Questions: We Never Went to the Moon pp. 12-17

 For any new readers, the page numbers in the title refer to the PDF file found on the Internet Archive. The numbers do not line up with the page in the book, so far they are about five pages behind.

Researching conspiracy theories has changed my brain in a few important ways. The first is that I cannot read the news without filtering it into a conspiratorial interpretation. It’s not that I believe it, but that I try and interpret the news as they would. For example, president-elect Trump’s pick for secretary of Treasury is just a normal big business executive; but I also know that he’s worked for both George Soros and the WEF (World Economic Fund) which makes it interesting for those people who rabidly support him.

The second way that conspiracy theories have changed my brain is that I can longer just read a rhetorical question without getting angry at the writer. The “?” just hangs in a sentence in much the same way that a brick doesn’t. The rhetorical question is the path of the coward, instead of just making an assertion they transfer responsibility to the reader. After all it’s not like they said the Moon Landing was faked, they just asked, and you, the reader, said it was fake.

Page 12 ends with two rhetorical questions, after a total of four on the page. This may not seem like that much but it’s a half page with a photo inserted at the top. That’s four on one page, most books have 0. My dissertation has 4 total—all of which I answer. The rhetorical questions are a cheap way to engage the reader as well. They ask, you answer in your head, and then the next sentence confirms how smart you are. The only problem is that the book hasn’t said anything, it makes you fill in the gaps.

Kaysing is pretty bad, only because his questions are just wrong. He asks, “Why did so many astronauts end up as executives of large corporations?”

Kaysing is telling us that they are rewarded for the “lie” with these positions. Yet he doesn’t give us any names or businesses. Michael Collins became a corporate VP at an Aerospace firm. Neil Armstrong was a spokesman for Chrysler, was a technical board member for Gates-Learjet, and a few other aerospace companies. Buzz Aldrin became commandant of the USAF test pilot school and later punched a Moon Landing denialist in 2002 (it just bears mentioning). I could go through the entire list of astronauts and where they ended up, but I’m going to just focus on these three since the book is about denying that they landed on the Moon.

Only the first two worked in corporate America and it’s easy to see why. They went to the Moon. The question we should be asking Kaysing is why he thinks it is strange that an aerospace firm would want one of the only twelve people to ever step on the Moon on their board. Even if it was just for marketing reasons it makes sense.

The conspiracy world never wants you to answer the questions. They just want to barrage you with a series of them so that your brain begins thinking that all of those questions are legitimate.

The next page one single declarative sentence, otherwise it’s all questions. Kaysing isn’t saying anything directly and its infuriating because every one of those questions can be answered in such a way that the next question doesn’t make any sense. This is a fun game I play when I’m grading papers and my students attempt this.

Kaysing asks, “What has happened to the Baron Report?—a 500 page compilation of errors isntances of mismanagement and malfeasance…And was Baron’s death a few months later at a railroad crossing really an accident?”

The conspiracy game is set up this report, imply that it’s being hidden, and then ask what we think about the author’s death.

Let’s deal with the first question: What happened to the report? Nothing, it’s right here. If you go to that link, the scanned copy is stamped “NASA Archive.” The Apollo 1 fire that Baron’s report is responding too, was investigated by Congress. Congress held a copy of that report, which means it is part of the Congressional record. Kaysing is claiming that there exists a 500-page version, but there’s no attribution or proof that it exists. The second question (which appears after our lone declarative sentence) wants to link the report with Baron’s death. The implication is that he was killed a railroad crossing to silence him.

As long as you never pause to think about it, this implication makes sense. Pause though, and think, how do we know about the report if Baron was killed? It is because he had already turned over the report to Congress and talked to the press. If “they” were going to kill him to silence him, then “they” missed their chance.

If “they” can arrange an assassination via train, then maybe “they” deserve to be in charge, famously trains only run on tracks, so the timing requires so much planning.

Kidding aside. The rest of the page is a mix of questions which require lots of research to answer and others which are just non-sensical. The former, “Why was Apollo 6, a total fiasco, followed by six perfect moon missions which in turn were followed by the manned orbiting lab debacle?”

That requires a tedious examination of all the Apollo missions. His last comment though is strange, “manned orbiting lab debacle”—is that Apollo 13? It followed 12, but that wasn’t a lab, that was intended to be a landing.

As an example of a non-sensical question, “why was there a rigid and unbending requirement that all data for public release be cleared through the public relations office of NASA?” This is non-sensical because within the question is the answer. If the data is going to be released only NASA could release their own data to the public. Unless someone else has the data for the Moon Landing, there could be only one source.

The entire chapter is like this and it’s difficult to take seriously. This is THE book about the Moon landing denial and this entire chapter is merely a barrage of questions that are trying to win via proof by attrition. Flat Earth conspiracy theorists do this too. The technique works because all they need is one “I don’t know” or “that is strange” so that they could wedge in the rest of their doubt. He wants us to answer how we know that moon rocks are from the moon; how we know that there were actually people in the rockets; how do we know that the boosters were full of fuel; etc.

This chapter ends with a cry for attention from the official channels. The book is supposed to be an “invitation to NASA or other groups or concerned individuals to review the concept presented and refute it with some indisputable evidence that we have, indeed, landed on the Moon—that we have, indeed, made good use of the 30 billion dollars that allegedly went to fund Apollo.”

No he doesn’t. He doesn’t want the evidence because he’s already rejected all of that. No one who “just asks questions” actually wants answers. Kaysing actually tells us that photos and bags of rocks won’t count as evidence. He’s got an impossible bar to reach.

Here is a tip when encountering someone like this. First off, stop them at their third question; don’t let them get going on one of their rants. Then ask them, with all politeness and sincerity the following question, “What would count as evidence to answer your first question?”

Slowing them down frustrates their plan and it gives the opportunity to establish common ground. What counts as proof? If they answer nothing, then stop talking to them.