You must be High on the desert, to think your on the moon.

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 

Yes We did.




posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by wayaboveitall
 



The whole 'Lander is tinfoil' myth is responsible for the idea that we were not tecknologically capable of it at the time, we were certainly proficient with atomic/nuclear tecknology 2 decades before ,and now 4 decades after, here we are.


Really? Was it the tinfoil/sheetmetal/paper look or was it possibly that the computers had less computing power then a casio watch from the 80's?

I would of gone with the computing power seeing as how they were trying to hit a target that if off by even the slightest bit would of meant coming back to the planet of the apes.

"Dave, just what is it you think you are doing?"...HAL9000



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by toreishi
 



Just to let you know about the Manhatten Project, Dr. Klaus Fuchs supplied the USSR with info for a long time, and maybe from the very begining of the project.

He was sentenced for 14 years in jail, and served 9. For this act of espionage.



[edit on 25-3-2010 by theability]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Which one of those four signatures are yours? I don't see Phage on there anywhere.

You were around 14 or 15 then right? Probably loved model rockets and Popular Mechanics and space was your dream. What happened? Why no experience, not education, but experience. Vicariously doesn't count Phage, can't you be honest with yourself?

A Sergent can out command a Lieutenant all day long. Though the Lieutenant has rank and education, if he is not experienced in battle all he will do is get you killed.

As I said in my op. Perhaps it is believing we can that is what is important, because wither we did or didn't, we aren't and won't in your or my lifetime.

I hope that if we did go, someday it can be proven to future generations who come upon the sites and see for themselves the accomplishments of that Generation and that those men would be granted the peace they brought to the moon "for all mankind".

Peace



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Something to remember...


All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true within itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

—Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X[1]


The big lie



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   
As for there being Mountains on the Earth that look like those on the Moon, I have to say I do believe they who responsible for us landing on the moon, [and the data supports we DID LAND ON THE MOON!]
has fake or prepared footage and photographs that are not genuine.

Again, though go read the TONS AND TONS of data about us going to the moon, it is there, if your willing to read.

Sure is amazing how controversy never ever dies!




posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 

I'm not sure what the capabilites of a Casio watch were in the 80's (maybe you can elucidate) but I'm pretty sure you're comparing apples to oranges.

The AGC was purpose built and was very sophisticated for its time. Thanks to its design and extremely talented programmers, it was fully capable of performing the necessary orbital calculations.


The real-time operating system in the Apollo 11 spacecraft could multi-task 8 jobs at a time, no small feat for the time it was developed, and something we take entirely for granted today. Multi-tasking however, wasn't quite as we now think of it. Today's operating systems use mostly preemptive-multitasking, where the operating system itself is in control of the execution and can stop any program at any time and hand off some computing power to another. The Apollo Guidance Computer relied on non-preemptive multi-tasking, whereby programs had to relinquish control back to the OS periodically.

The Apollo system also implemented a sophisticated virtual machine which offered more complex instructions, and could be used to perform more advanced mathematics. For it's time, this was way-out stuff in 2k of memory and 32k of storage. The real-time OS managed transition between native instructions and the instruction set of the virtual machine, which let developers mix and match the hardware level instructions with the virtual instructions within the same assembler code. The complexity of those operations is simply mind boggling for someone who grew up writing in any high-level language such as BASIC, Pascal or even C.

www.downloadsquad.com...



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


Intead of parroting bad information from "Moon Hoax" conspiracy sites, try to read and learn facts:

en.wikipedia.org...

AND, this:

www.downloadsquad.com...


NOW....you seriously don't think the Astronauts didn't have computing support from the ground, back on earth, do you??


Here:

www.computerweekly.com...


I suggest you read, and read, and hopefully learn......



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
Something to remember...


All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true within itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

—Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X[1]


The big lie


Thanks.
And coming from wiki.
Which might be full of lies.
From my point of view this gives new twists as A.H. is the big lie
advocate and the news of his death was another big one.
I figure he was alive at the Kennedy big lie of going to the Moon.
One reason why A.H. would want Kennedy out of the way for the
next ten years of funding for Operation Paperclip people.

Its so easy when you see things the big lie way.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


Intead of parroting bad information from "Moon Hoax" conspiracy sites, try to read and learn facts:

en.wikipedia.org...

AND, this:

www.downloadsquad.com...


NOW....you seriously don't think the Astronauts didn't have computing support from the ground, back on earth, do you??


Here:

www.computerweekly.com...


I suggest you read, and read, and hopefully learn......



What moon hoax sites do you suggest weed? The only sites I've used thus far is the JFK presidential library,Wikipedia and You tube. As far as the watch goes, I had heard that on more then one occasion that the computing power was less then that of a casio calculator watch made popular in the 80's. I have no site reference for that because as I said...I heard it.

Obviously they had Ground support...shesh!!

They had a producer, director, assistant directors, sound, gaffers, key grips, dolly operators, director of photography, set design, technical advisers, costume and 400000 nameless extras. It was a big production, so of course they had ground support. MTV would of been screwed otherwise.




I'm posting that link you put up because I find it amazing....


