Hi there. I'm new to the forum so please bear with me.Passing interest often goes together with mild hoax belief. It can be easy to get hoodwinked by the conspiracy theorists. It's only when you look at it in more depth that full scale of the absurdity becomes apparent.
I've always had a passing interest in the moon hoax and do believe it was faked myself. I'd love to read more on the subject though bar what websites have to offer.
Are there any decent books out there which cover the hoax, attempts to debunk the hoax theory or even fiction based on the moon hoax conspiracy.
Look forward to your replies!
Thanks!
I've always had a passing interest in the moon hoax and do believe it was faked myself. I'd love to read more on the subject though bar what websites have to offer.
Hi skeptic_UK. I suggest you study overviews of the breadth and complexity of the Apollo program. When you begin to grasp the enormity of data/evidence supporting the program success and realize the thousands of scientists, engineers, technicians and project management worldwide who would have had to be in on the hoax, it will be so apparent that the Moon landings actually happened that you won't have to bother scientifically validating everything they did there, although you might very well enjoy that process.
There's an excellent series about the technology on youtube - "Moon machines" - telling about the Spacesuit, the booster, the LM, the LRV, navigational systems and computer and many other things.Indeed. The narrator is a little dry, but the stories of the people involved are highly engrossing nonetheless.
http://www.clavius.org/Rene-NASA-Mooned-America.pdf , if you must.
... even fiction based on the moon hoax conspiracy.
I'd love to read more on the subject though bar what websites have to offer.There's probably very few books from the perspective of a hoaxie because to write such a book would require research, organisation and dedication. Which, IMHO, a typical hoaxie lacks. After all, if they were any good at research then they'd quickly debunk themselves. You only have to look at the last couple of hoaxies that have been on here (AllanCW and Awe130) to get an insight into the mindset of a hoaxie.
I've always had a passing interest in the moon hoaxI've met a few people with that view. Most of them haven't bothered to do any research either way and recite the usual old guff without any thought. You should realise that there was no hoax.
do believe it was faked myself.Why?
Thanks for all the replies. I'll go through them slowly to pick out the links.
I do love Capricorn one. While yes it is technically about Mars. It's clear what real life event ( ;D :P ) it was based on!
Thanks for all the replies. I'll go through them slowly to pick out the links.
I do love Capricorn one. While yes it is technically about Mars. It's clear what real life event ( ;D :P ) it was based on!
...Are you going to present any evidence or is this one of those opinion based threads where you don't care about the actual facts?
Another major failing of some HBs is that they are ignorant. :)
The AwE130 thread was a bit of train-wreck as frustration with AwE130's self-important dishonesty boiled over.
I do love Capricorn one. While yes it is technically about Mars. It's clear what real life event ( ;D :P ) it was based on!
Flawed and Error Filled
By John R. Keller on February 6, 2006
Format: Paperback
On the back of this book, it states that "Although not considered an expert in the space sciences, he [the author William Brian] has the mathematical and conceptual skills to verify the cover-up from a scientific standpoint." While it true that all engineers should be able to solve simple algebraic equations, it is knowing when and how to apply these equations to the appropriate situations that is truly important. Unfortunately, the author fails on the later.
The thesis of this book is that the gravity of the Moon is not 1/6 the Earth's gravity, but that it is approximately two-third (64%) of Earth's gravity, even though numerous experiments and mathematical formulae, some centuries old, have proven otherwise. Of course, by using his "finding" the author goes down the path of farfetched and improbable ideas; such as NASA has anti-gravity drives, the moon has an atmosphere, and the usual hollow moon and UFOs conspiracies.
In light of the centuries of study, one is tempted to ask, "How did the author arrive at his conclusion?" In his book, he writes that NASA has stated the neutral point (the point where the Earth's gravity equals the moon) between the Earth and Moon is different than what has been published for centuries. Specifically, the neutral point is approximately 20,000 miles closer to the Earth, which in turn implies that the Moon's gravity is much greater. It is here that his lack of knowledge regarding space science fails him. In his analysis, he uses a simple one dimensional method to determine the neutral point. In other words, he draws a straight line between the Earth and the Moon and works a simple equation. In real spaceflight, the trip to the moon is much more complex. It requires not only using all three dimensions; it also requires factoring the effects of the movement of the Earth, moon and the spacecraft. In other words, he applied the wrong equation to the situation, so of course he is going to arrive at the wrong answer. Any college level book on orbital mechanics (the mathematics of space flight) shows how this problem is solved, and it is not a simple high-school algebra equation. He also attempts to prove his gravity argument using several other equations, but again he fails, because he does not know how to use them correctly.
When all is said and done, save your money and buy a good technical book on space flight or orbital mechanics and skip this one.
...calling someone ignorant is not an insult.
In his analysis, he uses a simple one dimensional method to determine the neutral point. In other words, he draws a straight line between the Earth and the Moon and works a simple equation. In real spaceflight, the trip to the moon is much more complex. It requires not only using all three dimensions; it also requires factoring the effects of the movement of the Earth, moon and the spacecraft.
...Renetian Physics... ;D ;D ;D
Thanks for all the replies. I'll go through them slowly to pick out the links.
I do love Capricorn one. While yes it is technically about Mars. It's clear what real life event ( ;D :P ) it was based on!
I arrived at my own conclusion regarding Brian's claim by not using maths (my worst subject at school), but by getting a large sheet of paper, finding all sorts of figures about the speed of the moon's motion around the earth, the speed of an Apollo craft heading to the moon, the directions of their motions, and the timing of both, and doing a scale drawing. It was only in 2D and probably wasn't very accurate, but it was enough to convince me Brian was very wrong.
In the shadow of the Moon, and Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon are 2 very fine video productions highlighted by the Apollo astronauts own descriptions of what it was like to actually be there. I highly recommend both.
Test pilots are taught to perceive, to remember, to record every impression in flight — so that later, on the ground, they can report, as fully and as precisely as possible, exactly what happened. No one disputed this point, so that what happened during a space flight was discussed publicly at the post-flight press conference in as much detail as the press could stomach. But, of course, that was not sufficient. What they really wanted to know was: beyond all that technical crap, what did the crew feel? How did it feel to ride a rocket, what thoughts were racing through your mind as you plummeted toward the sea with the parachutes not yet open? How scared were you, anyway? This is what Life paid to find out, and what others pried to find out without paying, and in truth, neither unearthed very much. Life's little extra certainly wasn't worth the money. I suppose this was mainly because, as technical people, as test pilots whose bread and butter was the cold, dispassionate analysis of complicated facts, we were frankly embarrassed by the shifting focus. It didn't seem right somehow for the press to have this morbid, unhealthy, persistent, prodding, probing pre-occupation with the frills, when the silly bastards didn't even understand how the machines operated or what they had accomplished. It was like describing what Christian Barnard wore while performing the first heart transplant. Furthermore, we weren't trained to emote, we were trained to repress emotions, lest they interfere with our very complicated, delicate, and one-chance-only duties. If they wanted an emotional press conference, for Christ's sake, they should have put together an Apollo crew of a philosopher, a priest, and a poet — not three test pilots. Of course, they wouldn't get them back to have the press conference, in all likelihood, because this trio would probably emote all the way back into the atmosphere and forget to push in the circuit breaker which enabled the parachutes to open.
73 Armalcolite —
Who would suspect that (FE2+,Mg)Ti2O5 would be discovered at Tranquility Base in 1969 and that this new mineral would be called "armalcolite," a name derived from the initial letters of Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins.
144 Peeing in space —
Allow me to enter for the record the official, approved Gemini 7 procedure for going potty in space:
Operating Procedure
Chemical Urine Volume Measuring System (CUVMS)
Condom Receiver
1. Uncoil collection/mixing bag from around selector valve.
2. Place penis against receiver inlet check valve and roll latex receiver onto penis.
3. Rotate selector valve knob (clockwise) to the "Urinate" position.
4. Urinate.
5. When urination is complete, turn selector valve knob to "Sample."
6. Roll off latex receiver and remove penis.
7. Obtain urine sample bag from stowage location.
8. Mark sample bag tag with required identification.
9. Place sample bag collar over selector valve sampler flange and turn collar 1/6 turn to stop position.
10. Knead collection/mixing bag to thoroughly mix urine and tracer chemical.
11. Rotate sample injector lever 90 degrees so that sample needle pierces sample bag rubber stopper.
12. Squeeze collection/mixing bag to transfer approximately 75 cc. of tracered urine into the sample bag.
13. Rotate the sample injector lever 90 degrees so as to retract the sample needle.
14. Remove filled urine sample bag from selector valve.
15. Stow filled urine sample bag.
16. Attach the CUVMS to the spacecraft overboard dump line by means of the quick disconnect.
17. Rotate selector valve knob to "Blow-Down" position.
18. Operate spacecraft overboard dump system.
19. Disconnect CUVMS from spacecraft overboard dump line at the quick disconnect.
20. Wrap collection/mixing bag around selector valve and stow CUVMS.
214 The Van Allen Belt — Gemini 10 —
But now we... are beginning a shallow, one-half orbit climb from 180 miles to 475, all because of the energy added to our orbit during that fourteen seconds. The ground fusses at us for radiation meter readings and can't believe the tiny numbers we read to them. At eight hours and nine minutes we have accumulated .04 rad; by 8:20 it's .18 rad; finally at 8:37, they accuse us of having the device turned off. “We're wondering if your dosimeter is still snubbed.” “No, it's not still snubbed. It's reading .23 rad.” “O.K. It looks like the... rate is less by a factor of about ten, and there is no sweat down here on that.” Good. They are happy, we are happy, this unbelievable day is drawing to a close.
304 Parts and defects —
...my own feelings were more in keeping with those expressed in a speech by Jerry Lederer, NASA's safety chief, three days before the [Apollo 8] flight. While the flight posed fewer unknowns than had Columbus's voyage, Jerry said, the mission would "involve risks of great magnitude and probably risks that have not been foreseen. Apollo 8 has 5,600,000 parts and one and one half million systems, subsystems and assemblies. Even if all functioned with 99.9 percent reliability, we could expect fifty-six hundred defects…"
310 Apollo 8 Genesis reading —
The crew also celebrated Christmas by reading the Bible, each of the three taking a turn at the first chapter of Genesis. It was impressive, I thought, a stroke of genius to relate their primordial setting to the origin of the earth, and to couch it in the beautiful seventeenth-century prose poetry of King James I's scholars. Borman, Lovell, and Anders deserved to make it home for that reason alone, for having thought to bring the rest of us to their moon in humility and reverence. It was a graceful touch.
383 Isaac Newton —
I remember last December, during the flight of Apollo 8, my five-year-old son had one, and only one, specific question: who was driving? Was it his friend Mr Borman? One night when it was quiet in Mission Control I relayed this concern of his to the spacecraft, and Bill Anders promptly replied that no, not Borman, but Isaac Newton was driving. A truer or more concise description of flying between earth and moon is not possible. The sun is pulling us, the earth is pulling us, the moon is pulling us, just as Newton predicted they would. Our path bends from its initial direction and velocity after TLI in response to these three magnets.
386-7 Gravity and eyes —
The ground seems to enjoy the TV a lot, judging from the comments coming from Houston, and I guess it must be eerie for the layman to see us floating in all directions past the endless panels of switches. I finally realize why Neil and Buzz have been looking strange to me. It's their eyes! With no gravity pulling down on the loose fatty tissue beneath their eyes, they look squinty and decidedly Oriental. It makes Buzz look like a swollen-eyed allergic Oriental, and Neil like a wily, sly one.
393 Crater Kamp —
We need to know as much about the surface as possible, including how far it is below us, and one way of improving this measurement is by pointing the sextant at one piece of real estate and measuring our angle to it as we whiz by. I have picked a crater in the Foaming Sea (Mare Spumans) and have named it KAMP, in honor of my children and wife (Kate, Ann, Michael, Patricia).
408 Neil's words — characteristic dignity —
But one surprise at least is in store, and a very impressive one at that. Houston comes on the air, not the slightest bit ruffled, and announces that the President of the United States would like to talk to Neil and Buzz. "That would be an honor," says Neil, with characteristic dignity. "Go ahead, Mr President. This is Houston. Out," says Bruce McCandless, the CAPCOM, as if he instructed Presidents every day.
409 Peace and tranquillity —
My God, I never though of all this bringing peace and tranquillity to anyone. As far as I am concerned, this voyage is fraught with hazards for the three of us — and especially two of us — and that is about as far as I have gotten in my thinking. Peace and tranquillity indeed...
410 Lava tubes —
"How goes it anyway?" "Roger, Columbia... the crew of Tranquility Base is back inside... everything went beautifully." "Hallelujah!" Well, that's a big one behind us: no more worrying about crashing through into hidden lava tubes, or becoming exhausted, or the front door sticking open, or the little old ladies using weak glue, or any of that! Whew!
411 850 computer strokes —
Today is rendezvous day, and that means a multitude of things to keep me busy, with approximately 850 separate computer key strokes to be made, 850 chances for me to screw it up.
413 Apollo 10's "music" -
There is a strange noise in my headset now, an eerie woo-woo sound. Had I not been warned about it, it would have scared hell out of me. Stafford's Apollo 10 crew had first heard it, during their practice rendezvous around the Moon. Alone on the back side, they were more than a little surprised to hear a noise that John Young in the command module and Stafford in the LM each denied making. They gingerly mentioned it in their debriefing sessions, but fortunately the radio technicians (rather than the UFO fans) had a ready explanation for it: it was interference between the LM's and command module's VHF radios. We heard it yesterday when we turned our VHF radios on after separating the two vehicles, and Neil said that it "sounds like wind whipping around the trees." It stopped as soon as the LM got on the ground, and started up again just a short time ago. A strange noise in a strange place."
423-4 Phil Shaffer —
Houston reports the instant at which we leave the lunar sphere of influence. This means simply that despite the fact we are only thirty-four thousand nautical miles from the moon, and still 174,000 away from the earth, the earth's pull has become dominant, and the mathematical equations now recognize that fact. "Mark," they say, "you're leaving the lunar sphere of influence, over." "Roger," I reply. "Is Phil Shaffer down there?" He's the one who, on Apollo 8, somehow gave the press the idea that the spacecraft physically jumped at this point, and then had a hell of a time trying to unconvince them. No, Shaffer's not on duty, but someone else is ("We've got a highly qualified team on in his stead"). "Roger, I wanted to hear him explain it again to the press conference... tell him the spacecraft gave a little jump as it went through..." "Thanks a lot," says Houston sarcastically. "Dave Reed is sort of burying his head in his arms right now."
Thanks for all the replies. I'll go through them slowly to pick out the links.
I do love Capricorn one. While yes it is technically about Mars. It's clear what real life event ( ;D :P ) it was based on!
Actually according to its writer and director it was based more on Watergate than on Apollo. But I supposed that depends on how you want to interpret "based on." He draws the setting from Apollo, indeed, and extends it to a fictional Mars mission. But the notion of a massive, high-level coverup he drew from Watergate.
Petty jealousy can bring down a conspiracy a lot faster than investigative journalism.
I think it is a big mistake to read the hoax literature first because (1) the authors don't know what they're talking about, and (2) they are masters of deceit and manipulation.
In case non-New Zealanders don't get that, the expression, "C'mon, it's not rocket science" is very common here, and used to point out that the subject being discussed isn't all that difficult, but rocket science is.
In case non-New Zealanders don't get that, the expression, "C'mon, it's not rocket science" is very common here...
That's my feeling about the hoax. It isn't rocket science. The real landings were, and understanding them properly is, but 98% of the hoax believer claims revolve around thinking shadows in a photograph should always run parallel in the plane of the picture.
I never understood the "non-parallel shadows mean multiple light sources!!!1!!11!" argument. How do the HBs reconcile their believe in multiple light sources when each object has only a single shadow? I'm not being sarcastic, I genuinely don't get it.
The obfuscation they produce with their photographic 'evidence' only for their house of cards to fall apart with such a ridiculous claim bewilders me. They talk techno-babble about the use of reflectors to fill in non-illuminated surfaces and studio spotlighting producing the fall-off in the famous Aldrin photograph, and then they invoke non-parallel shadows. ???
I've always thought 'you've gone this far to draw people in, aren't you taking it a little bit to far with the non-parallel shadows, that's just so obviously debunked?'
I love it just as much when the hoaxies go blithely along about marking set pieces on the painted surfaces, sticking stand lights around at random, and otherwise getting wrong pretty much everything about how films are actually made.
Maybe NASA didn't get Stanley Kubrick but Ed Wood. ;D
'Hang on, you do realise that Aldrin was climbing down a big shiny thing and was stood next to Armstrong who was dressed head to toe in what appears to be white?'
That's part of why I think the Mythbuster's photo was significantly less lit than Apollo's, they didn't have a giant white and gold reflector standing literally behind the camera. It still busts the myth, as Percy claims it should be "a silhouette" in a direct quote from 'Dark Moon', but their model astronaut is darker.I love it just as much when the hoaxies go blithely along about marking set pieces on the painted surfaces, sticking stand lights around at random, and otherwise getting wrong pretty much everything about how films are actually made.
The Aldrin down the LM ladder and Aldrin in the crater photographs make me chuckle, as they go to great lengths to talk about reflectors to illuminate regions in shadow.
'Hang on, you do realise that Aldrin was climbing down a big shiny thing and was stood next to Armstrong who was dressed head to tow in what appears to be white?'
I love it just as much when the hoaxies go blithely along about marking set pieces on the painted surfaces, sticking stand lights around at random, and otherwise getting wrong pretty much everything about how films are actually made.
I love it just as much when the hoaxies go blithely along about marking set pieces on the painted surfaces, sticking stand lights around at random, and otherwise getting wrong pretty much everything about how films are actually made.
The 'C' rock always makes me laugh. If NASA put letters on their set dressing rocks, does that mean they only had 26 of them? With the billions they were spending on the hoax, couldn't they afford a few more?
I love it just as much when the hoaxies go blithely along about marking set pieces on the painted surfaces, sticking stand lights around at random, and otherwise getting wrong pretty much everything about how films are actually made.
The 'C' rock always makes me laugh. If NASA put letters on their set dressing rocks, does that mean they only had 26 of them? With the billions they were spending on the hoax, couldn't they afford a few more?
You all have it wrong. The crosshairs argument is way sillier than the shadows.On a similar note, the 'lack' of crater. Surely they could have added one before putting the LM in place if one should be there.
I mean why would anyone trying to produce a convincing scene mock up a photo in the way conspiracists posit? Didn't David Percy actually say it was the work of whistleblowers? That's how incoherent the argument is. Conspiracists are themselves having to pile on the ridiculousness to rationalise their own ridiculousness.
Wikipedia calls this "Kettle Logic."
The 'C' rock always makes me laugh. If NASA put letters on their set dressing rocks, does that mean they only had 26 of them? With the billions they were spending on the hoax, couldn't they afford a few more?
I can't find the post, but HeadLikeARock and Glom pushed it hard with HBs that the photo taken directly before the C-rock photo has no C on the rock.
Again, I cannot find the post, but the C rock photo also appeared on the front of a magazine within weeks of the Apollo 16 landings. Again, no C was visible on the rock. I'm sure the magazine cover was posted when on the proboards.
This one? https://www.flickr.com/photos/83874396@N06/13325730833/
ETA: I've now posted 333 times. For those that know their cricket, I've levelled with Goochy on triple Nelson. OK, no one cares...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=HduD5FWIEjM#t=91
For sheer sillyness, the lack of rover tracks is another good one. So let's get this right, we have a wheeled vehicle capable of being driven into a position that is was supposed to be driven into. But instead of driving it in into that position, we decide to hoist it into place with a crane. Meanwhile it never occurs to anyone that by hoisting it we never produce the tire tracks that should have been there had we driven it.
It's the sheer lack of even the most basic of research that does it for me.
One word ... NASASCAM.
On a similar note, the 'lack' of crater. Surely they could have added one before putting the LM in place if one should be there.
One word ... NASASCAM.
In a twisted way i loved that site, if only for the immortal line:
"FACT: Rumour has it..."
It's the sheer lack of even the most basic of research that does it for me.
"FACT: Rumour has it..."
For sheer sillyness, the lack of rover tracks is another good one. So let's get this right, we have a wheeled vehicle capable of being driven into a position that is was supposed to be driven into. But instead of driving it in into that position, we decide to hoist it into place with a crane. Meanwhile it never occurs to anyone that by hoisting it we never produce the tire tracks that should have been there had we driven it.
ETA: I've now posted 333 times. For those that know their cricket, I've levelled with Goochy on triple Nelson. OK, no one cares...
I gotta tell you, as a USAian, I find hoax theories more comprehensible than cricketruleslaws...
It's straighforwards really, here's an explanation of Cricket:
You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out.
Sometimes you get men still in and not out. When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in.
There are two men called umpires who stay all out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out. When both sides have been in and all the men have been out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game.
I gotta tell you, as a USAian, I find hoax theories more comprehensible than cricketruleslaws...
Fixed that for you... :P
It's straighforwards really, here's an explanation of Cricket:
You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out.
Sometimes you get men still in and not out. When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in.
There are two men called umpires who stay all out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out. When both sides have been in and all the men have been out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game.
Is it a wind-up site??? Surely, no-one can be that stupid????
I still like Jarrah's description of a polar orbit.
I still like Jarrah's description of a polar orbit.
Oh, you've gone and done it now, and I was trying so hard not to go over old ground. The infamous '1.5 x 0.5 = 1.0 wiggle myself of the hook with circular logic get-out' is still my favourite.
'If I take the Apollo footage (Young's jump salute) and increase it speed to 150% (3/2 times) it looks like a man moving in Earth's gravity. I shall now render the sped up video. I now take my rendered video at 150% (3/2 times) and reduce it's playback speed to 67% (2/3 times speed) and it looks like the Apollo footage.' He plays slowed down rendered video next to unaltered video.
So you've just shown that 3/2 x 2/3 = 1? Way to go :o
Hang on; you mean he sped up the footage of a piece of lunar gravity video and claimed that it looked like Earth gravity video, then slowed down the SAME FOOTAGE and claimed that because it then looked like the original lunar gravity video, that this proved the lunar gravity video was Earth gravity video slowed down?
I still like Jarrah's description of a polar orbit.
There are parts where I simply do not have the knowledge, but I will quite happily say I'm ignorant, but I won't replace ignorance with arrogance. Fattydash's claim of the Eagle lost on the surface, that took the likes of Jay, sts60, ka9q, Bob etc, I simply did not know where to start debunking that claim. However, once I read the rebuttal, the rendezvous of the CM and LM made perfect sense.
Oh boy, there is stupid, and there is stupid, but that takes stupid to a whole new level.
IMHO, people that truly know stuff tend to be a lot more humble in their estimations of their abilities and our reservoir of knowledge. Because they know stuff they also know just how limited our understanding actually is.
I still like Jarrah's description of a polar orbit.
Didn't he wiggle away from that one too with some absurd claim that...
Secondly, the reasoning behind such a claim was by means of showing how NASA could have hidden the Apollo crafts from prying eyes. I suppose he thinks Arctic astronomers don't exist or wouldn't count.It's worse than that. Literally anybody in the Northern Hemisphere, and depending on the "latitude" of the orbit, parts of the Southern, could have seen them. "Hey! What's that bright thing buzzing around Polaris?!"
In my ranking of Wrong, somewhere past Fractally Wrong and even Not Even Wrong, and far beyond Trivially Wrong, is So Wrong it Became Right -- in some Looking-Glass, Bizarro world where the wrong thing is so wrong it starts to make some sort of twisted sense.
IIRC, this is what went down:
Firstly, he said the Apollo command and service module was placed in 'orbit' around the polar area kind of like a latitude line. This demonstrated an alarming lack of knowledge in orbital mechanics or what such a route entailed. The fuel use alone to maintain such a path would be enormous.
IIRC, this is what went down:
Firstly, he said the Apollo command and service module was placed in 'orbit' around the polar area kind of like a latitude line. This demonstrated an alarming lack of knowledge in orbital mechanics or what such a route entailed. The fuel use alone to maintain such a path would be enormous.
Is this type of orbit even possible?...or is it just a question of power. Wouldn't such a craft have to be under constant thrust to maintain such an orbit?
Safe to say that JW doesn't understand why we launch spacecraft in an eastward direction.
Is this type of orbit even possible?...or is it just a question of power. Wouldn't such a craft have to be under constant thrust to maintain such an orbit?
'If I take the Apollo footage (Young's jump salute) and increase its speed to 150% (3/2 times) it looks like a man moving in Earth's gravity.
Just try to hop 3 or 4 feet with as little 'push off' as we see from the astronauts.
You just need to have a leap of faith (deliberate pun) to go from duff maths to proving the the film was slowed by some arbitrary factor (67%) and wires were also included.
ETA: Bob and I had the same numbers of posts before I posted this. What a coincidence... OK, no one cares.Don't be like that! Here, have any cuddly toy off the middle shelf... ;D ;D ;D ;D
Or in other words, every unaccelerated orbit exists in a plane, and that plane must include the center-of-gravity point of the primary object it orbits. All orbits around Earth must be in a plane that passes through Earth's center.
