Good books about the moon landings hoax?

[ajv]

But did he say "offten" frequently or only once?
...
I'm telling a terrible story, but it doesn't diminish my glory;

[JayUtah]

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?

As has been said, if you don't believe in ghosts then most of the book is irrelevant and the author urges you to stop reading.  And for good reason, because the only support for his claims that he played golf with Neil Armstrong is the author's subsequent claims to have been visited by Armstrong's ghost.  There is no provision for verifying that claim, and he offers no other evidence.  The insinuation that the golf course guest book contains his name and the Apollo crew members is not proven (or even investigated) in the book.

So if you eliminate that, ignore general golf and accounting stories, ignore the other ghost stories that don't go anywhere, and ignore most of the autobiography, you're left with pages 11-13, which are the author's presumably well-informed, non-supernatural reasons for why he believed, in 1963, that travel to the Moon was impossible.  In that essay he makes only arguments that appeal to science and to the state of the engineering art at the time.  As such I found them worthy of debate.  But none of the book's advocates seem to care about that.

[Jason Thompson]

I have no idea if he's visited by ghosts or not. Nor do I care.

Don't play dumb. You know full well that is NOT the question being asked. The point is not if he is being visited by ghosts, the point is that the claims made in the book that do not relate to supernatural events are not true. Do you still maintain otherwise?

While you may be bothered by the technical aspects of 'hoax' literature (which is perfectly fine) I am not.

Then a) you are in the wrong place, and b) you should be concerned with the technical aspects. It is the technical aspects that allow the determination of whether or not there was a hoax in the first place.

[twik]

An interesting position to take. "I don't care whether this purported history book is true or not. I just care if it's a ripping yarn."

One wonders why you bother reading presumed non-fiction. Admitted fiction is usually much more oriented towards being entertaining rather than educational.

[nomuse]

*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.

On the contrary, you are answering the same question over and over. Regardless of what question is actually presented to you.

It only looks like going around in circles because you won't get out of the box. We discuss science and history here, and we'll even do a little literary analysis, but there isn't anything worth discussion in whether you -- or anyone else, "likes" a book or not.

[Andromeda]

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.

Clearly you do care, on some level, because you keep going on about it.  You are being asked the same questions over and over because you have not answered them.

Just because I don't give the answer you prefer seems to mean I don't give any answer at all.

The "answer" you have provided is to a question we have not asked, not to the questions we have.

Your 1990's era website is cute but not my style thanks.

Why launch a smug insult?

While you may be bothered by the technical aspects of 'hoax' literature (which is perfectly fine) I am not.

This forum is for the express purpose of discussing those technical aspects.  If you refuse to do that, then I don't know why you are here and it might be best if you left.

You came here asking for "good" books.  We have shown you, in painstaking detail, why the single book you have chosen is very far from anything that could be described as "good"... and yet you are still not happy, despite getting what you have asked for.

[nomuse]

But did he say "offten" frequently or only once?
...
I'm telling a terrible story, but it doesn't diminish my glory;

VEEERY nice! 

[JayUtah]

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.

Just 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.

Your 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.

While 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.

[beedarko]

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!!

Holy geez, what an attention whore. You bring taking the piss to a whole new level.

[beedarko]

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.

[skeptic_UK]

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.

Have you actually read this thread? I'm not the one obsessed by the term. I will defend myself from people who baselessness accuse myself of lying or pretending to be someone I am not. 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.

[ka9q]

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.

[RAF]

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".

[RAF]

Just because I don't give the answer you prefer seems to mean I don't give any answer at all.

You haven't answered our questions...that is a lie.

[skeptic_UK]

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.

Just 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.

Your 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.

While 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.

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. Don't ask me about something then moan when I mention that something in the reply.

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.

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.