unbalanced.

Pat

Scott Lowther

unread,
Jul 28, 2007, 3:25:43 AM7/28/07
to
Pat Flannery wrote:

> This administration is completely off its rocker when it comes to
> security and classifying things. Most of this seems to emanate from
> Cheney's office, who I am becoming increasingly convinced is
> clinically mentally unbalanced.

A lot of the ITAR nuttiness arose in the 1990's. Last I checked, this
administration wasn't around in the 90's.

Unclaimed Mysteries

unread,
Jul 28, 2007, 5:02:20 AM7/28/07
to
Scott Lowther wrote:
> Pat Flannery wrote:
>
>> This administration is completely off its rocker when it comes to
>> security and classifying things. Most of this seems to emanate from
>> Cheney's office, who I am becoming increasingly convinced is
>> clinically mentally unbalanced.
>
> A lot of the ITAR nuttiness arose in the 1990's. Last I checked, this
> administration wasn't around in the 90's.
>

Ahem,

That's not for you to say, citizen. While we strive to keep the American
people as informed as possible, the exact dates of our Administration as
well as today's calendar date and even the color of the sky are topics
we cannot discuss outside an executive session with properly cleared
personnel. To openly talk about these matters is a security breach of
the most critical nature and those who attempt to, for instance, fix an
exact date of this administration's arrival as well as its departure
date are, to put it simply, traitors. I trust you do not want to be
included in that category. Good. I'm glad we had this little talk. Run
along now.

Yer pal, Dick.

Seriously, gift shop Saturn V posters? GIFT SHOP SATURN V POSTERS? The
Freakshow Junta's contractor is trying to reclassify GIFT SHOP SATURN V
POSTERS and your response is to snark about Clinton?

Wait a minute. Are you ... are you EVOR LRAK?

C.
--
It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

In a time of deception telling the truth is a revolutionary act. -
George Orwell

Rand Simberg

unread,
Jul 28, 2007, 8:42:48 AM7/28/07
to
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 01:29:07 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


>They are probably concerned that Iran or China will back-engineer a
>Saturn V from the drawings and get to the Moon before we return.
>This administration is completely off its rocker when it comes to
>security and classifying things. Most of this seems to emanate from
>Cheney's office, who I am becoming increasingly convinced is clinically
>mentally unbalanced.

I think there's a lot more evidence of that for you than for Dick
Cheney.

David Lesher

unread,
Jul 28, 2007, 9:09:51 AM7/28/07
to
Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> writes:


>Somebody might want to point out to them that the Saturn V, and all
>drawings of the Saturn V, were financed by taxpayers as part of a
>civilian space project by a civilian agency, and therefore are public
>property every bit as much as photos taken on the Moon's surface by the
>astronauts are.
>They are probably concerned that Iran or China will back-engineer a
>Saturn V from the drawings and get to the Moon before we return.

Better check and make sure no one has stolen one of the display units.

I've alerted the Smithsonian Police; no cameras or rulers allowed near
the you-know-what engine...

--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

Fred J. McCall

unread,
Jul 28, 2007, 12:17:10 PM7/28/07
to
Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote:

:
:Scott Lowther wrote:
:>
:>
:> WTF??? Saturn V is under ITAR control? Has anyone told David Weeks?


:
:You just can't make this shit up, can you?

:

And you don't have to. Just read the bloody regulation.

:
:Somebody might want to point out to them that the Saturn V, and all

:drawings of the Saturn V, were financed by taxpayers as part of a
:civilian space project by a civilian agency, and therefore are public
:property every bit as much as photos taken on the Moon's surface by the
:astronauts are.

:

This is the silliest 'logic' I've ever heard. The taxpayers finance
all sorts of things. A lot of them are various and assorted bits of
nastiness that we're pretty careful about letting the wrong people
have. Even the 'public property' because it was a 'civilian agency'
argument is silly. That 'public' is US CITIZENS, not 'property of the
world'. Such things are still subject to ITAR, just as your own
private property is.

:
:They are probably concerned that Iran or China will back-engineer a

:Saturn V from the drawings and get to the Moon before we return.
:This administration is completely off its rocker when it comes to
:security and classifying things.

This administration didn't write the ITAR regulations. Go read them.

:
:Most of this seems to emanate from

:Cheney's office, who I am becoming increasingly convinced is clinically
:mentally unbalanced.

:

Any evidence for any part of that last claim? Or is it just your own
mental imbalance from your own ideological hatreds?


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

Rand Simberg

unread,
Jul 28, 2007, 12:26:53 PM7/28/07
to
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 16:17:10 GMT, in a place far, far away, Fred J.
McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in

such a way as to indicate that:

>:Most of this seems to emanate from
>:Cheney's office, who I am becoming increasingly convinced is clinically
>:mentally unbalanced.
>:
>
>Any evidence for any part of that last claim? Or is it just your own
>mental imbalance from your own ideological hatreds?

Got it in one.

Jonathan

unread,
Jul 28, 2007, 12:26:37 PM7/28/07
to

"OM" <om@all_trolls_must_DIE.com> wrote in message
news:va5la399mgjnsnd8q...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 00:31:13 GMT, Scott Lowther
> <scottl...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote:
>
> >"However, just before we left KSC, a guy from the NASA Export Control
> >Office (which is run by some contractor, maybe Analex?) came by our
> >office on an "inspection" and told us we had to take down all the
> >Saturn V drawings we had around ... now, these were just old NAA public
> >relation drawings, plus a few commercially-purchased posters showing
> >the Saturn V internals in very rough detail. He said they were all
> >covered by ITAR and therefore had to be locked up! We kept telling him
> >some were purchased at the Visitor Center Gift Shop, but he did not
> >care. He ended up coming around with an armed security cop until we
> >took them down and shredded them."
>
> ...Fuck'im. Send *me* copies, and I'll post them on my website, daring
> the catamite to order me to take them down. I'll be more than happy to
> explain where he can shove his insane attitude.


