Merged Discussion of the moon landing "hoax"

[Justinian2]

No one ever said anything

.

I filtered out the fallacies and mistakes for you.

 

[Justinian2]

FTFY.

[...]

a little silly.

Indeed.

 

[excaza]

The point is that the computer in the lunar lander had less memory and and probably less computational power than an early TRS80 before expansion. The early TRS-80 had 16K Ram and 32K ROM before adding the expansion interface and extra memory. The memory was far too small to allow much computation.

So what? Do you have a point?

 

[PhantomWolf]

It's not my job to filter out all your logical fallacies

You have yet to show that I have make any, all you have done it speculate and whine about how unfair I am being to you. Didums, if you actually knew what you were talking about you wouldn't be getting raked over the coals.

rule breaches

If you think I have broken the rules, report the post. I am sure the moderators are due a good laugh.

to get at some truth with which to respect you.

From what I have seen so far, you wouldn't know the truth if you tripped over it accidently and it beat you in the head.

The point is that the computer in the lunar lander had less memory and and probably less computational power than an early TRS80 before expansion. The early TRS-80 had 16K Ram and 32K ROM before adding the expansion interface and extra memory.

And you'd be wrong on the memory for a start. This is the problem with guessing when you know nothing more that what you have looked up and failed to understand. I'll let you figure out why you are wrong, it'll be funny watching you flounder more.

The memory was far too small to allow much computation.

Really? Explain why?

Firstly, I'm sure the code was written in machine language or assembly language on the lunar lander computer in order to maximize the efficient use of the limited memory.

Perhaps you should look it up and find out instead of just guessing. What exactly was the language the AGC was programmed with and who wrote it?

Secondly, I'm also sure that the lunar lander was designed to be theoretically functional.

The LM operated in Earth's orbit, twice. Seems it was a little bit more than "theoretically functional" to me.

I believe that the engineers back then were far better than today's engineers.

That's a lot of belief you are going on, how about you start dealing in facts and not your religion.

Thirdly, for some reason, I don't think the lunar lander was ever landed with astronauts on board. Problems found in the vicinity of the moon, I theorize, prevented a human descent.

What reason, what problems? You really need to be careful, if you keep waving your arms about like this you're going to achieve flight.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I never said that the Lunar Lander had 1000K of memory.

No, you said "about 1000 bytes" and have spent the rest of the time claiming you didn't.

I could have looked it up, but it wasn't important.

You start trying to claim that the Apollo components couldn't have done their jobs, but looking up their actual abilities wasn't important?

Sorry Officer for running over that crowd of people, but I didn't think that learning how tro drive was actually important before getting into a car.

Whether it was 1K or 4K, it is still pitiful small given the big job it had to do.

Why? Please explain what it had to do and why what it had was so "pitifully small" to do it.

I will concede that the memory was probably theoretically sufficient to get the job done.

A concesion made not because you have actually learned anything other than that you are outmatched in knowledge about what you thought you could bluster through.

The point is that the computer in the lunar lander had less memory and and probably less computational power than an early TRS80 before expansion. The early TRS-80 had 16K Ram and 32K ROM before adding the expansion interface and extra memory. The memory was far too small to allow much computation.

Firstly, I'm sure the code was written in machine language or assembly language on the lunar lander computer in order to maximize the efficient use of the limited memory.

Secondly, I'm also sure that the lunar lander was designed to be theoretically functional. I believe that the engineers back then were far better than today's engineers.

Thirdly, for some reason, I don't think the lunar lander was ever landed with astronauts on board. Problems found in the vicinity of the moon, I theorize, prevented a human descent.

You know, it doesn't matter how many times you repeat yourself verbatum, you still won't be right.

 

[sts60]

What if you saw an astronaut drop something in space and it didn't float? Or what if spittle or sliva went down?

What if you had some evidence for some of your claims? Unfortunately, you have yet to provide any.

Similar things happened the moon.

