11 Mar
2013
11 Mar
'13
5:16 p.m.
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.
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.