Najak's Posts

[najak]

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.

"Easier" than creating custom hardware.  Easier to emulate with software.  They have 1000's of emulators today.  Much easier than what they did -- AND would have the added "benefit" of ANYONE being able to download their emulator and test it themselves.

They chose a harder route, and one where it's locked down to a single physical location.

[Grashtel]

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.

"Easier" than creating custom hardware.  Easier to emulate with software.  They have 1000's of emulators today.  Much easier than what they did -- AND would have the added "benefit" of ANYONE being able to download their emulator and test it themselves.

They chose a harder route, and one where it's locked down to a single physical location.

And they also made an emulator, which is even open source so you can go check it out https://github.com/virtualagc/virtualagc

Its amazing what intensive research like simply doing a Google search for "Apollo guidance computer emulator" can find

[najak]

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.

Downloaded his repo from Github, and having a look.  It is very old, targeted at WindowsXP/Vista era.

His readme makes this statement:
"The repository contains the actual assembly-language source code for the AGC, for as many missions as we've been able to acquire"  <== INCOMPLETE.

And:
"Virtual AGC is not a flight simulator, nor a lunar-lander simulator, nor even a behavioral simulation of the Apollo Lunar Module (LM)..."

So the setup is incomplete and abandoned.  In order to validate this meaningfully, need a "Complete set of source code" as well as emulated components - and a simulation script of various feeds.

This is all stuff the would have HAD to do in 1968+ to validate it's operation/functionality/performance.

I saw a video a few months back of some young guy in a lab with a "full hardware setup" and data feeds to emulate more of the mission.  Not sure where that video is now, have you seen it?  This was the situation where "whatever they did for this setup" would have been immensely easier as a downloadable/shareable emulator suite...

CONCLUSION: There still exists no sufficient platform for validating this AGC and it's software.

So despite my cursory educated assessment - there's nothing I can viably prove here.   So I'll keep my focus on the Physics, mostly.

[JayUtah]

So the setup is incomplete and abandoned.

Yeah, he moved on to actual hardware.

In order to validate this meaningfully, need a "Complete set of source code" as well as emulated components - and a simulation script of various feeds.

Yeah, which Mike went on to do and you didn't, documenting everything on his YouTube channel and presenting it to professionals. So why does your brief, incomplete skimming of the code matter? You did nothing and you're all out of ideas.

[JayUtah]

This is all stuff the would have HAD to do in 1968+ to validate it's operation/functionality/performance.

Yes, there was an emulator back in the day. The software and hardware for Apollo has been documented in several books. The people who wrote the software still write and tour today. It is one of the most copiously documented portions of the Apollo missions. Yet you come along and after casually perusing the code on paper, you can determine that it wouldn't have worked.

The sheer arrogance...

[najak]

You did nothing and you're all out of ideas.

I've got ideas that you are scared for me to put into the spotlight.  New Topics, that you don't want others to see.

[JayUtah]

I've got ideas that you are scared for me to put into the spotlight.  New Topics, that you don't want others to see.

Nonsense. Here's a person who wrote an emulator many years ago for the AGC. Then he spent several subsequent years acquiring hardware to simulate the various parts of the spacecraft. Then when a derelict AGC frame became available, he spend years and tons of money restoring it to full functionality. And he documented the whole process on YouTube. And then he toured all of that around the country for people who were quite well equipped to expose him if he were lying.

You perused the code and missed most of the important parts. You're not dangerous. You're not even relevant.

[najak]

I've got ideas that you are scared for me to put into the spotlight.  New Topics, that you don't want others to see.

AGC point is moot.  I spent a few hours on it, drew a PRELIMINARY professional conclusion... and then correctly concluded that "trying to prove anything about this will be a waste of time."  So I smartly moved on to things that are more feasible to prove.

You are afraid for me to present these other ideas, of the non-debunked nature.

This ruins your beloved false/dishonest claim that "We've debunked ALL of the MLH theories." - This is a lie.

[JayUtah]

AGC point is moot.

No, it isn't. You brought it up and declared it to deficient.

I spent a few hours on it, drew a PRELIMINARY professional conclusion... and then correctly concluded that "trying to prove anything about this will be a waste of time."

You rendered an opinion out of ignorance. You have no significant experience with the code base or the architecture, and you sneered at those who do. The problem is that this is not an isolated incident. Nearly all your presentations here are opinions rendered in ignorance.

You are afraid for me to present these other ideas, of the non-debunked nature.

This ruins your beloved false/dishonest claim that "We've debunked ALL of the MLH theories." - This is a lie.

I agree with my colleagues. You really need to get over yourself.