An extraordinary statement?

[Craig Lamson]

But in all fairness Craig , I did tell the truth in what really matters ....

GENE KRANTZ COULDN'T DISCERN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A REAL LANDING FROM A SIMULATED ONE ! .. and that little tid bit of information just won't go away , will it boys ? LOL

Hey the news is on right now and guess what kids ? ... nasa plans to 'return' to the moon in the year 2020 !!! .... How many years away is that ??? ... 14 !!

And we are suppossed to believe that nasa landed men on the moon 37 years ago and acomplished that amazing little feat in just 8 short years using antiquated 1969 technology !?!? .... LMAO is right !!

Boy are you dense. Krantz, statement is a wonderful. it shows just how important the sims being realistic were to the program. Krantz's statement in no way impeaches the Apollo missions, well except in your mind but that hardly counts.

But lets see where you are in your little theory.

Apollo 11 launches, which you claim is real.

From here on out everything else is fake...the flight controllers are dealing with a computer sim...well at least up to return to earth.

WOW! So the sims were modular in nature and incapable of running large chunks of the mission but you claim they fed the controllers sim data for what, 190 hours or so? Amazing!

So now the balls in your court again, How did they feed the controllers 190+ hours of continuous data?

Oh and WHY was the technology in the 60's incapable of supporting the Apollo missions?

[Kevin M. West]

But in all fairness Craig , I did tell the truth in what really matters ....

GENE KRANTZ COULDN'T DISCERN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A REAL LANDING FROM A SIMULATED ONE ! .. and that little tid bit of information just won't go away , will it boys ? LOL

Hey the news is on right now and guess what kids ? ... nasa plans to 'return' to the moon in the year 2020 !!! .... How many years away is that ??? ... 14 !!

And we are suppossed to believe that nasa landed men on the moon 37 years ago and acomplished that amazing little feat in just 8 short years using antiquated 1969 technology !?!? .... LMAO is right !!

First of all, the apollo program started before kennedy announced it, it was more than 8 years.

There are several factors here regarding the timeframe for new missions.

funding: The cost of the apollo program alone, adjusted for inflation, is about $135 billion. That's more than 8 years worth of nasa's current budget (their ENTIRE budget, not 1 program). The new program has much bigger goals and lower funding, hense, it will take longer.

reusability: They want to design reusuable hardware this time, so it's not just a couple one-off missions.

duration: They want to stay much longer this time, not just short stops on the moon. In fact, they just announced that they want to setup a permanant base this time.

[Duane Daman]

But in all fairness Craig , I did tell the truth in what really matters ....

GENE KRANTZ COULDN'T DISCERN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A REAL LANDING FROM A SIMULATED ONE ! .. and that little tid bit of information just won't go away , will it boys ? LOL

Hey the news is on right now and guess what kids ? ... nasa plans to 'return' to the moon in the year 2020 !!! .... How many years away is that ??? ... 14 !!

And we are suppossed to believe that nasa landed men on the moon 37 years ago and acomplished that amazing little feat in just 8 short years using antiquated 1969 technology !?!? .... LMAO is right !!

Boy are you dense. Krantz, statement is a wonderful. it shows just how important the sims being realistic were to the program. Krantz's statement in no way impeaches the Apollo missions, well except in your mind but that hardly counts.

But lets see where you are in your little theory.

Apollo 11 launches, which you claim is real.

From here on out everything else is fake...the flight controllers are dealing with a computer sim...well at least up to return to earth.

WOW! So the sims were modular in nature and incapable of running large chunks of the mission but you claim they fed the controllers sim data for what, 190 hours or so? Amazing!

So now the balls in your court again, How did they feed the controllers 190+ hours of continuous data?

Oh and WHY was the technology in the 60's incapable of supporting the Apollo missions?

Boy are you a creep ... If I'm dense it's only because I continue to reply to your rude posts .... Thanks for reminding me why Jack never bothers to respond to your crap .... He has more intelligence than to try to argue with jerks like you .. and actually I do too .... So don't expect any more replies from me unless your questions are posed without your typical insults . ... Too bad this forum isn't moderated because there is no excuse for the way you act here .

