Then they indeed are truly idiots of the 1st class,...
They're either idiots or very crafty authors who know how to create the semblance of rigor and impress a lay audience just long enough to collect their money and run.
much like Jarrah and his video series 'Radioactive Anomaly.' It really grates me that he claims to be an expert but decides to title his thundering evidence with an incorrect term, and then when this is pointed out he dismisses the criticism as nit picking.
Correct terminology is what separates experts from novices, not out of some nit-picky preference but because the subtle linguistic differences in those words convey important differences.
Any 'astro-fizzysist' worth their salt would not make that mistake, yet he openly calls me the 'alledged physicist' and you the 'alledged aerospace engineer.'
That's just him living out his fantasy life, which is one of a couple of reasons I largely ignore him.
Mauldin's Prospects for Interstellar Travel, another prime example of citing an expert but not invoking his entire judgement. It's a common tactic. The CTs fall silent when asked if they have checked whether their source also thinks Apollo was hoaxed.
Anyone who reads Mauldin's book and comes away believing in any way that Mauldin though Apollo might have been a fake clearly missed the whole point of the book. The overall theme of the book is, "This is what worked for Apollo, but for interstellar missions we have to do something else."
Real experts have better things to do than be bothered with addressing the claims of cranks.
Especially when approached under false pretenses. Most of these people are what you'd expect: hardworking, underpaid public servants who have subject-matter interest and subject-matter expertise. The kind of polemics conspiracy theorists thrive on simply don't interest them. Being dragged involuntarily into absurd debates can sometimes have real professional consequences. Conspiracy theorists often have an inflated sense of their own relevance, hence they think it's the experts' duty to weigh on their beliefs -- either with or without their knowledge.