Wrong. You just described (made-up, not actual) examples of unphysical behavior (given free-fall conditions with no other influences). Your complaint, on the other hand, is simply that astronauts didn't jump high enough to satisfy your uninformed opinions. That's two quite different things.

People did notice and they noticed IMMEDIATELY. I noticed. The TV announcer said (in 1968 or whatever)

LOL! "In 1968 or whatever". "I saw a movie". Argumentum ad fuzzy memory.

In any case, a TV announcer definitely trumps all those engineers. (Who were better than today's engineers, of course.)

"I thought they were supposed to be able to jump higher." Why aren't they bouncing around?

Your very first claim was that you didn't see any of the Apollo astronauts perform any significant jumps. Examples were provided to you, which you ignored. In any case, the "kangaroo hop" quickly became the preferred mode of locomtion for the crews precisely because it worked for a 1/6 G environment in the awkward EMU suits.

The video may have been altered and we may not have definitive proof unless the CIA or NASA releases a formally classified document.

Or the FBI or the TSA or Major League Baseball. The Moon itself may be a giant beachball, or a clever hologram, or a false memory implanted in your head. All of these scenarios are equally as credible and have just as much evidence supporting them as yours.

I don't know where to find a complete set of authentic and original videos and photographs. I remember analyzing them, but I didn't save the links.

Who do you actually think you're fooling with this absurd claim?

The Apollo imagery record - for surface activities alone - runs to thousands of photographs and hundreds of hours of film and video imagery. The original imagery, or imagery of essentially equivalent quality and useability for analysis, can be obtained from various sources, but you didn't look at it - it's not simply obtained via Web links. As for "analysis", you claimed you couldn't see jumps on the order of five feet - which anyone could easily find in a few minutes of searching.

I know they have re-created some of the video, so I can't trust everything I see.

Ah, yes, your half-remembered, anonymous movie again.

I do not have the energy needed to make a massive effort to change your minds.

Why not simply make an effort to learn something? Wouldn't that be a more effective use of your time?

 

[PhantomWolf]

What if you saw an astronaut drop something in space and it didn't float? Or what if spittle or sliva went down?

Got any film of such things occuring? Thought not.

Similar things happened the moon. People did notice and they noticed IMMEDIATELY. I noticed. The TV announcer said (in 1968 or whatever) "I thought they were supposed to be able to jump higher." Why aren't they bouncing around?

I should be able to sprint from my lounge to my bedroom too, so why do I walk?

I have seen the training footage of the crews in their suits on Earth, and their movements and abilities in the moon footage are clearly superior and freer to that of them on Earth. They take longer strides and stay above the ground longer while running. As to jumps, Armstrong's jump to the ladder is at least five feet, and the footage of Duke and Young jumping which has already been posted for you makes it really clear why they didn't do it alot. The PLSS threw their centre of gravity off, meaning they had to lean forward to balance. Jumping caused them to start to rotate backwards, which is why Duke fell over and landed on the only thing keeping him alive. Would you be willing to risk your life by damaging your PLSS or suit just to see how high you could jump? (And this doesn't even take into consideration the posibility of landing wrong and injuring yourself badly enough to result in the mission being cut short.)

It still didn't stop them doing things like this though:



Just because you and some annonymous TV announcer doesn't understand this doesn't mean no one else does.

The video may have been altered and we may not have definitive proof unless the CIA or NASA releases a formally classified document.

Except those that are actually trained in detecting that sort of thing could pick it up remarkably fast. Funny thing though, when faced with actual fake footage and images, it seems a lot of those that claim they can see flaws in the Apollo footage, can't actually see even the blatently obvious faults everyone else can.

I don't know where to find a complete set of authentic and original videos and photographs.

Then you haven't looked very hard, I can think of 5 places off the top of my head, and that's without requesting them directly from NASA.

I remember analyzing them, but I didn't save the links. I know they have re-created some of the video, so I can't trust everything I see.

More claims with zero evidence.

I do not have the energy needed to make a massive effort to change your minds.

You don't have the knowledge, skills, or evidence either, and those would be profoundly more important than energy.

