• 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

Vixen said:
Axxman is inviting us all to feel sentimental because Nixon did this wonderful thing. Gimme a break.
Click to expand...
No, dumbass, I am not, nor have I suggested nor implied this. The fact is that Nixon was irrelevant to NASA and the moon shots. He was just the man in the Oval Office when those missions happened. That's it. They would have taken place even had Humphrey won, or LBJ decided to run for a second term.

In your paranoid delusional world Nixon was some kind of all-powerful being with near magical powers to keep 40,000 professionals silent. This does not mesh with the actual known and documented history of the Nixon Administration, or his personal history going back to the Checkers speech. His "Secret" war in Cambodia and Laos? Everyone knew we were bombing the Ho Chi Minh Trail, and he was forced to admit it because, and this relates to NASA, YOU CAN'T HIDE B-52 STRIKES because they have a huge support network. The PHOENIX PROGRAM was leaked in 1969 thanks to the North Vietnamese, and KGB. Then the whole Watergate affair blew up.

Nixon couldn't keep a secret. Nixon also recorded everything on audio tape. His NSC and Cabinet members all wrote tell-all books about all of Nixon's secrets. So where is the moon landing hoax revelation?

Something you need to consider when you deal with me is you are losing a debate on a skeptic's board to ghost hunter. That's how bad at this you really are.
 
Vixen said:
Axxman was once again appealing to the emotions. Anyone who doesn't immediately wipe away a tear at Nixon's touching thoughtfulness is a horrible person. Tricky Dicky having a speech ready, like a used car salesman, proves nothing whatsoever. Next you'll be telling us he kissed babies.
Click to expand...
No. You are delusional.

If the moon landings were faked, why plan for a contingency you knew was never going to happen, i.e. catastrophic failure? Why take thousands of pictures when you can easily convince stupid people that radiation made photography impossible? Why film anything? Why not stick to grainy B&W TV footage from a crappy camera? No conspiracy, nor secret program has ever put that much work into a cover story going back to the Trojan Horse.

Nobody here would be proud of the level of ignorance you display here.
 
Vixen said:
Nixon having a condolence speech ready is a meaningless piece of waffle, introduced by Axxman to persuade us of Nixon's good faith.
Click to expand...
No. I was pointing out that Nixon had no say in the Apollo missions. He inherited them from LBJ, and the Apollo mission concept went back to Eisenhower. NASA was going to launch, no matter what. It's too bad you have no clue how the United States (normally) runs things. The POTUS is mostly symbolic, and can only appoint judges, and ambassadors, and yell at Congress. He can't just shut down NASA on his own. That takes an act of Congress. Nixon, with Congress, cancelled the final Apollo missions with NASA's cooperation under the guise of budget cuts. We'd gone to the moon, and NASA had other plans, and saw a chance to spend that money elsewhere.

You give him too much power. You lack historical context. And you hate men.

Get help.
 
Vixen said:
Here's some more info of what a raw score of 62 on Harding's Skyscraper W-87 translates to:


Because Christopher Harding has never publicly released the complete, exact score-to-IQ norming tables for the W-87 (Skyscraper) test, there is no public, official chart showing exactly what a raw score of 62 translates to. [1]
However, looking at historical data and high-IQ society guidelines, we can infer how a high raw score like 62 behaves under psychometric norming:

1. Contextualizing a Raw Score of 62
The W-87 test consists of roughly 100 highly complex problems (or variations of matrices and verbal puzzles). On high-range tests, the difficulty increases exponentially.
  • A raw score of 62 represents roughly 62% correct answers.
  • Unlike standard school tests where 62% is a mediocre grade, getting 62% correct on an un-timed, high-range test like the W-87 is an exceptionally high performance.

2. General High-Range Equivalencies
While exact mappings are proprietary, high-range tests like the W-87 usually scale according to these general psychometric patterns:
  • The Threshold Zone (IQ 130–140): Solved by getting roughly 20% to 35% of the questions correct.
  • The High-IQ Society Admission Zone (IQ 145–160): Typically achieved by getting roughly 45% to 60% of the questions correct. This is the minimum requirement for highly selective groups like the QIQ Society or ISPE (International Society for Philosophical Enquiry).
  • The Genius/Profound Zone (IQ 160–175+): Typically triggered by scores climbing past 60–70% correct. [1]

3. What Happens to a 62?
Given that admission into elite groups like the ISPE—which historically accepted the W-87—requires a score corresponding to the 99.9th percentile (IQ 146, SD 15), a raw score of 62 is universally considered a qualifying high-range score. [1]
Because of the steep curve, a raw score of 62 likely places the test-taker somewhere in the IQ 150 to IQ 165 range (SD 15), firmly within the upper 0.1% to 0.003% of the human population. However, the exact mapping changes slightly depending on the specific cohort norming data used at the time your test is evaluated. [1]



Woohoo 🙌. I might even be at +4sd. :LOL:
Click to expand...
1788289021564.png
 
Axxman300 said:
No. You are delusional.

If the moon landings were faked, why plan for a contingency you knew was never going to happen, i.e. catastrophic failure? Why take thousands of pictures when you can easily convince stupid people that radiation made photography impossible? Why film anything? Why not stick to grainy B&W TV footage from a crappy camera? No conspiracy, nor secret program has ever put that much work into a cover story going back to the Trojan Horse.

Nobody here would be proud of the level of ignorance you display here.
Click to expand...
Except Vixen...
 
Helen said:
Easy peasy; when the moon crosses in front of the sun, the strong and direct light of the sun obviously puts the moon's shadow behind the moon, so the shadow is what we see from here. I thought all you sciency type people would know that. Kimo Säpi?
Click to expand...
That sounded very much like the start of a cheesy Dean Martin song…
 
Vixen said:
There is one chap I've spotted and if it is he, i do not blame him at all for steering well clear of the Apollo fanatics. Scientists are objective. They are not interested in side show drama. Are you surprised Dr Groves prefers to retain his privacy?
Click to expand...
You seemed concerned Neil Armstrong wanted the same thing.
 
catsmate said:
Reminds me of a conference when I got into a rather confusing conversation where the two of us took different meanings of RBOC....
Click to expand...

So this woman I had dated a few years back e-mailed me to tell me how excited she was about getting into Cognitive Behavior Therapy. But she used initialisms, so ...
 
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