Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Vixen]

So what’s a “mean sd?”

This is something you can look up on Google.

 

[threadworm]

We were discussing debunking and Nixon ringing up the astronauts on the Moon hardly qualifies as a debunk. Quite the opposite.

No. You were discussing that. Everyone else was explaining that no-one makes the strawman claim you concocted, and then how the process actually worked, as opposed to your mangled argument from ignorance.

 

[JayUtah]

This is something you can look up on Google.

Google says, “‘Mean standard deviation’ is a nonsensical phrase used by people who are trying to sound smarter than they really are.”

 

[threadworm]

If you are so bought in to the premise then of course you will believe anything that supports it no matter how wild, hilarious and absurd. This is why a debate is set up so that one can step back and examine all of the things we believe are true.

Debate requires two sides to take part. You are so bought into the hilarious and absurd claims of your heroes that you've examined nothing.

How's your examination of the two things I've asked you coming along, you ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ hypocrite?

 

[Vixen]

No. You were discussing that. Everyone else was explaining that no-one makes the strawman claim you concocted, and then how the process actually worked, as opposed to your mangled argument from ignorance.

I actually said it was explained away by the radio waves route in my post. The reason law courts operate on a fact-finding basis is because they want the facts not the suppositions, rationalisations, speculations and 'alternative explanations'. They /we here want to know what did happen and what did not, not 'how it might have happened' or it is possible for 'x,y and z to have happened'. That doesn't settle the issue.

 

[Vixen]

Google says, “‘Mean standard deviation’ is a nonsensical phrase used by people who are trying to sound smarter than they really are.”

Tell me what is the purpose of your question.

 

[catsmate]

I can recall as a kid listening to my little tranny under the sheets desperately waiting for Radio Luxemburg to play Homeward Bound again, which was on a half hour loop. The sound was dreadful, coming in and out, with all kinds of crackling and hissing. It was transmitting from the North Sea (to beat the broadcasting laws).

No. "Radio Luxemburg" [sic] was not a floating pirate station. This never happened.

So yeah, 250,000 miles to the Moon's surface...doddle. I feel sorry for the poor crew of the 2028 Artemis who will have to suffer a real phone call from the current White House incumbent, probably in the early hours...They could just take the headphones off and let him ramble on...

You usual irrelevant strawmannery.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I am pointing out the logical fallacy of the false premise. The false premise being, according to the topic title, that Apollo 11 was on the surface of the Moon. Therefore, the argument goes, 'Nixon made a phone call to the surface of the Moon!' is simply adding more and more to the desperation that this somehow proves 'it really happened'.

No, Vixen, you were distinctly claiming that it wasn't technologically possible. Having now realized how ignorant that claim was, you're attempting to walk it back to having said it doesn't prove they were on the moon.

You brought up the call from Nixon to the Eagle. And you introduced the subject, with your characteristic personal incredulity, as an impossible idea, rambling about telephone wires being all there was in the '60s or some such nonsense. No one here cited Nixon's call as proof of the moon landings, so don't claim that we did.

 

[Vixen]

Debate requires two sides to take part. You are so bought into the hilarious and absurd claims of your heroes that you've examined nothing.

How's your examination of the two things I've asked you coming along, you ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ hypocrite?

I rarely bother answering hypothetical questions. If my grandmother wore trousers, would she be my grandfather?

 

[catsmate]

<snip>

You really are patheticly desperate to avoid admitting you are wrong, aren't you?

 

[JayUtah]

Tell me what is the purpose of your question.

To discover what you meant by “mean standard deviation,” which does not appear to be a concept in statistics. How can you expect people to address your argument if you use nonstandard terms and refuse to define them?

ETA :—
You tell us your interpretation of the Apollo evidence must be considered superior because your critics suffer from something you characterize as "mean sd [standard devation]." My training and licensure as an engineer requires considerable qualification in statistical methods. In many cases I am required to provide statistical models proving the reliability of my designs based on data, and I am personally legally liable for the correctness of those models. On that basis, along with my demonstrated skill in statistical modeling (cf. the Shroud of Turin thread), I am confident that I possess a competent understanding of descriptive statistics.

I have scoured the literature, my textbooks, and many online resources attempting to discover what the phrase "mean standard deviation" might want to convey. I have come up short.

