Author Topic: Faking the moon landings  (Read 29170 times)

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1396
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #480 on: August 06, 2019, 02:09:01 AM »
Aaaaand we're back for with another tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Lots of fancy words but no substance, just the same tired old tropes about not having hardware, only doing LEO stuff, not a big enough computer, all stuff that that sounds impressive in the bedroom mirror but means absolutely zilch. Blah blah blah.

The AGC was what is now referred to as a thin client.

Look it up.

Most of the grunt work was done by a basement sized machine back on the ground.

Apolo didn't just happen, it took years of work and planning with the financial backing of politicians. When the US is prepared to put its money where its mouth is, it might get to the moon again. In the meantime it can just watch in admiration as India and China do the exploring. India and China would be the countries that photographed evidence of human activity on the moon.

No-one destroyed any hardware. They put it in museums and shelved the blueprints. It's all there for anyone to examine and look at. Claiming it was destroyed is just swallowing the BS of ignorant hoax nuts.

You want evidence that proves we went? You've been given plenty but chosen to ignore it. Maybe it was all tl:dr. Have something less attention span sapping:





Next time you submit an essay, put it in on time, use references and stick to the subject. This was is late, lacking in source material and wanders all over the place.

Offline molesworth

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 196
  • the curse of st custards
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #481 on: August 06, 2019, 02:27:37 AM »
I was going to write a point-by-point rebuttal, but I doubt any of it would sink in.  Besides, there are people far better qualified than me to do that.

I can summarise however - cambo's latest diatribe is wrong on almost every technical, economic and political point.  It's strawmanning every area of the Apollo programme, and then arguing against said straw men.

It's almost as if he hasn't done any research...
Days spent at sea are not deducted from one's allotted span - Phoenician proverb

Offline raven

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1462
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #482 on: August 06, 2019, 03:35:48 AM »
Quote from: cambo
If you believe that fifty years ago, a big rocket and a shitty computer with a 1.024 MHz processor, 2k memory and 32k storage was enough to launch men into space and navigate to and land on the moon and then take off again and dock with the command module and then navigate back to earth, then you are simply deluded.
Please, elaborate then, on what kind of computational power is needed to put a person on the moon?
The good folks of this forum are, by and large, quite technically inclined and literate, so, please, elucidate on this point: what would be required. Show your work. I am curious and would be deeply interested in your answer.

Offline ApolloEnthusiast

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 32
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #483 on: August 06, 2019, 05:11:21 AM »
Hey Cambo...what is, in your opinion, the strongest piece of "evidence" that lead you to believe in the hoax nonsense? Just one please..the one that you think is the absolute strongest and the most solid

It has to be the fact that not one other country has attempted to send humans out into deep space, not even a trip around the moon and back.
Why did they keep going back there every few months, when the job of beating the Russians had already been accomplished?
Do you recognize the inherent problem with claiming that the strongest evidence for a hoax is that no one has gone back, and in the very next paragraph using the fact that they did go back as evidence for the hoax?

I ask this question because I'm curious about whether you have been successfully manipulated by people smarter than you using these types of rhetorical gimmicks or if you are actually trying to manipulate people who are smarter than you.

Put more simply, do you honestly not realize that all of the "evidence" you're presenting doesn't stand up under even a small amount of scrutiny, or do you know you're wrong?

Offline Zakalwe

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #484 on: August 06, 2019, 05:13:21 AM »
Hey Cambo...what is, in your opinion, the strongest piece of "evidence" that lead you to believe in the hoax nonsense? Just one please..the one that you think is the absolute strongest and the most solid

It has to be the fact that not one other country has attempted to send humans out into deep space, not even a trip around the moon and back.

Thanks for replying.

OK, I've deleted all of the gish-gallop to focus on this one point that in your own words is your strongest piece of evidence.

Why would the claim that something hasn't been repeated invalidate the original act? Lets use an extreme example...you were born at a specific time and date. This exact occurrence will never ever happen again. Using your "logic" it is reasonable to claim that you don't exist and never had existed. Now, clearly that is a nonsense claim and you would be right to guffaw in my direction if I was to claim such a thing. Yet this is exactly the premise of your absolute strongest and most solid piece of "evidence".