 

[kookbreaker]

I filtered out the fallacies and mistakes for you.

There were no fallacies or mistakes in his post. You should be ashamed of yourself for such nonsense.

 

[jadebox]

I don't see how anything can be inferred from the height of the jump, since there is no data on how much flexibility the suit allowed, how contracted or bent the jumpers muscles and legs were, and how much effort was put into the leap.

The suits weren't very flexible at all. The pressure of the air in the suit and the thickness of the suit made it very difficult for the astronauts to move. Working on the moon in the suits was extremely difficult.

P.S. The trolls should be getting full by now.

-- Roger

 

[roger]

The point is that the computer in the lunar lander had less memory and and probably less computational power than an early TRS80 before expansion. The early TRS-80 had 16K Ram and 32K ROM before adding the expansion interface and extra memory. The memory was far too small to allow much computation.

The AGC had 8K of RAM and 64K of ROM - MORE memory.

Recall (I jest, I know you are 'recalling' nothing, since you are obviously opining without any knowledge of the fact) that the programs were stored in ROM on the AGC, but in the RAM on the TRS-80. Hence, the AGC had 4x the program memory of the TRS-80. Furthermore, the TRS-80 shared data and code space in that 16K of ram - so if the program was 8K, only 8K was left as data. Roughly speaking, both computers had the same amount of RAM available to working programs.

Finally, the AGC was used as a fly by wire computer for the F-8, proving in fact it does have the computational power for flight control.

It's not wise to just run your mouth when you don't understand a topic.

Cue "oh, this doesn't matter anyway" response, to which I preemptively reply - don't raise the point if it doesn't matter.

 

[jadebox]

The AGC had 8K of RAM and 64K of ROM - MORE memory [than the TRS-80].

Plus the AGC was designed for a specific purpose while the TRS-80 was a general purpose computer. The AGC had a very simple interface and required the operator to enter commands in a very specific manner. The code in the AGC was optimized for its specific application.

Unlike the code in the TRS-80, the AGC's program didn't have to handle talking to a QWERTY keyboard and a video display. It didn't have to store and display user-friendly error messages. It didn't have to do anything except the specific functions required to complete the mission. So it didn't require as much memory to handle those functions as a general purpose personal computer would need.

The AGC was a quite capable device even if its raw computing power pales in comparison to model computers. There are several books about the AGC and other computers used during the Apollo missions. I recommend Digital Apollo as a good one aimed at a general audience. It's really amazing what the designers were able to accomplish given 1960s technology.

-- Roger

 

[Obviousman]

If you want to compare it to anything modern, then compare it to a modern FBW Flight Computer, those are its descendants, not the PC or Apple on your desk.

Absolutely correct. The very first Digital FBW system was tested at the Dryden Flight Research Center using an F-8 Crusader. The DFBW computer was a modified AGC.

 

[Corsair 115]

What if you saw an astronaut drop something in space and it didn't float? Or what if spittle or sliva went down?

Please cite the specific moment of the specific mission in which these things happened, and precisely why it is an indication of fraud. We'll wait.

Similar things happened the moon. People did notice and they noticed IMMEDIATELY. I noticed. The TV announcer said (in 1968 or whatever) "I thought they were supposed to be able to jump higher." Why aren't they bouncing around?

Your (or anyone else's) expectation of what they think it should look like is not proof. Of anything. It has apparently not crossed your mind that your expectations of what it ought to look like might be completely and utterly wrong. You've offered no reason as to why your expectations of what it ought to look like should be taken seriously.

The video may have been altered and we may not have definitive proof unless the CIA or NASA releases a formally classified document.

Speculation. Not proof.

I don't know where to find a complete set of authentic and original videos and photographs.

Apogee Books, Apollo 17: The NASA Mission Reports. The CD that comes with the book contains eleven hours' worth of video taken on the lunar surface. But I've told you this already. I'm guessing you haven't been to the library yet.

I do not have the energy needed to make a massive effort to change your minds.