Technology leakage of ballistic missiles is the single largest
threat to the security of the United States. And if for a moment
you would stop and think before speaking such ignorant
statements. You might realize that if the agency with the
responsibility of enforcing such technology protections were
grossly understaffed, it might not have the time to sit and engage
in lengthly arguments with each and every joe blow over his
favorite poster.

And simply ban anything and everything even remotely close
to violation as a time saving measure and with no discussion
allowed.

I find it rather comforting to know that when it comes to
national security our govt errs on the side of caution.

But go ahead anyways, take a stand on this one.

I dare ya!

richard schumacher

unread,
Jul 28, 2007, 1:13:38 PM7/28/07
to
In article <13aloi1...@corp.supernews.com>,
Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote:

That's life in Bush's Amerika. No doubt some 'pug will now post an
explanation of how this is all actually Bill Kkkklinton's fault.

Pat Flannery

unread,
Jul 28, 2007, 1:55:22 PM7/28/07
to

Rand Simberg wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 200


>
>
>
>> :Most of this seems to emanate from
>> :Cheney's office, who I am becoming increasingly convinced is clinically
>> :mentally unbalanced.
>> :
>>
>> Any evidence for any part of that last claim? Or is it just your own
>> mental imbalance from your own ideological hatreds?
>>
>
> Got it in one.
>

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070319&s=cottle031907
He thinks Iraq has reconstituted it's WMD program; the CIA investigates
and says it hasn't; he says the CIA is wrong and he knows it has. After
invading we find out the CIA was right.
He thinks Al-Qaeda is being trained in Iraq; the CIA investigates and
says that's not the case; he says the CIA is wrong and he knows it has.
After we invade it turns out that the CIA was right.
He thinks Iraq is secretly importing uranium from Africa; the CIA
investigates and says the report is bogus, he says the CIA is wrong and
he knows the report is true. After we invade, we find out that the CIA
was right.
This sounds a lot like Dick Cheney is a clinical paranoid.
This Newsweek article touches on that:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19886673/site/newsweek/
He spends most of his time worrying about threats to America that are
constantly forming out there in the darkness somewhere. Something bad is
going to happen soon and he's the only one who suspects it and can guard
us all against it.
Has his house been infected with anthrax? Nope. But it could happen next
week if we're not all very careful.
He reads all of the intelligence reports, no matter how minor or unreliable.
He knew that "Curveball" was right about those Iraqi portable biological
weapon trailers. Except "Curveball" was full of crap, and a fraud.
He's the only one that can see the whole truth; that can put all the
pieces together.
Who knows that there are really _two_ keys and someone has _stolen_ all
those strawberries from the U.S.S. Caine's food stocks.
I don't know exactly what the founding fathers had in mind for the
office of the VP (neither did they for that matter; the whole office is
only vaguely described in the Constitution) but something like a
scheming Grand Vizier who is always trying to thwart the constantly
evolving possible plans of Ali Baba to raise evil Djinn and overthrow
the kingdom while the dim-witted Sultan wanders around the throne room
and drools, it probably wasn't.

Pat


Greg D. Moore (Strider)

unread,
Jul 28, 2007, 1:59:33 PM7/28/07
to
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
news:46c039b1...@news.giganews.com...

Oh I don't know. When one day he's claiming executive privilege and the
next he's claiming the VP's office isn't part of the executive branch, does
make you wonder. (I note since the threat of defunding his office was made
he hasn't really tried to force that particular claim. :-)

--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html


Scott Lowther

unread,
Jul 28, 2007, 2:00:41 PM7/28/07
to
Jonathan wrote:

>Technology leakage of ballistic missiles is the single largest
>threat to the security of the United States.
>

Which has nothing to do with *this* instance. The drawings I've been
trying to sell are virtually the same as drawings being sold at the US
Space and Rocket Center gift shop... and *less* useful than drawings
produced by Weeks. The drawings I have are *not* useful for ballistic
missile design. These are drawings *published* by NASA in the open press.

>I find it rather comforting to know that when it comes to
>national security our govt errs on the side of caution.
>

Ah.... Sandy Berger.

Rand Simberg

unread,
Jul 28, 2007, 2:03:27 PM7/28/07
to
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 17:59:33 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> made the phosphor

on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

>>>They are probably concerned that Iran or China will back-engineer a
>>>Saturn V from the drawings and get to the Moon before we return.
>>>This administration is completely off its rocker when it comes to
>>>security and classifying things. Most of this seems to emanate from
>>>Cheney's office, who I am becoming increasingly convinced is clinically
>>>mentally unbalanced.
>>
>> I think there's a lot more evidence of that for you than for Dick
>> Cheney.
>
>Oh I don't know. When one day he's claiming executive privilege and the
>next he's claiming the VP's office isn't part of the executive branch, does
>make you wonder.

Not much. At least not compared to the lunacy that Pat spews on a
regular basis.

Pat Flannery

unread,
Jul 28, 2007, 2:09:55 PM7/28/07
to

richard schumacher wrote:
> That's life in Bush's Amerika. No doubt some 'pug will now post an
> explanation of how this is all actually Bill Kkkklinton's fault.
>

They've already done that.
And I'm insane BTW. :-D

Pat

Scott Ferrin

unread,
Jul 28, 2007, 2:16:06 PM7/28/07
to
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 12:26:37 -0400, "Jonathan" <wr...@bellsouth.net>
wrote:


Uh yeah. Which is why I was able to download a 330 page writeup on
Peacekeeper complete with drawings of many deployment schemes studied,
another one on HiBEX and LoADS (ABM systems) and so forth. All from
the Defense Technical Information Center. So where's the rational of
hounding someone about having civilian stuff out there for download
when all the while you (the government that is) have all this MILITARY
stuff out there for the taking?

