Author Topic: Good books about the moon landings hoax?  (Read 341744 times)

Offline RAF

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 321
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #585 on: September 24, 2014, 09:33:22 AM »
you could always try not being a whinging Pom, not nursing your alleged grievance, and instead answering some of the questions that have been repeatedly put to you over the several pages of this thread, which so far, you have steadfastly refused to answer!!

Darn it, smartcooky....I was going to post essentially the same thing, but you beat me too it. :) (although someone will have to tell me what a "pom" is. :D)

So, skeptic_uk...prepared to answer those questions, or will you just stop posting, because those are the only options available to you.

 
« Last Edit: September 24, 2014, 09:35:26 AM by RAF »

Offline RAF

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 321
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #586 on: September 24, 2014, 09:37:42 AM »
What happened to all the amateur CSI-ing of my posts that proved otherwise? guess we'll just conveniently forget about that eh?  :P

Since "I", personally, had nothing to do with any of that, what is your excuse for not answering my questions?



Offline RAF

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 321
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #587 on: September 24, 2014, 09:54:34 AM »
Since I'm feeling helpful, today...

From the top of page 30...

... I'm fully aware we've moved past debate and are now into out and out trolling.

I've (and others) have asked you NUMEROUS times to provide some sort of reasoning that would explain WHY you believe the garbage presented in this "book".

I believe you incapable of doing that, and the more you "dodge" these questions, the more you re-enforce that belief.

As I previously posted...if you don't want to engage in debate, then don't.


Same question still stands...tell us all just why you would embrace such scientifically illiterate garbage...




Offline Zakalwe

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1588
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #588 on: September 24, 2014, 10:45:25 AM »
Glad to know I officially exist now and not just a figment of someone's imagination. Talk about having an existential crisis...

What happened to all the amateur CSI-ing of my posts that proved otherwise? guess we'll just conveniently forget about that eh?  :P

Hello skeptic_UK.

Could you please have a look at this post?
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #589 on: September 24, 2014, 12:20:06 PM »
What happened to all the amateur CSI-ing of my posts that proved otherwise? guess we'll just conveniently forget about that eh?  :P

Since "I", personally, had nothing to do with any of that, what is your excuse for not answering my questions?



I repeatedly said it didn't matter and I didn't care, and my questions get ignored, too.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline Echnaton

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1490
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #590 on: September 24, 2014, 12:31:34 PM »
Glad to know I officially exist now and not just a figment of someone's imagination. Talk about having an existential crisis...

What happened to all the amateur CSI-ing of my posts that proved otherwise? guess we'll just conveniently forget about that eh?  :P

Still making disparaging and presumptive comments with nothing to contribute to the conversation?
The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. —Samuel Beckett

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #591 on: September 24, 2014, 01:04:53 PM »
I repeatedly said it didn't matter and I didn't care, and my questions get ignored, too.

And when, after weighing all the evidence, I jump on the perfectly reasonable bandwagon of, "no longer matters and I no longer care" -- then what happens?  There's a difference beteen how one formulates an argumentation for "I like this book for reasons, and I want you all to know that," versus "I'm trying every means at my disposal to discredit this book's critics."  I have my opinion on which one this sounds like.

No matter how many times we try to establish which parts of the book are admissible for discussion on this forum, and discuss them, Skeptic_UK deflects it either toward silopsism of the supernatural or long-irrelevant allegations of mistreatment.  Anything but the stuff you can actually discuss here.

I'm American, so I'm not sure what it means to be a "whinging Pom."  It doesn't sound complimentary, but I wager it's accurate.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Andromeda

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 746
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #592 on: September 24, 2014, 01:17:07 PM »
I'm American, so I'm not sure what it means to be a "whinging Pom."  It doesn't sound complimentary, but I wager it's accurate.

It's a slur against the British.

Please, let's not do that - there have been a couple of similar comments on this thread and it is quite annoying.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #593 on: September 24, 2014, 01:38:32 PM »
That spurred me to go find and article in The Economist which suggests it's both faintly racist and often too broadly applied.  So under that eminent analysis I can't endorse its use here in this case.  Good grief, it wasn't until last year I realized that "whinging" is the Commonwealth version of the American "whining."  The latter, in America, is almost universally applied only to individuals or clearly defined groups and has no connotation outside the characterization of overt behavior.  In other words, in American English it's not considered name-calling, although it is considered dismissive.

Much as I'd like to delve into English dialects and further meta-debate, it's just as off topic as sock puppetry, golf, and mid-century accounting practices.  And in the spirit of dragging this discussion -- with a leash if necessary -- back into the realm of relevance, I'd still like to hear Skeptic_UK identify anything he likes in the book that would be relevant to the topic of the forum and thread?
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline darren r

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 233
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #594 on: September 24, 2014, 01:39:07 PM »
I'm American, so I'm not sure what it means to be a "whinging Pom."  It doesn't sound complimentary, but I wager it's accurate.

It's a slur against the British.

Please, let's not do that - there have been a couple of similar comments on this thread and it is quite annoying.

More specifically, it's a slur invented by Australians to be used against British immigrants to Oz.

As a Brit myself, I've never been particularly bothered by insults or epithets against my nationality. Other nationalities just don't seem to have the regrettable flair for it that we do...

In fact, 'Brit' was the worst slur the IRA were ever able to come up with, and we've given that name to a music award!

Having said that, it is beneath us and we should avoid it.
" I went to the God D**n Moon!" Byng Gordon, 8th man on the Moon.

