Evan Burton

Duane,

I get accused of 'nitpicking' when i point out inaccuracies, so I'll try to limit myself in this case.

1. How would you react if someone set up an interview with you under false pretenses, called you a coward or a xxxx, demanded you swear on the bible, stalked your family, broke into your home? Mr Sibrel has been guilty of all of these with various astronauts.

"Why didn't they just laugh at him , if he is such a nut ? "

How have YOU reacted on this very forum when there has been the slightest hint of a slur against your character? And you are not someone who gave up years in training, had his marriage tested, risked their life for their country in space activity, and then have had people say it was a lie.

2. Reclusive? Armstrong became a univerity lecturer / professor (as well as a board member for various activities); hundreds of students aw him on a daily basis. Al Bean became an artist and does exhibitions. Gene Cerenan went on golf tours, became a management speaker for businesses, CEO of his own aerospace corporation. Mike Collins took a position with the NASM. Pete Conrad worked with various aerospace corporations, raced motorbikes and even did an AMEX ad (Do you remember me? I walked on the Moon!). Charlie Duke went to a ministry and does car ads in Australia. Jim Lovell runs a resturaunt. Ed Mitchell became a management consultant, and started up his own facility to investigate psychic research and the paranormal. Jack Schmitt went into politics briefly. Al Shepherd was a MAJOR businessman. John Young stayed with NASA, flying the first shuttle mission, retiring in 2004. All (including Armstrong) have made public appearences, given interviews, etc. Just because you don't see them down the pub, it does NOT mean they are "reclusive".

What is a "left handed engine"?

That is how non-aviation people might describe the powerplant (engine).

Jet engines are not left or right (until installed). They are simply an engine.

First of all , the US government didn't pull off this hoax ... This had nothing to do with regular polititions .... The US military/industrial complex accomplished this , along with nasa who is a part of that organization ... They are both part of the shadow government , along with the worlds's weathiest bankers ... They are known as the New World Order or the "masters of infinity" ( Lyndon Johnson's term )

President Eisenhower warned the American people that the US military /industrial complex would take over the United States if something wasn't done to stop them ... but of course nothing could be done to stop something so powerful ... So they are now , unfortunately for everyone on this planet , running the entire show .... In the 1960's and early 70's this organization orchestrated the alleged space race with the Russians , and also the alleged manned missions to the moon , known as Apollo .

Could they pull off a hoax this huge or a lie this monumental or a cover-up this long ? .... Absolutely .

Okay, now I see. It's all the illuminati, NWO, whatever. For some reason I do not yet fathom, they wanted to pull off a moon landing hoax. They gave the contracts to their buddies to build the stuff, and although it could actually do the job they orchestrated a hoax (which it would seem is filled with inconsistancies, anomolies, and 'whistleblowing') because they didn't want to risk failing in the attempt.

They faked all the data, and buy off all the scientists who look at that data (e.g. engineers, designers, aerodynamicists, geologists) so they won't blow the whistle on how it is faked. Meanwhile, they use subversive computer warfare to attack websites promoting a hoax theory, and have hundreds of thousands of paid disinformation agents around the world whose sole purpose is to discredit pro-hoaxers on internet chat rooms & forums.

And the only people who can spot this devilishly clever scheme are people who don't have any expertise in the related areas (aerospace engineering, physics, computing, aviation, etc).

Duane - drugs are bad, m'kay?

A sidenote on Mr Sibrel's activities is to note he never shows it when ex-astronauts DO 'swear on the Bible' that they have walked on the Moon. Two come to mind.

Another of Sibrel's videos presented a SIGNIFICANT piece of NASA film,

but Sibrel failed to comment on the obvious importance of it.

It was footage of one of the missions in route to the moon ...inside

the space capsule. It showed in detail STAR CHARTS USED FOR NAVIGATION

NEXT TO THE WINDOW.

Yet we have some of the nauts claiming that STARS WERE NOT VISIBLE. Well

they can't have it both ways...if they have a star chart to navigate by, THEY

MUST HAVE THE ABILITY TO SEE THE STARS! Check it out.

Jack

Jack, here's a small experiment for you to try.

Sit in a small room, at night, with a window where you can see the sky.

Have the lights on in the room. How many stars can you see?

Turn the lights off - now how many more can you see?

