Matt Marriott Thread

[jrkeller]

I happened to be over a godlikeproductions and I found this thread on the moon hoax by started by Matt Marriott. He says that he was banned from Bad Astronomy in 2002, but I couldn't find anything on him. Does anyone remember him?

BTW, he's got a single webpage devoted to the moon hoax where he shows his great understanding of the AGC.

[Halcyon Dayz]

On the 'net 2002 is ancient history.

In any case the Great Pardon of 2005 applies to him to.
He can come here when ever he dares.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Matt Marriot used to peddle the "holographic airplanes" 9/11 CT on GLP. I don't know if he still does, but that just shows how far out he's willing to go...

[jrkeller]

Originally Posted by Halcyon Dayz

On the 'net 2002 is ancient history.

In any case the Great Pardon of 2005 applies to him to.
He can come here when ever he dares.

Well I searched for him and couldn't find him. Maybe I'll invite him back.

[jrkeller]

I invited him back.

[AGN Fuel]

Originally Posted by jrkeller

I happened to be over at godlikeproductions....

I know a couple of numbers if you are looking for a counsellor.

[frenat]

Originally Posted by jrkeller

I happened to be over a godlikeproductions

Nobody just happens to be over at GLP. Admit it, you're a sick man with a compulsion to read the rantings of escaped mental patients aren't you? I know I am.

[Vermonter]

I tried to go to GLP on my Satellite connection, and my IP was banned. o.O

[Count Zero]

Originally Posted by jrkeller

I happened to be over a godlikeproductions and I found this thread ...

Oh Man! That one was a classic! My favorite exchange (abridged) was:

HB: An Air Conditioner WILL NOT WORK in a vaccum. So much for their "air conditioned spacesits" is nothing but "FRIED AIR."

PAN: NASA didn´t use "air conditioning". They used a porous-plate sublimator, which will *only* work in a vacuum.

HB: Oh really? Where else is this "porous-plate sublimator" used? And how much does it weigh and size?

PAN: Porous-plate sublimators are used on every space suit that has a self-contained life-support system, including the shuttle and ISS suits. They are also frequently used by spacecraft themselves.

They are highly-reliable, well-understood bits of technology whose principles of operation are no mystery.

If water is allowed to leak very slowly into a vacuum, it will freeze into a solid around the object through which it has leaked. As a closed loop of circulating coolant is passed through that ice block, the ice removes heat from the coolant and then sublimates away in response, to be replaced by other water from a tank, or from power cells.

HB: If this is true they will need TONS of water just to keep them alive for a few minutes

PAN: LOL! Nobody here even knew what a sublimator was until someone told you. And now you´re an expert on how it works? How unbelievably arrogant.

Prove your answer. Go look up the metabolic heat of the human body and the heat of sublimation for a gram of water and prove that it would take "tons" of water. Put up or shut up.

The HB did, in fact shut up (and, as near as I can tell, vanished from the thread), and the PANs calculated the amount of water needed, showing their work.

The thread also featured Jay putting a comprehensive smack-down on Sam Colby's site, and - as an extra added bonus - some "pearls of wisdom" from IDW, to wit:

Originally Posted by Interdimensional Warrior

- "The Soviet Union (SU) and the United states (US) have never been enemies post ww2. That whole (cold war)conflict was fabricated..."

- "Apollo was a New World Order psy-op..."

- "Money is fake in that it has no real value... Kennedy was killed in part because of his introduction of the silver certificate, which was redeamable for 327 (?)grains of silver."

- "America is still under the rule of great britain."

...and many more.

[MattMarriott]

Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd

Matt Marriot used to peddle the "holographic airplanes" 9/11 CT on GLP. I don't know if he still does, but that just shows how far out he's willing to go...

Right...
Holograms Hoax planted by the illuminati to divert from the fact that *** THERE WERE NO PLANES *** - 08/14/05

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/bb...ssageid=139291

[01101001]

Originally Posted by MattMarriott

Right...
Holograms Hoax planted by the illuminati to divert from the fact that *** THERE WERE NO PLANES *** - 08/14/05

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/bb...ssageid=139291

September 11, 2001. Time for this thread to be euthanized.

[jrkeller]

Originally Posted by 01101001

September 11, 2001. Time for this thread to be euthanized.

Hey, don't close my thread just because one person doesn't follow the rules.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by jrkeller

Hey, don't close my thread just because one person doesn't follow the rules.

OK. It's time for corrective action on one person. I won't blame the thread.

[jrkeller]

Thanks!!!!!!!!!