Comparing the Apollo Guidance Computer to an IBM PC XT

My first thought was how did the Apollo computer compare to the iPhone? It turns out that's a really tough comparison to make. The iPhone is so advanced compared to the computer used in Apollo's guidance system that it's hard to believe they both came from the same planet -- at roughly the same period in time when viewed in contrast to man's time line on Earth. To really make a comparison that makes much sense it's much easier to look at the home computers of the late 1970's and early 1980's.

Take Intel's venerable 8086 for example -- you might know it better as "x86". Released in 1979, just a decade after Apollo 11's trip to the Moon, the 8086's cousin, the 8088, formed the basis for the IBM PC we all know and love. When the IBM PC "XT" was released in 1981, the lowest end configuration had 8 times more memory than Apollo's Guidance Computer -- 16k, vs the Apollo's 2k. The read-only storage of the AGC was 32k,

The IBM PC XT also ran at a dizzying clock speed of 4.077MHz. That's 0.004077 GHz. The Apollo's Guidance Computer was a snail-like 1.024 MHz in comparison, and it's external signaling was half that -- actually measured in Hz (1/1000th of 1 MHz, much as 1 MHz is 1/1000 of 1 GHz).

Internally, the 8086 had 8 16-bit registers available to work with -- for those not familiar with the internals of a processor, a register is much like the numbers you'd keep in your head while doing math, and "memory" is more like scratch paper where you write things down for later use. The 8086 could keep track of 8 of those, the Apollo Guidance Computer held just 4. (The AGC also had a host of other non-general purpose registers, ranging from 1 to 16 bits in width, but it's difficult to compare those with the architecture of the 8086)

Regardless, we've established that we're dealing with some pretty archaic hardware. In many ways, the AGC was half the IBM PC XT you could buy off the shelf just a decade or so later. What's so incredible about that? The part that blew me away when reading up on the Apollo Guidance Computer wasn't so much the hardware, as the software they wrote to exploit it.

The Software

The real-time operating system in the Apollo 11 spacecraft could multi-task 8 jobs at a time, no small feat for the time it was developed, and something we take entirely for granted today. Multi-tasking however, wasn't quite as we now think of it. Today's operating systems use mostly preemptive-multitasking, where the operating system itself is in control of the execution and can stop any program at any time and hand off some computing power to another. The Apollo Guidance Computer relied on non-preemptive multi-tasking, whereby programs had to relinquish control back to the OS periodically.

The Apollo system also implemented a sophisticated virtual machine which offered more complex instructions, and could be used to perform more advanced mathematics. For it's time, this was way-out stuff in 2k of memory and 32k of storage. The real-time OS managed transition between native instructions and the instruction set of the virtual machine, which let developers mix and match the hardware level instructions with the virtual instructions within the same assembler code. The complexity of those operations is simply mind boggling for someone who grew up writing in any high-level language such as BASIC, Pascal or even C.

Keep in mind that the Apollo 11 was actually the advanced "Block II" version of the AGC, and that earlier missions had relied upon as little as 24k of core read-only storage, and 1k of main memory, and you can begin to imagine the power the developers who wrote the AGC's code must have felt.

Interface Design or What's this button thingy do?

Every computer has some sort of interface, whether it's just switches and blinking lights, or a complex GUI. The AGC was way closer to switches and blinking lights than you might imagine. Commands were entered in a combination of "verb noun pairs", which would be input as numbers -- translated into English on a painted sign in the spacecraft. When you listen to the tapes of the Apollo 11 landing, you can hear the Astronauts refer to nouns and verbs in talking with mission control back in Houston.

Error Messages

No computer would be complete without error messages, right? The AGC had those too, but when it flashed an error, it could easily mean you should kiss your ass goodbye and tell your loved-ones where you stored your last will and testament.

On the Apollo 11 mission for example, a crew mistake left one radar system on, while the landing crew used a second system to determine the distance to the ground. A "1201" error, and then a "1202" flashed causing enormous concern on the lander and back on Earth. The errors essentially meant the computer was taking in too much data to function, and left the crew in the lurch. It's said that Neil Armstrong was paying little attention to the rangefinders when he finally set the lander down on the surface, 4 miles from its intended target.

Patches. We don't need no stinking patches!

What would a good program be without upgrades? The crew of the Apollo 14 mission found out just how complicated their computer was when they were forced to patch the system code in-flight. A malfunctioning switch meant that the computer was receiving abort signals when no one was pushing the abort button! While orbiting the moon, NASA engineers devised an in-memory patch (all the systems code was stored in something we'd likely refer to as read-only memory. Unchangeable without physical upgrades) that the crew keyed in by hand. The error, patch authoring, and key-in was discovered, authored and programmed into the ship's computer in about 90 minutes. Think about that the next time you wait months for a simple upgrade!

So, when you think about all those amazing manned missions to the Moon, and what it took to get there, don't forget to ponder the blood, sweat and tears that went towards designing, building and programming the AGC. For the time, likely one of Man's greatest achievements. As I read earlier -- and can't find a source to attribute now -- one NASA engineer said later, had the complexities of the eventual AGC been understood when they began to design it, they likely never would have started, as they would have considered the computer far outside the available technology of the day.
Apollo Computing

Now is anyone going to talk to me about EME "Moon bounce"? I asked how can I verify NASA's claim that they were transmitting from the moon when they could of just as easily been shooting a signal at the moon? And again, how does this fare for Laser Ranging as you can use the whole moon as a reflector? Want to take a stab weed?



