Conspiracy Theories, Skepticism, and Critical Thinking

 The story is that Kaysing was commissioned to write this book. Skeptics will concentrate on the portion of that story where Kaysing would claim that he wrote it as a goof but then started to believe it; I want to focus on the other part. That someone paid him to write this because that implies some kind of editorial decision. An editor is what we need here because mid-chapter the format changes. Last week I criticized the ordering Kaysing presented: Baron’s testimony, then Baron’s report, then the Phillip’s report. I said that it should have gone Baron’s report, Baron’s testimony, then Phillip’s. This is because we have Baron’s findings, then the investigation into his findings, then a corroborating report. They didn’t do that for some reason. Now, we have something new, side-by-side comparison of the claims Phillips’ is making with Baron’s. This is fine, but either do this for the entire chapter or don’t do it all. Either choice is better than suddenly deciding to do it. What wer...

Last week we ended with Kaysing very long insertion of Thomas Baron’s testimony to the Congressional investigation into the Apollo 1 fire. The goal of that section, and this one, is to claim that the conspiracy theory is plausible because sometimes massive projects have flaws. The method to complete that goal is the inclusion of official documentation, because so far, all we’ve had to go on is what Kaysing assumes to be the case. We’ve had him guessing, makings things up, and providing a rendering of what the command room migh t look like if it were real. Official documentation makes the theory seem better, and since we are over halfway into the book, no one is reading it anymore. The first report comes from General Samuel C. Phillips, director of the Apollo program. In the preface to the report Phillips makes it explicit that he is not satisfied with the progress made by the program and that substantial improvement is needed. He also spells “enclosed” with an “I” (“Inclosed”) which I’...

 Today’s post is going to be about two chapters. The first is a page and a half, completely unnecessary, and concerns how the radio transmission was faked. This question of the radio waves was never an issue to anyone in both the historical explanation and the conspiracy theory. It’s an issue that no one raises because we live in the age of global instant communication. Even back in the 70s, when the book was written, you could still phone England from Iowa. It would cost a lot, but no one doubts the technology. You might get some HAM operator nerd type wondering about the direction the transmission was coming from, but there are probably ways to explain that. Kaysing does engage in technobabble in an effort to confuse and bewilder the reader. He begins talking about ultra-low frequency transmission and how it is used to transmit messages to submarines. This was the backup to the actual transmission. Which doesn’t make sense because, according to Kaysing, we’re trying to fake the t...

 I have a confession to make I don’t like 2001: A Space Odyssey. I think it’s a remarkable achievement in filmmaking, it’s certainly a science fiction milestone, but it’s boring as fuck. I’ve seen every Stanley Kubrick movie up to A.I. (his quasi-last movie) and the man knew the technical craft of filmmaking. He knew how to frame a shot (just watch the big wheel scenes with Danny in The Shining), how to do lighting (Barry Lyndon), and execute unbroken long takes (the opening scene in Full Metal Jacket). Most of his movies are very slow paced, and hard to watch. You have to sit down and ready yourself. Most of his movies are great examples of why film is a form of art; but 2001 is not one of them. I don’t say this to be shocking, and some of you right now are probably thinking what the hell is he on about 2001 is a great movie. It’s not, it’s too long. The opening scene with the apes does not need to go on as long as it did. The end hyperspace scene is much the same. We remember the...