Light Years Ahead | The 1969 Apollo Guidance Computer

Joylandi 4-Fev, 2020
Half a century ago, on 20 July 1969, Neil Armstrong was in the final stages of the lunar descent, just a few thousand feet above the surface, when suddenly his on-board computer indicated a critical alarm. For three nail-biting seconds it looked as if the mission would have to be aborted. However, Armstrong was given a "go" to continue, and after several more alarms the Eagle touched down safely on the Moon.
Robert Wills introduces the amazing hardware and software that made up the Apollo Guidance Computer, walks you through the landing procedure step-by-step, and talks about the pioneering design principles that were used to make the landing software robust against any failure. He also explains the problems that occurred during the Apollo 11 landing, and shows you how the Apollo Guidance Computer played its part in saving the mission.
Recorded: 26th October, 2019.

Fikrlar

  • It was sad when the three evil Kryptonians then tore apart the craft and killed all the astronauts.

  • He's a great storyteller, people like him make me really want to believe the moon landing was real because of how great it would have been. But there were no i phone screens like the one shown in the talk in 1969, that's just a simple fact. Its really sad they still won't admit Apollo was a propaganda hoax after all this time.

    • @Jan Strzelecki 🤷‍♂️

    • @Atlas Maybe he means the AGC display?..

    • phone screens?

  • Excellent talk. Thank you!

  • I don’t care for the speaker, he’s too dramatic.

  • What a fantastic explanation of the descent from lunar orbit to the surface of the moon. I've heard several explanations of the famous (or is it infamous?) 1202 & 1201 alarms and this was, by far, the most comprehensive and understandable. Actually, it was also the most relatable explanation of the DSKY system as well. Robert Wills is not only a great teacher, he is also a masterful storyteller. Bravo and thank you!

  • "Execute Program 66"

  • Nice piece of mini documentary, but you're naive if you think the likes of Bezos and those above him care a dime about regular folks.

  • They never went to the Moon. Can't go today. Low Earth orbit is and has always been the limit.

    • Either *PROVE* your claims, or shut your dimwitted lie hole!

  • In my never humble opinion, this is all idiotic propaganda for something that was not capable of being done with the computers supposedly on board. Yes, if the Lunar Modul at least had a Tandy 1000 it may have almost been able to do what this bloke is supposedly claiming to have happened, but the "Space Program" was only of an age that that was rudimentary to the Altair. If the space flights happened at all, it was all reticles on a window and flying by the seat of one's pants.

    • ​@Gerard Kuzawa CGI in the 1950s were essentially lines on a oscilloscope. Here's the proof: www.jodrellbank.net/the-luna-9-space-hack-4th-feb-1966/ An independent observatory in Britain was able to acquire pictures from the soviet moon probe using their own antennas. This is impossible to fake. Thanks for playing.

    • @Atlas Show me proof of said Soviets having landed anything on the moon. CGI was possible in the 1950's; Can you verify that bullshit of yesteryear does not stink today?

    • How did the soviets managed to land a spacecraft on the moon if the computers back then where not good enough?

    • Agreed. NASA haters ARE clueless!

  • My dad worked on the redundant guidance systems for Apollo. They used it on one mission. I didn’t know until after he died.

    • Hmm so your dad never found out it was all fake, a hollywood production? 🤔

  • Amazing talk

  • HE WENT CASUAL for this speaking engagement.

  • How long before people stop the pretend the realize the 1960s moon landing AND RETURN is a hoax? Back then we did not have the historical and technological perspective, so we could be easily fooled. Now with 2021 technology understanding, it is a joke to not realize in 1960s we did not have the capability to do a smooth landing on the moon, and rocket the landing capsule (with life support) back to the moon the orbit. And on first try too. And we could not repeat after 11 times successful landing on the moon and suddenly lost our capability. This is NOT how technology progress in reality. So please stop the BS. Just smile with a grin.

    • @Jin Kuang It sure does *SUCK* to be you, little fella. *GROW UP!*

    • @Jin Kuang It did not suddenly disappear, that's nonsense. The Apollo program was cancelled, and the technology dismantled and repurposed.

    • @Atlas Fundamentally inconsistent with human progress. 11 successful landing, like walking in the part. Then suddenly disappear, claiming lost technology, and never be able to do it again, while the human technology has gone leaps and bounds. BS!

    • wrong

  • Great talk, thanks.I watched Apollo 11 when I was five years old and its one of my first memories. It influenced my life and career in science....

  • As a basic programmer on my commodore64 back in the 80s i have to say i had it easy.

  • Ok. For argument's sake, let's say that everything he stated is true and that the USA did land men on the moon and return them safely back to earth SIX times (!) in just three years. If so, today, more than 50 years later, it should be easy to do. It should be easy not only for the USA, but also for China, Russia and other technologically advanced nations. You might argue that the USA doesn't want to go back. (LOL), ok, but can you also tell me that Russia and (even more) China don't want to do it? Everything we did in the 1960's and 70's we can do faster, better and more cheaply today. Everything except ONE thing. Guess.

