# NASA is a bad guy?!



## Schrody (Oct 15, 2014)

So, okay, my MC discovers something *big*, and that discovery influenced all people on Earth, culturally, religiously, etc. Kind of mass hysteria. What I wanted to know is, would NASA, Government, or something else, took over the role of the big bad wolf stating that scientist is a crack pot (when he really isn't), slander his name, so the science community would excommunicate him, regarding they're doing it because of the "greater good" - they agreed with the founding, but when they saw the influence of it, decided it need to be stopped?

Thanks


----------



## dale (Oct 15, 2014)

that would even work for a non-fiction book.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Oct 15, 2014)

The way the politics in the US are, that is highly conceivable. NASA is of course funded by the government which means in a sense it is in its control.


----------



## Schrody (Oct 15, 2014)

dale said:


> that would even work for a non-fiction book.



Too LOL or not to LOL?






 I saw in a lot of movies NASA, Government, keeping a secret an apocalypse is coming, etc, but I wondered is that in real life too 


Tnx, mustard.


----------



## Elvenswordsman (Oct 15, 2014)

In the long run, nothing.


----------



## Schrody (Oct 15, 2014)

Elvenswordsman said:


> In the long run, nothing.



What do you mean? Like nothing would happen - NASA wouldn't do anything, or they couldn't keep it a secret for a long time?


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Oct 15, 2014)

Elvenswordsman said:


> In the long run, nothing.



That confused me too.

Think of this scenario (no NASA isn't hiding some apocalyptic secret that we know of in real life but..). Americans elect a corrupt President with his own set of rules (it is arguable that scenario actually happened though not as sinister as what you're suggesting.) This corrupt President has an equally corrupt administration. He is willing to fund NASA if they feed the American public lies according to his ideology. NASA in turn has to silence a scientist bent on telling the American public the truth since it may hurt the President politically. It is a certainly feasible scenario.


----------



## Elvenswordsman (Oct 15, 2014)

In the long run, nothing is a constant. NASA shall fall, as all has before it. I believe it will be a financial downfall, perhaps there's a way to argue that in a story (lies about accomplishments in an effort to save funding?).


----------



## Schrody (Oct 15, 2014)

I imagined it like this: NASA is thrilled with discovery, and the scientist (maybe I should say scientist is not a physicist?) has an approval to call a press conference and talk about his discovery. Later, mass suicides happens (by some religious and sect nuts), riots are all over the world... so NASA decides to calm everyone down telling them the scientist's discovery is fake. Plausible? OR scientist calls a press conference without consulting with NASA, and when they saw s*it has hit the fan, they decide to react.


----------



## Elvenswordsman (Oct 15, 2014)

Sure, damage control.

Arguably this is something we'd have great awareness of (would see it coming for a while). What time period are you considering?


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Oct 15, 2014)

Both scenarios plausible. We had a mass suicide in California (I think in 1997) with the Heavens Gate cult who believed that they would be transported onto a spaceship as the Hale-Bopp comet departed. You put this on a grander scale and maybe NASA wants to avert panic. Or perhaps the scientist wants to avert panic but for whatever political/financial reasons ( I get Elvenwordsman's point) they feel like they need to silence the scientist. I hope this makes sense.


----------



## Schrody (Oct 15, 2014)

Elvenswordsman said:


> Sure, damage control.
> 
> Arguably this is something we'd have great awareness of (would see it coming for a while). What time period are you considering?



Setting is in the present. Anyway, that would be the end of the story: a scientist's reputation is ruined, leaving one of the greatest secrets/discoveries untold.

- - - Updated - - -



mrmustard615 said:


> Both scenarios plausible. We had a mass suicide in California (I think in 1997) with the Heavens Gate cult who believed that they would be transported onto a spaceship as the Hale-Bopp comet departed. You put this on a grander scale and maybe NASA wants to avert panic. Or perhaps the scientist wants to avert panic but for whatever political/financial reasons ( I get Elevenwordsman's point) they feel like they need to silence the scientist. I hope this makes sense.



It makes sense a lot. Like Elven said, damage control. They realized people weren't ready for it, so they did the only thing they could: deny, deny, deny.


----------



## Elvenswordsman (Oct 15, 2014)

I meant how long of a process ? Is he ruined overnight? Does the impending doom happen a month from now?


----------



## Schrody (Oct 15, 2014)

Elvenswordsman said:


> I meant how long of a process ? Is he ruined overnight? Does the impending doom happen a month from now?




