Why won't the Astronauts debate Apollo expert Whistle Blower Bill Kaysing's Moon Hoax?

Question

From the book Dark Moon--Apollo & The Whistleblowers by Percy & Bennett, page 289: "As Whistle-Blower Kaysing has said: "If I am wrong in my claim that we did not go to the Moon with Apollo---any of these astronauts, with their hands-on experience and technical knowledge of the event---would be able to demolish my theory within five minutes."

"Although Kaysing is still waiting and still happy to debate the matter with any of the Apollo astronauts, so far, there have been no takers. According to David Wise, the author of The Politics Of Lies, at least 25% of the American population also think that the Moon landings were faked. The Mori poll concluded the figure was nearer to 30%!

Kaysing had worked for Rocketdyne (contractors to NASA). Kaysing was head of technical publications in the Propulsion Field Laboratory in the Simi Hills, California from 1956 until 1963. He has been blowing a loud whistle for many years and has written a book about the Apollo Hoax.

If there is no worry from an expert "crank", why not debate him and put the conspiracy to rest? Look at the poll numbers of how many people who believe the Apollo Program was a sham. Don't you think that by debating an expert such as Kaysing would help all of us get to the truth? What is NASA and the astronauts afraid of?

KBW3, yes they do have to debate. We ask congress to debate questionable legislation, don't we? The elephant is in the living room regarding NASA's version, and so many Americans, including scientists have trouble with the so-called official version. Experts even agree that their are to many anomolies and problems with Apollo and NASA!

Crack Pots, Conspiracy Nuts, Morons, and other derogatory tags makes me think that there must be something to Kaysing's argument? Have any of you so-called experts taken the time to read Dark Moon's argument against the Official Moon Landings?

Thank you Jason T. Indeed it would be hard to debate someone that is dead. However, it is even harder to debate NASA and the astronauts when they are alive. Don't you agree!

If the Moon hoax is completely ridiculous, then why did Fox TV do a Prime Time Special on it in the late 90's? Hmm..., isn't Tony Snow our current White House Press Secretary a former Fox correspondent? By the reasoning of those who answered against the "cranks", I guess bathwaterism would be apropos for Snow's and Kaysing's case..., heh?!

AZ imagined; Yes, I have read both pro and cons to the moon argument. Have you read Dark Moon? If so, why didn't you refute the book? Are you afraid that your little world might come crashing down? Don't get angry when challenged. Spend a little time off the internet and try to understand the totality of the authors argument through books. This will help give you a context in logic. You amuse me, thank you.

Jay W; Stephen J. Gould would often qoute the poet Alexander Pope concerning Knowledge:

"A little learning is a dangerous thing,
Drink deep or taste not the pierian spring.
Their shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.

Please, drink!

Clittlefield 22; Incontrovertible evidence? Please try this on for size. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Do you have a "Special Access Program" clearance? Do you have "a need to know" clearance? Do you really believe that everything you read or hear is a reality? You must weigh both sides of the argument against historical precedent in order to find pattern. When you do this the facts coming screaming out. I warn you though. It takes time and work. Only then will you have drunk from the pierian spring. See you in ten years, maybe?!

Almikejuno; I appreciate your honesty. I only ask that others read this book too. However, my interest regarding the late Bill Kaysing is that NASA and the astronauts have been negligent in addressing the contradictions and anomalies regarding Apollo. Please get the book and read for yourself Percy's and Bennett's well researched argument.

I think the Germans have something to say about the Apollo Hoax here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ04eMfEuik#

Again Clittlefield, have you read Dark Moon. Kaysing's analysis is there along with other experts who disprove that we went to the moon through the Apollo program. My question only applied to Kaysing. However, there are other experts in their respective fields who also challenge the manned Apollo flights to the moon. Get the book and read it cover to cover..., please! What do you think of the music video's moon set, heh?!

Yes, unfortunately Deepnight. After so many decades the Apollo questions along with the Lusitania, Pearl Harbour, UFO/ET enigma, the JFK Assassination, Vietnam, Watergate, October Surprise, Iran/Contra, Gulf War I, 9/11, and the Iraq/Afghanistan war to name a few, will not go away either. Should "they" go away? Or, should we do our civic duty and address them? Do we have to wait and ready ourselves for the next event that just won't go away?

Answer 1

What is the point of teaching pigs to fly? If you believe the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, then you are a Grade A moron. And, no, there's no point in wasting time debating it with you.

Edit: Yes, of course, the more people call you a kook the more you are convinced you must be correct. Classic paranoid delusion. Have a nice life and please never vote on anything.

One could also ask you if you ever read the many detailed rebuttals of the hoax theory. It's pretty obvious that you haven't. The debate is long over...it's not our fault you missed it.

Answer 2

Well, the first and foremost reason no-one debates Kaysing is that he happens to be dead, which would make debate hard.