    • @GH1618 I agree, ok, sure. Everything you said. However, you haven't addressed the point(s) I made in my post. You just stated facts right past it.

    • It isn’t easy. It took thousands of people and a lot of money to visit the moon. And it was dangerous. Three astronauts died on Apollo 1 and three more had a narrow escape on Apollo 13. Space travel is inherently difficult, expensive, and dangerous.

  • russian Luna landed there earlier I think

  • Basically saying: If the MIT had Minecraft back then, the Apollo missions would´ve been flown on Redstone dust. Noice!

  • What happened to P65??

  • excellent presentation.

  • I love the topics of space exploration, as well as, how computer software and hardware work together. Having all three topics delivered in the manner that Robert did was extremely engaging. Using simple language, great details, analogies, and examples. I sat through his entire presentation (1:21:21) including the Q&A portion at the end and never paused the video, or got up for anything. I will recommend this video to anyone that has an interest in the Apollo Guidance Computer, Computers, Space Exploration and/or public speaking. This is, by far, one of the best videos/presentations I've watched on UZfire. Well done Robert!

  • Yall ain't gonna shout out MIT Draper Labs?!

  • yah so ahead of its time they cant replicate it again...lol 50 years later

  • So how did they get through the radiation belt twice and live. Always a fascinating thing nasa does but they seem pretty hush hush on the really neat questions involving technology solving serious problems.

    • That's because you didn't bother to look it up.

  • uzfire.info/camera/video/iJqUZYGJsr9-epk

  • Absolutely Brilliant - Really enjoyed that.

  • The solid questions from the audience triggered me to look up what tnmoc stands for.

  • Someone can’t do math... it’s closer to Apollo landing at 52. Yes, Apollo started being designed in the 60’s but they did a BIG update with the block II systems.

  • Great job, always wanted to know what it was like to land on the mean. Friendly accent mockery, that's all.

  • People who believe we went to the moon they showed the public is hilarious.

  • Programmers back then: *Finely tuning and optimizing their code to make it run as efficiently as possible* Programmers today: "Get a faster cpu, loser"

  • Hahahahaha what BS.. You can’t use technology that doesn’t exist. Lmmfao

    • @Mike Bukowski It is *NOT* my fault that you dimwitted little NASA haters cannot debunk the moonlandings. Sucks to be you!

    • @CNCmachiningisfun I’ll take “what makes no sense for $500.

    • @Mike Bukowski Cause and effect, little fella. Grow up!

    • @CNCmachiningisfun why so nasty?

    • @Mike Bukowski It sure does suck to be *YOU,* creep!

  • 24:10...LOL.....thought he was almost going to say 'after about 30 seconds of sort of f%$ck1ng about with the rocket engine'...…great lecture though, loved the amount of detailed explanation, what an amazing bit of kit!!!

  • Very extraordinary presentation. Answered deep complex questions that I wondered about for years regarding the LM computer interface.

  • Imagine going through all that trouble to have technology produced that - in the minds of the engineers - would _actually_ take that vessel to the moon, only to have Stanley Kubrick to film a mock of the whole thing.

  • What a waste of time .

  • Considering that we've not left low earth orbit = load of bullocks.

  • The MIT team located the source of the error with only two or three hours to spare. In anticipation of a possible abort, Aldrin had insisted that the spacecraft’s rendezvous radar remain turned on. (Wired.com) www.wired.com/story/apollo-11-mission-out-of-control/

  • Excellent! Very entertaining and well spoken. Thank you.

  • Did the computer improve by Apollo 17?

    • Same computer, with some improvements in gate packaging.

  • One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.

  • How did the lunar lander take back off without causing a huge dust cloud?

    • it did cause a dust cloud.

    • @GH1618 thank you for replying. I still find it hard to buy on the films being all or even mostly filmed on the moon. I do believe they went up there and the missions were a lot more on the secret side than what was revealed. That being said I dot see how they even had room for all the fuel to lift The lander/all the rocks, and two astronaughts into orbit and then have enough to maneuver to capsule back to the orbiter Then return home. I do believe we landed on the moon but have an extremely hard time believing all the footage being authentic.

    • The lander was in two parts. The lower part stayed on the surface. The upper part separated and rose to orbit. The lower part shielded the blast to some extent.

  • Great video and deep knowlogy of AGC computer.

  • Little known history: The US Navy's super secret sub, the NR1, used two AGC's for its guidance system. This was a deep diving nuclear sub with a crew of a dozen. Navigating the deep ocean was more complex than landing on the moon. This adds two more to the number of units built -- that we can document using declassified data.

  • For decades I have longed for this kind of breakdown of how the guidance computer actually worked. I am so glad I finally found someone who could explain it in terms I could understand. THANK YOU!

