Good books about the moon landings hoax?

[Andromeda]

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

"Panic"?!  "Violently"?!

Wow.

Your understanding of the things people say on here is the opposite to what they have actually said.  I can't even tell if you really do think that way or you are having a laugh.  What fun.

Why are you so fixated on Jay, BTW?  It's bizarre.

[JayUtah]

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.

Which I noted above.  That he was examined successfully on a body of sciences that may have included physics is not sufficient grounds for me to conclude that he has a specialized degree in that field.  As I said, American students receiving any bachelor of science degree must demonstrate a small amount of proficiency in a wide variety of sciences.  For example, I had to demonstrate proficiency in biology.  That isn't equivalent to a Bachelor of Science in biology.

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.

His academic claims are part of the content of his book, and lately affirmed to me in writing as why he "knew in 1963 that the Moon landings were impossible."

The specific scientific allegations he makes on pages 11-13 are as I've outlined them on Clavius.  The further claim he makes was that the content of those pages (which is erroneous in the extreme) is the basis by which he was awarded a degree in physics.  This, I believe, is meant to give the reader a false impression that what he has written is what any qualified physicist would say if asked honestly about the feasibility of the Moon landings.  He insinuates in his letter that he alone had the "courage" to say something in 1969.

In 2012 Burns posted here, but made no mention of having a relevant degree.  That claim didn't arise until 2013 or 2014.

[frenat]

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

Words that Burns does not appear to know the definition of:
panic
desperate
threatened
violent
collapse

Mr. Burns, again, your posts make you appear extremely delusional.  You don't appear to actually comprehend what is written by others here and your obsessive attachment to Jay is disturbing.

[Echnaton]

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 !

Really.  You consider this a "violent" reaction?  You have the chance here to make our Apollo theories collapse, but you spend your time on this? Why do you waste your time complaining about how you are treated when you could be turning the world on its head.  That is all you have left to say?. 

[JayUtah]

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!

Panic?  Everything in sight?

Hardly.  You are being soberly questioned about the continuing irregularities in your claims -- not so much by me (so your mounting obsession is somewhat comical at this point), but by others who are suitably familiar with United Kingdom academia.

You have responded only by attempting to dismiss the questions via emotionally-laden hyperbole.

You must feel desperately threatened to react so violently and the collapse of your Apollo theories must be just round the corner !

Desperation?  Violence?  Where are you getting these irrelevant, emotionally-laden terms?  More importantly:  why are you resorting to them instead of answering the specific questions concisely and factually?

The content and plausibility of your "thesis" has been addressed at length.  You have absolutely no interest in addressing the obvious errors it contains.  Yet you persist on the authority of a typewritten form to insinuate it is the basis of a degree in Physics awarded to you.

As to the "collapse of my theories ... [being] just around the corner," I note with some amusement your continued delusion.  First, they are not "theories," nor are they mine, but rather the body of knowledge and evidence accepted as fact by the world's relevant industries and scientific institutions, including your beloved alma mater.  They are the basis upon which nearly all relevant engineering has progressed since the early 1960s.  No amount of pseudo-academic handwaving or supernatural spookery makes those facts go away.

Second, collapse is not the least threatened.  You have offered your attempt to dismiss on purely scientific grounds the validity of Apollo science and engineering, and I have met it in spades.  The fact that you have no comment on it, but have devolved solely now into allegations of hysterics, tells me all I need to know about your actual confidence in any semblance of "collapse."

Third, disbelief in manned Moon missions has never been "right around the corner," but remains largely the purview of those who tend to be laughingstocks.  You dove into a 20-year-old book, praising its long-debunked nonsense as if it were some brand new epiphany.  Authors like you have been repeating this nonsense since the mid-1970s with no greater credibility now than then.  Others such as authors mentioned in the beginning of this thread have even made far more substantial attempts than you.  So your gloating is both ill-timed and poorly-aimed.

For someone who still claims to have a BSc in Physics and the wherewithal to prove man's greatest achievement a fraud, you seem quite unwilling to actually discuss the facts with qualified scientists and engineers.  Why is that?

As I have stated numerous times, I stand ready to join debate with you on the "thesis" you say got your your degree.  When you're quite finished trying to paint your critics as frightful children, perhaps you'd like to have the learned discussion this forum was set up to receive.

[nomuse]

Hmph.

So skeptic_UK starts a thread asking for "good books" about the hoax. Gets one recommendation and is happy; doesn't feel the need to talk about that book at all, doesn't feel the need to share his interest with the actual AUTHOR of that book, who is here in the thread, and only barely reacts to mention of other books on the same subject. Why is he still here? Oh; to repeat over and over again, in case anyone missed it, that he "liked" reading that first book.

