You're quite the piece of work.

Does that link work?

I'll take your lack of reply to that post on Kaysing as a vulnerability and not a strength. Come to think of it, no one else has responded to it, either. Not looking good for the hoaxing side. I don't buy for a second that you find it unintelligible. It's not immaculate, but far from unreadable.

.
I tried to read that but to be honest your penchant for not capitalizing the first letter of your sentences reeks of contempt for the reader.
It says you disrespect the person you are writing to.
It makes what you write very difficult to make sense since I have no idea whether you are starting a new sentence or not.
So if you want to be read, then clean up your act.
Or deal with writing and posting for nothing, because it won't be read by anyone.

I watched the entire video, and I also read Baron testimony transcript. These are notes I took on just about everything he talks about.

Just to start off I'll list what I agree is suspicious:

--Baron's report being lost and the circuмstances of his death, e.g. car stalling at a railroad crossing, Kaysing claiming no autopsy was performed, which was against Florida law at the time).
--The FBI taking Grissom's papers from his home after his death, and never returning them.
--Not taking a telescope along.
--Unclassified Apollo records not available to the public.

Kaysing got the idea to write about the moon landings being fake from a homeless Vietnam vet (as a joke). He then, while still assuming the moon landings really happened, got a contract to write the book by the Jєωιѕн publishing house Price, Stern & Sloan (which specialized in joke books). So it seems he originally intended to write the book as a joke. Kind of a strange genesis, don't you think? I see from looking at his publishing output that he was part of the back-to-land movement in the early 70s.

--The set of the interview is ridiculous with the crackling fireplace, romcom lighting, cheese platter and wine for the guy to munch on.

--Baron's death is suspicious, though I read that there was a witness to his death and so foul play was ruled out. Kaysing suspects Baron was murdered, though suspicion doesn't equal fact. Baron also stated in another video I watched that he had been harassed at him home by NASA because of his work. Why didn't they also kill General Sam Phillips, who Kaysing says corroborated much of what was in Baron's report? Also Phillips was in total command of the Apollo project. It's odd that he and his wife weren't autopsied, which was against Florida law at the time. Kaysing doesn't mention the stepdaughter that was killed. Was she autopsied?

--Baron's report going missing is suspicious.

--Not taking a telescope along is suspicious, and plays into the idea that the landing was filmed in a studio. Kaysing says that astronomers would have been able to immediately detect foul play if the conspirators had attempted to fake the stars. That's probably an arguable point. If NASA had astronomers in on the conspiracy they might have been able to cook up something which would fool other astronomers.

--The account about his contact with James Irwin can't be confirmed. We just have to take his word for it.

--The account of the pilot seeing a capsule dropped out of the cargo hold of an airplane isn't confirmed. This would be a gigantic news story. Why didn't the pilot inform his airline or other people in authority. Even tell someone anonymously, giving the coordinates at which the capsule was dropped and other details. The pilot doesn't reveal his name or the airline he worked for, for fear that he'd be fired? Sounds fishy. I'm supposed to believe the pilot kept this a secret for years or decades and decided to call into a radio show one day? Kaysing should tell us what radio show and the date of the radio interview.

--As for the capsule not creating steam from the impact with hitting the ocean, Kaysing says that none of the pictures taken of the landings show steam. Are there any pictures taken of any of the NASA capsules at the landing? It's my understanding that the specific landing locations couldn't be predicted. Ships and planes could only be in the general area of the capsule landings, therefore no pictures or video could be taken of impact.

--Kaysing mentions that he was doing an interview with KOME radio station in San Jose, California on December 7, 1975. The interview with shock jock Victor Boc went off the air due to someone in a helicopter dropping napalm on the radio station's transmitter. You'd think this would be noteworthy enough to include on KOME's Wikipedia page. It may indeed have happened, I'm just surprised I can't find information on it through a quick search. Kaysing claims that this attack was due to someone not wanting him to tell his story. Earlier he said he did hundreds of interviews promoting the book when it was published. I doubt someone would bother to silence a guy who had already told so many people that the moon landings didn't happen. It's never, ever been dangerous to talk about the moon landings being a hoax. At worst most people will view you as a harmless crank. Maybe even a lovable crank who's fun to hang out with at the bar and swap tall tales.

--Apollo records not classified and yet not available to the public is suspicious.

--Any proof that this "Hindman" even exists, and was a "direct employee" of Neil Armstrong? Kaysing says that "Hindman" was "claiming to be from the manned space center in Houston". What, he never confirmed this?

--The people here are doubtful that the Tetra was used to fake observers into thinking the Apollo spacecraft went to the moon. I don't understand this technical stuff, but the people at the link sound like they know what they're talking about and they dispute the claim.

--I can't find any information on the animation expert "George Powell". He says that Powell worked on the movie "Voyage to the Moon". Is he talking about the Melies silent film?

--The "rocket scientist" Bill Wood seems like a fishy guy from the video I saw:



He makes a stupid mistake at one point in the video stating that Explorer 1 discovered the Van Allen Belts, when he knows Explorer 1 was sent as a result of the belts being discovered in 1958. He looks and sounds like a dumb, low-quality person. Kaysing puffs him up by making him sound like a super-genius. I researched this guy a bit more and found others who share my perception of him.

--I couldn't find any information on Van Muellin. I spelled it a number of ways with "astronomer" and "Leiden university" but couldn't find anything about him. Kaysing says that this man "claims" Stanley Kubrick was hired to script Apollo missions 11, 12 and 13. Lots of claims. He keeps referring to Kubrick as "Stan", as if they're buddies or something, and telling us how Kubrick thinks.

--He makes the tired claim that the "public lost interest" in moon landings after Apollo 11 and that NASA was going to have to buy time for the networks to cover the landings. It's not likely that the public lost interest, but that the Jєω TV networks decided for the American people what they would be interested in. This has never made sense to me. I hear it all the time. He says, "once you've seen something you don't want to see it again". Ridiculous. I saw a beach once and never wanted to see it again.

--He talks about his libel suit against Lovell for calling him "wacky", but leaves out the part where the case was thrown out of court.

The moon landing may indeed be a hoax, but you'd think there'd be higher-quality evangelizers than Kaysing and Sibrel, who both give off a huckster vibe. They don't help me to give the hoax theory the benefit of the doubt. They're smart enough to figure out the moon landing was a hoax, but are suddenly dumb about Jєωs?

No, I still wouldn't find Conspiracy Music Guru funny. As I've said before I don't have an emotional vested interest in the moon landings having happened or not. Wherever the truth rests is fine with me.

That you asked me to watch the Kaysing video suggests that you find the guy impressive. He's not impressive at all, as my post clearly demonstrates. He's a huckster, and not even a very clever one.

As I've said before I don't have an emotional vested interest in the moon landings having happened or not.

That's not what it looks like from where I sit, as you use lots of non-objective emotionally-charged language.

Never let a simple alternative explanation get in the way of a good conspiracy theory!