Bill Kaysing has, in many ways, gone off the deep end. I don't know whether it is the infirmity of advanced age, or the increasing pressure to explain away flaws in his theories, or some other cause. But in any other venue, such blatantly illogical and implausible ideas wouldn't be held for a second, and their proponent would be laughed out of polite company.
Kaysing's odd claims are still around only because there is a segment of fairly under-educated and unquestionably uncritical people who eat that stuff up. Couple this with popular media's need to parade clowns like this across the airwaves (the new circus midway), and you see why he hasn't faded into obscurity.
I strongly encourage the approach taken on this point. Many of the elements of the conspiracy theory I term "ad hoc" because they are devised to explain some particular set of observations. The effect is observed, and the scenario is postulated backward to cause. Rarely does a conspiracist postulate in the "forward" direction to see if the scenario actually makes sense as a sequence of unfolding historical events.
Indeed, if the visibility of the stars were so grave an issue that it warranted a highly public murder, why would NASA have let the problem escalate so far? Remember, these are people supposedly expert at keeping secrets. Why would they even risk revealing the hoax to someone they didn't already feel they could control?
The same argument holds for Brian Welch, the former NASA PAO chief who died unexpectedly of a heart attack after talking to hoax enthusiasts. Murdered?
It's not hard (and kind of fun) to put oneself in the position of a dastardly and devious NASA official trying to keep a secret. Indulge your creativity; how would you keep these secrets? The solutions you'll likely come up with bear very little resemblance to what the conspiracists claim must have been done. After a while thinking in this mode, it's easy to say to yourself, "Gad, what an entirely foolish way to maintain an illusion."
|