Also in the same thread is the author, who can't be bothered with his one fan, even as much as to ask what it was that said fan liked (but then, given how little that fan has communicated during his stay here, perhaps the author has the right of it!) He also seems uninterested in discussing defending or basically doing anything about his book and the reception thereof that couldn't have been accomplished equally well if he never bothered to post at all.

Is this a trend, now? Have we finally moved to a generation of hoaxies who strive to say the least possible over the longest of threads?

[LunarOrbit]

Sorry for not commenting on this thread more quickly, it's been another busy week for me at work and I had to attend a wedding yesterday.

I just want to say that at this point there is nothing to convince me that Jockndoris and Skeptic_UK are the same person. Their IP addresses are different, and while that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't the same person, without that I have no way to be sure. I'd rather assume they are different people and be wrong than assume they are the same person and be wrong.

Having said that, I can totally understand why people made that assumption. The re-appearance of Jockndoris after two years so soon after Skeptic_UK asked for book recommendations seems planned. So I would not be at all surprised if they were in cahoots. Even if they are, it's not a violation of any rules except maybe the one against advertising products in the forum, but I will allow it as long as he responds to questions. It's the price he will have to pay for the free advertising. He should expect a great deal of heat though because he is promoting it as non-fiction and there are plenty of reasons to doubt his story.

[smartcooky]

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).

There are a couple of versions, but I think the original is usually attributed to George Bernard Shaw...

"The United States and Great Britain are two countries separated by a common language."
        - Reader’s Digest (November 1942).

Churchill said something similar but in more "flowery" terms

"The gift of a common tongue is a priceless inheritance and it may well some day become the foundation of a common citizenship"
        - Winston Churchill, speech at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts (September 6, 1943)

 

   

[JayUtah]

Having said that, I can totally understand why people made that assumption.

Based on that and subsequent discussions, I'll withdraw the insinuation that they are the same person.

...I will allow it as long as he responds to questions.

And there are plenty of questions.  As I said, there are parts of the book that have nothing to do with ghosts.  Those are the ones I'm most interested in.

[RAF]

Jock is right about one thing...

JayUtah
What tremendous value for money !

....Jay is a tremendous value...

[beedarko]

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.

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 to me that an author who appears so eager to elicit favorable responses from readers here, would ignore the one person who gave him what he wants.

The certificate link was interesting.  I've taken the liberty of making a side-by-side with an example from 1970.  The registrar signature, crest and overall format seem consistent, although the newer example shows some stylistic changes which wouldn't be out of order given the seven year lapse.

[gillianren]

In an American university, every baccalaureate must show a certain small proficiency in the natural sciences, such as in chemistry, astronomy, or physics.

While technically not a university, my alma mater for my BA has no graduation requirements beyond a certain number of credits.  However, if you then wish to attend the same college for a MiT (Masters in Teaching), you have to have the credits in math, science, and what have you that you would have to have done to have graduated from an ordinary college.

[JayUtah]

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?  And while we can -- and have -- embarked on any number of distasteful and rancorous side debates along the way in this thread. I'm still most interested in discussing the testable questions raised in the book.  I've identified what those are several times.  I've written a response that's at least as detailed as the claim.  Yet neither of the people in this thread who like the book will rise to the occasion.

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.

[onebigmonkey]

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

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/

What are the odds!?

[smartcooky]

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?

Its because they are unable to Jay. They simply do not have the engineering/scientific background or experience to hold an in-depth conversation at the level required. They know that if they do try to converse on the required level, they will fail miserably, and will suffer an enormous dent in their self-esteem/ego. So they do the only things they can do, the most common of which are.

1. Continually ignore questions and requests to show their evidence and explain its meaning.

2. Continually obscure, obfuscate, digress, divert, deviate away from the areas WE want discussed into areas where they feel they are on solid ground.

and when they cannot make any headway with that, along come...

3. The angry retorts usually brought on by their frustration with being unable to keep the conversation away from areas where they are out of their depth; and finally

4. The Flounce!

Hell, I am an Apollo enthusiast, and despite having the motivation to understand the science and engineering, much of what I read of the conversations among you high power guys on the forum is completely over my head).

NOTE: I don't call myself an Apollo "believer" because belief implies faith, and I don't need faith. I know the whole of the space programme (including Apollo) took place as recorded because it makes the most logical sense. The Space programme is hugely recorded, in exquisite and minute detail, and that fact alone is the greatest stumbling block for hoax believers. Importantly, NOT ONE of the bevy of HBs, including the best know ones; Kaysing, White, Sibrel, Rene and the "Blunder from Down Under", has been able to detail exactly how the Apollo missions were supposed to have been faked, They have been unable to come up with a "play-by-play"; a sequence of detailed events that had to be put together (in secret), and which matches the detail in the Apollo record and which accounts for every scientific aspect of the outcomes from Apollo (all of which are verifiable). All Hoax Believer theories are piecemeal; an inconsistency here, something odd-looking there etc, most of them are not based on sound science, and many of them are not consistent with each other.