Good books about the moon landings hoax?

[Echnaton]

Better still we must ask Anna Botting of Sky News to attend the ceremony and ask Buzz Aldrin afterwards about his confession  -  what a magnificent opportunity for him too because he will be outside the USA where maybe not all his secrecy restrictions apply jockndoris.

Still standing by your book by running away as fast as you can, I see.   Still responding to questions by deflection.  So typical.

[JayUtah]

So, you mean you have no "source" that Aldrin will say anything out of the ordinary, other than it suits your fancy to believe so?

I'm struggling to find anything in Burns' latest posts that rises above blabbering presumption.  Granted he's probably trying to distract attention away from his blatant evasion of the "hiding in plain sight" nonsense and from his tap-dancing through pseudo-physics.  But what is this "no one would have known" codswollop?  Aldrin makes several public appearances worldwide a year.  Why is this one so awfully special?  Is Burns really so out of touch with what astronauts really do that he's latching onto this particular nondescript event as if it were some singular occasion?

More likely he's just grasping at every straw to incorporate into his fantasy.  It's not like making sense has ever mattered to him before.

So let me recap where I think the questioning stands.

On the matter of Arthur C Clarke and orbital mechanics, we still have no details from Burns for what he thinks Clarke actually contributed, or what that has to do with flying to the Moon.  We still have no explanation for how burns managed to study natural philosophy and yet be unaware of Newton's seminal work on the subject, where planetary motion is discussed at length.

Where Armstrong goes in one page from being eminently concerned about discovery to wantonly gregarious, Burns gives us only the unsatisfying opinion that they must have had "a lot of nerve" to do it.  In other words, he never explained the contradiction.

Lately we have requests to explain the vast wealth of documentary and physical evidence of Apollo's authenticity.  None of that seems to make a dent in Burns' attention.  And also we want Burns to explain how, simply because of Armstrong's death, all the astronauts are somehow free to confess their part in the hoax.  (This latter smacks of the typical layman's preoccupation with Neil Armstrong.  It's a good indicator of how familiar authors are with how NASA actually works to see how they apportion attention among the various crews.)

Although someone marginal, we still have no reconciliation for his Quick Basic programming claims.  While Burns maintains page 34 takes place in the 1990s, and I don't contest that, we still have his claims on page 16, which also incorporate Quick Basic programming and take place in 1969 -- he mentions the year explicitly.

[twik]

Jock, you have a golden opportunity to prove us all wrong, just go to the ceremony and video Buzz saying that he played golf with you on July20th, 1969.

Or even better, video Buzz Aldrin saying, "Uh, I don't play golf."  Burns has yet to figure out that as soon as you start making testable claims about living persons, you first need to have done your homework.

Better still we must ask Anna Botting of Sky News to attend the ceremony and ask Buzz Aldrin afterwards about his confession  -  what a magnificent opportunity for him too because he will be outside the USA where maybe not all his secrecy restrictions apply jockndoris.

Really? "We" must ask Anna Botting? I think not. I don't know the woman. You seem to have an in with celebrities, though, so I suggest that "you" ask her, and report to us what she has to say.

I do love the idea of a giant conspiracy that lets the main actors wander around golfing with strangers when they're supposed to be on the Moon, and which has no problem with information on said conspiracy being released outside national jurisdiction.

[Jason Thompson]

Interestingly he did not actually deny the claims when he punched that guy. Just resorted to violence. Maybe he hit a nerve?

Or maybe, as is more likely, you know nothing whatsoever about it other than Buzz punched some guy who accused him of being a liar. Jay has already explained the circumstances. Sibrel is known to all of the astronauts.

Do you know something else? Sibrel invited all the surviving Apollo astronauts who walked on the moon to swear on the bible that they had been there. Three of them did. Did Sibrel take this as the truth he suggested he was offering them the chance to tell? Hell no. Those guys are going to hell for lying in the face of God, according to him.