The bigger reason is that Kaysing and those like him are not good targets for debate. They twist everything to fit their preconceived conclusion that it was faked. The astronauts know this. The astronauts know that whatever they say they will be dismissed as liars. Sadly it is far easier to cast doubt and question events than it is to convincingly argue for them, especially in technical matters such as Apollo.

Another one who invites debate is Bart Sibrel. But he harasses astronauts, lures them to interviews under false pretenses, and then sets up situations which he can use to his advantage. He demands they swear on the Bible that they actually went. Some refused, which he said proves they were lying. Some did swear, and he says they were being dishonest by swearing they did something they didn't! NASA and all the astronauts are in a no-win situation with people like Kaysing, Sibrel, Ralph Rene and the like. If they do not respond, people assume, as you have, it's because they are hiding something. If they do, people will assume it's because they are trying to silence the naysayers to keep their secret.

Another thing about Kaysing: he did work for Rocketdyne, but he was NOT an engineer, and he left the company in 1963, well before they figured out the problems of the F-1 engine and made a working set of engines for a lunar rocket.

And another: Kaysing was once asked what would prove to him the landings happened. He said a high-res photo of the site showing clearly the landers and rovers and tracks. When told that the Japanese were planning to launch just such a probe he changed his story and said nothing would convince him.

He also claimed that the media are controlled by the government and 'men in black' style goons were trying to keep this all under wraps, even alleging the jurder of the Apollo 1 crew and the Challenger crew as part of the cover0-up. So why was he, a man who gave his home address and full contact details to all and sundry, allowed to survive and broadcast his material?

The evidence for Apollo is overwhelming. It does not require debate. It does require a decent understanding of physics, radiation, thermal transfer mechanisms, orbital mechanics, and other such technical areas.

Answer 3

The reason no astronaut or NASA scientist will debate Kaysing about the Moon landings is the same reason that noone is going to debate with you that you got out bed this morning.

There is no need. Apollo era astronauts, engineers, and scientists... those that actually accomplished what you seem to think they didn't feel no need to give assurance to gullible and undereducated people like yourself.

If you actually look into Bill Kaysing's background you'll find that he was fired from Raytheon. he holds no scientific or technical degrees of any kind. And essentially all he did when he was with Raytheon was push paper. He was a glorified librarian.

Now, if you want to have a true debate outside the realm of false logic, and gullibility I'd be more than happy to give you all the scientific evidence and proof that your mind could handle.

Or, you could go to www.badastronomy.com and read a true scientists' take on the moon hoax "evidence"

I can assure that we went to the Moon. And if you have any questions feel free to email me and ask.

Unlike Bill Kaysing, I actually do have a degree in aerospace engineering, and I do work on the Shuttle and Ares (return to the moon) propulsion systems as an engineer.

Answer 4

The astronauts don't need to debate or defend their claim. The moon hoax theories have been thoroughly debunked without any help from them. I haven't read the book, but Kaysing is obviously trying to get some mileage, (and some money), out of rehashing old nonsense. I would challenge every claim you have referenced here. People like that don't mind making up things, including credentials and statistics.
After reading through some of the following responses to the claims of the conspiracy nuts, one should have little doubt about who's telling the truth.

Edit: I say again, Clayton, debate is unnecessary when the conspiracy claims are so thoroughly debunked. But in all fairness, why don't you do this: Write another question asking for evaluation of what you consider to be the best evidence presented by Kaysing. Tell us the evidence and then see what happens.

Answer 5

Yeah, right. Why would someone waste time with this crank. The claim that Apollo was faked has been well debunked. There's no need for more debate. Do you really think a conspiracy among thousands of scientists and engineers could have lasted this long? Scientists from other countries (including the Soviet Union) would have had to be in on it.

Edit: If debating one crank would put the conspiracy nonsense to rest, I would volunteer to do it. Unfortunately, giving them attention just encourages more to come out of the woodwork, so ignoring them really is best.

Edit2: As far as polls go, it's sad but true. Most Americans are hopelessly stupid when it comes to science. Having debates with wingnuts doesn't fix that problem--only better science education will.

Answer 6

This is so tiresome.

Kaysing's claims are so foolish that the astronauts choose not to dignify his stupid claims with a debate. They've got better things to do than to pander to the wishes of a small minority that doesn't have a good grasp of basic science. The conspiracy argument is based completely on bad science.

I also protest you labelling him an Apollo expert. His was a disgruntled person looking to make a name for himself, nothing more.

Don't you think that scientists would be the first to suspect a conspiracy? Instead, scientists vigorously defend the landings by relying upon proven scientific fact. Kaysing, meanwhile, never had a degree in science, but has made himself famous by publishing his apocryphal allegations.

Yes, I've heard every single piece of "evidence" in favor of a conspiracy. Not a single one contains the smallest grain of truth. Do a little research and you'll find out why. Everything that the astronauts would say in a debate has already been said by others.

I sincerely hope that those numbers are the product of poor polling procedure. That's not a good sign if such a substantial proportion of the US population is science-illiterate.