Well, let's say the discovery was released about month or two ago, actually, scientist was some kind of a guest lecturer or something (haven't figured it out yet), and then NASA showed up (so I guess press conference would be better?), interrupted the conference, removed scientist from the stage and made a statement. I was thinking maybe they'd give him warnings not to talk about it publicly until everything settles down, but he ignored that, being a true scientist, wanting to share his discovery with the world, Does anything of it makes sense?

EDIT: So yeah, I would say his reputation went down really quickly.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Oct 15, 2014)

Schrody said:


> Well, let's say the discovery was released about month or two ago, actually, scientist was some kind of a guest lecturer or something (haven't figured it out yet), and then NASA showed up (so I guess press conference would be better?), interrupted the conference, removed scientist from the stage and made a statement. I was thinking maybe they'd give him warnings not to talk about it publicly until everything settles down, but he ignored that, being a true scientist, wanting to share his discovery with the world, Does anything of it makes sense?
> 
> EDIT: So yeah, I would say his reputation went down really quickly.



I think to truly discredit the scientist, NASA would have to come up with some sort of smear campaign, albeit somewhat short lived. Simply throwing the scientist off the stage with no history of a sullied reputation wouldn't work I don't think.


----------



## Schrody (Oct 15, 2014)

mrmustard615 said:


> I think to truly discredit the scientist, NASA would have to come up with some sort of smear campaign, albeit somewhat short lived. Simply throwing the scientist off the stage with no history of a sullied reputation wouldn't work I don't think.



Possibly. They could have planned it for months, but I didn't mean to mention it in the story, just them showing up with the "evidences" his discovery is fake. That should came as a surprise to the readers.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Oct 15, 2014)

Schrody said:


> Possibly. They could have planned it for months, but I didn't mean to mention it in the story, just them showing up with the "evidences" his discovery is fake. That should came as a surprise to the readers.




Okay, in that scenario, NASA already knows of the discovery so they have their own scientist to refute the discovery. For argument's sake let's say there is an alien race with a cure for cancer. For whatever reason NASA doesn't want the world to know about this so they have their scientist say that these aliens are in fact, say Russians who are merely spying on the US, or something like that. I know that sounds pretty far fetched but I couldn't think of something more feasible on a dime :lol:







 ( I keep forgetting the witch-sheesh!)


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 15, 2014)

Schrody said:


> ...What I wanted to know is, would NASA, Government, or something else, took over the role of the big bad wolf stating that scientist is a crack pot (when he really isn't), slander his name, so the science community would excommunicate him, regarding they're doing it because of the "greater good" - they agreed with the founding, but when they saw the influence of it, decided it need to be stopped?
> 
> Thanks



Yes.

This has already happened, though not to the extent that your story would likely take it. It all depends on when your story takes place. If in the past, then NASA might be able to act from a "top-down" approach. Today, though, that wouldn't be as likely.

NASA has somewhat changed since the Challenger Disaster, where a failure of communication and a drive to succeed at any price cost the lives of astronauts and gave the administration a "black eye." But, it hasn't changed completely in regards to its persecution of "non-hackers" or those who buck the system. During the early days of the "Global Warming" debate, NASA insinuated itself in several ways, on both sides of the issue, IIRC. There have been other occasions where NASA acted, earlier in its history. Today, I'd say the environment was radically different than it was several decades ago. But, there are probably some avenues you could pursue in order to get NASA as a force in your story.

I have to point out that NASA is a good organization with very dedicated people who are sincere. But, they are also an organization that is _constantly_ in a state of economic siege. They are tasked with being trailblazers for the peaceful exploration and exploitation of space, yet they're given a pitiful amount of funds with which to pursue that mission. This has forced them into a position where immense pressures are brought to bear from a variety of camps, each seeing to promote the agenda they believe will best accomplish the task. (Manned vs unmanned exploration and Moon vs Mars missions, Microsats vs standard satellites, spacestations vs manned missions, for instance)

Because these internal division exist, you have a power structure that is fractured, from certain points of view. This is exactly what helped to cause the Challenger Disaster and, though the culture has changed somewhat, this sort of thing is endemic in an institution that has little control over the means it has at its disposal in order to accomplish the goals that were established for it. All of those dedicated employees at NASA want to accomplish their mission, but they must battle for funds and priority, which can lead to a very fractured work environment and command structure.

Would NASA, as a whole, be able to do something like you describe? No. NASA is not the sort of organization that would be capable of doing something like that. There are too many people working there or associated with it (contractors) for that sort of thing to go unnoticed and unmolested by those who would disagree with such actions. In today's environment, there would be whistle-blowers. However, there could be internal cabals of very powerful people who, fearing the worst, could manage to act against someone that they disagreed with, maybe even to the point of taking extreme measures. These people could manage certain things, with some outside help, and go relatively unremarked upon by the outside world.


----------



## Kyle R (Oct 15, 2014)

Why use a real organization (and worry about the plausibility of its actions) when you can create a fictional organization that will behave in whatever way you want? :encouragement:


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Oct 15, 2014)

But, if NASA could get the mainstream media on their side, the scientist involved could be ruined in very short order.

- - - Updated - - -



Kyle R said:


> Why use a real organization (and worry about the plausibility of its actions) when you can create a fictional organization that will behave in whatever way you want? :encouragement:



Very good point. LOL


----------



## Schrody (Oct 16, 2014)

mrmustard615 said:


> Okay, in that scenario, NASA already knows of the discovery so they have their own scientist to refute the discovery. For argument's sake let's say there is an alien race with a cure for cancer. For whatever reason NASA doesn't want the world to know about this so they have their scientist say that these aliens are in fact, say Russians who are merely spying on the US, or something like that. I know that sounds pretty far fetched but I couldn't think of something more feasible on a dime :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




NASA knows for discovery since the scientist guy will have a press conference, where he and his colleagues, encouraged by their university (they're professors), will change opinions of the people forever. NASA is thrilled too, they've been waiting for something like that their whole lives. But, considering the public sake - mass suicides happened, riots, whole world is in a collapse, or because the Government will cut their funding, they have no other choice but to invent some story to cool things down. Now, I'm not saying that should last forever, someone could leak real information the next day, but I will be dealing with that only for a short period, because it happens in the end. Scientist's rep is ruined, and that's the end of the book. 



Morkonan said:


> Yes.
> 
> This has already happened, though not to the extent that your story would likely take it. It all depends on when your story takes place. If in the past, then NASA might be able to act from a "top-down" approach. Today, though, that wouldn't be as likely. (cut)



It happens in the present. Maybe not hush it up completely, but simply say the readings/measurements weren't true, scientist got incomplete data, or something like that. So discovery is real, it's just not what they thought it is. Is that better? 



Kyle R said:


> Why use a real organization (and worry about the plausibility of its actions) when you can create a fictional organization that will behave in whatever way you want? :encouragement:



Because it's a hard Sci-Fi, and everything is real or plausible, even the discovery, so I don't want to make things up for that one thing. 



T.S.Bowman said:


> But, if NASA could get the mainstream media on their side, the scientist involved could be ruined in very short order.
> 
> Very good point. LOL



That's my point, although, like I said, the shaming and ruined reputation will happen "off pages", scientist realize he's a history that very moment when NASA took control.


----------



## Kyle R (Oct 16, 2014)

Schrody said:


> Because it's a hard Sci-Fi, and everything is real or plausible, even the discovery, so I don't want to make things up for that one thing.



Fair enough! 

Though, I'd say if you really wanted the scenario to have an air of realism, it might help to do some research. Find out how NASA works. Learn about the different departments. The various levels of staff. Is there a way to learn about the protocols and procedures when it comes to public announcements?

Ideally, if you could contact an employee (former or current) and get their answers on how NASA would respond to your hypothetical situation, that would be great! It might be hard to get such an interview though. You'd have to dig and be persistent.

In lieu of that, you'd have to use a mixture of imagination and real-world research (the more information, the better). With enough information, you could probably come up with a realistic depiction of how such an event would take place. The key ingredient would be research, though.

The only reason I mentioned using a fictional organization is because it'd be one way to avoid all that pesky research. :icon_cheesygrin: (I'm lazy, I know. :cower


----------



## dale (Oct 16, 2014)

it shouldn't be that big of deal. no one trusts government organizations nowadays, anyway. we see cover-ups every day from all kinds of
government institutions. whatever you write about NASA will be completely plausible in most people's minds. it's a government org.


----------



## Greimour (Oct 16, 2014)

mrmustard615 said:


> The way the politics in the US are, that is highly conceivable. NASA is of course funded by the government which means in a sense it is in its control.



And as Dale said, could be non-fiction.


If discrediting one person, group, company or even country means that a ruler saves face and remains in power ... you can practically guarantee that it will happen. 
Whether it is Korean Dictator discrediting the US, the Prime Minister of England discrediting reports from Iraq or the US President discrediting leaders of Africa - or the African leaders discrediting the Prime Minister of England... it will happen. Country leaders believe they know what is best for their country. They let their people know what is necessary for their country to progress the way they think is best. They lie and cover up when they think the people are best not knowing the truth. Such is the way of the world. 

It doesn't matter the country or the people. What is in question is Politics and they are the same world over. Democrat, Republican, Tyrant, Dictator or other... you can guarantee that they have either done it or would do it. 

So yes. It is completely believable and works as a story. 


~Kev.



Morkonan said:


> Yes.
> 
> This has already happened, though not to the extent that your story  would likely take it. It all depends on when your story takes place. If  in the past, then NASA might be able to act from a "top-down" approach.  Today, though, that wouldn't be as likely.
> 
> ...



Mork, hmm... I think either you or I misunderstood the question. What I read was:

  "Would NASA (or other government powers that be) lie and claim that the MC is a liar in order to achieve damage control?"

So, yes, I think NASA is a suitable figure in the public eye to achieve that goal and I think that NASA would do it too - if they were told to. You only need one person high up in the organization to appear on TV and claim it. NASA has done cover ups before, have no doubt on that. Questionable deaths also appear in conspiracy theories where 'whistle blowers' suddenly died in 'accidents'.

Fortunately, as soon as you say "conspiracy theory" most people dismiss anything that follows. So the truth is unlikely to be found out either way.


----------



## Schrody (Oct 16, 2014)

Kyle R said:


> Fair enough!
> 
> Though, I'd say if you really wanted the scenario to have an air of realism, it might help to do some research. Find out how NASA works. Learn about the different departments. The various levels of staff. Is there a way to learn about the protocols and procedures when it comes to public announcements?
> 
> ...



Not a bad idea. I like researching, hell, I researched a lot for this novel, it couldn't hurt to do some more


----------



## voltigeur (Oct 16, 2014)

NASA would be the least likely to be involved as a bad guy. First the number of people who work for NASA is very small. Most of the "work for NASA"  actually work for contractors in the aerospace industry such as Rockwell Collins, General Dynamics, Boeing etc. 

There is no culture of keeping secrets. So very unlikely that NASA would or most importantly could be the culprit in a mass conspiracy.


----------



## dale (Oct 16, 2014)

voltigeur said:


> NASA would be the least likely to be involved as a bad guy. First the number of people who work for NASA is very small. Most of the "work for NASA"  actually work for contractors in the aerospace industry such as Rockwell Collins, General Dynamics, Boeing etc.
> 
> There is no culture of keeping secrets. So very unlikely that NASA would or most importantly could be the culprit in a mass conspiracy.



lol. whatever. no "culture of keeping secrets". ok. even if NASA isn't corrupt in any way...which i highly doubt that....think of it this way.....
many people in this country believe in "AREA 51" and NASA involvement in the cover-up of that. so yeah. as far as sci-fi, people are completely
able to accept NASA as an institution that would cover-up just about anything.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Oct 16, 2014)

voltigeur said:


> NASA would be the least likely to be involved as a bad guy. First the number of people who work for NASA is very small. Most of the "work for NASA"  actually work for contractors in the aerospace industry such as Rockwell Collins, General Dynamics, Boeing etc.
> 
> There is no culture of keeping secrets. So very unlikely that NASA would or most importantly could be the culprit in a mass conspiracy.



First of all, I think we are talking hypotheticals. NASA does have a hierarchy certainly, and  may be of a stand-up group of people today,  but a fictional account of a less than upstanding NASA is conceivable. Maybe NASA itself doesn't go out of its way to discredit the scientist but is put under immense political pressure. There are a lot of scenarios you can explore Schrody.

BTW, I really agree with Kyle on this one. Research never really hurts.


----------



## Greimour (Oct 16, 2014)

voltigeur said:


> NASA would be the least likely to be involved as a bad guy. First the number of people who work for NASA is very small. Most of the "work for NASA"  actually work for contractors in the aerospace industry such as Rockwell Collins, General Dynamics, Boeing etc.
> 
> There is no culture of keeping secrets. So very unlikely that NASA would or most importantly could be the culprit in a mass conspiracy.



Other way. 

By the way I understood the question:

MC finds out that X happened and told the world. Mass hysteria broke out. The government needs him discredited to get the people back under control. They decide to have a high standing member of NASA claim he is wrong (or otherwise a liar). Would someone from NASA claim the MC is wrong even if he is right because the government told them too?

Yes.

***

Besides, NASA is a Government organization; meaning a branch of the group of people with the authority to govern a country or state. They follow orders of whoever is in power at the time. If the head won't make the statement the government wants, that person wont be in charge for long and someone who will make the statement will take their place.


Would NASA be 'the bad guy' as part of a huge conspiracy?