Lets be clear here, your very existence totally invalidates the claim that just because something hasn't been repeated it is therefore fake.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2019, 05:17:16 AM by Zakalwe »
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline Allan F

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 888
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #485 on: August 06, 2019, 07:46:08 AM »

Quote from: cambo
If you believe that fifty years ago, a big rocket and a shitty computer with a 1.024 MHz processor, 2k memory and 32k storage was enough to launch men into space and navigate to and land on the moon and then take off again and dock with the command module and then navigate back to earth, then you are simply deluded.

Actually, it wasn't the shitty computer, which controlled the rocket going into space. It had a separate guidance system. Also, the "shitty computer" didn't navigate at all, bigger and better computers ON EARTH did that. And then transmitted instructions to the computers onboard. What the "shitty computer" did, was FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS transmitted from Earth. That got the spacecraft to the moon and into orbit. Following instructions.

The other "shitty computer" then guided the LM down to the surface - by following a set of preplanned maneuvers. Changes in the programme were triggered by certain events, like the radar returning certain values for altitude, and the inertial navigation system reaching certain values for velocity.

The "shitty computer" then, triggered to start the ascent at a specific exact time, guided the ascent stage back into lunar orbit, by executing a series of preplanned maneuvers. Not much computing power needed, to do this.

Please look into how the missions were ACTUALLY performed, before you cry "fake". Your own LACK OF UNDERSTANDING AND KNOWLEDGE is NOT evidence, not even an argument against the reality of the Apollo moon landings. It is only evidence of your intellectual laziness.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2019, 07:47:43 AM by Allan F »
Well, it is like this: The truth doesn't need insults. Insults are the refuge of a darkened mind, a mind that refuses to open and see. Foul language can't outcompete knowledge. And knowledge is the result of education. Education is the result of the wish to know more, not less.

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1826
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #486 on: August 06, 2019, 11:21:57 AM »
Even at the time, there were people who were mad that as much was spent on Apollo as was.  People thought the money could better be spent on Earth (neglecting to understand, of course, that they didn't just fire the money out into space, and that every penny of it was spent on Earth and provided jobs and so forth) and wanted the program scrapped in favour of practically anything else, the "something else" varying depending on the particular hobbyhorse of the person in question.  Getting the political will to keep funding the program once Nixon wanted it scrapped simply wasn't there. 

Frankly, if there were a single "powers that be" running things, human history would have a lot fewer things like "going to the Moon and then never going back," because the reason the program was scrapped was Nixon's hatred of Kennedy and Johnson.  He couldn't cancel it before Apollo 11, but he sure as hell cancelled it as quickly as he reasonably could after.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline molesworth

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 196
  • the curse of st custards
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #487 on: August 07, 2019, 02:48:24 AM »
Just to add a couple of points...

Firstly, not going back for many years after the last Apollo mission means nothing.  Look at the exploration of Antarctica in the early 20th Century - there was a gap of 45 years between the last exploratory expeditions to the South Pole and the return and creation of a permanent base.

Secondly, the computing systems used for various part of the mission were certainly not inadequate, or insufficient.  Take a look back at e.g. early games consoles and home computers.  They had roughly the same computing power and yet could run quite complex games and graphics with very slow processors and not much RAM.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that because we use (comparatively) very powerful computers nowadays, earlier ones weren't up to the job.
Days spent at sea are not deducted from one's allotted span - Phoenician proverb

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1681
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #488 on: August 07, 2019, 06:42:45 AM »
Secondly, the computing systems used for various part of the mission were certainly not inadequate, or insufficient.  Take a look back at e.g. early games consoles and home computers.  They had roughly the same computing power and yet could run quite complex games and graphics with very slow processors and not much RAM.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that because we use (comparatively) very powerful computers nowadays, earlier ones weren't up to the job.

This is really important to keep in mind.

Firstly, the space navigation calculations to send Apollo 11 to the moon, and land, and ascend, and return to earth were already done before the spacecraft ever lifted off; a number of mathematicians led by Katherine J. Johnson did the calculations, and Margaret Hamilton (who must surely have been one of the world's first software engineers) led the effort to turn the calculations into a program. Space navigation is a math problem; it can be very easily run on a simple computer. It requires nowhere near as much computer power as running a rudimentary graphics program.

Secondly, even when things didn't quite go right, and when the Apollo crew wanted something checked, the "back-up computer" was a bunch of guys at consoles in Houston armed with slide rules!

https://www.businessinsider.com/space-travel-relied-on-slide-rule-2015-2?IR=T

Interesting aside



LEFT: Software Engineer Margaret Hamilton in 1969 standing beside a pile of printouts of the code she helped create to get Apollo 11 to the moon and back.

