Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Reformed Offlian]

Allen and Weaver seem perfectly normal and respectable to me.

You started this thread with a claim about photography from Allen subsequently shown to be grossly in error. It has been pointed out to you that Allen and Weaver *lied* about the lunar imagery they claim would have required a stationary satellite in order to make that case. Explain why they seem "perfectly normal and respectable" after that.

You also think that Jutta Raabe is a respectable journalist, that Anders Bjorkman was a competent engineer, that the Italian detectives who investigated Amanda Knox were conscientious and honest, and that Christopher Bollyn is a knowledgeable commentator on the Middle East and 9/11.

Your perfectlynormalandrespectableometer needs recalibrating.

 

[JayUtah]

That was not Cattell III.

Which exact test was it, then? Name it.

A score of 162 on the Cattell III B test is idiomatically assigned a percentile of 99.9 as reported on the form, even though it constitutes a perfect score. It really can't be any other test.

Your other document claims a score of 158 and is identified as being for the "Cattell" test. While @W.D.Clinger notes that the other tests by Cattell cap out at 152, the Cattell III B test caps out at 162—but only when taken as a juvenile. The adult version caps out at 161. A score of 158 on the Cattell III B test would be consistent with the "98/99" percentile reported on the document.

 

[JayUtah]

They seem eminently reasonable to me.

Are you really the better judge of that?

That's not to say they are right but the questions they raise seem quite sensible.

Marcus Allen, speaking as a professional photographer, claims he should be able to see stars in photographs he knows were taken with shutter speeds incompatible with any such belief—incompatible by three orders of magnitude. Yet he maintains this.

That is not sensible. That is a man trying to sell sensational stories, which is what he did for a living. He is motivated to be sensational, not correct. That makes a con man.

 

[catsmate]

That is not what I was referring to. I was referring to Axxman's claims that anyone feeling their lip curl re Apollo11 must be an alcoholic, mentally ill, completely bonkers and probably stark raving mad, whilst we are at it. But don't you see, that is the type of 'debate' one hears in a children's playground. It's just self-defence and self-comfort when we tell ourselves, "My Daddy is bigger than yours, and anyway, you smell of poo!"

More pathetic, childish, strawmannery. Grow up and try acting like an adult.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

That is not what I was referring to.

Yes, it clearly was, when you wrote: "This is exactly the problem. The 'trust me' principle because, 'We're the good guys'."

I was referring to Axxman's claims that anyone feeling their lip curl re Apollo11 must be an alcoholic, mentally ill, completely bonkers and probably stark raving mad, whilst we are at it. But don't you see, that is the type of 'debate' one hears in a children's playground. It's just self-defence and self-comfort when we tell ourselves, "My Daddy is bigger than yours, and anyway, you smell of poo!"

Axxman made a throwaway observation about CTers generally being fruitcakes of one or more flavors, which: a) is generally accurate, and b) wasn't the mainstay of his argument. That had to do with the general state of the evidence for the authenticity of Apollo, and the lack of any credible evidence supporting a hoax.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Only someone under 18 can score 162 on the Cattell III B test. Are you claiming that you scored 162 on the Cattell III B test?

That was not Cattell III.

Which exact test was it, then? Name it.

A score of 162 on the Cattell III B test is idiomatically assigned a percentile of 99.9 as reported on the form, even though it constitutes a perfect score. It really can't be any other test.

@Vixen may be right about the impossibility of scoring 162 on the Cattell III-b test:

What IQ Scores Really Mean - Cattell iii-b ​

Most iq tests score an individual on a scale of 100. The highest score possible is 145 , and the lowest score possible is 61; scores between these two extremes represents just one standard deviation from the mean iq for that group.[5] For example, if you receive a score of 110 (a "superior" iq), this means your iq score was 10 points higher than the average person's in that particular test sample. Likewise, if your scored 67 (an "average" iq), this means you were 11 points below the person mean Cattell iii b IQ test. IQ test.

But I'm not sure we should trust that source. Although that paragraph is explicitly discussing the "Cattell iii-b" test, and says even more explicitly that "The highest score possible is 145," its last sentence (or two!) appear(s) to be gibberish or AI slop.

On the other hand, that paragraph confirms that a score of 62 (as shown in the first of @Vixen's two photos) is possible, as it is just barely higher than the lowest possible score of 61.

I am willing to accept @Vixen's claim that her score of 62 was not obtained on the Cattell III test, and eagerly await her disclosure of the specific test(s) on which she scored 62, or 162, or 158, or whatever.

Just as I eagerly await her explanation of what she meant by a "geo-positioned satellite".

 

[threadworm]

I was saying they don't strike me as being alcoholic, mentally ill, conmen, or religious fanatics. They seem eminently reasonable to me. That's not to say they are right but the questions they raise seem quite sensible.

But they aren't sensible, they're deliberately engineered to avoid getting an answer that contradicts their grift.