Matt,

How about proving your claim on GLP that you were kicked off of the Badastronomy BB. According your profile you joined in Septmeber 06, my post is March 06.

[BigDon]

Matt has issues that can be helped by serotonin re-uptake inhibitors.

Matt, look into them. They can make a big difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selecti...take_inhibitor

I had to take them for a year. They work.

[jrkeller]

Originally Posted by jrkeller

Matt,

How about proving your claim on GLP that you were kicked off of the Badastronomy BB. According your profile you joined in Septmeber 06, my post is March 06.

Tick Tock,

I'm still waiting.

[MattMarriott]

Why was my thread on stellar parallax hoax NOT reopened as promised in the last post of the moderator? See last post here
Greatest illuminati "science" hoax ever - revealed worldwide first by Matt Marriott

[Van Rijn]

Originally Posted by MattMarriott

Why was my thread on stellar parallax hoax NOT reopened as promised in the last post of the moderator? See last post here
Greatest illuminati "science" hoax ever - revealed worldwide first by Matt Marriott

How long has it been since you PMed some moderators?

I hope you've come back to actually add substance to your claim and answer questions, but I have my doubts.

[JayUtah]

Did you PM a moderator or admin as instructed?

[dgavin]

Matt,

You're information on AGC4 assembler language is a bit inaccurate.

There -is- a complete listing available at MIT's museum of Apollo 11's program, and the following link has complete listing from Apollo 13.
It also contains good information on the Language itself.

AGC4 Assembler

There is no Hoax involved with it. Your concern that there was no development life cycle control are a bit unfounded, as SDLC's were just starting back then, leading to self documenting languages such as Cobol 64. That was about as far as SDLC's got in the 60's.

SDLC's only became common place by the late 80's. I'm sure NASA had something similar for quality control back then.

I fail to see how one page of a source listing constitutes a conspiracy, when there are complete listings available, as well as emulators that can still run that instruction set. (Again see that link I provided)

[JayUtah]

Both hardware and software emulators have been built by hobbyists using only the original specs. They assemble and run the source listings provided by MIT. You can quibble about a lot of Apollo technology, but it's very difficult to argue the AGC and its code were a whitewash. These days it is within many people's grasp to verify the original work. We can't take the surviving LMs out for a spin, but we can run the original computer code.

Trying to impose modern software practice on engineers of 1965 is just silly. Although software-specific design methods were in their infancy, the software was considered essentially part of the hardware and electronics design and was actual configuration-controlled along with that -- to a much more rigorous degree than most software today is controlled.

Keep in mind that software development cycles were glacially longer in 1965 than they are today, and far more rigorous and introspective. There was no such thing as "agile methods" and no urge to crank out 50,000 lines of PHP over the weekend for the next great web site. Software was serious stuff, seriously engineered.

[dgavin]

Well Said Jay.

I'd also like to chime in that I -am- an expert in software design and SDLC methodoligies.

You are quite right in that software engineering of that time was essencially a hardware function, as the finished work was burned onto an PROM (1960's) , EPROM (1970's), and then later EE-PROM's (1980's).

When there was a bug in the code you litterly had to replace the IC chip PROM back then with one containing the updated code. It was a very long an laborious process as every single hardware and software function had to be revalidated every time the PROM was replaced.

This changed with the invention of Languages such as BAL, HALSM, Cobol, and Fortran and Disk Drives, as PROM burning faded out once disk drives became practical. It wasn't until this point that SDLC Methodoligies really came into play.

No one even tried to use a SDLC with a 30,000 line computer program that was stored on Punch Cards, Paper Tape or Mag Reels.

[JayUtah]

PROM in the case of the AGC was a magnetic core rope, not a packaged IC. While MIT designed and programmed the AGC, it was fabricated by Raytheon, who had lots of experience with hardened, flight-qualified computers for ICBMs. Apollo's guidance system was based largely on ICBM guidance components and methods. Raytheon workers -- typically women with lots of sewing experience -- threaded sense wires through (or not) cores to set (or clear) bits.

Fabricating a new rope was a huge deal, so there was quite a lot of attention paid to its correctness. While the attention paid to software correctness is not the same kind that is paid today, it had the effect of achieving considerably more rigor than is generally achieved today.

[Jerry]

I used to have a few core memory boards. Tiny magnets quite literally sewn onto the board in neat arrays. If I remember correctly, the boards cost 4,000 dollars a piece (~68). That was for a 128*128 byte array...or was it 64*64 - yeah.

Those are ballpark numbers. I left the boards in an attic when I moved.

