Merged Discussion of the moon landing "hoax"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Justinian2 said:
True, I can't prove anything.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I think you have proved that you personally could not have built a system to perform an automated moon landing with technology of the time.

The problem is you have offered no credible evidence that NASA did not do so.
 
Justinian2 said:
It's not my job to filter out all your logical fallacies and rule breaches to get at some truth with which to respect you.

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,speculate prevented a human descent.
Click to expand...

ftfy
 
Justinian2 said:
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.




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.
Click to expand...

Did you ever notice that what you want has nothing to do with what the world gives you?
 
Justinian2 said:
The following is a quote from Wikipedia describing one of the logical fallacies. Simple minds make frequent use of the ad homenim attack. Please don't use them. They are also against member rules.
Click to expand...

When I say "You can't believe Justinian2 because he doesn't know what he's talking about" that's not an ad hom.
 
For those of you going round and round with Justinian2, I'd like to offer some words of wisdom from Jay Windley (for anyone unfamiliar, Jay is unquestionably the world's foremost authority on moon-hoax conspiracism):

JayUtah said:
Arguments of the form, "You say X happened, but you don't have evidence to show that Y didn't happen instead," deny the inductive leap. When a jury convicts someone, they acknowledge that it's possible that all the evidence against him could still be true, but that he is nevertheless innocent.

Most conspiracy theories taken the approach of trying to widen the inductive leap required in the prevalent theory. That is, they say, "There are so many anomalies and inconsistencies that you really have to stretch your imagination in order to believe that X happened." Or, as I sometimes call it, the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) approach. The goal is to so erode faith in X that any alternative Y, no matter how ludicrous, starts to look better by comparison. Often Y can explain individual anomalies with much greater facility, but that isn't sufficient as we discover below.

Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution. As long as conspiracy theories simply "call for more research" or assert that "it remains an open question," their proponents will continue to enjoy attention.

As we discover, the alleged "anomalies" and "inconsistencies" almost always turn out to be a failure to meet the ignorant and ill-founded expectations of the conspiracy theorists. And so it's tempting to spend a lot of time arguing whether those expectations are right or wrong. Hog-heaven for the conspiracist. By quibbling over just how wide that inductive leap is, the argument becomes endlessly subjective and fails to acknowledge that the absolute width of the leap is utterly irrelevant.

Whether one's inductive leap is trivial or strenuous is irrelevant if it's still the shortest one. That is, the theory to which we rationally subscribe is always the best theory, regardless of how objectively good it is. If the inductive leap for one theory is long, we can still hold to it if the leap in other theories is still longer.

The only meaningful challenge to one line of induction is another line of induction whose inductive leap is shorter. The question is thus not that X isn't proved sufficiently to remove the inductive leap altogether and thus reject Y categorically. It isn't that X's inductive leap is so long that you're just better off believing Y on general principles. The question -- the only proper question, that is -- is whether the inductive leap associated with Y is greater or lesser than X's leap.

That's why you never get a coherent Y out of conspiracists. That's why they'll have individual scenarios that explain individual anomalies (thermite on the steel, missiles at the Pentagon, etc.) but no coherent full-scale theory. Why? Because by giving you just bits and pieces, or by claiming they don't have or need a Y because they're only "raising issues", they don't give you anything whose inductive leap can be measured against X's. [italics original, bolding mine]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I did a minor clear out of this thread, and moved 18 posts (spanning the last two pages) to AAH. As always, please ensure your posts are civil/polite, are on topic, and address the argument vs attack the arguer (ie. rule 0, rule 11, rule 12).
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar
 
Last edited:
Justinian2 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Is there a point to quoting back sources to people? It's nice, though, that you are reading a little bit about it.
Justinian2 said:
The memory density of this memory was 72 kilobytes per cubic foot. That is pretty large by today's standards.
Click to expand...
So? We already know that computers are faster, smaller, etc. today. This doesn't advance your argument.
Justinian2 said:
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.
Click to expand...
There's no need to keep repeating yourself.
Justinian2 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I am skeptical of your memory - and unlike what you call "skeptical", I have reasons to be:
(a) your memory has been repeatedly demonstrated to be unreliable - "a movie", "the TV announcer", etc.
(b) That's not '60s technology. '60s technology used integrated circuits.
Justinian2 said:
That was the era just before DTL, RTL and TTL.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Again. The AGC was built with resistor-transistor logic (RTL). The Block II AGC integrated circuits were already in use in other aerospace applications.

Don't you think, at this point, that maybe you should reevaluated your conviction, since the actual claims you keep making turn out to be wrong? No one will make fun of you for reevaluating your position; this isn't politics - you would gain respect for being intelligent and flexible enough to respond to factual data.
Justinian2 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant, again, since you cannot say what would be needed to perform a landing in the Apollo scheme of things.
Justinian2 said:
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.
Click to expand...
You just contradicted yourself.