You just need to have a leap of faith (deliberate pun) to go from duff maths to proving the the film was slowed by some arbitrary factor (67%) and wires were also included.
And there's the essential failing in 99.99999% of the guff that HB spout. They seem to think that just because they imagine that something is possible then it follows that is how it happened.
I regularly imagine what I would do if I won the Lottery. History shows though that it has not happened!
That reminds me of Cosmored/DavidC where he claims that if there is a plausible alternative explanation then you can't use it as proof of anything.
In my ranking of Wrong, somewhere past Fractally Wrong and even Not Even Wrong, and far beyond Trivially Wrong, is So Wrong it Became Right -- in some Looking-Glass, Bizarro world where the wrong thing is so wrong it starts to make some sort of twisted sense.
I am reminded of an old Asimov science essay...The Relativity of Wrong (http://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html).
Hard to believe he's been gone for over 20 years...I miss his wisdom.
'If I take the Apollo footage (Young's jump salute) and increase its speed to 150% (3/2 times) it looks like a man moving in Earth's gravity.
That claim by itself boggles my mind. If people think it looks like movement in Earth gravity, then they should set up a camera and film themselves replicating those exact movements. Just try to hop 3 or 4 feet with as little 'push off' as we see from the astronauts. If people would just open their eyes, get off their butts and perform a simple experiment, they'd learn something.
I love that essay and post links to it all the time.
edit....didn't actually mean to single out Jay's post...my thanks also to Bob B. and Allan F. for their posts. :)
I am reminded of an old Asimov science essay...The Relativity of Wrong (http://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html).
Again, I cannot find the post, but the C rock photo also appeared on the front of a magazine within weeks of the Apollo 16 landings. Again, no C was visible on the rock. I'm sure the magazine cover was posted when on the proboards.It's here:
Is this type of orbit even possible?...or is it just a question of power. Wouldn't such a craft have to be under constant thrust to maintain such an orbit?
On a metabunk thread about Malaysia flight 17 one poster was certain the shoot down was seen by US spy satellites because the US would certainly have "parked" spy satellites over the area to monitor the unrest in the Ukraine.
They just use air brakes. ;D
And there's the essential failing in 99.99999% of the guff that HB spout. They seem to think that just because they imagine that something is possible then it follows that is how it happened.
I regularly imagine what I would do if I won the Lottery. History shows though that it has not happened!
Is this type of orbit even possible?...or is it just a question of power. Wouldn't such a craft have to be under constant thrust to maintain such an orbit?
A spacecraft orbits around the center of mass of the primary (the body that it is orbiting). To orbit in a manner described by Jarrah would require constant thrust, so much so that it is prohibitive. In every practical sense such an orbit is impossible.
Again, I cannot find the post, but the C rock photo also appeared on the front of a magazine within weeks of the Apollo 16 landings. Again, no C was visible on the rock. I'm sure the magazine cover was posted when on the proboards.It's here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/83874396@N06/13325730833/
Edit: I see I was beaten to it, should have read more of the thread.
It also had the most elegant description of how the gravitational slingshot works...
It also had the most elegant description of how the gravitational slingshot works...
This article at the Planetary Society helped me wrap my mind around it a lot better: http://www.planetary.org/blogs/guest-blogs/2013/20130926-gravity-assist.html
The Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_slingshot) is pretty good too.
...impact.
...impact.No pun intended.
Reminds me of the Kuiper object plotting some people were doing with supercomputers. N-body gravitation, where n is around 800.
...why were they being plotted (If you can't explain, I understand)? Is it related to the New Horizons project?
Well, it should be possible to calculate the needed thrust as a function of vehicle mass and the latitude (can't remember what's latitude or longtitude - bear over with me if I'm wrong) required.
In an equatorial orbit, the thrust should be zero, in a "polar Jarrah orbit" the thrust should be equal to the gravity exerted on the craft.
What happens when the vehicle in the "Jarrah" orbit runs out of fuel? Does it carry on in an earth-centric orbit at the inclination (in the direction) it happened to be going in when the fuel ran out?
What happens when the vehicle in the "Jarrah" orbit runs out of fuel? Does it carry on in an earth-centric orbit at the inclination (in the direction) it happened to be going in when the fuel ran out?
Altitude, direction, and velocity at cutoff determine what orbit follows. Generally if you're describing a constant-latitude, constant altitude orbit, it seems to me you'll go into a circular orbit at that altitude with an inclination equivalent to your latitude and the ascended antinode aligned with the longitude at cutoff.
OK, so I'm just trying to get my head around what that means.
If you were to draw a circle, centred on the centre of the earth, that intersected the vehicle in the "Jarrah" orbit at the point at which it ran out of fuel with the tangents of the circle and the "Jarrah" orbit coinciding exactly, then the circle will be the new orbit. True?
OK, so I'm just trying to get my head around what that means.
If you were to draw a circle, centred on the centre of the earth, that intersected the vehicle in the "Jarrah" orbit at the point at which it ran out of fuel with the tangents of the circle and the "Jarrah" orbit coinciding exactly, then the circle will be the new orbit. True?
True. The eccentricity of the orbit would depend on the velocity along the big, Earth-centered circle. But you have the important concept. I need to go back and read Bob's post again to make sure we're both thinking of the same velocity vectors. But one of the great concepts of orbital mechanics is that your state vector at engine cutoff uniquely and instantly defines your orbit.
Bob is paying very close attention to force vectors -- and he needs to so that his ship stays flying in its highly unnatural orbit. But at cutoff only the velocity vector and the ship's position matter.
The way that I constructed my scenario, when the fuel runs out the spacecraft will return to the original orbit with a radius of 6,600 km and an inclination of 66.5 degrees, however the ascending and descending nodes will have changed.
The antinodes are...
skeptic_UK, we've ventured far afield from your original question. Are you getting all the help you expected?
You obviously don’t know that there is a book published just recently in the UK called Haunted by Neil Armstrong by Neil Burns. Google should find it for you.
It claims that the astronaut played golf in Honolulu near Pearl Harbour on the very day he was supposed to be on the Moon in 1969! It’s not available in the USA so I don’t think you could get a copy. If it’s true of course it might be the proof everybody has been waiting for.
Actually, he was around my house having a cup of tea and a biscuit, Jaffa Cake I think, the tea was Darjeeling with a slice of lemon, we were watching the landing on TV. Just not got around to writing a book about it.Please, everyone knows Armstrong takes his tea like Picard. ;)
You obviously don’t know that there is a book published just recently in the UK called Haunted by Neil Armstrong by Neil Burns. Google should find it for you.
It claims that the astronaut played golf in Honolulu near Pearl Harbour on the very day he was supposed to be on the Moon in 1969! It’s not available in the USA so I don’t think you could get a copy. If it’s true of course it might be the proof everybody has been waiting for.
It claims...
If it’s true...
Actually, he was around my house having a cup of tea and a biscuit, Jaffa Cake I think, the tea was Darjeeling with a slice of lemon, we were watching the landing on TV. Just not got around to writing a book about it.
You should probably mention that you are its publishers. Anyway, I've read the synopsis and it's the ramblings of a fantasist.
That's the $64,000 question.
How do you verify the identity of a ghost? It could be some other ghostObjection! A ghost is still a person, just deceased. ;)impersonatingimghostonating the ghost of Armstrong.
How do you verify the identity of a ghost? It could be some other ghostObjection! A ghost is still a person, just deceased. ;)impersonatingimghostonating the ghost of Armstrong.
How do you verify the identity of a ghost? It could be some other ghostObjection! A ghost is still a person, just deceased. ;)impersonatingimghostonating the ghost of Armstrong.
I would like you to point me to an article in a reputable scientific publication which can substantiate that - :P
reputable scientific publication
Since it appears his evidence is the author's conversations with the ghost of Neil Armstrong...
It's an ethical question, not a scientific one. Assuming ghosts exist that is, a rather large assumption, I admit.How do you verify the identity of a ghost? It could be some other ghostObjection! A ghost is still a person, just deceased. ;)impersonatingimghostonating the ghost of Armstrong.
I would like you to point me to an article in a reputable scientific publication which can substantiate that - :P
How do you verify the identity of a ghost? It could be some other ghostimpersonatingimghostonating the ghost of Armstrong.
Liar, liar, he was with me playing bridge and I was on the surface of Mars at the time. The UK had a covert space programme and we landed there first, about 10 minutes before the Eagle. We had a nice cup of tea on the Martian surface. I helped him and Buzz fix the switch that was broken in the LM. I used a piece of bubble gum, a rusty nail and an old paper clip. I took the elastic from my space underpants too.
Oh, the stupid!!!
I've discussed the moon hoax with people, and the subject is usually met with 'does it really matter? Apollo really landed man on the Moon, why are you even bother talking about a lunatic fringe element.'
The thing that struck me about Capricorn One - even as a layman space travel buff who, at the time, had barely even heard about moon hoax believers - was that it was just so damn stupid. Going to Mars in what appeared to be an unmodified Apollo stack? Landing on Mars - right through the atmosphere - in a Lunar Module?
No radio chatter about news and sports scores (impossible to tape in advance), even while they were in reasonable radio range? No panoramas of the Mars landscape - just a single static shot of the LM? And on and on, ad nauseum.
I understand that the movie maker was focused on the conspiracy aspect, and that enjoying science fiction usually requires a certain suspension of disbelief, but the tonnage of disbelief was just too much for me to get off the ground. It was as if they thought that going to Mars was the same as going to the moon, just a little further away. And Peter Hyams really had no excuse for not knowing better, or for thinking that his audience - a generation that had grown up with Mercury-Gemini-Apollo - wouldn't know better.
The point was that the Saturn V was playing the role of "Big Honking Mars Rocket" and the LM was playing the role of "Mars Lander", in much the same way the actors were playing characters.
For me the movie falls apart because the conspiracy itself is implausible.
Of course the book is based on fact. As I state on the back of the bookYou should probably mention that you are its publishers. Anyway, I've read the synopsis and it's the ramblings of a fantasist.
When the publisher's synopsis contains the sentences, "However, when Neil Armstrong died in 2012, lots of memories started flooding back [to the author]," and "Read how the author met Neil Armstrong's ghost several times and how he recalled with complete freedom the secrets behind the greatest military hoax of all times," you know you're about to be swindled.
Yes, since you're not apparently making your book generally available, Jockndoris, please fill us in on whether the it's intended to be factual.
Of course the book is based on fact.
‘These stories are absolutely true-exactly as I recall them.’
Just to make absolutely sure I flew 21 hours to Honolulu in November 2013. I checked at the Navy Marine Golf Club near Pearl Harbor that I had played golf with Neil Armstrong on 21 July 1969. They gave me a great welcome and were able to confirm that we won the competition on that day.
All the details are in the book which is available on our website www.jockndoris.co.uk where you can order a copy to be sent airmail.
Haunted by Neil Armstrong (ISBN: 978-0-9535748-3-4) is 64 pages long costs £9.95 and should be of interest to anyone who thinks the Moon Landings might have been a Hoax. It shows that on 21 July 1969 the day that Neil Armstrong was supposed to be landing on the Moon he was in fact playing golf with the author at the Navy Marine course in Honolulu near Pearl Harbor. The entry in the visitors book showing they won the competition states so. Recommended for all including the sceptics.
The Full Story (ISBN: 97809535748-4-1) carries on where Haunted left off to give a full 96 pages at a cost of £11.95. It tells of visits to the astronauts training grounds including underground Caves. The author was given full rein to his imagination and recalls with complete freedom a meeting with Ellison Onizuka. Meet Neil Armstrong's ghost in 2013 and hear how the Moon Landings were really done !! and what he thinks we should do now to really get into Space.
Of course the book is based on fact. As I state on the back of the bookYou should probably mention that you are its publishers. Anyway, I've read the synopsis and it's the ramblings of a fantasist.
When the publisher's synopsis contains the sentences, "However, when Neil Armstrong died in 2012, lots of memories started flooding back [to the author]," and "Read how the author met Neil Armstrong's ghost several times and how he recalled with complete freedom the secrets behind the greatest military hoax of all times," you know you're about to be swindled.
Yes, since you're not apparently making your book generally available, Jockndoris, please fill us in on whether the it's intended to be factual.
‘These stories are absolutely true-exactly as I recall them.’
Just to make absolutely sure I flew 21 hours to Honolulu in November 2013.
I checked at the Navy Marine Golf Club near Pearl Harbor that I had played golf with Neil Armstrong on 21 July 1969. They gave me a great welcome and were able to confirm that we won the competition on that day. All the details are in the book which is available on our website www.jockndoris.co.uk where you can order a copy to be sent airmail.
Sounds like a bad fan-fiction.QuoteHaunted by Neil Armstrong (ISBN: 978-0-9535748-3-4) is 64 pages long costs £9.95 and should be of interest to anyone who thinks the Moon Landings might have been a Hoax. It shows that on 21 July 1969 the day that Neil Armstrong was supposed to be landing on the Moon he was in fact playing golf with the author at the Navy Marine course in Honolulu near Pearl Harbor. The entry in the visitors book showing they won the competition states so. Recommended for all including the sceptics.
The Full Story (ISBN: 97809535748-4-1) carries on where Haunted left off to give a full 96 pages at a cost of £11.95. It tells of visits to the astronauts training grounds including underground Caves. The author was given full rein to his imagination and recalls with complete freedom a meeting with Ellison Onizuka. Meet Neil Armstrong's ghost in 2013 and hear how the Moon Landings were really done !! and what he thinks we should do now to really get into Space.
From your website, JocknDoris. Do you honestly think anyone is going to read these summaries and believe that your writings are intended as anything except a fictional send-up?
Of course the book is based on fact.
on 21 July 1969 the day that Neil Armstrong was supposed to be landing on the Moon he was in fact playing golf with the author at the Navy Marine course in Honolulu near Pearl Harbor.
Of course the book is based on fact. As I state on the back of the book
‘These stories are absolutely true-exactly as I recall them.’
Just to make absolutely sure I flew 21 hours to Honolulu in November 2013.
I checked at the Navy Marine Golf Club near Pearl Harbor that I had played golf with Neil Armstrong on 21 July 1969. They gave me a great welcome and were able to confirm that we won the competition on that day. All the details are in the book which is available on our website www.jockndoris.co.uk where you can order a copy to be sent airmail.
Sounds like a bad fan-fiction.
I have also met Neal Armstrong (note the spelling of the first name) when I was attached to Hickam AFB for an electronic equipment course back in the late 1970's. that is Senior Master Sergeant Neal Armstrong. He was often teased about his name.
"In fact he played with all Three Men in Honolulu and won first prize at Navy Marine Golf Club - its in their visitors book" (emphasis added)
Of course the book is based on fact. As I state on the back of the book
‘These stories are absolutely true-exactly as I recall them.’
$16.50, one assumes plus shipping, for a glorified pamphlet? Who would pay that?
I checked at the Navy Marine Golf Club near Pearl Harbor that I had played golf with Neil Armstrong on 21 July 1969.
All this from a "respected 57 year old Chartered Accountant who's word is never questioned"
You had to be an active US serviceman to be allowed to play the course. Guests were not permitted.
He was having a cup of tea around my house I tell you. All other claims are false. It was a cup of english breakfast tea with chocolate digestives. No one can prove me wrong cos I said so.
Edit. Or was it hobnobs?
I would be happy to send you a complimentary copy if you give me a suitable snailmail addressOf course the book is based on fact.
So you're prepared to prove that the ghost of Neil Armstrong visited its author.Quote‘These stories are absolutely true-exactly as I recall them.’
And your memory is infallible? And you claim to talk to ghosts?
QuoteJust to make absolutely sure I flew 21 hours to Honolulu in November 2013. I checked at the Navy Marine Golf Club near Pearl Harbor that I had played golf with Neil Armstrong on 21 July 1969. They gave me a great welcome and were able to confirm that we won the competition on that day.
Please list here the name of the person at the golf club to whom you spoke and who, according to you, confirmed that the astronaut Neil Armstrong played golf there with you on that date. I will be verifying your story.QuoteAll the details are in the book which is available on our website www.jockndoris.co.uk where you can order a copy to be sent airmail.
I'm not paying for your book, but feel free to send me a complimentary review copy.
If you're going to shill your commercial products here, you had better pretend to give details when asked, and give them here.
He was having a cup of tea around my house I tell you. All other claims are false. It was a cup of english breakfast tea with chocolate digestives. No one can prove me wrong cos I said so.
Edit. Or was it hobnobs?
No way could it have been hobnobs, they weren't invented until 1985. If you aren't even sure what biscuits you ate, maybe you are mistaken about which astronaut it was?
$16.50, one assumes plus shipping, for a glorified pamphlet? Who would pay that?
As before I will respond to all the points made given time
All points are covered in the book
The Navy Marine Club is a military club making it all the more plausible that the astronauts played there in 1969
The Navy Marine Club is a military club making it all the more plausible that the astronauts played there in 1969.
I would be happy to send you a complimentary copy if you give me a suitable snailmail address
I would be happy to send you a complimentary copy if you give me a suitable snailmail address
As before I will respond to all the points made given time
All points are covered in the book
The Navy Marine Club is a military club making it all the more plausible that the astronauts played there in 1969
I would be happy to send you a complimentary copy if you give me a suitable snailmail addressOf course the book is based on fact.
So you're prepared to prove that the ghost of Neil Armstrong visited its author.Quote‘These stories are absolutely true-exactly as I recall them.’
And your memory is infallible? And you claim to talk to ghosts?
QuoteJust to make absolutely sure I flew 21 hours to Honolulu in November 2013. I checked at the Navy Marine Golf Club near Pearl Harbor that I had played golf with Neil Armstrong on 21 July 1969. They gave me a great welcome and were able to confirm that we won the competition on that day.
Please list here the name of the person at the golf club to whom you spoke and who, according to you, confirmed that the astronaut Neil Armstrong played golf there with you on that date. I will be verifying your story.QuoteAll the details are in the book which is available on our website www.jockndoris.co.uk where you can order a copy to be sent airmail.
I'm not paying for your book, but feel free to send me a complimentary review copy.
If you're going to shill your commercial products here, you had better pretend to give details when asked, and give them here.
As before I will respond to all the points made given time - here are few replies
When I wrote my first book in 1999 I was 57 years old and so was 27 years old when I played with Neil Armstrong.
All points are covered in the book
The Navy Marine Club is a military club making it all the more plausible that the astronauts played there in 1969
The Navy Marine Club is a military club making it all the more plausible that the astronauts played there in 1969.
For military astronauts, BUT ARMSTRONG WAS A CIVILIAN.
Sorry to "shout", but this is a FACT you MUST acknowledge BEFORE we can proceed further with this discussion.
Do you understand?
Why do you think he was a civilian? Neil Armstrong was a Naval Aviator with the rank of Commander and subject to military disciplines all his life.
$16.50, one assumes plus shipping, for a glorified pamphlet? Who would pay that?
He has a great sense of humour which he says is just as well in todays topsy turvy world.
Well, he does admit to having a sense of humor.
"He has a great sense of humour which he says is just as well in todays topsy turvy world."
Why do you think he was a civilian? Neil Armstrong was a Naval Aviator with the rank of Commander and subject to military disciplines all his life.The Navy Marine Club is a military club making it all the more plausible that the astronauts played there in 1969.
For military astronauts, BUT ARMSTRONG WAS A CIVILIAN.
Sorry to "shout", but this is a FACT you MUST acknowledge BEFORE we can proceed further with this discussion.
Do you understand?
Why do you think he was a civilian? Neil Armstrong was a Naval Aviator with the rank of Commander and subject to military disciplines all his life.The Navy Marine Club is a military club making it all the more plausible that the astronauts played there in 1969.
For military astronauts, BUT ARMSTRONG WAS A CIVILIAN.
Sorry to "shout", but this is a FACT you MUST acknowledge BEFORE we can proceed further with this discussion.
Do you understand?
Armstrong left the Navy at age 22 on August 23, 1952, and became a Lieutenant, Junior Grade, in the U.S. Naval Reserve. He remained in the reserve for eight years, then resigned his commission on October 21, 1960 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Armstrong)
Why do you think he was a civilian? Neil Armstrong was a Naval Aviator with the rank of Commander and subject to military disciplines all his life.
Why do you think he was a civilian? Neil Armstrong was a Naval Aviator with the rank of Commander and subject to military disciplines all his life.
My grandfather was a chartered accountant, and he actually did have a good sense of humour.
And you still need to explain how you got to golf at a course reserved for active-duty U.S. military personnel, that does not allow guests. I'm a U.S. citizen and an erstwhile defense contractor, and even I don't get to golf there. So please explain this.
You either have a bad memory.... or you're a liar. I'm leaning towards the later just a weeeeeee bit.Of course the book is based on fact. As I state on the back of the bookYou should probably mention that you are its publishers. Anyway, I've read the synopsis and it's the ramblings of a fantasist.
When the publisher's synopsis contains the sentences, "However, when Neil Armstrong died in 2012, lots of memories started flooding back [to the author]," and "Read how the author met Neil Armstrong's ghost several times and how he recalled with complete freedom the secrets behind the greatest military hoax of all times," you know you're about to be swindled.
Yes, since you're not apparently making your book generally available, Jockndoris, please fill us in on whether the it's intended to be factual.
‘These stories are absolutely true-exactly as I recall them.’
Just to make absolutely sure I flew 21 hours to Honolulu in November 2013.
I checked at the Navy Marine Golf Club near Pearl Harbor that I had played golf with Neil Armstrong on 21 July 1969. They gave me a great welcome and were able to confirm that we won the competition on that day. All the details are in the book which is available on our website www.jockndoris.co.uk where you can order a copy to be sent airmail.
This has to be a Poe, right????????Of course the book is based on fact. As I state on the back of the bookYou should probably mention that you are its publishers. Anyway, I've read the synopsis and it's the ramblings of a fantasist.
When the publisher's synopsis contains the sentences, "However, when Neil Armstrong died in 2012, lots of memories started flooding back [to the author]," and "Read how the author met Neil Armstrong's ghost several times and how he recalled with complete freedom the secrets behind the greatest military hoax of all times," you know you're about to be swindled.
Yes, since you're not apparently making your book generally available, Jockndoris, please fill us in on whether the it's intended to be factual.
‘These stories are absolutely true-exactly as I recall them.’
Just to make absolutely sure I flew 21 hours to Honolulu in November 2013.
I checked at the Navy Marine Golf Club near Pearl Harbor that I had played golf with Neil Armstrong on 21 July 1969. They gave me a great welcome and were able to confirm that we won the competition on that day. All the details are in the book which is available on our website www.jockndoris.co.uk where you can order a copy to be sent airmail.
For someone who claims to have spoken to the ghost of Neil Armstrong, you seem to have this concept of his career that would be arrived at by a British subject who only did a little bit of research and really did not delve into the details, and assumed he knew how military service worked in the U.S. I hope you realize that I'm an internationally recognized historian of the Apollo project as well as a professional aerospace engineer. I will expose you.
And you still need to explain how you got to golf at a course reserved for active-duty U.S. military personnel, that does not allow guests. I'm a U.S. citizen and an erstwhile defense contractor, and even I don't get to golf there. So please explain this.I have been twice to the Navy Marine Golf Club which is well known for its policy of only allowing people in if they are “military”. I was told that each time I phoned the club to see if I would be welcome there. It is a somewhat swish club way above the norm with a good course which had not changed much in 40 years, except the pine trees round the last green were somewhat taller as they were now 100 feet or more in height.
The first time I went there was in 1969 and I was the invited guest of three “military” men who were well known members of the club . They particularly wanted me to play with them as their partner because they had found out that I played off a low handicap. They had to sign me into a visitors book before I would be allowed to play. In the event the four of us won the competition.
The second time was when I returned in November 2013. I was shown round by David Chin the club professional who was most interested in my story of playing there 40 odd years ago. He showed me the history of the club and there are photograph in the book of both David Chin and I and of the History of the club which is set out. All you have to do to see those, is to order the book or ask me nicely to send you a copy the same way I have sent one to JayUtah. Jockndoris
...and just to confirm the accuracy of what we are saying about this golf course...
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/NMGC.png)
I know that these restrictions were strictly observed in 1979 when I was there, so I would expect that to be at least the case 10 years earlier.
I cannot speak for what actually happens now.
I have been twice to the Navy Marine Golf Club which is well known for its policy of only allowing people in if they are “military”. I was told that each time I phoned the club to see if I would be welcome there. It is a somewhat swish club way above the norm with a good course which had not changed much in 40 years, except the pine trees round the last green were somewhat taller as they were now 100 feet or more in height.Why do you think he was a civilian? Neil Armstrong was a Naval Aviator with the rank of Commander and subject to military disciplines all his life.
No, that's sometimes how it works in the United Kingdom, but that's expressly not how it works in the United States. Once an officer leaves the service -- as Armstrong did long before joining NASA -- he is no longer entitled to the privileges afforded active-duty servicemen.
It was a big deal that Armstrong flew the X-15 as a civilian. It was a big deal that he came to NASA as a civilian already wearing astronaut wings. It was a big deal that the commander of the first Apollo landing mission was not a military officer, but rather an aviator who had distinguished himself as a test pilot as a civilian.