Offline Echnaton

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1490
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #595 on: September 24, 2014, 01:41:05 PM »
From the Urban Dictionary: Pom

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.
Not meant to be an insult (as some English think for some reason), merely a nickname for our less-tanned former rulers. Nicknaming everything is very Australian.


To be taken with some amount and variety of salt.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2014, 01:43:11 PM by Echnaton »
The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. —Samuel Beckett

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #596 on: September 24, 2014, 02:57:49 PM »
Excellent.  I'll start with these three so as not to overwhelm you.

Forgive me if I end up stealing a bit of your thunder.  I think these are well-chosen questions and I'd like to endorse them and perhaps elaborate a bit.

Quote
- [...] 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?

This is mostly where I was going.  Certain judgments have probative value in the real world only if they come from suitable information and expertise.  The position of this paper within Burns' overall claims (if any) to relevant expertise are still unclear in my mind.  Simply waving a putatively relevant degree certificate does not establish a connection between the specific claims and relevant expertise, especially when obvious amateurisms appear in the text and other relevant experts disagree on both the method and the findings.  While we accept certain tokens as emblematic of expertise -- academic or professional -- the true expression of expertise is the ability to "walk the walk," i.e., to have learned discussions at any time with other members of the field and hold one's own in them.  That is what has been solicited here from him.

Quote
- You mention Arthur C. Clarke as one source when referring to orbital equations in your paper, crediting him with "working out the theory". Were his written works central in your research?

Now is probably the appropriate time to bring up again that I was contacted by Arthur C. Clarke's office to perform some Apollo-related research and analysis for him years ago, which I did and then discussed directly with him.  So if Burns wants to invoke Clarke in his defense, he'll have to realize that at least one of his critics here is among the experts whom Clarke consulted, and that I know for a fact he considers the Moon landings to be absolute historical fact.

Quote
- [...] How do you reconcile his stated need for secrecy, with your earlier account of playing golf in full view of other witnesses, and flying with him and other passengers in an airliner on July 20th, 1969?

I did bring this up earlier in my review.  Some of us decided to narrow the scope of our questioning to exclude it on the grounds that supernatural testimony was inherently not probative.  But the point has been raised several times that the content of the testimony, regardless of its proposed provenance, can be tried separately.

The premise of Burns' book requires the supernatural testimony to be tantamount -- in all ways having to do with memory, senses, faculty, and reason -- to testimony given by a live person.  That is, Burns' case stands only if the ghost of Armstrong is in all relevant ways to the mortal Armstrong and possess his memories, reason, and skill.  Otherwise a critic could claim that some unknown supernatural factor acted to cause the postmortem Armstrong to invent, fabricate, or otherwise imagine all that, and even to plant into Burns' mind false memories of prior events.

But if the conversation with the ghost of Armstrong must be taken as equivalent in all material respects to the conversation with a real living person, for the purpose allegedly of providing probative eyewitness testimony, then it must be subject to the same standards of credibility as that of a living person.

The inconsistency cited here in this question is only one of the many we can cite.  In one category, the story is alleged to be fact but is patently inconsistent with itself.  Armstrong is first characterized as being greatly concerned with their being discovered by someone who would recognize them, then without explanation throws caution to the wind and goes out in public to a place he says he and his colleagues frequented often.  That is, "hiding in plain sight" is invoked without any reference to what that typically is meant to convey, and the crew simply acts inexplicably in a way that increases the chances they will be discovered.

In a different category, the story alleges details and facts that are at odds with objectively determined fact.  For example, the few quotations or paraphrases alleged to come from NASA procedure manuals are wholly inconsistent both in style and substance from the copious examples of such documents.

I hasten to add that I did not invent this test.  This "local color" test is commonly used by archaeologists and document analysts to ascertain the validity of some alleged new testament.  Every testimony purports to arise from some milieu, and how well it fits what is known about that milieu is oen test of its authenticity.  So we're not just making up ways in which to dismiss this book.  We're applying common, straightforward authenticity tests.  Many of us here are intimately familiar with the tangible and intangible aspects of working with NASA, and of how NASA has historically operated.  Unlike most of the intended readers of the book, we are well positioned to be able to determine whether some given specimen fits.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1959
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #597 on: September 24, 2014, 03:25:00 PM »
From the Urban Dictionary: Pom

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.
Not meant to be an insult (as some English think for some reason), merely a nickname for our less-tanned former rulers. Nicknaming everything is very Australian.

To be taken with some amount and variety of salt.

THIS!!

[Off topic but only by way of clarification]
"Pom", or "Pommie" is not a slur, any more than "yank" is a slur on Americans, "canuck" on Canadians, or "ocker" on Australians. The term "whinging Pom" comes about because many British immigrants, particularly the English, were well known in Australia and New Zealand for complaining about anything and everything they didn't like because "its not like it was back in the Old Country"

I was born in England so I guess that makes me a Pom too, I'm just not one of the "whinging" variety.
[/clarification over]
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Offline Jockndoris

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 51
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #598 on: September 24, 2014, 05:17:48 PM »

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.



Three good questions  and I am working on all three answers and want to do them justice so please be patient  jockndoris

- You mention Arthur C. Clarke as one source when referring to orbital equations in your paper, crediting him with "working out the theory". Were his written works central in your research?

  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



Thank you in advance for your answers to these questions.  As a chartered accountant of some merit, I trust your integrity will compel you to answer in the manner promised.

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1959
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #599 on: September 24, 2014, 05:27:12 PM »
Please note that my degree was in Mathematics as well as Physics.[/b]

The photograph of a photocopy of the degree you posted earlier makes no mention of "Physics" ergo, it is not a Physics degree!
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.