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
Something to remember...

The big lie


Thanks.
And coming from wiki.
Which might be full of lies.
From my point of view this gives new twists as A.H. is the big lie
advocate and the news of his death was another big one.
I figure he was alive at the Kennedy big lie of going to the Moon.
One reason why A.H. would want Kennedy out of the way for the
next ten years of funding for Operation Paperclip people.

Its so easy when you see things the big lie way.


Actually, not to get off of subject and not to stick up for Hitler, but "the big lie" is not a propaganda technique that was employed by Hitler. I did not post the full quote as it didn't apply here, but Hitler was referring to the Jewish banking cartels in Germany at the time.

Here is the full quote:


The source of Big Lie technique, from Chapter 10 of Mein Kampf:

But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute responsibility for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that hour of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsibility for the loss of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the Fatherland to Justice.
All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true within itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

—Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X[1]

In the chapter from Mein Kampf quoted above, Hitler accused "the Jews" of what he claimed was their use of the Big Lie.


Again, not supporting Hitler's actions, but history shouldn't be distorted by emotions. It's how we learn and I'd like to learn the truth then base my thoughts because every story has at least two sides and one can't be an effective judge without two witnesses. I know you appreciate the same Teslaandlyne and that is the only reason I stand to correct.

Peace

Peace



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra
So how would you address the 1/6th gravity and lack of atmosphere? Because there are things I see in the Apollo videos that cannot be done here on Earth.


Could you present authentic Apollo videos with these "cannot be done on Earth" things. Thanks.

[edit on 26.3.2010 by bokonon2010]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Yes, if you speed up the movies from the Moon things look like fall they way would on Earth. But did you notice how much longer the dust stays in the air in the Nevada video than it does in the Moon video (check around 1:00)? That's because there is air. In the moon video the dust just flops back to the surface.


Could you provide quantitative analysis of the alleged "moon" dynamics of the dust.
Thanks.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra
What about all the 400,000 people from various contracted companies who designed and built all the hardware. There were a lot of brilliant minds who worked on the Apollo program. Either they'd have to be all in on it or all fooled by the hoax. But I don't see either of those options happening.


Do you believe in WWII?
Some military operations like "Barbarossa" have more people involved and have the secrecy achieved. Explain, how it was possible.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
bla-bla-bla...
[edit on 22-3-2010 by Titen-Sxull]


Many words - no substance. Care do defend your thesis?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 26.3.2010 by bokonon2010]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damian-007
To actually fake it would have been a lot harder to do than actually doing it.


Prove it - either technology was not available or that it would be more expensive (with proper budget analysis).



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by bokonon2010
 


You have the gall to alter my post into "bla-bla-bla" and say my statements are without substance and yet your own post is only one line long


I've already defended my stance on the moon landing... and why should I have to anyway when the burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of those who believe it was a conspiracy or a hoax?

1) There is sufficient scientific evidence that we went to the moon including video, photographs, corner reflectors placed up there that we still reflect lasers off today, etc.

2) Simple logic proves that a hoax was not feasible while actually going there was. Years of research and billions in scientific funding went to help further our understanding of Space and design everything we needed to get to the moon. To build such things and then launch them into space empty and then merely shoot on a studio doesn't make sense.

3) Every claim made by moon landing conspiracy proponents has been proven to be false or irrelevant.

4) To date no legitimate scientific expert has come forth defending the moon landing hoax and the historical evidence for our journey to the moon has been accepted by everyone but a fringe of group of generally uneducated persons.

5) In order for it to have been a conspiracy thousands of scientists would have had to be in on it and furthermore every single scientist that wasn't in on it had to have been fooled. Also, we have been the moon with unmanned missions and orbiters since the landings and we have yet to find anything incongruous to what is shown in the Apollo film.

6) A logical motive for faking the moon landing cannot be established as there is no good reason to them to have risked faking it without attempting to get their legitimately first.

In the end it comes down to people who know what their talking about (experts) versus people who don't know what they're talking about (conspiracy proponents) and after looking at both sides only one side has overwhelming evidence to support its claim... that's the side that says we went to the moon.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damian-007
I doubt they had ever thought of Chromakeying in the Late Sixties. Furthermore I think the Computers they had back then would have been waaaay too slow for Chromakeying on the fly. Even if it was possible, Some people today can't Chromakey properly and you'd be able to pick it in the Moon Landing films if it was done which I think was impossible.


Think again, or try to read something about cinematography, or at least wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Jay Weidner's nonsense has been covered recently here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Phage's nonsense has been covered recently here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 26.3.2010 by bokonon2010]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra
The dust in the dune buggy videos looks like it's being affected by the air to me, where as there is only gravity affecting the dust in the LRV video.


It is only your visual impression. Show us a quantitative analysis for your claim.





new topics
top topics
 
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join