Star charts were indeed used aboard Apollo. Although Apollo had inertial guidance units (INS is a generic term), it was foreseen that the system might fail and therefore they had to be able to navigate by reference to the stars, know as astronavigation. This had been trialled successfully in previous manned missions (Gemini) They could check their INS position against ground-based tracking a star shots.

They didn't use a hand-held sextant but rather one built into the spacecraft:

So use this they also carried star charts:

As it turns out, I'm qualified in astronavigation (air & sea but obviously not in space, though the principle is the same for all). If you'd like any questions answered, please ask.

Here is a webpage all about it:

http://apollotribute2.blogspot.com/2006/04...o-part-one.html

Some other interesting ones are:

DEEP BLACK by William E. Burrows (details history of US intelligence satellite surveillance)

TOO SECRET, TOO LONG by Chapman Pincher (MI5 / MI6)

THE DECEIVERS by Thaddeus Holt (Allied military deception operations in WWII, but still a good read)

An excellent one about Australia is BREAKING THE CODES by Des Ball & David Horner. About SIGINT in Australia, VENONA decrypts, and KGB penetration in Australia.

I think there is a bit of a mix-up regarding the Australian connection mentioned in the article.

There are some bombing ranges south of Brisbane, but they have hardly been secret. You'd have a hard time concealing a flight test as the area is reasonably populated & there is a fair bit of air traffic. I think they mean either Woomera or Maralinga.

The nuclear test area was Maralinga, and a missle test area is Woomera, both located north of Adelaide in South Australia.

That's interesting. As we are aware, Peter Wright also faced prosecution under the Official Secrets Act for SPYCATCHER.

Perhaps he should come to Australia and tell all (assuming there is more to tell). Then again, Johnny is in power so.....

Here is the link to where the "identical backgrounds" is discussed:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapol...tml#backgrounds

Must you all constantly mis-quote what I post ? ... Here is what I said about web sites and photos disappearing from the internet .

The post quoted you exactly. No "mis-quote".

"Certain web sites have been completely removed which are damaging to nasa and the Apollo 'moon landings' .... official Apollo photos which showed major amamolies have since been deleted from official nasa sites also ... It's called ... SUPPRESSION OF DAMAGING EVIDENCE .... and nasa is hard at work doing that all over the internet ."

And then there are the Apollo photos which contain anomalies which are found on certain conspiracy sites , but when you look for the high resolution originals on the Apollo Image Galley , they are no longer there .... This is what I mean about suppression of conspiracy evidence .

Kipp Teague constantly updates his site, adding new material all the time. The point, however, is that Kipp's website is NOT an "official NASA" website. If you want a high-resolution version of an image, all you have to do is... ask NASA for it. That's a difficult process, huh? That's what people like Kipp, Michael Light, the LPI, etc do.

And while we are on this subject, let's make it perfectly clear that ALL the images from Apollo are available to the public... of any country. Even the spoiled ones. Everything.

But getting back to Reinart's documentary .... I think all of you nasa defenders are clutching at some pretty slippery straws here .... If you really believe that he would have removed official nasa voice overs from certain footage and then gone searching for a different voice overs that he thought were more exciting or interesting for that footage , then you all need a reality check .... Artistic license is one thing ... but what you are suggesting does not even make any sense .

Almost all of the manned space documentries show examples of artistic license, where the footage is not actually the one described by the narration, where the radio transmissions are not synched with the footage. The exceptions are things like Spacecraft Films series, where people want to specifically view events without the artistic effects added for the casual viewers. NASA never claims those examples are being an accurate depection of events. If something appears anomolous, you check the original footage with the air/ground transmissions.

Steven,

Have a read of the report by the demolition experts before you commit yourself to the CD theory.

It seems some experts in the building demolitions industry have commented on 9/11.

Very interesting read:

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%...209-8-06%20.pdf

It's been nearly a month and as expected, no comment from Jack.

2. Any time it can be proved that one of my studies is wrong, I am more eager than anyone to acknowledge AND CORRECT IT.

This Wiki entry may also be of some help:

Moon rock describes rock that formed on the Moon (Earth's moon). The term is also loosely applied to other lunar materials collected during the course of human exploration of the Moon.