(Watch this get a few thumbs-down votes simply for championing real evidence over bad science.)
----
If you're going to call some of history's most courageous people (the astronauts) dishonorable liars, you had better be able to back it up with more than faulty common sense and one person's biased and scientifically-inaccurate book.

--- added 7/3 ---
Do you have any incontrovertible evidence that scientifically disproves the lunar landings? You're not going to find any.

Just because Fox had the audacity to air those pernicious lies does not mean that they contain a single grain of truth. Research the subject and you will find dozens of sites that tear apart Fox's conspiracy special, relying solely upon scientific fact. I say with complete, absolute, and total certainty that Fox's program is entirely without the smallest shred of scientific merit.

But I fear that you've already closed your mind, that you've made up your mind that the landings were faked - end of story. A quick look at any rebuttal website will make it obvious that the landings did happen. I strongly encourage you to peruse one of these sites.

--- new ---

Yes. I think that if you're going to make claims like this, you should be able to back it up with evidence. Kaysing's "evidence" has been considered, and it is entirely incorrect. Have you considered both sides of the argument? Have you considered that Kaysing had his own agenda in mind? He had no scientific background, so he was not an "expert". There is a difference between reasonable and unreasonable doubt. There is a proponderance of evidence in favor of the landings (the photos, the reflector, the moon rocks, the radio telescopes that tracked the lander), but there isn't any legitimate evidence against them.

Kaysing made wild, biased, and unsubstantiated claims. Fox aired them in a shameful and desperate bid for ratings. Why is it that scientists across the world believe that the landings were real? With their scientific backgrounds, they would be the first to identify suspicious evidence. Not a single conspiracy argument stands up to the scientific method.

Absence of evidence is by no means evidence in favor of a conspiracy. In this case, there's no evidence because there's none to be found. Yes, America had a motive to fake the landings. But did it do so? No. There is definitive evidence in support of the landings, and if you want to question them, you must present equally definitive evidence to the contrary.

Ten years might as well be ten eons. I've assessed both sides of the issue and only one is supported the facts.

--- 7/6 ---
Don't tell me that you seriously accept a music video as evidence of a hoax. Again, I ask: Do you have any evidence, other than one man's biased agenda and bad science, to support your claims?

--- 7/8 ---
Alas, I give up. I can see that this will only end in stalemate. If you want to convince me that the landings were false, I'll want to see irrefutable scientific evidence of that. After all, there's irrefutable scientific evidence in favor of the landings. I've even seen interviews with Kaysing, and I must say that he seems foolish when professional scientists examine his "evidence".

Answer 7

Debating crackpots is useless. They have no experience in the field, they don't care terribly much for the truth, and they are emotionally wedded to their crackpottery.

There simply is nothing to debate. We landed on the Moon, and everyone in the field knows it. There is nothing *to* debate. What would be accomplished be debating serious science versus ridiculous nonsense---- and not just ridiculous nonsense, but nonsense so nonsensical that anyone who actually understands the issues involves can do nothing but laugh or groan?

Science is not an issue that is settled in public debate or by popular vote. It is an issue that is solely determined by the observational evidence at hand. It makes no difference how many people believe the moon landings never happened; they did, end of story. It makes no difference how many people deny evolution; it happened, end of story.

Nor would any crackpot theory be demolished in five minutes. Crackpots are crackpots specifically because their theories have no evidence to support them. Typically their "evidence" is complete fabrication. It's hard to "demolish" a theory that changes every five minutes and a crackpot who is willing to fabricate evidence on the spot.

Even if you "demolished" him in debate, he would happily walk away, declare victory, keep spewing the same identical nonsense, and then also claim scientific legitimacy since some real scientist felt his ideas were important enough to debate!

I don't know this guy Kaysing at all, but crackpots are crackpots.

Answer 8

Debates with conspiracy theorists are useless. Since a conspiracy theory requires no factual evidence (it is placed on a lot of inaccurate or pseudo-scientific evidence), they are worth a DIME A DOZEN, so the real question is "why should they?" In addition, since they are based on non-scientific evidence or none at all, they cannot be disproven to most idiots out there.

Scientific theories are based on facts and are falsifiable by evidence. Since there is a lot more that is speculation than is factual, scientific theories are, by definition, much more valuable.

I remember a quote by Stephen J Gould, the biologist, who I will paraphrase: "Despite what the public thought, evolutionary scientists always welcomed the idea of arguing with creationists in court, because the court system is a system based on determining the best conclusion from available evidence. It is in a system like this that pseudoscientific arguments in creationism fail to stand up to cross-examination, but scientific arguments always do."

Answer 9

Bill Kaysing

Answer 10

I think I would have to read Kaysin's info. thoroughly , which I haven't done yet, before answering this intelligently. Sorry that I don't feel qualified , yet, to do so. I should mention in closing that an ex-astronaut acquaintance of mine (34 years in NASA and Ground Crew Shuttle Commander) once said to me, paraphrasing, "Bob, forget the naysayers; when we said we went to the moon, we went."