gabeygoat
Master Poster
Amazing.
-
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
- Thread starter Vixen
- Start date
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
The thrust was refuelling not the name of the space station.
And yet you were still totally wrong about that part, too.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
Has absolutely nothing to do with the Apollo moon landings. "Do pay attention".
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
SpaceX is not the name of a space station.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
People here were discussing Artemis refueling over in other threads for several weeks after the Artemis II mission months ago. SpaceX famously lost their exclusive contract to supply the tanker after failing to show relevant progress. That's why Artemis III may end up testing Northrop Grumman's tanker too.
No, you are absolutely not bringing expert information to the table that the other posters didn't know. They're six steps ahead of you, or more. More importantly, you brought up refueling only as a distraction to the other questions I reminded you about a few posts ago. Answer them. Chop-chop.
Last edited:
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
I'm pages behind, but V keeps bringing up Nixon's dishonesty. He was only in office about six months at the time of the Apollo 11 landing, and had not taken office at all at Christmas 1968 when Apollo 8 orbital the moon.
Ok, LBJ was a bit of a crook too, but politically he was very much NOT aligned with Nixon.
Yet somehow they worked together on this enormous hoax.
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 84,769
Speak for yourself
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
In my family, feet smell
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
V is going to lose her ◊◊◊◊ when she finds out Apollo 11 communications was consolidated via USB.
JesseCuster
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 4, 2016
- Messages
- 2,413
You've only heard about it in the past few days because of your Googling and asking AI about it. You're far and away the most uninformed person in this thread.
You've tried telling us that NASA is a military agency, Elon Musk has a 40% share in NASA, that NASA is a publicly traded company, Donald Trump's family "daresay" is invested int he newly publicly traded NASA, etc. You have no interest in being informed on the subject, you can't even understand the stuff you do read on the subject, and you're incapable of reporting it properly, and you can rarely ever cite or even vaguely remember where you got your bizarre misunderstandings from.
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
The secret is to ensure the fox and chicken, or the chicken and grain, are never left alone together on a riverbank.
(Damn.
’d)
Last edited:
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
Then why did you post a link to the ISS demonstration of the planned refueling system - in defence of being called out on your claim that SpaceX would be refueling at the ISS?
(dont bother. This is rhetorical)
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Obviously she also meant to post a different link. Triple-niners get infinite do-overs, don't you know?
Last edited:
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
My god (rhetorical). The moon-landing hoax is already one of the dumber CTs around, right up there with Flat Earth and Young Earth Creationism (both of which at least require a world-wide Conspiracy to hide a Truth); but I would bet that even the most dedicated Moon Hoaxer would be clutching his head and moaning at inanities like "Nixon forgot there weren't any telephone lines to the Moon!"
Axxman300
Philosopher
Seriously, SpaceX just launched a bunch satellites into orbit today without a hitch. AND they landed their rockets safely on their platforms, which just friggin' cool by anyone's standards. Today was an industrial-sized launch schedule that NASA only dreamed about 20 years ago. I have bad news for Vixen, not only did we land on the moon six times, we're going back in a big way with an eye toward Mars.
We choose to do these things not because they are easy, but because we're bored.
We choose to do these things not because they are easy, but because we're bored.
As a public service I will explain what Vixen means by "mean SD" in her various posts in this thread.
"SD" is the noun in the phrase, and does indeed stand for "standard deviation," but that in turn has an unconventional meaning here. In statistics, standard deviation is a measurement, expressed as a positive real number, of the amount of variation (that is to say, roughly, the quantitative inconsistency) in a set of data. In Vixen's phrase it is an integer describing how close or far a single specific measurement (e.g. a person in a population) is from the mean, as measured in standard deviations. Where a statistician might validly describe the magnitude of a sample from a population as e.g. "two standard deviations from the mean," Vixen would incorrectly phrase this as the sample having "a standard deviation of two," or in short, "two SD."
In this usage schema "mean SD" is an (entirely unnecessary) alternative to "zero SD", meaning zero standard deviations from the mean, precisely equivalent to simply using "mean" as an adjective.
The key point here is the in intent to use standard deviation as a set of categories (mean SD, one SD, two SD, etc., presumably also minus one SD, etc.) instead of a characteristic of a statistic describing a collective quality of a group. This is typical of eugenic schemas both fictional (e.g. Brave New World's alphas, betas, and so forth) and historical (e.g. "idiot," "moron," and "genius" in their original clinical definitions).
Now I'm going to tell a story, as a warning for Vixen and for anyone tempted to accept Vixen's or anyone else's comparable categorization schema. A couple of decades ago, I moved to my parents' house at the same time they moved out of it. Chief among the several reasons for doing so was to step into their role in the care of and social life of my twin brother, which they could no longer keep up with. These activities brought me back into contact with many of my brother's friends and acquaintances in the "special needs" community. In particular, one Down's Syndrome man my own age named Karl.
Karl was friends with everybody. We could travel to a town seventy-five miles from home, and people on the street would greet him by name, and he'd greet them by name and ask about their jobs and their families and generally act as if meeting them had made his whole day. Which it had. If Karl had been able to read and do math and drive a car, he would have been a business leader or a politician. (Many nicknamed him "The Mayor" regardless.) What all those acquaintances didn't do was spend actual time with him. That was me. When he told me I was his best friend, among his thousands, I believed him because of that.
Over time, I came to realize two things.
One, apart from my wife, he was my best friend too.
Two, he was as aware of and as sympathetic to my relative social awkwardness as I was aware of and sympathetic to his illiteracy.
Not because I was some uber-shy recluse. He just had many more SDs than I did, in that particular area. I'm mean SD or perhaps minus one SD socially; he was, to my best estimate, three SD.
My many SDs happen to apply to other areas. One of which is, communicating with a wide variety of people, from nonverbal autists to Nobel prize winners. This is no inborn or "natural" or genetic quaility; it's the result of practice, frustration, heartbreak, and painful lessons, all of which stem from, first, wanting to communicate clearly, and second, doing the work of understanding different perspectives whether you agree with them or not.
There are only two actual "tragedies of mean SD and three SD" communication.
One is when the "three SD" doesn't give a ◊◊◊◊.
The other is when anyone of any rank of SD thinks that rank applies to all of their abilities.
"SD" is the noun in the phrase, and does indeed stand for "standard deviation," but that in turn has an unconventional meaning here. In statistics, standard deviation is a measurement, expressed as a positive real number, of the amount of variation (that is to say, roughly, the quantitative inconsistency) in a set of data. In Vixen's phrase it is an integer describing how close or far a single specific measurement (e.g. a person in a population) is from the mean, as measured in standard deviations. Where a statistician might validly describe the magnitude of a sample from a population as e.g. "two standard deviations from the mean," Vixen would incorrectly phrase this as the sample having "a standard deviation of two," or in short, "two SD."
In this usage schema "mean SD" is an (entirely unnecessary) alternative to "zero SD", meaning zero standard deviations from the mean, precisely equivalent to simply using "mean" as an adjective.
The key point here is the in intent to use standard deviation as a set of categories (mean SD, one SD, two SD, etc., presumably also minus one SD, etc.) instead of a characteristic of a statistic describing a collective quality of a group. This is typical of eugenic schemas both fictional (e.g. Brave New World's alphas, betas, and so forth) and historical (e.g. "idiot," "moron," and "genius" in their original clinical definitions).
Now I'm going to tell a story, as a warning for Vixen and for anyone tempted to accept Vixen's or anyone else's comparable categorization schema. A couple of decades ago, I moved to my parents' house at the same time they moved out of it. Chief among the several reasons for doing so was to step into their role in the care of and social life of my twin brother, which they could no longer keep up with. These activities brought me back into contact with many of my brother's friends and acquaintances in the "special needs" community. In particular, one Down's Syndrome man my own age named Karl.
Karl was friends with everybody. We could travel to a town seventy-five miles from home, and people on the street would greet him by name, and he'd greet them by name and ask about their jobs and their families and generally act as if meeting them had made his whole day. Which it had. If Karl had been able to read and do math and drive a car, he would have been a business leader or a politician. (Many nicknamed him "The Mayor" regardless.) What all those acquaintances didn't do was spend actual time with him. That was me. When he told me I was his best friend, among his thousands, I believed him because of that.
Over time, I came to realize two things.
One, apart from my wife, he was my best friend too.
Two, he was as aware of and as sympathetic to my relative social awkwardness as I was aware of and sympathetic to his illiteracy.
Not because I was some uber-shy recluse. He just had many more SDs than I did, in that particular area. I'm mean SD or perhaps minus one SD socially; he was, to my best estimate, three SD.
My many SDs happen to apply to other areas. One of which is, communicating with a wide variety of people, from nonverbal autists to Nobel prize winners. This is no inborn or "natural" or genetic quaility; it's the result of practice, frustration, heartbreak, and painful lessons, all of which stem from, first, wanting to communicate clearly, and second, doing the work of understanding different perspectives whether you agree with them or not.
There are only two actual "tragedies of mean SD and three SD" communication.
One is when the "three SD" doesn't give a ◊◊◊◊.
The other is when anyone of any rank of SD thinks that rank applies to all of their abilities.
JesseCuster
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 4, 2016
- Messages
- 2,413
That’s not a rebuttal to or refutation of what I said, which is that you continually wheel out “I obviously meant something other than the mistaken thing I actually posted” as some sort of excuse for your frequent basic errors.
I would have thought that someone who claims to be a triple niner intellect, a scientist, an author, who claims to choose their words carefully, etc. wouldn’t be so sloppy about getting basic facts right.