Good books about the moon landings hoax?

[Zakalwe]

Well done JayUtah you got that one right first time!  But of course you have read the book!!  He was wearing golfers shorts just like mine.  Jockndoris

Wow.

Just wow.

Obvious troll is obvious.

[JayUtah]

Well done JayUtah you got that one right first time!  But of course you have read the book!!  He was wearing golfers shorts just like mine.  Jockndoris!

What an irrelevant statement.

I would like you to comment instead on the various lies I've caught you telling, not the least of which is that you received a physics degree from St Andrews University based on a brief expression of your ignorance regarding space flight.

Any comment?  Or are you content with being shown as a bald-faced liar?

[Echnaton]

Obvious troll is obvious.

Ya.  There is little left of this but his need for attention. 

[Bob B.]

Since this discussion is going nowhere, with Jockndoris/skeptic_UK being obvious trolls, maybe it's time to lock the thread.

[beedarko]

That species of Antipodeus Wrecks would have been perfectly okay, because he did the proper thing by worshiping Rene.

No more proof needed than the telephonic "love-in" where they discuss you at some length.

Whenever I hear it I get a visual of Rene trying to shake Jarrah off his leg, like a confused, lovesick puppy.

[ChrLz]

Jockndoris, why not prove yourself as the superb researcher who should be taken seriously, by, instead of Gish Galloping...

NOMINATE the very best evidence you have.  Pick the absolute proof of a hoax, and then let's see how you go at defending that 'evidence'.

Surely the chance to show us all how good you are, is one not to be missed.  And if your logic and science skills are up to the challenge, then you should be very keen..

So what's the 'smokin' gun', then?  A claim of ghostly golf, perhaps?

Just ONE thing - no galloping off like a coward..

[Jason Thompson]

Have you seen a post by myself where I say I have changed my mind or contradicted my original claim? No. So why would you need to even ask that question? I'd seriously like to know why I'd need to re-affirm a previous statement when it's clear I've not switched positions.

Because since (and before) you made that statement there have been innumerable posts detailing exactly how it is most definitely NOT impossible to determine if the claims made in that book are true or not. Why have you continually ignored them?

[JayUtah]

Jockndoris, why not prove yourself as the superb researcher who should be taken seriously, by, instead of Gish Galloping...

Or he could justify what he says in his own poeufs d'editeur where he describes himself as a chartered accountant "whose word has never been doubted."  I'd say his word is doubtful.  He lies like a rug.

[Al Johnston]

A BSc takes three years to complete. If he went to University in 1960 his final year would be 1963, as he claims elsewhere. However, it seems highly unlikely that President Kennedy's speech from 1961 would have taken two years to reach a university in Scotland. I know some parts of it are pretty remote, but even so...

Four in Scotland, I think: something to do with their "Higher" school qualification taking 1 year to the England & Wales A-levels 2...

[skeptic_UK]

Since this discussion is going nowhere, with Jockndoris/skeptic_UK being obvious trolls, maybe it's time to lock the thread.

Obvious troll? How so? For the one statement you disagree with me on? wow. 

[JayUtah]

Obvious troll? How so? For the one statement you disagree with me on? wow. 

No, for your incessant whining and your inability to engage the subject of the thread/forum.

[skeptic_UK]

Have you seen a post by myself where I say I have changed my mind or contradicted my original claim? No. So why would you need to even ask that question? I'd seriously like to know why I'd need to re-affirm a previous statement when it's clear I've not switched positions.

Because since (and before) you made that statement there have been innumerable posts detailing exactly how it is most definitely NOT impossible to determine if the claims made in that book are true or not. Why have you continually ignored them?

I stand by my claim, as I've repeatedly said, that It's impossible to know if the claims in the book (that the author believes he was visited by Neil Armstrongs ghost) is true or not. Unlikely maybe, but not impossible.

Obvious troll? How so? For the one statement you disagree with me on? wow. 

No, for your incessant whining and your inability to engage the subject of the thread/forum.

As opposed to your incessant repeating of lies about me, right?

I've engaged the subject of the thread plenty. I asked for literature on the moon landings hoax theory. I was linked some. I said thank you and offered some feedback on one of them. I then spent a good week defending myself from your attacks on my character and lies because you didn't like it. Then I'm called whining for defending myself from those attacks? lovely.

[Echnaton]

I stand by my claim, as I've repeatedly said, that It's impossible to know if the claims in the book (that the author believes he was visited by Neil Armstrongs ghost) is true or not. Unlikely maybe, but not impossible.

Yawn.  Your repetitiveness is getting really dull. 

If you want to stand by your claims, then answer the questions that challenge them.

[JayUtah]

I stand by my claim, as I've repeatedly said, that It's impossible to know if the claims in the book (that the author believes he was visited by Neil Armstrongs ghost) is true or not. Unlikely maybe, but not impossible.

Nice horse-changing parenthetical.  Those aren't the claims we're talking about, and we've said so several times.  It has also been noted several times how you keep returning to that question -- and that question only -- anytime someone attempts to bring up the testable claims from the book.

His testable claims are that (1) he played golf with the mortal Neil Armstrong at a military-only golf course in 1969 on the day he was supposed to be on the Moon, and (2) that he was granted a degree in physics by St Andrews University by showing how the Moon landings would be impossible.

Do you believe it is impossible to know if those claims are true or not?

I've engaged the subject of the thread plenty.  I asked for literature on the moon landings hoax theory. I was linked some. I said thank you and offered some feedback on one of them.

And only that one (despite all attempts to solicit otherwise from you), and on grounds that are not pertinent to this forum.  Your "feedback" was an opinion of its value judged solely from an entertainment perspective, an insinuation that criticism against it was ill-founded, and an assertion that it was somehow immune from critical analysis.

Then I'm called whining for defending myself from those attacks? lovely.

That's all you do anymore:  defend yourself from all those evil people who are out to get you, supposedly just for expressing your opinion.  Those several people -- including me -- have asked you several on-topic questions hoping to drag the discussion back to tractable questions that are allowed in this forum.  So far you haven't acknowledged any of them.

[nomuse]

Because since (and before) you made that statement there have been innumerable posts detailing exactly how it is most definitely NOT impossible to determine if the claims made in that book are true or not. Why have you continually ignored them?

I stand by my claim, as I've repeatedly said, that It's impossible to know if the claims in the book (that the author believes he was visited by Neil Armstrongs ghost) is true or not. Unlikely maybe, but not impossible.

Bolding mine.

"Claim" != "claims." You are quite correct; it is impossible to know if the author was visited (or even, if he only believes he was visited) by a ghost.

But this is a science-based board. We have no interest in subjects that can not be treated naturalistically. Whether there are ghosts or gods are not fit subject for this forum.

The author also claims expertise at the game of golf, yet you seem monumentally disinterested in discussing that (even though those parts are the most extensive parts of the book you claim to have enjoyed).

This is the merry-go-round you've been doing for pages now; when asked to discuss anything other than the ghost claim, you repeat your answer to the ghost claim. And then turn around and accuse others of repeating themselves.