RIGHT: Fifty years later, Computer Scientist Dr. Katie Bouman embracing a bunch of HDD stacks that allowed the Event Horizon team to get first "photograph" of the black hole at the centre of our galaxy.

This is the sort of juxtaposition that reminds me of Kubrick's "four million year jump cut" from 2001 A Space Odyssey


► What you can assert without evidence, I can dismiss without evidence
► When you argue with idiots you risk being dragged down to their level and beaten with experience.
► Conspiracism is a shortcut to the illusion of erudition

Offline jfb

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 208
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #489 on: August 07, 2019, 10:47:49 AM »
Hey Cambo...what is, in your opinion, the strongest piece of "evidence" that lead you to believe in the hoax nonsense? Just one please..the one that you think is the absolute strongest and the most solid

It has to be the fact that not one other country has attempted to send humans out into deep space, not even a trip around the moon and back.

Manned spaceflight ain't cheap.  Manned spaceflight beyond Earth orbit is even more ain't cheap.  The Apollo program cost over $280 billion in 2019 dollars, and at its peak received like 4% total federal budget.  Not many countries are in a position to devote that much of their resources to an effort that, frankly, has little direct payoff.   

There is currently no practical benefit in sending people to the Moon.  None.  There is no ROI that makes the effort worth the cost.  You get some prestige, you show off your repurposed ICBMs to your geopolitical adversaries, but that's pretty much it.  Like the man said, we did it because it was hard, but having done it, there's no real good reason to do it again. 

Unmanned missions, sure, everyone is sending unmanned probes to the Moon.  We've sent a number of orbiters, China's landed two probes on the surface (including a rover), Israel attempted to land a small probe (which failed, unfortunately), India's sent an orbiter to the Moon.  There's plenty of activity on the unmanned side because you don't need to build a monster rocket to do it. 
Quote

Years back, the Americans were planning to do this very thing until Obama said to hell with that, let’s go to Mars. Then Trump came along and said no, let’s keep it simple and do the moon thing again, but NASA said we aren’t ready yet. I was hoping that Trump would rumble their little game and give their arses a good kicking, but it’s looking like he’s just another puppet in a long line of puppets, at the beck and call of the real people running the show.

We're not going to get into the whole history of the Constellation and then SLS debacles, except to say that SLS has never had a real mission.  There was no exploration program that required SLS be built in the first place - the Mars and asteroid redirect missions were desperate post hoc justifications to hide the fact that SLS is little more than a welfare program to keep the old Shuttle workforce employed and give several NASA offices something to do.  The primary purpose of SLS is to funnel federal dollars to the districts of several powerful Congressmen - actually launching something is a nice side benefit, but not necessary. 

If anything positive comes out of this *********** of an administration, it's that Trump hired Brindenstine to run NASA, and that Brindenstine is lighting a fire under the SLS program to get the goddamned thing flying already.  To his credit, he's decoupled the vehicle from the Artemis program - if SLS can't be made ready by 2024, he'll look at commercial vehicles to do the job instead.  SpaceX hopes to have their orbital Spaceship prototypes flying later this year, and may be in a position to send one to the Moon in the next couple of years.   

Quote
Until recently, why has no other country at least thought about doing it just the once?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$.  As in, too goddamned much of. 

Quote
The Russians gave up because they were apparently incapable of designing a rocket that was up to the task and their special FX were naff, but It was a piece of cake for the Americans back then, and even after the alleged near tragedy of Apollo 13, they went ahead with another four missions. Why did they keep going back there every few months, when the job of beating the Russians had already been accomplished? NASA say they travelled to and from the moon nine times in less than four years, and all they did was bring back more moon rocks.

It was anything but a piece of cake - it took years, many millions of dollars, and several lives to get to the surface of the Moon.  It was a Herculean engineering effort that almost didn't work.  There were glitches and anomalies on every flight, some severe.  11 overshot its landing site and had the 1202 program alarms, 12 got struck by lightning on launch and almost had to abort, 13 had an engine shut down during launch and then had the O2 tank blow up, 14 almost aborted the landing due to a piece of loose solder floating around behind a control panel, on and on and on.  It wasn't easy.  It only worked because literally thousands of very smart and very dedicated people devoted a good chunk of their lives to make it work. 
 
Quote
A reflector went up with Apollo 11, so why the need for more reflectors?

Redundancy.  If the first reflector got knocked over or covered by dust from liftoff, they'd know to place subsequent reflectors further away. 

