Maybe Comedy Central would be interested.

__________________
Join the Illuminati

The astronaut would have an action for breach of contract.

Again, for the benefit of others posting here, NASA cannot sue anybody for defamation. It doesn't rest on whether the agency incurred actual damages, or whether the defamation was malicious or anything else. As a government agency, they do not have the right to sue.

Ah! As I thought... I guess my question in #17 was not worded as I intended. Thanks.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

Anyone considering legal action of any kind has to answer some questions: what is the best possible outcome? What's the worst? What are the chances of each of those outcomes? What's the result of taking no action? Is the reward for a good outcome worth the risk of the worst outcome?

So, for example, an astronaut considering any action against an HB would list things like:
Best outcome: one annoying insect gets smacked down, and I get awarded some money plus the satisfaction of proving the reality of Apollo once and for all.
Worst outcome: the case is thrown out and I'm stuck with the legal costs, plus the HB gets a lot of publicity and "there must be something to it or he wouldn't have sued" credibility. Or, I win but the HB doesn't even have enough money to cover my legal fees and court costs.
Take no action: HB gets to keep being annoying but hardly anyone pays attention.

Rate the probabilities as you will, the third option will pretty much always come out on top.

__________________
Relight the Firefly!

"It is quite clear that Occam's razor does not sharpen in your pyramid." (Nicolas)

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (Paul Simon)

I read in James R. Hansen's biography of Neil Armstrong about Armstrong's response to hoax believers who contacted him. Strictly speaking, this probably doesn't count as a NASA response because he's been retired from NASA for many years, but anyway, his aide would send them a letter that briefly summarized the reasons why the hoax theory was invalid and mentioned that Armstrong was offended by the Apollo 1 accusations and had spoken to FOX about this. I think this is an appropriate response. If someone says something about you that is not true and you state your case to them, if they still don't believe you after that, it is their problem, not yours.

I can see why NASA doesn't sue people over the Apollo 1 accusations, even though they are extremely offensive. This would just lead to the murder accusations being repeated in court transcripts and the media and NASA clearly doesn't feel like giving more exposure to these people.

__________________
"One does not require alien ruins in order to absorb a profound sense of wonder and mystery from the moon. That our civilization had actually visited it is miracle enough." Jason Roberts

Very good answers, thanks to all!

I actually admire NASA for their restraint when it comes to accusations from hoax proponents.

When the Air Force writes a new report on Roswell, it's clearly dismissed in its entirety by the conspiracy community. I doubt enough minds are changed to really justify the time and effort, and core conspiracy types dig in their heels even deeper.

If NASA has decided that it's futile to engage in a no-win debate, then I'm glad they're focusing on the amazing stuff that they do so well.

__________________
I can't WAIT for January 1, 2013 to arrive! Then again, I'm still waiting for October 1, 1993 ...

You'd better BET there's a spoon, Neo! THWACK!!!!

I would be very irritated if they spent a dime on refuting the kooks.
No evidence will ever been good enough for the True Believers, because it's not about evidence, it's about their mindset.
Penn & Teller do a better job anyway.

__________________
Friendly Rabid Atheists (mostly)

Better idea would be for HB to offer up their work for independent scientific review. If they are that confident then it should not be an issue.

Won't happen. MSS (Main Stream Science) is owned by TPTB (The Powers That Be.) It's in TPTB's interest to keep the information out of the hands of the sheeple. So even if the MSS gets solid information, like my brother-in-law's cousin's sister's sworn testimony that the light she saw was probably a spaceship from Beta Ridiculous, they won't be able to publicize it. </rationalizations>

__________________
Friendly Rabid Atheists (mostly)

I don't think they're terribly good at convincing people who don't already agree with them, actually. I've watched a lot of the show, and I think their science is sometimes pretty flawed. I'd rather give Phil or Jay or Bob B. or someone a show to do it. Oh, wait--they already did! Pity Jay didn't get to directly rebut the people in question, but he still did a pretty good job, I thought.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

P&T are visceral. I've seen fights start after their shows. Spirited rebuttal of the team ensued.

__________________
Friendly Rabid Atheists (mostly)

Yes. Ergo they're wrong to convince anyone about the reality of Apollo, which is intellectual rather than emotional.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Coincidentally, Phil was on P&T last night debunking astrology.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

I think you give too much credit to the American TV viewing audience.

__________________
Friendly Rabid Atheists (mostly)

I think TV executives give too little. If you assume people are idiots, they will act like them. (I grant you that the lack of success of certain of my preferred TV shows tends to disprove this.)

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

I went to their show in April. Everything was pretty civil afterwards. P&T even were outside for photo ops and a chat.

I give you "American Idol".

__________________
Friendly Rabid Atheists (mostly)

Try watching their conspiracy theory episode in a bar in southern Indiana. (Hint: Ralph Rene lived not to far away.)

__________________
Friendly Rabid Atheists (mostly)

Does he actually have a following? Does he mark them with the letter "F"?

Ah yes. "My google/wikli/photoshop slider that I know not what it does" is better than your science ploy.

I'm not sure he can spell "F". He has "like-minded" people there. Wouldn't call it a following.

__________________
Friendly Rabid Atheists (mostly)

Teller couldn't have been there to chat.

But anyway, I agree with the position that it would be a waste of NASA's time to sue any of these nitwits. More useless than pantyhose to a mermaid, an ejection seat in a helicopter, the dialogue coach for the movie One Million Years B.C., and giving Stevie Wonder contact lenses.

(The department of nitpickyness demands I note:
I think they exist. Explosive bolts detach the main blades before the seats get to them.

Edit: yep, see ka-50 here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejection_seat
)

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

Ok, ya got me on that one.

Though just to repeat what geonuc said, they cannot sue in any case. And to be honest, I think that's a good thing. A democratic system is based on the idea that people have the right to criticize their government. Just imagine if anybody saying "the government is wasting money" got sued by the government. It would be totalitarian. The essence of democracy is that even lunatics have the right to engage in criticism of the government, which in the end belongs to them.

__________________
As above, so below

Accusing them of murdering employees isn't exactly 'criticizing the government'

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Sure it is. Anti-war protesters do it all the time - and they can, in the US.

US law does not recognize the right of the government and governmental agencies to have their reputations protected in court. Individual government employees have that right, but it is much more limited than that afforded to a non-public person.

The "Sedition Act" made it a crime to speak critically of the government. Thomas Jefferson repealed it and all people who were imprisoned under it were freed by 1802. Our current system is a reaction to the Act.

__________________
Friendly Rabid Atheists (mostly)

Just as a nitpick, I don't think presidents have the power to repeal laws. Maybe Jefferson orchestrated its repeal or it was repealed under Jefferson.

__________________
As above, so below