Pat Flannery

unread,
Jul 28, 2007, 2:26:35 PM7/28/07
to

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
> Oh I don't know. When one day he's claiming executive privilege and the
> next he's claiming the VP's office isn't part of the executive branch, does
> make you wonder. (I note since the threat of defunding his office was made
> he hasn't really tried to force that particular claim. :-)
>

Hasn't produced a list of those classified documents yet either.
I'm still snickering about Alberto Gonzales' sworn testimony, which held
up for around...what was it? 24 hours this time?
Next time around, I imagine it will collapse right while he's being
questioned:

"Mr. Attorney General, what is the weather at the moment?"
"Clear blue skies."
"Then why are you carrying a umbrella?"
"Because it's raining."
"The sky is blue, and yet it's raining?"
"Yes."
"How can that be?"
"I don't know."
"Did someone tell you it was clear today instead of raining?"
"I can't say."
"Did you talk to anyone about the weather today?"
"If I did, it certainly wasn't about whether it was raining."
"What did you talk about in regards to the weather then?"
"Something else, but not rain."
"What exactly?"
"Something classified." :-P

Pat

thom...@flash.net

unread,
Jul 28, 2007, 2:38:34 PM7/28/07
to

Could someone who knows about ITAR give us a quick tutorial on what
the enforcement procedures are?

Assuming (which I think unlikely given that this has now gotten out
into the public realm) the guy who called Scott decides to report a
possible violation back to the State Department, probably through NASA
channels, what happens next? Obviously State has to decide whether
the report has merit -- but if they do, can they levy fines, send in
SWAT teams etc. on their own or do they have to persuade DHS or DOJ to
actually apply the muscle?

This assumes, of course, that the preferred extralegal methods
(threats to employment and livelihood, typically) are not available
and that some sort of legal route would have to be used.

Pat Flannery

unread,
Jul 28, 2007, 2:39:27 PM7/28/07
to

Scott Ferrin wrote:
>
> Uh yeah. Which is why I was able to download a 330 page writeup on
> Peacekeeper complete with drawings of many deployment schemes studied,
> another one on HiBEX and LoADS (ABM systems) and so forth. All from
> the Defense Technical Information Center. So where's the rational of
> hounding someone about having civilian stuff out there for download
> when all the while you (the government that is) have all this MILITARY
> stuff out there for the taking?
>

I guess if you wanted to build a F-1 engined super ICBM...
It never occurred to me before, but I wonder if this is why Rusty
Barton's ballistic missile websites vanished from the web?


Pat

Scott Lowther

unread,
Jul 28, 2007, 2:49:34 PM7/28/07
to
thom...@flash.net wrote:

>This assumes, of course, that the preferred extralegal methods

>(threats to employment and livelihood, typically) are not available...
>
>

Heh. Given that the document/drawing biz, along with eAPR and my model
biz, *are* my sole sources of income.... they would either have an
incredibly easy time of damaging my employment, or incredibly hard. They
could try to talk my boss into bitchslapping me, but since I *am* my
boss....

thom...@flash.net

unread,
Jul 28, 2007, 4:59:51 PM7/28/07
to
On Jul 28, 1:49 pm, Scott Lowther
<scottlowt...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote:

> Heh. Given that the document/drawing biz, along with eAPR and my model
> biz, *are* my sole sources of income.... they would either have an
> incredibly easy time of damaging my employment, or incredibly hard. They
> could try to talk my boss into bitchslapping me, but since I *am* my
> boss....

I've watched things like this for some while, and I think that things
outside the traditional coercible employer/employee paradigm are kind
of head-exploding for people in authoritarian positions. And I doubt
that a State Dept. or DoJ lawyer would come close to pursuing your
case if it got that far -- which it likely won't.

But please do keep us informed if anything further comes of this.

Scott Lowther

unread,
Jul 28, 2007, 5:27:15 PM7/28/07
to
thom...@flash.net wrote:

>
> And I doubt
>that a State Dept. or DoJ lawyer would come close to pursuing your
>case if it got that far -- which it likely won't.
>
>

Never under-estiamte the willingness of someone to try to make a name
for himself or to meet soem sort of quota.

>But please do keep us informed if anything further comes of this.
>
>
>

Well, if I suddenly stop posting and my website vanishes like a fart in
the wind... that'll be a sign.

Pat Flannery

unread,
Jul 28, 2007, 5:41:38 PM7/28/07
to

thom...@flash.net wrote:
> Assuming (which I think unlikely given that this has now gotten out
> into the public realm) the guy who called Scott decides to report a
> possible violation back to the State Department, probably through NASA
> channels, what happens next?

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-03/25/xin_25030225084965357213.jpg

Pat :-)

BigR...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jul 28, 2007, 5:55:29 PM7/28/07
to
Why support Scott Loather when you can get the same info from Mark
Wade's site, plus in the book about the Saturn 5, the Saturn 5's
payload guide is right there in black and white. Plus go to the
library and scour back issues of AWST between 1965 qnd 1966
>
>Pat

Pat Flannery

unread,
Jul 28, 2007, 6:05:29 PM7/28/07
to

thom...@flash.net wrote:
> But please do keep us informed if anything further comes of this.
>

I'm sure he'll tap out messages to us in Morse Code on the cell's
plumbing pipes. :-)

Pat

Fred J. McCall

unread,
Jul 28, 2007, 6:41:27 PM7/28/07
to
Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote:

:
:


:Rand Simberg wrote:
:> On Sat, 28 Jul 200
:>
:>> :Most of this seems to emanate from
:>> :Cheney's office, who I am becoming increasingly convinced is clinically
:>> :mentally unbalanced.
:>> :
:>>
:>> Any evidence for any part of that last claim? Or is it just your own
:>> mental imbalance from your own ideological hatreds?
:>>
:>
:> Got it in one.

:>
:
: <snip>
:

I'll just note that your raving and the two cites you give don't seem
much connected.

:I don't know exactly what the founding fathers had in mind for the

:office of the VP (neither did they for that matter; the whole office is
:only vaguely described in the Constitution) but something like a
:scheming Grand Vizier who is always trying to thwart the constantly
:evolving possible plans of Ali Baba to raise evil Djinn and overthrow
:the kingdom while the dim-witted Sultan wanders around the throne room
:and drools, it probably wasn't.

:

It only exists so that paranoid ideological haters like you have
something else to be delusional about.

Hop David

unread,
Jul 28, 2007, 7:00:07 PM7/28/07
to
BigR...@hotmail.com wrote:

I tune him out when he's in Rush Limbaugh mode.

