William Kaysing is considered by some to be the father of the lunar landing hoax theory. He worked at Rocketdyne, a major aerospace contractor, from 1957 until 1963 in various capacities having to do with technical publications (e.g., writer, librarian). In his book We Never Went to the Moon Kaysing introduces some of the classic conspiracy arguments such as the absent stars in lunar surface photographs. He also claims the Apollo 1 fire and the Challenger accident were staged to silence the participants who were about to spill the beans.

Mr. Kaysing, who passed away in 2005, attempted to sue astronaut Jim Lovell for slander in 1997 when he called Kaysing's theories "wacky." The case was thrown out of court in 1999. Kaysing made a portion of his subsequent his living from perpetuating the fraud theory, although he wrote may books on a variety of subjects that were not especially controversial.

Bill Kaysing worked for Rocketdyne, the company that manufactured the Apollo spacecraft. Therefore he has detailed inside knowledge and expertise on the space program.

Mr. Kaysing received his Bachelor of Arts in English in 1949 from the University of Southern California. Those are his academic credentials. He worked for Rocketdyne chiefly as a writer and a librarian.

At one point his job title was "service engineer", which has led some to assert he really was involved in the cutting-edge engineering of the engines Rocketdyne built. We contacted Rocketdyne, which at the time of our contact was owned by Boeing, to explore this. Under Boeing's recollection of North American Aviation's nomenclature of the time (which they believe was congruent with their own), a "service engineer" would have been a sort of mechanic and not a job that required a degree or expertise in engineering as licensed engineers use the term.

Further, Rocketdyne manufactured only the main engines for the some of the launch vehicles, not the electronics, computers, or structures or much of anything having to do with the spacecraft themselves. Mr. Kaysing left Rocketdyne in 1963, shortly after the final Apollo equipment configuration was announced and before Rocketdyne had begun work integrating their designs with Apollo. In fact, Kaysing left just prior to some significant breakthroughs with the F-1 engine designs and could not really be considered an authority on how those engines succeeded.

Finally, Mr. Kaysing never specified what actual projects he worked on at Rocketdyne. Since his technical publications team comprised only four individuals for a company developing dozens of engine designs, we speculate that his involvement would have been rather limited to one or two specific projects. We cannot presume without evidence that Mr. Kaysing ever actually worked on any of the projects that would be laster associated with Apollo.

Kaysing had a security clearance. If anyone would have known about the conspiracy, he would.

If so, then why does he not simply say, "There was a conspiracy and I was in on it"? Instead he, like all other conspiracists, must nit-pick at details and construct a complicated conjectural case against NASA.

Security clearances were routinely required for anyone working on rocket booster technology, because that technology was being developed chiefly as a weapon. Clearance would have been required of anyone who had access to the printed material circulating through Rocketdyne. But having access to it doesn't mean Kaysing necessarily read or understood it. This argument is simply far too indirect to support the notion that Kaysing was an expert on Rocketdyne's Apollo-related projects.

Kaysing would have needed a lot of technical knowledge in order to do his job.

Not necessarily. Managing the technical publications section of a company requires more librarian skills than engineering skills. Besides, the technical writers employed by most technical companies don't need the degree of technical expertise that the engineers and designers would require.

Mr. Kaysing himself said that Ralph René, a self-taught engineer, had more engineering knowledge than he did.

Former astronauts have refused to appear with Kaysing or discuss his findings. This proves they have something to hide.

Who in their right mind would give the time of day to someone who has made a part of his living since the 1970s by calling him a liar?

What you're doing to Bill Kaysing is nothing more than character assassination. [Jarrah White]

No. If this debate were about Bill Kaysing, Chronicler of the Southwest, then we would have praise for him, or at least be agnostic to his efforts. If this were about Bill Kaysing, Champion of the Veteran, then we would definitely praise and eulogize him. If this were about Bill Kaysing, Cat Lover, then we would sympathize with his efforts undertaken in retirement at his own expense.

Unfortunately this is about the Bill Kaysing who alleges that the moon landings were hoaxed, and who claims to have scientifically and factually defensible arguments to support that allegation. And unfortunately it is upon those grounds, not his value as a human being, that we propose to contest his claims. Where he exercises indefensible reason, scholarly rigor requires that we identify it as such. Where he inflates his credentials, a devotion to the truth requires us to investigate further. Where he asserts unverifiable fact, intellectual honesty requires us to question it.

Here our devotion is to the truth. If the reader desires to praise Kaysing for whatever reason, we offer this site.