Good books about the moon landings hoax?

[ka9q]

The diversion into university degrees has been somewhat interesting in that I've learned something about the terms and requirements in the UK as opposed to the US.

But it's just not relevant to the original discussion. It wouldn't matter in the least even if Mr. Burns had a doctorate from MIT and we're playing into his hands by arguing about his degree rather than his abysmal writing.

During my engineering career I interviewed hundreds of job candidates. I quickly learned to pretty much ignore the candidate's university and even grades, though I might ask questions about some specific course on the transcript. I encountered many good candidates from no-name schools, and also many poor candidates from prestigious universities. (Though usually not MIT, they seem to do a much better job than most in filtering out the bozos).

I also never saw much point in asking formal quiz questions, even though many of my colleagues used them heavily. I think they're unfair; you're not in your best form during a job interview anyway.

I found that I could usually tell after just a few minutes of conversation whether a candidate knew his/her stuff or was trying to bullshit me. I'd ask about some project they'd worked on, why they did things the way they did and not some other way, or what they'd do differently if they had to do it again. Or I'd describe what we were working on and see what questions they asked. The advantage to this latter approach is that they usually didn't even realize they were being tested.

On this basis there's no question that Mr Burns is trying to bullshit us; his degree, if any, is irrelevant.

[Jockndoris]

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!?

Yes it certainly is a coincidence
I studied under Professor John Allen from 1960 to1963. He was Professor of Physics from 1947 to 1978.
He was born in 1908 and  died in 2001.
The current professor has almost exactly the same name and is very much alive as confirmed by his secretary this morning.
This is another ridiculous red herring where you have been shown to be wrong.
Kindly stop before you make a complete fool of yourself.
jockndoris

[sts60]

Hi, jockndoris.  I am not interested in your claimed degrees, nor your claims of ghostly encounters, nor the literary merits (or lack thereof) of your book. 

I would simply like an answer to my previous question: Given the patent absurdity of your claim to have played golf with one of the most famous men in human history when we was observed to be off-planet that day, exactly why do you think it merits any attention whatsoever?

Please don't tell me to read your book.  I don't need to read about a claim that is observably untrue.  Nor does the fact that some members here have chosen to pay attention to it change my question: you're touting a book that makes an obviously false - ludicrously so - claim; why should I pay any attention to it?

Also, when do you intend to defend your claims about Mars?

[Jason Thompson]

Jockndoris, do you ever actually intend to answer a single question that has been put to you?

[smartcooky]

Also, when do you intend to defend your claims about Mars?

Jeez, that was so funny.

We can't get images back via radio from a spacecraft on Mars because it took seven months to get there? And this is from someone who claims to have degree in physics??

I guess when I next go down to to Dunedin on a seven hour car journey, I wont be able to text pictures back home in a few minutes because it took me seven hours to get there. 

Jockndoris, do you ever actually intend to answer a single question that has been put to you?

No, because he can't, for the simple reason that, not only does he not have the answers, he has utterly no idea how to go about getting them. He doesn't even know where to start.

[dwight]

I seriously think these hoax theories are great! They have done more to ruin the reputation of the HB side than any of my debating could. It is reassuring to get emails from former believers who have abandoned that line of thinking, thanks solely to the klanger argument blunders the HB side present. I just sit back and watch the show.

[RAF]

Kindly stop before you make a complete fool of yourself.

Too bad you can't "practice what you preach", eh?


So why should anyone believe that Armstrong played golf with you on July 20th, 1969, when all the actual evidence (sorry, but talking to ghosts doesn't "count") indicates that he didn't?

You have demonstrated on this very thread that you have no qualms about flat out LYING, so why should anyone believe you?

Since you likely have no response to this question, I'll understand if you ignore it.

[RAF]

you're touting a book that makes an obviously false - ludicrously so - claim; why should I pay any attention to it?

Oops...didn't see this before posting...essentially the same question...I'm interested in how he will ignore it.

[gwiz]

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!?

