A 40K computer can do a lot more than you imagine. My very first computer had 8K internal memory with an accessory pack that brought it up to 16K. I learned BASIC programming on that computer
The Radio Shack Color Computer had 64K, with 32K ordinarily usable.
With that 32K, I was able to type in a program from Rainbow Magazine that allowed the computer to duplicate the function of a $10,000 telefax machine. I could connect the computer to my shortwave receiver and decode weather maps, satellite photos, and news photos before they were put in the newspaper.
I also had a program on that computer that you could input sheet music into and play synthesized music through the stereo, or hook the computer to a MIDI keyboard and play multiple voices and instruments simultaneously.
You could load up the OS-9 operating system and have multiple windows open running stuff before Windows came out.
It could do things that an IBM PC couldn't do for years, even though the PC had way more memory. And even then, you had to add separate circuit boards to the PC to do what the Color Computer could do internally on its own.
So yes, the 40K computer the astronauts had could really fly them to the moon. The computer wasn't doing that much.
Maybe they went to the moon, maybe they didn't. But it was not impossible because of the computer.
Fabulous, you addressed point #1. Now try going for the other 15 provided, specifically how there was not even the slightest disturbance of the moon dust in the photos of the lander after a 10,000 lb thrust engine landed. How about how the apollo 11 astronauts explaining that they could not see any stars in space? How about them not being able to jump more than 12 inches in 1/6th earth gravity? How about the fact that current astronauts saying they can't go because they "destroyed" the 1970s technology? How about the van allen radiation belt?
If the dust were blown away from under the lander, there might be just rock there. The area away from the lander, where Neil's footprint was photographed did have dust. If the sun was in the sky, they probably couldn't see anything else. You try jumping any height at all in a tight space suit with a compressed inner suit. Most of the "1970s technology" is the data that was recorded on reels of tape, and the machines were eventually gotten rid of. There is a project underway by a group who has obtained tape machines that they are restoring so that the data can be recovered. The spaceships weren't designed to be reusable, so they are in museums. One thing that makes it hard for astronauts to go to the moon nowadays is their greater expectations of comfort and safety. The original astronauts were crammed into a very small space and had the minimum equipment and supplies necessary for their mission. The astronauts didn't stay in the Van Allen belts. They quickly passed through them. Fire burns, but you can jump through a wall of fire quickly enough to survive. So there.
Have you ever done any manual exposure photography? Just wondering what your thoughts are on every sequential shot being almost a perfect work of art, work worthy of a masterful artist.
Manual exposure and focus in a very difficult environment ... near perfect framing without even looking through a viewfinder - just hand held.
Take a manual-capable camera out to your driveway and try to get some good photos of your car. Even if you know what the exposure should be given the conditions and you read the scale on the lens for focus, the framing is near impossible.
I just can’t believe every picture is tack sharp, well framed, and nearly perfect in exposure.
I’m pretty sure there were no ‘misses’ based on the negative numbering, or at least very, very few.
There are some videos that cover the details of this argument. I haven’t watched any them in years, so I can’t speak to all of the facts.
What do you think?
Give the experiment a try - heck, try it with an iphone, just cover the screen and frame the pic by eye.
I won’t get into the ability to work a manual camera with the gloves on, or some of the additional arguments.
My parents used a Kodak Brownie camera the whole time I was growing up, and every single photo was in focus, except for one that I took as a child because I couldn't hold the camera still. The camera was fixed focus with a focal length that kept everything sharp and it was a fixed exposure.
I could take hundreds of photos every day with that Brownie, and they would all be sharp as a tack. You can do that with that type of camera and regular black and white film. Color film was expensive years ago, so my parents only shot one roll in color when I was growing up. Those photos are sharp as well. I took the negatives in to have new prints made for me to have back in the 70s. Even today, they look like brand new photos.
So yes, it's fairly easy to get sharp, well-exposed photos every time with the right camera and film. And it's not that hard to aim a box camera. Now a cellphone camera is a different animal entirely. That's why I use a real camera for serious work.
You sure are repetitious.
A 40K computer can do a lot more than you imagine. My very first computer had 8K internal memory with an accessory pack that brought it up to 16K. I learned BASIC programming on that computer
The Radio Shack Color Computer had 64K, with 32K ordinarily usable.
With that 32K, I was able to type in a program from Rainbow Magazine that allowed the computer to duplicate the function of a $10,000 telefax machine. I could connect the computer to my shortwave receiver and decode weather maps, satellite photos, and news photos before they were put in the newspaper.
I also had a program on that computer that you could input sheet music into and play synthesized music through the stereo, or hook the computer to a MIDI keyboard and play multiple voices and instruments simultaneously.
You could load up the OS-9 operating system and have multiple windows open running stuff before Windows came out.
It could do things that an IBM PC couldn't do for years, even though the PC had way more memory. And even then, you had to add separate circuit boards to the PC to do what the Color Computer could do internally on its own.
So yes, the 40K computer the astronauts had could really fly them to the moon. The computer wasn't doing that much.
Maybe they went to the moon, maybe they didn't. But it was not impossible because of the computer.
Fabulous, you addressed point #1. Now try going for the other 15 provided, specifically how there was not even the slightest disturbance of the moon dust in the photos of the lander after a 10,000 lb thrust engine landed. How about how the apollo 11 astronauts explaining that they could not see any stars in space? How about them not being able to jump more than 12 inches in 1/6th earth gravity? How about the fact that current astronauts saying they can't go because they "destroyed" the 1970s technology? How about the van allen radiation belt?
If the dust were blown away from under the lander, there might be just rock there. The area away from the lander, where Neil's footprint was photographed did have dust. If the sun was in the sky, they probably couldn't see anything else. You try jumping any height at all in a tight space suit with a compressed inner suit. Most of the "1970s technology" is the data that was recorded on reels of tape, and the machines were eventually gotten rid of. There is a project underway by a group who has obtained tape machines that they are restoring so that the data can be recovered. The spaceships weren't designed to be reusable, so they are in museums. One thing that makes it hard for astronauts to go to the moon nowadays is their greater expectations of comfort and safety. The original astronauts were crammed into a very small space and had the minimum equipment and supplies necessary for their mission. The astronauts didn't stay in the Van Allen belts. They quickly passed through them. Fire burns, but you can jump through a wall of fire quickly enough to survive. So there.
Have you ever done any manual exposure photography? Just wondering what your thoughts are on every sequential shot being almost a perfect work of art, work worthy of a masterful artist.
Manual exposure and focus in a very difficult environment ... near perfect framing without even looking through a viewfinder - just hand held.
Take a manual-capable camera out to your driveway and try to get some good photos of your car. Even if you know what the exposure should be given the conditions and you read the scale on the lens for focus, the framing is near impossible.
I just can’t believe every picture is tack sharp, well framed, and nearly perfect in exposure.
I’m pretty sure there were no ‘misses’ based on the negative numbering, or at least very, very few.
There are some videos that cover the details of this argument. I haven’t watched any them in years, so I can’t speak to all of the facts.
What do you think?
Give the experiment a try - heck, try it with an iphone, just cover the screen and frame the pic by eye.
I won’t get into the ability to work a manual camera with the gloves on, or some of the additional arguments.
My parents used a Kodak Brownie camera the whole time I was growing up, and every single photo was in focus, except for one that I took as a child because I couldn't hold the camera still. The camera was fixed focus with a focal length that kept everything sharp and it was a fixed exposure.
I could take hundreds of photos every day with that Brownie, and they would all be sharp as a tack. You can do that with that type of camera and regular black and white film. Color film was expensive years ago, so my parents only shot one roll in color when I was growing up. Those photos are sharp as well. I took the negatives in to have new prints made for me to have back in the 70s. Even today, they look like brand new photos.
So yes, it's fairly easy to get sharp, well-exposed photos every time with the right camera and film. And it's not that hard to aim a box camera. Now a cellphone camera is a different animal entirely. That's why I use a real camera for serious work.