There are currently three sources of Moon rocks on Earth: 1) those collected by US Apollo missions; 2) samples returned by the Soviet Union Luna missions; and 3) rocks that were ejected naturally from the lunar surface by cratering events and subsequently fell to Earth as lunar meteorites. During the six Apollo surface excursions, 2,415 samples weighing 382 kg (842 lb) were collected, the majority by Apollo 15, 16, and 17. The three Luna spacecraft returned with an additional 326 g (that's grams, not kilograms - EB) (0.66 lb) of samples. Over 90 lunar meteorites have been found on Earth as of late 2006, comprising over 30 kg of material.

The Apollo moon rocks were collected using a variety of tools, including hammers, rakes, scoops, tongs, and core tubes. Most were photographed prior to collection to record the condition in which they were found. They were placed inside sample bags and then a Special Environmental Sample Container for return to the Earth to protect them from contamination.

In general, the rocks collected from the Moon are extremely old compared to rocks found on Earth, as measured by radiometric dating techniques. They range in age from about 3.16 billion years old for the basaltic samples drived from the lunar maria, up to about 4.5 billion years old for rocks derived from the highlands. Based on the age dating technique of "crater counting," the youngest basaltic eruptions are believed to have occurred about 1.2 billion years ago, but we do not possess samples of these lavas. In contrast, the oldest ages of rocks from the Earth are about 3.8 billion years old.

In some regards, the rocks possess characteristics very similar to rocks on Earth, particularly in their composition of oxygen isotopes. Nevertheless, in contrast to the Earth, large portions of the lunar crust appear to be composed of rocks with high concentrations of the mineral anorthite, the mare basalts have relatively high iron concentrations, some of the mare basalts have very high concentrations of titanium (in the form of ilmenite), and all rocks are depleted in volatile elements (such as potassium or sodium) and are completely lacking in water. Furthermore, a geochemical component called KREEP, which has high abundances of incompatible elements, has no equivalent on Earth. Among the new minerals found on the Moon was armalcolite, which is named for the three astronauts on the Apollo 11 mission: Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins.

The main repository for the Apollo Moon rocks is the Lunar Sample Building at the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. For safe keeping, there is also a smaller collection stored at Brooks Air Force Base at San Antonio, Texas. Most of the rocks are stored in nitrogen to keep them free of moisture. They are only handled indirectly using special tools.

Moon rocks collected during the course of lunar exploration are currently considered priceless. In 1993, three small fragments weighing 0.2 g from Luna 16 were sold for US$442,500. In 2002 a safe was stolen from the Lunar Sample Building containing minute samples of lunar and martian material. The samples were recovered and, in 2003, NASA estimated the value of these samples for the court case at about $1 million for 285 g (10 oz.) of material. Moon rocks in the form of lunar meteorites, although expensive, are widely sold and traded among private collectors.

A couple of hundred small samples were mounted and presented to national governments and U.S. governors. At least one of these was later stolen, sold and recovered. Other samples went to select museums, including the National Air and Space Museum, the Kansas Cosmosphere and Space Center, and to the visitor center at Kennedy Space Center where it is possible to "touch a piece of the moon", which is in fact a small moon rock concreted into a pillar in the center of a bank vault that visitors tour. NASA says that almost 295 kg (650 lb) of the original 382 kg (842 lb) of samples are still in pristine condition in the vault at Johnson Space Center. Some moon dust was collected by a Hasselblad employee when cleaning out one of the cameras after the mission.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rocks

Here is a list of lunar samples on display (does not include samples for scientific research).

http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/displays/displays.cfm

And if you'd like to borrow a lunar sample:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/visitor/loan/lunar.html

I would add this question: If we didn't go to the moon, where did NASA's 4.5-billion-year-old rocks come from? They certainly didn't come from Earth, whose oldest rock segment still existing is less than 4 billion years old.

Moon rocks have been obtained by Russian unmanned missions .... And we only have nasa's word for how many rocks were really collected on the moon and how .... These rocks are under lock and key by nasa's orders ... and have only been viewed by nasa employees ... Except of course for the few under glass and untouchable at some nasa museums ... And of course the few slivers and sand that are allowed to be released to the scientists who wish to study them .

Moon rocks were recovered in the Antarctic prior to the Apollo 11 launch .... and I have recently read on some geology sites that they are still being recovered today ... and according to one article , these rocks have been found to be an exact match for the Apollo rocks .

Perhaps this site from the Washington University in St Louis might help:

Many people have approached us over the years wanting to know if a rock they possess is a Moon rock. One type of story we hear is that the rock was given to a relative in the 1970’s by an astronaut, a military person, or a NASA security guard. We have tested five such samples and none has been a lunar rock. Other people suspect that they have found a lunar meteorite. None of the many samples that we have been sent has been a lunar meteorite, except those from meteorite dealers or persons who bought lunar meteorites from a dealer.