Quote
The camera conveniently broke on Apollo 12, probably because Kubrick had pissed off to start work on A Clockwork Orange and then we had the Apollo 13 near disaster to buy them more time while they perfected their special FX and a couple of missions later, someone came up with the novel idea of taking a car along.

You're nowhere near as cute as you think you are. 

The Apollo missions followed an incremental path, each building on the previous.  There were several unmanned launches to shake out the hardware in Earth orbit.  7 was a manned test of the CSM alone in Earth orbit.  8 was a manned test of the CSM alone in lunar orbit (it was supposed to test the LM in Earth orbit, but the first LM was way behind schedule, so this turned into a lunar orbit flight and a bit of a PR stunt).  9 was a manned test of the CSM and LM in Earth orbit.  10 was a manned test of the CSM and LM in Lunar orbit.  11 was a test of lunar landing and launch.  12 was a test of precision lunar landing and launch.  13 was supposed to be the first "real" mission in terms of science objectives, but we know how that turned out.  14 basically completed 13's mission. 

15, 16, and 17 were the full-up science missions, necessitating the LRV to reach sites far away from the LM. 

This stuff was all planned, in great detail, right from the beginning.  Nothing was arbitrarily added midway through. 

Quote
Do you really believe that the Russians simply lost interest and gave up because they were beaten to the moon by a country that had always played second fiddle to them in space until the magic of Apollo?

Yes.  The Soviets squandered their lead by, well, being Soviets and demanding that engineering take a back seat to politics (which is where the US is now).  It also didn't help that Korolev decided to test the N1 by building the full stack and lighting it without doing smaller-scale tests first. They wound up falling years behind (I remember seeing that their first landing was on pace for 1975 or something like that).  And yeah, once the US succeeded, the Soviets decided those rubles were better spent elsewhere. The USSR's economy was never that strong, and trying to keep up with the US in the arms race effectively bankrupted them. 

Quote
How can you possibly accept the fact that no other country has ever had the spare change to develop the technology and do a couple of unmanned missions to test the hardware, followed by a single trip around the moon, when in reality, every country with a space program would be falling over each other to replicate a feat that had already been performed multiple times with apparent ease?

Enough with the "apparent ease" crap.  Apollo wasn't easy.  It was incredibly difficult and stupid expensive, and had no payoff except national pride.  It takes incredible political willpower to make something like that happen.  Hell, we didn't even finish the program as originally envisioned - there were at least 3 more missions that were planned, but Nixon and Congress couldn't wait to kill it. 

Quote
But more importantly, why is it taking so long for NASA to go back? They stopped going to the moon, only because public interest had waned, then destroyed the technology

The tooling and pad infrastructure were destroyed, but there are spacecraft and rockets that were built but never flew since their missions were canceled.  They're not in flyable condition due to age, but they're still around.

Quote

 that got them there and decided to circle the earth for the next five decades doing what? They apparently achieved so much in ten years and then threw it all away to do countless meaningless experiments in LEO and a few back flips for the cameras. The Vietnam War cost the US tax payers an estimated 168 billion dollars, which is around a trillion dollars in today’s money, while Apollo cost a measly 25 billion, so you can stick your money excuse where the sun don’t shine.

There's always money for war.  There's almost never money for space exploration.  That's where our priorities are. 
You keep ignoring political considerations when you keep asking why we haven't done it again.  The simple answer is that we don't want to - we're not willing to commit the resources.  Yeah, we're building a big-ass rocket, but that's because certain powerful members of Congress see that as a way to keep jobs in their districts. 

Quote
2024 is the current date planned for the next manned moon landing, but at the moment there is apparently not enough funding, even though I’m guessing it’ll end up being a joint effort, as they’ll all want in on the “act”. The rockets aren’t ready, the new space station is still on the drawing board and because the plans were destroyed for the original lander, which apparently worked almost flawlessly, they now have to find someone to design and build a new one from scratch. So much for the theory that the plans are hidden away somewhere on microfilm, as whoever wins the contract could’ve simply updated the old one.

Jesus, so much wrong.

SLS isn't ready because a) NASA's manned side has lost its ability to manage large projects, and b) Congress is funding it at a level such that it keeps people employed, but not enough to build at more than a snail's pace. 