Yes , Gene Krantz's statement was wonderful because he let us all know how mission control was fooled into believing the Apollo landings were real , when they weren't .

"So now the balls in your court again, How did they feed the controllers 190+ hours of continuous data? "

"NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could "rehearse" the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear. "

Oh and don't bother running to clavius to post their lame 'rebuttal' here , because I've already read it and it's just more typical nasa disinformation and lies .

"Oh and WHY was the technology in the 60's incapable of supporting the Apollo missions?"

"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. "

And now I await your clavius disinformation reply with much anticipation ! LOL

[Craig Lamson]

But in all fairness Craig , I did tell the truth in what really matters ....

GENE KRANTZ COULDN'T DISCERN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A REAL LANDING FROM A SIMULATED ONE ! .. and that little tid bit of information just won't go away , will it boys ? LOL

Hey the news is on right now and guess what kids ? ... nasa plans to 'return' to the moon in the year 2020 !!! .... How many years away is that ??? ... 14 !!

And we are suppossed to believe that nasa landed men on the moon 37 years ago and acomplished that amazing little feat in just 8 short years using antiquated 1969 technology !?!? .... LMAO is right !!

Boy are you dense. Krantz, statement is a wonderful. it shows just how important the sims being realistic were to the program. Krantz's statement in no way impeaches the Apollo missions, well except in your mind but that hardly counts.

But lets see where you are in your little theory.

Apollo 11 launches, which you claim is real.

From here on out everything else is fake...the flight controllers are dealing with a computer sim...well at least up to return to earth.

WOW! So the sims were modular in nature and incapable of running large chunks of the mission but you claim they fed the controllers sim data for what, 190 hours or so? Amazing!

So now the balls in your court again, How did they feed the controllers 190+ hours of continuous data?

Oh and WHY was the technology in the 60's incapable of supporting the Apollo missions?

Boy are you a creep ... If I'm dense it's only because I continue to reply to your rude posts .... Thanks for reminding me why Jack never bothers to respond to your crap .... He has more intelligence than to try to argue with jerks like you .. and actually I do too .... So don't expect any more replies from me unless your questions are posed without your typical insults . ... Too bad this forum isn't moderated because there is no excuse for the way you act here .

Yes , Gene Krantz's statement was wonderful because he let us all know how mission control was fooled into believing the Apollo landings were real , when they weren't .

"So now the balls in your court again, How did they feed the controllers 190+ hours of continuous data? "

"NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could "rehearse" the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear. "

Oh and don't bother running to clavius to post their lame 'rebuttal' here , because I've already read it and it's just more typical nasa disinformation and lies .

"Oh and WHY was the technology in the 60's incapable of supporting the Apollo missions?"

"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. "

And now I await your clavius disinformation reply with much anticipation ! LOL

Jack CAN'T respond because when he does he is shown to be lacking in even the of the basic principals of photography. So he hides away and pretends his work has never been debunked, fingers in his ears just like you.

One little problem with TERE-A...it was in low earth orbit. Thats a dead give away for the folks on the ground. So much for that little gambit. You have been debunked. Wanna play again, or you could simply concede.

Ah the old "not enough computer play"..right out of the HB's sandard playbook.

Just why do we need a modern computer to run the Apollo spacecraft?

Prior to Apollo people were able to (and still can) navigate the worlds oceans using only the stars.

Huge math problems can still be solved with a sliderule and not a computer.

The Hoover dam was designed and built without a computer.

Automobiles ran just fine without a computer.

The 707 was put into service in 1954, without a top of the line 2002 computer.

The first flight of the 747 was in 1969, using the same computer technology available to Apollo.

I could go on and on, but the fact of the matter is that things were designed, built and operated quite nicely without high end computers. Its easy to forget that when your entire life has included computers, video games and such.

Now why were nav computers for Apollo not up to the task?

Proof please.

And by the way please provide proof for this statement:

"Oh and don't bother running to clavius to post their lame 'rebuttal' here , because I've already read it and it's just more typical nasa disinformation and lies."