  • 2 things.. One amazing they didn't wait for Margaret to pass away before she got a well deserved award.. And somebody has to hit up netflix or something to make a updated movie on her .. Just today before i watched this talk I had watched a old candid camera where they trick people into thinking a female was the Pilot of the airplane (Candid Camera Classic: First Female Pilot) and that was in 1963 .. So got to be some drama she went through you would think.. Ok 3 things.. One of the best talks I have seen in a long time and I do watch lots of TED... When he went to questions, it still only felt like 20 mins in at most..

  • Google's algorithm is getting a little scary. This was recommended and I thought I will watch for two minutes then move to something else. I ended up watching the whole thing. Hats off this was rather interesting. Oddly I started thinking of Monty Python while watching this.

  • The disappointment is that I cannot find an answer why 94% braking thrust. And no one asked.

    • The descent engine would have been designed with a little more power than necessary, because of uncertainties. Then, for an actual mission, the maximum thrust to be used would be determined to get the desired landing profile.

  • The Apollo Guidance Computer: "I need 55W and I flew the Apollo missions to the moon and back" My GTX 1080: "I consume 150W and Cyberpunk scares me"

  • Very good story structure; I didn't know if I would listen the whole story, but I got curious about the error And what a piece of engineering, that computer.

  • Watching this talk for the 2nd (possibly the 3rd!) time..... A thought.... Surely, the checklists for the landing would be available in the public domain, so working out if the rendezvous radar was left on by accident or by design, should be easy to determine?

  • Really interesting and glad it answered deeper questions that I didn't know where to ask and get them quickly.

  • I am going to speculate that alot of the testing simulations were performed with analog computers not digital computers. The programs were implemented on patch panels. I am guessing because my group was still using analog computers for flight dynamics well into the 1980 's. There are not code listings for analog computers. Just differential equations and transistor based integrators.

  • They destroyed that technology apparently & its a painful process to invent it again :quote from don pettit, a so called nasa astronaut. Why do nasa train astronauts in a pool ? The complete opposite of a vaccum.. where is the time lapse footage of the construction of the ISS ? apparently the most technologicaly advanced structure built by man !!!

    • @Atlas Sadly, Wang Chunks is NOT interested in facts. Such is the way with NASA haters.

    • It took some 20 years to completely build it. Expecting a timelapse of that is just silly.

  • Give us a reading on the 1202 program alarm....

  • I started watching this, expecting to glaze over and zone out after about 5 minutes but I was captivated from beginning to end, what a great lecture. Thanks for posting!

  • Absolutely outstanding presentation on the subject of how Apollo 11 LM landed on the moon using the guidance computer. Not only highly educational but very amusing in parts. Really well worth a watch to add to your knowledge of Apollo.

  • Rare gem of a find on YT

  • Lol, he said , " the first thing we need is a rocket engine " what about the 6 inches of lead surrounding the astronauts to protect them from the radiation

    • @American Hacker _Six was a guess..._ _I assume..._ As long as we're clear that you're only guessing here 🙂 _man has went no further than the upper atmosphere and need to constantly refuel to keep orbit_ That's not how orbital mechanics work. _If anyone believes we went to the moon in a tin can_ Your personal incredulity is not evidence. _and landed and took off perfectly_ We didn't. Each _Apollo_ landing had its share of problems. _without even causing a crater under the vessel_ As expected. _and if you haven't watched something funny happened on the way to the moon_ The correct title is "A funny thing happened on the way to the Moon". Also, I have watched it. It's not physically possible to actually fake that footage the way the narrator claims it was done and achieve results consistent with the _Apollo_ footage.

    • @American Hacker Stop guessing, then. It makes you look like a fool. The radiation present in the van allen belts are not x-rays, it's mostly trapped proton and electrons. You get X -rays from slowing down the particles too quickly. That would have been case if they used lead. Also, you don't need a 2 inch thick lead vest to stop x-rays, that's asinine. Just like I said before, stop guessing. If you know f*ck all about radiation, keep your damn mouth shut about it. You also don't need to constantly refuel to keep in orbit, that's again, as it seems to be the case with everything that comes out of your mouth, nonsense. Spacecraft do need to be reboosted every once in a while, but not all the time. The ISS for example needs to be reboosted about once a month.

    • Six was a guess , since your talking about x-ray what do they use to protect you from that tiny amount of radiation? That's right , a 2 inch thick lead vest , if it's true that we are surrounded by the van allen belt then I assume we need more than you do when visiting the dentist , proverbs will and always hold true like the one I'm sure you have heard , what goes up must come down , man has went no further than the upper atmosphere and need to constantly refuel to keep orbit , if anyone thinks that 19 bill went playing with r.c. toys on mars then I have some swamp land Im selling dirt cheap in florida . If anyone believes we went to the moon in a tin can and landed and took off perfectly without even causing a crater under the vessel as it thrusted down to land and if you haven't watched something funny happened on the way to the moon , well then maybe you should .

    • @Atlas They just mindlessly repeat what they were told. If I recall correctly, the origin of that claim was some supposed "Soviet research results", ones that nobody can find or present, of course 🙂

    • how do people come with these numbers?

  • This guys voice is SOOOOO irritating. Can't watch.