However I listen attentively when Lowther talks about space or engineering.

Hop

Len

unread,
Jul 29, 2007, 11:48:25 AM7/29/07
to
On Jul 28, 1:13 pm, richard schumacher <no-s...@invalid.net> wrote:
> In article <13aloi1cstip...@corp.supernews.com>,

I'm afraid that both major parties are bad news
when it comes to ITAR--and a lot of other
issues.

Len

Peter Stickney

unread,
Jul 29, 2007, 12:52:12 PM7/29/07
to
Scott Lowther wrote:

> While I was out today, a voicemail came in from a General Dynamics
> Export Control Compliance guy at NASA/KSC. Wanted to ahve a chat with me
> about my web page here:
> http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/drawndocspace.htm
>
> Didn't leave details, and by the time I heard the message, he had long
> since left for the weekend. So I get to wait until Monday, I suppose.
>
> So I did the obvious thing... lookeda t that page to see what was on
> there that might be ITAR-problematic. I don;t see nuthin' but mostly
> Saturn stuff, witha bit of Shuttle and Dyna Soar. I figured maybe he
> got the wrong page, and instead meant this page:
> http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/drawndocair.htm
>
> That, at least, has some Convair nuclear powered aircraft stuff. Figured
> that must be it, the guy being from General Dynamicws and all.
>
> But then I got this message from a contact who worked at KSC:


>
> "However, just before we left KSC, a guy from the NASA Export Control
> Office (which is run by some contractor, maybe Analex?) came by our
> office on an "inspection" and told us we had to take down all the
> Saturn V drawings we had around ... now, these were just old NAA public
> relation drawings, plus a few commercially-purchased posters showing
> the Saturn V internals in very rough detail. He said they were all
> covered by ITAR and therefore had to be locked up! We kept telling him
> some were purchased at the Visitor Center Gift Shop, but he did not
> care. He ended up coming around with an armed security cop until we
> took them down and shredded them."
>
>
> WTF??? Saturn V is under ITAR control? Has anyone told David Weeks?
>

Sounds to me like typical "NewCOntractoritis"
(Which is the civilian form of "NewAgencyitis")
Whenever a somebody gets a contract for, say, Site Security or
ITAR-like functions, they comein all gung-ho trying to show that they're
On the Ball, Bright Eyed and Bushy-tailed.
Of course, the people they are hiring to fill the slots are inexperienced,
unknowlegable lightweights - your Standard Issue wannabee - like the bozos
who hand out at the Dunkin' Donuts at 0300 waiting for a cop to come in, so
they can try to talk "Adam-12" talk.
They very quickly establish themselves by throwing their weight around, and
being deathly afraid that everybody knows more than they do.

As an example, last year I was supervising an installation on a Destroyer.
The Security contract at the Shipyard involved had just changed.
The new Security folks were incapable of getting things done right (Like
maintaining Access Lists from one day to the next), but had absolute power
to either refuse access to the yard or toss people out for "Workplace
Safety Violations - like having the wrong color steel-toed boots. (Happened
to one of my people. The funny thing is that the Safety Goon who made that
pronouncement was wearing the exact same "Unsafe Shoes")
I on the other hand, had (Other than dealing with lost paperwork such that I
would stand in the Security Office and make the Security Supervisor hand
carry the (Faxed for the 3rd time that morning) Access list to the Gate
Apes.) little problem - My Sreel-toes are broken in and obviously used,
my Hard Hat had my name stenciled on it and was also obviously not from Home
Depot, and I looked like I knew what was going on.

The same behavior occurs in Government Agencies (At all levels) when either
an Agency is rapidly expanded, or newly created.

It's completely independent of who's administration it is, or what their
policies are.

--
Pete Stickney
Without data, all you have is an opinion

surfduke

unread,
Jul 29, 2007, 3:08:56 PM7/29/07
to
This is not cool at all!! I want to be updated on what happens too!!

Carl

Glen Overby

unread,
Jul 29, 2007, 3:59:25 PM7/29/07
to
Scott Lowther <"scottlowtherAT ix DOT netcom DOT com"> wrote:
>the Saturn V internals in very rough detail. He said they were all
>covered by ITAR and therefore had to be locked up! We kept telling him
>some were purchased at the Visitor Center Gift Shop, but he did not
>care. He ended up coming around with an armed security cop until we
>took them down and shredded them."

So, I guess that's the only way to get rid of the Saturn V: Bring an armed
security copy around and demand that you shread the drawings.

I kinda wish Russia would put the drawings for the N1 up on the net :-)

Glen Overby

Pat Flannery

unread,
Jul 29, 2007, 4:50:10 PM7/29/07
to

Glen Overby wrote:
>
> I kinda wish Russia would put the drawings for the N1 up on the net :-)
>

COMRADE! Mighty Soviet Super-Rocket!:
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/n/n1diagko.jpg
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/n/n1cut4.gif
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/n1.html

Pat

Unclaimed Mysteries

unread,
Jul 29, 2007, 11:28:40 PM7/29/07
to
Unclaimed Mysteries wrote in part:
> Scott Lowther wrote in part:
>> Pat Flannery wrote in part:

>>
>>> This administration is completely off its rocker when it comes to
>>> security and classifying things. Most of this seems to emanate from
>>> Cheney's office, who I am becoming increasingly convinced is
>>> clinically mentally unbalanced.
>>
>> A lot of the ITAR nuttiness arose in the 1990's. Last I checked, this
>> administration wasn't around in the 90's.
>>

> Seriously, gift shop Saturn V posters? GIFT SHOP SATURN V POSTERS? The
> Freakshow Junta's contractor is trying to reclassify GIFT SHOP SATURN V
> POSTERS and your response is to snark about Clinton?
>


P.S: My calm, sober, eminently reasoned response here is conditional on
this incident being true. No personal slight intended, but it could be
made up. Or it could even be a plant, designed to discredit any actual
incidents of heavy-handed securitizing. In either case, I'll keep my
security breeches on.

C.

