Talk:Bill Kaysing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.


why does every lunatic get their own page on wikipedia? This guy doesn't merit mention, unless placed in a section on "wacky" lunatics.

Actually, I think this guy is notable enough to warrant his own page - even though I agree he was wacko. --PhilipO 20:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Notable, maybe, but his specific claims are summarised and rebutted at the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations page, and shouldn't be repeated here as if they were uncontroversial (check that flag waving "is impossible" claim). Adhib 20:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Any discussion as to "this guy shouldn't have an entry in Wikipedia" sounds like a proposed censorship. The Apollo moon landings were arguably the most incredible engineering feats of the 20th century and the fact that some argue that they were faked even more shows what incredible feats they were. Therefore, discussion of those views and the notable personalities who expound them help complete the picture of one of the last century's most notable events.

I'm a bit shocked. It is the first time i read such an unilateral judging on Wikipedia. And this from the article's very first paragraph on! I mean, I'm not defending Kaysing's theory; actually i have no opinion whatsoever yet, i just came to educate myself, and i am shocked that that unilateral opinion is forced on me. Shouldn't Wikipedia's tone be more neutral, and assume the public has the maturity to make their own opinion ? (at least, i still prefer this blunt partiality to any kind of pseudo-impartial manipulation ;)

Personally I believe what Bill Kaysing said - it's not just HIS OWN theory - many, many, many astronomers world-wide believe the moon landing was faked. Do your research, then post spiteful comments.--Sean-Jin 21:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone had recently stuck on a sentence at the end of the first paragraph that I think was clearly POV. I removed it. I think the rest of the article is OK. Bubba73 (talk), 15:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Privacy book

Are we certain that the author of the Privacy book is the same man as the Apollo revisionist? Or is it possible that they are two men with the same name? In the Privacy book, the author states that he worked for an insurance company and doesn't say anything about a career in rocket engineering or any related field.

It isn't certain, but book vendors list it that way. The book was revised by Cathy Clark, could that person be the one who worked for an insurance company? Bubba73 (talk), 06:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Links

Does anyone have a pro-Bill website link? If so, please add it. --PhilipO 20:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kaysing's book as a reference?

Should Kaysing's self-published book be listed as a reference?

  • Wikipedia articles should use reliable published sources
  • This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.

Does it fit the critera of "reliable? Bubba73 (talk), 02:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Consider it a reference for Kaysing's claims -- not proof of his claims. --Nikolaus maack 21:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I've been wondering that myself. Given that his book was self-published, how can anyone verify his claims? Mark Grant 02:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I got the book a couple of weeks ago. I've been using it extensively to cite Kaysing, both here and in the Apollo hoax article. It isn't exactly self-published. It was published by what appears to be a small publisher of "health" books. Bubba73 (talk), 02:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, maybe the original 1974 edition was self-published. I have the 2002 edition. Bubba73 (talk), 02:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Everywhere I've read said the 1974 edition was self-published. I wasn't aware that it had been re-published since. Mark Grant 02:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Plait says that it was self-published. It is still in print. I added the website of the publisher on the main page, external links. I got my copy from Amazon, $15.45. It shows signs of being republished. Some of the lines of text are crooked, as if it was photocopied and the paper moved while the copy was being made. Most of the book are very poor reprodutions of photos and diagrams with short captions added. Bubba73 (talk), 02:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)