You say you believe that Apollo flew to and around the Moon. In order for that to happen, the LM and the CM had to dock before they left for the Moon. In other words, you say it couldn't do the very thing you say you believe it did!

Again, this is the problem with stubbornly pushing forward your denial without understanding the subject - not only will you get your facts wrong, repeatedly, you will contradict yourself, as you have done several times in this thread.
 
First you claim you saw some movie that said you showed some faking of a landing or something - your big piece of evidence. But you can't even tell us the name of this movie.

You claimed they orbited the Moon and crashed the LM on the surface. But you provided no evidence.

You claimed the 'landing' was filmed at Area 51. But you provided no evidence, ignored the point that Nevada doesn't really look like the Moon, and somehow missed that there were six landings.

You then insisted that your inability to master a video game meant that the most elite pilots the U.S. had to offer could not operate, after intensive multi-modal training, a system that was the end product of something on the order of a million man-years of work of top engineers, scientists, and technicians.

You claimed that they didn't have the technology to land on the Moon, saying that the computer was insufficient for the task. But you have provided no evidence for this and demonstrated repeatedly that you knew nothing of the technology; you just keep insisting it wasn't good enough, but you literally can't say why, because you don't know what would be sufficient, and you don't understand how the computer works, or how the human component related to it, or how it was related to the ground-based systems. You also have shown you don't grasp what the technology of the era was.

Can you step back from your stubborn defensiveness long enough to think for a minute, and think about how ridiculous that sounds? Why wrap yourself up in insisting you must be right, even when you can't get the basic facts right?
 
SpitfireIX said:
For those of you going round and round with Justinian2, I'd like to offer some words of wisdom from Jay Windley (for anyone unfamiliar, Jay is unquestionably the world's foremost authority on moon-hoax conspiracism):
When a jury convicts someone, they acknowledge that it's possible that all the evidence against him could still be true, but that he is nevertheless innocent.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Um... I'd like to think this only happens if you're being tried by the Quintessons.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of contradictions, not only do you contradict yourself within both of the posts quoted below...
Justinian2 said:
... Whether it was 1K or 4K, it is still pitiful small given the big job it had to do.

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

...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.
Click to expand...
Justinian2 said:
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...
... 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.
Click to expand...

...the latter post contradicts the former.

You went from saying the AGC didn't have enough memory to conceding it did and handwaving about unspecified "problems in the vicinity of the moon", then went back to saying the computer was insufficient for the job (even while conceding that it was sufficient for a job that, unbeknownst to you, included the job you said it couldn't do).

I suggest you take a deep breath, think carefully about what you're saying, and at least decide which horse you're going to ride.
 
I'm wondering if the 'film' he saw was one of the Omni-Max movies they show at the museum at the Kennedy Space Center. These are recreations of some aspects of the Moon Landing discussing the risks and actions of the astronauts on the Moon. While these movies are very well done they are obviously recreations as:

1) They are vastly panoramic, to take advantage of the Omniverse theaters
2) They have that 'tinge' that many CGI landscapes (in this case a Moonscape) tend to have
3) The Moon surface is very 'busy', terrain-wise. Looking at times more like a quarry than the Moon - this is in part due to the fact the the movie is 3D.
4) You can see faces through the face plates- A hollywood feature
5) The Camera pans and moves around in ways it could not do on the Moon landing
6) Many of the events 'recreated' are fictional (I forget the mission, but they do a 'what if' the rover had gone over an embankment like apparently almost happened and the astronauts had to walk back to the lander)

This movie was obviously a produced film, not a reproduction except for select scenes. The movie does look pretty good, but it is obvious that it is a hollywood produced movie. If this fools someone (it certainly didn't seem to fool the kids in the audience) I question their judgement on many levels.

I mean, who knew Neil Armstrong sounded so much like Morgan Freeman?*

* The movie does use Neil's voice in historic recordings, but when reading quotes by astronauts about the Moon they get the original astronauts where they can, but Neil is still a rather private person so Easy Reader got the call.
 
likelystory said:
This video proves how the Moon Landings are all Hoaxes by NASA. Please view the footage at the 2:28-29......... This will certainly make some people upset who formerly believed in the space race.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE

[snip]
Click to expand...

I apologize if this video has been posted in this thread previously.

Always did like this one in response to the whole "men on wires" hogwash. Around the 2:14 mark, which is ironic as most moon cters use this specific bit of footage to demonstrate they were being suspended by wires, you'll see, if you pay close attention to the feet of the astronaut who's getting up, that they're indeed in low gravity.

 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom