Merged Discussion of the moon landing "hoax"

[bobc]

I was responsible writing some of the test code for flight critical computers used in all commercial airlines. Don't forget to bring tranquilizers for your next flight. Relax a little though, because there is always a backup computer that will automatically switch on - they are redundant.

Using a 15 bit word instead of an 8 bit byte will speed up calculations and memory transfers. However, it will not necessarily halve the number of bytes required for the code.

 

[kookbreaker]

Clearly, they would have had to abort the mission. As they did on Apollo 13.

No one is saying that the Moon landings didn't entail some risk, and were literally a journey into the unknown. That still doesn't mean because something might have gone wrong, they must faked it.

Heck, was it Redstone 3 that was launched with one of the gauges pointing to 'HOLY CRAP! Launch and YOU'LL BLOW UP!!!!" but Shepard chose to ignore it?

 

[fess]

And he also had this howler which he has yet to explain

Originally Posted by Justinian2
These things had to make two take offs and two landings on every flight.

They were touch and go's, pilots do that a lot.

 

[excaza]

Whether or not it explained a reason that the moon landing was not possible is open for discussion.

Given that this is your 'smoking gun,' it would be appropriate for you to actually give a reason why the computers were supposedly insufficient for the task.

What happened if they found a problem in the vicinity of the moon and needed to reprogram the computer? They had no little old ladies in space to string the new rope memory.

 

[Sledge]

That's a straw man argument which means you lessened the argument in order to make it easier to beat. You lessened the argument by removing the reason.

So you do have proof? Then show it. You've either got proof or you haven't. Pick one.

 

[fess]

Here's Buzz Aldrin punching a moon landing denier. And who can blame him?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUI36tPKDg4

I don't pay much attention to UTube, but out of the ones I have watched, that is one of my favorite.

 

[Justinian2]

Clearly, they would have had to abort the mission. As they did on Apollo 13.

No one is saying that the Moon landings didn't entail some risk, and were literally a journey into the unknown. That still doesn't mean because something might have gone wrong, they must faked it.

I am trying to determine for myself if there was a reason that they would have faked the moon landings. The motive is unclear to me. I am trying to find a reason.

I can jump over eight inches with a barely discernable bend in my knee. That would, according to my calculations, have resulted in a jump height of 24 to 48 inches on the moon. I still have a full vertical leap of 20 inches or so if I swing my arms and really try. That would correspond to 60 inch jump on the moon wearing a 210 pound suit.

I'm sorry, but I didn't see any indications of 1/6th gravity in those videos.

 

[JohnG]

I'm still a skeptic...

I'm skeptical of that claim.

...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.

Who cares? I don't mean that in a snotty way, I mean, really, what difference does it make what you think? I could allege that all 747 flights are hoaxes because (based on some back of the envelope calculations I half remember from High School), the engines of a 747 aren't nearly powerful enough to keep the jet aloft, but nobody is under any obligation to take my claim seriously if I offer no compelling evidence. Even you have grudgingly conceded that your evidence isn't quite as compelling as you thought it was when you made your first post, though more often than not you simply ignore the posts that quite clearly and logically explain away your supposed anomalies.

Does all of the (no doubt welcome) attention you are getting here really make up for the fact that nobody here has any respect for your poorly thought out arguments?

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

The quote that you were responding to above did not contain any ad hominems. In fact I doubt that you really know what that term means. There's been a lot of sometimes harsh but entirely justified criticism directed towards you and your beliefs, but but little if any of them were actual ad hominems.

 

[tsig]

Here's Buzz Aldrin punching a moon landing denier. And who can blame him?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUI36tPKDg4

If he had truth on his side he wouldn't have to resort to violence.

 

[tsig]

It's part of the context of my answer.



This part of the argument is skepticism about the ability of what the LM computer to do the big job that needed to be done. I feel I had to partly answer the reason that NASA would go all the way to the moon and NOT land. Today, computers in toys have more computing power.



I appear to be the only skeptic here. The anti-skeptic keeps repeating arguments.



The technology of the '60s included some discrete component hardware. RTL, DTL and TTL were among the first digital integrated circuits. They included the Nand and Nor gates as well as Flip Flops.

My memory, experience and education have been sufficiently accurate. I remembered the equations I learned while in the 6th grade in 1957 that allowed me to calculate the times it would take a body to fall to feet on earth and on the moon. These are the same as you can find with an internet search.

Now there is so much on the internet that people can (much of the time) not only find the exact answer to an question, but be able to quote the source. I have been the source for much of what I've said. Many don't like that and can't deal with it.

My recall of the amount of memory in the LM was not incorrect. I thought it was 1K to 2K. The exact number didn't matter to me because it is in the order of magnitude that I wished to discussed. I never bothered to even try remember the exact amount of memory. That order of magnitude was kilobytes. Since that time, memories have been megabytes and now gigabytes and even terabytes.

About the movies, I remembered what I saw and what was in the movies. I didn't misrepresent the movies. My recall was as it was after seeing the movie.

Eye witness accounts are considered FACT in a court of law. Part of the reason is that the eye witness can be examined to verify what is factual and what is not.

You are being stupid if you think that a person's memory should be total recall or that it is totally bad. With the internet, you can get the exact information.

I am only your guide. If I want an exact source, I'll go to the internet (which isn't perfect either)



The first integrated circuits were RTL or resistor-transistor logic. DTL and TTL came later. I didn't say that the AGC was built with discrete parts - just that some of the technology of that era did use discrete componets for various reasons.



Why don't you as well. You have repeated jumped to conclusions that you thought warranted only because you had decided not to trust what I was saying.

I did change a little. I restated my skepticism about the power of the computer to state that I was sure that when it was designed and built that the engineers thought it would be adequate.



I was talking about launching from the moon and hitting a target moving several thousand miles per hour. This is a seven dimentional requirement (pitch, roll, altitude, velocity, and x, y, z). And I am only skeptical that the technology of the time was adequate. I am trying to find the reason that they did NOT land on the moon as witnessed by the lack of 1/6 th gravity in the moon video.



Again, logical fallicies including ad hominen attacks, straw man arguments, and spamming do NOT change my mind and they shouldn't be expected to.

Docent to the Twilight Zone.

 

[JohnG]

II can jump over eight inches with a barely discernable bend in my knee. That would, according to my calculations, have resulted in a jump height of 24 to 48 inches on the moon. I still have a full vertical leap of 20 inches or so if I swing my arms and really try. That would correspond to 60 inch jump on the moon wearing a 210 pound suit.

I'm sorry, but I didn't see any indications of 1/6th gravity in those videos.

Oh, for crying out loud, this has been explained multiple times by multiple people here. The fact that you aren't bothering to read/address these posts shows a serious lack of respect and more than a little intellectual cowardice and dishonesty.

and no, that isn't an ad hom, either.

 

[tsig]

That's a straw man argument which means you lessened the argument in order to make it easier to beat. You lessened the argument by removing the reason.

I said something like: "I can't prove anything because the video and pictures have been re-created and there is no way to tell which is the origional"

Perhaps it's sufficient to say that you have not provided any evidence of hops higher than could be expected on earth. I was given one video of the astronaut jumping to the ladder, but I wasn't able to play it on my computer and there are several other reasons given for not embracing that as fact.

We've all seen things floating in space. We need to see equally convincing video in 1/6th gravity (that isn't a re-creation).

who's this 'we' Kemosabi?

 

[tsig]

If one uses more than 5% of their brain, they wouldn't like living on earth, the 3% users will drive you nuts.
Paul



THEY DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! drive me nuts

And the 6% users will eat you.

 

[Sledge]

I am trying to determine for myself if there was a reason that they would have faked the moon landings. The motive is unclear to me. I am trying to find a reason.

So let's be clear: you have no proof that the moon landings were faked. You can find no reason for the moon landings to be faked. You don't have much of a theory here, do you?

 

[tsig]

An Order of Magnitude is a factor of ten.

Ten is 10 to the one
A hundred is 10 to the two.
A thousand is 10 to the third.

Ten is in the first order of magnitued, a hundred is in the second order of magnitude and a thousand is in the third order of magnitude. When calculating with a slide rule, one has to keep the orders of magnitude in his mind.

Anyway, now everybody knows how small the computer was.

Whether or not it explained a reason that the moon landing was not possible is open for discussion.

Did the LOL memory have anything to do with it? What happened if they found a problem in the vicinity of the moon and needed to reprogram the computer? They had no little old ladies in space to string the new rope memory.

They had brains plus years of training plus physical and mental skill far beyond you.

Can you fly a plane? By your argumentation if you can't fly a plane it can't be done yet we see them fly all the time. Hoax??

 

[tsig]

I am trying to determine for myself if there was a reason that they would have faked the moon landings. The motive is unclear to me. I am trying to find a reason.

I can jump over eight inches with a barely discernable bend in my knee. That would, according to my calculations, have resulted in a jump height of 24 to 48 inches on the moon. I still have a full vertical leap of 20 inches or so if I swing my arms and really try. That would correspond to 60 inch jump on the moon wearing a 210 pound suit.

I'm sorry, but I didn't see any indications of 1/6th gravity in those videos.

You do my hiliting for me!

Why not accept facts?

 

[sts60]

This part of the argument is skepticism about the ability of what the LM computer to do the big job that needed to be done.

It would be skepticism if you could back up your argument - i.e., by saying exactly what would be sufficient in the LM control scheme. But you just keep complaining it wasn't enough. That's not skepticism; that's simply your uninformed denial.

I feel I had to partly answer the reason that NASA would go all the way to the moon and NOT land.

You changed your answer ("something in the vicinity of the moon"), than went back to your computer-was-insufficient theme.

