Good books about the moon landings hoax?

[JayUtah]

Well, what is he supposed to do? Be a better person and actually admit the pamphlet he sells for money is so much hogswallow?
In front of his biggest fan?
Yes, actually, he should, but will he?
I have my doubts.

Authors like this look for low-hanging fruit.  We aren't that.  So he'll eventually give up and go elsewhere, likely content in the delusion he has successfully promoted his book here.

He isn't supposed to do anything except to continue to demonstrate how inept he is at defending a claim to expertise sufficient to determine -- without conjuring a ghost -- that Apollo was impossible.  What happens is that his inability to support that part of his claim remains here and elsewhere on the record, for what it's worth.

[beedarko]

  Lets start with my reply to your  Arthur C Clarke question

Arthur C Clarke
Yes   Arthur C Clarke was a well known science fiction writer with a vivid imagination and I read many of his books as a boy.     I always knew that his stories were based on fiction / fantasy so we all thought his paper on creating a so-called stationary satellite was also fantasy.   
I was amazed to learn that he had a serious side to his work when he announced he had worked out that it was possible to have an object in so called stationary orbit.
Please note that my degree was in Mathematics as well as Physics.
We studied Clarke’s equations in our Mathematics classes as well and of course they were proven to be correct in theory.   He explained how it was possible to have the object in orbit round the earth apparently remaining in the same spot because it was travelling round the centre at exactly the same speed as the earth.    Of course we didn’t have the technology then to test out his theory for quite some time.  Jockndoris

I appreciate the prompt response to this question. I will wait for your replies to the other two before formulating any followup questions.

And just to clarify, I understand your response to my question about Arthur C. Clarke's works being central in your research, to be "yes".

[Jockndoris]

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?

beedarko
Just so you understand where I am coming from let me explain.

These years at University were in retrospect the happiest of my life mainly because I was learning all the time and very often from lecturers who were leaders in their field. This was particularly true of Prof Allen who was an acknowledged leader in Physics both theoretical and physical.  These include both astro and nuclear physics studying both the very large and the very small.
The professor was a leader in his field particularly the study of liquids at very cold temperatures getting down to near minus 273 centigrade.

The classes I attended were under the banner of Natural Philosophy and studied the logic and understanding of everything that appears in nature, including  Electricity and its partner Magnetism, Light and optics, sound and radio waves, gravity, air, water and many more.   Spaceflight engineering was not on that list because it was at best in its infancy.

I was 19 at the time and held the Professor in some awe - his demonstrations of the laws of physics in his classroom were legendary.   He was able to show for example how beating a drum producing sound waves that blew out a candle in the other corner of the room  by bouncing off the walls and ceiling in all directions.
.
He was very much of the old school and as interested as we were in learning new things. That is why he asked us to look at the problems the Americans faced in getting to the Moon. He didn’t know the answers and of course now we know that NASA didn’t know either.
I hope this helps you to understand my position if not answering each part directly. Jockndoris
[/b]

[Jason Thompson]

Evasion of the actual questions noted, as is your failure to repsond to the various posts replying to your comments about Arthur C Clarke and your total misrepresentation of his work and position in the annals of space flight.

[Zakalwe]

Yes   Arthur C Clarke was a well known science fiction writer with a vivid imagination and I read many of his books as a boy.     I always knew that his stories were based on fiction / fantasy so we all thought his paper on creating a so-called stationary satellite was also fantasy.   
I was amazed to learn that he had a serious side to his work when he announced he had worked out that it was possible to have an object in so called stationary orbit.

Did you know that Clarke was a founding member of the BIS? There's also good evidence that Eric Burgess probably pre-dated Clarke's ideas of geostationary satellites. Certainly Burgess's concepts for an unmanned "relay" station were more advanced than Clarkes at the time.

[Jason Thompson]

I might also mention that Jockndoris misrepresents Clarke's position as a science-fiction writer. The best science fiction, and certainly that written by Clarke, is not 'based on fantasy' but based on science, extrapolating it to what it might become in the future.

[Zakalwe]

The classes I attended were under the banner of Natural Philosophy and studied the logic and understanding of everything that appears in nature, including  Electricity and its partner Magnetism, Light and optics, sound and radio waves, gravity, air, water and many more.   Spaceflight engineering was not on that list because it was at best in its infancy.

Given that, I am amazed that you profess to not understand how images from Mars could not be sent back in a matter of minutes. I assume that you are as equally mystified by the workings of TV and radio?

There is no way that they would be able to get high quality photographs half way across our solar system which took the craft 7 months to cross.

It took the craft 7 months to get to Mars at full speed and we are supposed to believe that they can just beam back at the first attempt  pictures of exquisite quality of a near perfectly flat landing area.

[Zakalwe]

I apologise for the thread drift, but i would ask Mr. Burns what his thoughts are on the first images from the Indian Mars probe?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-29357438

The probe  successfully entered Mars orbit on September 24th and was launched in November 2013. The first images were published today.

http://www.spaceflight101.com/mars-orbiter-mission-updates.html

Is this mission also a hoax Mr. Burns?

[RAF]

He was very much of the old school and as interested as we were in learning new things. That is why he asked us to look at the problems the Americans faced in getting to the Moon. He didn’t know the answers...

He didn't?...sounds like he wasn't much of a teacher, relying on his students to prepare his lesson plan.

...and of course now we know that NASA didn’t know either.

The world's scientists not only knew it "could be done" but participated in Apollo.

Also, you are starting to sound like a Moon Hoax bat when you say things like "now WE know".

The only "we" here, is you.

I hope this helps you to understand my position if not answering each part directly.

See, here's the thing...

When you post stuff like this, it is so far removed from reality, an extraordinary claim as it were, that we need a whole lot more than your posted "assurances" that what you say has even a passing acquaintance with reality.

Now do you understand why we don't believe?

[Echnaton]

Either comes from 'prisoner of mother England' or pomigranite - a reddish coloured fruit that native Australians (Aboriginals) thought had a similar colour to the skin of sunburnt Brits.

The first one is definitely wrong.  The second one might not be.

Urban dictionary definitions are questionable, at best.  The etymologies are unreliable and are likely to be made up, retrofit type.  Such as the shortening of a phrase by making an acronym. I've read that practice started only 60 or so years ago.   So its no surprise on the first.  I always assumed "Pom" had something to do with potatoes, from French, but pomegranate seems a good possibility.

[sts60]

Jockndoris, I'd still like an answer to my question:  Since Neil Armstrong was observed to be off-planet that day, why should I give any consideration whatsoever to your absurd claim to be playing golf with one of the most famous and instantly recognizable human beings in history?

[ineluki]

Given that, I am amazed that you profess to not understand how images from Mars could not be sent back in a matter of minutes.

Nice catch...

[gwiz]

You have mentioned Clarke in connection with his major patent, which was for placing communication relays in GS orbits.

I don't think Clarke actually patented the idea.

[Bryanpoprobson]

Sorry devils advocate here, isn't the very name of the thread, "Good books about the moon landings hoax" a misnomer?

[Andromeda]

Yeah, but it was started by a hoaxie.