--
It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

"Obviously too fucking stupid to bother with." - Top-postin' USENET
SUPERSOLDIER Fred J. McCall in rec.photo.digital

Pat Flannery

unread,
Jul 30, 2007, 12:25:16 AM7/30/07
to

Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
>
> P.S: My calm, sober, eminently reasoned response here is conditional
> on this incident being true. No personal slight intended, but it could
> be made up. Or it could even be a plant, designed to discredit any
> actual incidents of heavy-handed securitizing. In either case, I'll
> keep my security breeches on.

Scott's been around here for a lot of years, I don't agree with him at
all politically, but he never made anything up as far as I know.

Pat

OM

unread,
Jul 30, 2007, 2:42:52 AM7/30/07
to
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 23:25:16 -0500, Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com>
wrote:

>Scott's been around here for a lot of years, I don't agree with him at
>all politically, but he never made anything up as far as I know.

...Unlike Rob Arndt, natch.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

Pat Flannery

unread,
Jul 30, 2007, 2:57:46 AM7/30/07
to

OM wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 23:25:16 -0500, Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Scott's been around here for a lot of years, I don't agree with him at
>> all politically, but he never made anything up as far as I know.
>>
>
> ...Unlike Rob Arndt, natch.
>

I finally found the Bruce McCall's aircraft on the web, BTW:
http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/AC/way-weird/weird.php
My favorite is still the Kakaka "Shirley"amphibious pedal bomber. :-)

Pat


OM

unread,
Jul 30, 2007, 3:06:19 AM7/30/07
to
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 12:52:12 -0400, Peter Stickney
<p-sti...@comcast.net> wrote:

>They very quickly establish themselves by throwing their weight around, and
>being deathly afraid that everybody knows more than they do.

...We had one fuckwit engineer at Dell who pulled that stunt the first
day he was assigned to our group. We test engineers had finished a
series of tests on one of the last video cards Number Nine had put out
before those Beatlefreaks went out of business, and as standard policy
we added our conclusions to the end of the report. This guy came into
the lab and made it clear in no uncertain terms that he and he *alone*
would be making any conclusions regarding any test results, and that
he'd have anyone who reported any results without being filtered
through him first removed from the team, if not fired. We were in his
book, "lowly techs" because we weren't "Engineering/Analyists", and
weren't "qualified" to make any sort of judgments regarding data.

...Needless to say, being test *engineers* and not "test technicians"
as he claimed we were - Dell thought otherwise - this didn't sit well
with any of us, so we asked for that in writing, as it negated our
previous SOP. So he fired off an e-mail to all of us restating his
edicts. Which we then forwarded to *our* big boss, who then forwarded
it to -his- boss.

A week later, this bozo was gone. Seems he told the *bigger* boss that
either the testing was done his way or the highway, so they told him
to start hitching his thumb...

Ian Woollard

unread,
Jul 30, 2007, 7:41:56 AM7/30/07
to
On Jul 28, 6:55 pm, Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote:
> http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070319&s=cottle031907
> He thinks Iraq has reconstituted it's WMD program; the CIA investigates
> and says it hasn't; he says the CIA is wrong and he knows it has. After
> invading we find out the CIA was right.
> He thinks Al-Qaeda is being trained in Iraq; the CIA investigates and
> says that's not the case; he says the CIA is wrong and he knows it has.
> After we invade it turns out that the CIA was right.
> He thinks Iraq is secretly importing uranium from Africa; the CIA
> investigates and says the report is bogus, he says the CIA is wrong and
> he knows the report is true. After we invade, we find out that the CIA
> was right.

You left out shooting his friend in the face.

> This sounds a lot like Dick Cheney is a clinical paranoid.

Kinda, but nahhh. Never ascribe to malice that which can be ascribed
to incompetence....

... except the version for politicians is:

Never ascribe to malice or incompetence that which can be ascribed to
venal greed.

Doesn't he have a chairmanship of Halliburton that would benefit from
getting a good war on? There you go then.

America has the best gosh-darn politicians money can buy; you got to
keep that in mind.

> This Newsweek article touches on that:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19886673/site/newsweek/
> He spends most of his time worrying about threats to America that are
> constantly forming out there in the darkness somewhere. Something bad is
> going to happen soon and he's the only one who suspects it and can guard
> us all against it.
> Has his house been infected with anthrax? Nope. But it could happen next
> week if we're not all very careful.
> He reads all of the intelligence reports, no matter how minor or unreliable.
> He knew that "Curveball" was right about those Iraqi portable biological
> weapon trailers. Except "Curveball" was full of crap, and a fraud.
> He's the only one that can see the whole truth; that can put all the
> pieces together.

Yup, putting all the pieces together to spell profit for him and
Halliburton!

> Pat

Fred J. McCall

unread,
Jul 30, 2007, 10:39:53 AM7/30/07
to
Ian Woollard <ian.wo...@gmail.com> wrote:

:
:Doesn't he have a chairmanship of Halliburton that would benefit from


:getting a good war on? There you go then.

:

Yeah, there you go then. Ignorance works wonders.

Hint: No, he doesn't "have a chairmanship of Halliburton". There is
only one CB and he's not it.

:
:Yup, putting all the pieces together to spell profit for him and
:Halliburton!
:

Yep, if you're stupid and your audience is stupid you can make a case
for anything.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

James Nicoll

unread,
Jul 30, 2007, 12:00:50 PM7/30/07
to
In article <UEwqi.12882$ya1....@news02.roc.ny>,

Scott Lowther <"scottlowtherAT ix DOT netcom DOT com"> wrote:
>-=-=-=-=-=-

>
>OM wrote:
>
>>
>>...Fuck'im. Send *me* copies, and I'll post them on my website,
>>
>Well, now, that *would* tend to defeat the whole purpose in *selling*
>them on CD-ROM.

I suppose you wouldn't get the dynamic seen with books: offer
an e-copy for free and get additional sales from people who prefer
paper.