  • Fascinating and superbly presented

  • This is an excellent talk and overview of the AGC, but this guy needs to do just a little more research. First, the *two-input* NOR (NAND also works, they're duals) is the most primitive gate from which any binary digital logic circuit can be constructed. Three-input gates let's you get the job done with fewer. Second, no, not any mathematician would be shocked by ones-complement arithmetic. The first super-computers (from control data corporation, e.g., there were others) used ones-complement arithmetic. Having a 15-bit word size is not limiting on the size of numbers that can be represented; it limits what can be represented in *one* word. What's strange about a 15-bit word size is that it's not a power of two number of bits. The ability to have double- and triple-length integers bestows increased *precision,* not increased accuracy. Etc. Having said all that, thanks for a great talk.

    • @GH1618 There are other advantages of having everything be a power-of-two in size. These advantages were obviously not needed for the AGC (I'm sure they were informed enough to consider the tradeoffs). I have no doubt they optimized every aspect for efficiency. But, in a true general-purpose processor, having word size be a power of two is advantageous; for example, it allows you to easily consider a region of memory as a collection of bits and to then compute a bit address efficiently. As you pointed out, same for bytes.

    • Yes, three inputs on the gates is a choice made for efficient logic design. Many early computers had word lengths which were not powers of two. IBM adopted the convention with the System/360 so they could have addressable 8-bit bytes. This was convenient for text processing. Computers dedicated to numeric processing don’t need it.

  • When the alarms appeared, no one knew what they meant, except for an anonymous young man, maybe 25 years old, named Bales. He was the one who shouted we are go! Every time the alarms arose He saved the mission.

  • Armstrong did indeed take over manually and made the moon landing.

  • This video is giving me a stable member.

  • 1969: "1202 Alarm!"......"We are go on that alarm". 2021: "1202 Alarm!"......"All our agents are busy right now but your call is important to us".

  • Absolutely fascinating! Thank you from someone who started coding around the time of the first moon landing.

  • Van Allen Radiation Belts?

    • @Atlas I KNEW IT! SUSPENDERS! YES!!!!!

    • @Kyle Laurent Indeed. If the belt, or suspender, is long enough, perhaps Grove Monkey can use it - to swing between trees, and get to a safe distance from Tarzan ;) .

    • @CNCmachiningisfun Doctor Van Allen wore suspenders.

    • @CNCmachiningisfun you're right. I wonder if Groove Monkey can chime in oh his preference of belts or suspenders.

    • @Kyle Laurent Hmmm. "Van Halen suspenders" doesn't roll off the tongue as easily as "Van Halen belts" does ;) .

  • The work of scientists cannot be diminished but the same medal to Rush Limbaugh makes the medal as meaningless as the Nobel peace prize to the mass serial killer Henry Kissinger and President Barack Obama who persecuted immorally more whistle blowers and oversaw the slaughtering of more innocents for the full eight years of wars started on lies than any other president in history .

    • HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • Im guessing Buzz Aldrin isn't using 1202 as his pin number for anything

  • It's hilarious if people think we went to the moon back then and Nixon makes a phone call to them on the moon, we can't go there now and no human has even been close to the Van Allen radiation belt since. Among other ridiculous things they claimed to do up there. 0 of the moon landing footage shown on tv was shot on the moon.

    • @Atlas I think it all comes down to their general contempt for truth, facts - and reality in general. Such is the way, with flat earthers, and science haters.

    • I genuinely don't understand how people can be so convinced the van allen belts are impenetrable for humans.

    • @galactock Agreed. NASA haters, and space travel deniers, ARE *dimwits!*

    • Or is it “Moon Shinning” by Fabrice Mathieu?

    • @galactock you didn't even attempt to answer my questions. You're not very good at backing up your own arguments.

  • This is fascinating 🧐.

  • the guidance computer was great especially since it didn't have to carry anyone anywhere....they just had to drive to a set designed to look like the moon.

  • They landed on the moon but forgot to make videos showing how thy put on and took off their moon suits inside the LEM. Total hoax.

    • @CNCmachiningisfun Why are you so desperate for a lady friend? CNCmachiningisfun Highlighted reply CNCmachiningisfun 1 hour ago @Sue Kennedy GET A LIFE!

    • @Sue Kennedy *GET A LIFE!*

    • The astronauts did not change suits in the Lunar Module. They suited up in the Command Module and were suited for the duration until they returned to the CM.

    • @Killua2001 Killua2001 Highlighted reply Killua2001 1 hour ago @Sue Kennedy The hell are you talking about? I'm just commenting on how people like you seem to try extra hard to sound as crazy as possible, and here you go doubling down on that exact sentiment. I swear a bot might make more sense.

    • @Sue Kennedy The hell are you talking about? I'm just commenting on how people like you seem to try extra hard to sound as crazy as possible, and here you go doubling down on that exact sentiment. I swear a bot might make more sense.

  • Given the complexity of what Robert presented here, the answer "They forgot to turn the radar off" was politically motivated because it would cost a thousand "sound bytes" to explain. Imagine the fall out against NASA if that "truth" came out.