The above is shorthand for, "I have no evidence whatsoever. Nor can I offer any rebuttal to the mountains of evidence which exist."


You've avoided my question twice now. Perhaps the third time you'll answer it: Why would they fake six landings? With each landing longer and more complex than the one before it? If you're going to fake it, you'd fake it once, maybe twice, then quit.

Do you know what ALSEP is yet? And why it's important to the discussion?

 

[Halcyon Dayz]

Show me proof they were in 1/6 gravity in those videos. Show me proof that they were on the moon.

That is ridiculous.

Nobody here cares a hoot about what you belief.
We only care what you can support with evidence.

And your personal disbelieve is NOT evidence, it is only shows of your unwillingness to deal with reality.

Apollo is an historical fact.
If YOU claim it was a hoax, YOU have the burden of proof.

Wow. Misplaced arrogance ROCKS!

It is the defining character trait of hoaxies.

 

[Justinian2]

The AGC had 8K of RAM and 64K of ROM - MORE memory.

Recall (I jest, I know you are 'recalling' nothing, since you are obviously opining without any knowledge of the fact) that the programs were stored in ROM on the AGC, but in the RAM on the TRS-80. Hence, the AGC had 4x the program memory of the TRS-80. Furthermore, the TRS-80 shared data and code space in that 16K of ram - so if the program was 8K, only 8K was left as data. Roughly speaking, both computers had the same amount of RAM available to working programs.

Finally, the AGC was used as a fly by wire computer for the F-8, proving in fact it does have the computational power for flight control.

It's not wise to just run your mouth when you don't understand a topic.

Cue "oh, this doesn't matter anyway" response, to which I preemptively reply - don't raise the point if it doesn't matter.

The following Wikipedia quote discusses the 36K or Core Rope Memory that was used in the LM and the CM. Note that it was also called the LOL memory (little old lady) memory, because the program was hand woven into the memory.

The memory density of this memory was 72 kilobytes per cubic foot. That is pretty large by today's standards.

The TRS-80 had 32K ROM before the expansion interface and 64K ROM after the expansion interface was added. The TRS-80 had approximately twice the ROM.

The TRS-80 also had 64K RAM with the expansion interface. (I put an extra 64K Ram in mine for a total of 128 K)

The TRS-80 was, however, technology of the 1980's whereas the AGC was 1960's technology.

I worked on a lot of '60s technology at Raytheon. I remember a whole cabinet of electronics contained nothing but a shift register. Each board in that five foot tall cabinet that contained the shift register had one or two discrete component flip flops. That was the era just before DTL, RTL and TTL.

Core rope memory is a form of read-only memory (ROM) for computers, first used by early NASA Mars probes and then in the Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) designed by MIT and built by Raytheon.

Contrary to ordinary coincident-current magnetic core memory, which was used for RAM at the time, the ferrite cores in a core rope are just used as transformers. The signal from a word line wire passing through a given core is coupled to the bit line wire and interpreted as a binary "one" while a word line wire that bypasses the core is not coupled to the bit line wire and is read as a "zero". In the AGC, up to 64 wires could be passed through a single core.

Software written by NASA programmers was woven into core rope memory by female workers in factories. Some NASA programmers nicknamed the finished product LOL memory, for Little Old Lady memory.[1]

Memory density A relatively large (by the standards of the time) amount of data could be stored in a small installed volume of core rope memory (72 kilobytes per cubic foot; roughly 2.5 megabytes per cubic meter); about 18-folda the amount of data per volume compared to standard read-write core memory.

I'm still a skeptic that there was sufficient programming or memory to allow for calculations I would have wanted in a lunar mission. Engineers of that era were very ingenious and I know they must have had a plausible/viable solution to the calculations necessary for flight. I would have felt more secure if it had the computational power of a TRS-80 with a floppy drive.

Today's computers have to handle GUI and pictures which consume immense amounts of memory. However, the GUI of todays' computers isn't necessary to obtain a mathematical result or run a relatively simple program. Thus much smaller computers of the Apollo era could do much more. I'm sure the computer had the power to fly to and around the moon. I'm a skeptic that it had sufficient power to help sufficiently with the descent to the moon, the launch from the moon and then control the docking with the CM.

