Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Reformed Offlian]

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.

First, no, Armstrong was not a recluse. He kept a *comparatively* low public profile after leaving NASA, but he had jobs, family, friends, and everything. He even made public appearances on occasion.

Second, their personalities don't matter because the case for Apollo does not require that we take their word for anything.

On the other hand, the case for conspiracy theories rests almost entirely on the ipse dixit of a handful of people who seem perfectly normal and respectable to you.

"The moon is highly radioactive", you say. Well, how do you know that? I'll bet it's just something you heard from a CTer and didn't bother to question. And thus, their personal credibility and motives become relevant, because you don't have the means of corroborating anything they say.

"Beaming TV back to earth from the lunar surface would have required a geostationary satellite", you say. Well, how do you know that? I'll bet it's not from the expert opinion of anybody versed in the history of telecommunications and/or space exploration.

"Anders Bjorkman knows his stuff about ship design." Well, how do you know that? Does anybody *other* than AB say that? Do you have the means to corroborate anything he says? No, you have to go with personalities and with how normal and respectable he seems, because you have no other gauge.

 

[JayUtah]

It used to be…

Which test did you report scores for in the pictures you posted?

 

[Steve]

OK, so an error crept in. Nice to keep you happy.

An error has jumped in with both feet and a rebel yell into practically every one of your 44,000+ posts on this forum.

 

[welshdean]

Different criteria, different tests. Compare and contrast: Sir Clive Sinclair got 159, Carol Vorderman 154. What does it all mean? I don't know. <shrug>

It means you're lying again.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

An error has jumped in with both feet and a rebel yell into practically every one of your 44,000+ posts on this forum.

In some cases, an entire Pickett's Charge of errors have done this.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

That was not Cattell III.

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.

According to Mensa:

Mensa has its own IQ test
Everyone over the age of ten and half years who sits a supervised test in the UK and Ireland take on two industry-standard IQ tests called the Cattell III B test and the Cattell Culture Fair III A.

@Vixen says (see above) the test she took was not Cattell III. According to Mensa, the only other IQ test she could have taken in the UK or Ireland to qualify for Mensa was the Cattell Culture Fair III A (CFIQ). I have cited two sources that say the highest possible score on the CFIQ test is 152.

Conclusion: At least one of these statements must be true:

• @Vixen has not qualified for Mensa.
• Both of my sources are wrong about the highest possible score for the CFIQ test.
• The two scores for which @Vixen has provided piss-poor photographic plausibility had nothing to do with qualifying for Mensa.
• In the years since @Vixen took an IQ test that Mensa accepted, Mensa has changed its policy regarding which tests it uses and accepts.
• @Vixen qualified for Mensa by taking a test at some location outside the UK or Ireland.

With regard to the last two bullet points:

American Mensa accepts scores from approximately 200 different standardized intelligence tests.

That web page lists the tests accepted by American Mensa. The accepted tests (and the corresponding qualifying scores) include:

• ACT Composite, if taken prior to 9/1989 (29)
• SAT composite (verbal + quant), if taken prior to 9/30/1974 (1300)
• SAT composite (verbal + quant), if taken from 9/30/1974 to 1/31/1994 (1250)
• GRE composite (verbal + quant), if taken prior to 5/1994 (1250)
• GRE composite (verbal + quant + analytical), if taken from 5/1994 to 9/30/2001 (1875)

American Mensa does not accept recent ACT, SAT, or GRE scores, because those tests were changed to place more emphasis upon achievement/knowledge rather than whatever the hell it is that IQ tests are supposed to measure, thereby reducing the correlation between scores on those tests and scores on IQ tests.

I mention the ACT, SAT, and GRE tests partly because I and most of my contemporaries took at least one of those tests during the 1970s, and some of us discussed our scores in the course of conversations about universities we might hope to attend, so I have some idea of what those scores mean. As I have learned from this thread, almost all of those with whom I discussed such test scores would qualify for Mensa.

More importantly: As a frequent member (and occasional chair) of admissions committees, I had a professional responsibility to understand what those scores meant, and to keep track of how the meaning of those scores changed over time.