--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)

Eric Chomko

unread,
Jul 30, 2007, 12:02:37 PM7/30/07
to
On Jul 28, 8:42 am, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 01:29:07 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
> Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
> such a way as to indicate that:

>
> >They are probably concerned that Iran or China will back-engineer a
> >Saturn V from the drawings and get to the Moon before we return.
> >This administration is completely off its rocker when it comes to
> >security and classifying things. Most of this seems to emanate from
> >Cheney's office, who I am becoming increasingly convinced is clinically
> >mentally unbalanced.
>
> I think there's a lot more evidence of that for you than for Dick
> Cheney.

That's because Pat hasn't had his battery replaced recently like
Cheney did, and on the public's dime mind you.

Pat Flannery

unread,
Jul 30, 2007, 1:21:19 PM7/30/07
to

Ian Woollard wrote:
>
> You left out shooting his friend in the face.
>
>

That's easily explainable; he thought that was Dan Quayle in disguise.
He knows that about half the people who visit him are in some sort of
disguise, as his trigger finger starts twitching whenever one
approaches. They are under alien control, and they are out to destroy
America.
He knew Dan Quayle was one of _them_ the moment he started talking about
how we could live on Mars because Mars and Earth are in the same orbit.
Cheney knows there is only one way to stop the Martians, and that is to
make Earth's climate impossible for them to live in. In short, as unlike
cold Mars as possible...in short, as hot as possible.
If only he knew he was doing the bidding of Venusian agente provocateurs
to prepare for _their_ invasion.

Pat

marky...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 30, 2007, 3:43:01 PM7/30/07
to
On Jul 28, 2:26 pm, Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote:
> Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
>
> > Oh I don't know. When one day he's claiming executive privilege and the
> > next he's claiming the VP's office isn't part of the executive branch, does
> > make you wonder. (I note since the threat of defunding his office was made
> > he hasn't really tried to force that particular claim. :-)
>
> Hasn't produced a list of those classified documents yet either.
> I'm still snickering about Alberto Gonzales' sworn testimony, which held
> up for around...what was it? 24 hours this time?
> Next time around, I imagine it will collapse right while he's being
> questioned:
>
> "Mr. Attorney General, what is the weather at the moment?"
> "Clear blue skies."
> "Then why are you carrying a umbrella?"
> "Because it's raining."
> "The sky is blue, and yet it's raining?"
> "Yes."
> "How can that be?"
> "I don't know."
> "Did someone tell you it was clear today instead of raining?"
> "I can't say."
> "Did you talk to anyone about the weather today?"
> "If I did, it certainly wasn't about whether it was raining."
> "What did you talk about in regards to the weather then?"
> "Something else, but not rain."
> "What exactly?"
> "Something classified." :-P
>
> Pat

Maybe he was talking to someone about Al Gore's weather control ray
located in a super-secret lab in the sprawling underground complex
beneath his Tennessee estate.

Message has been deleted

BradGuth

unread,
Jul 30, 2007, 5:00:02 PM7/30/07
to
On Jul 27, 5:31 pm, Scott Lowther

<scottlowt...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote:
> WTF??? Saturn V is under ITAR control? Has anyone told David Weeks?

Why of course our Jewish Third Reich "Saturn V" is entirely hocus
pocus ITAR worthy.

After all, accomplishing our NASA/Apollo missions within a mere 60:1
rocket per payload ratio, as well as for having a nearly 30% inert
GLOW to start off with, never the less somehow that big old sucker
managed via hocus-pocus smoke and mirrors in order to so quickly get
our rad-hard and electrostatic dust proof Apollo missions off to such
an impressive fly-by-rocket start. Apparently those brave rad-hard
astronauts of ours consumed mass quantities of beans and subsequently
utilized their flatulence for the necessary 4th stage thrusting, as
well as for their getting safely back home. If that's not fully ITAR
rated, then perhaps nothing is.

Why don't you try posting those all-inclusive hard facts about such
impressive fly-by-rocket specs of that nifty Saturn V (including its
initial tonnage of ice loading), showing us how those ITAR rated
Jewish Third Reich laws of such faith-based conditional physics are
simply way superior to anything else on Earth, even still as of today
being at least twice if not nearly three fold better.

Perhaps you can use any number of the most modern fly-by-rocket
technology that's not nearly as inert to start with, that couldn't
possibly manage GSO at much better off than 80:1.
- Brad Guth

nsa...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 30, 2007, 5:05:07 PM7/30/07
to

Scott Lowther wrote:

> WTF??? Saturn V is under ITAR control? Has anyone told David Weeks?
>

I wonder when the US is going to copy the great internet firewall
china has.... won't be long now...
BTW, don't understand why you don't just host it on a server in the
EU? can they still nail you as a US citizen? can they even track that
it's you who is operating site X..??

NASA has a book (and many others) that I once borrowed in my
Engineering University's library (in Denmark) describing exactly how
to create liquid fueled rocket motors... Like a textbook of
rocketmotor-design-101-with-everything-you-need-to-know (forgot the
title) ...I started a project to create one (a small one,liquid oxygen
+hydrogen) with a fellow student but I moved away :( before we got
anywhere (would have been waaay cool). Our stated goal was to be the
first to put a live frog in orbit... (students...cheez!) heh heh.

Are they going to start burning books, anytime soon? what about all
the books describing all this stuff all around the world? do the
Americans think they're the only ones who can build a rocket? (let
alone an OLD one?) haha. sad really. state paranoia....
Are terrorists going to build Saturn V rockets????? OMG! ROFL.

PS: loved the N1 pics someone posted links to! Oh and to the guy
saying Cheney doesn't have a 'chairmanship' of HB, well he's got lots
of stock so he'll make loads of dosh on wars, eh?