The technology of the '60s included some discrete component hardware. RTL, DTL and TTL were among the first digital integrated circuits. They included the Nand and Nor gates as well as Flip Flops.

You said "that was the era before... RTL". That was simply wrong; don't try to tap-dance around it. Again, the AGC was built with RTL.

My memory, experience and education have been sufficiently accurate. I remembered the equations I learned while in the 6th grade in 1957 that allowed me to calculate the times it would take a body to fall to feet on earth and on the moon. These are the same as you can find with an internet search.

It's great that you can remember a couple of basic kinematic equations. But you apparently can't remember what movie you keep referring to, and your memory on many other things has been repeatedly shown to be simply wrong.

As far as "experience and education" in relevant fields, you are welcome to cite yours.

My recall of the amount of memory in the LM was not incorrect. I thought it was 1K to 2K.

You said it was 1K. That's wrong. So is 2K. By more than an order of magnitude.

The exact number didn't matter to me because it is in the order of magnitude that I wished to discussed. I never bothered to even try remember the exact amount of memory.

You're still wrong in representing that the exact amount doesn't matter. When you're willing to substitute learning for defensiveness, again, we can talk about design margin.

About the movies, I remembered what I saw and what was in the movies. I didn't misrepresent the movies. My recall was as it was after seeing the movie.

Really? What movie, exactly? After all these posts, you still can't even provide a title, or evidently be bothered to try to look for it, even though others here have.

You are being stupid if you think that a person's memory should be total recall or that it is totally bad.

I never said that. But your memory has been repeatedly shown to be simply wrong.

With the internet, you can get the exact information.

Often, yes; but without understanding, you can't use it properly. In at least one case, the exact information was handed to you and you still didn't understand it.

I am only your guide. If I want an exact source, I'll go to the internet (which isn't perfect either)

LOL! You are most definitely not my guide. I have nearly two decades of actual spaceflight engineering under my belt, as well as degrees in space physics and two more in engineering (electrical, systems).

The first integrated circuits were RTL or resistor-transistor logic. DTL and TTL came later. I didn't say that the AGC was built with discrete parts - just that some of the technology of that era did use discrete componets for various reasons.

Evasion noted, again. You said "That was the era just before DTL, RTL and TTL." That was simply wrong; RTL logic was the basis for the AGC and was well-established before the first AGC guided the Apollo 10 LM towards the lunar surface. Don't try to tap-dance around your error.

Why don't you as well. You have repeated jumped to conclusions that you thought warranted only because you had decided not to trust what I was saying.

I don't trust what you're saying because so much of it is wrong, and the rest is unsupported by anything other than your own convictions.

I did change a little. I restated my skepticism about the power of the computer to state that I was sure that when it was designed and built that the engineers thought it would be adequate.

No, you said the memory was probably theoretically sufficient to get the job done (immediately after saying it is still pitiful small given the big job it had to do, but I've already pointed out your self-contradiction). That's not the same thing (even though you've also said those same engineers are better than today's engineers).

I was talking about launching from the moon and hitting a target moving several thousand miles per hour. This is a seven dimentional requirement (pitch, roll, altitude, velocity, and x, y, z).

First, you keep reciting your Googled-up factoids as if we don't already know these things. But that doesn't support your position. All the rendezvous involved the same state information. You have to specify why one rendezvous was doable and another wasn't.

Second, such rendezvous had already been done in the Gemini program. With less computing power than Apollo. But you won't understand that from a brief visit to good ol' U. Google.

ETA: Third, the word you're looking for is yaw, not "altitude".

And I am only skeptical that the technology of the time was adequate. I am trying to find the reason that they did NOT land on the moon

You've given two different versions (insufficient computer power, "something in the vicinity of the moon") - but when you do find that reason, I for one am very interested in reading all about it. Until then, there's really not much point in repeating your claim, getting asked for proof, lather, rinse, repeat.

as witnessed by the lack of 1/6 th gravity in the moon video.

Begging the question. And refuted anyway, but easily-found video imagery demonstrating the jumps you said you couldn't find. (After "analyzing" "a complete set of authentic and original videos and photographs", which was in itself a ludicrous claim.)

Again, logical fallicies including ad hominen attacks, straw man arguments, and spamming do NOT change my mind and they shouldn't be expected to.

Neither, apparently, do facts and actual relevant experience. That's too bad. But if you're willing to learn, rather than defending untenable positions...

 

[Justinian2]

I don't pay much attention to UTube, but out of the ones I have watched, that is one of my favorite.

Pretty good punch for an older, smaller guy.

If I hadn't already been charged with A&B on a police officer, I would have thrown a punch too. Trouble is, the law doesn't like it when you do something wrong twice.

The guy called Buzz a liar and a coward! No need for that.

 

[Sledge]

You're calling him a liar.

ETA: HA! FIRST!

 

[uk_dave]

The guy called Buzz a liar and a coward! No need for that.

Aren't you calling him a liar too?