For someone who claims to have spoken to the ghost of Neil Armstrong, you seem to have this concept of his career that would be arrived at by a British subject who only did a little bit of research and really did not delve into the details, and assumed he knew how military service worked in the U.S. I hope you realize that I'm an internationally recognized historian of the Apollo project as well as a professional aerospace engineer. I will expose you.
And you still need to explain how you got to golf at a course reserved for active-duty U.S. military personnel, that does not allow guests. I'm a U.S. citizen and an erstwhile defense contractor, and even I don't get to golf there. So please explain this.
I can easily believe that if any astronaut showed up at that golf course on his own or as a guest of an active military member, some officer or another would have granted an exception with any further guests in the party. Such was the star power of astronauts at the time. But that is all speculation.
But I can't accept that a mid-20s British accountant is going to get into a U.S. military-only golf course. I need lots and lots and lots of verifiable proof in order to accept that.
At least most conspiracy theorists credit the hypothetical conspirators with some intelligence.
I'm guessing the 'three military men' who invited him to play turn out to be Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins just to double down on the stupid.
"Hey, Buzz and Mike, I know we're supposed to be on the Moon right now, but let's go find some random Englishman to play golf with and talk our way into a private golf course where everyone will immediately recognize us. Oh, be sure to sign your real name in the guest book."
Why is there so much anger around?!
... it doesn't really matter if Jocks book is fact or fiction, just that it covers a topic I love to read about...
Why is there so much anger around?!
I've definitely loved reading some of the links and have ordered some books.
... if anything it was fun watching people get so worked up about it!
Why is there so much anger around?!
For me, it doesn't really matter if Jocks book is fact or fiction...
...it was fun watching people get so worked up about it!
Having a few laughs at the level of stupid? Definitely!
A sure sign that users here are becoming amused by the stupid is that we start making MPFC references.
All these stories are true exactly as he recalls them.
This strikes me as a very devious way of extracting money from people.
And frankly, if the examples we have here are indicative of his writing skills, his pamphlet is a waste of money on several levels unless he has a damn fine copy editor.
Hey sorry for not replying for a while. I was kind of scared to be frank haha.
Some great posts and some not so great. Why is there so much anger around?!
Anyway. I've definitely loved reading some of the links and have ordered some books. For me, it doesn't really matter if Jocks book is fact or fiction, just that it covers a topic I love to read about, so I've ordered a copy from his website. I hope it is good, if anything it was fun watching people get so worked up about it!
I'll gladly give a mini review once I've got it and had chance to read it, might be a while though. Thanks guys.
For me, it doesn't really matter if Jocks book is fact or fiction...
It does to me. I like my history to be true, not made up. If the blurbs are to believed, the book claims Armstrong's ghost revealed to the author that the Moon landings were a "military hoax." If that is true, then the author is calling nearly half a million intelligent, skilled people liars. And charging people money to read about him doing it. Exploring a fictional "alternate history" narrative is often very entertaining. Accusing people of committing fraud on a wide scale and attesting to it as fact -- on no better evidence (at this point) than some claim of supernatural visitation -- is an entirely different thing altogether. Do you think there should be no consequences for that behavior?
Any doctrine that will not bear investigation is not a fit tenant for the mind of an honest man.
Robert G Ingersoll, American lawyer and politician (1833-1899)
Why is there so much anger around?!
And frankly, if the examples we have here are indicative of his writing skills, his pamphlet is a waste of money on several levels unless he has a damn fine copy editor.
Shouldn't it be "damned fine"?
Why is there so much anger around?!
I get the feeling that Jockndoris is just one of these guys that likes to pull peoples legs and does his coup counting by selling the pamphlets he calles books. Simply stirring the pot seems to be a second choice option since it at least keeps him from complete obscurity as a noaccount accountant. Assuming that claim is true. I mean really, communing with ghosts?
Some great posts and some not so great. Why is there so much anger around?!I don't see any anger, though I freely acknowledge that a forum is a difficult place to display and interpret the emotions of the poster. You've got to remember that this place isn't the be-all and end-all of the contributors. Most of the heavy-weights in here are busy with their careers, and to be frank, answering most of the bunkum that the typical hoaxie puts up will probably take seconds. In contrast, your typical hoaxie will have spent hours absorbing all sorts of claptrap and will become emotionally invested in their belief-system. Mainly, IMHO, because the majority of them have bugger all else to do. These are the ones that tend to get angry quite quickly and normally resort to throwing their own body-waste about quite quickly.
do believe it was faked myself.Why?
I would be happy to send you a complimentary copy if you give me a suitable snailmail addressOf course the book is based on fact.
So you're prepared to prove that the ghost of Neil Armstrong visited its author.Quote‘These stories are absolutely true-exactly as I recall them.’
And your memory is infallible? And you claim to talk to ghosts?
QuoteJust to make absolutely sure I flew 21 hours to Honolulu in November 2013. I checked at the Navy Marine Golf Club near Pearl Harbor that I had played golf with Neil Armstrong on 21 July 1969. They gave me a great welcome and were able to confirm that we won the competition on that day.
Please list here the name of the person at the golf club to whom you spoke and who, according to you, confirmed that the astronaut Neil Armstrong played golf there with you on that date. I will be verifying your story.QuoteAll the details are in the book which is available on our website www.jockndoris.co.uk where you can order a copy to be sent airmail.
I'm not paying for your book, but feel free to send me a complimentary review copy.
If you're going to shill your commercial products here, you had better pretend to give details when asked, and give them here.
As before I will respond to all the points made given time - here are few replies
When I wrote my first book in 1999 I was 57 years old and so was 27 years old when I played with Neil Armstrong.
All points are covered in the book
The Navy Marine Club is a military club making it all the more plausible that the astronauts played there in 1969
Thank you for sending us a snailmail address. We will get a complimentary copy of the Book Haunted by Neil Armstrong by Neil Burns in the post tomorrow morning first thing. I hope you enjoy reading it and look forward to your comments. Best wishes Jockndoris
JayUtah
I trust you have now received the complimentary copy of Haunted by Neil Armstrong which we sent to you and have had enough time to read it.
I trust you have now received the complimentary copy...
I trust you have now received the complimentary copy of Haunted by Neil Armstrong which we sent to you and have had enough time to read it. We all look forward to hearing what you thought of it.
Jockndoris
Please supply that name at your earliest convenience. I shall be calling the golf course to confirm it.
I trust you have now received the complimentary copy...
No, not yet received.
The Complimentary Copy was posted on September 4th Airmail with a Customs Note attached – it should be there very soon. If any of the other members want their complimentary copy please send me a snailmail address – I want you all to read it !! Jockndoris
Independent of whether it appears in the book, I repeat that I require the name of the person to whom you spoke at the golf course, who allegedly confirmed to you that you played golf with Neil Armstrong the astronaut, on the day he was supposedly on the Moon.
Please supply that name at your earliest convenience. I shall be calling the golf course to confirm it.
With bated breathThe Complimentary Copy was posted on September 4th Airmail with a Customs Note attached – it should be there very soon. If any of the other members want their complimentary copy please send me a snailmail address – I want you all to read it !! Jockndoris
I trust you have now received the complimentary copy of Haunted by Neil Armstrong which we sent to you and have had enough time to read it. We all look forward to hearing what you thought of it.
Jockndoris
Is it printed on nice soft three-ply tissue paper? ::)
Much nicer to have a proper copy with color photos of the Navy Marine club and their club professional!! The Complimentary Copy was posted to JayUtah on September 4th Airmail with a Customs Note attached – it should be there by now please send me your snailmail address – I want you all to read it !! Jockndoris
Much nicer to have a proper copy with color photos of the Navy Marine club and their club professional!! The Complimentary Copy was posted to JayUtah on September 4th Airmail with a Customs Note attached – it should be there by now please send me your snailmail address – I want you all to read it !! Jockndoris[/b]
Thanks for the kind offer to send me your pamphlet, but on this occasion I will decline your offer. I really don't have the time or inclination to spend reading kook books about communing with ghosts.
Thanks for the kind offer to send me your pamphlet, but on this occasion I will decline your offer. I really don't have the time or inclination to spend reading kook books about communing with ghosts.
The Complimentary Copy...
I still don't understand his you can expect that such a frankly cockamamie claim merits any attention whatsoever, other than perhaps a roll of the eyes.
Thanks for the kind offer to send me your pamphlet, but on this occasion I will decline your offer. I really don't have the time or inclination to spend reading kook books about communing with ghosts.
Agreed. The absolute impossibility of this being a factual account make it of no interest to me.
You will never know what you are missing until you read the book. JockndorisThanks for the kind offer to send me your pamphlet, but on this occasion I will decline your offer. I really don't have the time or inclination to spend reading kook books about communing with ghosts.
Agreed. The absolute impossibility of this being a factual account make it of no interest to me.
The person you should phone is David Chin the Club Professional at Navy Marine Golf Club. Phone number (808) 471-0142. His picture appears with me on page 43 of the book and someone else has very kindly added details about the club to my post 211. Make sure you claim to be “military” otherwise he probably won’t speak to you! JockndorisThe Complimentary Copy...
You posted three times shilling your book. Yet you have not provided me the key information I asked for. Please give the name of the person to whom you spoke at the golf course. Are you paying attention?
The person you should phone is David Chin the Club Professional at Navy Marine Golf Club. Phone number (808) 471-0142.
Make sure you claim to be “military” otherwise he probably won’t speak to you!
You will never know what you are missing until you read the book.
Thanks for the kind offer to send me your pamphlet, but on this occasion I will decline your offer. I really don't have the time or inclination to spend reading kook books about communing with ghosts.
Agreed. The absolute impossibility of this being a factual account make it of no interest to me.
You will never know what you are missing until you read the book. Jockndoris
Make sure you claim to be “military” otherwise he probably won’t speak to you! Jockndoris
Do you make a habit of suggesting that people lie to get what they want? Is this suggestion based on your own way of acting?
I've confirmed with my business agent that the book has not yet arrived.
Do you make a habit of suggesting that people lie to get what they want? Is this suggestion based on your own way of acting?
Keep in mind you're talking to a guy who has written and is selling a book claiming the ghost of Neil Armstrong came to him and confirmed that he was playing golf with him in Hawaii when he was supposed to be on the Moon. Would an author making absurd claims of that magnitude have much compunction about lying about his identity over the telephone, or suggesting that others do likewise?
If I were [Andrew] Neil Burns, I would honestly feel terribly ashamed for alleging such obvious nonsensical fabrication as fact.
If I were [Andrew] Neil Burns, I would honestly feel terribly ashamed for alleging such obvious nonsensical fabrication as fact.
British humour?
Jay, may I recommend playing "Yakety Sax" whilst reading the tome? I think it will greatly assist in your immersive experience.
As valid as my cup of tea claim then, I should write a book. It was Gunpowder Tea and the biscuits were Garibaldi and in case they were not around in 1969 I built a time machine and took a packet back.
You know, I wouldn't expect the astronauts themselves to know every detail of the hoax, but there are some they'd have to know, like why they were allowed to be anywhere anyone could see them when they were supposed to be on the Moon. (I do not accept "hide in plain sight," because that's stupid.) I don't claim to know the level the astronauts would have to know, but I can guarantee they'd know at least some details and would be able to explain them.
You know, I wouldn't expect the astronauts themselves to know every detail of the hoax...
[W]hy they were allowed to be anywhere anyone could see them when they were supposed to be on the Moon. (I do not accept "hide in plain sight," because that's stupid.)
Interesting that he has a picture of David Chin (presumably), but not anything dating back to the period in question.
May I entertain myself with the idea that Jock did, indeed, write a paper in the early 60's saying a moon landing was impossible, and his book is a flimsy attempt to justify that he was actually right?
Whatever it claims to be, it is fiction -- and abysmally bad fiction: poorly researched, meandering, pompous, and pointless. I've seen Twilight fan fiction that reads better than this.
Summary Review of Haunted by Neil Armstrong
A quick thumb-through of Burns' book indicates absolutely no verification of his claims whatsoever. While there are mentions of David Chin and the guest book, there is no indication whatsoever that anyone or anything at the golf club validated in any way -- or indeed even knew about -- his beliefs and claims in this book. All the "validation" comes entirely from his assertion to have been accompanied on his second golf trip by the ghost of Neil Armstrong.
Pages 11-13 contain his recollection of a paper he claims to have written on travel to the Moon in pursuit of a physics degree. He claims to have received high marks for it, but it is an abysmally ignorant expostulation that displays almost no correct understanding of space flight.
The bulk of the book is a shamelessly self-congratulatory travelogue of an extended golfing excursion to several countries, largely irrelevant to the Apollo 11 crew, space flight, or his specific hoax claims. The writing style alternates between pompous and numbingly tedious. (Gillianren, you do not want to pollute your brain with this.)
On page 37 he addresses the claim of being able to play a military-only course, which is to say he mentions that he has been challenged several times that his claim cannot be true. He offers absolutely no explanation on that page, but later claims that "the three men" whom he assumed to be the Apollo 11 crew signed him in "as their guest," which Armstrong's ghost seems to accept as a given. In other words, Burns just sidesteps the facts by appealing again to the supernatural. He also makes the mistake on the same page of asserting the mysterious 1960s Neil (presumably Armstrong) as "a military man," even though at that time he was no such thing. He also gets Armstrong's age wrong.
His alleged second visit to the Navy Marine Golf Course occupies only pages 42-45. As promised, a picture appears on page 43 of a man in a three-piece suit with white hair and facial hair standing next to a man who resembles David Chin just inside the entrance to the clubhouse. The rug clearly displays the course emblem. Only one other photo appears in this chapter, of the club's historical timeline. This is significant because in the text he claims to have gone onto the course and taken photos, but no such photos appear in the book. In contrast, he includes several photos of the public course at Mauna Kea. Why no photos of Navy Marine except just inside the club house?
Contrary to his insinuations here and elsewhere, Burns presents no verifiable evidence that he golfed at this course either in 1969 or in 2013. He presents no verifiable evidence that David Chin or anyone else at the course verified, or was even told about, any of the controversial aspects of his story. And most telling, the chapter reveals that he did not find his name in any visitor's book, or indeed even looked for a book or his name. His explanation is that his encounter with the ghost of Armstrong trumped any previous desire he might have had to confirm his visit or the presence of the Apollo 11 crew in any sort of guest register.
Let me repeat that.
There is no evidence whatsoever presented in this book that the author confirmed either his previous golf game at the Navy Marine course or the alleged presence of the Apollo 11 crew. None whatsoever.
Burns documents in excruciating detail irrelevant parts of his story, such as his boarding pass to Honolulu and his bag tag at Mauna Kea. But he provides no documentation or detail on the key thesis, or even such claims as that his golf game at Mauna Kea was the prize for winning the alleged competition at the Navy Marine course.
Pages 53-56 elaborate Burns' allegations of what Armstrong's ghost told him about the claimed hoax, and purports to explain what they were doing in Hawaii and why. Needless to say it is chock full of verifiable detail, almost all of which is provably wrong. In short, the crew were supposed to splash down soon after takeoff in a different part of the ocean but missed their landing point and had to be smuggled back to civilization. As to why they appeared in public and risked ruining the hoax, Burns simply asserts the best place to hide was in plain site. The whole chapter is filled with internal inconsistencies and completely fabricated layman's suppositions about Apollo operations, all passed off as posthumous testimony from Armstrong.
Not content with trampling Neil Armstrong's grave with his golf spikes, Burns adds a chapter with Ellison Onizuka's ghost who somehow knew about Burns' college physics paper and validated parts of it. Something about using springs to get to orbit. (I wish I were kidding.)
I'll read it through completely tomorrow and start on the formal review, just in case this brief summary missed a detail. But from my brief skim it appears this book is indeed every bit the egotistical travesty we feared it to be -- and much, much more. If I were [Andrew] Neil Burns, I would honestly feel terribly ashamed for alleging such obvious nonsensical fabrication as fact.
I am delighted you have received the book and clearly have enjoyed reading it from cover to cover.
You are telling your pro Apollo colleagues how interesting the book must be.
In your case of course you have the added bonus of having learned something new- furthering your education about Space flight which seemed to be sadly lacking.
All your facts seem to be based on computer simulations handed out to you by NASA.
I hope you have now had the courage to ring David Chin and get confirmation from him...
...and then realise that you have been wrong about Apollo for all these years. Jockndoris
If JnD deduces that Jay enjoyed the book on the basis of that review, then I think we can be pretty certain about the accuracy of his historical recollections.
He also gets Armstrong's age wrong.
I am delighted you have received the book and clearly have enjoyed reading it from cover to cover.
The whole purpose of writing is for someone else to read and enjoy what you have written.
You are telling your pro Apollo colleagues how interesting the book must be.
Possibly they will all want to buy or request a copy now!
In your case of course you have the added bonus of having learned something new- furthering your education about Space flight which seemed to be sadly lacking.
All your facts seem to be based on computer simulations handed out to you by NASA.
I hope you have now had the courage to ring David Chin and get confirmation from him and then realise that you have been wrong about Apollo for all these years.
It appears that JnD's reading and writing and thinking skills are at least consistent
QuoteThe whole purpose of writing is for someone else to read and enjoy what you have written.
Then you have failed...no one "enjoys" reading stupid lies.
Not on dare...not if you paid me...just NO.
What a silly lie. Do you really believe that scientists of the world base their opinion on "spoon fed" NASA "simulations"?
As a final insult, Burns prints his book on thick, clay-coated paper making it unsuitable even for use in the bathroom.
I'd have thought that would have made it quite absorbent.
As a final insult, Burns prints his book on thick, clay-coated paper making it unsuitable even for use in the bathroom. My best recommendation is for a table whose leg is perhaps a quarter-inch too short.
No, it's that waxy, high-gloss paper that you use for printing fine detail.That means it won't burn worth a damn, either.
I was about to say the same thing. And pencil and pen tend to not work so well, so you can't even use it as doodle or note taking paper. Seriously, this book has no redeeming qualities whatsoever!No, it's that waxy, high-gloss paper that you use for printing fine detail.That means it won't burn worth a damn, either.
Fred
Jockndoris
it's impossible to really know if it's true or not
wow, this thread kinda exploded! :o
I have to say I also ordered a copy of Mr Burns' book and have spent the last week slowly reading it. While it's certainly a very fantastical setting, it's impossible to really know if it's true or not. I found it a very good read. I think some people here are just pre-judging the book based on their own views on the author rather than the actual content. ;)
For example the constant calling of it as a 'pamphlet' is rather rude really. Granted, It's not the longest book, but I still easily found it value for money.
The world map especially was very nicely done, and interesting to see the route he took around the world. Kudos to him for making it. I'm very tempted to order the 'full version' of the book as the chapter headings seem most intriguing.
I can understand why you might not believe it's true. But if it is or isn't doesn't take away from its entertainment value imho.
Hmm. Is anyone else starting to smell a rat here?
wow, this thread kinda exploded! :o
I have to say I also ordered a copy of Mr Burns' book and have spent the last week slowly reading it.
While it's certainly a very fantastical setting, it's impossible to really know if it's true or not.
I think some people here are just pre-judging the book based on their own views on the author rather than the actual content. ;)
For example the constant calling of it as a 'pamphlet' is rather rude really.
The world map especially was very nicely done...
I can understand why you might not believe it's true. But if it is or isn't doesn't take away from its entertainment value imho.
Hmm. Is anyone else starting to smell a rat here?
Is it printed on nice soft three-ply tissue paper? ::)
As a final insult, Burns prints his book on thick, clay-coated paper making it unsuitable even for use in the bathroom.I had my finger hovering over the "Buy" button until you said that!
Hmm. Is anyone else starting to smell a rat here?Dunno about rats, but there's a distinct whiff of socks in the air.....
I have to say I also ordered a copy of Mr Burns' book"Ordered" or did you mean "authored"??
it's impossible to really know if it's true or not.Only if you are the most ardent solipsist. For the the vast majority of people its not impossible at all. In fact it's easy to say, to a very, very high degree of probability that it's not true. The ramblings of a sole person, communing with ghosts, claiming to cure arthritis with gooseberry leaves versus one of the most documented programs in human history, one that was witnessed by hundreds of thousands of people and one that has stood every test thrown at it? No, not difficult at all.
I think some people here are just pre-judging the book based on their own views on the author rather than the actual content.I can't speak for anyone else here, but I am judging the book on the ridiculous claims made by the author. The claims are bunkum. Nothing wrong with that if it is being presented as fiction, but Burns is trying to present it as fact. Which leads me to repeat what I said earlier. He is either a charlatan preying on the gullible or hopelessly confused.
For example the constant calling of it as a 'pamphlet' is rather rude really.Not as rude as impugning the reputation of one of the most famous people in history though. Nor as rude as trying to make a case that the hundreds of thousands of people that were involved in the Apollo program were lying. Funny how you hoaxies are so thin-skinned but also so easily able to sling outrageous slurs on people who were smarter than you and who achieved more in a few years than the whole lot of the hoax "community" will ever achieve in their lives.
but I still easily found it value for money.Your definition of VFM has nothing to do with the veracity of the claim.
Entertainment value is a personal thing. However, according to Jay's review AND the one other review on Amazon.com that didn't appear to be written by the author (Hmm..more sock-puppetry, I wonder???) then I am fairly confident in saying that it's "entertainment value" is probably lower than a snake's belly..
I can understand why you might not believe it's true. But if it is or isn't doesn't take away from its entertainment value imho.
I can understand why you might not believe it's true. But if it is or isn't doesn't take away from its entertainment value imho.
It's also very easy to say that Mr. Burns is either an outright charlatan [...], or a straight-up, card-carrying member of the Woo-Woo brigade.
I can't speak for anyone else here, but I am judging the book on the ridiculous claims made by the author.
Not as rude as impugning the reputation of one of the most famous people in history though.
I am fairly confident in saying that it's "entertainment value" is probably lower than a snake's belly.
Hmm. Is anyone else starting to smell a rat here?
Yes. I think it's quite reprehensible for a grown man -- a chartered accountant and company director who says his honor is impeccable -- to pretend to be another person in order to shill his awful book. I kind of expect that sort of childishness from other hoax claimants, but not from someone who claims to be well educated and prominent.
And thus it becomes even more apparent that he started this thread solely to drum up the appearance of support for his book.
Wait. Basically you're saying I must be this guy because I dare not join the rest of the group's opinion and savage a book I actually enjoyed reading?
Logical. ::)
Wait. Basically you're saying I must be this guy because I dare not join the rest of the group's opinion and savage a book I actually enjoyed reading?
Logical. ::)
Every bit as logical as your statement that you can't tell if the story (which is impossible in multiple detail and ludicrous in all the others) is true or not?
Wait. Basically you're saying I must be this guy because I dare not join the rest of the group's opinion and savage a book I actually enjoyed reading?
Logical. ::)
No, not for that reason. Instead for the reason that you think and write exactly like Neil Burns, including Burns' penchant for entertainment over truth and the ham-fisted patting yourself on the back. Every sock puppet thinks he is capable of appearing as a different person, but every hoax claimant has telltale unconscious idiosyncrasies. In the same way all of your characters in your book sound exactly like an upper middle-class English gentlemen, regardless of who you name them to be, your sock puppets say exactly the same things in exactly the same way. You vastly overestimate your talent at sounding like different people.
Skeptic_UK shows up out of the blue asking for good hoax books. A discussion ensues, but in very short order Jockndoris arrives after a long absence to advertise he has a book for sale. Skeptic_UK refuses to answer any questions about what other books he might have purchased, and without much effort latches entirely onto Haunted by Neil Armstrong, acting as the perfect "satisfied customer."
How dumb do you think we are?
Give it up, Mr. Burns. You have earned considerable disapproval here -- every bit of it deserved. Since sock puppetry is strictly forbidden, I doubt you'll be allowed to continue flogging your terrible book. Expect the moderator to ban you forthwith.
No, it has more to do with the shared inability to differentiate fact from fiction or even the inclination to do so. And the fact you're shilling his idiotic book for no apparently good reason.
I merely state it doesn't bother me if its true or not...
how do you know he isn't visited by ghosts?
I still found it a fun read.
So you think the moderator will just take your word that I'm the same bloke as this guy and just ban me?
Good to see you have a low opinion of yourself.
Saying I like something is 'shilling'? you seem to like that word by the way I've noticed it a fair few times on this thread.
Lets be clear here. Skeptic_UK are you the same person as the one posting as Jockndoris? Are you the author of Haunted by Neil Armstrong? Do you have any association with Jockndoris or the author Neil Burns beyond this forum?
Wait. Basically you're saying I must be this guy because I dare not join the rest of the group's opinion and savage a book I actually enjoyed reading?
Logical. ::)
Yep, very logical.
6 days after you joined (requesting "good" books on the hoax) you get a post in your thread from Jockndoris- his first post in almost exactly 2 years. A minor love-in then ensues. More obvious than an obvious thing.
You can add subterfuge to the list of things that you're not very good at (along with being an author....)
No doubt LO will have logged the IPs (though you are probably using a proxy or WiFi hot-spot).
C'mon guys, it doesn't really matter if skeptic_uk and jockndoris are the same person. Maybe they are, but what they each say can be laughed off merely on their own merits (or lack thereof).
Looking back at this thread, I think you'll find I thanked everyone for replying...
...and the only people who actually properly engaged with Jockndoris were in-fact you lot!
I merely state it doesn't bother me if its true or not (how do you know he isn't visited by ghosts?) I still found it a fun read.
Looking back at this thread, I think you'll find I thanked everyone for replying...
You did so as a brush-off to the people trying to follow up on the answers. You were asked what other books you considered and you didn't answer. After asking your initial question, you were thereafter only interested in Neil Burns.Quote...and the only people who actually properly engaged with Jockndoris were in-fact you lot!
"Properly engaged?" I don't know what that means. All I can see is that you two showed up almost together and suddenly you're falling all over yourself praising Burns and defending him from what you say is inappropriate criticism. And that defense sounds so very ominously like the things Burns himself would say in his own defense.
You also keep referring to me as Burns even though I constantly say I am not.
I am defending my right to like something without having to defend myselfSo now folks are denying your "right" not to have to discuss what you post about in a discussion forum? Please.
You know full well what it means.
You have little clue if you honestly believe we're the same person.
I am impressed how well you seem to know Burns from just a few of his posts.
'Almost together' is a bit wishy washy isn't it?
How long a gap between our posts would be required for you to not think I'm actually a 70 year old accountant?
You also keep referring to me as Burns even though I constantly say I am not.
I am not defending him.
I am defending my right to like something without having to defend myself from childish accusations...
...and amateur sleuthing which is so far wide of the mark it's laughable.
well you think I'm a 70-odd year old accountant.
No, it has more to do with the shared inability to differentiate fact from fiction or even the inclination to do so. And the fact you're shilling his idiotic book for no apparently good reason.
Saying I like something is 'shilling'? you seem to like that word by the way I've noticed it a fair few times on this thread.
well you think I'm a 70-odd year old accountant.
The only person here who's said anything about the author's age is you.
No, it has more to do with the shared inability to differentiate fact from fiction or even the inclination to do so. And the fact you're shilling his idiotic book for no apparently good reason.
Saying I like something is 'shilling'? you seem to like that word by the way I've noticed it a fair few times on this thread.
You have done far more than casually say you like the book. You have been supporting and promoting it for several pages now. This is a discussion forum, and your unwillingness to discuss your reasons for liking it in any way that is indistinguishable from the author's self promotion, opens up avenues for further questioning.
If you checked my post history you'd see I made 1 post supporting his book. The rest are defending myself and my view made in that one post.
Apparently that makes me him? shrug.
You seem to see conspiracy everywhere.
Then sit there and contemplate how you aren't as clever as you thought you were ;D
If you checked my post history you'd see I made 1 post supporting his book.
Anyway. I've definitely loved reading some of the links and have ordered some books. For me, it doesn't really matter if Jocks book is fact or fiction, just that it covers a topic I love to read about...
I have to say I also ordered a copy of Mr Burns' book and have spent the last week slowly reading it. While it's certainly a very fantastical setting, it's impossible to really know if it's true or not. I found it a very good read. I think some people here are just pre-judging the book based on their own views on the author rather than the actual content. ;)
For example the constant calling of it as a 'pamphlet' is rather rude really. Granted, It's not the longest book, but I still easily found it value for money.
The world map especially was very nicely done, and interesting to see the route he took around the world. Kudos to him for making it. I'm very tempted to order the 'full version' of the book as the chapter headings seem most intriguing.
I can understand why you might not believe it's true. But if it is or isn't doesn't take away from its entertainment value imho.
I merely state it doesn't bother me if its true or not (how do you know he isn't visited by ghosts?) I still found it a fun read.
...
well you think I'm a 70-odd year old accountant.
The only person here who's said anything about the author's age is you.
Check post 183. Then sit there and contemplate how you aren't as clever as you thought you were ;D
You seem to see conspiracy everywhere.
Then sit there and contemplate how you aren't as clever as you thought you were ;D
Smugness will not avail you. You aren't as good an author as you think you are. You aren't a physicist of any sort. And you certainly aren't as good an actor as you seem to believe.
well you think I'm a 70-odd year old accountant.
The only person here who's said anything about the author's age is you.
Check post 183. Then sit there and contemplate how you aren't as clever as you thought you were ;D
I stand corrected. How fortunate I am that you handled that with so much maturity. [/sarcasm]
Well you caught me. I'm a Software Engineer not a Physicist.
Well you caught me. I'm a Software Engineer not a Physicist.
It simply doesn't matter if they're the same person or not.
What matters is that the "content" of the book is ludicrous, inaccurate, and flat-out impossible.
No evidence has been presented for the book's claims that is independently verifiable.
If a person who isn't the author enjoys reading it, that person is clearly lacking in critical judgement.
If they slowly enjoyed it over the course of a weekend, they're not a very good reader, either.
If they slowly enjoyed it over the course of a weekend, they're not a very good reader, either.
Well you caught me. I'm a Software Engineer not a Physicist.
Well I could test you on that score too, if it were relevant. What is relevant, however, is Neil Burns professed expertise in Quick Basic writing accounting programs -- "Some of those programs are still being used." Nice try at creating a credible alter ego, but it's still too close.
You really are bad at this.
Methinks he doest protest too much!
No user found on an internet forum squirms, wriggles and protests their innocence more than a sock-puppet who has been rumbled!!
Well you caught me. I'm a Software Engineer not a Physicist.
I think you're just another Brit with a severe case of America envy.
Standard.
It simply doesn't matter if they're the same person or not.
no other reason that I chose to disagree with them?
It simply doesn't matter if they're the same person or not.
Ultimately of course it does not, as the book will wind up in the dustbin. Probably mostly remembered or evidenced by this discussion, as long as it remains available.
What is evident though is that the author's and skeptic_uk's styles are remarkably similar in the backhanded way of promoting something purported to be a factual account, yet each of them knows is fully made up and of no intellectual value. They are so similar that it would be difficult to determine if they exchanged accounts. And really, why would anyone expect an author who makes up such obvious junk to have any compunction about using sock puppets to promote himself. Given all this, the best conclusion is that they are the same person. So skeptic_UK if you are truly not Neil Burns, you are cooperating with him in such a way that the difference is trivial.
So you're insulting my literacy skills? That's grown up isn't it. You always know when someone's argument is thin when they start to attack you personally.No one is insulting your literacy, its your comprehension that is in question. You're so busy playing the victim role, and being a sockpuppet apologist for your alter-ego, you fail to understand that you are being questioned on the factual accuracy of the book. No-one here gives a fat rats arse whether or not you found it "entertaining" or thought it was "a good read".
I actually almost became an Accountant too.Tell it to someone who cares.
Excuse me for not liking the fact a bunch of random people call me a liar for no other reason that I chose to disagree with them?No one is calling you a liar because you choose to disagree with them. You are being called a liar because you are a liar. You have been rumbled as the sockpuppet of Neil Burns, and are denying it.
It's sort of cute how you all defend each other though. Mob mentality. 1 guy mentions I'm a sockpuppet and you all jump in with the same disregard for minor things like, I don't know... proof?. You even leave your manners at the door in the rush to judge.One guy mentioned it perhaps, but most of us tumbled to it on August 28 when you posted as your JocknDoris persona about your book (which you actually didn't fess up to writing) less than 48 hours after you, under your skeptic_UK persona, opened the thread.
I wanted to be complimentary about the book as I enjoyed it.
So now I COULD be someone else. Progress at least.If you think so. But no one ever suggested you are not who you are. We simply think you maintain multiple logins on this forum.
I hope youIts good to live in hope, isn't it.
skeptic_UK, I don't give a damn if you're the same person as jockndoris or not. you could be the queen of sheba for all I care. The point that you are so desperately avoiding is that your statement that 'it is impossible to know if it is true or not' is manifestly untrue.
Even leaving aside the question of belief in ghosts, this forum is populated by people who are professional aerospace engineers, people who have actually met neil Armstrong in non-ghost form, and people who are sufficiently familiar with the field to know that the statements made in the book do not in the least tally with any actual facts regarding either aerospace or the person of Neil Armstrong. This has been laid out in detail over several pages on this thread, and you insist on ignoring it. Why?
If you are not in fact another sock puppet, why do you not deal with the substance of those arguments rather than (or even in addition to) wasting everyone's time complaining about your perceived mistreatement?
I wanted to be complimentary about the book as I enjoyed it.
Yes you've said that. Then started to whine about how we discussed and dismissed your reasons for enjoying it. You need no approval from us, but we are here to discuss Apollo and Apollo hoax theories, theorists, believers and assorted uncritical acceptance of the like. Since you voluntarily came here and entered your preference and reasons into the discussion, they have been a topic of discussion.QuoteSo now I COULD be someone else. Progress at least.If you think so. But no one ever suggested you are not who you are. We simply think you maintain multiple logins on this forum.QuoteI hope youIts good to live in hope, isn't it.
Because I don't care? If it bothers you then fair enough. But why should I be bothered by something I don't care about just to satisfy you?
I found the book entertaining. Its factualness is completely irrelevant to that. Not sure how the fact you're a professional aerospace engineer has anything to do with what books or categories I chose to like or believe in.
A number of horror films claim to be 'based on fact'. Do you walk out of the movie the moment that pops up moaning to others that it couldn't possibly be true and they are all sockpuppets to the director?
My gripe is that you claim I couldn't possibly enjoy it
Even someone with basic IT knowledge would know how easy it is to check the IPs of different posters
A number of horror films claim to be 'based on fact'. Do you walk out of the movie the moment that pops up
I am willing to give fiction wide latitude in employing deceptive techniques to achieve literary or entertainment goals. What I do not watch is "documentaries" or "reality" shows like ghost hunting shows that purport to be true and are filmed in a live action style, while the manufacturers of the product hide from direct questioning.
... I also ordered a copy of Mr Burns' book....
...it's impossible to really know if it's true or not.
I think some people here are just pre-judging the book based on their own views on the author rather than the actual content. ;)
The world map especially was very nicely done, and interesting to see the route he took around the world. Kudos to him for making it.
I can understand why you might not believe it's true.
But if it is or isn't doesn't take away from its entertainment value imho.
I am willing to give fiction wide latitude in employing deceptive techniques to achieve literary or entertainment goals. What I do not watch is "documentaries" or "reality" shows like ghost hunting shows that purport to be true and are filmed in a live action style, while the manufacturers of the product hide from direct questioning.
Yes. There is a difference between "Fargo" and "Ghost Hunters".
Because I don't care? If it bothers you then fair enough. But why should I be bothered by something I don't care about just to satisfy you?
Because that is part of the forum rules.
Interestingly, as an aside, the book does not appear able to be purchased anywhere online, so I am very curious as to where you got it from if you are not the author himself.
Not sure how the fact you're a professional aerospace engineer has anything to do with what books or categories I chose to like or believe in.
...why should I be bothered by something I don't care about just to satisfy you?
Don't shout at me. I don't deserve your rudeness.
Why have you ignored the substance of my post?
...why should I be bothered by something I don't care about just to satisfy you?
See my previous post...this is a discussion board, and if you don't want to participate, don't.
I found the book entertaining.
Its factualness is completely irrelevant to that.
Not sure how the fact you're a professional aerospace engineer has anything to do with what books or categories I chose to like or believe in.
A number of horror films claim to be 'based on fact'.
A discussion is not repeatedly claiming I'm a liar, Illiterate, and someone else in disguise, repeatedly and childishly no matter how many times I state otherwise. You're all attacking me and then feigning 'shock and disgust' when I call you all out on it.
Don't shout at me. I don't deserve your rudeness.
Why have you ignored the substance of my post?
You're the 2nd poster who's tried to look clever by trying to somehow 'catch me out' by pointing out something I've posted to proof I'm apparently Jockndoris. Excuse me for finding that a little annoying. Don't get all defensive when I show you up in return.
I accept your apology for insinuating what you did even though you seem to have forgotten to type it out :-*
As for the substance of your post I'm not sure what the point of it is? I indeed asked for some recommendations. Which you kindly all gave. Not sure why you find it so weird that I didn't follow every single one?
You also seem to be criticising ME for the contents of SOMEONE ELSE'S BOOK. Not sure why I should be an apologist for Jockndoris/Neil Burns just because I bought his book.
My gripe is that you claim I couldn't possibly enjoy it, therefore (by some crappy logic) determined I am in fact the author of the book.
Even someone with basic IT knowledge would know how easy it is to check the IPs of different posters and find that I only have 1 login.
The forum rules state that I must be bothered about every forum users opinion on a random book that's linked? I find that highly unlikely.
Because I don't care?
Not sure how the fact you're a professional aerospace engineer has anything to do with what books or categories I chose to like or believe in.
A number of horror films claim to be 'based on fact'. Do you walk out of the movie the moment that pops up moaning to others that it couldn't possibly be true and they are all sockpuppets to the director?
I accept your apology for insinuating what you did even though you seem to have forgotten to type it out :-*
I indeed asked for some recommendations. Which you kindly all gave. Not sure why you find it so weird that I didn't follow every single one?
So you're insulting my literacy skills?
I actually almost became an Accountant too. I guess I should have foreseen this pointless argument and done something else at University. Not sure how whatever Neil Burns does is relevant to who I am but you seem intent on mapping everything I post onto his life no matter how unlikely it seems to fit?
Excuse me for not liking the fact a bunch of random people call me a liar for no other reason that I chose to disagree with them?
A discussion is not repeatedly claiming I'm a liar, Illiterate, and someone else in disguise, repeatedly and childishly no matter how many times I state otherwise. You're all attacking me and then feigning 'shock and disgust' when I call you all out on it.
A discussion is not repeatedly claiming I'm a liar, Illiterate, and someone else in disguise, repeatedly and childishly no matter how many times I state otherwise. You're all attacking me and then feigning 'shock and disgust' when I call you all out on it.
Excuse me for not liking the fact a bunch of random people call me a liar for no other reason that I chose to disagree with them?
And it's such an entertaining story, to imagine an author creating a sock puppet to shill his book that would linger unsold otherwise.
[T]hose in NASA and the aerospace industry don't like having random people call them liars with no evidence either.
Hence "two nines" of reliability (a suitable non-critical standard) is a probability of success p > 0.999 or 99.9%. Three to four nines is more commonplace for a critical component.How many nines is that, again?
Some of the images are missing their credits, having just an opening parenthesis.
How many nines is that, again?
Is this a Ph.D. thesis, or just a paper?
If the former, might the school still have a copy gathering dust in the library?
Excellent job, Jay. You really took him apart point by point.
Also I borrowed your orbit insertion diagram.
Unknown. Burns' meandering description of its genesis is unclear and inconsistent. And maybe too long to post. But at the same time I realize there are important differences in the U.K. higher education system and its terminology. He calls it a "thesis" and insinuates he was given some kind of degree on the basis of it.Probably the third degree if he turned anything like that into a genuine university while in a genuine physics course.
Probably the third degree if he turned anything like that into a genuine university while in a genuine physics course.
Here is my response to Burn's alleged physics thesis, from pp. 11-13 of Haunted by Neil Armstrong.
Here is my response to Burn's alleged physics thesis, from pp. 11-13 of Haunted by Neil Armstrong.
http://www.clavius.org/bibburnsthesis.html
Well done. Some of the images are missing their credits, having just an opening parenthesis. Also, at one point you stateIf the age of 70 is accurate then he was 19 in 63 for the paper. Not impossible for a thesis but unlikely.QuoteHence "two nines" of reliability (a suitable non-critical standard) is a probability of success p > 0.999 or 99.9%. Three to four nines is more commonplace for a critical component.How many nines is that, again?
Is this a Ph.D. thesis, or just a paper? If the former, might the school still have a copy gathering dust in the library?
Fred
Here is my response to Burn's alleged physics thesis, from pp. 11-13 of Haunted by Neil Armstrong.
http://www.clavius.org/bibburnsthesis.html
None of these claims rests on a supernatural premise. It is his recollection of a paper he wrote in 1963 for a physics degree, and which he still stands by as evidence the Moon landings must have been hoaxed because they were supposedly impossible.
A discussion is not repeatedly claiming I'm a liar, Illiterate, and someone else in disguise, repeatedly and childishly no matter how many times I state otherwise. You're all attacking me and then feigning 'shock and disgust' when I call you all out on it.
Go back and read the first few pages of this thread where you were given a warm welcome, some friendly advice, references to materials you asked for -- even though we disagree with them -- and a promise for further help. Can you explain why, after reading those initial posts, you would think that the accuracy and historical validity of books on this subject would not be the principal topic of discussion?
Things deteriorated only when your behavior became suspicious, for the reasons given. Rather than address those reasons, you respond only with rapidly increasing indignation and by digging in your heels over your right to advocate in this forum any way you feel like it.
...why should I be bothered by something I don't care about just to satisfy you?
See my previous post...this is a discussion board, and if you don't want to participate, don't.
Here is my response to Burn's alleged physics thesis, from pp. 11-13 of Haunted by Neil Armstrong.
http://www.clavius.org/bibburnsthesis.html
None of these claims rests on a supernatural premise. It is his recollection of a paper he wrote in 1963 for a physics degree, and which he still stands by as evidence the Moon landings must have been hoaxed because they were supposedly impossible.
JayUtay
Thank you very much for sending your comments on the Burns thesis to the Clavius website.
This must have been most satisfying - Well worth a read although I only skimmed the 17 pages. I am sure the experts there will all be most interested and probably want to buy the book to see the real thing!!
Jockndoris
Here is my response to Burn's alleged physics thesis, from pp. 11-13 of Haunted by Neil Armstrong.
The funniest part for me is this:
"Coming up with a plan that everyone can get behind is hugely difficult."
That's pretty much what all accountants, following their country's version of "Generally accepted accounting principles" do, isn't it?
Thank you very much for sending your comments on the Burns thesis to the Clavius website.
This must have been most satisfying - Well worth a read although I only skimmed the 17 pages.
I am sure the experts there will all be most interested and probably want to buy the book to see the real thing!!
Here is my response to Burn's alleged physics thesis, from pp. 11-13 of Haunted by Neil Armstrong.
http://www.clavius.org/bibburnsthesis.html
I see you have been having a rare old spat with skeptic_UK , while I was playing golf yesterday (not this time with astronauts but in a seniors’ match highly contested as always). I have been keeping a tally on the points scored between you and it seems to me to be about even stevens at the moment.
Really impressive. Do you never sleep? :-)
Did you claim in your book to be writing programs in QuickBasic around the time Apollo 11 landed on the moon?
Why didn't you mention anything about your 1963 physics thesis in any of the posts you made on this board two years ago?
I don't know why this point popped into my head particularly, but with that business about 'passing something between moving cars' (my paraphrasing) being impossible in Burns' mind... does he not believe in aircraft being refuelled in flight then? Such a thing was done quite commonly by the time he claims to have produced his essay, so why would he be so sure that such and similar procedures were impossible?
A two-hour essay of twenty points made up out of your head is not a "thesis" nor something you would be awarded a degree solely on the basis of.
Which university does he claim to have attended?
If it's not ~80,000 words long and based on original research, it's not a "thesis" for which a degree would be awarded here in the UK.
It sounds more like a poorly-written essay, which he may or may not have actually written and submitted as part of coursework towards a BSc. In that case, the university would not still have a copy.
I was delighted to get entrance to the University of my choice: St Andrews.
I went there in 1960 and spent the happiest years of my life attending lectures during the day and playing golf on the finest golf courses in the world.
In my final year of my BSc degree we heard that President Kennedy of American had challenged his fellow countrymen to send a man to the Moon and return him safely to the Earth by the end of the decade. ...[here an irrelevant paragraph bragging about an athletic challenge]
As a final thesis for my Physics degree we were challenged by the legendary Professor Allen to write a paper entitled: Most difficult problems the Americans have to solve if they are to put a man on the Moon as challenged by their President.
I threw myself into this and wrote a good paper, which got me a good degree, and, again only because Modesty is my middle name, I will not tell you how good it was.
You are free to read it now, or got to the next chapter if you wish.
Suffice it to say the Professor gave me 17 ticks out fo 20. He had a reputation for never giving full marks so I was kind of pleased with my 17.
Did you claim in your book to be writing programs in QuickBasic around the time Apollo 11 landed on the moon?
Yes, he does.
From p. 16, "Being interested enough to write my own programmes in Quick Basic, I became Chief Accountant and Company Secretary and had a fine office in Maitland and an even finer car." He goes on at length about the car. Then some tedious details about accounting practice. Then two-thirds down the page: "It was during this time early in 1969 that I was sent by my company ... to study their computer and accounting systems." (emphasis added)
I guess he must have time travelled to the 1980s and brought back a copy of Microsoft QuickBasic and an IBM PC to run it on. Burns is something isn't he?
I guess he must have time travelled to the 1980s and brought back a copy of Microsoft QuickBasic and an IBM PC to run it on. Burns is something isn't he?
Yes, he is. The non-supernatural claims are easily-detected lies too. I didn't examine too closely the plodding middle chapters of the book because they had nothing to do with Neil Armstrong or Apollo. But that's where those programming claims come from. I'm betting now if I scrutinized those chapters as closely as the others, I could probably guarantee that the book had at least two provable lies on every page.
As another point against him, any version of BASIC was an odd choice for business aps in the mainframe era. COBOL was the preferred programming language for business. Assembly would have been used when program size or execution speed was a concern.
Funny how Jockndoris reappears just as Skeptic_UK disappears...
Perhaps, Skeptic_UK will return to tell about this programming language for mainframes in the 1960s which coincidentally shared the same name as a later Microsoft version of BASIC. It was fairly obscure and probably not used outside the UK which is why none of us have heard about it or can find any mention of it on the internet.
Funny how Jockndoris reappears just as Skeptic_UK disappears...
I have to agree with my colleague: are you seriously this delusional, or is this just some act? No one wants your book, Burns. It's nothing but lies, and you know it.
Funny how Jockndoris reappears just as Skeptic_UK disappears...
Funny how Jockndoris reappears just as Skeptic_UK disappears...
...and heads straight over to give him a pat on the back. Those two make such a cute couple.
Funny how Jockndoris reappears just as Skeptic_UK disappears...
Perhaps, Skeptic_UK will return to tell about this programming language for mainframes in the 1960s which coincidentally shared the same name as a later Microsoft version of BASIC. It was fairly obscure and probably not used outside the UK which is why none of us have heard about it or can find any mention of it on the internet.
I got bored of the circular arguments you had me going in and took a break. To somehow imply (If I were, Jockndoris) that I couldn't somehow switch between accounts to post but have to only use one at a time for extended periods is rather stupid.
... I'm fully aware we've moved past debate and are now into out and out trolling.
Most of my programming experience is in the VB.Net language with a little dabbling in Java/C++/C#. FYI. Not that you care as I'm fully aware we've moved past debate and are now into out and out trolling.
Or, if he claims that his brilliant work was being suppressed, it would be given a failing mark.
RAF
Do I infer from your user name that you may be part of the military in the UK ?
If so please send me an snailmail address by email and I will send you a complimentary copy of the book for you to enjoy .
Jockndoris
I don't know why this point popped into my head particularly, but with that business about 'passing something between moving cars' (my paraphrasing) being impossible in Burns' mind... does he not believe in aircraft being refuelled in flight then? Such a thing was done quite commonly by the time he claims to have produced his essay, so why would he be so sure that such and similar procedures were impossible?
Heck, both Dr. Strangelove and The Starfighters came out right around then, and both feature plenty of footage of jets refueling. In one of them, the implied eroticism is even deliberate!
I was delighted to get entrance to the University of my choice: St Andrews.
I went there in 1960 and spent the happiest years of my life attending lectures during the day and playing golf on the finest golf courses in the world.
In my final year of my BSc degree we heard that President Kennedy of American had challenged his fellow countrymen to send a man to the Moon and return him safely to the Earth by the end of the decade. ...
As a final thesis for my Physics degree we were challenged by the legendary Professor Allen to write a paper entitled: Most difficult problems the Americans have to solve if they are to put a man on the Moon as challenged by their President.
Suffice it to say the Professor gave me 17 ticks out fo 20. He had a reputation for never giving full marks so I was kind of pleased with my 17.
Most of my programming experience is in the VB.Net language with a little dabbling in Java/C++/C#. FYI. Not that you care as I'm fully aware we've moved past debate and are now into out and out trolling.
I got bored of the circular arguments you had me going in and took a break. To somehow imply (If I were, Jockndoris) that I couldn't somehow switch between accounts to post but have to only use one at a time for extended periods is rather stupid.
What a very predictable reappearance.
Jay,
s/higest/highest/
s/practioner/practitioner/
s/dependance/dependence/
s/surfiace/surface/
s/manuever/maneuver/
s/cosntant/constant/
s/autonously/autonomously/
s/negligble/negligible/
s/offten/often/
s/expresed/expressed/
*facepalms*
*facepalms*
So I gave you two posts: one substantive and the other flippant. You chose the flippant one to respond to, and you responded to no other posts from anybody else -- including some that ask you pertinent questions. Please explain again how the breakdown in debate is everyone else's fault.
If you don't care about the factual accuracy of the book, then why are you here? It has been explained to you that practically all other of your lines of advocacy are irrelevant. And returning over and over simply to berate other people doesn't really put you on high ground.
Do you still maintain that it is not possible to determine whether the book is factual?
If you care whether or not it is factual, do you have any comment on this: http://www.clavius.org/bibburnsthesis.html
That would be my question, too. Does skeptic_UK have anything to discuss in anything resembling depth, particularly anything that might be interesting to other members of the forum? Whether skeptic_UK "likes" a book or doesn't "like" a book is a question that leaves me cold. How about specifics?
I have no idea if he's visited by ghosts or not. Nor do I care.
While you may be bothered by the technical aspects of 'hoax' literature (which is perfectly fine) I am not.
*facepalms*
So I gave you two posts: one substantive and the other flippant. You chose the flippant one to respond to, and you responded to no other posts from anybody else -- including some that ask you pertinent questions. Please explain again how the breakdown in debate is everyone else's fault.
If you don't care about the factual accuracy of the book, then why are you here? It has been explained to you that practically all other of your lines of advocacy are irrelevant. And returning over and over simply to berate other people doesn't really put you on high ground.
Do you still maintain that it is not possible to determine whether the book is factual?
If you care whether or not it is factual, do you have any comment on this: http://www.clavius.org/bibburnsthesis.html
I have no idea if he's visited by ghosts or not. Nor do I care. The only reason I continue to mention his book is because you keep asking the same questions over and over. Just because I don't give the answer you prefer seems to mean I don't give any answer at all. Your 1990's era website is cute but not my style thanks. While you may be bothered by the technical aspects of 'hoax' literature (which is perfectly fine) I am not.
I have no idea if he's visited by ghosts or not. Nor do I care. The only reason I continue to mention his book is because you keep asking the same questions over and over.
Just because I don't give the answer you prefer seems to mean I don't give any answer at all.
Your 1990's era website is cute but not my style thanks.
While you may be bothered by the technical aspects of 'hoax' literature (which is perfectly fine) I am not.
But did he say "offten" frequently or only once?
...
I'm telling a terrible story, but it doesn't diminish my glory;
I have no idea if he's visited by ghosts or not. Nor do I care.
Just because I don't give the answer you prefer seems to mean I don't give any answer at all.
Your 1990's era website is cute but not my style thanks.
While you may be bothered by the technical aspects of 'hoax' literature (which is perfectly fine) I am not.
Thank you very much for sending your comments on the Burns thesis to the Clavius website.
This must have been most satisfying - Well worth a read although I only skimmed the 17 pages. I am sure the experts there will all be most interested and probably want to buy the book to see the real thing!!
To somehow imply (If I were, Jockndoris) that I couldn't somehow switch between accounts to post but have to only use one at a time for extended periods is rather stupid.
To somehow imply (If I were, Jockndoris) that I couldn't somehow switch between accounts to post but have to only use one at a time for extended periods is rather stupid.
You've obviously devoted a lot of thought to the inner workings of sockpuppetry.
Especially when their only 'proof' of the matter is that they cannot comprehend how I could like a piece of work unless I was somehow also it's author.Not a piece of work. This piece of work.
Especially when their only 'proof' of the matter is that they cannot comprehend how I could like a piece of work unless I was somehow also it's author.
Just because I don't give the answer you prefer seems to mean I don't give any answer at all.
I have no idea if he's visited by ghosts or not. Nor do I care.
Those aren't the allegations of fact that concern us. He alleges he saw the Apollo astronauts on Earth when they were supposed to be on the Moon. He alleges the physics department of a major university blessed his pseudo-technical claims that Apollo couldn't happen. He may invoke ghosts, leprechauns, the Easter Bunny, or any other fundamentally untestable form of proof he wants to support those claims -- they would be rejected equally as all untestable. Even granting for the sake of argument that his supernatural claims are true, it still does not explain the vast mountain of evidence contesting his claims.
Burns seems to say -- and you agree -- "If you don't believe in ghosts, then there's no way to tell whether my claims are true." On the contrary it is possible to tell. Simply invoking ghosts doesn't create a scenario where proof rests solely on one thing.QuoteJust because I don't give the answer you prefer seems to mean I don't give any answer at all.
The big question on the table is whether you still claim it is impossible to determine whether the claims made in the book are true. Point to where you answered that question in any way.
You seem to want to direct the debate always in directions that aren't pertinent to this forum. It doesn't matter how many other questions you pose yourself and answer if you can't address the pertinent ones.QuoteYour 1990's era website is cute but not my style thanks.
So you note only your disapproval of its appearance and ignore its content. How is that a reasonable judgment? I noticed you didn't seem to be taken aback by the rudimentary jockndoris.co.uk web site or the crude production values in Haunted by Neil Armstrong.
My "cute" website indeed started in 1999 and I have had little need to update its appearance. It also happens to be the most widely read and widely linked web site on the subject available on the web. It was reviewed as the best science-oriented web site of the month in the journal Science in 2007. On the basis of its content I have contributed worldwide to television programs, books, articles, and radio programs.
So by all means keep trying to sweep it away on flimsy grounds. See how credible that makes you.QuoteWhile you may be bothered by the technical aspects of 'hoax' literature (which is perfectly fine) I am not.
Then you're in the wrong forum. And since you've been told many times that you're in the wrong forum, I have to keep asking what you think you're going to accomplish here.
The big question on the table is whether you still claim it is impossible to determine whether the claims made in the book are true. Point to where you answered that question in any way.
Just because I don't give the answer you prefer seems to mean I don't give any answer at all.
I do not suffer fools at all...you can leave at any time.
Especially when their only 'proof' of the matter is that they cannot comprehend how I could like a piece of work unless I was somehow also it's author.
I, personally, can not comprehend how you could believe such idiotic "work".
I made one post stating that I liked the book and why.
I care that you sprout BS and lies about me.
Just because I don't give the answer you prefer seems to mean I don't give any answer at all.
I do not suffer fools at all...you can leave at any time.
If that statement is indeed true, maybe you're the one who should think about leaving.
Not sure how your lack of comprehension is relevant.
Almost every mention of the book in this thread has been by you.
You even went out of your way to find the guys website...
...and publicise it. Which you continue to do by posting the link on your own website.
I made one post stating that I liked the book and why. Everything else has been in reply to people attacking that view or myself personally.
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.
http://www.clavius.org/Rene-NASA-Mooned-America.pdf , if you must.
I've read some of it. What I've seen so far is unexpectedly well-written. He must have had a good editor, because it is head and shoulders above the writing he demonstrated on his web page.
http://www.clavius.org/Rene-NASA-Mooned-America.pdf , if you must.
http://www.clavius.org/Rene-NASA-Mooned-America.pdf , if you must.
This book is magnificent. It has nearly 200 pages all of them containing major discrepancies found in the so called Moon Landings which NASA have never explained. Why they don't just admit it was a Hoax as there is no doubt after reading this book that it was. I am going to send Rene a copy of my book to see what he makes of it Jockndoris
You obviously don’t know that there is a book published just recently in the UK called Haunted by Neil Armstrong by Neil Burns. Google should find it for you.
It claims that the astronaut played golf in Honolulu near Pearl Harbour on the very day he was supposed to be on the Moon in 1969! It’s not available in the USA so I don’t think you could get a copy. If it’s true of course it might be the proof everybody has been waiting for.
I guess it has to be said.
Rene is dead.
Phil
...which NASA have never explained.
http://www.clavius.org/Rene-NASA-Mooned-America.pdf , if you must.
This book is magnificent. It has nearly 200 pages all of them containing major discrepancies found in the so called Moon Landings which NASA have never explained. Why they don't just admit it was a Hoax as there is no doubt after reading this book that it was. I am going to send Rene a copy of my book to see what he makes of it Jockndoris
Given that Jockndoris claims to have long conversations with ghosts, I don't suppose Rene's death poses an issue for him.
Do you think Rene or Kaysing's ghost was impersonating Armstrong? What steps did he use to verify that the ghost in question actually was Neil Armstrong?
...all of them containing major discrepancies...
...which NASA have never explained.
Why they don't just admit it was a Hoax as there is no doubt after reading this book that it was.
I am going to send Rene a copy of my book to see what he makes of it Jockndoris
NASA typically doesn't respond to hoax claims. The claims are so ludicrous that they don't warrant a reaction from them. Others, however, have completely debunked all of Ralph Rene's nonsense.
Aaaand seeing as Jock isn't responding yet, let's pick out the first mistake I could be bothered to pay attention to in Rene's meisterwerk.
He claims AS12-49-7278 does not show Conrad to have a camera in Alan Bean's visor reflection of him.
See how this works? Ralph Rene lied in his book in the first few pages...
We can keep going this going as long as want, but I'd back away and play to your more natural audience of gullible idiots instead.
From that familiarity I can tell you exactly how Rene would have responded to you book: he would have accused you of stealing his ideas and then ranted about how you're taking his business away from him. That's pretty much how Rene responded to any hoax claimant that wasn't him.
So isn't that another claim from a certain young man from the Antipodes that fails to hold up to scrutiny, then? Doesn't he consider himself in intellectual descent from Rene (for a given definition of "intellectual," of course!) despite the fact that Rene clearly would have hated him, too?
This isn't Jock's first hoax thread (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=192.msg6124#msg6124).
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. JockndorisDo you think Rene or Kaysing's ghost was impersonating Armstrong? What steps did he use to verify that the ghost in question actually was Neil Armstrong?
He was wearing Armstrong's pants. No, really.
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
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
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!
Obvious troll is obvious.
That species of Antipodeus Wrecks would have been perfectly okay, because he did the proper thing by worshiping Rene.
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.
Jockndoris, why not prove yourself as the superb researcher who should be taken seriously, by, instead of Gish Galloping...
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...
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. ::)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Then I'm called whining for defending myself from those attacks? lovely.
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.
For the one statement you disagree with me on?
Four in Scotland, I think: something to do with their "Higher" school qualification taking 1 year to the England & Wales A-levels 2...OT
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.
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.
I've engaged the subject of the thread plenty.
Then I'm called whining for defending myself from those attacks? lovely.
I've engaged the subject of the thread plenty.
I've always had a passing interest in the moon hoax and do believe it was faked myself.
Why?
I'd love to read more on the subject though bar what websites have to offer.Yet you have latched solely on to a wretched piece of fiction. Why?
Are there any decent books out there which cover the hoax, attempts to debunk the hoax theory or even fiction based on the moon hoax conspiracy.
Sounds interesting! Will look it up. Thanks.Why the immediate interest in this piece of nonsense when there had been many other recommendations before Burns suddenly re-found this forum after a 2 year absence?
Anyway. I've definitely loved reading some of the links and have ordered some books.Which ones? How come you have only given a mini-review of some trash and not a peep about the other books? Mind you, if it took you a week to read 60 pages of large print then you are probably still wrestling with the prologue of any book that contains the merest whiff of content...
It is also, interesting, Jockndoris, that you have here someone who claims to genuinely like your book but you have not said a word to him
...all of them containing major discrepancies...
The people at Clavius, whom you admit are experts, proved how incapable you were of identifying discrepancies in an aerospace engineering project.Quote...which NASA have never explained.
The explanation is Rene's case is the same as the explanation in your case -- neither one of you knows the first thing about space engineering. All his claims are based on assumptions and misconceptions. Yours too -- you lied through your teeth about getting a physics degree at St Andrews, and no ghost can save you from that fraud.
JayUtah
I am happy to give you all positive proof of my University of St Andrews Batchelor of Science degree to which I was admitted in 1963. I attach this link where any of you can find it. It shows a scan taken today of the actual Certificate which I have hung proudly on the wall of every office I have occupied over a 50 year period.
http://i.imgur.com/OgfS8Tt.jpg
Once you have seen the Certificate I expect an abject apology from you for your unnecessary rudeness in calling me a liar. This was totally unjustified like many of your other jibes on this Forum which seem all you are capable of doing these days.
Jockndoris
It shows a scan taken today of the actual Certificate which I have hung proudly on the wall of every office I have occupied over a 50 year period.
Once you have seen the Certificate I expect an abject apology from you for your unnecessary rudeness in calling me a liar.
You know, I'm considering asking a friend who graduated from St. Andrew's a little over a decade ago to show me her diploma. I bet it doesn't look anything like that.
Jockndoris, why does that certificate, that you say has been hung proudly on the wall for 50 years, look like it's been folded up and crumpled? Why does it have a mark in the upper right that looks like someone has either written on it or written on a sheet of paper with the certificate underneath? Why does it loook like a poor photocopy? Even in 1963 a degree certificate might be expected to be provided on good quality paper, and if you've had it framed on display for 50 years it should still be in good condition.
Also, as Andromeda says, you claim to have obtained a physics degree, yet I can see no mention of the word 'physics' anywhere on that certificate...
...nor any classification. Was it first class? Second class? With honours?
Finally, you are still very naive if you think anyone here believes you were granted a degree based on an essay marked '17 ticks out of 20'. Since Kennedy's speech was made in May 1961, you would have been in the last term of the first year of your degree course, so even if we accept you were given an assignment relating to it, it wouldn't have been in the final year. And you certainly wouldn't have been awarded a degree based on an essay that includes not one single bit of actual physics in it.
An actual diploma must have certain signatures and seals, which this letter lacks.
For the benefit of those of us unfamiliar with these distinctions, would you please explain what would be expected on such a certificate?
I find it entirely plausible that he attended at least one physics lecture at St. Andrews, and that it may have been taught by Prof. John Allen. I find it somewhat plausible that, as a 19-year-old student in 1961 would have been given a classroom assignment to discuss Kennedy's challenge, and that his recollection of what he wrote was somewhat accurate.
I think there was also a clear question up in the air about whether misattributing Kepler's work to A.C. Clarke and then getting it all wrong yourself would earn one a physics degree from St. Andrews.
The question was not "Can you produce a picture of a degree" but "Can you explain how the work you've demonstrated qualified you for a degree?"
If he first matriculated in 1960 then a baccalaureate in 1963 is entirely plausible.
Who was it who said England and America were divided by a common language? :)
Just to confuse the issue further...
On this point I must retract the original question. In Scotland a three year degree course would be awarded as an 'ordinary degree', with no honours classifications such as I enquired about.
...nor in fact got a high mark if it was supposed to be a scientific essay rather than a general discussion of the challenges of landing a man on the Moon.
And just to confuse matters further, over here a baccalaureate is another qualification in its own right. What Burns claims to have is a Batchelor of Science degree, abbreviated to BSc.
A version of it appeared the The Canterville Ghost by Oscar Wilde (1887).
And just to confuse matters further, over here a baccalaureate is another qualification in its own right. What Burns claims to have is a Batchelor of Science degree, abbreviated to BSc.
And just to confuse matters further, over here a baccalaureate is another qualification in its own right. What Burns claims to have is a Batchelor of Science degree, abbreviated to BSc.
We'll stick with that, then. As I said, I can speak with great confidence on the subject of American higher education. But not the U.K. system and terminology. This is why I ask about the precise meanings of "thesis" and "degree" as they would apply to Burns' claims.
I'll throw something else into the mix, namely that Professor John Allen was Chair of Natural Philosophy at the time Mr Burns was there. It is a somewhat archaic term for what might be called Natural Sciences.
JayUtah
You must feel desperately threatened to react so violently...
...and the collapse of your Apollo theories must be just round the corner !
And just to confuse matters further, over here a baccalaureate is another qualification in its own right. What Burns claims to have is a Batchelor of Science degree, abbreviated to BSc.
We'll stick with that, then. As I said, I can speak with great confidence on the subject of American higher education. But not the U.K. system and terminology. This is why I ask about the precise meanings of "thesis" and "degree" as they would apply to Burns' claims.
JayUtah
What tremendous value for money !
I post one scan of my 50 year old certificate which is absolutely genuine and it puts a dozen of you into a complete panic criticising just about everything in sight including the actual paper used! You must feel desperately threatened to react so violently and the collapse of your Apollo theories must be just round the corner ! Jockndoris
It is a somewhat archaic term for what might be called Natural Sciences, of which Physics is a branch. [...]
Natural Philosophy is listed on Mr Burns' degree certificate.
I'll make it clear that I didn't call Mr Burns a liar over his academic career. I called him a liar over the content of his book.
Words that Burns does not appear to know the definition of:And just to confuse matters further, over here a baccalaureate is another qualification in its own right. What Burns claims to have is a Batchelor of Science degree, abbreviated to BSc.
We'll stick with that, then. As I said, I can speak with great confidence on the subject of American higher education. But not the U.K. system and terminology. This is why I ask about the precise meanings of "thesis" and "degree" as they would apply to Burns' claims.
JayUtah
What tremendous value for money !
I post one scan of my 50 year old certificate which is absolutely genuine and it puts a dozen of you into a complete panic criticising just about everything in sight including the actual paper used! You must feel desperately threatened to react so violently and the collapse of your Apollo theories must be just round the corner ! Jockndoris
I post one scan of my 50 year old certificate which is absolutely genuine and it puts a dozen of you into a complete panic criticising just about everything in sight including the actual paper used! You must feel desperately threatened to react so violently and the collapse of your Apollo theories must be just round the corner !
I post one scan of my 50 year old certificate which is absolutely genuine and it puts a dozen of you into a complete panic criticising just about everything in sight including the actual paper used!
You must feel desperately threatened to react so violently and the collapse of your Apollo theories must be just round the corner !
Who was it who said England and America were divided by a common language? :)
A version of it appeared the The Canterville Ghost by Oscar Wilde (1887).
Having said that, I can totally understand why people made that assumption.
...I will allow it as long as he responds to questions.
JayUtah
What tremendous value for money !
He hasn't ignored Skeptic_UK entirely: remember Burns said the score in the debate between Skeptic_UK and me (not between Skeptic_UK and, well, the rest of the forum) was about even.
In an American university, every baccalaureate must show a certain small proficiency in the natural sciences, such as in chemistry, astronomy, or physics.
I was referring more to the fact that he's never addressed Skeptic_UK directly. Of course that's no proof of anything - it just seems odd...
I've taken the liberty of making a side-by-side with an example from 1970.
I'm not content with second-guessing. I've taken the liberty of sending the image to the St Andrews registrar. I've also taken the liberty of sending facsimiles of the relevant pages from Burns' book to Professor Allen. The latter I think will be eminently more informative.
I was referring more to the fact that he's never addressed Skeptic_UK directly. Of course that's no proof of anything - it just seems odd...
Much about this conversation seems odd. Why is it that it's so difficult to get a straightforward discussion from hoax advocates?
I'm not content with second-guessing. I've taken the liberty of sending the image to the St Andrews registrar. I've also taken the liberty of sending facsimiles of the relevant pages from Burns' book to Professor Allen. The latter I think will be eminently more informative.
Maybe you should get JocknDoris to ask:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1328868/Professor-John-F-Allen.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1328868/Professor-John-F-Allen.html)
That one refers to John F Allen (which is the one I referred to in my post earlier), however John W Allen is still alive and kicking:
https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/graduation/laureationaddresses/archive/june2010/johnallen/ (https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/graduation/laureationaddresses/archive/june2010/johnallen/)
What are the odds!?
Also, when do you intend to defend your claims about Mars (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=177.msg5707#msg5707)?
Jockndoris, do you ever actually intend to answer a single question that has been put to you?
Kindly stop before you make a complete fool of yourself.
you're touting a book that makes an obviously false - ludicrously so - claim; why should I pay any attention to it?
Maybe you should get JocknDoris to ask:There's also a Prof John E Allen at Kingston University, an aerodynamicist and, in an earlier life, Head of Future Projects with Hawker-Siddeley, who is well qualified to comment on Burns paper (not to be confused with the Prof John E Allen at Oxford University, who is a mathematician).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1328868/Professor-John-F-Allen.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1328868/Professor-John-F-Allen.html)
That one refers to John F Allen (which is the one I referred to in my post earlier), however John W Allen is still alive and kicking:
https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/graduation/laureationaddresses/archive/june2010/johnallen/ (https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/graduation/laureationaddresses/archive/june2010/johnallen/)
What are the odds!?
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.
He was born in 1908 and died in 2001.
This is another ridiculous red herring where you have been shown to be wrong.
Kindly stop before you make a complete fool of yourself.
Nor does the fact that some members here have chosen to pay attention to...
This is ostensibly to say there is no living soul who can confirm your claim that the thesis you reproduce in your book merited a Physics degree from a major university.
But it's just not relevant to the original discussion. It wouldn't matter in the least even if Mr. Burns had a doctorate from MIT and we're playing into his hands by arguing about his degree rather than his abysmal writing.
During my engineering career I interviewed hundreds of job candidates. I quickly learned to pretty much ignore the candidate's university and even grades...
I also never saw much point in asking formal quiz questions...
On this basis there's no question that Mr Burns is trying to bullshit us; his degree, if any, is irrelevant.
Well this is the most embarrassing thing to come out of the UK since yesterday.
If the "thesis" is what was reproduced on Clavius, it may well have been an undergraduate essay at St. Andrew's. However, with no calculations, just qualitative terms, it provides no proof...
This is where Jay dismantles it:
http://www.clavius.org/bibburnsthesis.html
Devil's advocate:
Given that the Gemini/Apollo program was in its early days when it was written, how much could a Physics professor be reasonably expected to know about it - what position would he have been in, without the benefit of our 20/20 hindsight, to judge what was correct or not?
How many of the marks were for reasonable suggestions rather than factual correctness?
Devil's advocate:
Given that the Gemini/Apollo program was in its early days when it was written, how much could a Physics professor be reasonably expected to know about it - what position would he have been in, without the benefit of our 20/20 hindsight, to judge what was correct or not?
How many of the marks were for reasonable suggestions rather than factual correctness?
Yes it certainly is a coincidence
I studied under Professor John Allen from 1960 to1963. He was Professor of Physics from 1947 to 1978.
Yes it certainly is a coincidence
I studied under Professor John Allen from 1960 to1963. He was Professor of Physics from 1947 to 1978.
Thank you for sending a free copy of your book. I will read it tonight.
Mr. Burns, if I ask you some questions about your book in a non-confrontational manner, will you agree to answer them honestly and candidly?
Most certainly yes...
Thank you for sending a free copy of your book. I will read it tonight.
Mr. Burns, if I ask you some questions about your book in a non-confrontational manner, will you agree to answer them honestly and candidly?
Most certainly yes look forward to receiving them Jockndoris
Based on that and subsequent discussions, I'll withdraw the insinuation that they are the same person.
Glad to know I officially exist now and not just a figment of someone's imagination. Talk about having an existential crisis...
What happened to all the amateur CSI-ing of my posts that proved otherwise? guess we'll just conveniently forget about that eh? :P
Based on that and subsequent discussions, I'll withdraw the insinuation that they are the same person.
Glad to know I officially exist now and not just a figment of someone's imagination. Talk about having an existential crisis...
What happened to all the amateur CSI-ing of my posts that proved otherwise? guess we'll just conveniently forget about that eh? :P
you could always try not being a whinging Pom, not nursing your alleged grievance, and instead answering some of the questions that have been repeatedly put to you over the several pages of this thread, which so far, you have steadfastly refused to answer!!
What happened to all the amateur CSI-ing of my posts that proved otherwise? guess we'll just conveniently forget about that eh? :P
... I'm fully aware we've moved past debate and are now into out and out trolling.
I've (and others) have asked you NUMEROUS times to provide some sort of reasoning that would explain WHY you believe the garbage presented in this "book".
I believe you incapable of doing that, and the more you "dodge" these questions, the more you re-enforce that belief.
As I previously posted...if you don't want to engage in debate, then don't.
Glad to know I officially exist now and not just a figment of someone's imagination. Talk about having an existential crisis...
What happened to all the amateur CSI-ing of my posts that proved otherwise? guess we'll just conveniently forget about that eh? :P
I repeatedly said it didn't matter and I didn't care, and my questions get ignored, too.What happened to all the amateur CSI-ing of my posts that proved otherwise? guess we'll just conveniently forget about that eh? :P
Since "I", personally, had nothing to do with any of that, what is your excuse for not answering my questions?
Glad to know I officially exist now and not just a figment of someone's imagination. Talk about having an existential crisis...
What happened to all the amateur CSI-ing of my posts that proved otherwise? guess we'll just conveniently forget about that eh? :P
I repeatedly said it didn't matter and I didn't care, and my questions get ignored, too.
I'm American, so I'm not sure what it means to be a "whinging Pom." It doesn't sound complimentary, but I wager it's accurate.
I'm American, so I'm not sure what it means to be a "whinging Pom." It doesn't sound complimentary, but I wager it's accurate.
It's a slur against the British.
Please, let's not do that - there have been a couple of similar comments on this thread and it is quite annoying.
Excellent. I'll start with these three so as not to overwhelm you.
- [...] Stated another way, how many of your stated conclusions were supported by proven competence within these specific fields of study, and do you still hold to them?
- You mention Arthur C. Clarke as one source when referring to orbital equations in your paper, crediting him with "working out the theory". Were his written works central in your research?
- [...] How do you reconcile his stated need for secrecy, with your earlier account of playing golf in full view of other witnesses, and flying with him and other passengers in an airliner on July 20th, 1969?
From the Urban Dictionary: Pom
Either comes from 'prisoner of mother England' or pomigranite - a reddish coloured fruit that native Australians (Aboriginals) thought had a similar colour to the skin of sunburnt Brits.
Not meant to be an insult (as some English think for some reason), merely a nickname for our less-tanned former rulers. Nicknaming everything is very Australian.