Tobias

BradGuth

unread,
Jul 30, 2007, 5:33:25 PM7/30/07
to

Certain OT faith-based groups are getting a bit extra testy these
days, and I suppose if you'd call WWIII as a form of book burning,
then why the hell not?
- Brad Guth

bill_c...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jul 30, 2007, 6:03:02 PM7/30/07
to
Well, it's only a matter of time before this advanced Space Shuttle
simulation software will have to be pulled from the web because of
ITAR:

http://www.atariage.com/software_page.html?SoftwareLabelID=466

se...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jul 30, 2007, 6:15:34 PM7/30/07
to

I have way too many years in DoD work, and it always came back to
security being only as good as the people keeping it. During the Cold
War, and later Star Wars era, protection on data and documents were,
shall we say, extreme. Each artifact has an elaborate control system
from inception through destruction. Once the Berlin wall came down it
became apparent that the cost of maintaining such a system outweight
the knowledge lost to openness, and a wholesale declassification
process started in earnest. Heck, I still have the detailed flight and
weapon delivery manuals for our fighter inventory. All perfectly legit
as long as I didn't ship or share information out of country.

The point? Well, think of the pendilum model. All this too will pass,
and in a decade or two you will be able to get this information
sitting at your local Starbucks hotspot.

Unclaimed Mysteries

unread,
Jul 30, 2007, 6:33:46 PM7/30/07
to
se...@yahoo.com wrote in part:

> The point? Well, think of the pendilum model. All this too will pass,
> and in a decade or two you will be able to get this information
> sitting at your local Starbucks hotspot.
>

Yeah, but it will be beamed directly into your compulsory Freedom Brain
Implant Receiver and if you try to tell anyone They will send the
destruct code and your head will ASPLODE just like in "Scanners."

Other than that, no problemo.

Scott Lowther

unread,
Jul 30, 2007, 7:14:50 PM7/30/07
to
nsa...@gmail.com wrote:

>BTW, don't understand why you don't just host it on a server in the
>EU? can they still nail you as a US citizen?
>

Yes. If you have ITAR data and you try to host it via a foreign
server... you still have to *get* the data to the foreign server. And
for that they can getcha.


--
-------
The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake. - H.L. Mencken

nsa...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 30, 2007, 7:35:02 PM7/30/07
to
On Jul 31, 1:14 am, Scott Lowther
<scottlowt...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote:

> nsa....@gmail.com wrote:
> >BTW, don't understand why you don't just host it on a server in the
> >EU? can they still nail you as a US citizen?
>
> Yes. If you have ITAR data and you try to host it via a foreign
> server... you still have to *get* the data to the foreign server. And
> for that they can getcha.

Yes ok, that really sucks. But in reality I guess they would have to
prove that you sent it. If you encrypt it with strong encryption you
can beam it to europe without the old NSA lineeater spotting
anything... and once its there you just host it somewhere anonymously
(ok not so easy to be truly anonymous but possible by legal means, or
get a EU friend to do it).
..oh wait...I forgot...strong encryption is outlawed for US citizens
to export/use (and what they allow they can crack)....man bummer....
but there's ways around that too, hide the encrypted file encoded in
the spare bandwidth of an image file... etc etc and other ways...
(there will *allways* be ways around their nonsense....)

Tobias


Message has been deleted

lunaradvocate

unread,
Jul 30, 2007, 9:48:48 PM7/30/07
to
If anyone comes to you with this stupidy again pull out the Code of
Federal Regulations, specifically CFR 120.11

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/offdocs/itar/p120.htm#P120.6

§ 120.10 -- Technical data.

Technical data means, for purposes of this subchapter:

(1) Information, other than software as defined in § 120.10(d),
which is required for the design development, production, manufacture,
assembly, operation, repair, testing, maintenance or modification of
defense articles. This includes information in the form of blueprints,
drawings, photographs, plans, instructions and documentation.

(2) Classified information relating to defense articles and defense
services;

(3) Information covered by an invention secrecy order;

(4) Software as defined in § 121.8(f) of this subchapter directly
related to defense articles;

(5) This definition does not include information concerning general
scientific, mathematical or engineering principles commonly taught in
schools, colleges and universities or information in the public domain
as defined in § 120.11. It also does not include basic marketing
information on function or purpose or general system descriptions of
defense articles.

§ 120.11 -- Public domain.

Public domain means information which is published and which is
generally accessible or available to the public:

(1) Through sales at newsstands and bookstores;

(2) Through subscriptions which are available without restriction
to any individual who desires to obtain or purchase the published
information;

(3) Through second class mailing privileges granted by the U.S.
Government;

(4) At libraries open to the public or from which the public can
obtain documents;

(5) Through patents available at any patent office;

(6) Through unlimited distribution at a conference, meeting,
seminar, trade show or exhibition, generally accessible to the public,
in the United States;

(7) Through public release (i.e., unlimited distribution) in any
form (e.g., not necessarily in published form) after approval by the
cognizant U.S. government department or agency (see also § 125.4(b)
(13) of this subchapter);

(8) Through fundamental research in science and engineering at
accredited institutions of higher learning in the U.S. where the
resulting information is ordinarily published and shared broadly in
the scientific community. Fundamental research is defined to mean
basic and applied research in science and engineering where the
resulting information is ordinarily published and shared broadly
within the scientific community, as distinguished from research the
results of which are restricted for proprietary reasons or specific
U.S. Government access and dissemination controls. University research
will not be considered fundamental research if:

(i) The University or its researchers accept other restrictions on
publication of scientific and technical information resulting from the
project or activity, or

(ii) The research is funded by the U.S. Government and specific
access and dissemination controls protecting information resulting
from the research are applicable.

NOTE THE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC DOMAIN.

On Jul 28, 3:59 pm, "thoms...@flash.net" <thoms...@flash.net> wrote:
> On Jul 28, 1:49 pm, Scott Lowther
>
> <scottlowt...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote:
> > Heh. Given that the document/drawing biz, along with eAPR and my model
> > biz, *are* my sole sources of income.... they would either have an
> > incredibly easy time of damaging my employment, or incredibly hard. They
> > could try to talk my boss into bitchslapping me, but since I *am* my
> > boss....
>
> I've watched things like this for some while, and I think that things
> outside the traditional coercible employer/employee paradigm are kind
> of head-exploding for people in authoritarian positions. And I doubt
> that a State Dept. or DoJ lawyer would come close to pursuing your
> case if it got that far -- which it likely won't.
>
> But please do keep us informed if anything further comes of this.


