William Kaysing is considered
by some to be the father of the lunar landing hoax theory. He worked
at Rocketdyne, a major aerospace contractor, from 1957 until 1963 in
various capacities having to do with technical publications (e.g.,
writer, librarian). In his book We Never Went to the Moon
Kaysing introduces some of the classic conspiracy arguments such as
the absent stars in lunar surface photographs. He also claims the
Apollo 1 fire and the Challenger accident were staged to
silence the participants who were about to spill the beans.
Mr. Kaysing, who passed away in 2005, attempted to sue astronaut
Jim Lovell for slander in 1997 when he called Kaysing's theories
"wacky." The case was thrown out of court in 1999. Kaysing made a
portion of his subsequent his living from perpetuating the fraud
theory, although he wrote may books on a variety of subjects that were
not especially controversial.
Bill Kaysing worked for
Rocketdyne, the company that manufactured the Apollo spacecraft.
Therefore he has detailed inside knowledge and expertise on the space
Mr. Kaysing received his Bachelor of Arts in English in 1949 from
the University of Southern California. Those are his academic
credentials. He worked for Rocketdyne chiefly as a writer and a
At one point his job title was "service engineer", which has led
some to assert he really was involved in the cutting-edge engineering
of the engines Rocketdyne built. We contacted Rocketdyne, which at
the time of our contact was owned by Boeing, to explore this. Under
Boeing's recollection of North American Aviation's nomenclature of the
time (which they believe was congruent with their own), a "service
engineer" would have been a sort of mechanic and not a job that
required a degree or expertise in engineering as licensed engineers
use the term.
Further, Rocketdyne manufactured only the main engines for the
some of the launch vehicles, not the electronics, computers, or
structures or much of anything having to do with the spacecraft
themselves. Mr. Kaysing left Rocketdyne in 1963, shortly after the
final Apollo equipment configuration was announced and before
Rocketdyne had begun work integrating their designs with Apollo. In
fact, Kaysing left just prior to some significant breakthroughs with
the F-1 engine designs and could not really be considered an authority
on how those engines succeeded.
Finally, Mr. Kaysing never specified what actual projects he
worked on at Rocketdyne. Since his technical publications team
comprised only four individuals for a company developing dozens of
engine designs, we speculate that his involvement would have been
rather limited to one or two specific projects. We cannot presume
without evidence that Mr. Kaysing ever actually worked on any of the
projects that would be laster associated with Apollo.
Kaysing had a security
clearance. If anyone would have known about the conspiracy, he
If so, then why does he not simply say, "There was a conspiracy
and I was in on it"? Instead he, like all other conspiracists, must
nit-pick at details and construct a complicated conjectural case
Security clearances were routinely required for anyone working on
rocket booster technology, because that technology was being developed
chiefly as a weapon. Clearance would have been required of anyone who
had access to the printed material circulating through Rocketdyne.
But having access to it doesn't mean Kaysing necessarily read or
understood it. This argument is simply far too indirect to support
the notion that Kaysing was an expert on Rocketdyne's Apollo-related
Kaysing would have
needed a lot of technical knowledge in order to do his
Not necessarily. Managing the technical publications section of a
company requires more librarian skills than engineering skills.
Besides, the technical writers employed by most technical companies
don't need the degree of technical expertise that the engineers and
designers would require.
Mr. Kaysing himself said that Ralph René, a self-taught
engineer, had more engineering knowledge than he did.
Former astronauts have
refused to appear with Kaysing or discuss his findings. This proves
they have something to hide.
Who in their right mind would give the time of day to someone who
has made a part of his living since the 1970s by calling him a liar?
What you're doing to
Bill Kaysing is nothing more than character assassination. [Jarrah
No. If this debate were about Bill Kaysing, Chronicler of the
Southwest, then we would have praise for him, or at least be agnostic
to his efforts. If this were about Bill Kaysing, Champion of the
Veteran, then we would definitely praise and eulogize him. If this
were about Bill Kaysing, Cat Lover, then we would sympathize with his
efforts undertaken in retirement at his own expense.
Unfortunately this is about the Bill Kaysing who alleges that the
moon landings were hoaxed, and who claims to have scientifically and
factually defensible arguments to support that allegation. And
unfortunately it is upon those grounds, not his value as a human
being, that we propose to contest his claims. Where he exercises
indefensible reason, scholarly rigor requires that we identify it as
such. Where he inflates his credentials, a devotion to the truth
requires us to investigate further. Where he asserts unverifiable
fact, intellectual honesty requires us to question it.
Here our devotion is to the truth. If the reader desires to
praise Kaysing for whatever reason, we offer this site.