In every interpretation of that sentence...it is 'possible' even if unlikely. And if that is not enough to satisfy... one of the biggest 'conspiracies' going remains to be whether or not Neil Armstrongs moon landing ever took place. More and more the evidence against it having happened piles up whilst the proof of it happening are slowly disproved. Perhaps the technology back then wasn't enough to keep a lie going... or maybe people will only find the answers they are looking for. Either way, it has the potential to be the biggest Conspiracy of the 20th century and is entirely based around NASA.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Oct 16, 2014)

Greimour said:


> In every interpretation of that sentence...it is 'possible' even if unlikely. And if that is not enough to satisfy... one of the biggest 'conspiracies' going remains to be whether or not Neil Armstrongs moon landing ever took place. More and more the evidence against it having happened piles up whilst the proof of it happening are slowly disproved. Perhaps the technology back then wasn't enough to keep a lie going... or maybe people will only find the answers they are looking for. Either way, it has the potential to be the biggest Conspiracy of the 20th century and is entirely based around NASA.



I'm not sure if Greimour is suggesting the moon landings never happened but it does open up another interesting point. There are oodles of misinformation going out in the media that it can sometimes become difficult to figure out what is really the truth and what isn't (Take the JFK assassination conspiracies for example). That climate would certainly make it very plausible for NASA (or any other entity) to discredit someone for their own gain/advantages/cause/just general reasons.


----------



## Greimour (Oct 16, 2014)

mrmustard615 said:


> I'm not sure if Greimour is suggesting the moon landings never happened but it does open up another interesting point. There are oodles of misinformation going out in the media that it can sometimes become difficult to figure out what is really the truth and what isn't (Take the JFK assassination conspiracies for example). That climate would certainly make it very plausible for NASA (or any other entity) to discredit someone for their own gain/advantages/cause/just general reasons.



I have no opinion of whether the moon landings happened or not. It either did and theorists are finding what they want to find. Or it didn't and NASA as well as the government felt justified in their actions. 

Whichever the case, NASA has found itself part of an elaborate conspiracy. 
1. The theory that the moon landing never happened. Whether true or not, NASA finds itself under investigation from various sources claiming the whole thing was fake.
2. The fake moon landing conspiracy. Deceiving an almost world wide audience that they managed to have men land on the moon.

Whether the conspiracy is the theory that it never happened, or the Government conspiracy where it really did not happen. NASA is at the center of a conspiracy. 

The question is; which one? Did NASA put a man on the moon, or not?


"It's only a theory"

In the immortal words of Tim Minchin: "So is gravity, so why don't you do us all a favour and float the F' away!"


~ I don't know enough about the JFK 'conspiracies' to make comment on that <3


----------



## Gargh (Oct 16, 2014)

Re:OP... you may find THIS interview on Democracy Now interesting for your research. It's about how 'agribusiness' giant Syngenta tried to suppress the detrimental findings of a respected scientist.


----------



## dale (Oct 16, 2014)

actually, they've recently come out with "proof" that the moon landing was real. but "proof" now doesn't much matter, because the technology to
 fake proof is greater than ever before. but the point is....NASA being corrupt enough to fake or cover something up is completely plausible.


----------



## bazz cargo (Oct 16, 2014)

My 2c.
It doesn't take a whole organisation to produce the effect you are after, just one senior manager with enough bullying power. That would personalise the events and make them easier to relate to. You could add some money related paranoia by including links to a shady multinational company. I would suggest you make sure the company is a total fiction or your ass will sued every which way.


----------



## Schrody (Oct 16, 2014)

bazz cargo said:


> My 2c.
> It doesn't take a whole organisation to produce the effect you are after, just one senior manager with enough bullying power. That would personalise the events and make them easier to relate to. You could add some money related paranoia by including links to a shady multinational company. *I would suggest you make sure the company is a total fiction or your ass will sued every which way*.



Oh crap, I didn't thought about that :shock:


----------



## Greimour (Oct 16, 2014)

bazz cargo said:


> My 2c.
> It doesn't take a whole organisation to produce the effect you are after, just one senior manager with enough bullying power. That would personalise the events and make them easier to relate to. You could add some money related paranoia by including links to a shady multinational company. I would suggest you make sure the company is a total fiction or your ass will sued every which way.



So, if you write about NASA and they are heroes, like in Armageddon, then it's fine; but if you paint them as the bad guy you will get sued?

If it is fictitious and labelled as such, there isn't much they can do about it. It is a government body...no different than having CIA, MI5, FBI, Parliament, Royalty or various other play the bad guy. To me, NASA was 'the bad guy' in Flight of the Navigator. 

Still, I was thinking about it before. It really is better to target a fictitious person within an organization than the organization itself. Targeting a full company is too impersonal. Having a leading figure call the shots and the others be 'innocents that follow orders' is easier to work with and imagine... in my opinion. 

