Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Steve]

The Apollo missions were an elaborate cover to hide the fact that the Vietnam Wars was fake, and was all filmed by Sam Peckinpah at Eglin AFB in Florida. The media refuses to cover this. NASA points out that in all photos of the Vietnam War, no stars are visible, and thus a hoax.

New thread by Vixen on the "FAKE VIET NAM WAR! in 3...2...1...

 

[Andy_Ross]

The Apollo missions were an elaborate cover to hide the fact that the Vietnam Wars was fake, and was all filmed by Sam Peckinpah at Eglin AFB in Florida. The media refuses to cover this. NASA points out that in all photos of the Vietnam War, no stars are visible, and thus a hoax.

Apart from the bits filmed at Beckton Gasworks in East London by Stanley Kubrick.

See it all comes together

 

[JayUtah]

I wouldn't just assume he was a whacko looney.

I’m not assuming. He said he wasn’t serious (at first). I have no opinion on his mental health, but he’s admittedly insincere and clearly technically illiterate. He’s also provably factually wrong. I don’t know what more you would want to hear before assessing his credibility.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Was he a Viet Nam vet? Should be easy enough to check. Mebbe he was a fortunate son or had those self-resolving bone spurs so prevalent among wealthy New Yorkers? Or he spent his time getting pissed in the Texas Air national Guard...Y'know...

And also has no relevance to NASA budgets at the time.

There is an interview of Kaysing in which he recounts *talking* to a disgruntled Vietnam vet who encouraged him to come up with something along the lines of the Apollo moon hoax. Vixen may be misremembering that. Astrobrant covers it in one of his videos.

 

[Mojo]

There is an interview of Kaysing in which he recounts *talking* to a disgruntled Vietnam vet who encouraged him to come up with something along the lines of the Apollo moon hoax. Vixen may be misremembering that.

My memory is excellent thanks - almost eidetic.

 

[Vixen]

There is an interview of Kaysing in which he recounts *talking* to a disgruntled Vietnam vet who encouraged him to come up with something along the lines of the Apollo moon hoax. Vixen may be misremembering that. Astrobrant covers it in one of his videos.

I was going by something JayUtah said a few pages back.

 

[zooterkin]

I was going by something JayUtah said a few pages back.

Maybe you should have read it again first.

 

[Mojo]

I was going by something JayUtah said a few pages back.

Search finds only two posts in this thread by JayUtah that include the word Vietnam, one on May 21st (page 35), and one on May 12th (page 12). Neither post mentions Kaysing.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Maybe you should have read it again first.

This post is one word too long.

 

[Steve]

Search finds only two posts in this thread by JayUtah that include the word Vietnam, one on May 21st (page 35), and one on May 12th (page 12). Neither post mentions Kaysing.

It's that " excellent, almost eidetic" memory at work again.

 

[JayUtah]

I was going by something JayUtah said a few pages back.

Probably this post:

Post in thread 'Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk'

May 16, 2026

Bill Kaysing was fond of implying that he was an expert engineer, saying things like, "well, when I worked at Rocketdyne..." or tossing out some technical terms that he used in the wrong context, when in fact he had a bachelor's degree in English and ran Rocketdyne's publishing department.

He did indeed work at Rocketdyne, but he left in 1963. This was before the lion's share of work on Apollo happened. Consequently he focuses on the early difficulties of the F-1 but is entirely silent on how the problems were solved.

He was not an engineer at Rocketdyne and had no...

• JayUtah

• 

Bill Kaysing was a World War II veteran, and had no complaints about how he was treated as a veteran. In fact, he attributed his success at Rocketdyne to education he received essentially gratis on the GI Bill. The man who purportedly convinced him to write the hoax book was a Vietnam veteran who has never been identified or interviewed. Kaysing agreed with that man that Vietnam veterans were being treated poorly.

