NASA evaluated a manuscript submission and responded, saying both an engineer and a scientist studied the project and both concluded that the concepts about the Unified Field Theory seem to be years ahead of the current scientific thinking.
—
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center Houston, Texas 77058
NASA [Logo]
[Stamped:] MAR 2 9 1982 TAB BOOKS INC.
Reply to Attn of: AH6
MAR 2 3 1982
Mr. William H. Clark, II Route 2, Box 388 D Leander, TX 78641
Dear Mr. Clark:
We are returning your “Journal of 21st Century Technology” and appreciate your allowing us to review your scientific paper. As you know, the Johnson Space Center’s activities are almost entirely devoted to the development and flight of the Orbiter vehicle–a pretty straight forward concept which utilizes existing aircraft and spacecraft technology to build and fly an aerospace vehicle. However, we do some advanced technology development within our Program Development Office, and it was to that organization that I directed your paper.
Your work was reviewed independently by both an engineer and a physicist. Although their backgrounds and scientific/engineering interests are different, both came to the same conclusion. Your concepts about the Unified Field Theory appear to be so profound that you are years ahead of the present scientific thinking in the areas in which you delved.
Given our present financing and direction from Congress, NASA does not currently have the ability to investigate your proposal in greater depth. We do thank you for your interest in manned space flight, and wish you the best in your future endeavors.
Sincerely,
[Signature: Glen E. Brace]
Glen E. Brace, Chief Personnel Services Branch
Enclosure