    • @Chris Kirsten I regret starting this conversation very much.

    • Apologies. The text "censures" are a fault of my browser. The link to the site where you can read about Don Eyles and the Apollo 11 AGC glitch is gone; however. Watch to the real end to get and open view of what I said at first. Pointing fingers is useless, though we do need to see what actually went wrong for future training and management.

    • @Atlas Your response is influenced by the fact that UZfire censored a link to another video which gives an "official" take on this subject. Likewise another section has been stripped after the words "the truth and the lie" in the long paragraph. So let's leave it there. Looks like you go the idea anyway. Happiness.

    • @Chris Kirsten bit pretentious but okay

    • Compare the two versions and decide which you believe.

  • However, the real question is whether we will ever discover intelligent life on earth.

    • Hmmm. The search upon this planet will surely be eternal.

  • This almost makes you believe they went to the moon.

    • @CNCmachiningisfun Don't hate NASA, just lies.

    • @YeTsom Gize Agreed. NASA haters ARE dimwits!

    • @CNCmachiningisfun I beg to differ 🙂

    • @YeTsom Gize I'm more bewildered. It's like, we've got computers these days which were literally predicated on this technology. So how on earth do you people get lead into such a rabbit hole? Does the idea of people understanding the actual mechanics of what went on in the early development of computers scare you that much? What's your goal? Is this just an ego trip, trying to tell everyone else how much "smarter" you are than "sheep" who.... watch videos about the Apollo Guidance Computer in their spare time?

    • @YeTsom Gize It sure does suck to be *YOU,* kiddo!

  • Now I know what the DisKEY is for, I have been watching all of the lunar landings lately and now I know what it means, and this is ware Windows 3.0/3.11 got it's cooperative multi tasking from.

  • Great presentation but one nitpick - It wasn't so much a hardware bug per se but it was human error too. Buzz has himself stated that he turned on the Rendezvous radar on while landing in case they needed to do a rapid abort but this wasn't the way it was designed to be done, hence why it overloaded the system. That extra 15% wasn't meant to be there as NASA designed the system to have one or the other radar on - not both at the same time. They "patched" this error by adding a hard requirement to the checklist to turn it off in future. Edit - it's mentioned at the end but it's not accurate as they didn't "forget", Buzz didn't turn it off on purpose as he wanted to abort faster if needed.

  • I.use positive and minus zero all the time, now I feel guilty and out of date! :D

  • Moon landing hoax ET Plejarens know it all! Billy: We have indeed already spoken at various times about the American Moon-landing swindle. In this regard, I have now also spoken with an American who was visiting here. He was not in agreement with that which I told him regarding your explanation concerning this matter. It was his opinion that a swindle is completely impossible, because the aforementioned Moon-landing project had employed at least 100,000 humans, who most certainly had not kept silent, even if it were their duty to do so. At least a whole number of them would have talked or not held their tongues due to certain grounds. What is your opinion on that? Quetzal 1. As we have already explained several times, the Americans’ Apollo-11 Moon-landing on July 20th, 1969 did not take place, because everything was a great designed swindle, through which the entire world was fooled. 2. Also it was not so that 100,000 or more people were involved in the fraud or simply informed about it, rather a total of precisely 37 persons who were involved in that. 3. This small number was responsible for nothing trickling through, and the criminal-fraud enterprise actually could be kept secret up until the present day and this would also be the case in the future, in spite of the fact that very many anomalies in regard to the photographs and videos will be discovered by critical people and will continue to be discovered. 4. The lie will therefore continue to be sustained, and indeed in spite of the provable and clear evidence of the anomalies, which prove the falsification of the Moon-landing. 5. Further to say is, that the Moon-landing swindle is also connected to murder, and indeed in the respect that in spite of the duty of silence of those involved, a great number cannot be silent, respectively, could not be silent, which led, and will further lead, to arranged “accidents” and “illnesses” with fatal consequences, until the last involved person is no longer alive whose silence is not securely established. 6. Remaining alive are only those who are hypnotically bound with their Moon-landing lies, so they themselves believe that the Moon-landing actually was realized, or at least that they have thereby cooperated. Billy: But then how is it with the Moon-rover and the landing devices and so forth, which were supposed to have been left behind on the Moon? Quetzal 7. These are actually to be found on the Moon, whereby however these were left behind from a later Moon-landing on the Earth’s satellite. Billy: Therefore the Yanks were indeed on the Moon. Quetzal 8. Naturally, however not on the claimed point in time of July 20th, 1969. 9. In that time the mendaciously propagated and nonexistent Moon-landing was a pure political manoeuvre of the Americans, ostensibly to trump the Soviet Union in the so-called space race, to practically anticipate this and thereby to be the winner and more powerful, which was supposed to serve as a deterrent military action in regard to the Soviet Union supposedly fearing the Americans. Billy Hence the gigantic fraud of the alleged Moon-landing. Quetzal 10. That is correct. Billy And, will the truth ever come to light? Quetzal 11. That would hardly be the case because the entire fraud is played in such a way that the discovery of the truth has practically as good as no chance. 12. Also the provable contradictions of all kinds which can be allocated by the photographs and videos would bear no fruit for the acknowledgement of the truth. Billy: In the same way as with Roswell, where the spaceship crashed. Quetzal 13. That is also true, because in this case hardly a possibility exists that the secret activities will one day come to the light of truth and the humans will be enlightened about the actual truth. 14. Quite the opposite - the future will prove that the responsible ones in America will always invent new lies in order to shroud and deny the truth about the Roswell case. The smoking gun right here on their guilty faces! uzfire.info/camera/video/d4HBjZedsbV9rX8 Movie set.. www.bitchute.com/video/ELIRCJFpVPzK/?fbclid=IwAR2-778VyH6xwzUMjlwOswjJVt_AnwLAcgSqNUZxxGzA61mxf6dHt1DxRPA Buzz Aldrin admits we didn’t go to the moon. uzfire.info/camera/video/jmy3g2ijs7Olfak Neil Armstrong refusing.... www.dailymotion.com/video/x2p18fb?fbclid=IwAR2Ao9ScWfHr6MaQtxqMFKYNrV042ovWA6xnQAv7o4WJTfbZeZa1H0qH7zg Buzz punches a guy.. uzfire.info/camera/video/hIqxn3ht26hpsGY

    • This dude literally believes in aliens coming to visit us.

    • Agreed. Moonlanding deniers ARE *dimwits!*

  • Too many anomalies in the " lunar movie production" to be ignored. Yes, it was a necessary world event, a movie production nonetheless. A. Every ounce of weight is scrutinized yet a go-kart was unpacked & taken for a joy ride... repeatedly? B. Interviews with astronauts get flustered when asked if saw they saw stars, as none were in any "lunar" films? C. No blow out craters in the surface dust , still present for a foot print? D. Sorry boys & girls, stanley kubrick & his movie set did what was required for the national good. We own a debt of gratitude for all who pulled it off.

    • @Mike Sanders Let's be clear, when you said "Do my own research," what you really meant was "watch UZfire videos and read conspiracy blogs." Right?

    • Step away from the Kool-Aid tray you've obviously drank enough. Go do your own research, the undeniable evidence has been published & documented, enough to convince millions of people just like me. It was a tv production. I agree that it was a necessary series of events. Believe what you want, I too once did.

    • @Mike Sanders Agreed. Moonlanding deniers DO suck ass!

    • @Mike Sanders Please enlighten me as to why they wouldn't be able to bring the lunar buggy? Use numbers, and technical diagrams to back up your claim. Please, show me where the astronauts were "flustered" when asked about stars. Please show me how it would be possible to take photos of stars with 120 ISO film and an f2.8 lens. Please explain how much pressure would be needed to create a "blow out crater" on the lunar surface and correlate that with how much pressure was generated by the lunar descent module. Please tell me exactly how far away the footprint photo was taken from the lunar descent module and how much soil would have been present at that location. If you can answer those questions, then maybe you'd have a case. if you cannot, then you are just making up nonsense. But this should be easy for you since apparently you already did your research.

    • Wow, that's deep. However, there's a giant chasm between doing your own research and drinking the Kool-Aid as you're told.

  • I think the finger control software hung up when he was explaining how new job worked!

  • Hey answer this question for me. What happened to the sound of the rocket that was under his butt when landing on the moon? They seemed to have forgotten about that little fact. Also what happened to the crater that said rocket would have created during the landing? He left a footprint of his boot but the rocket didnt kick up a spec of df dirt? Oh and speaking of that boot print, why was the bottom of the boot design totally different than the suit they showed then boarding the ship in? Shall i go on? I think i made my point. The moon landings were OBVIOUSLY faked. Space is fake, its a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. So no, there wasnt anyone going through the wardrobe to get to narnia. Wake up to the lie already people.

    • @David Santiago I'm saying you're ignorant because you fail to demonstrate a kindergarten level of understanding of reality. I can't 'prove' anything to someone whose mind was broken from well before they were expected to learn algebra. I need to TEACH that person first. Otherwise I'll get nowhere. I'm not interested in trying to digest Crime and Punishment for a toddler. I'd like to get you up to a bare elementary school education before I attempt any more complicated subjects.

    • @Killua2001 you keep saying im ignorant to bs you have been recently writing about and i havent not once commented on any of those points. Here you go again just making assumptions. Dude this looks really bad on you that you cant prove me wring yet lol

    • @David Santiago "Elastic collisions". What a fancy word for someone who seems unable to model a ball rolling down a hill. You don't know what Einstein's Field Equations say. You have literally no concept of how to solve them. It's like asking me to tell a 3 year old how the Dirac Delta Function works. So I'm not playing that game until we can get you caught up with the past 2000 years of mathematics, and start with a damn ball rolling down a hill. I'm pretty sure you can't grasp "vectors" yet, let alone "vector spaces", so what the fuck are you asking me about GR for? You don't understand ANY of the science involved. We're not there yet. So stick to the basics. Kindergarten stuff, because it seems where you've gone wrong. How do we describe motion? What's "velocity"? Can you come up with a physical relationship for ANY basic facts. Do you understand how "Archimedes principle" isn't just "words", but an actual mathematical model? No, obviously, of course not, because your education was broken before that. I feel like I need to go back to the sundial example or else I can't progress anywhere, you're so utterly ignorant that just about nothing from the past 10,000 years is useful in getting you to understand the "physical and natural world". For someone typing on a computer, that's most impressive. How the fuck do you tie your shoes?

    • @Killua2001 we are talking about the physical and natural world here. I dont need all this nonsense you are writing to know that gas will dissipate if it is not physically contained. Go to a maths forum if you want to substitute actual experimentation with an equation. You think just because you come up with an equation then that is reality? Are you serious? Now you have yet to acknowledge that an independent variable is your presumed cause in an experiment. I already asked you earlier and you totally ignored me to do math for me. Since you think math is reality then explain newtowns apple falling from a tree by using ONLY Einsteins equations. Now einsteins is the current pseudoscience. The definition for pseudoscience is the non adherence to the scientific method. Im sure you already know his equations dont solve for more than one mass so is that our reality? No. So actual experimentation dude. You also ignored me telling you that our gasses would continue to fill the available volume of space. Your gravity isnt doing crap to gasses. Gasses have elastic collisions also have no bonds. Gas goes in all directions not just down. You have yet to acknowledge any of that. So no, we arent sweeping gas up off the floor. And you want to say yes ut will dissipate but we arent there yet? My ass. Maybe you arent because you cant prove your nonsense of gravity. You have no cause.. Its an assumed force. Even though gravity is not a force.

    • @David Santiago "Entropy". There's that word again. "Dissipate". Yes, it does "dissipate", and "entropy" does tell you how... but unfortunately we're still a long way off there. Because you'll still need to understand math, because we're WAY far off from constructing a microstate and counting them up if you don't understand vectors, let alone degrees of freedom. That's why I'm aiming for an ancient greek understanding right now. Lets assume I am someone from 2500 years ago. Explain to me what the concept of "pressure" is, and how "wind" works. We're going for understanding "proportional relationships". I'm then going to use that to build "kinematics", or "equations of motion" using those simple concepts. I'm literally aiming for what could be taught to a 5 year old, so please, don't try to use words like "entropy" that you clearly don't understand. Something was broken far, far before you adopted those words. Frankly, I'm amazed you believe "carbon dioxide" is a thing given the way you construct your beliefs. We're working on the idea of "pressure". We need a definition for it. Imagine I'm someone 2500 years ago, with no knowledge whatsoever of modern science. Math will still be relevant in your description. Math will still be something we will be pulling from assuming you have as concrete a definition as people for thousands of years have provided. Edit: Although I might also be tempted to try to steer back to "buoyancy" because archimedes principle stems directly from this line of thinking. It might be a bit harder for you to grasp though than just modeling a ball rolling down a hill. I don't know, honestly this level of sheer mathematical incompetence seems hard for me to know where to begin in addressing how foundational the misgivings are.

  • Spectacular presentation! Thank you for sharing your knowledge. diskey makes apollo work, russian word for flying saucer diszky, anagram mr strong alien... hum How is the reproduction coming along?

  • You don't need to be alarmed when you're not actually landing on the moon. Not to take away from the amazing computation ability of the computers, because a computer can't tell a test from real world scenario.

  • But the Erf is flat.

  • Good spin. They want us to believe that a cranky system that put out low resolution BW video and had a power lesser than early keypad phones and that enabled the "spacecraft" to fly 30 km above ground went THROUGH the very thick overhead dome 40 km above the ground, that not even the fallen angels can pass through, and then land man on a FLAT lantern moon whose backside we don't even know. And that we cannot go back to because we have "LOST" the technology to do it.

    • Uh huh... so... like... in this apparently medieval worldview of yours, I'm sorta curious. What are stars? What are planets? What causes retrograde motion? Why can I hold my camera and take a long exposure where the stars seem to all move in a circle around a central point? Why is that point always toward the constellation Ursa Minor? This is like a time capsule of discarded scientific ideas. Truly an impressive thing to see on a device predicated on a society having unlocked quantum mechanics.

    • @Need2connect Agreed. NASA haters, religiots, and flat earthers, ARE *dimwits!*

    • @Need2connect Do you really think saying there isn't a dome is an "absurd claim"? That's too funny.

    • @Need2connect I don't have to. No one has ever been able to provide any good piece of evidence that either the dome or angels exist, so I have no reason to believe in them. Burden of proof is on you, hon.

    • @Atlas Provide proof of your absurd claims, please. "ThT Iz NoT ReAl" isnt quite good enough.

  • Memory management--what's that? :)

  • Cubic foot? What kind measurement is that? Banana scale?

  • LOL at the clueless little NASA haters here :) .

