Author Topic: Good books about the moon landings hoax?  (Read 341749 times)

Offline Echnaton

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1490
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #630 on: September 25, 2014, 11:25:42 AM »
Jockndoris

Do you think either of the two men you invoke in support of your belief, AC Clarke and Prof. Allen, would agree with you that the Apollo missions did not travel to the moon?

I ask this and expect an answer because your appreciation for Clarke and association with Allen are the topic you have introduced as support to the exclusion of any substantive discussion of physics, engineering or history. 
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 #631 on: September 25, 2014, 11:26:52 AM »
Just so you understand where I am coming from let me explain.

Very little of this explanation addresses the followup questions from your previous answer.  In fact, it just drifts farther into nostalgic irrelevancy.

Quote
Spaceflight engineering was not on that list because it was at best in its infancy.

That would come as a great surprise to the American and Soviet industries who were putting the finishing touches on the second generation of manned spacecraft as you wrote.  However, it is good of you finally to confirm that your paper discussing space engineering did not benefit from any actual study of the subject.

While you personally may not have studied very much of it, those who attended engineering schools in the early 1960s -- the Golden Age of aerospace -- learned quite a lot of it.  And those of us who attended engineering schools subsequently learned quite a lot of how Apollo was created, and then we built upon it.  So you may want to consider that your non-expertise is not probative on the subject of Apollo's feasibility.

Quote
I was 19 at the time...

At what time, excatly?  Your paper refers to the lunar orbit rendezvous mission profile, which was not selected until the spring of 1962.  Hence you could have written about it in 1963, but not in 1960 or 1961 when you would have been 19.

Keep in mind that you're still claiming this paper got you a degree, and its position within your overall claims to expertise is still quite vague.  You've already insinuated that St Andrews is in the habit of awarding degrees for work in which neither the student nor the professor is proficient.  After how many years of study does your alma mater grant degrees?

Quote
He was very much of the old school...

Yet somehow he forgot to teach you that Kepler and Newton were the fathers of the study of planetary motion, not Arthur C Clarke.  I find it difficult to believe that an old-school natural philosophy professor at a prestigious university never once mentioned Newton's Principia -- you know, the iconic, monumental, game-changing, founding work of natural philosophy.

Instead, you tell us, your "math classes" focused on the work of a then contemporary science fiction author who contributed nothing to the field.  And somehow, amid all this "new" science, you didn't pay much attention to the single most monumental application of physics the species has witnessed to date:  the attempt to land a man on another world.

Quote
He didn’t know the answers and of course now we know that NASA didn’t know either.

Non sequitur.  As I demonstrated, NASA did in fact know them.  You were simply unaware of them, and now you allege your professor was too.  There is no need to tarnish the memory of Prof. Allen with your sins.  You have reproduced what you now confess was a paper written in ignorance of the facts.  You reproduce it now 50 years later with absolutely no revision or any consideration that it has been amply proven false by prior, contemporary, or subsequent achievements.

You can be forgiven as a 19- or 21-year-old college student for writing a paper on a subject you knew nothing about.  There is little forgiveness for holding it up a generation later and claiming expertise on the basis of it.  And no forgiveness for suggesting that the world's scientific community entertains any doubt on the authenticity of Apollo.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #632 on: September 25, 2014, 11:28:57 AM »
I don't think Clarke actually patented the idea.

Correct, my mistake.  He is credited as its inventor, but he never patented the invention.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #633 on: September 25, 2014, 11:29:58 AM »
Do you think either of the two men you invoke in support of your belief, AC Clarke and Prof. Allen, would agree with you that the Apollo missions did not travel to the moon?

In one of those cases I know the answer.  I don't have to guess.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #634 on: September 25, 2014, 11:43:24 AM »
Urban dictionary definitions are questionable, at best.  The etymologies are unreliable and are likely to be made up, retrofit type.  Such as the shortening of a phrase by making an acronym. I've read that practice started only 60 or so years ago.   So its no surprise on the first.  I always assumed "Pom" had something to do with potatoes, from French, but pomegranate seems a good possibility.

Actually, one of the tests I have for any new book of etymology is to look up "posh" and see if they claim it's an acronym.  If they do, they've done shoddy research and I don't get the book.  Much before "radar," and the best assumption is that it isn't an acronym.  Heck, the word "acronym" dates to 1943!

This is the importance of verifying research, of course.  To tie it back to the actual discussion at hand, it isn't enough to just claim something to be true.  If anyone could produce even one document that used the expression "Prisoner of Mother England," that folk etymology might be accurate.  However, the only references are explanations of where the term came from, not evidence the expression was ever used.  You can't just state a thing and have legitimate researchers believe it, no matter what field you're in.  Or obviously you can, because that claim appears an awful lot.  But you shouldn't be able to!
"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 JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #635 on: September 25, 2014, 11:51:14 AM »
Given that, I am amazed that you profess to not understand how images from Mars could not be sent back in a matter of minutes. I assume that you are as equally mystified by the workings of TV and radio?

