What Bill Kaysing and the other HBs doesn´t want you to know

Have you ever wondered, why you all over the Internet can find HB pages about Bill Kaysing´s libel case against Jim Lovell, but they never mention what the VERDICT in the libel case was ??

Well, here follows a timeline, that I have tried to piece together from various sources. The timeline also mentions the VERDICT that the HBs doesn´t want to talk about.

Early June 1996:

Jim Lovell is in San Jose to give a speech on a seminar on crisis management. After the speech (at the San Jose Convention Center) , Kaysing seeks up Lovell and hands him a copy of his Moon Hoax book.

Mid-June 1996:

In a letter to Lovell, most likely from mid-June, Kaysing thanks Lovell for his "upbeat and jocular" reception of the Apollo hoax theory.

June 24, 1996:

In a June 24 letter to Bill Kaysing, Lovell writes: "I personally made two trips to the moon .... You heard my speech, and I am not accustomed to making up stories for my audience." (.......) "If you sincerely believe the United States faked the lunar landings then you are truly a tragic figure. You, like Don Quixote, are 'tilting windmills,' and have wasted precious hours of your life in a futile quest. Take my advice. Tear up your manuscript and pursue a project that has some meaning. Leave a legacy you can be proud of, not some trash whose readers will doubt your sanity."

July 25, 1996:

As part of an article (entitled "Mooning NASA") about Bill Kaysing in the local Californian weekly METRO, Jim Lovell says: "The guy is wacky. His position makes me feel angry. We spent a lot of time getting ready to go to the moon. We spent a lot of money, we took great risks, and it's something everybody in this country should be proud of. His problem is, he saw that movie Capricorn One and now he thinks that's really the way it goes."

August 29, 1996:

Bill Kaysing files the libel case against Jim Lovell in Santa Cruz County Superior Court. Kaysing has filed the libel case based upon the fact, that Lovell called Kaysing "wacky" in the July 25 METRO article.

January 1997:

At a court hearing in Santa Cruz County Superior Court, Jim Lovell´s attorney (the San Francisco attorney John Paul Hardy) and Bill Kaysing´s attorney, Mr. Bill Kaysing (yes, Bill was - throughout the case - his own attorney !!!) agrees to an October 6 trial date.

The summer of 1997:

Rumours appear that Ralph Rene is helping Bill Kaysing with the preparations for the court case. Ralph Rene may in fact appear as an "expert witness", called in by Bill Kaysing. Clearly the Hoax Believers now intend to use the libel case as a forum to present their Moon Hoax theories to the public.

Thursday, September 25, 1997:

Moved from early October to late September, the actual case is brought to a stop before it ever really has begun. (Jim Lovell never attends the case. Clearly he has better ways to spend his time !) Ralph Rene is never called as an "expert witness". Jim Lovell´s attorney, Mr. Hardy, ask the judge for a dismissal, saying that Lovell has a constitutional right to state his opinion about a person, who claims that Lovell´s two moon missions were hoaxes. "It's freedom of speech.", says Mr. Hardy. The judge, Mr. Samuel Stevens, rules in favour of Jim Lovell and throws the entire case out of court.

Outside the court, Bill Kaysing proclaims that he intends to take the matter to the appellate court, allthough to the best of my knowledge, he never actually did.

========================

It´s funny how the BHs always talk about Bill Kaysing being the brave little soldier, who has filed a libel case against the evil Apollo astronaut, Jim Lovell. The HBs aren´t too happy to talk about the fact, that the entire case was tossed out of court. I mean, how many HB websites mentions that on Thursday, September 25, 1997, Santa Cruz judge Samuel Stevens tossed the case out of court ? NONE ! Not one single HB website mentions the VERDICT, allthough dozens of HB websites mentions the libel case itself.

As Paul Harvey would say it: "The Hoax Believers are eager to tell you that Bill Kaysing filed a libel case against Jim Lovell ...... But now you know - the REST of the story" [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Solar Flare on 2002-06-25 20:28 ]</font>

[Silas]

Doesn't that mean, by legal precedent, that we all have the right to refer to Mr. Kaysing as wacky?

And what a dopey lawsuit anyway! "Wacky" is far from libel per se.

Silas

[AstroMike]

In the Orlando Sentinel article:

Buzz Aldrin, Armstrong’s Apollo 11 crewmate and the second man to walk on the moon, recently was besieged at a teachers conference in St. Louis after the Fox special aired. Teachers were stunned that students had begun earnestly questioning whether the space program was all a big lie.

"The dismay of the teachers really prompted me to give this some thought," said Aldrin, who has been reluctant to discuss the hoax claims. "There’s no point in getting angry with people who are following natural pursuits like profit and ratings. I can’t get angry or laugh at it. I feel regret.

"What I don’t want to do is give them attention and create a lot of indignant responses from those of us who went to the moon," he added. "The more we call attention to this, the more we play into their hands."

I agree.

[sts60]

Solar Flare, thanks for the interesting information in handy timeline format.


Doesn't that mean, by legal precedent, that we all have the right to refer to Mr. Kaysing as wacky?

Wacky, wacky, wacky Bill K!

I feel much better [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sts60 on 2002-06-26 09:37 ]</font>

[JayUtah]

Stating one's opinion is always protected speech. It is only when you allege something factual about someone that you risk a tort of defamation. "Wacky" is not an allegation of fact. Had Mr. Kaysing retained an actual attorney he would have saved himself a lot of trouble. The attorney would have pointed out that even if every one of Kaysing's allegations were proved in court, the resulting situation does not fit the definition of libel: an allegation of fact, made knowing it is false or without due diligence to discover its truthfulness, which impugns the character of its object. Because Kaysing seeks public exposure, the standards are more rigorous. People who aspire to celebrity are expected to have somewhat thicker skin.

Ralph Rene would likely not have been accepted as an expert witness. In order to be recognized by the court as an expert, one must present a curriculum vitae and certifications of applicable training. To be sure, marginally qualified people testify in court all the time. And nothing would have prevented Rene from testifying, had Kaysing called him, but to be afforded the status of expert witness requires actual credentials, not self-education. To be accorded expert status means that one's opinion on relevant topics cannot be dismissed as speculation under legal rules of evidence.

[The Curtmudgeon]

I'm sure everyone reading this thread is well aware of the comment, but this just goes to prove it again: The person who acts as his own attorney has a fool for a client.

The (oboy, now he can sue me) Curtmudgeon

[M_Welander]

Ah, you poor Americans... [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]