11 Mar
2013
11 Mar
'13
5:36 p.m.
On 3/11/2013 5:16 PM, Brent Hilpert wrote:
On 2013 Mar 11, at 3:29 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
Seeing as how we're straying into Apollo hoax territory, while
investigating this thread I ran across this:
http://www.aulis.com/pascal.htm
Following on Margaret Atwoods questioning of the Apollo missions on
the basis they didn't have adequate computers, this time some guy has
done an 'analysis' (term used verrrry loosely) of the AGC, based on
available documents, and declares that the AGC could never have worked.
The guy can make a nice web article with graphics and seems to have a
rudimentary knowledge of electronics (from web page: "[author] is a
computer engineer specialising in real-time systems"). He can identify
diode and transistor symbols and seems to know how these components
are 'supposed' to work, but all his points I examined display a basic
misunderstanding of electronics and the whole thing is utterly
incompetent. If you actually do have an understanding of electronics
you can read the article for a good laugh.
(Oh, what the hell. Better expressed in the colloquial: Despite his
supposed technical background, the guy is a moron who doesn't have a
clue what he is talking about.)
Do a little web surfing/research about Apollo and inevitably one ends
up at yet another Apollo-moon-landing-hoax-conspiracy site. And of
course these sites present themselves as being in the spirit of
"freethinking", "thinking differently", "questioning the status
quo",
or whatever.
Which are good things - when they are applied with some competence and
aren't just an expression of arrogance and ignorance.
You do have to love this crap. Send him to Colorado for whether it
could have worked.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/10/technology/circuits/10apol.html?_r=0
http://agcreplica.outel.org/
certainly proves the design did work though morons would still argue
that it could not have been fit in the capsule.
another interesting replica site:
http://users.on.net/~pcschmidt/AGC/AGCRep.html
or the simulator
http://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/
doesn't refute the idiots but as long as we are mentioning such.
I have looked into getting a DSKY made up with USB but got side tracked
by real work.
jim
They're not making it any more.
(They're not making moon trips any more either.)
It would probably be cheaper to just go there and film it on
location than to fake it on a Hollywood level sound stage.
Was that the REAL reason for the development of CGI?
(to save money on guvmint fake films)
Besides, why a SOUND stage? On the moon, nobody can hear you laugh.