The book was a scheme to embarrass the government over its treatment of Vietnam veterans. In the now-expunged radio interview with Kaysing, it was the Vietnam veteran who suggested the idea: "Why don't you write a book and say something outrageous like we never went to the Moon or something?" In the version Kaysing himself distributed ten years later as part of his standard press kit, it was the Vietnam veteran's idea simply to write a book to embarrass the government and it was Kaysing's idea that it should be about the Moon landings.

Of course the problem is that the book is laughably factually wrong. Most of the ignorant claims that subsequent claimants like René and Allen glommed onto were cooked up first by Kaysing, who frankly did little if any research and had no actual technical qualifications. It doesn't seem like Kaysing ever believed his claims would be seriously challenged in detail. He thought he was writing a one-off hit piece that would soon be forgotten.

And the obvious moral problem with his approach is that if you want to draw attention to the plight of hundreds of thousands of dedicated Americans, maybe don't do it by telling lies about hundreds of thousands of other dedicated Americans. There is absolutely nothing in the Bill Kaysing story that suggests his motive was ever to try to set the historical record straight according to the evidence.

 

[JayUtah]

I honestly can't remember the camera settings used X years ago. Each photo would demand its own individual merits, depending what you want to achieve. But I'd say between 10 - 25 seconds for a decent night sky shot with my old SLR. Black and white 200.

If you knew this all along, why did you think it was valid for Marcus Allen to claim they should also be visible at 1,000 times shorter shutter speed?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Probably this post:

Post in thread 'Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk'

May 16, 2026

Bill Kaysing was fond of implying that he was an expert engineer, saying things like, "well, when I worked at Rocketdyne..." or tossing out some technical terms that he used in the wrong context, when in fact he had a bachelor's degree in English and ran Rocketdyne's publishing department.

He did indeed work at Rocketdyne, but he left in 1963. This was before the lion's share of work on Apollo happened. Consequently he focuses on the early difficulties of the F-1 but is entirely silent on how the problems were solved.

He was not an engineer at Rocketdyne and had no...

• JayUtah

• 

Bill Kaysing was a World War II veteran, and had no complaints about how he was treated as a veteran. In fact, he attributed his success at Rocketdyne to education he received essentially gratis on the GI Bill. The man who purportedly convinced him to write the hoax book was a Vietnam veteran who has never been identified or interviewed. Kaysing agreed with that man that Vietnam veterans were being treated poorly.

The book was a scheme to embarrass the government over its treatment of Vietnam veterans. In the now-expunged radio interview with Kaysing, it was the Vietnam veteran who suggested the idea: "Why don't you write a book and say something outrageous like we never went to the Moon or something?" In the version Kaysing himself distributed ten years later as part of his standard press kit, it was the Vietnam veteran's idea simply to write a book to embarrass the government and it was Kaysing's idea that it should be about the Moon landings.

Of course the problem is that the book is laughably factually wrong. Most of the ignorant claims that subsequent claimants like René and Allen glommed onto were cooked up first by Kaysing, who frankly did little if any research and had no actual technical qualifications. It doesn't seem like Kaysing ever believed his claims would be seriously challenged in detail. He thought he was writing a one-off hit piece that would soon be forgotten.

And the obvious moral problem with his approach is that if you want to draw attention to the plight of hundreds of thousands of dedicated Americans, maybe don't do it by telling lies about hundreds of thousands of other dedicated Americans. There is absolutely nothing in the Bill Kaysing story that suggests his motive was ever to try to set the historical record straight according to the evidence.

Other people were certainly doing a good job exposing the quagmire of U.S. involvement in Vietnam by focusing on the truth about, you know, U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

 

[LondonJohn]

If you knew this all along, why did you think it was valid for Marcus Allen to claim they should also be visible at 1,000 times shorter shutter speed?

Because Vixen is fundamentally scientifically illiterate, and only conceded the shutter speed after a LONG time (and certainly more than enough time to, say, google "what shutter speed do you use to photograph stars"). I note also that "keen amateur photographer with all the gear" Vixen still doesn't mention anything at all about aperture settings - almost certainly because she doesn't understand them either, nor realise their relevance to exposures.