As suggested, I consulted Google Orion Gemini, asking it: "Does the exact phrase 'mean standard deviation' have any definition or use in statistics?" It answered,

In formal statistics, the exact phrase "mean standard deviation" is not a recognized standalone term. Instead, it is typically a conversational or erroneous combination of two distinct statistical concepts: the Mean (average) and the Standard Deviation (a measure of spread). [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
While the exact phrase lacks a definition, related phrases and applications include:

• Mean ± Standard Deviation: This is a standard formatting convention for reporting descriptive statistics (e.g., 50 ± 5) in scientific literature to show both the central tendency and the variability of a dataset. [1, 2, 3]
• Standard Deviation of the Mean (Standard Error): Also known as the Standard Error of the Mean (SEM). This quantifies the precision of a sample mean, measuring how far the sample mean is likely to be from the true population mean. [1, 2]
• Mean Absolute Deviation (MAD): This is the average of the absolute distances from the mean, representing an alternative measure of variability that avoids the squared calculations used in standard deviation. [1, 2]

As you can see, I have paraphrased its answer only slightly. However, if we proceed from the premise that Google Gemini's veiled insult against you can't possibly be true, then it's reasonable to expect a triple-niner numbers person who is six steps ahead of everyone else to be able to provide a suitably rigorous mathematical definition of "mean standard deviation" and explain how such a thing prevents those to which it applies from appropriately grasping the evidence put forward in support of the Apollo missions being hoaxed.

 

[catsmate]

Please can you not mention it again, thanks.

Awwwww..

 

[Thermal]

@Vixen: this is coming a little late in the game, but could you take a moment to clarify which of your claims you mean seriously and which are just taking the proverbial piss?

Like, this would be a fantastic opportunity for you to say "oh come on guys, I was clearly kidding about the phone call thingy. No one could really be that stupid".

 

[catsmate]

Put simply, it runs in families. Like height (= tall people come from tall families). That is all there is to it.

No. Heredity and genetics is another subject you don't understand I see.

 

[catsmate]

I actually had to study all this from Galton onwards.

Right...
You obviously failed to actually understand it.

 

[Foster Zygote]

That presupposes (a) they were on the surface of the Moon, and (b) all Nixon had to do was to pick up his phone and all the magic radio rerouters and stuff via Houston would fix it for him so that that the guys were there at the right place and time to take his call. "Not now, mate, I'm busy!"

It's genuinely funny watching you try so hard to remain incredulous regarding simple telecommunications technology.

 

[ferd burfle]

Good Lord, did you just confuse NASA's Artemis missions with the plot from Armageddon?

Well, maybe she thinks Moonfall is a documentary

 

[GlennB]

I can recall as a kid listening to my little tranny under the sheets desperately waiting for Radio Luxemburg to play Homeward Bound again, which was on a half hour loop. The sound was dreadful, coming in and out, with all kinds of crackling and hissing.
It was transmitting from the North Sea (to beat the broadcasting laws).

You can't even get that right - it was broadcast from Luxembourg itself. How can you be so relentlessly, infallibly wrong? It must be deliberate.

 

[JayUtah]

The reason law courts operate on a fact-finding basis is because they want the facts not the suppositions, rationalisations, speculations and 'alternative explanations'.

This then clearly rejects the conspiracy theorists you keep trying to cite as reasonable people arguing in good faith.

They /we here want to know what did happen and what did not, not 'how it might have happened' or it is possible for 'x,y and z to have happened'.

That fairly characterizes your sources. They simply offer hypothetical alternatives without evidence that any of them happened, and then argue that the existence of those hypothetical alternatives means that NASA has not carried its burden of proof.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You are the one asking us to suspend credulity that Nixon ringing up the guys on the Moon was all normal every day stuff. It just goes to prove why politicians get away with whatever they get away with.

No one claimed that calling from the White House to the moon was "normal everyday stuff". As usual, you resort to dishonest misrepresentation to defend your positions.

Having someone on the moon to call wasn't a normal, everyday situation, so neither was communicating with them. But most of the technology used to do it was common. Even the Deep Space Tracking Network was just a really powerful network of radio antennae. So tell us more about your personal childhood experience with a cheap transistor radio, and how that has convinced you that there was nothing more sophisticated than that.