SLS was sold on the promise of being Shuttle-derived - basically take existing Shuttle hardware (external tank, engines, solid boosters), tweak and reconfigure it, build a quickie upper stage, and theoretically that would take less time and money than a completely new, clean-sheet design.  Except, that isn't what they did - they extensively modified the design, requiring all new equipment to build and test it.  About the only thing that's carried over as-is are the engines.  Those lovely, expensive, exquisitely engineered reusable engines that are going to be tossed in the ocean after each launch now. 

Quote
By the sound of it, 2024 isn’t a realistic goal if they are actually planning to do it this time around, but with CGI being so advanced now, I suspect we will see it go ahead as planned, as they won’t need to use ultra-low quality footage to try and mask the fakery. I took my youngest granddaughter to see the new Dumbo movie, but I made the mistake of telling her the elephant wasn’t real and she now thinks I’m an idiot (try and keep the sarcasm to a minimum). I don’t blame her, as these upcoming moon landings are going to look very real to most people and it may be extremely difficult this time around, to find visual evidence that could cast doubt on their authenticity.

Again, not as clever as you think you are. 

Quote
It was made to look like a walk in the park back then, as we had astronauts hopping, dancing, singing and falling over, seemingly without a care in the world. For most, it takes a few beers while on holiday to act in such a childish manner, but that’s showbiz for you I suppose. If you believe that fifty years ago, a big rocket and a shitty computer with a 1.024 MHz processor, 2k memory and 32k storage was enough to launch men into space and navigate to and land on the moon and then take off again and dock with the command module and then navigate back to earth, then you are simply deluded. But if you also accept that it’s ok to go nearly half a century and still not have the means to emulate an achievement that is fast becoming ancient history, then you are beyond delusional. You are asleep.

Here's the thing - there are people who are smarter than you.  Your inability to conceive of how a thing can be done doesn't mean it can't be done.

Quote
I fear for Trump’s safety as he has not only given NASA an unrealistic goal to put men on the moon within five years, but he has also challenged the military to create a space force, which has to involve NASA, and we all know what happens to presidents who challenge NASA to do the impossible.

That is probably the dumbest f***ing thing you've said to date, and God knows that's a high bar to clear. Seriously, dude, you are an idiot.  Moron.  Jackass. 

Quote
So go on Zakalwe, what, in your own opinion is the strongest piece of evidence that has brought you to believe in this Apollo nonsense? Just the one please. The one that is least likely to make me fall of my chair with laughter. I’ll be back in a few months to read your reply.

Let's go with samples from the Lunar surface that have been examined by a couple of generations of planetary scientists from institutions all over the world. 

Offline Allan F

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 888
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #490 on: August 07, 2019, 10:57:09 AM »
The software in those days were written in machine language, which is much more compact, fast and DIFFICULT to troubleshoot. Within a few hundred bytes of code, you can have all kinds of things going on, which would require hundreds of kilobytes in a compiled language. I've dabbled in machine code programming myself, many years ago. You should look to the demo scene, especially the socalled 4K demos for the C64. There you'll see what a machine coder can do with limited resources.



This demo uses a clever trick, I myself discovered (but others have found it before me). By using the "Load xxx,8,1" command, you load the programme into memory at a specific location defined in the programme itself. The first two bytes in the file specify the address where the programme should be loaded. In this case, the programme loads the third and fourth bytes into a register, which tells the computer to execute the code specified by those two bytes, when loading is completed. Very clever.


ETA: 4K demo means 4 kilobytes of data - the entire demo including sound and graphics and everything is 4096 bytes or less.
Well, it is like this: The truth doesn't need insults. Insults are the refuge of a darkened mind, a mind that refuses to open and see. Foul language can't outcompete knowledge. And knowledge is the result of education. Education is the result of the wish to know more, not less.

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1681
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #491 on: August 07, 2019, 10:36:44 PM »
The software in those days were written in machine language, which is much more compact, fast and DIFFICULT to troubleshoot. Within a few hundred bytes of code, you can have all kinds of things going on, which would require hundreds of kilobytes in a compiled language. I've dabbled in machine code programming myself, many years ago. You should look to the demo scene, especially the socalled 4K demos for the C64. There you'll see what a machine coder can do with limited resources.

VIDEO SNIPPED

This demo uses a clever trick, I myself discovered (but others have found it before me). By using the "Load xxx,8,1" command, you load the programme into memory at a specific location defined in the programme itself. The first two bytes in the file specify the address where the programme should be loaded. In this case, the programme loads the third and fourth bytes into a register, which tells the computer to execute the code specified by those two bytes, when loading is completed. Very clever.


ETA: 4K demo means 4 kilobytes of data - the entire demo including sound and graphics and everything is 4096 bytes or less.

One of the things I did back in my good old practical astronomy days was to program an Apple][+ (with 16K of RAM) as a data logger (using 6502 machine & assembly language) to store information from the output of a photoelectric photometer onto a 5.25" floppy disk. We used a  John Bell Engineering 6522 Versatile Interface Adapter (plugged into Slot 7) as a current > frequency converter.

The programme would start by allowing the user to input the date, the name of the star being observed, the name of the observer and any other notes in a string up to 255 characters long. Those strings would be converted to hexadecimal values and saved directly to a reserved area on the floppy disk. Once all that was done, the user would press the space bar and the data logging subroutines would start.

1. 900 m/s of frequency signal integration.
2. 100 m/s to save the data to RAM memory, one line of 16 bytes representing;
- frequency in Hz
- UBV filter setting from the photometer
- UTC time in HH:MM:SS (sourced directly from WWVH in Hawaii via a dedicated telephone line)
During this 100m/s period it would also check for the amount of RAM memory left for data storage

The program could integrate and log data for about 15 minutes before the memory warning would go off. The user would press the space bar and the whole 15K of RAM memory would be dumped onto the floppy disk, cleared to all zeros, and then the program would wait for user to tap the space bar to  commence another round of data logging.

The whole routine was about 200 lines of code that used less than 100 bytes of RAM memory. I got so good at programming this stuff, that I could recognize a whole block of hexadecimal code and tell you exactly what that subroutine was doing... now, 30+ years later, I couldn't even tell you where to begin!
► What you can assert without evidence, I can dismiss without evidence
► When you argue with idiots you risk being dragged down to their level and beaten with experience.
► Conspiracism is a shortcut to the illusion of erudition

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2864
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #492 on: August 08, 2019, 08:43:44 AM »
Like a lot of us you suffer from CRS.  :)
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline molesworth

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 196
  • the curse of st custards
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #493 on: August 08, 2019, 04:45:01 PM »
This demo uses a clever trick, I myself discovered (but others have found it before me). By using the "Load xxx,8,1" command, you load the programme into memory at a specific location defined in the programme itself. The first two bytes in the file specify the address where the programme should be loaded. In this case, the programme loads the third and fourth bytes into a register, which tells the computer to execute the code specified by those two bytes, when loading is completed. Very clever.


ETA: 4K demo means 4 kilobytes of data - the entire demo including sound and graphics and everything is 4096 bytes or less.
Oooh, demo coding is a real skill!  :)  I have a few friends who still do it, and one of them just won first place for a 4K demo at the Assembly festival in Finland!  Having spent about half my working life writing video games, I know all too well just how much crafting goes into squeezing every last nanosecond out of the hardware  :o

I think people like cambo, who perhaps have a view of science and technology as "magical", really can't appreciate the skills and dogged determination of the many people who make things work - whether it's a fun computer demo or launching a lunar mission.
Days spent at sea are not deducted from one's allotted span - Phoenician proverb

Offline Kiwi

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 428
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #494 on: August 09, 2019, 09:57:31 AM »
That is probably the dumbest f***ing thing you've said to date, and God knows that's a high bar to clear. Seriously, dude, you are an idiot.  Moron.  Jackass.

Jfb: I'm disappointed that have used such nasty language like that on this forum, and I hope that a few others were dismayed to see it. But, for whatever reason, if they were, they haven't yet commented.

That small paragraph is particularly surprising because most of your post is calm, rational, informative non-abusive and quite clear. Why didn't you just ignore that paragraph of Cambo's or simply acknowledge it with "No comment" and suitable smiley?

You've been here long enough to get the idea that we regulars usually don't talk like that to hoax-believers or anyone else either, and that our webmaster, LunarOrbit, disapproves of such childishness. He expects us to act like decent grown-ups and not like some of the abusive ratbags that mainly seem to live somewhere between Mexico and Canada. And no, I'm not rubbishing the many good people who live in the same area and am thankful that some of them are members here.

By all means, criticise the message with non-abusive language but leave the messenger alone, and if necessary refamiliarise yourself with LunarOrbit's perfectly reasonable rules that are mostly covered in his first two sentences:--
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=18.0

« Last Edit: August 09, 2019, 10:01:08 AM by Kiwi »
Don't criticize what you can't understand. — Bob Dylan, “The Times They Are A-Changin'” (1963)
Some people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices and superstitions. — Edward R. Murrow (1908–65)