It’s interesting you suggested that link about the DSKY, I read that the other night.
Now, you offered that as proof it could not have happened. I went through it, and I must admit I did not understand it. And I also admit, that I do not understand the NASA website (or the MIT documents of the source code that explain it).
This is getting into what is called Epistemology. On the one hand, we have thiusands of people who were involved in making this software work for an intended purpose. They thought it would work. They think it worked. Armstrong quipped in a speech at the Draper lab at MIT that the DSKY itself “cost more than a small country”.
On the other hand, there is one individual who says it couldn’t possibly have worked, it didn’t have the capability to do certain things, and here’s why. Except, I don’t understand any of it. I have to take their word for it.
Do you understand the software coding involved? Have you independently confirmed his conclusions yourself? Why do you believe him, and not MIT?
I mean maybe, but that’s probably not the way to bet. Correct me if I’m wrong about your coding abilities or DSKY familiarity, but we’re left with the argument that I should believe NASA faked the moon landings, because you say this guy over there on that website is really smart.
OK cgbg. I am still interested to know your opinion, why you believe the Pascal fellow claiming it was not possible for the DSKY and software to effect navigation or a landing for Apollo program.
I fully admit I’m not smart enough to understand it. Are you? So at this point there’s one guy versus Draper lab at MIT. I mean, maybe he’s correct. But that’s probably not the way to bet.