This thread has, predictably, devolved into yet another Vixen fiasco: a case study in someone desperate to prove that he/she is smarter than everyone else (for reasons that a psychiatrist would probably be very interested in), but instead coming across as nothing but risibly ignorant, mendacious in debate, and grindingly stubborn.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

In Vixen’s defense, I only know her, and that fairly recently, from one other thread (Forumvision) in which we are often found, despite our widely different upbringing and cultures, in firm agreement on matters of taste.

In this thread, in this subforum, she is not criticized on matters of taste. In this thread, in this subforum, facts are more relevant than taste. She is criticized for her dogged denial of facts, and for her persistent promulgation of lies.

It helps me to keep in mind that we are all just pretending to be somebody here.

You are within your rights to say you are just pretending to be somebody here. When you generalize that pretense to all here, you are subject to challenge.

ETA of course we cannot reasonably pretend to have knowledge and experience we do not possess. Especially in the face of the obvious knowledge and experience of other posters.

True that. But what cannot be done reasonably can be done unreasonably, as @Vixen demonstrates again and again.

@VIX I apologize for talking about you in the third person like that but I couldn’t bring myself to calmly reply to any of your posts here. But Laura Nyro is still awesome, and I think I gave you the 12 this round.

Although our opinions of Laura Nyro are a matter of taste, not fact, I agree with you that Laura Nyro was awesome. I regret to say I cannot say she is, in the present tense, awesome. That is not a criticism of her or of her art. It is concession to an unfortunate fact.

 

[steenkh]

You asked a straight question so I'll give you my blunt answer. IMV It'd be grossly irresponsible, reckless and immoral to send healthy young adults to 'walk on the Moon' by 2028, because it is clear they are nowhere near ready. It smacks of the Orange one's obvious attempt at a ridiculous self-glorifying publicity stunt just to do it before he leaves office and to get there before the Chinese.

I am willing to open a book it won't be properly tested within the next 30 months.

Thanks for the blunt answer, but it didn't answer why Artemis is not a big fake like you think Apollo was. In fact, you deflect by saying that it'll probably become a catastrophe, and you open the door to claiming that if they make it to the Moon and back, it is probably a fake after all.

I haven't looked into Bill Kaysing's claim but if he had just come back from Vietnam (55K US military personnel dead) to have to tolerate the 'good news' announcement of huge sums invested in space race politics, whilst the veterans were suffering badly, I wouldn't just assume he was a whacko looney.

What is the relevance of Kaysing being a veteran, or not being a veteran? Is he more trustworthy, or more experienced in physics if he is a veteran?

 

[EHocking]

To be fair, licence is the noun's spelling in the UK, license is the verb.

Oops, my erratum…

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Thanks for the blunt answer, but it didn't answer why Artemis is not a big fake like you think Apollo was. In fact, you deflect by saying that it'll probably become a catastrophe, and you open the door to claiming that if they make it to the Moon and back, it is probably a fake after all.

What is the relevance of Kaysing being a veteran, or not being a veteran? Is he more trustworthy, or more experienced in physics if he is a veteran?

The relevance seems to be that, as long Kaysing is unqualified, war-traumatized, and bitter about all the money the US was spending on the space race, then he must be a reliable source about whether we really went to the moon. Or something.

 

[Trebuchet]

Because Vixen is fundamentally scientifically illiterate....

It's only a little bit of that, and mostly....

and grindingly stubborn.

 

[Vixen]

Because Vixen is fundamentally scientifically illiterate, and only conceded the shutter speed after a LONG time (and certainly more than enough time to, say, google "what shutter speed do you use to photograph stars"). I note also that "keen amateur photographer with all the gear" Vixen still doesn't mention anything at all about aperture settings - almost certainly because she doesn't understand them either, nor realise their relevance to exposures.

This thread has, predictably, devolved into yet another Vixen fiasco: a case study in someone desperate to prove that he/she is smarter than everyone else (for reasons that a psychiatrist would probably be very interested in), but instead coming across as nothing but risibly ignorant, mendacious in debate, and grindingly stubborn.

Untrue derogatory nonsense.