A wise choice, then, to go into accountancy, since he clearly had no future in physics, science, or engineering.  An unwise choice, however, to lately profess expertise in physics when one's ignorant skepticism of straightforward practical applications of it is already a matter of record.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Andromeda

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 746
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #636 on: September 25, 2014, 12:28:17 PM »
I showed the certificate to an academic, who said it looks like Jockndoris might have done a two-year course at most, and certainly nowhere near enough to to be considered an "expert" by any stretch.

Given that Jockndoris claims authority on the basis of having this "degree", I think the nature and authenticity of it are important to consider.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2014, 12:30:11 PM by Andromeda »
"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 #637 on: September 25, 2014, 12:42:21 PM »
As I said, the book has two lines of reasoning.  One is, "I played golf with Neil Armstrong while he was supposed to be on the Moon, and his ghost confirmed it."

The other is, "As a physics student in 1963 I proved that landing on the Moon by 1969 was impossible."  In support of that claim he reproduces his recollection of the paper.  In support of the validity of the paper, he alleges his professor gave him "a good degree" on the basis of it.  In support of that claim he provides his degree certificate.

The problem is that all these are just dots and the proof we need would reside in the connections he proposes between these dots.

He's already admitted that his course of study precluded the relevant subjects, and he's already admitted that neither he nor his physics professor were proficient.  So the probative value of the paper itself is nil at this point.  And there has never been any evidence to connect the paper to the degree.  That he got a BSc from St Andrews in 1963 is all that he can document.  Its relevance to his Apollo claims remains tenuous at best.

In scrutinizing this line of reasoning we have to keep in mind that the claims made in the paper are paramount.  It's very easy to get sidetracked into looking at dots instead of lines, and at looking at the dots that are thrown at us rather than the dots that matter.

The dot that matters is that the paper is abject rubbish on its face.  It is wildly incorrect on the subject of orbital motion, admittedly uninformed on the subject of engineering, and entirely speculative in all other respects.  While we can say with reasonable certainty that it did not earn him a relevant degree, we don't need to say that.  We don't need to unwind his chain of evidence and say that because the paper is a shambles it doesn't merit a degree.  His argument inferred the opposite -- the degree came from the paper, therefore the paper must be good.  We can determine that the paper is no good by examination.  QED.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Echnaton

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1490
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #638 on: September 25, 2014, 12:46:59 PM »
Do you think either of the two men you invoke in support of your belief, AC Clarke and Prof. Allen, would agree with you that the Apollo missions did not travel to the moon?

In one of those cases I know the answer.  I don't have to guess.

It is a pretty good bet that all but one or two contributors to this thread know the same and would be willing to state it publicly if needed.  As to the other, there is sizable probability that no answer can be documented.  But hey, if that's what Jockndoris offers as support lets see how far he is willing to go with it or how far he is willing to go in dodging questions. 
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 #639 on: September 25, 2014, 01:00:12 PM »
It is a pretty good bet that all but one or two contributors to this thread know the same and would be willing to state it publicly if needed.

I mean I know for a fact what one of his alleged sources believes about the authenticity of the Apollo missions.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1582
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #640 on: September 25, 2014, 01:11:00 PM »
I did it.

I  bought 'Dark Moon', 2nd hand, for peanuts. It arrived today.

Know thine enemy and all that, but I feel dirty.

Thankfully a copy of the Apollo 16 PSR arrived as well to make it better.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #641 on: September 25, 2014, 01:24:56 PM »
I  bought 'Dark Moon', 2nd hand, for peanuts. It arrived today.

The first thing you notice is that it is most definitely not a pamphlet.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #642 on: September 25, 2014, 03:13:53 PM »
Though the portion of page count dealing with Apollo might as well be, while the rest goes off on some very strange tangents....
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1582
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #643 on: September 25, 2014, 03:19:29 PM »
The book may have cost me very little, but the new reading glasses prescription will be expensive - teeny tiny print!!

On the subject of proper books about Apollo, I have a notification from Abebooks that a 2nd hand copy of "Live TV from the moon" is available.

For roughly twice the cost I could get for from Amazon!

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #644 on: September 25, 2014, 03:47:37 PM »
Though the portion of page count dealing with Apollo might as well be, while the rest goes off on some very strange tangents....

I can't agree more.  It's as if they wrote five books on five different fringe theories, dumped the pages into a bucket, stirred them around a bit, fished out the pages in random order, and bound them into Dark Moon.  One of my early associates in debating Bennett and Percy directly opined that the long, rambling text was meant to distract from the several contradictions in their own arguments.  You have to read so much you forget what they said 20 pages ago that's at odds with the page you're on.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams