Author Topic: Good books about the moon landings hoax?  (Read 473909 times)

Offline twik

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 595
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #570 on: September 22, 2014, 11:24:09 AM »
If the "thesis" is what was reproduced on Clavius, it may well have been an undergraduate essay at St. Andrew's. However, with no calculations, just qualitative terms, it provides no proof. It just says that an undergraduate in a science program doesn't think there is a way to do something. That's scarcely proof that thousands of trained engineers would not be able to come up with a method.

"I don't think they can do it" does not equal "they can't do it." There is certainly no proof in the quotes Jay has provided that there was an insurmountable difficulty.

(With regard to the certificate, is there a reason why "natural history" is cited twice at a topic of examination? Perhaps it is simply a result of "natural history" covering a wide range of the sciences, but it looks odd.)

Offline Glom

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1102
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #571 on: September 22, 2014, 11:24:22 AM »
Well this is the most embarrassing thing to come out of the UK since yesterday.

Offline Andromeda

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 746
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #572 on: September 22, 2014, 11:44:18 AM »
Well this is the most embarrassing thing to come out of the UK since yesterday.

Oi.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov.

Offline sts60

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 402
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #573 on: September 22, 2014, 01:27:13 PM »
If the "thesis" is what was reproduced on Clavius, it may well have been an undergraduate essay at St. Andrew's. However, with no calculations, just qualitative terms, it provides no proof...

Whereabouts is this document on Clavius?

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1607
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #574 on: September 22, 2014, 01:36:32 PM »
This is where Jay dismantles it:

http://www.clavius.org/bibburnsthesis.html

Devil's advocate:

Given that the Gemini/Apollo program was in its early days when it was written, how much could a Physics professor be reasonably expected to know about it - what position would he have been in, without the benefit of our 20/20 hindsight, to judge what was correct or not?

How many of the marks were for reasonable suggestions rather than factual correctness?

Offline nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 859
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #575 on: September 22, 2014, 01:40:43 PM »
This is where Jay dismantles it:

http://www.clavius.org/bibburnsthesis.html

Devil's advocate:

Given that the Gemini/Apollo program was in its early days when it was written, how much could a Physics professor be reasonably expected to know about it - what position would he have been in, without the benefit of our 20/20 hindsight, to judge what was correct or not?

How many of the marks were for reasonable suggestions rather than factual correctness?

He claims he got 17 out of 20. Are there enough missed marks to cover;

Confusing speed and velocity,
Not knowing anything about Kepler,
Not knowing orbits are ellipses...



Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3814
    • Clavius
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #576 on: September 22, 2014, 04:13:26 PM »
Devil's advocate:

Given that the Gemini/Apollo program was in its early days when it was written, how much could a Physics professor be reasonably expected to know about it - what position would he have been in, without the benefit of our 20/20 hindsight, to judge what was correct or not?

Well, we're not talking about a physics professor but rather that physics professor.  And according to our author, the guy is no longer around to answer questions or defend himself.  So any answer would be second-guessing.  Some professors know a whole lot about the periphery of their fields.  Others do not.

We trust university professors not to give assignments out of their ken.  We trust them to be able to grade them fairly as representatives of the body of knowledge, not just from their personal understanding which may be limited.  If Prof. Allen doesn't know much about the United States aerospace industry, then it's a poor assignment.  And his judgment of one student's performance does not equate to endorsing the content as fact.

Quote
How many of the marks were for reasonable suggestions rather than factual correctness?

We'll never know.  We'll never know if any such marks were ever actually given.  Burns reproduces the essay from memory, and simply claims he got a good enough grade on it.  He has specifically enjoined further discussion, as that would apparently violate his "Modesty is my middle name" maxim.

We have to keep in mind that the assignment was to identify challenges, not to prove they couldn't be overcome.  Graded simply as a survey of requirements, you might expect some leeway.  But Burns gets the requirements wrong, so no.

About half the purported obstacles are based on Burn's deeply flawed knowledge of orbital mechanics theory.  From any physics professor's point of view, I think, that would be inexcusable.  Especially abject ignorance of the contributions of Kepler and Newton, two of the minor deities of physics, and in its place the praise of a popular author of the time, who contributed practically nothing to the theory of the field, but only named one practical application of others' work.  So 1963 is irrelevant to that -- Burns' errors date back about 400 years on that score.  Correct those errors and the "requirements" largely evaporate.