Here's a little-known factoid about the GRE: Back in the 1970s, there was a version of the GRE quantitative tests that turned out to be so difficult that a few scores of 820 were reported, as opposed to the usual maximum of 800. That made it possible to score 1620 on that particular version of the GRE.

 

[JesseCuster]

We will get there.

Did you read my post where I explained what I was asking and why? Did you understand it?

It’s a simple question that would take you at most a single paragraph to answer.

What do you mean by geopositioned when you refer to a non-geopositioned satellite?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Be nice to Vixen, she hasn't been off the saucer all that long.

 

[JesseCuster]

A sextant and a chronometer could be utilised to calculate longitudinal positioning. I wanted JesseCuster to do some thinking as to how to calculate stuff logically, in this case, from the process of natural planetary movement. So I tried to get him to 'do the math', as they say in his part of the world, via an ordinary pocket watch.

Was the purposes of the exercise to make me “think logically” or are the sextant and chronometer relevant to what a “geopositioned satellite” is?

You clearly have no idea what you’re getting at and this is just an exercise for you to try (and fail) to look smart in front of everyone else.

Just answer the question. It’s a simple question that would take you far less effort to answer than this interminable nonsense. But you can’t answer the question because you’ve offered up all sorts of contradictory nonsense about what “geopositioned” might mean so committing to an answer would actually put you on the hook for something. So you won’t. You just stall and evade.

But it’s fun to watch a self declared triple nine, scientist, author, etc. tie herself in knots trying to lecture others on something she clearly knows nothing about.

 

[Mojo]

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

Not in this thread he isn't. You may have "imagined" him sitting with his "brow still furrowed over various terms from five years ago, such as the Atlantic Lock", but he hasn't mentioned it, or Tallinn, in this thread.

 

[Mojo]

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

Vixen "imagined" it.

 

[Mojo]

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?

By sending a secret manned mission to the Moon before Apollo 11, obvs.

 

[Mojo]

What does it all mean? I don't know. <shrug>

I'll add it to the list.

 

[Steve]

Vixen "imagined" it.

An error crept in.

 

[SpitfireIX]

I didn't need to pass a test to join the Social Club in Guisborough, I just had to be nominated by a member.

But why would you want to belong to any club that would accept you as a member?

 

[Vixen]

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?

The early Explorer satellites from 1963 onwards? Surely NASA took the precaution of looking at where they planned to send people?

 

[Andy_Ross]

But why would you want to belong to any club that would accept you as a member?

I will join any club as long as there's a cheap bar.

 

[JayUtah]

Surely NASA took the precaution of looking at where they planned to send people?

Surely they did the best they could, but that's not the point. The point is that after they sent people, better methods at remote-sensing the landing sites verified details that the people who went there recorded photographically—photos you claim were faked. You can't explain how they did that except to deny the evidence.

 

[JayUtah]

@Vixen, please complete this sentence:

"A non-geopositioned satellite is a satellite that ___________________________________."

 

[Andy_Ross]

Vixen, we know the reasons given for faking Apollo 11

Usually some combination of Kennedy promised America would land a man on the Moon before the decade was out, and we had to beat the Soviet Union in the Space Race.

Apollo 11 did that.
Kennedy’s promise of the Moon being reached before the end of the decade, Soviets beaten, America won, mission accomplished.
So why would the people running the hoax decide to do it again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again?

Apollo 12 through Apollo 20, nine more missions were planned after Apollo 11.

They supposedly pulled off Apollo 11 perfectly, then faked Apollo 12.
Then, apparently for extra realism, faked the near catastrophic failure of Apollo 13.
Then faked Apollo 14, 15, 16 and 17.
Five more successful Moon landings and one spectacular failed attempt.

And they originally planned Apollo 18, 19 and 20 too, before those missions were canceled and the hardware used for other things.

Surely once you’ve successfully pulled off the deception and achieved everything you wanted, you don’t voluntarily repeat it nine more times, giving thousands of additional people, broadcasts, photographs, recordings, tracking stations, experiments, spacecraft, launches and recoveries nine more opportunities to expose you.

What possible objective remained that justified multiplying the risk of exposing the alleged hoax over and over and over again?