Fred J. McCall

unread,
Jul 30, 2007, 10:29:48 PM7/30/07
to
nsa...@gmail.com wrote:

:


:Scott Lowther wrote:
:>
:> WTF??? Saturn V is under ITAR control? Has anyone told David Weeks?
:>
:
:I wonder when the US is going to copy the great internet firewall
:china has.... won't be long now...

:

I don't understand why you people can't just read what the bloody
regulation says.

:
:Are they going to start burning books, anytime soon? what about all


:the books describing all this stuff all around the world? do the
:Americans think they're the only ones who can build a rocket? (let
:alone an OLD one?) haha. sad really. state paranoia....
:Are terrorists going to build Saturn V rockets????? OMG! ROFL.

:

Good thing you're self-amusing. The preceding is idiotic.

:
:PS: loved the N1 pics someone posted links to! Oh and to the guy


:saying Cheney doesn't have a 'chairmanship' of HB, well he's got lots
:of stock so he'll make loads of dosh on wars, eh?

:

Perhaps you should go look up how Haliburton makes its money, eh?


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

BradGuth

unread,
Jul 30, 2007, 11:14:00 PM7/30/07
to

That's more true than you can imagine, as otherwise those wise old but
pesky Chinks are going to use it against us, as they take over the
moon's L1 and their next stop being Venus L2. Are we screwed, or
what?
- Brad Guth

nsa...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 31, 2007, 3:14:39 AM7/31/07
to
On Jul 31, 4:29 am, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> nsa....@gmail.com wrote:

> :I wonder when the US is going to copy the great internet firewall
> :china has.... won't be long now...
> :
>
> I don't understand why you people can't just read what the bloody
> regulation says.

Because even if the regulation says it's ok for the OP to publish
these posts, his experience with ITAR shows that the whole thing is on
a slippery slope and especially so when it is managed by morons who
don't know the regulation. You can't export this, you can't export
that...next... the firewall in china...


> :Are they going to start burning books, anytime soon? what about all
> :the books describing all this stuff all around the world? do the
> :Americans think they're the only ones who can build a rocket? (let
> :alone an OLD one?) haha. sad really. state paranoia....
> :Are terrorists going to build Saturn V rockets????? OMG! ROFL.
> :
>
> Good thing you're self-amusing. The preceding is idiotic.

Notice how I cleverly inferred book burning from internet censorship,
displayed how this would be difficult in practice, and then making a
seemingly little joke about rocket building that then turns into
terrorists making Saturn V rockets! my god! could a professional
comedian have done better? or...or...a Politician! I should apply to
Mensa or something.... =8-)
Not idiotic...logic...
By the way, serious forces in the US are wanting to burn the Harry
Potter books... (ok, now I'm waay OT, but it does have a bearing on
the whole censorship thing).

> Perhaps you should go look up how Haliburton makes its money, eh?

Umm... they make money (lots) on WAR and OIL. There is both in Iraq.
Lots. Cheney is a WAR monger. This is no secret. Do you think Cheneys
cabal of cronies and his family members and theirs do not own stock or
get bribes...um I mean 'campain contributions' from them?

Tobias

Fred J. McCall

unread,
Jul 31, 2007, 7:07:44 AM7/31/07
to
nsa...@gmail.com wrote:

:On Jul 31, 4:29 am, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> nsa....@gmail.com wrote:
:
:> :I wonder when the US is going to copy the great internet firewall
:> :china has.... won't be long now...
:> :
:>
:> I don't understand why you people can't just read what the bloody
:> regulation says.
:>
:
:Because even if the regulation says it's ok for the OP to publish
:these posts, his experience with ITAR shows that the whole thing is on
:a slippery slope and especially so when it is managed by morons who
:don't know the regulation. You can't export this, you can't export
:that...next... the firewall in china...
:

You're an idiot. Speaking of "morons who don't know the regulation",
I will once again suggest that YOU GO READ THE BLOODY THING!

:
:> :
:> :Are they going to start burning books, anytime soon? what about all


:> :the books describing all this stuff all around the world? do the
:> :Americans think they're the only ones who can build a rocket? (let
:> :alone an OLD one?) haha. sad really. state paranoia....
:> :Are terrorists going to build Saturn V rockets????? OMG! ROFL.
:> :
:>
:> Good thing you're self-amusing. The preceding is idiotic.
:>
:
:Notice how I cleverly inferred book burning from internet censorship,
:displayed how this would be difficult in practice, and then making a
:seemingly little joke about rocket building that then turns into
:terrorists making Saturn V rockets! my god! could a professional
:comedian have done better? or...or...a Politician! I should apply to
:Mensa or something.... =8-)
:Not idiotic...logic...
:

By your standards it may be logic. By human standards it just doesn't
qualify.

:
:By the way, serious forces in the US are wanting to burn the Harry


:Potter books... (ok, now I'm waay OT, but it does have a bearing on
:the whole censorship thing).

:

Both irrelevant AND stupid to bring up.

:
:>
:> Perhaps you should go look up how Haliburton makes its money, eh?


:>
:
:Umm... they make money (lots) on WAR and OIL.

:

I see. You're too stupid to actually know what Haliburton does.

:
:There is both in Iraq.


:Lots. Cheney is a WAR monger. This is no secret. Do you think Cheneys
:cabal of cronies and his family members and theirs do not own stock or
:get bribes...um I mean 'campain contributions' from them?

:

I think you're an idiot blinded by his own ideological hatreds.

Message has been deleted

Pat Flannery

unread,
Jul 31, 2007, 10:43:10 AM7/31/07
to

nsa...@gmail.com wrote:
> Umm... they make money (lots) on WAR and OIL. There is both in Iraq.
> Lots. Cheney is a WAR monger. This is no secret. Do you think Cheneys
> cabal of cronies and his family members and theirs do not own stock or
> get bribes...um I mean 'campain contributions' from them?
>

I'm keen to see exactly how much of that proposed 20 billion dollars in
military aid to "friendly" Arab states somehow works its way into
Halliburton of Dubai's hands.
Meanwhile, for the money, we get....pretty much nothing:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20037146/

Pat

nsa...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 31, 2007, 11:41:32 AM7/31/07