On the rocketry part, Burns just alludes to mass ratio, says there are "problems" (but doesn't name them), and then says NASA won't be able to solve them.  The irony is that his example is one of the most successful and straightforwardly-developed rockets in history:  the Saturn 1B.  From any professor's point of view that's poor argumentation.  It's like saying all telescopes are governed by Rayleigh's and/or Dawes' law, therefore some particular telescope can't work.  In either case, as the professor, I would be looking for evidence of specific problems, and the line of reasoning that connects those to the student's conclusion.

Very well, "NASA must build a suitable rocket" would be a proper statement of a challenge to be overcome.  But then as a professor I would be wondering why the student would profess a skepticism that wasn't solicited in the assignment.

A few of Burns' claims allude to the space race, but were anachronistically naive even in 1963.  Disorientation, orbital insertion difficulty, etc. were not significant problems in 1963.  They had been solved previously.  We have no idea whether Burns' professor knew of them, but we can presume he was aware that Mercury missions had been flown several times.  I would have marked those away as solved problems, not as challenges to be faced.

Ditto the whole line of reasoning starting with communication problems and ending with "disaster" on the far side of the Moon.  NASA had already demonstrated the ability of its spaceships to operate autonomously and semi-autonomously within mission parameters.  Based on facts known in 1963, that would still have been a poor line of reasoning.  Yes, mission coordination is a challenge to be faced all the time, but the specific problem examples given were those that had already been solved.

The problems I identify in his statistical argument would have been detectable in 1963.  They aren't related to the state of the art of American aerospace, but rather to an ages-old understanding of how statistical probability is employed in quantitative reasoning.  Since the entire purpose of statistics is to replace guesswork, I'd have immediately marked off the answer for having taken a guess and then tried to apply pseudo-statistical rigor to the guess in order to dress it up to look like science.  In 1763, 1963, or 2013, that's just eminently poor reasoning.

Is systemic complexity a challenge?  Yes, always.  But how much of a challenge depends on a correct quantitative argument and a correct qualitative line of reasoning.

If I read your devil's advocacy right, you're looking for ways in which Burns' essay would have been viable in 1963 as an expression of the state of the endeavor, and have received the high mark claimed if only on the basis of the general or specific -- on the professor's part -- lack of knowledge.  Overall I would have written at the bottom, "I didn't ask whether the problems could be solved or not, but rather only for a defensible formulation of the problem."  And I'd have taken points away for answering a different question than what was asked.

So there's my first stab at putting Burns' essay in the context you suggest.

The problem is that Burns expects his essay to be so much more than a paper written in the early 1960s to survey Apollo.  He expects it to continue to stand as proof that the Moon landings, from the expert physics point of view, were impossible.  Since that's the context into which he puts it, that's the context in which we have to evaluate it.

Writing in 2013, why would an author not think to omit the failed predictions?  Given, for example, that the Apollo Guidance Computer is a nearly incontrovertible fact, why would his ignorance of similar embedded systems in 1963, and the eventual development of the computer itself, be even remotely probative in 2013?  If we propose to forgive Prof. Allen for a similar lapse of knowledge, how is that professor's grade then remotely indicative of success?  We would have an ignorant professor praising an ignorant student, and that's not the stuff from which erudition is made.

We can step back and say, Well the whole thing was just an undergraduate classroom exercise, simplified to the knowledge at hand, etc.  That would make many of Burns' claims more credible.   But then it severs the exercise from what Burns needs it to say:  that the essay represents generally applicable, generally correct information that is still pertinent in 2014.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline beedarko

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 175
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #577 on: September 22, 2014, 07:00:14 PM »
Yes it certainly is a coincidence
I studied under Professor John Allen from 1960 to1963. He was Professor of Physics from 1947 to 1978.

Thank you for sending a free copy of your book.  I will read it tonight.

Mr. Burns, if I ask you some questions about your book in a non-confrontational manner, will you agree to answer them honestly and candidly?


Offline Jockndoris

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 51
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #578 on: September 23, 2014, 11:40:56 AM »
Yes it certainly is a coincidence
I studied under Professor John Allen from 1960 to1963. He was Professor of Physics from 1947 to 1978.

Thank you for sending a free copy of your book.  I will read it tonight.