[dgavin]

I still remember wire wraping Mag Core modules for RAM back in '83, for the IBM 360-40 i worked on. I take it those Ropes are another version of Mag Core, but the magnets didn't flip around like in the RAM core modules. (Or could only flip once when intialy programing them)

[Van Rijn]

Core rope memory was core technology rom:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_rope_memory

Contrary to ordinary coincident-current magnetic core memory, which was used for RAM at the time, the ferrite cores in a core rope are just used as transformers. The signal from a word line wire passing through a given core is coupled to the bit line wire and interpreted as a binary "one" while a word line wire that bypasses the core is not coupled to the bit line wire and is read as a "zero". In the AGC, up to 64 wires could be passed through a single core.

A picture:

http://web.archive.org/web/200206130...s/Plate_19.jpg

It's interesting how similar concepts often persist with different technologies. For instance, a very early form of DRAM was based on a CRT with an array of light detectors sitting next to the phosphor. Bit density was quite a bit better than static ram with multiple tubes per bit.

[Dave J]

Originally Posted by MattMarriott

Why was my thread on stellar parallax hoax NOT reopened as promised in the last post of the moderator? See last post here
Greatest illuminati "science" hoax ever - revealed worldwide first by Matt Marriott

I went through that thread, and found but a handful of responses by the OP, with teasers, and points to other places he has his arguments/evidence.
Honestly, Matt, I have no idea what your point is. Please post, don't tease and hint. With specifics.

[sts60]

Trying to impose modern software practice on engineers of 1965 is just silly.

Heh. Trying to impose modern software practice on engineers of today is just silly

Although software-specific design methods were in their infancy, the software was considered essentially part of the hardware and electronics design and was actual configuration-controlled along with that -- to a much more rigorous degree than most software today is controlled.

Amen to that. People who hack away with the instant-gratification development technologies of today have no idea. I only go back to the punch-card batch processing era, but software development was certainly done with more care when mistakes took hours to discover, not seconds. When it took an even longer time to correct, far more effort was put into getting it right the first time. I can always verify that with a colleague of mine - back in the day, he had no time for that newfangled paper tape stuff.

[Van Rijn]

Originally Posted by sts60

Amen to that. People who hack away with the instant-gratification development technologies of today have no idea. I only go back to the punch-card batch processing era, but software development was certainly done with more care when mistakes took hours to discover, not seconds. When it took an even longer time to correct, far more effort was put into getting it right the first time. I can always verify that with a colleague of mine - back in the day, he had no time for that newfangled paper tape stuff.

Good old coding forms and desk checks. And, anybody here ever use Warnier-Orr? To be fair, even today programming practice varies depending on what kind of project it is. There's going to be a heck of a lot more careful/conservative design and verification for software that can't be easily changed and where errors could be extremely expensive or embarrassing.

[JayUtah]

Current programming practice tends to vary widely today. I and other industry people have noticed a rather alarming decline in the preparedness of Computer Science graduates we interview. Most seem to be pretty good a shoving dollars through Java, which is by far the largest market today. But they don't seem to know much of the science of computer science. A BSCS degree today is more about vocational training.

And new graduates' heads seem to be filled with lots of the latest management fads rather than a good sense of how to engineer. Their work is more about getting quickly to the next revenue event whatever the cost, not about creating something profitably sustainable. This is alarming because methodologies, enabling technologies, and languages come and go, but the basic sciences of computability endure. For a baccalaureate program to teach the former without the latter is to short-change their graduates.

My area is home to a wide variety of companies that deal in a wide variety of software components. Out of charity I'll not name the ones that follow immature processes. But the ones with good process include Rockwell Collins and Moog (avionics), Control 4 (home automation), L3 (secure military communications), Northrup Grumman (fluid flow), and General Electric (embedded tomography). These companies are often constrained by U.S. federal regulations to follow standardized practices because their product is human-rated.

But what I notice is that in the mature-process companies you find few developers younger than 35. In the e-commerce houses you find few developers older than about 35. So I notice a growing divide in the software industry between Old School and New School. The Old School seems to be in charge where quality and correctness matter. And most of the process-related problems seem to be occuring among the New School houses.

The bottom line is that I'm not willing to accept the judgment of a software developer whose only experience is in e-commerce, especially where human-rated, embedded, flight-control software is being judged. To assume that flight-control software is, was, or should be developed the same way that web development occurs is pretty naive. So someone who proposes to criticize the AGC software and its process will first have to demonstrate some knowledge of that kind of software.