No lunar meteorite has yet been found in North America, South America, or Europe. They undoubtedly exist, but the probability of finding a lunar meteorite in a temperate environment is incredibly low. Many experienced meteorite collectors have been looking and none have yet succeeded. Realistically, the probability that an amateur will find a lunar meteorite is so low that we cannot raise much enthusiasm to examine the many rocks that we have been asked to examine. If I wanted to find a lunar meteorite, I would not scour the Mojave Desert, I’d look through rock collections at colleges and universities. Its not unreasonable that a lunar meteorite exists in an old drawer somewhere because a sharp-eyed student or professor found a funny-looking rock years ago in a place it didn’t belong. It would also not surprise me to learn that some ‘expert’ proclaimed it not to be a meteorite because it didn’t resemble a chondritic meteorite and wasn’t magnetic. Lunar meteorites look like terrestrial (Earth) rocks more than ‘normal’ meteorites do, so they’d be easy to overlook. A weathered lunar meteorite would look remarkably unremarkable.

Here we discuss some aspects of lunar geology, mineralogy, and chemistry that guide us in our attempts to identify lunar material.

...

Any geoscientist (and there have been thousands from all over the world) who has studied lunar samples knows that anyone who thinks the Apollo lunar samples were created on Earth as part of government conspiracy doesn’t know much about rocks. The Apollo samples are just too good. They tell a self-consistent story with a complexly interwoven plot that’s better than any story any conspirator could have conceived. I’ve studied lunar rocks and soils for 30+ years and I couldn’t make even a poor imitation of a lunar breccia, lunar soil, or a mare basalt in the lab. And with all due respect to my clever colleagues in government labs, no one in “the Government” could do it either, even now that we know what lunar rocks are like. Lunar samples show evidence of formation in an extremely dry environment with essentially no free oxygen and little gravity. Some have impact craters on the surface and many display evidence for a suite of unanticipated and complicated effects associated with large and small meteorite impacts. Lunar rocks and soil contain gases (hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon) derived from the solar wind with isotope ratios different than Earth forms of the same gases. They contain crystal damage from cosmic rays. Lunar igneous rocks have crystallization ages, determined by techniques involving radioisotopes, that are older than any known Earth rocks. (Anyone who figures out how to fake that is worthy of a Nobel Prize.) It was easier and cheaper to go to the Moon and bring back some rocks then it would have been to create all these fascinating features on Earth. [After writing these words I learned that virtually the same sentiments had already been expressed by some of my lunar sample colleagues.]

http://www.epsc.wustl.edu/admin/resources/...owdoweknow.html

Once again, I invite you to rebut this expert statement with another from someone who is equally qualified.

As far as the samples, amounts, etc, may I refer you to this thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6331

If you'd like to address specific points in that thread, I'd be happy to respond.

Duane,

Could I please get a clarification on your reply to the last question I asked (No4):

Do you believe:

a) We never went to the Moon; or

We may have gone to the Moon, but the images were faked for some reason.

Thanks.

I'm glad you acknowledge the efforts of the many thousands of scientists, engineers, designers and workers. Let's think some more about that for the moment.

How many spacecraft did Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon, or other politicians, design or build? None.

How many launch vehicles did Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon, or other politicians, design or build? None.

How many 'spacesuits' did Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon, or other politicians, design or build? None.

The contractors designed and built them. NASA said 'we need a device to fulfil the following criteria..'. The scientists and engineers designed, built, and tested the various sub-sections and components to meet those specifications (a lunar landing).

So all the scientists and engineers designed, built, and tested these devices... and then NASA didn't use them?

Reality check for my friend here, please.

You still continue to miss the point:

I have provided opinions from two Apollo Flight Controllers (as distinct from Mr Kranz, who was the Mission Controller - do we need to cover this again?) who say:

1) The technology did not allow for a continuous simulation, which would be needed to fake an entire mission; and

2) The Flight Controllers could tell the difference between a sim and real flight.

Perhaps Sy Liebergot would know how to contact Gene Kranz, and could ask his opinion on your interpretation of his quote? I'm sure he would say you were wrong... but if he did, I'm equally sure you'd claim it was some type of 'backpeddling' instead of perhaps a slightly inaccurate choice of words.