Mr. Burns, if I ask you some questions about your book in a non-confrontational manner, will you agree to answer them honestly and candidly?


Most certainly yes   look forward to receiving them  Jockndoris

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3814
    • Clavius
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #579 on: September 23, 2014, 12:15:34 PM »
I think he meant he was going to ask them here and expect your answers here.  The intent is to have a public discussion of your book, insofar as it fits the topic of the forum.  The moderator has made it rather plain that the only conditions under which you can continue promoting your book here is if you, as the author, make yourself available to answer questions about it and then actually provide the answers.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline RAF

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 321
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #580 on: September 23, 2014, 02:54:32 PM »
Most certainly yes...

Given your history of non-response, I'm sure you will understand when I say, I don't believe you will answer any questions.

But I invite you to prove me wrong.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2014, 03:04:35 PM by RAF »

Offline beedarko

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 175
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #581 on: September 23, 2014, 08:38:31 PM »

Thank you for sending a free copy of your book.  I will read it tonight.

Mr. Burns, if I ask you some questions about your book in a non-confrontational manner, will you agree to answer them honestly and candidly?


Most certainly yes   look forward to receiving them  Jockndoris

Excellent.  I'll start with these three so as not to overwhelm you.

- On pages 11~13 you reproduce the paper you submitted to Prof. Allen, entitled "Most difficult problems the Americans have to solve if they are to put a man on the moon as challenged by their president".  Several times in this paper, you state conclusions which appear to come from someone with expertise or special knowledge of the subject matter, i.e.  "the G forces experienced would be massive and probably fatal", "the chances of them achieving a linkup are minimal", "disaster is almost inevitable", etc.  Prior to, and during your assignment, what other studies or practical experience did you engage in relative to spaceflight engineering, orbital mechanics or astrophysics?  Stated another way, how many of your stated conclusions were supported by proven competence within these specific fields of study, and do you still hold to them?

- You mention Arthur C. Clarke as one source when referring to orbital equations in your paper, crediting him with "working out the theory". Were his written works central in your research?

- On pg. 54, you recount how, in 2013, the apparition of Neil Armstrong revealed, "We knew of course that if we were found by anyone then the whole game would be up and the Moon Hoax would become public, and we would be disgraced and we wanted to avoid that at all costs", referring to, as your book describes it, a splashdown and subsequent recovery which did not go as planned.  How do you reconcile his stated need for secrecy, with your earlier account of playing golf in full view of other witnesses, and flying with him and other passengers in an airliner on July 20th, 1969? 

Thank you in advance for your answers to these questions.  As a chartered accountant of some merit, I trust your integrity will compel you to answer in the manner promised.

Offline skeptic_UK

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 34
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #582 on: September 23, 2014, 08:44:57 PM »

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


Glad to know I officially exist now and not just a figment of someone's imagination. Talk about having an existential crisis...

What happened to all the amateur CSI-ing of my posts that proved otherwise? guess we'll just conveniently forget about that eh?  :P

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3814
    • Clavius
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #583 on: September 23, 2014, 09:02:57 PM »
Glad to know I officially exist now and not just a figment of someone's imagination. Talk about having an existential crisis...
What happened to all the amateur CSI-ing of my posts that proved otherwise? guess we'll just conveniently forget about that eh?  :P

Yes, unless you'd like to keep dredging it up over and over again for rhetorical effect and thereby continue distracting from your apparent unwillingness to stick to the topic.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1965
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #584 on: September 23, 2014, 09:32:26 PM »

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


Glad to know I officially exist now and not just a figment of someone's imagination. Talk about having an existential crisis...

What happened to all the amateur CSI-ing of my posts that proved otherwise? guess we'll just conveniently forget about that eh?  :P

Firstly, any fool can post from two different IP numbers (anonymising software, connecting via TOR, proxy servers, remote wifi, connection via a 3G/4G smartphone etc), so, AFAIC, the jury is still out as to whether you are a sockpuppet of JocknDoris or just a pandering disciple of his stupidity.
 
Secondly, whether you and JocknDoris are one stupid, or two stupids in cahoots makes no difference to to me. I don't care. The bottom line for me is the stupid.

Thirdly, you could always try not being a whinging Pom, not nursing your alleged grievance, and instead answering some of the questions that have been repeatedly put to you over the several pages of this thread, which so far, you have steadfastly refused to answer!!
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.