|WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment||(Rated Start-class)|
why does every lunatic get their own page on wikipedia? This guy doesn't merit mention, unless placed in a section on "wacky" lunatics.
- Actually, I think this guy is notable enough to warrant his own page - even though I agree he was wacko. --PhilipO 20:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Any discussion as to "this guy shouldn't have an entry in Wikipedia" sounds like a proposed censorship. The Apollo moon landings were arguably the most incredible engineering feats of the 20th century and the fact that some argue that they were faked even more shows what incredible feats they were. Therefore, discussion of those views and the notable personalities who expound them help complete the picture of one of the last century's most notable events.
- I'm a bit shocked. It is the first time i read such an unilateral judging on Wikipedia. And this from the article's very first paragraph on! I mean, I'm not defending Kaysing's theory; actually i have no opinion whatsoever yet, i just came to educate myself, and i am shocked that that unilateral opinion is forced on me. Shouldn't Wikipedia's tone be more neutral, and assume the public has the maturity to make their own opinion ? (at least, i still prefer this blunt partiality to any kind of pseudo-impartial manipulation ;)
Personally I believe what Bill Kaysing said - it's not just HIS OWN theory - many, many, many astronomers world-wide believe the moon landing was faked. Do your research, then post spiteful comments.--Sean-Jin 21:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Are we certain that the author of the Privacy book is the same man as the Apollo revisionist? Or is it possible that they are two men with the same name? In the Privacy book, the author states that he worked for an insurance company and doesn't say anything about a career in rocket engineering or any related field.
- It isn't certain, but book vendors list it that way. The book was revised by Cathy Clark, could that person be the one who worked for an insurance company? Bubba73 (talk), 06:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have a pro-Bill website link? If so, please add it. --PhilipO 20:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Kaysing's book as a reference?
Should Kaysing's self-published book be listed as a reference?
- Wikipedia articles should use reliable published sources
- This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.
- Consider it a reference for Kaysing's claims -- not proof of his claims. --Nikolaus maack 21:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- I've been wondering that myself. Given that his book was self-published, how can anyone verify his claims? Mark Grant 02:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Everywhere I've read said the 1974 edition was self-published. I wasn't aware that it had been re-published since. Mark Grant 02:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, Plait says that it was self-published. It is still in print. I added the website of the publisher on the main page, external links. I got my copy from Amazon, $15.45. It shows signs of being republished. Some of the lines of text are crooked, as if it was photocopied and the paper moved while the copy was being made. Most of the book are very poor reprodutions of photos and diagrams with short captions added. Bubba73 (talk), 02:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
While it is touching to see Kaysing’s adoring fans continue to promote his mythology, we must remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a fan club site. It is ridiculous that this article continues to imply that Kaysing’s claims regarding the moon landings have any validity, as they have all been thoroughly and totally debunked by people who actually know what they are talking about. Get over it, people.
Just to remind everybody, a summary of the situation is as follows - (1) Kaysing did not have any technical qualification. (2) Kaysing made claims that were outside his area of expertise. (3) all of his claims have been debunked by experts in science and engineering. (4) despite this, Kaysing continued to make his claims.
- Please do not continue to add unsubstantiated comments and/or claims to the article with a sheer purpose of skewing the content of the article in a sole and blatant attempt of discrediting the person in question. You have a right to exercise your ignorance (or "enlightenment", as you'd rather call it), as your comments above very well attest to, but it is a pointless task on Wikipedia, unless of course, you are instructed and/or paid to smear someone else's credibility. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- It would appear that you don’t understand how Wikipedia works, and perhaps you may like to refrain from making further edits until you do.
- You are incorrect to refer to my edit as a "blatant NPOV violation" and "unsubstantiated comments", because my statement ("all of Kaysing's claims have been debunked") is supported by the Wikipedia article 'Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories', which in turn is supported by 115 references. Indeed, you violated Wiki rules by deleting a statement linked to a reliable source.
- I may be prepared to take you more seriously if you weren’t sniping from anonymous IP addresses (and a different one each time). I have re-inserted my previous edit, please DO NOT remove it again. Logicman1966 (talk) 06:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not here to debunk (excuse the pun) your personal delusions of grandeur, when you think that people are hiding from you from anonymous IP's or when your highness makes determination of whom to take seriously. But I'll tell you this much, Mr. Shill... and believe me, this will be the only time your circus tirades will generate any response from me... you should not judge others as intellectually inferior to yourself while thinking that a many times repeated nonsense stated with "authoritative assertions" will pass along for anything worthy of merited attention. Do not ever underestimate the kind of people that stumble upon these pages, because you may very well turn out to be a no match to them. By the way, the article you are so eager to reference is infested with a far bigger fish than you are, such as Plait, Windley, and a few other less prominent "activists", who do the same thing you do, only that they are of a larger caliber than you are. But, hey, we all have room for improvements, aren't we? You're what, 42 now? Maybe you can surpass them eventually. Something to look forward to, eh? As I understand from many of your previous contributions (including from the ones you've made on the page last year), you are here to tarnish and smear reputations of people whom you were instructed to discredit (all for understandable reasons). You obviously do this for a living, and I'm not here to judge you on how you procure for the bread to feed your family. We all do the best we can. I understand, it's your job. But nevertheless try to keep this in perspective... if of course, there is such thing as perspective in your nature of business. All the best. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Please note that Wikipedia is not a reliable source and the llinked Wikipedia article from the content you added does not seem to support the claim.
- Huh? I am not saying that Wikipedia is a reliable source; I am saying that the 115 references cited on the "moon landing hoax" page ARE reliable sources. And as far as I am concerned, those references most definitely DO support the statement that "all of Kaysing's claims have been debunked". The "moon landing hoax" page lists all known hoax claims (including every one of Kaysing's claims), and then it provides a rational explanation for every claim, using reliable sources. Logicman1966 (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
"Bill had become increasingly unstable in the work place and had started to assume that as a document reviewer he should be involved with the technical development of systems." How does a statement such as this make it into "an encyclopedia" without a credible source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)