Also- Would someone please provide the definition of computer chip as referenced in Duane's quote.

I think you know what Duane meant when he said computor chips hadnt been invented in the 60`s ; I know he meant processors as do you, what you are classifying as a chip was little more than a glorified transistor.

Doesn't make much of a difference, though:

"In any event, by 1969 computers were more than adequate to provide sufficiently accurate guidance for the moon mission.".

"It is a waste of time to argue with bigots."

Just like it's a waste of time to argue with those who's only means of arguing their point is to use unnecessary ad homs .... Or maybe he think that makes him look more intelligent .

Bigot is not even the correct term in this application ... Bigot refers to racial prejudice ... So much for intelligent conversations .... You contact a nasa defender to get an honset answer ? ... Too funny !

You still can't defend your claims though, can you? You have already admitted you don't have the necessary skills to make a judgement. I also note that as soon as someone who does takes a contradictory position to you, they become a "NASA defender".

My challenge still stands - contact someone with the appropriate skills & qualifications to make an informed opinion, and post their reply.

Since you have started a new thread, I'd like to ask a few questions - in order to establish a baseline.

Duane,

1. Do you believe the Mercury missions happened as recorded? If not please detail your variance with such.

2. Do you believe that the Gemini missions happened as recorded? If not please detail your variance with such.

3. Do you believe that the Apollo Earth-orbital missions happened as recorded? If not please detail your variance with such.

4. Do you believe that the Apollo Moon landings never happened, or that the images were faked for some reason (while not denying that men could have landed on the Moon)?

Thank you.

I have some problems with that review.

The author makes a convincing case against Apollo by covering various facts from his employment with one of the leading Apollo contractors, and gleaned from his familiarity with the workings of the space program at that time.

Mr Kaysing worked for Rocketdyne, who produced the F-1 engine for the Saturn V first stage. That is the same F-1 engine which was considered for the current Orion project. The same Saturn V that millions of people saw launch 9 lunar orbital / lunar landing missions. Rocketdyne did not produce the spacecraft, electronics, life support equipment, etc, for Apollo. Mr Kaysing left Rocketdyne in 1963, very early in the Apollo project, and so has no intimate knowledge of the Apollo project.

At the end of the day however, the most powerful evidence that Apollo was a hoax is the fact that today, NASA is technically unable to send men to the moon! This amazing fact is not from lack of money or public interest, but from plain old ignorance! They just don't know how to do this!

This is mostly incorrect, and misleading in other parts. NASA is NOT technically unable to send people to the Moon today. If we planned similar to Apollo missions (short duration), were prepared to take the same risks, and had similar funding, they could probably land another mission on the Moon in less than 5 years (it takes time to build the equipment needed). Money is a major factor here.

The statement is misleading with regard to technical expertise; the people who build the various Apollo sub-systems have either died or are generally no longer active in the aerospace field. That makes re-building Apollo a challenge, because you have to re-learn lost skills. A classic example with which I am very familar with is the disbanding of the Australian Navy's Fleet Air Arm fixed-wing element. The RAN used to operate two aircraft carriers, reducing to one from the late 1960s. HMAS MELBOURNE was a Majestic-class carrier that operated until 1982. At that time she had operated A-4G Skyhawks and S-2G Tracker fixed-wing aircraft. These were later sold off, and the FAA retained only the rotary wing elements. Twelve months after the final fixed-wing flying, it was estimated that it would take a further 5 years to regain the necessary skills for carrier operations. Today, with highly advanced helicopters and leading-edge technology, it would take at least 10 years to restore the FAA to the fixed-wing carrier operations skill level of 1982.

This is equivalent to Boeing suddenly being unable to build a jet aircraft, after successfully building and flying them for several years!

Boeing cannot build a B-17, not a B-29, nor a PT-17, nor a B&W Bluebill... yet they produced these aircraft for years.

Science just doesn't go backwards like this, nor does it completely abandon successful systems, without producing innovations based upon them!

Consider the Space Shuttle...

How is it that the usual evolutionary progression of knowledge and skill present in every known scientific breakthrough is somehow absent in our post Apollo space program? If the expertise garnered in the Apollo program over thirty years ago was genuine, why are we not now leveraging it into more sophisticated trans-lunar vehicles and flights? Why after Apollo has our space program suffered such a catastrophic loss of expertise?