Like, if you want to discredit a company, you don't say "the company tested on animals" because nobody listens. You say "Joe Bloggs, [Company] CEO ordered the testing of animals which was carried out by John Doe. John Doe admitted testing but claimed it was pressure from his bosses that forced his hand. The animal testings involved X, Y, Z..."

People care more when it's 'people' who are named, shamed and brought down. Companies are faceless bodies that 'people' feel too small to face. What difference can _one_ person make against a company like NASA? Most people say no difference at all. Or very little.

But what can one person do about a corrupt official? Most people think they can do a lot... but in truth it often amounts to the same thing. Take the head, kill the snake.



~Kev.


----------



## dale (Oct 16, 2014)

Greimour said:


> So, if you write about NASA and they are heroes, like in Armageddon, then it's fine; but if you paint them as the bad guy you will get sued?
> 
> If it is fictitious and labelled as such, there isn't much they can do about it. It is a government body...no different than having CIA, MI5, FBI, Parliament, Royalty or various other play the bad guy. To me, NASA was 'the bad guy' in Flight of the Navigator.
> 
> ...


lol. the head of the snake is like medusa's tail.


----------



## Schrody (Oct 16, 2014)

Maybe I should've mentioned I wouldn't portrait them as "bad", but simply doing what they thought it's the best for the time being (riots, suicides...). Still, a fictional agency doesn't sound bad at all right now :-s


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Oct 16, 2014)

Greimour does make a point though. There are so many movies that pretty much slam the CIA and yet somehow Hollywood survives, so somehow I think you're safe.

But just in case, use a psuedonym and pretend you're from Mongolia. irate:


----------



## Greimour (Oct 16, 2014)

Schrody said:


> Maybe I should've mentioned I wouldn't portrait them as "bad", but simply doing what they thought it's the best for the time being (riots, suicides...). Still, a fictional agency doesn't sound bad at all right now :-s



I understood that from the start. "Greater Good" was what you said. They weren't 'bad' in flight of the Navigator, they were doing what they were told, expected to do, and thought they should be doing. They weren't at fault. But sympathies of the audience was against them, so they became 'the bad guy' to a certain degree.

 I figured that was the same aim. The readers on the side of your MC whilst a company (eg. NASA) tried to control the situation by standing in MC's way. For the greater good they did what some might consider 'wrong'. It's not that we, the readers, don't understand what NASA was doing and why. But despite that, we couldn't be on their side because we agreed with the MC. Similar happened in Armageddon. When NASA stole the patented Blueprints of a drill machine designed by Harry Hamper (Bruce Willis) he made a comment on it. Admit it, we all agreed with Harry's point of view regarding that matter.


^_^


I don't think you have anything to worry about. Dropping a famous name like NASA isn't that new and having them play a role that isn't exactly 'right' or 'just' isn't rare either.


----------



## Schrody (Oct 16, 2014)

mrmustard615 said:


> Greimour does make a point though. There are so many movies that pretty much slam the CIA and yet somehow Hollywood survives, so somehow I think you're safe.
> 
> But just in case, use a psuedonym and pretend you're from Mongolia. irate:



He does have a point, but I don't want to be sued, I'm too poor! 

Anyway, I won't use a pseudonym, I'll make something up like simply:"Space Agency"  ^^


----------



## Greimour (Oct 16, 2014)

don't live in states anyway do you schrody? from Croatia right?


----------



## Schrody (Oct 16, 2014)

Greimour said:


> I understood that from the start. "Greater Good" was what you said. They weren't 'bad' in flight of the Navigator, they were doing what they were told, expected to do, and thought they should be doing. They weren't at fault. But sympathies of the audience was against them, so they became 'the bad guy' to a certain degree.
> 
> I figured that was the same aim. The readers on the side of your MC whilst a company (eg. NASA) tried to control the situation by standing in MC's way. For the greater good they did what some might consider 'wrong'. It's not that we, the readers, don't understand what NASA was doing and why. But despite that, we couldn't be on their side because we agreed with the MC. Similar happened in Armageddon. When NASA stole the patented Blueprints of a drill machine designed by Harry Hamper (Bruce Willis) he made a comment on it. Admit it, we all agreed with Harry's point of view regarding that matter.
> 
> ...



Yeah, Harry wasn't too happy, but he realized they did it so they could save the world. The fact their engineers assembled it wrong speaks about their capabilities.

Jokingly aside, I'll have to think about this. I could live with Space Agency.

- - - Updated - - -



Greimour said:


> don't live in states anyway do you schrody? from Croatia right?



Yeah, but publishing on Amazon, so that might be a problem - I would have to go to the US for the trial. Then again, that would be an unique opportunity to visit the States (black humor) :mrgreen:


----------



## dale (Oct 16, 2014)

i don't even understand how you could be sued. people slam government agencies constantly in fiction. how many times has the CIA been put in a bad light in fiction? if you can be sued? welcome it. free publicity.