Understand this: it makes not one bit of difference what anyone says to Sibrel, his position is fixed. He makes a name for himself by accusing them of lying, and he's not about to say he was wrong and lose a major source of his income.

Your continued refusal to converse with the author of the book you say is so good is also noted again with interest.

[Jason Thompson]

he will be outside the USA where maybe not all his secrecy restrictions apply 

Why would they not apply? And if they were indeed restricted by geographical location (which makes no sense), he's been flying all over the world for decades. Why is now suddenly a golden opportunity? I met him in the UK last year. Have you ever met him?

Why do you post here? I can only assume you are simply craving attention, since you are evidently well aware you are bullshitting.

[JayUtah]

You seem to have an in with celebrities, though...

I think they have to be dead first.  Not that I'm saying Ms Botting is in any particular danger, but maybe she'd best look both ways before crossing the street.  Otherwise she might spend eternity with Neil Burns on some faraway golf course talking about what a marvelous accountant he is.

I suggest that "you" ask her, and report to us what she has to say.

My guess is that Neil Burns has absolutely no intention of ringing up Sky News and asking them to confront Aldrin about his alleged role in some hoax and ongoing coverup.  And I don't either, since I'm content that Aldrin's view on the subject is a matter of consistent, well-documented, decades-long journalistic record.  Hence if Burns believes Aldrin is suddenly about to reverse his longstanding claim to have walked on the Moon, and confess to multiple felonies, then it's his burden to make it happen.

I do love the idea of a giant conspiracy [...] which has no problem with information on said conspiracy being released outside national jurisdiction.

Yeah, that's quite a howler.  I wonder what five-iron-to-the-head daftness on Burns' part produced the wildly inaccurate notion that secrecy obligations under U.S. law are somehow applicable only within U.S. boundaries.  I'm not quite sure how anyone could argue that something entitled the Espionage Act (1917) suddenly loses its force when a foreign country was involved.  It seems to me that's a sine qua non of disclosing government secrets.

[twik]

You seem to have an in with celebrities, though...

I think they have to be dead first.  Not that I'm saying Ms Botting is in any particular danger, but maybe she'd best look both ways before crossing the street.  Otherwise she might spend eternity with Neil Burns on some faraway golf course talking about what a marvelous accountant he is.

Has Ms Botting really been that evil? 

[smartcooky]

Buzz will be in Germany this weekend,

http://buzzaldrin.com/buzz-to-receive-the-distinguished-steiger-award/

If Jock could cross the channel and ask him about this, I'll bring a walking stick (just in case his hook is no longer up to the task) and the camera...

Interestingly he did not actually deny the claims when he punched that guy. Just resorted to violence. Maybe he hit a nerve?

Yep, he hit a nerve all right, but not the nerve you think. It was nothing to do with Aldrin refusing to swear on a bible that he had walked on the moon. See for yourself.

Aldrin acted with restraint and tried to ignore Bart Sibrel (a convicted criminal) by walking away from him. Sibrel then pursued and harassed him. That might have been the end of it until Sibrel publicly called him "liar and a coward". Edwin Aldrin is a decorated war veteran who served as a jet fighter pilot during the Korean War. He flew 66 combat missions in F-86 Sabres. You do not call this type of person a "coward". Sibrel was lucky Buzz only hit him once! 

[JayUtah]

Yep, he hit a nerve all right, but not the nerve you think.

Indeed, it's almost like the reaction of a person who is suspected of being in cahoots somehow with another poster and spends page after page bellyaching about it.  It's almost as if we struck a nerve.  What nefarious conclusions could we read into that?  What kind should we?

Yeah, when a man half your age and twice your size physically confronts you and repeatedly accuses you on camera of fraud without any shred of credible evidence, expecting a calm, articulate response is just daft.  Sibrel certainly wasn't very calm himself, and he admitted later that he was responsible for provoking Aldrin's response.

Aldrin acted with restraint and tried to ignore Bart Sibrel (a convicted criminal) by walking away from him.

Technically at that time Sibrel had not been convicted of anything, but it's relevant to mention that his criminal conviction later was for jumping up and down on a woman's car while he was working as a taxi cab driver.  The record shows Sibrel to be a physically belligerent person with poor impulse control.  Odd how Skeptic_UK doesn't take that into account when accusing Aldrin of "just resort[ing] to violence."

Sibrel tried to press charges against Aldrin, but the L.A. county prosecutor laughed Sibrel out of his office.

That might have been the end of it until Sibrel publicly called him "liar and a coward".

Sibrel's legal fate was sealed the moment he poked Aldrin with the Bible.  Under U.S. law that's considered battery (however inconsequential the "attack"), and his actions up until that point might have constituted assault.  Aldrin was largely within his legal right at that point to defend himself with physical force.

As I've said before, Groklaw once had the complaint that Sibrel swore against Aldrin for the L.A. County prosecutor.  It was most revealing and I wish I had saved it.  Sibrel swore under oath that his plan was to lure Aldrin into a paid interview to discuss his Apollo mission, and then to accuse him on camera of taking an honorarium for something he never did and video his reaction.  He was then going to follow up by asking Aldrin to swear on the Bible, as he did with many of the other astronauts.

There is no incentive for any of the Apollo crews to cooperate with Bart Sibrel in any way.  Hence many did not.  He gives no indication that he intends to treat the Apollo astronauts fairly.  Sibrel does not generally discuss those Apollo astronauts who did swear on the Bible that they walked on the Moon.  (Sibrel contrives an oath variously referring to the Bible and to "treason," although it's not clear what treasonous act any of the astronauts could possibly have committed in connection with Apollo.) He concentrates only on those who refuse to give him ammunition.  His treatment is decidedly one-sided:  Al Bean is supposedly sweating under Sibrel's withering cross examination, but no explanation is given for why Sibrel is also sweating.  Might it be that the interview was shot outdoors in hot weather?

[ka9q]

C'mon guys, I think you've expended enough energy on this jockndoris character already. He's obviously a loony, you don't need to further convince any bystanders of his looniness, and nothing you can say will cure it for him.

[beedarko]

He's obviously a loony, you don't need to further convince any bystanders of his looniness, and nothing you can say will cure it for him.

I don't think he's a loon at all.  I think Burns knows exactly what he's doing, and is enjoying every second of the attention he receives.

[beedarko]

Sibrel does not generally discuss those Apollo astronauts who did swear on the Bible that they walked on the Moon.  (Sibrel contrives an oath variously referring to the Bible and to "treason," although it's not clear what treasonous act any of the astronauts could possibly have committed in connection with Apollo.)

Even when they did agree, Sibrel would pile on conditions until the severity level exceeded the astronaut's willingness to indulge his idiocy.  This way he could always claim "not a single one took my oath". 

Al Bean, trooper that he is, trudged through "penalty of perjury" and "penalty of eternal damnation" before rightly balking at treason.

I have the slug's pic around here somewhere..... oh yeah here it is:

[Luckmeister]

He's obviously a loony, you don't need to further convince any bystanders of his looniness, and nothing you can say will cure it for him.

I don't think he's a loon at all.  I think Burns knows exactly what he's doing, and is enjoying every second of the attention he receives.

It still spells L-O-O-N-Y to me. 

[beedarko]

It still spells L-O-O-N-Y to me. 

It spells a different word for me.  Same number of letters though. 

 

[JayUtah]

I don't think he's a loon at all.  I think Burns knows exactly what he's doing, and is enjoying every second of the attention he receives.

Well, yeah, he's a snake-oil salesman hawking his wares.  That much was obvious just by reading his web site.  LunarOrbit said as long as he answered questions he could continue to talk about his book here.  So it's either try to hold Neil Burns' golf spikes to the fire, or talk about Adrian in absentia.