The Apollo astronauts asked the same questions in 1972 - why stop now, just when we were getting good at it? Public demand - money. Just how strong a call has there been for a return to the Moon over the period 1975-2000? How many times has it been an election issue? How many times have 'return to space' initiatives been cancelled due to lack of support?

How do you justify a timeline that takes us from the cutting edge lunar flights of Apollo to Shuttle missions, limited to techniques first perfected during the Gemini program? Certainly the Shuttle is an advance in re-usable space transport, but technologically it's inferior to Apollo in one significant respect: it's incapable of operating outside of relatively low earth orbit! Why the technological regression in manned space flight?

What was the purpose of the Shuttle? A lunar exploration vehicle? A prototype for travel to the stars? NO - it was to place and service satellites in low-Earth orbit, as well as service a (then) planned space station; replacing single-use launch vehicles. Even then, it was bastardised because of budgetry constraints.

No scientific organization has ever voluntarily dumbed itself down like NASA has, since Apollo!

The author of the review has obviously not kept up with technical papers released by NASA. They still continue to advance in space technology.

Successful lunar missions confirm the solution of monumental scientific and engineering problems!

Which they did.

Preserving such invaluable expertise is fundamental to all scientific organizations!

How many people are there experienced in forming wooden spars for biplanes? How many people are there who are experts in the design and building of radial engines? How many people are there who are experience in the design and building of valves for electronics?

Quite contrary to what the reviewer states, they argue from a preconceived position and ignore that which does not suit them - or they have not researched the subject enough to have their opinion considered valid.

If you want to have a discussion about computers it will have to be with somone else ....I know nothing about computer technology .

Okay, let's hear from someone who does:

From: Evan Burton (xxxxxxxxxx)

To: David Levy (dlevy@ee.usyd.edu.au)

6/12/2006 - 19:08

Professor Levy,

I am wondering if you might be able to help me.

I spend a fair bit of my free time debunking those claims that we never went to the Moon. As you may be aware, one of the claims is that the Apollo computers would not be powerful enough to do the calculations claimed. A typical one is:

"In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator."

As I am NOT a computing or electrical engineer, I was wondering if I could get your opinion of this statement. I would also like to quote you - with your permission - on the forum I am currently on. I would ask that you do not try and tailor your opinion for the layman; simply explain why as if you were talking to another engineer.

If you are not familiar with computers in space, may I refer you to The History of Computers in Space from NASA.

There is also an excellent website that gives you instructions on how to build a replica Apollo Guidance Computer .

The forum & thread to which I intend to reply to is: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8473&st=45

Thank you for your time.

Evan Burton

***********************************************

From: David Levy (dlevy@ee.usyd.edu.au)

To: Evan Burton (xxxxxxxxxxx)

6/12/2006 - 22:03

Dear Evan,

It is a waste of time to argue with bigots.

In any event, by 1969 computers were more than adequate to provide sufficiently accurate guidance for the moon mission. For example, the first successful commercial minicomputer, the PDP-8, produced by Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC), was introduced on March 22, 1965 and was widely used in many scientific, manaufacturing and computer control applications.

D Levy

--

A/Prof David C Levy

Head of School of Electrical and Information Engineering

http://www.ee.usyd.edu.au/~dlevy

dlevy@ee.usyd.edu.au

Bldg J-13, Maze Cres, Univ of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.

Tel: (02) 9351-6579 Fax: (02) 9351-3847

Duane,

You still haven't explained why the statements from two Apollo Flight Controllers about the difference between sims and real data are wrong.

I presume you have contacted Mr Liebergot to confirm that what I posted was indeed what he communicated to me via e-mail?

Now, reference the relative computing capability of Apollo computers... may I refer you to The History of Computers in Space .

Before anyone suggests this is NASA disinformation, we should remember that this information is verifiable by those with computer engineering experience. I'm going to send a link to that site off to a university computing centre, to ask them whether or not it was really possible (because I am not a computer engineer or expert). I'd strongly suggest you do the same, and we can compare our independent results. I'll be quoting names and qualifications; this will avoid a theoretical accusation that I went down the pub and asked "a mate who knows a bit about computers".

The results will be quite revealing, I am sure.

Edited to add: Oh, I forgot... if anyone is interested in building a replica of the Apollo Guidance Computer, you can go to here to build your own, and confirm that it was capable of doing what NASA claimed.

"I know I put my club around here somewhere...."