----------



## Schrody (Oct 16, 2014)

dale said:


> i don't even understand how you could be sued. people slam government agencies constantly in fiction. how many times has the CIA been put in a bad light in fiction? if you can be sued? welcome it. free publicity.



I always said even a bad publicity is a kind of publicity


----------



## Greimour (Oct 16, 2014)

dale said:


> i don't even understand how you could be sued. people slam government agencies constantly in fiction. how many times has the CIA been put in a bad light in fiction? if you can be sued? welcome it. free publicity.



That was my point, pretty sure you can't be sued for using a famous government body as material for fictional work. It is just a means of adding believability to a story. 

Besides, if the US issued a warrant of arrest and said you were to stand trial, you just don't go to the US. Simple. I doubt Croatia will allow one of their own to be extradited for a fictitious novel. It's laughable. Then again, I'd have said the same for UK once upon a time. Now I am not so sure after what happened to Richard O'Dwyer.

America asked that R. O'Dwyer be extradited for breach of copyright laws. Under UK law he did nothing wrong, but Americans claimed that in American law he did. After he refused willful extradition, he had to have a trial to see if he should be forcibly extradited. See here 

Eventually, despite press, public opinion and that of other Politicians, Theresa May (UK Home Secretary and member of Conservative party) sent him to the US. In almost no time at all (5 minutes?) in a court in New York, he signed an agreement and avoided prosecution. 

Talk about a joke. That and this are different though. At most, you'd probably have to claim ignorance to some degree (seeing as you aren't American) and it will likely be taken off American shelves. Maybe Amazon too... but it will still be able to be sold in other countries. Being illegal will make it even more popular. And with Amazon not allowed to print it, you'd have to use KOBO or something, which is hosted by Aussies I think and would still be allowed on their site - Which is used globally anyway. I have many American friends that use KOBO. So it will just be even more popular. ^_^


If you are worried, just check on the illegality of it first. You like research anyway, right? ^_^

I'd write it. But that's just me. ^_^


~Kev.


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 16, 2014)

Schrody said:


> ...It happens in the present. Maybe not hush it up completely, but simply say the readings/measurements weren't true, scientist got incomplete data, or something like that. So discovery is real, it's just not what they thought it is. Is that better?



Don't forget to go for the money. 

_"I'm sorry, Doctor Soandso, but we're going to have to cut funding for your project. Our budget will just not allow for such research."
"But, this is important!"
"Yes, I'm sure it is. But, the fact is that this organization is has many great responsibilities and we must achieve these while working on a fixed income. We haven't the resources to devote to whatever it is you're studying."
"Am I fired?"
"Of course not! You are a valued member of our team and, despite the controversy surrounding your research, we support all of those who engage in studies that promote the peaceful exploration of space. Unfortunately, while you are surely not fired, there just isn't any money available to actually pay you. Good-day, sir."_

NASA, if we look at certain _fictional_ powerful and corrupt elements within it, would be careful not to sully its own image while undertaking a campaign to squelch controversial research. Money is the fuel of power and that's doubly true in a government agency. So, that's the first step that would likely be taken - You character would simply find themselves no longer eligible for funding due to bureaucratic maneuvering. The first step of those in power would be to control that power - Control the money.

Would NASA publicly speak out? Would that be the first choice of corrupt officials that also had to protect their_ own_ jobs and power-base? Or, would they rather support a smear campaign that besmirched the character of your character?  Certain elements might hire certain unsavory types who might plant false-evidence of malfeasance in your character's office or home. Maybe they'd arrange for him to receive a large amount of cash, then claim that he must have somehow misappropriated it from his own budget and that is what must have lead him to fudging the science behind his so-called "discovery?" Maybe they set him up, dropping some drugs in his drink and then taking compromising pictures of him with an underage prostitute? Maybe they turn his co-workers against him? Subvert his wife? His children? All the while, they would be voicing support and concern for this "troubled young man" so they could look sympathetic to his struggles? 

Character-assassins exist in real life. They're the tools of those who wish not to be seen, yet must act in order to mold public opinion.

With his character destroyed and doubts raised as to his credibility as a researcher, he would find it difficult to get independent material published and would also find it difficult for anyone to take him seriously.