There's also a Prof John E Allen at Kingston University, an aerodynamicist and, in an earlier life, Head of Future Projects with Hawker-Siddeley, who is well qualified to comment on Burns paper (not to be confused with the Prof John E Allen at Oxford University, who is a mathematician).

[ineluki]

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.

You consider Harry Potter as a possible truth then as well?

[RAF]

After reviewing the other threads that Jock has started, one fact remains constant...

Jock makes unsubstantiated claims, but he doesn't answer questions related to those claims.


Why should we listen to you, Jock, when you refuse to respond to questions?

[JayUtah]

He was born in 1908 and  died in 2001.

Granted.  This is ostensibly to say there is no living soul who can confirm your claim that the thesis you reproduce in your book merited a Physics degree from a major university.

This is another ridiculous red herring where you have been shown to be wrong.

No, it's just yet another goose chase on which we've had to embark due to your lack of cooperation.  In your book you name the authority who allegedly confirmed your Apollo-denying "thesis" and granted you a degree for it solely as "Professor Allen."  Since you refuse to comment upon the suspicious nature of that claim, we have to reach out to your named sources (or whom we believe them to be based on your scant information) on our own.

Kindly stop before you make a complete fool of yourself.

I have no need to fear for my sanity or reputation.  I'm a reasonably well-known practitioner in the field, reasonably well published in the field of Apollo history -- and you're the one hawking ghost stories and patently absurd conspiracy theories.

We'll stop when we get answers from you, and not before.  As you know, your allegedly degree-winning "thesis" has been addressed by a professional and shown to be based instead on ignorance and supposition -- provably so.  You were diligent enough on the matter of an uninvolved professor's vitality to confirm it by telephone.  Yet you won't address the serious flaws in your work.

[JayUtah]

Nor does the fact that some members here have chosen to pay attention to...

The deal was that if he would send me a review copy gratis, I would review it.  He sent it, and I reviewed it.

[RAF]

This is ostensibly to say there is no living soul who can confirm your claim that the thesis you reproduce in your book merited a Physics degree from a major university.

Surely, Jock's next claim will be that he talks to Allen's ghost.

...and don't call me Shirley...

[JayUtah]

But it's just not relevant to the original discussion. It wouldn't matter in the least even if Mr. Burns had a doctorate from MIT and we're playing into his hands by arguing about his degree rather than his abysmal writing.

Burns actually makes two separate lines of reasoning in the book.  The primary claim is the one involving the golf game in 1969 and the later claims of supernatural confirmation.  The 1969 golf game is an allegation of fact, but stands with no testable substantiation whatsoever, and in contrast a whole raft of counter-evidence against it that Burns will not address.

The other line of reasoning appears early and vanishes quickly, but it reappears in the cover letter he sent with the book.  Burns says his short essay alleging to prove via physics that Apollo was impossible was good enough to merit a Physics degree.  Burns says, "Look, here's my degree."  But that's not proof his little essay was what got it, which is what we were trying to determine.  The connection between the paper and the degree serves only to buttress Burns' claim that the paper is probative.

During my engineering career I interviewed hundreds of job candidates. I quickly learned to pretty much ignore the candidate's university and even grades...

I never inquire about the actual grades.  I pay some attention to the university, usually to see if I have colleagues teaching there.

Like you, I pay attention almost exclusively to whether a candidate can "walk the walk."

I also never saw much point in asking formal quiz questions...

I have only one:  compute the effective data bandwidth of a 747 carrying CD-ROMs from Los Angeles to New York.  It's an exercise in requirements analysis; I don't really expect an answer.

On this basis there's no question that Mr Burns is trying to bullshit us; his degree, if any, is irrelevant.

I think I've amply demonstrated that he can't "walk the walk."  The degree itself is somewhat of a red herring.  The actual challenge sort of got kicked off the curb into the gutter.  The validity of the essay -- which Burns hopes to inflate by alleging it to a degree -- is what interests me, and I have made a suitable study of it.