Good books about the moon landings hoax?

[nomuse]

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?"

[JayUtah]

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.

The letter is signed only by the registrar, not by the president of the university, the dean of the college, or any of the regents.  An actual diploma must have certain signatures and seals, which this letter lacks.  A registrar's letter on official letterhead would serve in some circumstances as certification of accession to a degree, but those circumstances would be along the lines of loss of the original diploma, or a letter issued for employment purposes while the formal diploma is being prepared.  It's crumpled and folded likely because it has been mailed.  Why anyone would frame that and put it on their wall instead of a diploma is beyond me, but if that's what he cherishes then so be it.

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...

"Natural philosophy" is an older term for sciences that once included physics, but it differs from a specialized study of physics that would merit a specialized degree from the School of Physics and Astronomy.  The list of exams taken indicates what we in the United States refer to as General Studies.  In an American university, every baccalaureate must show a certain small proficiency in the natural sciences, such as in chemistry, astronomy, or physics.  But these are typically from introductory, 100-level classes given en masse to undergraduates.

...nor any classification. Was it first class? Second class? With honours?

For the benefit of those of us unfamiliar with these distinctions, would you please explain what would be expected on such a certificate?

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.

Hence why I think Burns inflates the terms "thesis" and "degree" in the explanation given in the book.  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.

It is not at all plausible that he earned any sort of degree based upon this paper, nor that this assignment would have received a very favorable grade.

[Jason Thompson]

An actual diploma must have certain signatures and seals, which this letter lacks.

Just to confuse the issue further, here in the UK a diploma is in fact a qualification in its own right: it is what you obtain after completion of the first year of a course. The certificate of the degree itself is just referred to as a certificate.

For the benefit of those of us unfamiliar with these distinctions, would you please explain what would be expected on such a certificate?

On this point Andromeda and 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. Honours are reserved for courses lasting four or more years.

However, to answer the question, in the rest of the United Kingdom a degree is usually an honours degree, and may be passed with grades:

First class honours is the highest classification (though some of the more elite universities offer higher classifications within that to indicate exceptional work).

Second class honours are divided into upper second class and lower second class, denoted as a 2:1 and 2:2 respectively. (A lower second class degree is often referred to as a Desmond, after Desmond Tutu!)

Third class honours is the lowest honours degree pass level.

An ordinary degree is a pass without honours, or may be a degree course that did not include honours in the first place. Most Open University degrees are ordinary degrees, for example.

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 find that plausible too. As with you, however, I do not believe he could have earned a degree based on it, 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.

[JayUtah]

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.

No.  No matter how you slice it, the paper exhibits a high level of ignorance and misconception.  I could go back and grade it as if it were an undergraduate physics paper, and I still guarantee it wouldn't get 17 out of 20.  Under no circumstances would a university of St Andrews' reputation grant a subject-matter degree to such ignorance.

But the sticky wicket is that if Burns comes clean and admits, for example, that it was just a brief paper written as an undergraduate as part of some general-studies requirement, that undermines any claim he would have to special expertise in physics.  The reader might instead say, "Oh, I see, it was just a college class assignment, not a degree thesis."  The way Burns styles it in his book, he got a degree in Physics, and this paper was a big part of it -- and on the basis of that insinuation, the claims in the paper would carry more weight with a layman reader.

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?"

Burns seems to have gotten the impression we doubt his studies at St Andrews in toto.  That is not the case.  If he first matriculated in 1960 then a baccalaureate in 1963 is entirely plausible.  I doubt he obtained any specialized degree in Physics.  I doubt the paper he presents in his book qualifies as a degree thesis.  And the timeline for writing the degree thesis in 1963 doesn't jive with the Kennedy announcement in 1961.

However, a 1961 date fits very well with writing a short paper in a first-year physics or astronomy course.  But then again, it's just some college kid's paper -- not the masterful thesis proving Apollo is impossible.

[Jason Thompson]

If he first matriculated in 1960 then a baccalaureate in 1963 is entirely plausible.

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.

Quibbles over terminology I know. Who was it who said England and America were divided by a common language?

[Andromeda]

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).

[JayUtah]

Just to confuse the issue further...

Hence why I have let you folks in the U.K. lead the discussion of terminology and scope of study.  In the United States, a diploma is the formal signed and sealed document for the completion of a degree:  bachelor, master, or doctor.  It is considered the definitive documentation proving admission or accession to the degree, however in practice a signed and sealed registrar's letter or transcript is more commonly requested.

