I have not gone away and still stand by every word and thought in the book.
No, you
don't "stand by" it.
To "stand by" something means to support and defend it against challenges -- something you are singularly unwilling and unable to do. Your sporadic posts have been sadly lacking in explanatory value. I will remind you that the moderator has instructed you to answer questions regarding your book as a condition of your continued participation. You are not answering them.
Not only that, you specifically admit in your book that you
won't stand by it. Early on, you require your reader to adopt an
a priori belief in ghosts, and you advise him to eschew the book if he does not -- and for good reason, given the patently absurd allegations of fact you make under the pretense of ghostly advice. Repeatedly claiming the book to be factual does not "stand by" if it you cannot provide substance to those claims when challenged.
Nor have you stood up for it lately. Your recent reaffirmation that you "stand by" every word in the book still includes those pesky pages 11-13 where you wax most ignorant on the subject of space engineering -- a subject you admit here you were not trained in. How can that possibly constitute standing up for claims that were addressed by qualified experts, refuted, and that you now admit have no basis in expertise?
Set aside your faux bravado, Burns. It's tiresome and unconvincing.
I am expecting Buzz Aldrin to make a confession soon...
Nope. It's clear you don't know the first thing about Buzz Aldrin, just as you demonstrate you don't know the first thing about Neil Armstrong or any other astronaut, NASA, space travel, or the sciences that govern it.
That leads me to another inconsistency and a question.
In your book you suggest that the ghost of Armstrong told you an "embargo" had been lifted with his death. You don't specifically describe this "embargo," but from the context it seems to refer to obligations of secrecy on the part of those involved with the hoax you allege. How would such a thing, if it existed, be reasonably tied to the death of one single astronaut? And why Neil Armstrong? Why would such a thing not stay in force for as long as all the involved parties were not subject to felony prosecution for misappropriation of federal tax funds?
What proof will you chaps require about his identity before you will accept what he says?
Irrelevant. No one has an obligation to respond to statements that have not actually been made, nor to your rampant and irresponsible suggestion that he will simply endorse your claims.
What proof do you require that Andromeda's ghostly visitation, contradicting yours, is valid? Or are you reluctant to give him the benefit of the doubt?
