Good books about the moon landings hoax?

[Bob B.]

For the one statement you disagree with me on?

What statement would that be?

[Derek]

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

OT
An ordinary degree typically takes 3 years here, with an honours degree taking typically 4.  When I was picking universities 30 years ago the entry requirements between Scottish and English institutions were broadly similar. That's still the case now and would have been 20 years earlier than I went to uni (ie when Jockndoris attended St Andrews).

[onebigmonkey]

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'm going to go out on a limb and say that it is very possible to make a statement about his claims: The author's claims are not true. He made them up to make money.

He did not play golf with Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin - not just when they were on the moon, but ever, and he has never been visited by the ghost of Neil Armstrong other than in a post 19th hole dream.

His claims are not true and he knows they are not true.

[Jason Thompson]

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.

Don't play dumb with us. We have said on many occasions that that claim is NOT the one we are discussing. Was he visited by the ghost of Neil Armstrong? Maybe. Does the ghostly visit he describes in the book match anything about the known character of the actual man? No. Do his claims to have been granted a physics degree on the basis of a 'thesis' that was marked as '17 out of 20' and contains not a jot of actual degree'-level physics in it? No. Are any of his statements regarding Neil Armstrong and Apollo in any way remotely true? No, and the author knows it. THOSE are the claims we are addressing, as you well know.

I don't care if you are Burns or not. I don't care if he was visited by ghosts or not. I care that every other claim in his 'book' is demonstrably falsehoods, and that you don't seem to care despite his position of pubishing it as if it is some factual account.

I've engaged the subject of the thread plenty.

No, you haven't. You have engaged this one area only and ignored every other question that has been put to you. You've been given a lot of resource here, and yet all you do is whinge on about this sock puppet business. Why?

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

No, you are being called whining for focusing exclusively on those 'attacks' and ignoring every other comment or question.

[Andromeda]

It's interesting, Skeptic_UK, that rather than directly tell the author what you think of his book you have chosen to attack the others on the thread.

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 - choosing instead to goad the others on this thread.

[Zakalwe]

I've engaged the subject of the thread plenty.

No, not really.

You seem overly keen to believe the demented ramblings about ghosts from some unknown pensioner, yet quite happy to disbelieve the virtually unlimited evidence that the Apollo program happened as described in the historical canon, even if that means disbelieving the accounts of people who are a million times more trusthworthy and smarter than Burns. Why is this?

You seem very keen to avoid answering simple questions such as this:

I've always had a passing interest in the moon hoax and do believe it was faked myself.

Why?

Why exactly is this?

The subject of your thread was this:

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.

Yet you have latched solely on to a wretched piece of fiction. Why?

Why have you ignored the other books that you've been recommended?

Your fourth post on this forum latched onto this execrable piece of nonsense from an unknown author

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...

And you wonder why people are questioning your motives?

[beedarko]

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

That's a keen observation. He goes on about Jay's imagined enjoyment of his work, but completely ignores the one person expressing 'real' admiration.

Hey Jock, why no love for the person who appears to be your only living fan?

[JayUtah]

As I told Skeptic_UK, this thread went south only when he started behaving suspiciously.  As for Neil Burns (Jockndoris), he has always behaved suspiciously.  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.

[Dr_Orpheus]

Most people who have read a book they liked would take advantage of the opportunity to discuss the book with the author.  Skeptic_UK, do you have any questions or comments you would like to say to Mr. Burns about his book?

[Jockndoris]

...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.

...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

[Andromeda]

Why doesn't that "certificate" have the title of the degree on it?

Why does it not have the degree classification on it?

How do you account for the dating discrepancy regarding Kennedy's speech which Jason pointed out?

[Jason Thompson]

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.

[gillianren]

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.

[JayUtah]

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.

Physics is not listed.

Once you have seen the Certificate I expect an abject apology from you for your unnecessary rudeness in calling me a liar.

No.

I never questioned your having earned a BSc.  I questioned whether it was a degree in Physics or not.  This certificate confirms to me it was not.

You still have not addressed the obvious and egregious errors in your alleged thesis, such as claiming Arthur C. Clarke was the progenitor of quantitative orbital mechanics.  You still have not reconciled the dates in the timeline of your collegiate studies. 
You have not explained why you think a physics degree would be awarded to you on the basis of a brief paper.

By "Professor Allen" in your book, I presume you refer to Emeritus Professor John Allen, in the School of Physics and Astronomy.  As Prof. Allen is still alive and thus able to comment on your claims, I wonder if you have anything you'd like to say before I forward copies of the relevant pages of your book to him for his comment.

Finally, I will not be lectured by you on the subject of rudeness.

[JayUtah]

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.

I've already taken the liberty already of examining specimens of University of St. Andrews diplomas from the late 1950s to the mid 1960s.  Needless to say they appear quite different and are considerably more ornate.  However, as I said, I never questioned Burns' baccalaureate in general, just the insinuation that it was in Physics.