Good books about the moon landings hoax?

[JayUtah]

A common response to being given the skeptical treatment.

[Abaddon]

I think Jockndoris is giving us the silent treatment.

I am sure he will shortly return to thank us once again for all the positive reviews and feedback about his opus.

One has to wonder how an author can take "This is abject unfounded crankery" and respond "I am glad you enjoyed my book"

[Sus_pilot]

Okay, I'll bite.

Right on all counts.

I'm just wildly curious as to what was so special about Marshalltown, IA at that date and time...

[ka9q]

I'm just wildly curious as to what was so special about Marshalltown, IA at that date and time...

It looks like the middle of nowhere. Google Earth doesn't even have Streetview images for that area. So it is (or was) probably a good, dark observing site for astronomy, not far from an access road for hauling in telescopes.

[Dr_Orpheus]

I am sure he will shortly return to thank us once again for all the positive reviews and feedback about his opus.

One has to wonder how an author can take "This is abject unfounded crankery" and respond "I am glad you enjoyed my book"

While being optimistic is generally considered a good thing, that might be taking it a bit too far or ridiculously too far depending on your point of view.

[JayUtah]

The answer to the optimism and to the question of what he gets out of it is pretty obvious:  Neil Burns craves attention.  As Oscar Wilde wrote, "The only thing worse that being talked about is not being talked about."  That is, some people fear obscurity far more than they do being wrong.  It's long been a truism that there's no such thing as bad publicity, which may explain why even the most pointed criticism of his work ends up stroking his ego.  It's not about being right.  I really think he doesn't care whether anyone believes his story about being a physics student or playing golf with Armstrong.

It's not about the money; that's why he gives the book away free to anyone who asks.  And why, early in the book, he advises the reader to give the book away if he doesn't accept the supernatural premise.  He just wants his little booklets out there.  He's willing to pay to be a Person of Note, even if it means being the court jester.  Sadly none of his literature that I've read stands on its merits, being insufferably narcissistic, poorly paced, disjointed, one-dimensional, and almost entirely lacking in charm, rhythm, texture, or color.  So he's got to take the publicity he gets.  If people are criticizing it, he theorizes they must be reading it.

If he would stick to historical figures that few people care about, and avoid making allegations of fact, and find a good editor, he actually might develop a following.  His problem here comes only when he makes allegations of fact he can't support, and when he drafts recently-deceased figures (who have, as has been noted, close living relatives and still-vibrant professional reputations) to play parts in his ghost fiction.

I'm satisfied if he never comes back.  I reviewed his book as promised.  And his record here already amply shows that for the purposes of ascertaining truth and evidence he is largely unwilling to participate.  That should tell most rational readers how credible is allegations of fact are.  If he does come back, he will naturally enjoy the lively participation he has witnessed from his critics.

[Jockndoris]

The answer to the optimism and to the question of what he gets out of it is pretty obvious:  Neil Burns craves attention.  As Oscar Wilde wrote, "The only thing worse that being talked about is not being talked about."  That is, some people fear obscurity far more than they do being wrong.  It's long been a truism that there's no such thing as bad publicity, which may explain why even the most pointed criticism of his work ends up stroking his ego.  It's not about being right.  I really think he doesn't care whether anyone believes his story about being a physics student or playing golf with Armstrong.

It's not about the money; that's why he gives the book away free to anyone who asks.  And why, early in the book, he advises the reader to give the book away if he doesn't accept the supernatural premise.  He just wants his little booklets out there.  He's willing to pay to be a Person of Note, even if it means being the court jester.  Sadly none of his literature that I've read stands on its merits, being insufferably narcissistic, poorly paced, disjointed, one-dimensional, and almost entirely lacking in charm, rhythm, texture, or color.  So he's got to take the publicity he gets.  If people are criticizing it, he theorizes they must be reading it.

If he would stick to historical figures that few people care about, and avoid making allegations of fact, and find a good editor, he actually might develop a following.  His problem here comes only when he makes allegations of fact he can't support, and when he drafts recently-deceased figures (who have, as has been noted, close living relatives and still-vibrant professional reputations) to play parts in his ghost fiction.

I'm satisfied if he never comes back.  I reviewed his book as promised.  And his record here already amply shows that for the purposes of ascertaining truth and evidence he is largely unwilling to participate.  That should tell most rational readers how credible is allegations of fact are.  If he does come back, he will naturally enjoy the lively participation he has witnessed from his critics.

JayUtah
I have not gone away and still stand by every word and thought in the book.

I am expecting Buzz Aldrin to make a confession soon possibly with an interview with Anna Botting of Sky News.  That will really put the cat among the pigeons !

What proof will you chaps require about his identity before you will accept what he says?

