• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

bknight said:
You haven't looked at all the facts, if you were to do so you would realize people like Allen are totally wrong and only speak for the dollars that speaking gives them, GRIFTERS.
Click to expand...
On the point of shutter speed, she did confirm the correct facts after I demonstrated the physical behavior to her. She confirmed that it would take tens of seconds to expose stars on the Apollo film. But her brain bluescreened every time she was asked to apply that fact to claims made by conspiracy theorist Marcus Allen. Not only is she vastly deficient in her understanding of the facts, she's dishonest with the few facts she knows.
 
JayUtah said:
What does "mean sd [standard deviation]" even...mean?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Given that a term such as "3 sd" represents "3 sd away from the mean", "mean sd" would represent "mean sd away from the mean". Which clearly is meaningless (pun intended).

Vixen obviously intends to write either "0 sd" or "(the) mean". You'd've thought a "numbers person" would know this...
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
On the point of shutter speed, she did confirm the correct facts after I demonstrated the physical behavior to her. She confirmed that it would take tens of seconds to expose stars on the Apollo film. But her brain bluescreened every time she was asked to apply that fact to claims made by conspiracy theorist Marcus Allen. Not only is she vastly deficient in her understanding of the facts, she's dishonest with the few facts she knows.
Click to expand...

I've got a feeling* that she (finally) concurred about camera settings on the surface of the Earth, but that she still thinks the Moon surface is a wholly different case (when in fact the stars do appear 10%-20% brighter from the Moon's surface, but by no means enough to affect the need for a multi-second shutter speed and open aperture - ie just as on the Earth's surface).


* I really can't be bothered to go back and check this, but I have a feeling my feeling is right :p
 
JayUtah said:
Keep in mind she started this thread by talking about Armstrong, Aldrin, and Whatshisname. But after two months she's now fully conversant with the facts of one of the most extensive scientific and engineering project in human history.
Click to expand...

Google/Bing AI and Wikipedia are quick ways to make it sound - superficially - as if you know what you're talking about. Unfortunately though they're not going to help you if you don't have even the basic grounding in science to allow you to understand/parse what's being presented to you and to draw proper inferences from that information.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
I've got a feeling* that she (finally) concurred about camera settings on the surface of the Earth, but that she still thinks the Moon surface is a wholly different case (when in fact the stars do appear 10%-20% brighter from the Moon's surface, but by no means enough to affect the need for a multi-second shutter speed and open aperture - ie just as on the Earth's surface).


* I really can't be bothered to go back and check this, but I have a feeling my feeling is right :p
Click to expand...
Feelings are important. ;)
 
LondonJohn said:
I've got a feeling* that she (finally) concurred about camera settings on the surface of the Earth, but that she still thinks the Moon surface is a wholly different case (when in fact the stars do appear 10%-20% brighter from the Moon's surface, but by no means enough to affect the need for a multi-second shutter speed and open aperture - ie just as on the Earth's surface).
Click to expand...
I concur with your feeling. She did try to say that things would be different on the Moon but didn't care to pay attention to any followup discussion. Of course I had already shown that the difference amounts to only half a stop and therefore still tens of seconds of shutter speed.

A numbers person should know that decreasing by 20% a value in tens of units can't possibly get you to a value of hundredths of a unit.

LondonJohn said:
Google/Bing AI and Wikipedia are quick ways to make it sound - superficially - as if you know what you're talking about. Unfortunately though they're not going to help you if you don't have even the basic grounding in science to allow you to understand/parse what's being presented to you.
Click to expand...
I used to say you can Google for facts, but you can't Google for understanding. These days you can ask for an AI's answer, but that still requires understanding—especially to know whether the AI is correct. It often isn't. Not having a proper grounding in science often leads you to ask an AI the wrong question, for example asking about "pressure" rather than "force." That's how she got her AI to give her a completely irrelevant answer in another thread.

LondonJohn said:
I just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in
Click to expand...
617xh6t1c0xd1.jpeg

Obviously fake, as you can't see stars from inside a bowling alley.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
Exactly. Given that a term such as "3 sd" represents "3 sd away from the mean", "mean sd" would represent "mean sd away from the mean". Which clearly is meaningless (pun intended).

Vixen obviously intends to write either "0 sd" or "(the) mean". You'd've thought a "numbers person" would know this...
Click to expand...
You merely fail to understand. Since Vixen is 3 standard deviations more intelligent than the rest of us, it means she isn't clever enough is too clever to make her points intelligible.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Then there's the opposite claim
What Apollo 11 found and saw was so shocking that they never went back and faked all the later missions.

Plus various combinations of both.
Click to expand...
Well, Buzz was an extrovert and became a rather entertaining tv character. His hint that they may have seen aliens or were followed by them was purely tongue-in-cheek IMV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom