Najak's Posts

[LunarOrbit]

So you're saying that you don't like it when someone self-declares victory?

I don't like it when a forum claiming to be "truth-loving and unbiased" has overseers who use their administrative powers against the opposition.

You can declare self-victory all you want -- but THIS forum is supposed to be "Neutral", right?  Instead, it's operating more like the Salem Witch Trials.

I don't mind Apollogists expressing their convictions - and don't even blame them for it - no matter how wrong I may think their conclusions are.

We are firmly on the side of logic and truth. If you can't handle pushback or questioning you are in the wrong forum.

That report card is the truth as I see it. That's all that matters, right? Why is it okay for you to declare your ideas to be the 100% undisputed truth, but not for me to do the same thing?

[onebigmonkey]

@LunarOrbit, your account of what happened here isn't accurate, IMO.  Not even close.

I'd like to see some "neutral eyes" examine the debates, and see if they agree with your assessments of me.

This is being run much like the "Salem Witch Trials", where many of them were just Quakers are on Trial because they lead some of the Puritans astray.   No matter the reality - they are given an "F" and condemned/dismissed.

Even smart minds behave in this fashion when their worldviews are being threatened.  Both the Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims - have their fair share of very smart people...  and both will respond to challenges against their Holy Book, in this same fashion.   It's human wiring.

I was hoping for better, and still hold out that hope.  So far, this is just proving to be an Echo Chamber, like the room full of Puritans condemning the Quaker as a witch.

This response is typical of your mistaken belief (one common to many people who have fallen for the moon hoax claims) that the people who defend Apollo are doing so out of ignorance and blind belief, rather than decades of researching the subject and finding no substance in any of the claims made by the hoax believers.

My 'belief' in the historical fact of Apollo has nothing to do with blind faith, it's informed by facts, understanding and knowledge. All gained over 20 years or more of looking at the subject.

Waltzing into a forum whose main purpose is to defend the Apollo missions, assuming you are the only person who has ever looked at the subject, knows better than everyone else, and accusing people of blindly following some form of thought free group think is insulting to the members here.

tl:dr - get over yourself.

[bknight]

Didn't najak state that the AGC code wouldn't work or something in the same vein?  I'm not going back over several dozen pages to find it, does anyone remember that?

[JayUtah]

Didn't najak state that the AGC code wouldn't work or something in the same vein?  I'm not going back over several dozen pages to find it, does anyone remember that?

Yes. He said the software was not "capable," and did not elaborate beyond citing his lifetime of software experience. Then he said he thought it would not be possible to prove its non-capability to "non-software people," and left it at that.

[Mag40]

Didn't najak state that the AGC code wouldn't work or something in the same vein?  I'm not going back over several dozen pages to find it, does anyone remember that?

Yes. He said the software was not "capable," and did not elaborate beyond citing his lifetime of software experience. Then he said he thought it would not be possible to prove its non-capability to "non-software people," and left it at that.

That's on the Bingo card. It's taking shape. I have to confess though I doctored the card - I have removed 2 rare things and added "petrified wood" and "flags" So close to a line now.

[najak]

Yes. He said the software was not "capable," and did not elaborate beyond citing his lifetime of software experience. Then he said he thought it would not be possible to prove its non-capability to "non-software people," and left it at that.

I still believe this.  But the proof is long and incomplete.  72KB of machine instructions is hard to explain...  Do they have the full-up EMULATOR online?  If so, then I'd have an easier time making this proof.  Without an emulator to "run" and "monitor/watch" - all of my time spent on this would be futile.   ALREADY Apollogists reject even the Simple Physics proofs.  So I'll stick with "simpler stuff" for now.

[JayUtah]

72KB of machine instructions is hard to explain...

To whom? According to whom?

Do they have the full-up EMULATOR online?  If so, then I'd have an easier time making this proof.  Without an emulator to "run" and "monitor/watch" - all of my time spent on this would be futile.

Agreed, which is why the apparent fact that you haven't run any of the code in any way means your efforts so far have likely been futile and that your beliefs so far are poorly founded. You believe the code is not "capable," and you persist in that belief despite any proof. What have you done so far to support your belief that the program code is not "capable?"

ALREADY Apollogists reject even the Simple Physics proofs.

No. We point out that your simplistic understanding of the relevant physics is not sufficient to support your claims. Since you have overstated your expertise in support of your other claims, it is reasonable to suppose you might be overstating your expertise for this claim too.

So I'll stick with "simpler stuff" for now.

You claim software is your core competency, while such things as rocket science clearly aren't. Why are you avoiding your core competency and instead dabbling in sciences you're just now learning? Why did you seem to assume that no one here would be competent to evaluate your claims regarding software?

[najak]

You claim software is your core competency, while such things as rocket science clearly aren't. Why are you avoiding your core competency and instead dabbling in sciences you're just now learning? Why did you seem to assume that no one here would be competent to evaluate your claims regarding software?

Without emulators - this proof is non-feasible / futile.  With a full test setup that I can control the inputs, I could measure it's ability to conduct real-time calcs for navigation and attitude control, thrust control - while conducting it's other running tasks.   I would enjoy this -- BUT -- there is no test setup for this to enable this type of a proof.

However, for PHYSICS, NASAX had their work cut out for them... it's very difficult to emulate 1/6th gravity accurately and consistently.

Physics has the advantage of being "Visual" and use simple Newtonian equations to demonstrate "unpredicted behavior" - and some irrefutably so, and to date, have NOT BEEN DEBUNKED.

This threatens Apollogetics who really love to (dishonestly) say "We've Debunked ALL MLH claims"... when they clearly have not.  They simply bury the claims that they cannot debunk.

[JayUtah]

Without emulators - this proof is non-feasible / futile.

So what did you do to support your assessment that the AGC computer code was not "capable?"

[najak]

So what did you do to support your assessment that the AGC computer code was not "capable?"

Experience.  A few hours looking at the code, looking for algorithms that could "auto-pilot a spacecraft while maintaining attitude control".  Inclusion of feedback loop for attitude control.  Inclusion of "math to predict RCS response based on a changing Inertia Moment" (as fuel is used up, or AM vs. LM).   Inclusion of Mascons, which cause a variance in steady-state orbital altitude by up to 7 nm, every 2 hours, and the impact this might have. 

Lots of missing stuff.  So then I stopped, because I knew this would be "hard-to-prove" and so futile.

43KHz speed for low-level instructions - doesn't help.   4KB RAM doesn't help.    Archaic Computing tech doesn't help.

So without emulators - this is all just "unprovable suppositions" -- so a waste of my time.   No fruit can be born from this without emulation of the system, including theoretical inputs from the dozens of other electronic sensors and devices attached.

[JayUtah]

Experience.

What experience do you have with the Apollo Guidance Computer? What experience do you have with any missile guidance systems?

Lots of missing stuff.

Well, some of that stuff is based on what you think a spaceship should need, which we've already found to be deficient. Why do you think I keep asking you how many actual spacecraft you've worked on? And some of the stuff like jet control is right there, so I guess you didn't really look very hard.

So then I stopped, because I knew this would be "hard-to-prove" and so futile.

So you skimmed the code written for an obscure architecture without running any of it and without a correct knowledge of the problems it was trying to solve and simply concluded that it wouldn't work. I'm glad you don't write software for me.

43KHz speed for low-level instructions - doesn't help.   4KB RAM doesn't help.    Archaic Computing tech doesn't help.

Yeah, these are the standard vague claims. You still haven't dealt with the fact that well-known people have run the actual code on the actual hardware and seen that it works. Funny how people who put in more work than you arrive at the conventional narrative.

[bknight]

So what did you do to support your assessment that the AGC computer code was not "capable?"

Experience.  A few hours looking at the code, looking for algorithms that could "auto-pilot a spacecraft while maintaining attitude control".  Inclusion of feedback loop for attitude control.  Inclusion of "math to predict RCS response based on a changing Inertia Moment" (as fuel is used up, or AM vs. LM).   Inclusion of Mascons, which cause a variance in steady-state orbital altitude by up to 7 nm, every 2 hours, and the impact this might have. 

Lots of missing stuff.  So then I stopped, because I knew this would be "hard-to-prove" and so futile.

43KHz speed for low-level instructions - doesn't help.   4KB RAM doesn't help.    Archaic Computing tech doesn't help.

What speed do you "think" was available in a portable size to go to the Moon, how much memory do you think it needs, because those dumb ole boys at MIT cut it down to the bare minimum.  I like to see you attempt that.

So without emulators - this is all just "unprovable suppositions" -- so a waste of my time.   No fruit can be born from this without emulation of the system, including theoretical inputs from the dozens of other electronic sensors and devices attached.

You are way in over your head lecturing Jay.

[najak]

You still haven't dealt with the fact that well-known people have run the actual code on the actual hardware and seen that it works. Funny how people who put in more work than you arrive at the conventional narrative.

It would have been easier to simply create the emulator for this AGC.  Instead of dealing with antique custom hardware - simply make an emulator that matches the specs, and runs the code.

But they chose to do something in a way that "only a few people get to see".   Sounds par for the course for Apollo.

If they created the emulator instead -- MANY could test it, and validate it -- but this could reveal a truth they want to keep hidden.  So nope, let's do something very isolated.

Where is this "AGC simulation" - I'd like to take a field trip and spend a few days on it.  Measure the performance, see the task management in process -- if they'd permit me.

[ApolloEnthusiast]

It would have been easier to simply create the emulator for this AGC.  Instead of dealing with antique custom hardware - simply make an emulator that matches the specs, and runs the code.

But they chose to do something in a way that "only a few people get to see".   Sounds par for the course for Apollo.

If they created the emulator instead -- MANY could test it, and validate it -- but this could reveal a truth they want to keep hidden.  So nope, let's do something very isolated.

What am I missing here? You say it would be easy to do something that is inside your field of expertise, and you believe that this emulator will allow you to prove the hoax you believe in. So, make the emulator? Again, what am I missing? This sounds like exactly the type of homework you should be able to complete.

[JayUtah]

It would have been easier to simply create the emulator for this AGC.

Yeah, Mike Stewart did that many years ago. It was incorporated into a version of Orbiter that let you run the Apollo missions. It's on the ibiblio site that you were directed to and promptly ignored.

Instead of dealing with antique custom hardware...

The project was to rebuild and demonstrate both. The project wasn't to validate the software.

But they chose to do something in a way that "only a few people get to see".   Sounds par for the course for Apollo.

You mean like following the whole project on YouTube and touring it around the country at professional conferences? Yeah, real cloak-and-dagger stuff there.

Where is this "AGC simulation"...

If you're interested in Mike Stewart's work, contact him.

You keep telling me what's necessary to know whether the software worked or not. And I tend to agree: the software we produce at my company relies heavily on simulation strategies for validation. That's why I'm so very interested in how you were able to figure out that it didn't work just by skimming the code and obviously overlooking a lot of it.