 

[Sledge]

Indeed.

I'm not sure why you thought acknowledging you are indeed being silly was a useful response, but it certainly didn't answer my question. Try again.

 

[Justinian2]

The following is a quote from Wikipedia that defines 'order of magnitude' which was used in previous posts. It seems that there was some confusion over the term.

An order of magnitude is the class of scale or magnitude of any amount, where each class contains values of a fixed ratio to the class preceding it. In its most common usage, the amount being scaled is 10 and the scale is the (base 10) exponent being applied to this amount (therefore, to be an order of magnitude greater is to be 10 times as large). Such differences in order of magnitude can be measured on the logarithmic scale in "decades" (i.e. factors of ten).

Orders of magnitude are generally used to make very approximate comparisons, but reflect deceptively large differences. If two numbers differ by one order of magnitude, one is about ten times larger than the other. If they differ by two orders of magnitude, they differ by a factor of about 100. Two numbers of the same order of magnitude have roughly the same scale: the larger value is less than ten times the smaller value. This is the reasoning behind significant figures: the amount rounded by is usually a few orders of magnitude less than the total, and therefore insignificant.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The following Wikipedia quote discusses the 36K or Core Rope Memory that was used in the LM and the CM. Note that it was also called the LOL memory (little old lady) memory, because the program was hand woven into the memory.

Nice that you can at least read a Wikipedia Page.

Edited by Locknar: 

Edited, breach of rule 12.

The memory density of this memory was 72 kilobytes per cubic foot. That is pretty large by today's standards.

And your point?

The TRS-80 had 32K ROM before the expansion interface and 64K ROM after the expansion interface was added. The TRS-80 had approximately twice the ROM.

Incorrect.

The TRS-80 also had 64K RAM with the expansion interface. (I put an extra 64K Ram in mine for a total of 128 K)

The TRS-80 was, however, technology of the 1980's whereas the AGC was 1960's technology.

You are also still trying to compare apples and oranges. The AGC was a custom built computer for one specific job.

I'm still a skeptic that there was sufficient programming or memory to allow for calculations I would have wanted in a lunar mission.

What calculations were needed?

Engineers of that era were very ingenious and I know they must have had a plausible/viable solution to the calculations necessary for flight. I would have felt more secure if it had the computational power of a TRS-80 with a floppy drive.

Why, what would you need it for?

Today's computers have to handle GUI and pictures which consume immense amounts of memory. However, the GUI of todays' computers isn't necessary to obtain a mathematical result or run a relatively simple program. Thus much smaller computers of the Apollo era could do much more.

Home computers are also multi-finction. The designer of mine didn't know if I was going to use it for Office applications, Gaming, solving the mysteries of SETI, or building a super computer, and so it needs to be able to handle all and any of those things. The AGC had to do one thing, and just one thing. This is what you just don't seem to be getting. You are trying to compare an apple and an orange and then complaining they don't match up.

I'm sure the computer had the power to fly to and around the moon. I'm a skeptic that it had sufficient power to help sufficiently with the descent to the moon, the launch from the moon and then control the docking with the CM.

What is greatly different about flying to the moon and landing on it?

And why would it have to control the docking with the CSM? (for those of you that know about docking, please keep quiet about it.)

Edited by Locknar: 

Edited, breach of rule 12.

 

[dtugg]

Nobody cares what you are skeptical of. We care what you can prove. You can't prove anything.

 

[Justinian2]

Nobody cares what you are skeptical of. We care what you can prove. You can't prove anything.

True, I can't prove anything. The videos and photos have been compromised beyond my ability to recover. I don't now know what is original and what is a re-creation. Any help here?

Nobody cares what you are skeptical of. We care what you can prove. You can't prove anything.

And I don't care to reply to the ad homimen attacks which could, at any moment, be removed by needed moderation.