To be taken with some amount and variety of salt.
Thank you for sending a free copy of your book. I will read it tonight.
Mr. Burns, if I ask you some questions about your book in a non-confrontational manner, will you agree to answer them honestly and candidly?
Most certainly yes look forward to receiving them Jockndoris
Excellent. I'll start with these three so as not to overwhelm you.
Three good questions and I am working on all three answers and want to do them justice so please be patient jockndoris
- You mention Arthur C. Clarke as one source when referring to orbital equations in your paper, crediting him with "working out the theory". Were his written works central in your research?
Lets start with my reply to your Arthur C Clarke question
Arthur C Clarke
Yes Arthur C Clarke was a well known science fiction writer with a vivid imagination and I read many of his books as a boy. I always knew that his stories were based on fiction / fantasy so we all thought his paper on creating a so-called stationary satellite was also fantasy.
I was amazed to learn that he had a serious side to his work when he announced he had worked out that it was possible to have an object in so called stationary orbit.
Please note that my degree was in Mathematics as well as Physics.
We studied Clarke’s equations in our Mathematics classes as well and of course they were proven to be correct in theory. He explained how it was possible to have the object in orbit round the earth apparently remaining in the same spot because it was travelling round the centre at exactly the same speed as the earth. Of course we didn’t have the technology then to test out his theory for quite some time. Jockndoris
Thank you in advance for your answers to these questions. As a chartered accountant of some merit, I trust your integrity will compel you to answer in the manner promised.
Please note that my degree was in Mathematics as well as Physics.[/b]
I always knew that his stories were based on fiction / fantasy so we all thought his paper on creating a so-called stationary satellite was also fantasy.
We studied Clarke’s equations in our Mathematics classes as well and of course they were proven to be correct in theory.
He explained how it was possible to have the object in orbit round the earth apparently remaining in the same spot because it was travelling round the centre at exactly the same speed as the earth.
Of course we didn’t have the technology then to test out his theory for quite some time. Jockndoris
He explained how it was possible to have the object in orbit round the earth apparently remaining in the same spot because it was travelling round the centre at exactly the same speed as the earth. Of course we didn’t have the technology then to test out his theory for quite some time. Jockndoris
He explained how it was possible to have the object in orbit round the earth apparently remaining in the same spot because it was travelling round the centre at exactly the same speed as the earth. Of course we didn’t have the technology then to test out his theory for quite some time. Jockndoris
Syncom-3 was launched in 1964. In 1961 alone, between the Soviet Union and the US there were 50 launches, most into Low Earth Orbit, but two achieved High Earth Orbit (well above geosyncronous height) and one was heliocentric. Not to ignore the Venus fly-by in that same year.
But...I'm sorry, the error here lies deeper. We don't have to send a spacecraft up to verify how orbits work. Or how gravity works, or how vacuum works. It took a while for the engineering -- the power sources, the control strategies -- to get there, but the orbital principles were known by Kepler. Konstantin Tsiolkovsky could have worked out the entire flight profile of Apollo 8 if you gave him enough paper.
I always knew that his stories were based on fiction / fantasy so we all thought his paper on creating a so-called stationary satellite was also fantasy.
An unlikely position for anyone in the 1960s who was even slightly scientifically literate.QuoteWe studied Clarke’s equations in our Mathematics classes as well and of course they were proven to be correct in theory.
As you have been told already, the equations are not Clarke's. Orbital equations had been around for a long time (actually centuries) before Clarke wrote Extraterrestrial Relays in 1945. No physics student of any true capability would call them Clarke's equations, and no physics professor would present them as such.QuoteHe explained how it was possible to have the object in orbit round the earth apparently remaining in the same spot because it was travelling round the centre at exactly the same speed as the earth.
Actually he used well-known equations (so well known by that time that they are not even in the body of the text anywhere but the results of the relationship between orbital velocity and distance from the centre of the Earth are presented without much fanfare) to make mention of the existence of a geostationary orbit, and most of the article (it is not a paper) is actually taken up with describing the use of such an orbit as a communications relay. Since the article was published in Wireless World in 1945, this is entirely apt.QuoteOf course we didn’t have the technology then to test out his theory for quite some time. Jockndoris
Your ignorance of space history knows no bounds, it seems. In 1945 the technology to reach geosynchronous orbit was indeed not present, but by the time you were supposedly studying his work it most definitely did exsist. The first geosynchronous satellite was launched in 1963, and the first geostationary one in 1964.
Why do you persist in telling these lies?
Um...geostationary orbit is implicit in Kepler. Just this simple; if the orbital period is defined by the distance, then there exists a distance for any arbitrary desired period. Including one that matches the rotation of the primary. (To within reasonable limits!) All that remains is to be on the equator going the same direction.
The basic idea of a satellite net for telecommunications had been around since at least 1928, and George O. Smith was crafting vacuum-tube space opera around related ideas with his "Venus Equilateral" stories before Clarke's article came out. Clark popularized use of geostationary orbits, though, and that's why we still give him credit.
As Jay points out, Jock appears to be trying to claim expertise in the subject, and let the very existence of his prior work stand as a statement of unimpeachability for his offered opinions today.
Well, Jock misses out on the most important parts of the issue; the fact that he is unable to "walk-the-walk" or "talk-the-talk".
Either comes from 'prisoner of mother England' or pomigranite - a reddish coloured fruit that native Australians (Aboriginals) thought had a similar colour to the skin of sunburnt Brits.
Well, what is he supposed to do? Be a better person and actually admit the pamphlet he sells for money is so much hogswallow?Fixed.
In front of hisbiggestonly fan?
Technically, his only fan is also his biggest.Well, what is he supposed to do? Be a better person and actually admit the pamphlet he sells for money is so much hogswallow?Fixed.
In front of hisbiggestonly fan?
Well, what is he supposed to do? Be a better person and actually admit the pamphlet he sells for money is so much hogswallow?
In front of his biggest fan?
Yes, actually, he should, but will he?
I have my doubts.
Lets start with my reply to your Arthur C Clarke question
Arthur C Clarke
Yes Arthur C Clarke was a well known science fiction writer with a vivid imagination and I read many of his books as a boy. I always knew that his stories were based on fiction / fantasy so we all thought his paper on creating a so-called stationary satellite was also fantasy.
I was amazed to learn that he had a serious side to his work when he announced he had worked out that it was possible to have an object in so called stationary orbit.
Please note that my degree was in Mathematics as well as Physics.
We studied Clarke’s equations in our Mathematics classes as well and of course they were proven to be correct in theory. He explained how it was possible to have the object in orbit round the earth apparently remaining in the same spot because it was travelling round the centre at exactly the same speed as the earth. Of course we didn’t have the technology then to test out his theory for quite some time. Jockndoris
beedarko
Thank you for sending a free copy of your book. I will read it tonight.
Mr. Burns, if I ask you some questions about your book in a non-confrontational manner, will you agree to answer them honestly and candidly?
Most certainly yes look forward to receiving them Jockndoris
Excellent. I'll start with these three so as not to overwhelm you.
- On pages 11~13 you reproduce the paper you submitted to Prof. Allen, entitled "Most difficult problems the Americans have to solve if they are to put a man on the moon as challenged by their president". Several times in this paper, you state conclusions which appear to come from someone with expertise or special knowledge of the subject matter, i.e. "the G forces experienced would be massive and probably fatal", "the chances of them achieving a linkup are minimal", "disaster is almost inevitable", etc. Prior to, and during your assignment, what other studies or practical experience did you engage in relative to spaceflight engineering, orbital mechanics or astrophysics? Stated another way, how many of your stated conclusions were supported by proven competence within these specific fields of study, and do you still hold to them?
Yes Arthur C Clarke was a well known science fiction writer with a vivid imagination and I read many of his books as a boy. I always knew that his stories were based on fiction / fantasy so we all thought his paper on creating a so-called stationary satellite was also fantasy.
I was amazed to learn that he had a serious side to his work when he announced he had worked out that it was possible to have an object in so called stationary orbit.
The classes I attended were under the banner of Natural Philosophy and studied the logic and understanding of everything that appears in nature, including Electricity and its partner Magnetism, Light and optics, sound and radio waves, gravity, air, water and many more. Spaceflight engineering was not on that list because it was at best in its infancy.
There is no way that they would be able to get high quality photographs half way across our solar system which took the craft 7 months to cross.
It took the craft 7 months to get to Mars at full speed and we are supposed to believe that they can just beam back at the first attempt pictures of exquisite quality of a near perfectly flat landing area.
He was very much of the old school and as interested as we were in learning new things. That is why he asked us to look at the problems the Americans faced in getting to the Moon. He didn’t know the answers...
...and of course now we know that NASA didn’t know either.
I hope this helps you to understand my position if not answering each part directly.
Urban dictionary definitions are questionable, at best. The etymologies are unreliable and are likely to be made up, retrofit type. Such as the shortening of a phrase by making an acronym. I've read that practice started only 60 or so years ago. So its no surprise on the first. I always assumed "Pom" had something to do with potatoes, from French, but pomegranate seems a good possibility.Either comes from 'prisoner of mother England' or pomigranite - a reddish coloured fruit that native Australians (Aboriginals) thought had a similar colour to the skin of sunburnt Brits.
The first one is definitely wrong. The second one might not be.
Given that, I am amazed that you profess to not understand how images from Mars could not be sent back in a matter of minutes.
You have mentioned Clarke in connection with his major patent, which was for placing communication relays in GS orbits.I don't think Clarke actually patented the idea.
Just so you understand where I am coming from let me explain.
Spaceflight engineering was not on that list because it was at best in its infancy.
I was 19 at the time...
He was very much of the old school...
He didn’t know the answers and of course now we know that NASA didn’t know either.
I don't think Clarke actually patented the idea.
Do you think either of the two men you invoke in support of your belief, AC Clarke and Prof. Allen, would agree with you that the Apollo missions did not travel to the moon?
Urban dictionary definitions are questionable, at best. The etymologies are unreliable and are likely to be made up, retrofit type. Such as the shortening of a phrase by making an acronym. I've read that practice started only 60 or so years ago. So its no surprise on the first. I always assumed "Pom" had something to do with potatoes, from French, but pomegranate seems a good possibility.
Given that, I am amazed that you profess to not understand how images from Mars could not be sent back in a matter of minutes. I assume that you are as equally mystified by the workings of TV and radio?
Do you think either of the two men you invoke in support of your belief, AC Clarke and Prof. Allen, would agree with you that the Apollo missions did not travel to the moon?
In one of those cases I know the answer. I don't have to guess.
It is a pretty good bet that all but one or two contributors to this thread know the same and would be willing to state it publicly if needed.
I bought 'Dark Moon', 2nd hand, for peanuts. It arrived today.
Though the portion of page count dealing with Apollo might as well be, while the rest goes off on some very strange tangents....
Lets start with my reply to your Arthur C Clarke question
Arthur C Clarke
Yes Arthur C Clarke was a well known science fiction writer with a vivid imagination and I read many of his books as a boy. I always knew that his stories were based on fiction / fantasy so we all thought his paper on creating a so-called stationary satellite was also fantasy.
I was amazed to learn that he had a serious side to his work.....
when he announced he had worked out that it was possible to have an object in so called stationary orbit.
We studied Clarke’s equations in our Mathematics classes as well and of course they were proven to be correct in theory. He explained how it was possible to have the object in orbit round the earth apparently remaining in the same spot because it was travelling round the centre at exactly the same speed as the earth
Of course we didn’t have the technology then to test out his theory for quite some time.
...addressing some of the very things that you claimed nine years later were impossible.
Clarke does mention the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, V = v logeR (more correctly V=v logn M0/M1),
He also quotes Re = R(α+g)/α, a basic orbit equation that has been (AFAIK) around since Kepler.
In fact, Burns and his professor seem completely oblivious to any of the spacefaring being done at that time, except apparently Apollo (as a classroom exercise in the blind leading the blind). Why the sudden interest in Apollo without any interest in any other spacefaring anywhere else for any other purpose?
I assume you meant V=v loge M0/M1.
Not quite; it's an attempt to compute the practical mass ratio (R in his formulation of Tsiolkovsky) for his hypothetical rocket that accounts for acceleration lost during initial ascent. The term (a+g)/a is meant to be a scaling factor to the theoretical mass ratio derived via Tsiolkovsky for some given v and V. It says nothing more complicated than "be sure to add the acceleration required merely to overcome gravity." But that's valid only for constant-mass sounding rockets. It doesn't really apply here, or really anywhere. But it's a good enough first-order approximation to be published in a radio magazine.
OK, so, without looking it up, I saw Re = R(α+g)/α in Clarke's paper and assumed it was one of the many equations used to calculate orbital speed, acceleration, period etc. I should have checked; here would have done....
As it turns out, Clarke's paper contains no orbital mechanical equations whatsoever!
ETA: Question. Are Loge and Logn not the same, i.e. "n" stands for "natural" or "napierian" and "e" stands for "base e", 2.718281828, or are we just talking nomenclature here.
ETA: Question. Are Loge and Logn not the same, i.e. "n" stands for "natural" or "napierian" and "e" stands for "base e", 2.718281828, or are we just talking nomenclature here.
I've never seen logn used before. I've always seen either loge or ln.
It's often used, as in the formulation of specific impulse Isp, as a system-agnostic method of relating the unit of mass to the unit of force, specifically of gravity.
..he marches straight off to the counting-house to write accounting programs in a language that wouldn't be invented for 15 more years, on computers that somehow existed despite his collegiate claim that they were invariably large and heavy -- and wouldn't run Quick Basic anyway.
I've never seen logn used before. I've always seen either loge or ln.
Aha! Its a sort of mathematical "mixed metaphor" then; you use ln or use loge but you don't mix them up.
My interpretation of this statement is a bit different, in that I don't believe he was referring to the 1960's when he wrote of computing with QuickBasic.
Read p. 16.
I wonder if he wasn't perhaps working on some earlier version and maybe misremembering what it was called. I'm only a half-centenarian and often times my memory has similar glitches.
I thought I had added a note on this topic but I guess the computer ate it...Urban dictionary definitions are questionable, at best. The etymologies are unreliable and are likely to be made up, retrofit type. Such as the shortening of a phrase by making an acronym. I've read that practice started only 60 or so years ago. So its no surprise on the first. I always assumed "Pom" had something to do with potatoes, from French, but pomegranate seems a good possibility.
Actually, one of the tests I have for any new book of etymology is to look up "posh" and see if they claim it's an acronym. If they do, they've done shoddy research and I don't get the book. Much before "radar," and the best assumption is that it isn't an acronym. Heck, the word "acronym" dates to 1943!
This is the importance of verifying research, of course. To tie it back to the actual discussion at hand, it isn't enough to just claim something to be true. If anyone could produce even one document that used the expression "Prisoner of Mother England," that folk etymology might be accurate. However, the only references are explanations of where the term came from, not evidence the expression was ever used. You can't just state a thing and have legitimate researchers believe it, no matter what field you're in. Or obviously you can, because that claim appears an awful lot. But you shouldn't be able to!
I remember using the original BASIC in the mid-70s. According to Wikipedia it first appeared in 1964. It looks like other forms (BASICA, GW-BASIC) appeared in the early 80s, with QuickBasic being introduced in 1985.
I took a compiler design class from the guy who invented Tiny Basic. I remember doing a few silly things in GW-BASIC, but almost all my programming at the time was being done in Fortran. You know, the language for engineers with real problems. ;D
Actually, one of the tests I have for any new book of etymology is to look up "posh" and see if they claim it's an acronym. If they do, they've done shoddy research and I don't get the book.
I took a compiler design class from the guy who invented Tiny Basic. I remember doing a few silly things in GW-BASIC, but almost all my programming at the time was being done in Fortran. You know, the language for engineers with real problems. ;D
Yeah, I did Fortran in college - using punch cards (c.1977). I played around with QuickBASIC quite a bit in the 90s, mostly writing astronomy programs. I still occasionally use one or two of those old programs (QuickBASIC runs in XP Mode). Today I can usually accomplish what I need to using Excel.
In the 80's I used to run a training course on programming machine code and basic fault finding. I've looked everywhere for the kit I used (for nostalgia reasons). It consisted of a briefcase encased Microprocessor with some LED's and a Four digit Count display, it was called MicroLab Up (as I recall, but my memory may be wrong on this). I just wondered if anybody remembers the kits full name, or better still where I might lay my hands on one?
By programming the (Motorola 68000?) processor you could make the LED's and counters do tasks, play games etc.
Yep, We used one of those at No. 2 Technical Training School. It's an HP5036 Microlab and it had an Intel8085 chip
http://hacksomethingtonight.blogspot.co.nz/2010/08/hp-5036a-microprocessor-lab.html
...We started off our testing by gathering data for light curves for a couple well known variable stars; RR Centauri...
I remember using the original BASIC in the mid-70s. According to Wikipedia it first appeared in 1964. It looks like other forms (BASICA, GW-BASIC) appeared in the early 80s, with QuickBasic being introduced in 1985.I think it was in the late 1960s that we got an ICL 1903 and started Fortran programming, before that we were using a variety of languages, including machine code, on a Ferranti Pegasus. BASIC was the language of choice for the DEC mini computers that arrived in the 1970s, then back to Fortran for the wide variety of machines available in the 1980s, everything from VAX minis to supercomputers. I started to get my teeth into C in the 1990s, but by that time most of the programming was done by specialist teams, leaving the research and design staff to get on with proper work.
Maybe someone should compile a list of all the questions that Jockndoris has ignored so far on this thread.
Yeah, I did Fortran in college - using punch cards (c.1977).
I played around with QuickBASIC quite a bit in the 90s, mostly writing astronomy programs.
Today I can usually accomplish what I need to using Excel.
Thank you for sending a free copy of your book. I will read it tonight.
Mr. Burns, if I ask you some questions about your book in a non-confrontational manner, will you agree to answer them honestly and candidly?
Most certainly yes look forward to receiving them Jockndoris
Excellent. I'll start with these three so as not to overwhelm you.
- On pg. 54, you recount how, in 2013, the apparition of Neil Armstrong revealed, "We knew of course that if we were found by anyone then the whole game would be up and the Moon Hoax would become public, and we would be disgraced and we wanted to avoid that at all costs", referring to, as your book describes it, a splashdown and subsequent recovery which did not go as planned. How do you reconcile his stated need for secrecy, with your earlier account of playing golf in full view of other witnesses, and flying with him and other passengers in an airliner on July 20th, 1969?
When I popped up on the plane it was manna from heaven because it gave them something to do while they were waiting and somewhere where they thought they didn’t have hide as it was all within their controlled barracks amongst friends.
The golf course is a very special place.
I agree they had to have lots of nerve to do it...
Just like I am for suggesting it now!
I can confirm that that is what happened and I recall it now in just the same way.
When I popped up on the plane it was manna from heaven...
Honestly, I don't remember Fortran at all; I took one class and never used it again.
BASIC I remember pretty well. I planned at one time to teach myself C++ but never got around to it.
Feh. I haven't gotten far enough in C++ for it to scare me.
...it would be a poor conspiracy indeed that let them personally determine whether their boredom was worth a huge security risk.
Another thing, though. The way Jock describes the golf course, he seems to be implying that all of the military -- all branches -- are in on the secret.
I remember a long time ago some British author purported a suppressed conversation allegedly from an Apollo crew seeing aliens or something. He had the crew saying, "Hallo, Houston, Apollo 11 calling..." just as the dashing RAF characters would say in British war movies.
C++ is incredibly baroque. Try Python instead.
Bwwwhahaha! First thing that popped into my head (after my keyboard got spattered with coffee) was.....
If anyone had reported them for any reason they would have been called lunatics as everyone knew they were on the Moon.
It is posts like the latest from Jockndoris that make me wish this forum had a BS flag emoticon like GLP.
And obviously, no one on golf courses ever has a camera.
Granted, I never golfed on a military-only course.
Granted, I never golfed on a military-only course.
Then you and JnD have something in common...
here is my answer to the third part...
And obviously, no one on golf courses ever has a camera.
Not to help his case but I played a lot of pre-phonecamera golf and the only time I ever saw cameras on golf courses (non-tournament play) was during golf lessons. Cameras were not usually something players included in their golf bags, at least with anyone I knew or played golf with. Granted, I never golfed on a military-only course.
You have mentioned Clarke in connection with his major patent, which was for placing communication relays in GS orbits.Clarke famously declined to apply for a patent on the geostationary communications satellite. He said patents were nothing more than licenses to be sued, and he had better things to do than waste time in lawyer's offices.
We don't have to send a spacecraft up to verify how orbits work. Or how gravity works, or how vacuum works. It took a while for the engineering -- the power sources, the control strategies -- to get there, but the orbital principles were known by Kepler.To a first order, yes. The actual practice must deal with some important second-order orbital mechanics. Several perturbing forces act on a geostationary satellite. The moon and sun tend to slowly change the inclination, causing the satellite to describe a north-south figure-8 pattern. The earth's equator is not a perfect circle, so the uneven distribution of mass tends to move geostationary satellites in an east or west direction toward a couple of stable longitudes.
He said "Cooky, we need to re-point the telescope. Some Chilean astronomers have discovered a supernova in the LMC."Neat! How long after the actual explosion (earth received time) did you begin observing?
Okay, I'll bite.
+420320.00 -0924513.21 19790822 230000-06
[...]
You'd be a steely-eyed missile man if you could decipher what the data format is and what it means.
Heh. Nicely put. I haven't had time to read his paper, but I suspected strongly -- if for no other reason than the audience -- he wasn't going to mention how the orbit wasn't quite as simple and perfect as that first approximation!Right. Even nominally-geostationary satellites (the ones actively kept on station) are not precisely stationary. They're kept within a tolerance box to avoid wasting propellant on excessive precision. Typically it's only small enough to ensure that the satellite remains within the beams of the (usually non-steerable) antennas pointed at that orbital location, and that they don't drift into the beams of antennas pointed at some other location.
Okay, I'll bite.
+420320.00 -0924513.21 19790822 230000-06
[...]
You'd be a steely-eyed missile man if you could decipher what the data format is and what it means.
The first token is a latitude, 42 deg 03' 20.00" N. The second is a longitude, 92 deg 45' 13.21" W. (This is northeast of DeMoines IA in what appears to be a plowed field. A good observing site away from light pollution?)
The third is probably a date, August 22, 1979 (a Wednesday).
Only the last one doesn't ring a bell. An object or catalog number? You did imply later that it was an ephemeris program of some sort.
Oh, wait. It could be a local time: 23:00:00, 6 hours behind UTC (which is the offset for the central time zone, including Iowa, although being summer they would be only 5 hours behind UTC).
He said "Cooky, we need to re-point the telescope. Some Chilean astronomers have discovered a supernova in the LMC."Neat! How long after the actual explosion (earth received time) did you begin observing?
Given your location in the southern hemisphere and the absence of other large bodies of land (i.e., observatories) at your longitude, I suspect that at least some of your light curve data was collected by no one else.
I don't think Clarke addressed these issues; in fact, he assumed the electronics would use vacuum tubes and be so unreliable that the relay stations would need crews to maintain them. He probably didn't foresee that space electronics would become so reliable that fuel exhaustion would be the major reason for mission termination.
In 1945, electronics which could remain reliable for decades with no human intervention would probably have seemed more fantastic than sending men to the moon.Indeed. And space exploration was one of the drivers for more compact and reliable electronics. Case in point: the Apollo Guidance Computer was the first computer built entirely from integrated circuits.
In 1945, electronics which could remain reliable for decades with no human intervention would probably have seemed more fantastic than sending men to the moon.
He was correct, and Colosus was born.I saw that Colossus reconstruction at Bletchley way back in 2001 (shortly before 9/11 -- got home just in time) and I recall that they rarely fired up the tubes -- they were too precious, being no longer made, and probably burned a lot of power too. They just ran that tape loop reader to impress the tourists.
Okay, I'll bite.
The first token is a latitude, 42 deg 03' 20.00" N. The second is a longitude, 92 deg 45' 13.21" W. (This is northeast of DeMoines IA in what appears to be a plowed field. A good observing site away from light pollution?)
The third is probably a date, August 22, 1979 (a Wednesday).
In 1945, electronics which could remain reliable for decades with no human intervention would probably have seemed more fantastic than sending men to the moon.
I visited Bletchley Park about 8 months ago where the Heath Robinson code breaking machine was on display. It was a tortuous process to decipher the German codes using the machine. A young engineer (Tommy Flowers) from the Post Office Research Station was invited by Turing to assess whether he could automate the process.
Tommy suggested using valve technology. He could not convince the management at Bletchley Park because the technology was not trusted and prone to breaking down. He argued that the main problem with valves was switching them on and off, which caused them to break. If the valves were switched on and left on, and were operated in a stable environment, there ought not be too many problems. He was correct, and Colosus was born.
OK, time for a bit of chemical warfare with an annoying blue bottle.
I think Jockndoris is giving us the silent treatment.I am sure he will shortly return to thank us once again for all the positive reviews and feedback about his opus.
Okay, I'll bite.
Right on all counts.
It looks like the middle of nowhere. Google Earth doesn't even have Streetview images for that area. So it is (or was) probably a good, dark observing site for astronomy, not far from an access road for hauling in telescopes.
