The Burnelli Web Site
Evidence of Suppression and Official denial is overwhelming
spacer

 


 

July 9, 1996

Mr. Daniel S. Goldin
Administrator
N.A.S.A.
300 E Street, S.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20546

Dear Mr. Goldin,

In view of the recent correspondence directed to you commencing with my letter dated March 29, 1995, which pointed out the misappropriation of Burnelli rights by the NASA-funded megajet project, we are quite astonished to learn that NASA has now funded Lockheed Martin to pirate the same Burnelli rights in the X-33. Surely this represents unprecedented arrogance and confirms that the military-industrial complex is entirely devoid of any morals, ethics or common decency.

You will see by the enclosed Burnelli-Lockheed correspondence commencing with my letter to Lockheed's President, Courtland S. Gross, dated March 14, 1961, that Burnelli has repeatedly shown diligence in keeping Lockheed appraised of Burnelli rights. The Lockheed letter to me dated June 5, 1961, signed by Senior Vicepresident Hall L. Hibbard, discloses that Lockheed has always been fully aware of Burnelli importance in VTOL and multi-mach capability. It must be remembered that Mr. Hibbard made his positive remarks during the same period when the Department of Defense was repeatedly disseminating the fallacious technical asseverations from the fraudulent 1941 U. S. Army Air Corps proceedings of the Board of Review. One of these technical falsifications is quoted herewith:

"That the Burnelli emphasis upon the 'lifting fuselage' is not in accordance with best aeronautical practice based upon best aerodynamic information, since such a fuselage has a relatively low critical speed which definitely limits the future development of this type of airplane."

This despicable practice by the Department of Defense persecuted the great Mr. Burnelli into a pauper's grave and has kept the Burnelli company prostrate for fifty-five years.

The current emergence of the X-33, on top of the 1995 emergence of the McDonnell Douglas megajet, poses this question: Why has the military-industrial complex wasted so many hundreds of billions of taxpayers' dollars on costly unsafe conventional air transports and space shuttles when it was known in 1961 that the Burnelli configuration and power plant installation offered much superior, safer and less costly technology?

Under the circumstances and as a matter of principle and honor we trust that NASA will find it obligatory to request Lockheed Martin to negotiate a license agreement with the Burnelli Company for the use of its proprietary and intellectual property rights.

From the correspondence and phone calls I have received from your attorney, Mr. Alan Kennedy, it is obvious that he does not comprehend the significance, the implications or the magnitude of the scientific fraud and criminal negligence involved in the Burnelli conspiracy by the military-industrial complex.

May I kindly have a response from you, Sir, as the accountable authority?

Thank you .

        Yours sincerely,

        THE BURNELLI COMPANY, INC.

        [signed]

        CHALMERS H. GOODLIN
        Chairman & President

Enclosures
cc: Mr. Norman Augustine, [Vice-Chairman & CEO, Lockheed]


Correspondence is listed in Chronological order
March 29, 1995 to present day (1 - 33)
(All correspondence since March 29, 1995 is present)


1. Mar 29, 1995 Burnelli letter to NASA 2. May 5, 1995-NASA response 3. Aug. 10, 1995-Burnelli letter to NASA General Counsel
4. Aug. 31, 1995-NASA response 5. Sept. 6, 1995-Burnelli responds to NASA Sr. Patent Atty 6. Sep. 20, 1995-Burnelli to NASA re: lifting body research project
7. Sept. 21, 1995-NASA says "the patent expired" 8. Sep. 27, 1995-Burnelli to NASA Counsel, "..when criminal conspiracy is involved.." 9. Oct. 3, 1995-NASA Gnl Counsel, "..I am not your attorney.."
10. Oct 3, 1995-Burnelli to NASA, "..outrageous bureaucratic tyranny.." 11. Oct 6, 1995-BURNELLI submits reports and tests to NASA 12. Nov. 2, 1995, Burnelli, "..may I have a response.."
13. June 27, 1996 Burnelli claims NASA is refusing to acknowledge 14. July 3, 1996 - NASA: "We will not consider taking licence".. 15. July 9, 1996 Burnelli, presents Lockheed correspondence
16. Aug 12, 1996 Burnelli presents Flight magazine article 17. Aug 27, 1996 - NASA Gen'l Counsel requests past correspondence-lost 18. Sept 3, 1996 Burnelli, " ..appeal to you, correct a grave injustice.."
19. Sept 6, 1996 NASA: "..we have no record of your letter.." 20. Sept 24, 1996 - Burnelli: "..all aircraft mfr's recognized Burnelli importance in mid-30's" 21. Sept 25, 1996 NASA: "..Burnelli did not submit a proposal.."
22. Oct 7, 1996 Burnelli: "..NASA, you have deferred our correspondence.." 23. Oct 11, 1996 - Burnelli: "..internet NASA FACT is a lie.." 24. Oct 28, 1996 NASA: "..we will continue to disagree.."
25. Dec 9, 1996 Burnelli: "..NASA, you have repudiated your obligations.." 26. Jun 10, 1965 - Jean A. Roche', Head Aeronautician Engr./Tech. Advisor, US Army Air Forces 27. Jan 13, 1997 BURNELLI: "..we have not received answers to our letters.."
28. Jan 29, 1997 BURNELLI: .."we request that NASA provide no further funding to BWB project.." 29. Feb 10, 1997 BURNELLI: ..Smithsonian article quote:.."the first to touch on the concept was Vincent Burnelli.. " 30. Feb 20, 1997 - NASA: .."considers this matter closed.."
31. Sep. 4, 1995 AVIATION DAILY article .."McDonnell eyes blended wing body research.." 32. Feb 5, 1986 MIAMI HERALD: " NASA behind the times" 33. CARISI Report


top
Return to "top" of letter