The point is that the book as a scholarly work is crap because its arguments are crap. That's why we're suggesting john give it a low rating.

You don't quite have it right there. As often as is convenient, our counter arguments involve giving the facts based on primary sources. Occasonally, there are arguments where running through facts and computations would be cumbersome because to explain it to the laymen would require an entire book. In that case, the experts give their expert opinion. The difference with conspiracists is that they give their lay opinion. We have no reason to trust a lay opinion, but we do have reason to trust an expert opinion up to a point. Many of us usually don't question expert opinions because we are ill-equipped to do so. We defer to their expertise.

If you take issue with an expert opinion of one of our resident experts, then they'd be quite happy to discuss it. However, be warned, if you wish to go into the nitty gritty behind an expert opinion, you'd better be prepared to deal with some hard sciences and potentially vicious maths.

__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131

If a hoax book had equations, figures and graphs to prove that there was a moon hoax, and they were used correctly that would be great.

Having an opinion in the engineering world won't cut it. Engineers need facts and equations. You can have the opinion that the Lunar Module should create a blast crater, unfortunately, the laws of thermodynamcics and heat transfer show that it is IMPOSSIBLE.

BTW, do you want you're car, airplane or train designed by opinions?

It's completely relevant. Otherwise all book reviews would just be about making sure there are no spelling or grammatical errors. Assuming that the book doesn't see printing until those conditions are met all you have left is subject matter. If the subject matter is poorly researched and\or poorly argued then it's Mr. Keller's duty as a reviewer to call out the author in his review. No matter how good the sentence structure is or even if the all of the commas are in the right place.

I've done 83 reviews for amazon over the past three years. I typically review space related books. Due to some personal reasons, I've been on a bit of hiatus the past 8 months or so. Right now I'm also writing a review of the book Almost Heaven: The Story of Women in Space. The writing, spelling and grammar are really good. There are so many facts that are wrong in the book it deserves two stars. For example, the opening paragraph has the landing date of Apollo 11 as July 18th, not July 20th. This moon hoax book is the same way. For example, the LM is unstable so it couldn't land. No calculations, just opinion. For a book that supposed to present both sides of the arguement, it doesn't.