"More than half" does seem a bit excessive.

"The majority of the world's population" also seems much.

Ralph Rene is a physicist?

Also the article runs down a list of "evidence" to support the moon hoax claim without any attempt at rebuttal. Very sloppy journalism, with the sole intent of hyping an overhyped story to draw attention to a nothing story, and probably to get the "journalist" attention.

That's the point, Kaysing's background is completely misrepresented.
1. He was a technical writer, not an engineer or even technician.

2. He was not high level. He claims to have been the senior technical writer. I suspect if his company then was like my company now, his team consisted of 3 to 5 people, max. We call that job "Project Manager", or "Project Lead", and it's one step above line worker, often doing line work as well as coordinating the other line workers. Hardly high level. I'm a Project Lead, and Project Managers are a dime a dozen. At one time we had almost as many Project Managers as Project Engineers.

3. Kaysing worked for Rocketdyne in the early '60's, and left before '65 (I forget actual dates). That means he was not even present for the bulk of the detail design work, or the fabrication and testing of hardware.

Yet to you it sounds like he knows what he's talking about. That's laughable.

Fairly correct, but what a tech writer does depends on the company. Often it's put the technical content in the right format for publication, collecting and editing in other comments, etc. For example, I write procedures. Instead of having a mis-mash of procedure looks and formats, we let the Tech writer assemble so they all have the same look and feel. But technical content is my purvue, and I review and approve the documents. I've worked with tech writers with different levels of knowledge of the technical content. Usually it focuses on what type of information or standard information is included, rather than specifics for the particular item. Another document might be a requirements and verification table, putting the specific items in the table in the correct format and numbering, etc.

Ralph Rene is a physicist?

No. Ralph Rene is a retired construction worker. He bills himself as a self-taught engineer or a self-taught physicist. As long as that's to be considered valid, I'm a self-taught dentist, a self-taught pet groomer, and a self-taught airline pilot. Take those for what you will.

1. He was a technical writer, not an engineer or even technician.

This merits additional discussion.

Bill Kaysing freely distributed his Rocketdyne work record in the form of a photocopy of a signed letter from Boeing's personnel office. At the time Kaysing requested the record, Rocketdyne was a Boeing subsidiary. I have a printed copy of it which he sent to me, and I believe it to be accurate. His job titles were:

February 13, 1956: Senior Technical Writer
September 24, 1956: Service Analyst
September 15, 1958: Service Engineer
October 10, 1962: Publications Analyst
May 31, 1963: resigned (personal reasons)

Conspiracists have focused on Kaysing's four years as a Service Engineer, saying it proves Kaysing was indeed qualified to draw informed engineering conclusions. However it is worth noting that Kaysing himself never claimed to be any sort of engineer. His case for expertise is based around his access to documents, a claim fully consistent with his stated qualifications as a writer and supervisor of publications. I'll stick with Kaysing's own evaluation of his qualifications, which do not support others' subsequent contentions that he was a qualified engineer.

When Kaysing worked for Rocketdyne it was owned by North American Aviation. As is common in the aerospace industry, a number of mergers and acquisitions has since erased much of the corporate memory for what a Service Engineer does. It is variously defined by different companies. Rocketdyne most recently merged with Pratt and Whitney and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of United Technologies. At the time I inquired about Service Engineer, Boeing owned Rocketdyne. This was convenient because I have always had a good working relationship with many people at Boeing.

A Service Engineer in their nomenclature does not require an engineering degree, and requires only limited technical proficiency. As they understand the job, a service engineer performs maintenance, service, and upgrade tasks wholly within the bounds of published checklists and procedures. It can also mean a person who compiles and manages defect reports and monitors their resolution.

2. He was not high level. He claims to have been the senior technical writer.

Kaysing supervised a team of four technical writers for a time at one of Rocketdyne's field offices. He had a supervisory position, but he was not a high-ranking officer in the Rocketdyne company.

3. Kaysing worked for Rocketdyne in the early '60's, and left before '65 (I forget actual dates).

Mid-1963, as shown above. This is an important year for Rocketdyne, especially in the development of the F-1 engine. During that year and previously, the F-1 had suffered from combustion instability problems that proved difficult to diagnose and correct. Methods derived from earlier engine development were largely ad hoc and were not proving successful. Any personal knowledge Kaysing might have had would likely have emphasized the frustration among the engineers and growing impatience from NASA.

However, after Kaysing's departure Rocketdyne replaced the F-1 management team and mandated an appeal to academia to solicit the opinions of leading fluid dynamicists instead of making ad hoc adjustments within current practice. After a year of study and directed development, the root cause of the combustion instability was identified and a new injector design solved the majority of that problem. Kaysing would not have been present for that triumph. Thankfully there are other eyewitnesses to the complete F-1 development process who can shed more revealing light than Kaysing.

Bill Kaysing is often cited as an authority on the capability of the LM descent engine and its supposed plume effects. However Rocketdyne did not supply the LM's descent engine. None of the propulsion systems on the lunar module were supplied by Rocketdyne.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Originally Posted by antoniseb
Journalists who don't try to maintain these principles may lack Journalistic Integrity, but I think it is fair to say that most professional Journalists strive to do the right thing.

Based on what? My exposure to the products of "professional journalists" must be different from yours. Of course, "strive to do the right thing" can have different meanings. To me, a journalist should, as objectively as possible, report the facts and nothing else. However, it seems a good percentage of them see their jobs as a platform for their personal opinions and agenda. The facts are secondary. I've known people who were interviewed for hours only to have a couple cherry-picked sentences end up in the final product. The only reason those sentences were taken were that they agreed with the "journalist's" preconceived notions of the story.

I once asked a somewhat cynical reporter what the function of the Press was in a free society. His answer was surprisingly honest, "To make money for the publisher."

Ah. Then I need to go back to the "Introduce Yourself" Moderator thread in "About BAUT" and change my bio from "amatuer enthusiast" to "Cosmologist", since I did have that one class in college, and I do know how to read...

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

I'm a self-taught dentist . . .

Did you extract your own tooth with an ice-skate blade and a large rock?

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

Or have a spherical pal named "Wilson"??

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

Yeah guys, I agree with all of you , Jay, Mak, Irishman.

Thanks for all the information. I appreciate it.

But I'm not only speaking for myself , but also to those people who have less knowledge about Kaysings background and the Moon Landing thing.
And not all these people visited these forum and read all the information about him.

I am just wondering , why would he file a case and sue James Lovell?
What is his Main purpose?
Or maybe he's just like the celebrity in Hollywood who wants Attention from the Media.

Better bad press than no press..

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916

I am just wondering , why would he file a case and sue James Lovell?
What is his Main purpose?

To get attention, the same as any other vandal. Kaysing, Sibrel, Rene, and others deface history with their ill-considered scrawls across the masterpieces of others' accomplishments, hoping for some scraps of attention.

Every human being wants to be great. And for some, legitimate greatness is out of their reach; so they leech from the greatness of others, drawing their own strength from it and hoping to sap a bit from the host in exchange. Every time we say Bart Sibrel in this forum, his stock goes up a little in his own mind. As Oscar Wilde said, the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I don't think this is strictly true - I think it's more that most of us have a need to be recognized or appreciated. That's not the say the above isn't true of many HB's.

CJSF

__________________
Two years ago moved from my town
I was looking up past the city lights
But the city lights got in my way

See the constellation ride across the sky
No cigar, no lady on his arm
Just a guy made of dots and lines

-from "See The Constellation"
by They Might Be Giants

I don't think this is strictly true - I think it's more that most of us have a need to be recognized or appreciated.

I phrased it the way Carnegie did, but he would probably include recognition and appreciation in his list of what different people say makes them great.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

In 1997, Kaysing filed a lawsuit against astronaut Jim Lovell for libel when Lovell called Kaysing's claims "wacky" in the San José Metro News, July 25-31, 1996.[2]

(snip)

The case was dismissed in 1999 (Plait 2002:173) following the granting of a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by San Francisco attorney John Hardy, representing James Lovell. The judgment was affirmed on appeal on First Amendment grounds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Kaysing

(Note who Wiki uses as a source.)

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Jim, I think you missed the intent of Whirlpool's question.

The supposed legal justification was libel over being called "wacky". However, the rationale runs something like this.

Kaysing saw himself as something of a whistleblower, a truth promoter, a hero for what really happened. He perpetually wanted a platform to preach his case, to try to get "the truth" out. The libel case against Lovell proposed in his mind a great platform. One of the main reasons is the desire to put someone "involved in the conspiracy" in court under threat of perjury. His feeling was that once someone was under oath and being prodded with his "convincing evidence", they would have to cave in and "admit the hoax". Thus the libel suit was a pretext to put Lovell under oath and discuss the Moon Hoax story.

Lovell was a convenient target because as one of the lunar astronauts, he would have to be part of any conspiracy moon hoax.

I don't know how sucessful he would be at guiding the court questioning to reveal a "moon hoax" as it would take a very leinant judge to allow questioning on something not related to the charge, particularly on something like a libel charge. Besides, you'd need to find an "HB Judge" to find Lovell guilty of perjury for saying that he did indeed go to the moon. Kaysing would have to PROVE that they in fact did not, which is something HBers simply cannot do.

__________________
I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.

I wasn't even trying to explain Kaysing's motives. That would require getting inside his head, a place I have no desire to go.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

What hoax believers don't seem to understand about the trial process is that the picture of the evidence the jury will see is largely determined ahead of trial by the lawyers and judge in hearings on motions in limine and the judge's subsequent rulings. Hoax believers who bring suit, or against whom suit is brought, will not be allowed to steer a court proceeding into territory that has previously been declared off limits, or which is not legally relevant.

Hoax believers also seem comically ignorant of what standards of evidence actually prevail in a court of law. Since they have no appropriate credentials, none of them would be able to stand as an expert witness, and they would have to largely accept at face value testimony from bona fide experts such as certified engineers and degreed astronomers. They would not be allowed to impeach that testimony by the handwaving that prevails here and in other informal settings.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

The supposed legal justification was libel over being called "wacky".

A poor choice. Expressed opinions are not candidates for defamation; only allegations of fact. Calling someone a jerk or wacky is not actionable; calling someone a child molester or an embezzler is. The claim in question has to be objectively testable.

His feeling was that once someone was under oath and being prodded with his "convincing evidence", they would have to cave in and "admit the hoax". Thus the libel suit was a pretext to put Lovell under oath and discuss the Moon Hoax story.

A reasonable rationale; but it presupposes Kaysing believed his own hype. I'm not sure he did. Expecting Lovell to reveal a hoax under oath depends on Kaysing knowing that's how the question would have to be answered. Keep in mind this is the same Bill Kaysing who says Challenger and its crew were destroyed in order to keep that secret, and that NASA is guilty of many other murders and affronts toward that end. It's hard to say on the one hand that Lovell would be afraid to perjure himself and on the other hand that NASA are brazen murderers.

A more likely scenario in my opinion is that Kaysing went to court expecting to lose spectacularly, as he did, but that the resulting publicity would make him more of a household word by connecting him with a famous person (Lovell), which it has. Out of this scenario, as out of the other, can be made a number of conspiracy-related insinuations.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Keep in mind this is the same Bill Kaysing who says

said.

But, in my opinion, no loss.

__________________
"Slapping a guy on the head is just as funny now as it was eighty years ago."