I'm just wildly curious as to what was so special about Marshalltown, IA at that date and time...
I am sure he will shortly return to thank us once again for all the positive reviews and feedback about his opus.
One has to wonder how an author can take "This is abject unfounded crankery" and respond "I am glad you enjoyed my book"
The answer to the optimism and to the question of what he gets out of it is pretty obvious: Neil Burns craves attention. As Oscar Wilde wrote, "The only thing worse that being talked about is not being talked about." That is, some people fear obscurity far more than they do being wrong. It's long been a truism that there's no such thing as bad publicity, which may explain why even the most pointed criticism of his work ends up stroking his ego. It's not about being right. I really think he doesn't care whether anyone believes his story about being a physics student or playing golf with Armstrong.
It's not about the money; that's why he gives the book away free to anyone who asks. And why, early in the book, he advises the reader to give the book away if he doesn't accept the supernatural premise. He just wants his little booklets out there. He's willing to pay to be a Person of Note, even if it means being the court jester. Sadly none of his literature that I've read stands on its merits, being insufferably narcissistic, poorly paced, disjointed, one-dimensional, and almost entirely lacking in charm, rhythm, texture, or color. So he's got to take the publicity he gets. If people are criticizing it, he theorizes they must be reading it.
If he would stick to historical figures that few people care about, and avoid making allegations of fact, and find a good editor, he actually might develop a following. His problem here comes only when he makes allegations of fact he can't support, and when he drafts recently-deceased figures (who have, as has been noted, close living relatives and still-vibrant professional reputations) to play parts in his ghost fiction.
I'm satisfied if he never comes back. I reviewed his book as promised. And his record here already amply shows that for the purposes of ascertaining truth and evidence he is largely unwilling to participate. That should tell most rational readers how credible is allegations of fact are. If he does come back, he will naturally enjoy the lively participation he has witnessed from his critics.
I have not gone away and still stand by every word and thought in the book.
I am expecting Buzz Aldrin to make a confession soon possibly with an interview with Anna Botting of Sky News. That will really put the cat among the pigeons !
What proof will you chaps require about his identity before you will accept what he says?
Will you want him to confirm that he played golf with me or will you just accept that he says that he didn’t go to the Moon and had to carry out the recordings of the landings in a specially equipped studio in the Nevada Desert.
Will you give him the benefit of the doubt ?
I have not gone away and still stand by every word and thought in the book.
I have not gone away and still stand by every word and thought in the book.
I am expecting Buzz Aldrin to make a confession soon possibly with an interview with Anna Botting of Sky News. That will really put the cat among the pigeons !
What proof will you chaps require about his identity before you will accept what he says?
Will you want him to confirm that he played golf with me or will you just accept that he says that he didn’t go to the Moon and had to carry out the recordings of the landings in a specially equipped studio in the Nevada Desert.
Will you give him the benefit of the doubt ?
I have not gone away and still stand by every word and thought in the book.
I am expecting Buzz Aldrin to make a confession soon...
What proof will you chaps require about his identity before you will accept what he says?
Will you want him to confirm that he played golf with me....
Will you give him the benefit of the doubt ?
I am expecting Buzz Aldrin to make a confession soon.
I don't . I think you will find that JayUtah is in error and has not read page 34 correctly. It was set in 1990 a perfectly correct year to be writing in QuickBasic. Why don't you buy a copy and you won't have to rely on old JayUtah? jockndorisI have not gone away and still stand by every word and thought in the book.
So you still claim that you were writing programs in the 1960s using a version of Basic which didn't exist until the 1980s?
Another good point RAF but I don't wish any harm on Mr Aldrin so let's hope that doesn't happen for some time Leave him ample time to confess jockndorisI am expecting Buzz Aldrin to make a confession soon.
...or you could just wait until he is deceased, and then talk to his ghost, eh? :D
JayUtah
I have not gone away and still stand by every word and thought in the book.
I am expecting Buzz Aldrin to make a confession soon possibly with an interview with Anna Botting of Sky News. That will really put the cat among the pigeons !
What proof will you chaps require about his identity before you will accept what he says?
Will you want him to confirm that he played golf with me or will you just accept that he says that he didn’t go to the Moon and had to carry out the recordings of the landings in a specially equipped studio in the Nevada Desert.
Will you give him the benefit of the doubt ?
jockndoris
Another good point RAF
I am expecting Buzz Aldrin to make a confession soon possibly with an interview with Anna Botting of Sky News. That will really put the cat among the pigeons !
I think you will find that JayUtah is in error and has not read page 34 correctly.
If Apollo was faked you have to explain things like where the 380+ kilograms of Moon rocks and soil samples came from.
You have to explain how the footage was recorded of astronauts moving around in what appears to be a low-gravity vacuum.
You have to explain how the astronauts were able to discuss the news of the day and live sports scores during the missions. And you have to explain why the Soviets didn't say anything about the fake, especially as they had sources inside NASA providing them with lots of relevant data.
Why don't you buy a copy and you won't have to rely on old JayUtah? jockndoris
Will you want him to confirm that he played golf with me....
Will you want him to confirm that he played golf with me....
The only thing that Aldrin would confirm about the supposed golf game, is that it's a bald faced LIE.
Heck, even if given the opportunity, I wouldn't ask him such a ridiculous question, as I respect him too much to do that.
I don't . I think you will find that JayUtah is in error and has not read page 34 correctly. It was set in 1990 a perfectly correct year to be writing in QuickBasic. Why don't you buy a copy and you won't have to rely on old JayUtah? jockndoris
Nice try, Burns, but these people trust me far more than they trust you -- because I've given them ample reason to. Shall I reproduce page 16 here in its entirety so that people can judge for themselves your inconsistency?
I have not gone away and still stand by every word and thought in the book.
I am expecting Buzz Aldrin to make a confession soon...
What proof will you chaps require about his identity before you will accept what he says?
Please do. I wouldn't want to misjudge Burns.
I have a question about your comprehension of orbital mechanics. Did you claim that a velocity of 15,000 mph would be required to orbit both the Earth and the moon? Did you claim that Clarke discovered this? I may have only taken two semesters of physics in college, but I know that both of these statements are wrong.
Nearly all of his statements in the essay are wrong. See
http://www.clavius.org/bibburnsthesis.html
True, but this appears to be the most embarrassingly wrong thing that he said about space travel.
Even in elementary school, I would have recognized it as wrong, although I wouldn't have known how to calculate the correct values.
I am expecting Buzz Aldrin to make a confession soon possibly with an interview with Anna Botting of Sky News.
Bart Sibrel tried that kind of thing once...we know how that worked out...
How confident are you of this? Would you be prepared to wager, say £1000?
How confident are you of this? Would you be prepared to wager, say £1000?
Make it interesting. If Aldrin does not "disclose" anything on or before Christmas 2014, Neil Burns has to donate all the proceeds from his book to the British Science Association (http://www.britishscienceassociation.org/).
How confident are you of this? Would you be prepared to wager, say £1000?
Make it interesting. If Aldrin does not "disclose" anything on or before Christmas 2014, Neil Burns has to donate all the proceeds from his book to the British Science Association (http://www.britishscienceassociation.org/).
Damn right - their tea fund is running low on custard creams. That should cover them until new year.
The answer to the optimism and to the question of what he gets out of it is pretty obvious: Neil Burns craves attention. As Oscar Wilde wrote, "The only thing worse that being talked about is not being talked about." That is, some people fear obscurity far more than they do being wrong. It's long been a truism that there's no such thing as bad publicity, which may explain why even the most pointed criticism of his work ends up stroking his ego. It's not about being right. I really think he doesn't care whether anyone believes his story about being a physics student or playing golf with Armstrong.
It's not about the money; that's why he gives the book away free to anyone who asks. And why, early in the book, he advises the reader to give the book away if he doesn't accept the supernatural premise. He just wants his little booklets out there. He's willing to pay to be a Person of Note, even if it means being the court jester. Sadly none of his literature that I've read stands on its merits, being insufferably narcissistic, poorly paced, disjointed, one-dimensional, and almost entirely lacking in charm, rhythm, texture, or color. So he's got to take the publicity he gets. If people are criticizing it, he theorizes they must be reading it.
If he would stick to historical figures that few people care about, and avoid making allegations of fact, and find a good editor, he actually might develop a following. His problem here comes only when he makes allegations of fact he can't support, and when he drafts recently-deceased figures (who have, as has been noted, close living relatives and still-vibrant professional reputations) to play parts in his ghost fiction.
I'm satisfied if he never comes back. I reviewed his book as promised. And his record here already amply shows that for the purposes of ascertaining truth and evidence he is largely unwilling to participate. That should tell most rational readers how credible is allegations of fact are. If he does come back, he will naturally enjoy the lively participation he has witnessed from his critics.
JayUtah
I have not gone away and still stand by every word and thought in the book.
I am expecting Buzz Aldrin to make a confession soon possibly with an interview with Anna Botting of Sky News. That will really put the cat among the pigeons !
What proof will you chaps require about his identity before you will accept what he says?
Will you want him to confirm that he played golf with me or will you just accept that he says that he didn’t go to the Moon and had to carry out the recordings of the landings in a specially equipped studio in the Nevada Desert.
Will you give him the benefit of the doubt ?
jockndoris
That's assuming he's actually made some sales though.How confident are you of this? Would you be prepared to wager, say £1000?
Make it interesting. If Aldrin does not "disclose" anything on or before Christmas 2014, Neil Burns has to donate all the proceeds from his book to the British Science Association (http://www.britishscienceassociation.org/).
I have not gone away and still stand by every word and thought in the book.
I am expecting Buzz Aldrin to...
There is as much chance of Aldrin admitting a hoax as there is of the Sun exploding today. NONE.
There is as much chance of Aldrin admitting a hoax as there is of the Sun exploding today. NONE.
Actually, he already has. Maybe this Burns fellow is onto something...
Buzz Aldrin Admits To History's Greatest Prank
http://teamcoco.com/video/conan-highlight-buzz-aldrin-correction
As for the main wager, I would prefer the "Buy Zakalwe a new astro CCD camera fund" to be honest.... I'm quite partial to a new QSI camera.Are they still as ridiculously expensive as the last time I checked? Most were several times the price of my 8" scope...
As for the main wager, I would prefer the "Buy Zakalwe a new astro CCD camera fund" to be honest.... I'm quite partial to a new QSI camera.Are they still as ridiculously expensive as the last time I checked? Most were several times the price of my 8" scope...
I have not gone away and still stand by every word and thought in the book.
I am expecting Buzz Aldrin to make a confession soon possibly with an interview with Anna Botting of Sky News. That will really put the cat among the pigeons !
What proof will you chaps require about his identity before you will accept what he says?
Will you want him to confirm that he played golf with me or will you just accept that he says that he didn’t go to the Moon and had to carry out the recordings of the landings in a specially equipped studio in the Nevada Desert.
Will you give him the benefit of the doubt ?
jockndoris
[/b]
Are they still as ridiculously expensive as the last time I checked? Most were several times the price of my 8" scope...
There is as much chance of Aldrin admitting a hoax as there is of the Sun exploding today. NONE.
Actually, he already has. Maybe this Burns fellow is onto something...
Buzz Aldrin Admits To History's Greatest Prank
http://teamcoco.com/video/conan-highlight-buzz-aldrin-correction
Buzz Aldrin Admits To History's Greatest PrankPretty funny, I hadn't seen that before.
http://teamcoco.com/video/conan-highlight-buzz-aldrin-correction
Buzz will be in Germany this weekend,
http://buzzaldrin.com/buzz-to-receive-the-distinguished-steiger-award/
If Jock could cross the channel and ask him about this, I'll bring a walking stick (just in case his hook is no longer up to the task) and the camera...
Buzz will be in Germany this weekend...
I am expecting Buzz Aldrin to make a confession soon possibly with an interview with Anna Botting of Sky News. That will really put the cat among the pigeons !
Jock, you have a golden opportunity to prove us all wrong, just go to the ceremony and video Buzz saying that he played golf with you on July20th, 1969.
Buzz will be in Germany this weekend,
http://buzzaldrin.com/buzz-to-receive-the-distinguished-steiger-award/
If Jock could cross the channel and ask him about this, I'll bring a walking stick (just in case his hook is no longer up to the task) and the camera...
Buzz will be in Germany this weekend,
http://buzzaldrin.com/buzz-to-receive-the-distinguished-steiger-award/
If Jock could cross the channel and ask him about this, I'll bring a walking stick (just in case his hook is no longer up to the task) and the camera...
Interestingly he did not actually deny the claims when he punched that guy. Just resorted to violence. Maybe he hit a nerve?
I am expecting Buzz Aldrin to make a confession soon possibly with an interview with Anna Botting of Sky News. That will really put the cat among the pigeons !
I'm interested, Jock, why do you expect this?
This is what always happens I knew something like this was going to happen - that why I told you in my previous post. I didn’t know about this particular award but then no one would have known if you chaps hadn’t looked for it and posted it here for all of us to see. jockndoris
Do you have information from an earthly source, or has a ghost told you to expect this?
Does your source identify what "soon" covers (weeks, months, years)?
soon looks like October 3 from where i am standing
If Aldrin does not make such a confession in a time that could reasonably be considered "soon" (say, one year), would you doubt your source (physical or paranormal)?
Jock, you have a golden opportunity to prove us all wrong, just go to the ceremony and video Buzz saying that he played golf with you on July20th, 1969.
Or even better, video Buzz Aldrin saying, "Uh, I don't play golf." Burns has yet to figure out that as soon as you start making testable claims about living persons, you first need to have done your homework.
Interestingly he did not actually deny the claims when he punched that guy. Just resorted to violence. Maybe he hit a nerve?
Better still we must ask Anna Botting...
what a magnificent opportunity for him too because he will be outside the USA where maybe not all his secrecy restrictions apply.
soon looks like October 3 from where i am standing
I am expecting Buzz Aldrin to make a confession soon possibly with an interview with Anna Botting of Sky News. That will really put the cat among the pigeons !
I'm interested, Jock, why do you expect this?
This is what always happens I knew something like this was going to happen - that why I told you in my previous post. I didn’t know about this particular award but then no one would have known if you chaps hadn’t looked for it and posted it here for all of us to see. jockndoris
Do you have information from an earthly source, or has a ghost told you to expect this?
Does your source identify what "soon" covers (weeks, months, years)?
soon looks like October 3 from where i am standing
If Aldrin does not make such a confession in a time that could reasonably be considered "soon" (say, one year), would you doubt your source (physical or paranormal)?
Better still we must ask Anna Botting of Sky News to attend the ceremony and ask Buzz Aldrin afterwards about his confession - what a magnificent opportunity for him too because he will be outside the USA where maybe not all his secrecy restrictions apply jockndoris.
So, you mean you have no "source" that Aldrin will say anything out of the ordinary, other than it suits your fancy to believe so?
Jock, you have a golden opportunity to prove us all wrong, just go to the ceremony and video Buzz saying that he played golf with you on July20th, 1969.
Or even better, video Buzz Aldrin saying, "Uh, I don't play golf." Burns has yet to figure out that as soon as you start making testable claims about living persons, you first need to have done your homework.
Better still we must ask Anna Botting of Sky News to attend the ceremony and ask Buzz Aldrin afterwards about his confession - what a magnificent opportunity for him too because he will be outside the USA where maybe not all his secrecy restrictions apply jockndoris.
Interestingly he did not actually deny the claims when he punched that guy. Just resorted to violence. Maybe he hit a nerve?
he will be outside the USA where maybe not all his secrecy restrictions apply
You seem to have an in with celebrities, though...
I suggest that "you" ask her, and report to us what she has to say.
I do love the idea of a giant conspiracy [...] which has no problem with information on said conspiracy being released outside national jurisdiction.
You seem to have an in with celebrities, though...
I think they have to be dead first. Not that I'm saying Ms Botting is in any particular danger, but maybe she'd best look both ways before crossing the street. Otherwise she might spend eternity with Neil Burns on some faraway golf course talking about what a marvelous accountant he is.
Buzz will be in Germany this weekend,
http://buzzaldrin.com/buzz-to-receive-the-distinguished-steiger-award/
If Jock could cross the channel and ask him about this, I'll bring a walking stick (just in case his hook is no longer up to the task) and the camera...
Interestingly he did not actually deny the claims when he punched that guy. Just resorted to violence. Maybe he hit a nerve?
Yep, he hit a nerve all right, but not the nerve you think.
Aldrin acted with restraint and tried to ignore Bart Sibrel (a convicted criminal) by walking away from him.
That might have been the end of it until Sibrel publicly called him "liar and a coward".
He's obviously a loony, you don't need to further convince any bystanders of his looniness, and nothing you can say will cure it for him.
Sibrel does not generally discuss those Apollo astronauts who did swear on the Bible that they walked on the Moon. (Sibrel contrives an oath variously referring to the Bible and to "treason," although it's not clear what treasonous act any of the astronauts could possibly have committed in connection with Apollo.)
He's obviously a loony, you don't need to further convince any bystanders of his looniness, and nothing you can say will cure it for him.
I don't think he's a loon at all. I think Burns knows exactly what he's doing, and is enjoying every second of the attention he receives.
It still spells L-O-O-N-Y to me. :P
I don't think he's a loon at all. I think Burns knows exactly what he's doing, and is enjoying every second of the attention he receives.
it'd be much easier if you learned how to use quotes properly Mr Burns...I am expecting Buzz Aldrin to make a confession soon possibly with an interview with Anna Botting of Sky News. That will really put the cat among the pigeons !
I'm interested, Jock, why do you expect this?
This is what always happens I knew something like this was going to happen - that why I told you in my previous post. I didn’t know about this particular award but then no one would have known if you chaps hadn’t looked for it and posted it here for all of us to see. jockndoris
Do you have information from an earthly source, or has a ghost told you to expect this?
Does your source identify what "soon" covers (weeks, months, years)?
soon looks like October 3 from where i am standing
If Aldrin does not make such a confession in a time that could reasonably be considered "soon" (say, one year), would you doubt your source (physical or paranormal)?
I am expecting Buzz Aldrin to make a confession soon possibly with an interview with Anna Botting of Sky News.
Really?
How soon is soon? By Christmas this year?
How confident are you of this? Would you be prepared to wager, say £1000?
Can anyone hear that odd noise? Kind of a rippling, rustling sound?
I think a wild flounce approaches.
Just resorted to violence.
I'd like some answers to these questions, please, Jockndoris:
Jock, you have a golden opportunity to prove us all wrong, just go to the ceremony and video Buzz saying that he played golf with you on July20th, 1969.
Or even better, video Buzz Aldrin saying, "Uh, I don't play golf." Burns has yet to figure out that as soon as you start making testable claims about living persons, you first need to have done your homework.
Better still we must ask Anna Botting of Sky News to attend the ceremony and ask Buzz Aldrin afterwards....
...about his confession
...what a magnificent opportunity for him too because he will be outside the USA where maybe not all his secrecy restrictions apply...
Not that I'm saying Ms Botting is in any particular danger, but maybe she'd best look both ways before crossing the street. Otherwise she might spend eternity with Neil Burns on some faraway golf course talking about what a marvelous accountant he is.
At the risk of putting words in your mouth, you are in essence saying. "Hell isother peopleNiel Burns."
Did Armstrong tell you if Gemini 8 was faked or not?
You claimed that this had minimal chance of success in your 1963 physics thesis.
Gemini had a less powerful computer than the Apollo spacecraft had onboard.
Including those that prove your claims about playing golf with Apollo 11's crew to be a lie.
Well, Mr Burns? We've shown that you're no sort of expert on space travel, and you admitted that in fact it was not any part of your education. And I've confirmed with the course that you did not play there in 1969 or ever. In light of that, please explain exactly in what way you "stand by" your book.
Which, ultimately, was not always needed. On his Gemini 9A mission, Aldrin proved what he had written in his thesis, namely that line-of-sight and a few computations he could do on his slide rule in the cockpit were all that were needed to rendezvous.
So, I am idly wondering what the excuse will be *assuming* Burns even acknowledges that there was no Earth - shattering confession tomorrow?
Yeah, that mission. ;D I think Aldrin was the backup for 9A.
1-5 are out of the question because according to Burns the "embargo" ended with Armstrong's death. Hence Armstrong was allowed to tell Burns everything and Burns was allowed to publish it. So no excuse is valid if it boils down to NASA resuming its alleged strong-arm tactics to keep the secret.
6 could happen, but in Burns' particular ... (idiom, sir?) ... yes, idiom, he'll invent some ghost visit or time-travel episode for his deus ex machina explanation of how "properly" to interpret Aldrin's statements.
(which is why I personally think that all they are doing is trolling).
(which is why I personally think that all they are doing is trolling).
Which is the conclusion I came to nearly two weeks ago (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=637.msg21651#msg21651).
I had that conclusion on page 2 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=637.msg20683#msg20683). It was a little presumptive, but turns out to be quite correct.
Long gone seem to be the days when hoax claimants actually would stand up for their claims.I suppose that means we have done our work well. At least to the extent the work has played its part. Still its nice to be able to do some ghost busting now and then. Besides who else ya gonna call?
There is as much chance of Aldrin admitting a hoax as there is of the Sun exploding today. NONE.
Actually, he already has. Maybe this Burns fellow is onto something...
Buzz Aldrin Admits To History's Greatest Prank
http://teamcoco.com/video/conan-highlight-buzz-aldrin-correction
Buzz will be in Germany this weekend,
http://buzzaldrin.com/buzz-to-receive-the-distinguished-steiger-award/
If Jock could cross the channel and ask him about this, I'll bring a walking stick (just in case his hook is no longer up to the task) and the camera...
Anyone remember that episode of Frasier with John Glenn?
Anyone remember that episode of Frasier with John Glenn?
This one?
Yes! Really funny stuff.
Hi there. I'm new to the forum so please bear with me.skeptic_UK You have just topped the 10,000 views - not bad for a first-timer ! - well done jockndoris
I've always had a passing interest in the moon hoax and do believe it was faked myself. I'd love to read more on the subject though bar what websites have to offer.
Are there any decent books out there which cover the hoax, attempts to debunk the hoax theory or even fiction based on the moon hoax conspiracy.
Look forward to your replies!
Thanks!
skeptic_UK You have just topped the 10,000 views - not bad for a first-timer ! - well done jockndoris
skeptic_UK You have just topped the 10,000 views - not bad for a first-timer ! - well done jockndoris
Get a room, you two.
Hi there. I'm new to the forum so please bear with me.skeptic_UK You have just topped the 10,000 views - not bad for a first-timer ! - well done jockndoris
I've always had a passing interest in the moon hoax and do believe it was faked myself. I'd love to read more on the subject though bar what websites have to offer.
Are there any decent books out there which cover the hoax, attempts to debunk the hoax theory or even fiction based on the moon hoax conspiracy.
Look forward to your replies!
Thanks!
Correction: The THREAD...
Obvious troll is obvious.
skeptic_UK You have just topped the 10,000 views - not bad for a first-timer ! - well done jockndoris
Get a room, you two.
Single bed?
Still standing by your work by discussing anything else but your book?Hi there. I'm new to the forum so please bear with me.skeptic_UK You have just topped the 10,000 views - not bad for a first-timer ! - well done jockndoris
I've always had a passing interest in the moon hoax and do believe it was faked myself. I'd love to read more on the subject though bar what websites have to offer.
Are there any decent books out there which cover the hoax, attempts to debunk the hoax theory or even fiction based on the moon hoax conspiracy.
Look forward to your replies!
Thanks!
HOLD THE FRONT PAGE.....Buzz Aldrin confesses to Moon landing hoax.
Nah. ...I'm only funning you.
So Mr Burns......what of your claims that there'd be a confession today????
Buzz will be in Germany this weekend,
http://buzzaldrin.com/buzz-to-receive-the-distinguished-steiger-award/
If Jock could cross the channel and ask him about this, I'll bring a walking stick (just in case his hook is no longer up to the task) and the camera...
Thanks for the link. I'm from Germany and Dortmund is only a few kilometres away. I hope to be lucky enough getting a ticket. And maybe a dream comes true to talk to Buzz.
You made a testable assertion. You were wrong. Do you retract your claim? If not, exactly why not?I am expecting Buzz Aldrin to make a confession soon possibly with an interview with Anna Botting of Sky News. That will really put the cat among the pigeons !...
Does your source identify what "soon" covers (weeks, months, years)?
soon looks like October 3 from where i am standing...
Buzz will be in Germany this weekend,
http://buzzaldrin.com/buzz-to-receive-the-distinguished-steiger-award/
If Jock could cross the channel and ask him about this, I'll bring a walking stick (just in case his hook is no longer up to the task) and the camera...
Thanks for the link. I'm from Germany and Dortmund is only a few kilometres away. I hope to be lucky enough getting a ticket. And maybe a dream comes true to talk to Buzz.
Hi Dr.Acula, I am in Köln, so rest assured there is a buffer zone between you and exploding heads in the Netherlands!
skeptic_UK You have just topped the 10,000 views - not bad for a first-timer ! - well done jockndoris
soon looks like October 3 from where i am standing
So Mr Burns......what of your claims that there'd be a confession today????