  • Don't waste your time. It was all BS.It takes longer than 3 Sec for the radio sig to go from the earth to the moon and back.

    • It’s about a second and a half each way, but the recorders are in Houston. When there is a statement from an astronaut at the Moon and a response from Houston, there is no transmission delay. You only notice the delay when Houston is waiting for a response.

    • @Need2connect No.

    • @Atlas Did you test this yourself?

    • It's more like 1.3 seconds.

    • Agreed. NASA haters ARE a waste of time!

  • All Bullshit! Most people know Apollo was a hoax! It's been proven beyond doubt!

    • @Wango Bango In your tiny mind I guess not

    • @Wango Bango Your lack of intellect on display again

    • Stephen Page-Murray the landings never happened!

    • Stephen Page-Murray you're just a dead man walking. There is no point in trying to prove anything to anyone with one foot in the grave!

    • @Wango Bango Because it’s true. And We’re still waiting on your hypothesis re AESEP/ALSEP

  • Fantastic... seems like microservices in some ways

  • 33:47 Worst error messages ever! LOL!

  • I was interested in the fact that the lecturer used meters for speed and feet for height.

    • He’s probably using the units as they appear in the documentation.

  • Wonderful awesome explanation, really well done and extremely interesting! thanks for sharing!

  • All those supposed brains and they still believe the moon landing lie! What fools or liters!

    • @CNCmachiningisfunYou need a life. It appears that you spend way too much time on the internet, getting triggered.

    • They have brains so they believe it. You don't have brains so you need someone to wipe up your drool. See?

    • oksills needs to *GET A LIFE!*

    • _All those supposed brains and they still believe the moon landing lie!_ Well no - _you_ do. You are the one that believes the Moon landing lie. All those brains _know_ the Moon landing truth - that the Moon landings were, in fact, real.

  • comments here look sanitised. every single one is unquestioning. Scientism in action.

    • @Need2connect Agreed. NASA haters ARE dimwits!

    • The comments are reviewed, and only spam removed. If you take the time to scroll down you will see there are plenty of "but we never landed on the moon" comments and the inevitable squabble. Also about a thousand people asking what "rooters" are and giggling ;)

    • @Kyle Laurent You know this from personal experience?

    • Hoaxers stick to the basics usually. Whatever is really easy. This is more complicated so it is indistinguishable from magic for most hoaxers.

    • nolansgroove needs to *GET A CLUE,* as do ALL science denying, NASA haters!

  • 35:35 that 2 shadows is not parallel.. lol .. very well presented and quite very interesting! 42:38!

    • @Hanno Coetzer Ah, fascinating, so you've now recognized that the lighting is so even it suggests it's outside. But you've got some other issues. I'm going to ignore the motion blur issues that crop up when we switch to video, and stick to just a long exposure still where we assume a subject doesn't move AT ALL. How do you avoid seeing stars? If we're exposing for low light, without the light source directly in our field of view, and we've got a wide open lens, I'd expect to see stars. It has the even lighting of a source very very far away, like, say, the moon, but it also seems to be lit by an incredibly BRIGHT source, like, say, the sun. Of course, you can say "well, no, it was filmed in a studio", but that brings us back to the 'lights' that seem to have completely even lighting without any hot spots while also magically creating a complete black void behind the astronaut. Gotta say. Requires a lot less suspension of disbelief for me to think we strapped people into a tin can stuffed to the brim with explosives than it does for me to think Kubrick was capable of violating the laws of physics with his advancements in the fields of optics and lighting in the 1960s.

    • @Killua2001 If Stanley Kubrick were still alive we could ask him what spotlight he used and how he did it But in all honesty, I enjoy the moon landing conspiracies, and for me it is little curiosity thought experiments of whether it was remotely possible to reproduce the same effects, back in the sixties, without going to the moon .. for instance even maybe hypothetically using moonlight as the main light source - single shots with very long exposure and wide aperture

    • @Hanno Coetzer If that's a spotlight, holy fuck, where can I get it? It seems magic! A spotlight should, assuming there isn't magic going on, have the rocks in front of the astronaut be significantly brighter than the rocks further away from the subject in direct lighting. A spotlight, unlike the sun, isn't placed an effectively "infinite" distance away, and it's WAY more dim, so the brightness of any spotlight will drop off quite quickly as a function of distance. But in that shot I see the area BEHIND the astronaut as brighter than in front of him, and the area in front of the camera looks as well exposed as anything else. That's stupidly consistent even lighting. If there was overhead studio lighting to create that consistency, I'd expect the shadow to not be completely pitch black. The shot looks like its being lit by a single source that is stupidly far away, like outside daylight, with almost no light diffusion. And that looks like a studio light to you? Mind telling me the brand? Which can replicate full exposure even directional sunlight like that? How on earth does a person accomplish a shot like that?

    • @Hanno Coetzer The length of the shadow is inconsistent with the position of a spotlight needed to produce such dicergence.

    • @Jan Strzelecki Indeed! A slope, and not a studio spotlight o7