if the US NASA, and Federal government categorically deny the presence, knowledge and/or existence of Extra Terrestrials, why did they, in 1969, pass the “Extra-Terrestrial Exposure Law” that made it illegal for the public to come in contact with extra-terrestrials or their vehicles. (Title 14, Section 1221 of the Code of Federal Regulations)?
By the way, in 1991 NASA ruled that this law was had “server its purpose and was no longer in keeping with current policy” and the law was sumarilly removed.
Does this now mean that it has been undenyable proven that Aliens don’t exist, or that they do exist, and NASA just doesn’t give a …?
My understanding was that it made it legal to quarantine people who might have been exposed to alien germs, in case any were brought back from the moon and got loose.
Here, for your viewing pleasure, is the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14 (“Aeronautics and Space”), Section 1221 (“THE NASA SEAL AND OTHER DEVICES, AND THE CONGRESSIONAL SPACE MEDAL OF HONOR.”) It has zero, zippo, and zilch to do with aliens, far as I can tell. Nor does the rest of CFR Title 14 seem to have anything to do with the subject.
In response to the replies:
Montfort; it shows
Freyr; isn’t that the point (or lack thereof) of the P (Pointless) in MPSIMS?
MysterEcks; Section 1211, not 1221. Reading is an art in itself. “they did”
madmark: perhaps writingis an art, since you did in fact list it as Section 1221.
From your own citation:
In short, this was obviously meant to cover persons and material which had been put into space by NASA (or perhaps by the Russians) and then returned to Earth–as Lumpy mentioned. While I suppose it could be stretched to cover Little Green Men and their Marsmobiles if any ever showed up, that wasn’t the point.
So the answer to your question
which reads to me as “if the Government doesn’t know there’s aliens out there, then how come they did this?” is still “they didn’t.” It had nothing to do with aliens.
Freyr; isn’t that the point (or lack thereof) of the P (Pointless) in MPSIMS?**
The way you phrased it, it was made to sound like a debate rather than a trivial (and mis-interpreted) piece of law. The spin you gave this made it sound like the Feds had passed a piece of legislation that contradicted its official position. Hence, the request for a cite.