If you're so keen on sensible questions, where's the answer to mine?

 

[Vixen]

You started this thread with a claim about photography from Allen subsequently shown to be grossly in error. It has been pointed out to you that Allen and Weaver *lied* about the lunar imagery they claim would have required a stationary satellite in order to make that case. Explain why they seem "perfectly normal and respectable" after that.

You also think that Jutta Raabe is a respectable journalist, that Anders Bjorkman was a competent engineer, that the Italian detectives who investigated Amanda Knox were conscientious and honest, and that Christopher Bollyn is a knowledgeable commentator on the Middle East and 9/11.

Your perfectlynormalandrespectableometer needs recalibrating.

Jutta Raab as a journalist did have/does have indepth knowledge. Björkman is a qualifed naval enginner so his diagrams of buoyancy look fine to me - exactly the same as in the textbooks - I don't agree with him other than on that. Bollyn is a Middle Eastern specialist, according to his own blurb. I know nothing more about him, as I said, so I believe him to be a disinformation agent, rather like the frivolous Flat Earth Society trying to hoist their flag to anyone sceptical of the Apollo11 thing. However, the disinformation guys will say something that sounds plausible to 'fit in' as it were, now and then, so some of the things Bollyn said about 9/11 were a 'hmmmm' moment. It doesn't mean one believes them or are their 'follower'. Not at all. I'd rather be broadminded than narrow-minded. The guys in the US have an even worse mass media than the UK so all they ever read about Amanda Knox is from Knox' own press releases put out by her marketing agency so nobody there even knows what really did happen in court, other than those curious enough to find out for themselves. (You'll be surprised how many Americans do NOT buy into MAGA and the usual crap, though. Not everybody is uninterested.)

 

[JayUtah]

But I'm not sure we should trust that source. Although that paragraph is explicitly discussing the "Cattell iii-b" test, and says even more explicitly that "The highest score possible is 145," its last sentence (or two!) appear(s) to be gibberish or AI slop.

This would have been Cattell III B as adminstered in the 1970s, with a standard deviation of 24. I found multiple sources indicating that its top score was 162, but only as administered to juveniles. I also found several sources indicating that the percentile for a perfect score was idiomatically assigned 99.9 percentile.

I'm perfect willing to be corrected by better information. And again, I'm inferring that "62" at the edge of the image is actually meant to say "162." The combination of 162 and 99.9 points to Cattell III B with a sigma of 24.

Just as I eagerly await her explanation of what she meant by a "geo-positioned satellite".

We'll get there.

 

[Vixen]

But they aren't sensible, they're deliberately engineered to avoid getting an answer that contradicts their grift.

If you're so keen on sensible questions, where's the answer to mine?

Wasn't that where you showed blurry 'close ups' of various craters boulder fields taken by Chinese orbiters?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Jutta Raab as a journalist did have/does have indepth knowledge. Björkman is a qualifed naval enginner so his diagrams of buoyancy look fine to me - exactly the same as in the textbooks - I don't agree with him other than on that. Bollyn is a Middle Eastern specialist, according to his own blurb. I know nothing more about him, as I said, so I believe him to be a disinformation agent, rather like the frivolous Flat Earth Society trying to hoist their flag to anyone sceptical of the Apollo11 thing. However, the disinformation guys will say something that sounds plausible to 'fit in' as it were, now and then, so some of the things Bollyn said about 9/11 were a 'hmmmm' moment. It doesn't mean one believes them or are their 'follower'. Not at all. I'd rather be broadminded than narrow-minded. The guys in the US have an even worse mass media than the UK so all they ever read about Amanda Knox is from Knox' own press releases put out by her marketing agency so nobody there even knows what really did happen in court, other than those curious enough to find out for themselves. (You'll be surprised how many Americans do NOT buy into MAGA and the usual crap, though. Not everybody is uninterested.)

Nope. All cranks viewed with disdain by their colleagues. And your inability to see that is a big part of your problem.

 

[Axxman300]

This is exactly the problem. The 'trust me' principle because, 'We're the good guys'. You make the same mistake as someone I know: anyone she's in disagreement with has some kind of personality defect. It's a form of self¨defence, rather than addressing the difference of opinion.

This is not a matter of trust. Those rockets were launched. Those missions went to the moon, and were tracked by multiple countries, including the USSR. The lower segments of all the LMs are still on the moon, and have been independently photographed over the years in high resolution showing FOOTPRINTS around them.

To deny these facts is a personality defect. Yours is the inability to admit failure at any level, no mistake is too small to dodge. The men you quote are well-known grifters and con artists. The rest of the Apollo-hoaxers are legendary alcoholics, and religious nuts. No different than the crowd claiming UAPs are really demons. These people are your sources. Questioning if NASA put men on the moon is not a matter of opinion, it's a mental flaw along the lines of claiming man can fly if he simply flaps his arms fast enough. The fact that we went eliminates any counter arguments as they are either tangential, or flat out wrong.

