Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Andy_Ross]

View attachment 73506
Obvs.

Coal and water?

 

[threadworm]

Yes Vixen, we know what standard deviation is and how it applies to a normal curve.

The question is what might possibly be meant by "mean sd". And any which way you try to wiggle, that term makes zero sense. As has been explained to you, the general term "+/- x sd" is shorthand for "+/- x sd away from the mean". And therefore "mean sd" would mean "mean sd away from the mean". Which obviously is bollocks.

What you should have written is either "0 sd" or "(the) mean". You cocked it up. Again. And once again you're pathologically determined not to admit to an error. It truly is pathetic to observe, and a fascinating case study.

It's her standard error.

 

[Foster Zygote]

No, it's to do with the topic. We've covered so far, the lighting, the stars, the radiation and the Nixon phone call.

So you were unequivocally wrong about the lighting, stars, radiation and congratulatory phone call. What are you going to be wrong about concerning this video?

 

[Darat]

So you were unequivocally wrong about the lighting, stars, radiation and congratulatory phone call. What are you going to be wrong about concerning this video?

Well I should really leave it up to Vixen to explain but I know people will be wanting to know. If you look you will see that Aldrin's eyes are quite close set and that makes him shifty as ◊◊◊◊.

 

[Mojo]

I mentioned in passing the space stations were being developed to be used for docking and refuelling.

Nope. You said that "we have the ISS in place for refuelling and docking."

 

[Mojo]

The 16mm footage taken during landing, stills from which were published at the time, show details on the surface that were not known in advance. Those details have been confirmed since. That's a fact, not conjecture.

You're forgetting about the sooper-seecrit mission, Apollo 10.5, in which Stanley Kubrick and a film crew were sent to film the lunar surface so they would know what to put in the fake footage. Along with a geologist to collect some rocks.

 

[turingtest]

I mentioned in passing the space stations were being developed to be used for docking and refuelling. Some time earlier I mentioned the plan to mine the ice-filled craters on the side of the Moon that has never had any sunlight in order to extract the water to use as fuel component. I trust you understand what type of fuel rockets run on...? And how it works...?

How sure are you about this little factoid?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Speak for yourself

"A lot of people don't know..."

 

[P.J. Denyer]

How sure are you about this little factoid?

Oh my god. That's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ hilarious

 

[Andy_Ross]

There is no dark side of the moon, really
Matter of fact, it's all dark

 

[P.J. Denyer]

There is no dark side of the moon, really
Matter of fact, it's all dark

Pink Floyd are part of the conspiracy!

 

[Worm]

Yeah, in the context of the moon 'dark' means 'unseen' rather than 'unlit'. The 'dark side' of the moon get sunlight just fine.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

(Ninja'd by @turingtest and @P.J. Denyer, but I'm adding a useful link.)

With my highlighting:

I mentioned in passing the space stations were being developed to be used for docking and refuelling. Some time earlier I mentioned the plan to mine the ice-filled craters on the side of the Moon that has never had any sunlight in order to extract the water to use as fuel component. I trust you understand what type of fuel rockets run on...? And how it works...?

The Dark Side of the Moon was an important album, to be sure, but @Vixen is one of the few (the proud, the marinated) who have mistaken it for scientific research.

Having read everything @Vixen has written within this thread, I suspect she thinks the reason we can't see the far side of the moon is that the sun never shines upon it.

The parts of the moon that get the least sunlight are the poles. The sun does shine at the lunar poles, but how much sunlight they get is seasonal, as is true also of the earth's poles. NASA has released a visualization showing how that seasonal sunlight varied (and will vary) at the lunar south pole from 2025 to 2028.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The voice heard on the record at the end of Eclipse is that of Abbey Road Studios doorman Gerry O'Driscoll.

The band wrote a series of questions and asked Various people around the students to record their Answers.

His full answer to the question "What is 'the dark side of the moon" was:
"There is no dark side of the moon, really. Matter of fact, it's all dark. The only thing that makes it look light is the sun."

 

[zooterkin]

How sure are you about this little factoid?

Yes, I noticed that the first time she mentioned it, but didn't have the energy to pursue it.

 

[Mojo]

Having read everything @Vixen has written within this thread, I suspect she thinks the reason we can't see the far side of the moon is that the sun never shines upon it.

See also Downing Street.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

I trust you understand what type of fuel rockets run on...? And how it works...?

Do you? Do you understand how water might be used to help make it?

 

[Steve]

See also Downing Street.

She thinks the sun never shines on Downing Street?

 

[Foster Zygote]

A lie is something that is intentionally untrue.

Yes, like this:

Please! I've taken pics of the night sky. No problem in catching the stars.

If the average person believes something that is not true that is not 'lying through their teeth'.

Vixen, are you implying that scientists and engineers at the top of their fields are merely average compared to you, or are you still pretending that we're talking about the general human population, and not experts who know far more about this than you do?

You could say it was outrageous blasphemy for C16 objectors to claim the priests were ripping off gullible parishioners when charging for 'indulgences' as a corollary.

Irrelevant "analogy". We might call this the "Vixen special".

As has been said before, it only needs a small handful of people in highest government to keep something secret, not 'hundreds of thousands'. Simply label it 'classified'.

Except that we're talking about "evidence" that would be in the wheelhouse of literally millions of experts worldwide for > half a century. The things you think you've "exposed" are so basic that everyone who's ever taken a couple of semesters of physics should be saying "now just wait a damned minute!". After all, it's not like you or the clowns you're citing have access to top secret documents. You're making claims about basic physics and engineering - things that are covered in freshman textbooks.

The fact that you continue to pointedly ignore this, or pretend that we're appealing to the beliefs of the human populace as a whole, is all the proof needed to know that you realize how ridiculous your claims to superior knowledge really are. Even you, with your assertions of your top tenth of a percent intellect, realize how laughable it is to posit that that generations of legitimate experts around the globe have been too ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ stupid to notice anomalies regarding lighting, stars, ionizing radiation and the lack of telephone lines stretching to the moon.

 

[Mojo]

Yes, I noticed that the first time she mentioned it, but didn't have the energy to pursue it.

It’s always best to wait a couple of hours before pointing things like that out.