Conspiracy Theories, Skepticism, and Critical Thinking

 I’m fond of describing works in both their qualitative and ethical attributes. A book can be bad qualitatively but neutral or good ethically. We have done five of these books. Some books, like the previous “ Behold a Pale Horse ” are bad on both accounts. Bad writing, and an unethical position especially considering his addition of the Protocols within it. Kaysing’s book made me realize that I need a third category for these kinds of books—success. “Was the book successful at making its case?” None Dare Call it Conspiracy was a success. Not in its day, but now that we have president Trump (again) and he is the ideal president for the writer and audience of that book. With Kaysing, it’s not the same. With “We Never Went to the Moon” we have a book that is qualitatively bad. The writing is just not well executed, and it feels rushed. This feeling is despite the fact that we know it wasn’t because Kaysing tells us in the appendix how many times he was interviewed about these ideas....

 As we plow through the appendix, we are now getting to things that were covered at the end of the book. What I am now beginning to think is that the end of this book is really the summary for people trying to argue the position. This might actually be necessary because Kaysing is such a terrible writer. He’s no John Robison that’s for damn sure. As boring as that book was, it was still well written. The counter point to my idea is that it would require Kaysing to be aware of how bad that this book is, and if conspiracy theorists could be that self-aware they wouldn’t be conspiracy theorists. Moon Photo Lighting : We just did this at the end of the book and it’s the same claim about Aldrin and Armstrong from before. Kaysing asks, “ If Armstrong had provided the light source, flash or flood, it would have been reflected in Aldrin’s helmet faceplate. And yet, there is no trace of artificial light showing in the faceplate. Why?” Because there was no artificial light, they used this ...

We continue on with the appendix and we are regretful that it is more of the same; but it’s a lightening round so here we go. Lloyd Mallan : Mallan was a scientist who examined Russia’s Lunik 3 pictures of the far side of the Moon. Mallan concluded that the pictures were faked . He found artists that agreed that the pictures were actually really well-done paintings and that was settled. However, this would not be the case. The Russians used captured American s pying film developed by Kodak to take the pictures, which explained their quality (for the time). Kaysing tells us that Lloyd died of cancer in 1972, and the Apollo program didn’t even comment, because why would they? He’s just some guy unaffiliated with the program. Paul Jacobs : One of the founders of the magazine “Mother Jones.” We are told that Jacobs was going to help out Kaysing because Jacobs had interrogated the head of the US Geological Survey about his views on the Moon landings, but then Jacobs died in 1978 from cance...

 It’s page 188 (of the PDF) and we’re getting some of the factoids that Moon landing deniers use to prove their point. None of these things actually hold up being based on a poor understanding of space science. It’s a rapid fire approach so we get to move through them quickly. No Craters : the problem with this section though, is that Kaysing has covered most of it before and this serves as a summary, I guess. It does give the effect of arguing with a child though, I’ve already explained why this is the case and now I have to repeat. So here Kaysing says that there are no craters from where the landing module set down. There wouldn’t be because there’s no atmosphere for the engines to push down. The only thing that there would be, are prints from the landing module’s feet. Those still exist, you can see them in later images of the Moon’s surface. Kaysing ends this section with, “ If you can find me a picture showing a crater, please sent it to me or give mthe index number.” I wond...

 The first section of this week’s appendix is titled “The Astronauts.” This section does something that we haven’t seen in a while—it raises an interesting point. It does so accidentally, but the point is still raised. Kaysing tells us that he was invited to a televised debate with Buzz Aldrin to discuss whether the Moon landing was faked. Aldrin didn’t show up, and Kaysing acts as though this was an act of cowardice, “ it was his obligation as a man and public servant to defend his case in person. ” Aldrin was not a public servant. He doesn’t owe anyone anything. The man comment is just proto-toxic masculinity, Kaysing is trying to shame him into showing up. We are told that Armstrong has disappeared because he won’t speak to either Kaysing or his co-investigators. Finally, we are told that “Astronaut Irving’s mother berated me on radio when I appeared on the Jim Eason show in San Fransisco. But when I offered to debate her son on the same program, there was dead silence.” Kaysing...