You've taken an indefensible position (again). One that puts you well below the bigfoot, and UFO crowds.

 

[JayUtah]

Björkman is a qualifed naval enginner...

No.

so his diagrams of buoyancy look fine to me - exactly the same as in the textbooks

No, they're wrong. And you would have no way of knowing whether they're right or not. Just as you have no way of knowing for yourself whether Allen, Weaver, Percy, Sibrel, or any other such claimant is correct. You are exactly the type of ignorant person they intend to prey upon.

I don't agree with him other than on that.

He is also an Apollo hoax claimant.

 

[Vixen]

This would have been Cattell III B as adminstered in the 1970s, with a standard deviation of 24. I found multiple sources indicating that its top score was 162, but only as administered to juveniles. I also found several sources indicating that the percentile for a perfect score was idiomatically assigned 99.9 percentile.

I'm perfect willing to be corrected by better information. And again, I'm inferring that "62" at the edge of the image is actually meant to say "162." The combination of 162 and 99.9 points to Cattell III B with a sigma of 24.


We'll get there.

It used to be a top score of 178 if you were under 16, as they added weightings to adjust for age. The maximum score for young adults now is 162 and they won't test children (although I think parents can do it independently). The 24 sd is only applicable to up to the +sd 2.1 mark, pass mark 148. These days it's sd 15-16 and the pass mark is 131. As a score can vary three or four points either way but not much beyond that, the scoring is statistically robust and accurate. As might be expected, the Mensans scoring at the 2% level outnumber the 1% by 2:1. When you get to the 1% mark it is harder to delineate because included you will have the ultra-ultra-high scorers bunged in with the lower midpoint ones. The right hand side of the curve never quite touches the axis.

 

[Vixen]

This is not a matter of trust. Those rockets were launched. Those missions went to the moon, and were tracked by multiple countries, including the USSR. The lower segments of all the LMs are still on the moon, and have been independently photographed over the years in high resolution showing FOOTPRINTS around them.

To deny these facts is a personality defect. Yours is the inability to admit failure at any level, no mistake is too small to dodge. The men you quote are well-known grifters and con artists. The rest of the Apollo-hoaxers are legendary alcoholics, and religious nuts. No different than the crowd claiming UAPs are really demons. These people are your sources. Questioning if NASA put men on the moon is not a matter of opinion, it's a mental flaw along the lines of claiming man can fly if he simply flaps his arms fast enough. The fact that we went eliminates any counter arguments as they are either tangential, or flat out wrong.

You've taken an indefensible position (again). One that puts you well below the bigfoot, and UFO crowds.

Now that is just plain silly. Wasn't Buzz Alrdrin an alcoholic and had a nervous breakdown? And Armstrong a recluse? It all means absolutely nothing one way or the other. Stop fixating on personalities. You can be the nicest person in the world yet have been taken for a monkey's uncle by Nixon.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Unfortunately, JesseCuster is still asking about that captain in Tallinn and the freaking Atlantic Lock, despite trillions of pages of explanations.

Where is he doing this?
I haven't seen him ask that.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Allen and Weaver seem perfectly normal and respectable to me.

There's your problem.

 

[threadworm]

Wasn't that where you showed blurry 'close ups' of various craters boulder fields taken by Chinese orbiters?

No. That image from China showed evidence of human activity. I made no other claim with it. Please don't try and sound smart, you aren't good at it.

Apollo photos, 16mm film and live TV contain details of Earth and the lunar surface that were not, and could not, have been known about prior to the missions. Surface details have been confirmed by numerous probes since. You have claimed they could have been done in advance. How?

 

[JayUtah]

You can be the nicest person in the world yet have been taken for a monkey's uncle by Nixon.

You can seem to be the nicest person in the world and still lie through your smiling teeth about the facts. Those people who do that seem to be your heroes.

 

[Vixen]

This is not a matter of trust. Those rockets were launched. Those missions went to the moon, and were tracked by multiple countries, including the USSR. The lower segments of all the LMs are still on the moon, and have been independently photographed over the years in high resolution showing FOOTPRINTS around them.

To deny these facts is a personality defect. Yours is the inability to admit failure at any level, no mistake is too small to dodge. The men you quote are well-known grifters and con artists. The rest of the Apollo-hoaxers are legendary alcoholics, and religious nuts. No different than the crowd claiming UAPs are really demons. These people are your sources. Questioning if NASA put men on the moon is not a matter of opinion, it's a mental flaw along the lines of claiming man can fly if he simply flaps his arms fast enough. The fact that we went eliminates any counter arguments as they are either tangential, or flat out wrong.

You've taken an indefensible position (again). One that puts you well below the bigfoot, and UFO crowds.

Isn't that a syllogistic logical fallacy? The kind that runs, "Homer was a man, therefore, all men are Homer"?