Isn't it just a bit odd that he claims McAuliffe was killed because she refused to say you couldn't see stars in space when she had never been in space to begin with and couldn't actually know if it was true or not?

Apparently they had to do it before she got up there. They apparently didn't want a "cilivian" to see the stars, someone whom they purportedly wouldn't control.

Unfortunately although it's almost impossible to be chosen as a shuttle pilot without military flight experience, no military experience is required to be a mission specialist. Dozens of "civilians" have flown on the space shuttle. I'm not exactly sure what Kaysing means by "civilian", but it seems that a whole fleet of potential loose cannons has flown, with no more devotion to the alleged NASA kabal than McAuliffe.

My point was mainly that Kaysing's hypothesis fails not only on factual grounds, but also because it's an ad hoc explanation. Sure, given the desired conclusion and a selective set of observations it can't be disproven. But it's obviously an affirmed consequent. He starts with the desired conclusion and then works his way back to a set of antecedents that seems to support it. He fails to see if, given his postulated set of antecedents, a more plausible scenario unfolds and arrives at a different conclusion.

Let's say I'm the head of NASA. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the moon landings were hoaxed and I know about it.

If I'm worried about "civilians" exposing the "true nature" of outer space, the last thing I would do is authorize a Teacher In Space program. I would say something like, "It's too dangerous for non-astronauts," or "Our launch schedule and flight assignments are way too sensitive to allow glorified passengers."

If I couldn't kill the program, I'd set selection standards way too high. And if someone managed to meet them, I'd make training a living hell in the hopes he or she washed out.

If I were faced with no other option than to eliminate the candidate prior to his reaching orbit, I would certainly not do it in a way that implicated NASA. People die all the time. They stick knives in toasters. They fiddle with the radio while they drive. They slip in bathtubs. They get carjacked or mugged.

But if I wanted to kill two birds with one stone, I'd arrange for it to happen during a training exercise. Some injury in the Vomit Comet, or something else. That way I can go before Congress and say, "See, I told you it was too dangerous." And there would be no future candidates.

But the last thing I would do is arrange for a fatal accident in front of millions of television viewers, dozens of on-site schoolchildren spectators, at the expense of an orbiter and including the deaths of six other people whose families will also be beating down my door demanding an explanation.

The last thing I would do is construct a scenario that would bring down the wrath of Congress and a beloved President upon me. The last scenario I would attempt is one that would result in months and months of intensive investigation -- of me -- and a condemnation of the agency I run.

This is the problem with the hoax theories. They sometimes seem to fit the evidence (duh, they were invented to do so), but in a more straightforward analysis they are ****-poor ways to run a conspiracy. From Kaysing's point of view, every death must be considered suspicious and somehow intertwined with the theory. From a hypothetical conspirator's point of view, you don't let things get to the point of requiring a highly public murder.

Now before anyone gets any ideas that I'd actually do anything like this, let me reassure you that I'm obviously ethically opposed to all I've schemed during my tenure as a hypothetical NASA administrator. But if we're going to bring people back to reality we have to apply our intellects even to distasteful scenarios to show how ludicrous and ill-conceived the hoax believers' hypotheses are.

Hopefully the average person is smart enough to see through this crock of bull.

Most average people will simply dismiss it by the absurdity of its conclusion. But a few will be taken in by Kaysing's claims to have been an engineer and will assume he knows what he's talking about because they simply lack the specialized information to see right through him.

Kaysing's intended audience is the lunatic fringe, who need no proof for the conclusion; they believe it already. But they use Kaysing to delude themselves into believing there is really some evidence that ought to appeal to the scientific mainstream. It makes their beliefs appear a little less loony to average people.