What I'm looking at elsewhere from U.K. universities and calling a diploma is in fact a certificate.

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.

In the U.S. we have honors classifications, cum laude, magna cum laude, and summa cum laude respectively.  But they refer to standing in the graduating class.  Only a certain number of summa cum laude honors are granted per graduating class, for example.

However, we don't really apply much of a distinction between an ordinary degree and and honored degree.  It's a mark of prestige, but we consider an ordinary degree to be a suitable documentation of expertise.

...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.

That's why I question the language in the book.  It seems to be geared toward inflating the significance of the paper so as to convey the impression Neil Burns was some kind of physics expert, and that the paper -- being the opinion of a "physics expert" -- offers objectively plausible arguments for why Apollo would be impossible.

[JayUtah]

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]

A version of it appeared the The Canterville Ghost by Oscar Wilde (1887).

...who visited frontier Utah as part of his travels and wrote of it.  I know we aren't a literary society, but that just has "culture clash" written all over it.  The phrase is usually attributed to Winston Churchill, but then a lot of stuff is.

I can certainly comment on the validity of the paper itself.  It's right up the middle of the fairway of my professional expertise.  And it's crap.

But the correct positioning of the paper and the claims surrounding it within the U.K. and/or Scotland higher education system is not something I can do with expertise.  But that said, no subject-matter degree would be awarded on the basis of such a flimsy, ephemeral essay.

[Luke Pemberton]

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.

Indeed. The baccalaureate in England was to be based on the respected French qualification. Michael Gove wished to introduce the concept as a the standard for 11-18 education, but abandoned it for Progress 8 at 14-16 and retained A-levels at 16-18. Progress 8 is based on the baccalaureate subjects, but it does not follow all the way through to 18 as Mr Gove intended.

The old Grade G-A* system at 14-16 will be phased out with new 1-9 grades. Grade 8 will be broadly equivalent to the current A*, and 9 being A**, dubbed the super GCSE.

In the UK, we have vocational qualifications. There is the BTEC Level 3 for 16-18, which is awarded as a certificate. This is then followed by the Higher National Certificate (HNC) and Higher National Diploma (HND) programmes of study. After receiving an HND, one has a qualifications to be accepted onto a degree course. HNDs are normally based at Foundation Degree level which were once offered by Universities. At my undergrad University, Engineering students who did not quite have the A-level grades to study 1st year BEng were given the option to study a Foundation year. If they completed that Year successfully, they were then transferred to a degree programme for another 3 years.

A student can also receive a Diploma after successfully completing the first year of a Degree Course. I know that my friend failed the second year of his degree, but was awarded a Diploma.

In some cases a Diploma can take 2 years. For instance, in the UK someone can study for a PGCE, which is a Post Graduate Certificate of Education. They'll earn 30 Masters Points if they complete their assignments as Masters Level, otherwise they will be awarded a Professional Graduate Certificate of Education (basically they earn the right to teach but have no masters points).

A student with 30 masters point from a PGCE can study for a further two Years to gains an MA or MSc in Education. After the first year they can cash in their Diploma and then go onto the 2nd Year for a Masters.

It's not clear cut but in general the basic structure follows:

General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSEs, 14-16)
General Certificate of Education (A-levels, 16-18)
Vocational Certificate
Vocational Diploma
Bachelor Degree
Master Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Doctor of Letters/Literature/Science

The qualifications in bold, in general, allow entry to a degree course.

Then there are OxBridge degrees such as jurisprudence, as well as varying medical and surgical qualifications.

[onebigmonkey]

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, of which Physics is a branch. St Andrews is a somewhat archaic place (I once went for a job interview there, as well as attended a conference)

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.

[Jockndoris]

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

[Luke Pemberton]

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.

Indeed it is. Much like Cambridge offer the Natural Sciences Tripos. It's very archaic.

[Jason Thompson]

Jock, answer the questions. The scan you posted is inconsistent with your claims, and your claims are inconsistent with reality.

I only want one question answered: why do you claim it took until 1963 for Kennedy's 1961 speech to reach you in Scotland?

[Luke Pemberton]

JayUtah

Jay obsession #1343

You must feel desperately threatened to react so violently...

Nope, but you must feel desperate that you have to obsess over Jay. Why is that I wonder?

...and the collapse of your Apollo theories must be just round the corner !

It's not a theory. It's the other side of the fence that call it a theory, you know, a conspiracy theory, the Apollo Hoax theory. No theory here. So please, present one piece of evidence, one piece that proves in your mind that NASA swindled the world.