• 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

Mojo said:
The first image (the "percentile level of 99.90" one) seems to say "62".
Click to expand...
Because 162 on the Wechsler scale is a 99.9 percentile. The other document claims 158 on the Cattell scale. 158 on the Cattell scale lands somewhere in the 130s on the Wechsler scale.

Care to explain yourself, @Vixen?
 
Steve said:
Well, if a person can't trust a video featuring Captain Georgia to say whatever Vixen thinks it is saying......
Click to expand...
@Vixen isn't especially wrong. If all you have is a stick, then do the best you can. I've learned quite a number of survival wayfinding techniques, since I routinely hike the desert.

My quibble with the video is what I already stated. Don't claim precision you can't defend. You can eyeball the sun's shadow to give you an angular precision of about 0.25º. There is a more sophisticated method using a stick and string. It compensates for your inability to precisely observe the shortest-shadow time directly.

My quibble with Vixen is that she doesn't understand celestial navigation, and she's arrogantly trying to teach people wrongly how to do it.
 
JayUtah said:
What did we tell you about claiming precision you can't defend? The fact that this person believes he can compute a value to a precision of seconds of arc doesn't mean he can observe as much with a stick and screwdriver. The best precision you can hope for in an eyeball-only observation of shadow length is about one minute of time. Five minutes is more the rule. This is because as the sun's shadow gets shorter, the rate at which the shadow shortens also decreases, making it extremely difficult to eyeball its shortest length. That means the best he can hope for is a precision of 15 minutes of arc. That's a distance of more than 15 km at the latitude of your thought experiment.

Also try doing that on a rocking boat.
Click to expand...
There's a reason the Sextant was developed.
 
Andy_Ross said:
There's a reason the Sextant was developed.
Click to expand...
And there's a reason GPS was developed. The cruder your equipment, the worse your results. If all you have is a stick, use the stick. But don't pretend you can get it down to seconds of arc. Your ability to compute precision beyond the precision of your observations doesn't mean you win.
 
Vixen, let me explain what I’m asking and why, because you’re clearly doing your best to not actually answer me.

Earlier in the thread you made a couple of references to a “non-geopositioned satellite”. The second time you mentioned it, you did clarify what you meant somewhat, by saying “a non-Geopositioned satellite (i.e., one whose orbit matches the speed of that of the relevant planet”

That sounds like you’re referring to something along the lines of a geostationary or geosynchronous orbit. But it’s not clear because your language is quite vague (an orbit matching a planet’s speed could mean a variety of things, and it’s definitely not obvious that the planet’s “speed” refers to its rotation period).

All I’m asking you to do is to clarify what you meant when you brought up the term. Did you in fact mean geostationary (or selenostationary if you’re talking about something in orbit around the moon)? Or did you mean something else? I’ve looked up the term geopositioning and it seems like it doesn’t have anything to do with orbits, so you don’t seem to be using the common meaning of the term or any meaning I could find, this is why I’m asking what you mean when you use the term.

I’m genuinely puzzled as to how asking me questions about navigating using a sextant and stopwatch in 1887, or filming someone from a drone with a GoPro, preventing the background from whizzing by in video, etc. is meant to clarify or explain what you meant by a “geopositioned satellite”.

I’m not sure I can explain my request any clearer. Are you having difficulty understanding what I’m writing?

All I want to know is what do you mean by geopositioned, when you refer to a geopositioned (or non-geopositioned) satellite?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Just for the record:

55492154571_3d22a96c95_z.jpg55492549490_c61250d322_z.jpg
Click to expand...
Foster Zygote said:
Wow, look at that! It's got your screen name superimposed in a cursive font and everything. That certainly proves it.
Click to expand...
Foster Zygote said:
You posted two images, one supposedly showing you, "Vixen", have an I.Q. of 158, and the other supposedly certifying that your score places you in the "99.90" percentile.
Click to expand...
Mojo said:
The first image (the "percentile level of 99.90" one) seems to say "62".
Click to expand...

On the Wechsler and Stanford-Binet scales, a score of 62 is 2.533 standard deviations away from the mean and lies below 99.4% of those who take the test. From the evidence posted by @Vixen, it appears someone miscalculated the 99.4% as 99.9%. When compared to most of the other mistakes @Vixen has posted within this thread, that's a minor error.

And reporting 99.4% as 99.9% is only a small exaggeration, when compared to most of the others.

As for the 158, I suspect someone got the leading digit wrong, or perhaps the second photo is reporting someone else's test results. I note that the superimposed signatures ("Vixen") are identical, which means they were added after the photograph was taken, which means the evidentiary value of those photographs is nil.

JayUtah said:
Because 162 on the Wechsler scale is a 99.9 percentile. The other document claims 158 on the Cattell scale. 158 on the Cattell scale lands somewhere in the 130s on the Wechsler scale.
Click to expand...
The highlighted score is @JayUtah's mistake.

The Cattell Culture Fair Intelligence Test (CFIQ) maxes out at 152, so it is not even possible to score 162 (or 158!) on the Cattell scale. But a score of 62 is not only possible, but entirely plausible. (Edited to add a second citation for the fact that the CFIQ maxes out at 152. While I'm at it, I'll mention another possibility: The 62 might have been a raw score of 62%, which would then have to be converted to the scale of a normal distribution with μ=100 and σ=24 or σ=16. If that conversion was done by a member of Mensa, that conversion might have been done incorrectly.)

If the 62 was her score on the Cattell scale, then her score was only 1.583 or 2.375 standard deviations from the mean, depending on whether she took the original version of the Cattell test (with standard deviation of 24) or the more recent version (with standard deviation of 16). So her score lies outside only 94.43% or 99.1% of the population, depending on which test she took.

It seems, therefore, that she is only a single-niner or double-niner, depending on whether her score of 62 was for a standard deviation of σ=24 or σ=16.

That she is only a single-niner or double-niner is far more plausible. A true triple-niner, more than three standard deviations from the mean, would probably have a hard time dealing with the sophistication of this forum's software.

JayUtah said:
Care to explain yourself, @Vixen?
Click to expand...
Do we really need more rhetorical questions?
 
Last edited:
Pixel42 said:
Only Vixen knows what it means. Only Vixen ever knows what she means - except when not even she knows, of course, which is what usually turns out to be the case.
Click to expand...

"If you do not know what you're doing, neither does your enemy" : (not) Sun Tzu

Or perhaps, more aptly, it was,
"To confuse your enemy, first confuse yourself” : Tsu or possibly Lincoln.
 
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