Edited December 5, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Guest]

When I set this forum up I never imagined that members here would describe each other as "dense" or "a creep", or indeed refer to each other's opinions as "crap".

Perhaps I should have restricted the membership to qualified teachers?

[Craig Lamson]

When I set this forum up I never imagined that members here would describe each other as "dense" or "a creep", or indeed refer to each other's opinions as "crap".

Perhaps I should have restricted the membership to qualified teachers?

Pardon me Andy, I'll keep my fingers in check.

[Duane Daman]

When I set this forum up I never imagined that members here would describe each other as "dense" or "a creep", or indeed refer to each other's opinions as "crap".

Perhaps I should have restricted the membership to qualified teachers?

Perhaps this forum should be moderated so members like Craig Lamson can't get away with their typical behavior of posting insults to everyone they disagree with ... He has been personally attacking Jack White every chance he got , long before I ever joined this forum .... and now because I believe as Jack does about Apollo , he also constantly attacks me.

I have been posting insults in return in self defense but that is still no excuse for stooping to his level ... I apologize for posting ad homs and promise not to do so in the future.... Hopefully Mr. Lamson will do the same and we can continue our discussions without the unnecessary and unkind personal insults towards each other.

[Evan Burton]

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.

Edited December 6, 2006 by Evan Burton

[Steve Ulman]

"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. "

Duane - You put this statement in quotes - please provide your source.

Oh, and by the way, I am also the Systems Administrator where I work, concetrated in Solid State and Microprocessor electronics in College and have studied computer science at the masters level. I would be very interested in having an intelligent discussion on this subject.

Edited December 6, 2006 by Steve Ulman

[Dave Greer]

"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. "

And now I await your clavius disinformation reply with much anticipation ! LOL

I really have to take issue with this statement, which is patently false - perhaps not the detail of the statement itself, but certainly the premise is false. I'm assuming you posted it as you believe that the Apollo guidance computer was insufficient to guide a craft to a moon landing and back again.

Duane, you keep on stating that you can't trust anything that NASA says because it is dis-information. What yuou have posted is effectively pro-hoax disinformation. There is no credible source for the information, it justs keeps getting cycled round one hoax site after another. It barely bears refuting, but if you really think you can back the claim up with hard facts, go ahead - I note Steve is prepared to have an intelligent discussion on the issue with you.

Since you cut and pasted that unfounded claim, I'll cut and paste a suitable answer, not from Clavius (which does contain a lot of useful information), but from Did We Go To The Moon by Ron Miller. Incidentally, you could do worse than read the entire document, it explains many alleged lunar discrepancies (it is a bit old though, and I don't agree completely with all his findings - not a bad primer though).

The question is: just how powerful did the onboard Apollo computer have to be? Comparing theactual lunar landing to a computer game simulation is hardly pertinent. None of the Lunar Module’s com-puter power was needed for graphics or high-resolution video displays—which is what eats up most of thememory in today’s computer games. Besides, the bulk of the work was done by the big computers inMission Control, which radioed the results to the spacecraft

If you are genuine about thinking the Apollo Guidance Computer was inadequate, you'll need to do some pretty thorough research and come up with some convincing maths to prove your case.

Wikipedia Entry

Another interesting document here.

The Apollo Guidance Computer: A Users View

You've already been given a link to build your own AGC - or you can run a virtual AGC on your own computer.

http://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/

Edited December 6, 2006 by Dave Greer

[Steve Ulman]

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

{edit to fix @#$%^&* bbcode}

Edited December 6, 2006 by Steve Ulman

[Duane Daman]

"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. "

Duane - You put this statement in quotes - please provide your source.

Oh, and by the way, I am also the Systems Administrator where I work, concetrated in Solid State and Microprocessor electronics in College and have studied computer science at the masters level. I would be very interested in having an intelligent discussion on this subject.

My information and quote came from these sites .

http://members.aol.com/painfulquestions/ApolloMoonHoax.pdf

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

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

[Evan Burton]

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 Daman]

"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 !

[Evan Burton]

"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.