----------



## Schrody (Oct 17, 2014)

Greimour said:


> That was my point, pretty sure you can't be sued for using a famous government body as material for fictional work. It is just a means of adding believability to a story.
> 
> Besides, if the US issued a warrant of arrest and said you were to stand trial, you just don't go to the US. Simple. I doubt Croatia will allow one of their own to be extradited for a fictitious novel. It's laughable. Then again, I'd have said the same for UK once upon a time. Now I am not so sure after what happened to Richard O'Dwyer. (cut)



That's terrible. Okay, he did something not completely legal (but then again, it depends from country to country), but such a severe punishment, come on, it's not like he murdered somebody. Nah, our Government didn't even want to extradite criminals, and some politicians who perpetrated serious crimes (theft, killing few people in the accident, and so), so I'm fairly safe. I guess. I think what this kid did, and what I'm gonna write are completely different things. Or are they? 



Greimour said:


> Talk about a joke. That and this are different though. At most, you'd probably have to claim ignorance to some degree (seeing as you aren't American) and it will likely be taken off American shelves. Maybe Amazon too... but it will still be able to be sold in other countries. Being illegal will make it even more popular. And with Amazon not allowed to print it, you'd have to use KOBO or something, which is hosted by Aussies I think and would still be allowed on their site - Which is used globally anyway. I have many American friends that use KOBO. So it will just be even more popular. ^_^
> 
> 
> If you are worried, just check on the illegality of it first. You like research anyway, right? ^_^
> ...



Controversy is always good for the sales, just look at the 50 shades of Gray 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But like you said, I can always publish (and intend to) on many platforms, so removing a book from Amazon would be the least of my worries. Also, it's their funeral 



Morkonan said:


> Don't forget to go for the money.
> 
> _"I'm sorry, Doctor Soandso, but we're going to have to cut funding for your project. Our budget will just not allow for such research."
> "But, this is important!"
> ...



Well, he's a geologist, and what geologists know, right? At least according to some people. I guess it would be much easier to destroy a reputation of a few men, than a physicist who works on theories that are well known? This will be a short one - they (NASA, something Secret Service like - we have our men to do the dirty work ha ha) will warn the scientist he shouldn't have any press releases or guest lecturing until this whole situation calms down, but he will ignore that, they will collect the "evidences" his discovery is fake, and he's ruined. Outplayed by a bigger player. Ultimately, I don't even have to mention who those men were and NASA or Space Agency will deny any connections with them. Can't really talk about money, since his university financed his trip to discover what he discovered, maybe his university will renounce of him, or making him a lower level staff as a punishment. Poor guy.


----------



## Xander416 (Oct 20, 2014)

Schrody said:


> Well, he's a geologist, and what geologists know, right? At least according to some people. I guess it would be much easier to destroy a reputation of a few men, than a physicist who works on theories that are well known? This will be a short one - they (NASA, something Secret Service like - we have our men to do the dirty work ha ha) will warn the scientist he shouldn't have any press releases or guest lecturing until this whole situation calms down, but he will ignore that, they will collect the "evidences" his discovery is fake, and he's ruined. Outplayed by a bigger player. Ultimately, I don't even have to mention who those men were and NASA or Space Agency will deny any connections with them. Can't really talk about money, since his university financed his trip to discover what he discovered, maybe his university will renounce of him, or making him a lower level staff as a punishment. Poor guy.


What kind of bad guy are you going for here? Straight villain or moral gray area? As a moral gray area example, I could conceivably see NASA cooperating in a cover-up or smear campaign if the scientist discovered something that they believed could erode the foundations of society. This is a common fear in regards to the effects of extraterrestrial contact on our society in that when a technologically superior civilization makes contact with a less advanced one, it _never_ ends well for the latter.


----------



## Schrody (Oct 24, 2014)

Xander416 said:


> What kind of bad guy are you going for here? Straight villain or moral gray area? As a moral gray area example, I could conceivably see NASA cooperating in a cover-up or smear campaign if the scientist discovered something that they believed could erode the foundations of society. This is a common fear in regards to the effects of extraterrestrial contact on our society in that when a technologically superior civilization makes contact with a less advanced one, it _never_ ends well for the latter.



I didn't mean literally the bad guy, more like a question would NASA react like that.


----------



## Davekyn (Oct 24, 2014)

__________________________________
___

I'd like to believe I understand what you mean. imho - Nasa TV presents like an evangelical show. That worries me a lot. The comment about Nasa being funded by state makes me think how modern politics are religiously influenced and controlled. I believe Nasa would most certainly react as you suggest.

Perhaps some privatized space firm not so bounded, could assist your hero (and negate such negative and controlling states) launching human kind into a long awaited and much needed - new frontier.

I wish your MC all the best and may he get the help he needs.

GL&HF

Regards
David.


----------



## Schrody (Oct 25, 2014)

Thanks David, you helped a lot


----------