I'm waiting for an answer to this:So Mr Burns......what of your claims that there'd be a confession today????
It's voyeurism, no more.
FTFY. I may be mistaken, but I find it hard to believe Burns believes his own work.It's voyeurism, no more.
Yep. Trolling and rubber-necking.
I've said it before and I'll say it again...theconspiracy believer'swoo peddler's mind is a strange place....
...
I'd like some answers to these questions, please, Jockndoris:
1. If Apollo was faked how do you explain where the 380+ kilograms of Moon rocks and soil samples came from?
2. If Apollo was faked how do you explain how the footage was recorded of astronauts moving around in what appears to be a low-gravity vacuum?
3. If Apollo was faked how do you explain how the astronauts were able to discuss the news of the day and live sports scores during the missions?
4. If Apollo was faked how do you explain why the Soviets didn't say anything about the fake, especially as they had sources inside NASA providing them with lots of relevant data?
5. If Apollo was faked how do you explain how they faked zero gravity during live TV crosses during the journeys to and from the Moon?
Thank you.
I'm waiting for an answer to this:So Mr Burns......what of your claims that there'd be a confession today????
Still waiting for an answer...
Neil Burns was back on today, no doubt reading all these replies and soaking up (in his mind) the attention. Shame he hasn't got the bottle to answer to his ridiculous allegations.
I'm always fascinated by the talking past. It's like something in a stage play, where one guy thinks the conversation is about their boss and the other thinks it is about a pet cat. "Makes all these demands!" "Yes!" "Won't use the catbox!" "Yes! ...err, what?"
I'm always fascinated by the talking past. It's like something in a stage play, where one guy thinks the conversation is about their boss and the other thinks it is about a pet cat. "Makes all these demands!" "Yes!" "Won't use the catbox!" "Yes! ...err, what?"
We have a friend named Max. One of my friends has a cat named Max. Actual conversation:
Friend with the cat, to Friend A. "Yeah, and I've been leaving the window open, so Max can go in and out."
Friend B, in the back seat of the car where she'd been talking to me and not really listening. "Wait, what?"
Friend with the cat. "Well, you know, he can't open the door on his own."
Friend B. "Why not?"
Friend with the cat. "Because he doesn't have any hands?"
Friend B, now horrified. "What did you do to his hands?"
Long pause. Friend A. "The cat."
Friend B. "Oh . . . ."
JockndorisMr Moderator Yes. You have been very reasonable. I think however my participation in this post has now run its course until of course we get news that Buzz Aldrin has at last confessed - and that will happen and I hope you will let me know! We have done well though with over 10,000 views. Thanks to you and to all your posters for your contributions to that success . Jockndoris
I will remind you that you were under moderation (due to previous rule violations) when you returned to the forum. I removed the moderation restrictions so that you could more quickly answer questions about your claims.
If you do not answer the questions posed to you by the other members of the forum I will place you back under moderation and no further promotion of your books will be permitted.
I think however my participation in this post has now run its course...
until of course we get news that Buzz Aldrin has at last confessed - and that will happen and I hope you will let me know!
We have done well though with over 10,000 views.
Thanks to you and to all your posters for your contributions to that success . Jockndoris
JockndorisMr Moderator Yes. You have been very reasonable. I think however my participation in this post has now run its course until of course we get news that Buzz Aldrin has at last confessed - and that will happen and I hope you will let me know! We have done well though with over 10,000 views. Thanks to you and to all your posters for your contributions to that success . Jockndoris
I will remind you that you were under moderation (due to previous rule violations) when you returned to the forum. I removed the moderation restrictions so that you could more quickly answer questions about your claims.
If you do not answer the questions posed to you by the other members of the forum I will place you back under moderation and no further promotion of your books will be permitted.
Will you want him to confirm that he played golf with me or will you just accept that he says that he didn’t go to the Moon and had to carry out the recordings of the landings in a specially equipped studio in the Nevada Desert.Would you please present an evidence for this specially equipped studio?
I think however my participation in this post has now run its course until of course we get news that Buzz Aldrin has at last confessed - and that will happen and I hope you will let me know! We have done well though with over 10,000 views. Thanks to you and to all your posters for your contributions to that success . Jockndoris[/b]
He'll either do a stealth flounce (http://theafterword.co.uk/content/flounce-thread) or just plain ignore the fact that there will be no "confession".A full house with a total failure to ignore that there was no confession AND a flounce.
I wish I could capture that voice properly. It would work so well for some minor characters I'm tinkering with.
;D
One can hope that Max with hands never becomes a double forearm amputee, or things will become really confusing.;D
Ever since then, too, the distinction has been "Max with hands" and "Max without hands."
I think however my participation in this post has now run its course until of course we get news that Buzz Aldrin has at last confessed
We have a friend named Max. One of my friends has a cat named Max. Actual conversation:I've heard that the Japanese language can be so ambiguous that they've based a form of entertainment on it, plays in which the entire dialogue can be interpreted in several self-consistent ways. I forget what it's called.
...
I'd like some answers to these questions, please, Jockndoris:
1. If Apollo was faked how do you explain where the 380+ kilograms of Moon rocks and soil samples came from?
2. If Apollo was faked how do you explain how the footage was recorded of astronauts moving around in what appears to be a low-gravity vacuum?
3. If Apollo was faked how do you explain how the astronauts were able to discuss the news of the day and live sports scores during the missions?
4. If Apollo was faked how do you explain why the Soviets didn't say anything about the fake, especially as they had sources inside NASA providing them with lots of relevant data?
5. If Apollo was faked how do you explain how they faked zero gravity during live TV crosses during the journeys to and from the Moon?
Thank you.
Come on, Jockndoris. You going to answer?
Mr Moderator Yes. You have been very reasonable. I think however my participation in this post has now run its course until of course we get news that Buzz Aldrin has at last confessed - and that will happen and I hope you will let me know! We have done well though with over 10,000 views. Thanks to you and to all your posters for your contributions to that success . Jockndoris
I don't know what you guys are complaining about. Personally, I enjoyed Mr. Burns' book and found it quite useful. For example, I recently misplaced my funnel...
Oh no! Armstrong's ghost has been transferred to your car engine so now it will only go one-sixth its previous speed.
Sounds interesting. I know they do enjoy playing with their language -- homophones, especially in English loan-words -- and ambiguous meanings inherent in the rather tense grammar are certainly the fodder for certain salariman comics. (I had a subscription for a while to a magazine that used samples of various manga as a teaching tool to learn Japanese).They aren't keen in using pronouns either. Just adds to the confusion.
I remember a Tanaka-kun where he is struggling for two panels to open a bottle. On the third panel he finally gets the lid off, just as a friend enters saying "Happy New Year!" To which Tanaka-kun responds "It was nothing." (That's a play on the literal meaning of "Omedetto Gozaimasu!")
In another Tanaka-kun, his sometimes-girlfriend suggests they put on some (rock) music -- he proceeds to get up and lock the door!
And that's not even touching the fun you can get into with on and kun readings of different kanji.
From what little I know (I got to maybe the first month of a first semester in it via self-study) it is an incredibly contextual language. I like to think of it this way; the classic (romance) languages conjugate in order to explain who is going, when they are going, how many are going. English relies on the surrounding words and leaves off a lot of this. Japanese leaves practically everything out of the sentence entirely. So "Vamonos," then in English "Let's go," and in Japanese -- "Go." You have to figure out who is going based on context.
I don't know what you guys are complaining about. Personally, I enjoyed Mr. Burns' book and found it quite useful. For example, I recently misplaced my funnel...
(http://oi62.tinypic.com/2rfdaa9.jpg)
I don't know what you guys are complaining about. Personally, I enjoyed Mr. Burns' book and found it quite useful. For example, I recently misplaced my funnel...
(http://oi62.tinypic.com/2rfdaa9.jpg)
I knew someone who had the same idea with a magazine to save making a mess, however they found great difficulty with the dip stick hole until the error was pointed out.
Mr Moderator Yes. You have been very reasonable. I think however my participation in this post has now run its course until of course we get news that Buzz Aldrin has at last confessed - and that will happen and I hope you will let me know! We have done well though with over 10,000 views. Thanks to you and to all your posters for your contributions to that success . Jockndoris
No we won't stop laughing and pointing, but I doubt he cares, as he got his 10,000 views and over 870 posts worth of attention.QuoteMr Moderator Yes. You have been very reasonable. I think however my participation in this post has now run its course until of course we get news that Buzz Aldrin has at last confessed - and that will happen and I hope you will let me know! We have done well though with over 10,000 views. Thanks to you and to all your posters for your contributions to that success . Jockndoris
If you think that means we are going to stop laughing at you and stop taking the mickey out, then you are very much mistaken!
I don't know what you guys are complaining about. Personally, I enjoyed Mr. Burns' book and found it quite useful. For example, I recently misplaced my funnel...LOL! Good one, but aren't you worried it might foul your oil or clog your filter with woo-gunk?
(http://oi62.tinypic.com/2rfdaa9.jpg)
Clowns are funny. Burns is just pathetic. Clowns are talented and respected. Burns is just pathetic. He's neither intelligent nor talented nor right.
Clowns purposely set out to amuse and entertain.
Clowns purposely set out to amuse and entertain.
Burns does it by dint of being stupid and obtuse.
Both he and his bestest buddy in the whole world have logged in today, no doubt to congratulate themselves.
Oh no! Armstrong's ghost has been transferred to your car engine so now it will only go one-sixth its previous speed.
LOL! Good one, but aren't you worried it might foul your oil or clog your filter with woo-gunk?
Consider that both Jockndoris and Skeptic_UK are lurking the forum at least once a day, I doubt we'll get anything more from them except the usual dreck. Neither of them seems to want to stand by their claims beyond repeating them.
Make your mind up man.
I did enjoy the posts about Arthur C. Clarke.
I found an interesting website page about when he first came up with the idea of geostationary orbits, which might interest some of you (oh no maybe I'm in cahoots with it's author!).
I doubt we'll get anything more from them except the usual dreck.the usual dreck
Apollo 11 Customs Entry – Positive proof at last
This must be what you chaps have been waiting for !!
It is the a copy of the Customs entry form declaring the Moon Dust which the three
Apollo 11 astronauts brought back from the Moon when they cleared them as SAMPLES through Customs in Honolulu on 24 July 1969.
It is even signed by the Customs inspector Ernest J Imara.
I can confirm that the three signatures match even after all these years !
What more proof could any sceptic require?
Jockndoris
Apollo 11 Customs Entry – Positive proof at last
This must be what you chaps have been waiting for !!
It is the a copy of the Customs entry form declaring the Moon Dust which the three
Apollo 11 astronauts brought back from the Moon when they cleared them as SAMPLES through Customs in Honolulu on 24 July 1969.
It is even signed by the Customs inspector Ernest J Imara.
I can confirm that the three signatures match even after all these years !
What more proof could any sceptic require?
Jockndoris
Apollo 11 Customs Entry – Positive proof at last
This must be what you chaps have been waiting for !!
...
Not sure why you think this proves a hoax. The astronauts were picked up in the Pacific and then taken to Pearl Harbor. It's a bureaucratic nicety, but they'd obviously have to declare any potentially dangerous substances when entering the US.
This is from a gentleman who self-publishes the digital version of the Penny Dreadful, in which he claims to talk to ghosts......We aren't really expecting any sort of sensible answer, now are we?
NASA Insider: The moon is real but we lied about everything else
QuoteNASA Insider: The moon is real but we lied about everything else
What more proof could any sceptic require?
It is the a copy of the Customs entry form declaring the Moon Dust which the three
Apollo 11 astronauts brought back from the Moon when they cleared them as SAMPLES through Customs in Honolulu on 24 July 1969.
I can confirm that the three signatures match even after all these years !
What more proof could any sceptic require?
I think however my participation in this post has now run its course until of course we get news that Buzz Aldrin has at last confessed - and that will happen
I'm not holding my breath for any "confession". It's too bad I joined way too late to have all the fun you guys had.The confession will be made shortly after Aldrin's death.
The confession will be made shortly after Aldrin's death.
Which Burns will no doubt report as a strong confirmation of the reality of the golf game.The confession will be made shortly after Aldrin's death.
More likely Buzz's ghost will punch Neil Burns in the face.
I'm one handshake away from Buzz Aldrin, through a good friend in the aviation community. There's a very good chance I'll meet him at a social function in the near future, so I'll have to ask him about this.
Naaaah. I'd rather not insult him with such foolishness...
Wonderful photographs from NASA. Which of you can point out to me the three astronauts?
Are we supposed to believe they are inside those silver boxes ? There is no evidence whatsoever !!
You chaps are so gullible you will believe anything they feed you.
I lost my ball in the rough!Wonderful photographs from NASA. Which of you can point out to me the three astronauts?
Are we supposed to believe they are inside those silver boxes ? There is no evidence whatsoever !!
You chaps are so gullible you will believe anything they feed you.
Care to offer some proof that they weren't?
Hint: Lies about playing golf don't count.
Wonderful photographs from NASA. Which of you can point out to me the three astronauts?
Are we supposed to believe they are inside those silver boxes ? There is no evidence whatsoever !!
You chaps are so gullible you will believe anything they feed you.
Did you know that the Moon tonight is the second tome we have seen it in the month of July.
so it becomes a Blue Moon as in "once in a blue moon" Supposed to be a prelude to something - lets wait and see
regards Jockndoris
JocknDoris: you do realise this thread is about good books?IMO the title of the thread is an oxymoron.
Are we supposed to believe they are inside those silver boxes ? There is no evidence whatsoever !!
You chaps are so gullible you will believe anything they feed you.
I think however my participation in this post has now run its course until of course we get news that Buzz Aldrin has at last confessed
Wonderful photographs from NASA. Which of you can point out to me the three astronauts?
Are we supposed to believe they are inside those silver boxes ? There is no evidence whatsoever !!
You chaps are so gullible you will believe anything they feed you.
Did you know that the Moon tonight is the second tme we have seen it in the month of July.
And some recently recovered footage:It's amazing what gems we find in our attics. Good one obm.
Your claim that there is no evidence of the Apollo 11 crew in the box, or Ralph Rene invoking them being in the box. Can you guys get your story straight?
Wonderful photographs from NASA. Which of you can point out to me the three astronauts?
Are we supposed to believe they are inside those silver boxes ? There is no evidence whatsoever !!
You chaps are so gullible you will believe anything they feed you.
Did you know that the Moon tonight is the second tome we have seen it in the month of July.
so it becomes a Blue Moon as in "once in a blue moon"
Supposed to be a prelude to something - lets wait and see
regards Jockndoris
And some recently recovered footage:
Buzz Aldrin. Tweeting. That feels . . . weird. :o
Ladies and gentlemen, while we all acknowledge that refuting even the most inept hoax believer can lead to fruitful discussions, I really think there are some cases that are just not worth it. I have repeatedly asked Jockndoris why anybody should pay any attention whatsoever to his ridiculous story. No answer is a good enough answer for me. Burns is a crackpot seeking attention, and I'm not about to give this knucklehead any of mine. He's a zero, a nonentity, and even pointing and laughing at him is a waste of time.
Did you get vaccinated before/after using him? It seems like he disappears every so often and then comes back to get a hit about how many posts/views he gets. His ego must be very fragile and constantly needs reinforcement.Ladies and gentlemen, while we all acknowledge that refuting even the most inept hoax believer can lead to fruitful discussions, I really think there are some cases that are just not worth it. I have repeatedly asked Jockndoris why anybody should pay any attention whatsoever to his ridiculous story. No answer is a good enough answer for me. Burns is a crackpot seeking attention, and I'm not about to give this knucklehead any of mine. He's a zero, a nonentity, and even pointing and laughing at him is a waste of time.
I've used him a time or two as an example of the depths to which hoax believers can fall in order to "prove" their point and of how pathetic conspiracism gets sometimes. Is that something?
This is the second half of the Tweet, sorry I can't(don't know how to) make it bigger.
Edit: I made a mistake and this should have been posted in the Good books about the moon landings hoax? thread.
I'm sure the allocation is much more than it was in 1969. I currently get $1.50/mile.
Nice.
And all the more amusing for me, as in my current job I'm processing claims for Part-Day Travel Allowance and Mileage Allowance (well, actually Motor Vehicle Allowance, but you get the idea). But while some of my employees have racked up impressive numbers of kilometres, none of them travelled as far as the above government employee...
(To round it off, I started "Also Sprach Zarathustra" on the car's CD player (loudly) on the way to work this morning, and pretty much the first thing I saw as I drove up the street from home was the Moon in a cloudless sky. Lovely.)
I've used him a time or two as an example of the depths to which hoax believers can fall in order to "prove" their point and of how pathetic conspiracism gets sometimes.
This news is two edged:
Wonderful news for JayUtah
Here is the proof we have all been waiting 43 years for that Apollo 16 most definitely landed a rocket on the moon in 1972. The proof comes from no less an authority than NASA themselves .
http://www.space.com/31503-apollo-16-moon-rocket-crash-site-photo.html
How can be possibly deny such concrete, up to date, definitive evidence.
Jockndoris
But how can you decide which? You are obviously not certain otherwise you would agree with me.Hardly as my multitude of posts indicate that I know the landings occurred as history has recorded the events.
It's unfortunate that we must be suspicious of purportedly honest and neutral questions. Asking questions and being open is key to establishing dialogue and understanding one another. When you are the target of a sealion or a brigade of sealions, though, the purpose is to get you to waste your time responding to every little complaint, and falsely-amiable questions are the easiest way to get you to waste it. It is never about the answers, the factual responses that might be given, or the documented evidence that refutes the claim. It is about engaging you in repetitive response, so that the one who is doing the sealioning is never actually pinned down and forced to answer any questions of their own. The original responder usually gets angry first, and that is all the confirmation that the sealion needs to show his version is correct. If it weren’t you wouldn’t have run away angry.
Ishkabibble, I don't know why, but your last paragraph was rendered as microscopic font on my screen. In case anyone else missed it, it reads,Mine was ok, Gremlins.QuoteIt's unfortunate that we must be suspicious of purportedly honest and neutral questions. Asking questions and being open is key to establishing dialogue and understanding one another. When you are the target of a sealion or a brigade of sealions, though, the purpose is to get you to waste your time responding to every little complaint, and falsely-amiable questions are the easiest way to get you to waste it. It is never about the answers, the factual responses that might be given, or the documented evidence that refutes the claim. It is about engaging you in repetitive response, so that the one who is doing the sealioning is never actually pinned down and forced to answer any questions of their own. The original responder usually gets angry first, and that is all the confirmation that the sealion needs to show his version is correct. If it weren’t you wouldn’t have run away angry.
I'd just point out that anyone who still, in 2016, needs "confirmation" that the Moon landings happened as described nearly fifty years ago hasn't been paying attention.Or An HB :)
Apparently, Burns thinks he's merely getting a rise out of the forum, in which case it is to his benefit that he can keep doing so. This is clearly part of his intent to control the discussion, without actually having to participate in it.
I therefore note that his actions can clearly be categorized as "sealioning"
<polite snip>
It's unfortunate that we must be suspicious of purportedly honest and neutral questions. Asking questions and being open is key to establishing dialogue and understanding one another. When you are the target of a sealion or a brigade of sealions, though, the purpose is to get you to waste your time responding to every little complaint, and falsely-amiable questions are the easiest way to get you to waste it. It is never about the answers, the factual responses that might be given, or the documented evidence that refutes the claim. It is about engaging you in repetitive response, so that the one who is doing the sealioning is never actually pinned down and forced to answer any questions of their own. The original responder usually gets angry first, and that is all the confirmation that the sealion needs to show his version is correct. If it weren’t you wouldn’t have run away angry. [/font][/size]
But how can you decide which? You are obviously not certain otherwise you would agree with me.Hello, jockndoris. You still haven't answered my question: Why should anyone pay any attention whatsoever to your ridiculous story? Other than to point and laugh?
Wonderful news for JayUtah
Here is the proof we have all been waiting 43 years for that Apollo 16 most definitely landed a rocket on the moon in 1972. The proof comes from no less an authority than NASA themselves .
http://www.space.com/31503-apollo-16-moon-rocket-crash-site-photo.html
How can be possibly deny such concrete, up to date, definitive evidence.
Jockndoris
So Mr Burns......what of your claims that there'd be a confession today????
Hey- he's back!Convient memory loss? ::)
Lest your septuagenarian memory fails you Mr Burns, you appear to have ignored any attempt to explain why Buzz didn't confess in your timescales. Or indeed, still hasn't confessed.So Mr Burns......what of your claims that there'd be a confession today????
Snip for brevityThe subtle was not unappreciated. I wonder how many more will notice.
Wonderful news for JayUtah
Here is the proof we have all been waiting 43 years for that Apollo 16 most definitely landed a rocket on the moon in 1972. The proof comes from no less an authority than NASA themselves .
http://www.space.com/31503-apollo-16-moon-rocket-crash-site-photo.html
How can be possibly deny such concrete, up to date, definitive evidence.
Jockndoris
Here is the proof we have all been waiting 43 years for...
How can be possibly deny such concrete, up to date, definitive evidence.
Methinks you will grow old awaiting for this admission.Here is the proof we have all been waiting 43 years for...
...QuoteHow can be possibly deny such concrete, up to date, definitive evidence.
You certainly can, as you do it repeatedly in your book in the case of Apollo 11. I proved you are willful liar and a fraud. I renew that accusation, and I challenge you to address the proof I provided. Your prediction that your claims would be confessed to has also proven false. Are you finally ready to admit you just made up your stories at others' expense just to get attention?
Methinks you will grow old awaiting for this admission.
Not reading it, what were his main points, or was it just a plethora of hoax beliefs?Methinks you will grow old awaiting for this admission.
Just as he will grow old waiting for praise for his dishonest literary vomitus.
Not reading it, what were his main points, or was it just a plethora of hoax beliefs?Methinks you will grow old awaiting for this admission.
Just as he will grow old waiting for praise for his dishonest literary vomitus.
Seems to be a recurring operative, Sibrel, Percy, Allen, and maybe the Blunder.Not reading it, what were his main points, or was it just a plethora of hoax beliefs?Methinks you will grow old awaiting for this admission.
Just as he will grow old waiting for praise for his dishonest literary vomitus.
Sales.
Not reading it, what were his main points, or was it just a plethora of hoax beliefs?Methinks you will grow old awaiting for this admission.
Just as he will grow old waiting for praise for his dishonest literary vomitus.
That is RICH. ::)Not reading it, what were his main points, or was it just a plethora of hoax beliefs?Methinks you will grow old awaiting for this admission.
Just as he will grow old waiting for praise for his dishonest literary vomitus.
jockndoris' real name is Neil Burns.
This idiot wrote a book in which he claims, among other "dishonest literary vomitus" that the ghost of Neil Armstrong spoke to him, and that he played golf with both Armstrong and Buzz Alrin at a Naval Golf Course in Hawaii on July 20, 1969, the same day that the two astronauts were walking in the moon.
Nuff said!!
Not reading it, what were his main points, or was it just a plethora of hoax beliefs?
Yes I looked at the review and thought that might have been your assessment.Not reading it, what were his main points, or was it just a plethora of hoax beliefs?
Don't read it; it's garbage.
My Amazon.com review of it (http://smile.amazon.com/Haunted-Neil-Armstrong-Burns/product-reviews/0953574830/ref=cm_cr_dp_see_all_btm?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=recent)
Clavius page on his physics "thesis" (http://www.clavius.org/bibburnsthesis.html)
Sales.
Here is the proof we have all been waiting 43 years for that Apollo 16 most definitely landed a rocket on the moon in 1972.Does that mean you repudiate the contents of your 'books'?
Would you buy a used car from this guy?Here is the proof we have all been waiting 43 years for that Apollo 16 most definitely landed a rocket on the moon in 1972.Does that mean you repudiate the contents of your 'books'?
It was all I could do not to applaud.
It was all I could do not to applaud.
Then Neil Burns' book would probably make you vomit.
Would you buy a used car from this guy?
http://www.ukuva.co.uk/author.htm
His book contains a fair amount of wibbling on about accountancy, which doesn't bode well either.I'm not up on web speak, I guess. What are you indicating?
His book contains a fair amount of wibbling on about accountancy, which doesn't bode well either.I'm not up on web speak, I guess. What are you indicating?
Ok, thanks for the clarification. Would any accounting question concerning the Apollo program make any sense? Other than the amount that was spent versus how the money could have been used for more socially acceptable programs?
Forensic accounting of the private companies, But hardly NASA, no smoking gun there. Anyway I understand your evaluation of the booklet.Ok, thanks for the clarification. Would any accounting question concerning the Apollo program make any sense? Other than the amount that was spent versus how the money could have been used for more socially acceptable programs?
Some have claimed that the vast sum spent on Apollo was simply pocketed by the contractors without having delivered anything substantial. So I suppose forensic accounting would be relevant to that claim. There were certainly claims that the money could have been better spent, but that's the case with any public funding question. Neil Burns doesn't touch any of that. When I say he talks about accounting, I mean he talks at length about his career as an accountant and brags about his skill at programming early personal computers to perform accounting tasks. Understand that perhaps only 7 pages of his book actually talks about Apollo. The rest is shameless ego-stroking for unrelated reasons.