Will you want him to confirm that he played golf with me or will you just accept that he says that he didn’t go to the Moon and had to carry out the recordings of the landings in a specially equipped studio in the Nevada Desert.

Will you give him the benefit of the doubt ?

jockndoris

[onebigmonkey]

I have not gone away and still stand by every word and thought in the book.

Even the lies?

I am expecting Buzz Aldrin to make a confession soon possibly with an interview with Anna Botting of Sky News.  That will really put the cat among the pigeons !

This will not happen.

What proof will you chaps require about his identity before you will accept what he says?

None, because it will not happen.

Will you want him to confirm that he played golf with me or will you just accept that he says that he didn’t go to the Moon and had to carry out the recordings of the landings in a specially equipped studio in the Nevada Desert.

Will you give him the benefit of the doubt ?

He did not play golf with you during the Apollo 11 landing. This is a lie.

I can prove it was physically impossible for any of the Apollo 11 crew to be in Hawaii when you claim they were. Where's your proof?

[Dr_Orpheus]

I have not gone away and still stand by every word and thought in the book.

So you still claim that you were writing programs in the 1960s using a version of Basic which didn't exist until the 1980s?

[Andromeda]

I have not gone away and still stand by every word and thought in the book.

I am expecting Buzz Aldrin to make a confession soon possibly with an interview with Anna Botting of Sky News.  That will really put the cat among the pigeons !

What proof will you chaps require about his identity before you will accept what he says?

Will you want him to confirm that he played golf with me or will you just accept that he says that he didn’t go to the Moon and had to carry out the recordings of the landings in a specially equipped studio in the Nevada Desert.

Will you give him the benefit of the doubt ?

I think you mean that you expect us to believe what you says he says, not what he says.

Incidentally, the ghost of Neil Armstrong visited me this morning and said that he did go to the moon and you're a liar.  Are you going to give me the "benefit of the doubt"?  Why or why not?

[RAF]

I have not gone away and still stand by every word and thought in the book.

I think you are right, Jay...it is all about the attention.

I am expecting Buzz Aldrin to make a confession soon...

Irrelevant...we don't care what you "expect"...

What proof will you chaps require about his identity before you will accept what he says?

Again, irrelevant...even if an Apollo astronaut were "dopey" enough to say such garbage, how would he "explain away" the concrete, verifiable evidence that the landings DID happen??

Will you want him to confirm that he played golf with me....

why would "I" have him say something so ridiculously false?

Will you give him the benefit of the doubt ?

Since Buzz has made NO claims here, I don't see how this is relevant. (there's that word again)

You, on the other hand HAVE made claims that are DEMONSTRATIVELY FALSE, and you have failed to correct yourself.

...you get NO "benefit" of any doubt...

[RAF]

I am expecting Buzz Aldrin to make a confession soon.

...or you could just wait until he is deceased, and then talk to his ghost, eh?
 

[Jockndoris]

I have not gone away and still stand by every word and thought in the book.

So you still claim that you were writing programs in the 1960s using a version of Basic which didn't exist until the 1980s?

I don't . I think you will find that JayUtah is in error and has not read page 34 correctly. It was set in 1990 a perfectly correct year to be writing in QuickBasic. Why don't you buy a copy and you won't have to rely on old JayUtah? jockndoris

[Jockndoris]

I am expecting Buzz Aldrin to make a confession soon.

...or you could just wait until he is deceased, and then talk to his ghost, eh?

Another good point RAF   but I don't wish any harm on Mr Aldrin so let's hope that doesn't happen for some time  Leave him ample time to confess    jockndoris

[Peter B]

JayUtah
I have not gone away and still stand by every word and thought in the book.

I am expecting Buzz Aldrin to make a confession soon possibly with an interview with Anna Botting of Sky News.  That will really put the cat among the pigeons !

What proof will you chaps require about his identity before you will accept what he says?

More than testimony by a ghost, that's for sure.

If Apollo was faked you have to explain things like where the 380+ kilograms of Moon rocks and soil samples came from. You have to explain how the footage was recorded of astronauts moving around in what appears to be a low-gravity vacuum. You have to explain how the astronauts were able to discuss the news of the day and live sports scores during the missions. And you have to explain why the Soviets didn't say anything about the fake, especially as they had sources inside NASA providing them with lots of relevant data.

Will you want him to confirm that he played golf with me or will you just accept that he says that he didn’t go to the Moon and had to carry out the recordings of the landings in a specially equipped studio in the Nevada Desert.

Will you give him the benefit of the doubt ?

jockndoris

Nevada Desert? Well that doesn't explain how they faked zero gravity during live TV crosses during the journeys to and from the Moon.