Good books about the moon landings hoax?

[RAF]

... 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.


 

[JayUtah]

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.

Maybe according to you.

You have no interest in the only topic of debate regarding Haunted that's allowed here.  You just want to keep telling us over and over how good a read it is.

I linked to my thorough dismantling of the author's claim to have a sufficient background in "physics" to determine -- without the aid of ghosts -- that Apollo was impossible.  You have either no interest or no response, which makes your claims of having "moved past the debate" fall rather flat.  Not to mention that the author has made several claims that fall within your purported field of expertise, yet you did not notice how patently false they were.

You can rant all you want about what terrible people you think we are.  But you've been offered several opportunities to debate the facts.  And you've just as often told us the facts don't interest you.  If there's any trolling here, I think we know under whose bridge the troll is hiding.

[JayUtah]

Or, if he claims that his brilliant work was being suppressed, it would be given a failing mark.

The ghost of Professor Allen just appeared in my living room and reported he never had any such student as Neil Burns and that he, the professor, fully believes the Moon landings were real as advertised.

[RAF]

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

Actually, RAF are my initials, however such "small talk" is irrelevant. As I posted, I find zero "enjoyment" reading ignorant lies about the Apollo Moon missions.

Do you understand the above sentence?, because I seriously question your ability to comprehend the written word.

[smartcooky]

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!

1963 - the year Burns claims he wrote this supposed  "thesis". Three U.S. Navy
planes connected for in-flight refueling: Two Douglas KA-3B Skywarriors and a Douglas
A-4E Skyhawk. This was a stunt performed for the photographer.

but forty years earleir!!!


Capt. Lowell H. Smith and Lt. John P. Richter performing the first aerial refueling on
27 June 1923. The DH-4B biplane remained aloft over the skies of Rockwell
Field in San Diego, California, for 37 hours.

[Jason Thompson]

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. ...

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...

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.

That doesn't even sound vaguely like a title that would be offered for any kind of final year thesis. A minor essay maybe.

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.

And if he thinks anyone with an ounce of sense would believe that a final year thesis at any university would be graded in 'marks out of 20' he really must take every one of his readers for idiots.

[Jason Thompson]

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.

As you're back, perhaps you'd address my question: do you still maintain it is 'impossible' to know if the content of the book is true or not? If so, why?

[ka9q]

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/

[JayUtah]

Thanks, ka9q. I tried a new text editor (Sublime), and I don't know where the spell checker is on it yet.

[skeptic_UK]

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.

*facepalms*

[onebigmonkey]

Can I suggest we take a break from the meta-discussion and move back on topic? I don't have the tools to decide if Skeptik and Jock are one and the same, but if they are, so what? The hoax claims are either true or they aren't. They aren't.

The point is, can they answer the questions that have been asked of them concerning the Armstrong's Ghost book specifically, and the hoax in general.

As an aside, I have in my 'Saved for later' list at Abebooks a 2nd hand copy of this

DARK MOON : Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers
David S. Percy
Published by Aulis Publishers, 1999

£2.89 - free postage, and not one penny of it goes to David Percy or Aulis.

I still can't bring myself to buy it though. It would pollute my bookshelves.

[nomuse]

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/

But did he say "offten" frequently or only once?

[nomuse]

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?

[JayUtah]

*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

[skeptic_UK]

*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.