John Titor and the IBM 5100
- Thread starter d28_2012
- Start date
recall15
Timekeeper
hmmmm.
instead you may start here at ATS:
John Titor Project
Review the information, discuss, debate, and draw your own conclusions.
General Electric Army Model C204.
--
regards
http://www.spaceheroes.org/
instead you may start here at ATS:
John Titor Project
Review the information, discuss, debate, and draw your own conclusions.
General Electric Army Model C204.
--
regards
http://www.spaceheroes.org/
RainmanTime
Timekeeper
Thanks for bringing us back to the topic, TimeNot.
I do believe it has been pretty much shown that Pro7's "ideas" or "discoveries" about some special capability of the IBM 5100 are tenuous, at best, and downright incorrect, at worst. His descriptions of what he calls "reversable binaries" has made no connection to the actual binary code (it only went as far as the BASIC interpreter) and he has further shown no reason to believe that, even if the IBM 5100 can perform this "reversable binaries" feat, that it has anything to do with the 5100's hardware. Moreover, this alleged quote from Pro7 shared by titorite from a PM he received is incorrect:
From the (very!) little description Pro7 provided, this capability amounts to nothing more than reading and executing program instructions in reverse order. The benefit of doing so has not been established, and the problems in doing so have been highlighted in one example by bogz. But ANY modern computer could be made to execute instructions in reverse order. Next we had the following from Pro7:
Apparantly, either he does not wish to tell us what it means, or he can NOT tell us what it means. Furthermore, even though he cannot tell us what he means he wishes to set himself up as the only authority on it by telling us to not let other "experts" tell us what it means. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif
Once again we have a setup for "only *I* can tell you about this feature". The second part of the first sentence is difficult to understand..so who knows what he is referring to there. And since NO books ANYWHERE have this capability described or documented, one must then ask the natural question "Is there such a capability, or are we being fed BS?"
The answer to this is simple. The IBM mainframes at that time had an operating system that was called "System 360 (S/360)." And the IBM 5100 was certainly designed to be capable of emulating that HW+SW mainframe system.
Time and again we have addressed this incorrect statement. And Pro7 has not even attempted to correct himself or even address us as to why we might be mistaken. What he describes as "reversable binarial capability" can most certainly be implemented in SW, and would NOT require any HW modifications at all. Period.
Later we heard from Pro7 directly:
And what is apparantly mysterious is that when he finally "indicated the hardware methods..." his friend "got it". Yet Pro7 cannot seem to describe these "hardware methods" to us so we can "get it" (and I seriously doubt that anything he could tell us would be viable).
This is NOT TRUE for any number of reasons. First reason is that virtually ALL modern computers and their BASIC compilers/interpreters have dropped the need for line numbers altogether. But going with your example on the IBM 5100 and its BASIC interpreter (which was improved and added to the later IBM-PC line), it would NOT GENERATE a syntax error, because even though you may have typed the lines in the order you see above, the line numbers themselves are used to order the program. The IBM BASIC interpreter of that day and age WOULD accept the lines just as you typed them, and if you then issued a "LIST" command it would list back the program in the proper order (the clue is, it used the line numbers to determine what order you intended):
10] Print "Hi how are you?"
20] Goto 10
30] END
That is exactly what the computer would list, and this is NOT any magical feature. It is simply using the line numbers of the program in the EXACT manner in which they were intended! ANY BASIC interpreter from the late 70s and early 80s has this capability.
This is simply not true, as I have explained above.
So all of this hoopla that Pro7 has attempted to stir up (currently) amounts to nothing. There is no "there" there.
RMT
I do believe it has been pretty much shown that Pro7's "ideas" or "discoveries" about some special capability of the IBM 5100 are tenuous, at best, and downright incorrect, at worst. His descriptions of what he calls "reversable binaries" has made no connection to the actual binary code (it only went as far as the BASIC interpreter) and he has further shown no reason to believe that, even if the IBM 5100 can perform this "reversable binaries" feat, that it has anything to do with the 5100's hardware. Moreover, this alleged quote from Pro7 shared by titorite from a PM he received is incorrect:
From the (very!) little description Pro7 provided, this capability amounts to nothing more than reading and executing program instructions in reverse order. The benefit of doing so has not been established, and the problems in doing so have been highlighted in one example by bogz. But ANY modern computer could be made to execute instructions in reverse order. Next we had the following from Pro7:
Apparantly, either he does not wish to tell us what it means, or he can NOT tell us what it means. Furthermore, even though he cannot tell us what he means he wishes to set himself up as the only authority on it by telling us to not let other "experts" tell us what it means. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif
Once again we have a setup for "only *I* can tell you about this feature". The second part of the first sentence is difficult to understand..so who knows what he is referring to there. And since NO books ANYWHERE have this capability described or documented, one must then ask the natural question "Is there such a capability, or are we being fed BS?"
The answer to this is simple. The IBM mainframes at that time had an operating system that was called "System 360 (S/360)." And the IBM 5100 was certainly designed to be capable of emulating that HW+SW mainframe system.
Time and again we have addressed this incorrect statement. And Pro7 has not even attempted to correct himself or even address us as to why we might be mistaken. What he describes as "reversable binarial capability" can most certainly be implemented in SW, and would NOT require any HW modifications at all. Period.
Later we heard from Pro7 directly:
And what is apparantly mysterious is that when he finally "indicated the hardware methods..." his friend "got it". Yet Pro7 cannot seem to describe these "hardware methods" to us so we can "get it" (and I seriously doubt that anything he could tell us would be viable).
This is NOT TRUE for any number of reasons. First reason is that virtually ALL modern computers and their BASIC compilers/interpreters have dropped the need for line numbers altogether. But going with your example on the IBM 5100 and its BASIC interpreter (which was improved and added to the later IBM-PC line), it would NOT GENERATE a syntax error, because even though you may have typed the lines in the order you see above, the line numbers themselves are used to order the program. The IBM BASIC interpreter of that day and age WOULD accept the lines just as you typed them, and if you then issued a "LIST" command it would list back the program in the proper order (the clue is, it used the line numbers to determine what order you intended):
10] Print "Hi how are you?"
20] Goto 10
30] END
That is exactly what the computer would list, and this is NOT any magical feature. It is simply using the line numbers of the program in the EXACT manner in which they were intended! ANY BASIC interpreter from the late 70s and early 80s has this capability.
This is simply not true, as I have explained above.
So all of this hoopla that Pro7 has attempted to stir up (currently) amounts to nothing. There is no "there" there.
RMT
I thought the reverse coding might work for
debugging process. But it even fails there.
You can’t reverse history by backward stepping.
10] I = I + 1
20] Goto 10
30] END
Guess what happen going forward or backward
I = I +1 still happens and increments and not
I = I –1 does not occur to reverse history.
In conclusion this scenario is useless
for debugging registers and will not recover
to the past.
Note I am not a Basic programmer but a C++ one.
debugging process. But it even fails there.
You can’t reverse history by backward stepping.
10] I = I + 1
20] Goto 10
30] END
Guess what happen going forward or backward
I = I +1 still happens and increments and not
I = I –1 does not occur to reverse history.
In conclusion this scenario is useless
for debugging registers and will not recover
to the past.
Note I am not a Basic programmer but a C++ one.
a time machine in his car? lol hahahaha "back to the future" movie!
oh god i cant believe this crap. I skipped all the way to the end. Those pictures are fascinating, I believe they are parts from a MRI machine. Looks pretty convincing about a "GE army model" but I can believe its not. I do know that a laser does bend in a hospital MRI machine when its turned on. when i was in a bad car accident, i lost my right leg and in the hospital i was given a laser pen for a gift from a cousin of mine. I had many get well cards, etc
when I went into the mri for testing (i was comatose for 2 days and had serious fractures in my skull, I was diagnosed having memory recall problems) i had that laser pen with me in my palm of my hand and the tech there told me not to move at all. I went inside that thing and i twisted the pen upwards to play around with it, and when that mri turned on, that pen flew away from my hand to stick on the top of the mri tunnel and it was turned on.
I saw the laser point was bent downwards to the center of the mri tunnel and ended up pointed to the tech standing behind the glass window. he got pissed off turned off the mri and took the pen away from me. it was stupid of me to have anything metal in there. lol
oh god i cant believe this crap. I skipped all the way to the end. Those pictures are fascinating, I believe they are parts from a MRI machine. Looks pretty convincing about a "GE army model" but I can believe its not. I do know that a laser does bend in a hospital MRI machine when its turned on. when i was in a bad car accident, i lost my right leg and in the hospital i was given a laser pen for a gift from a cousin of mine. I had many get well cards, etc
when I went into the mri for testing (i was comatose for 2 days and had serious fractures in my skull, I was diagnosed having memory recall problems) i had that laser pen with me in my palm of my hand and the tech there told me not to move at all. I went inside that thing and i twisted the pen upwards to play around with it, and when that mri turned on, that pen flew away from my hand to stick on the top of the mri tunnel and it was turned on.
I saw the laser point was bent downwards to the center of the mri tunnel and ended up pointed to the tech standing behind the glass window. he got pissed off turned off the mri and took the pen away from me. it was stupid of me to have anything metal in there. lol
ruthless
Timekeeper
"when I went into the mri for testing (i was comatose for 2 days and had serious fractures in my skull, I was diagnosed having memory recall problems) i had that laser pen with me in my palm of my hand and the tech there told me not to move at all."
yeah? well i once sailed the ocean with christopher columbus and captain ahab! we found this cool island. lotsa people who live in cone shaped buffalo skins... crazy stuff...
oh, and just a little fyi. since you didnt know, ya cant hold onto anything metal while around a mri machine. that is, unless you wanna go for one crazy ride. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
im through posting on this. now its just comedy...
yeah? well i once sailed the ocean with christopher columbus and captain ahab! we found this cool island. lotsa people who live in cone shaped buffalo skins... crazy stuff...
oh, and just a little fyi. since you didnt know, ya cant hold onto anything metal while around a mri machine. that is, unless you wanna go for one crazy ride. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
im through posting on this. now its just comedy...
another thing which i didnt explain
I had a odd job which i was a delivery man for IHC in utah before my car accident. They had me deliver parts for a MRI machine to a hospital down there. Yea.. this is what those parts eerily looks like from the pictures of a "GE army model manual" which JT claimed.
I had a odd job which i was a delivery man for IHC in utah before my car accident. They had me deliver parts for a MRI machine to a hospital down there. Yea.. this is what those parts eerily looks like from the pictures of a "GE army model manual" which JT claimed.
Darby
Timekeeper
Pro7,
Pretty close (I'm assumig that you're refering the the large "pistol" shaped component in the middle of the schematic).
It's some sort of 1960's vintage klystron. Dr. Robert Brown, Duke University Physics Dept., agreed with that identification. A klystron produces high energy EM fields.
We've had one UK mining engineer here and another mining engineer from the US on Anomalies independently (but tentatively) ID the gadget as a 1960's vintage mass spectrometer that was originally used in mining to detect poisonous gas in mines.
The engineer from the UK even took a stab at the brand. He said BOC (British Oxygen Corp). He said that the particular model in the schematic was highly modular. PC boards could be removed and replaced to detect a variety of molecules including NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical) agents. The American engineer added that he'd seen the unit used in large community fall-out shelters in the 1960's to detect radiologicals in the shelter air intake manifolds following a nuclear detonation. (The modules went into the three slots on the right side of the schematic. Note that one slot is empty in that picture.)
He opined that Group Titor probably picked up the gadget and Victoreen geiger counter as props from a Civil Defense office in and about Orlando-Celebration that was cleaning house.
It's an old piece of hardware. You can even see the vacuum tubes and BNC connectors in the schematic.
Pretty close (I'm assumig that you're refering the the large "pistol" shaped component in the middle of the schematic).
It's some sort of 1960's vintage klystron. Dr. Robert Brown, Duke University Physics Dept., agreed with that identification. A klystron produces high energy EM fields.
We've had one UK mining engineer here and another mining engineer from the US on Anomalies independently (but tentatively) ID the gadget as a 1960's vintage mass spectrometer that was originally used in mining to detect poisonous gas in mines.
The engineer from the UK even took a stab at the brand. He said BOC (British Oxygen Corp). He said that the particular model in the schematic was highly modular. PC boards could be removed and replaced to detect a variety of molecules including NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical) agents. The American engineer added that he'd seen the unit used in large community fall-out shelters in the 1960's to detect radiologicals in the shelter air intake manifolds following a nuclear detonation. (The modules went into the three slots on the right side of the schematic. Note that one slot is empty in that picture.)
He opined that Group Titor probably picked up the gadget and Victoreen geiger counter as props from a Civil Defense office in and about Orlando-Celebration that was cleaning house.
It's an old piece of hardware. You can even see the vacuum tubes and BNC connectors in the schematic.
Darby
Timekeeper
It's actually a bit humorous seeing the Victoreen Rad counter in the photo. Titor's gadget would obviously be emitting hard gamma radiation (not just obvious - he said that it emits x-rays...one diagram even includes the x-ray "vent"). The Victoreen's meter in his photos max's out at 0.5 R/hr. It can detect low levels of non-lethal radiation but that's it. It wouldn't tell him anything about whether or not he was receiving a lethal dose of gamma radiation (300+ R/hr).
It's a useless prop within the context of his story.
Have you read Timeline by Michael Crichton? When I first read it, I thought it would make a darn good movie. The movie was okay, but the book has some interesting information. Here's an excerpt:
"Most people," Gordon said, "don't realize that the ordinary hospital MRI works by changing the quantum state of atoms in your body-generally, the angular momentum of nuclear particles. Experience with MRIs tells us that changing your quantum state has no ill effect. In fact, you don't even notice it happening.
"But the ordinary MRI does this with a very powerful magnetic field-say, 1.5 tesla, about twenty-five thousand times as strong as the earth's magnetic field. We use superconducting quantum interference devices, or SQUIDS, that are so sensitive they can measure resonance just from the earth's magnetic field. We don't have any magnets in there."
"Most people," Gordon said, "don't realize that the ordinary hospital MRI works by changing the quantum state of atoms in your body-generally, the angular momentum of nuclear particles. Experience with MRIs tells us that changing your quantum state has no ill effect. In fact, you don't even notice it happening.
"But the ordinary MRI does this with a very powerful magnetic field-say, 1.5 tesla, about twenty-five thousand times as strong as the earth's magnetic field. We use superconducting quantum interference devices, or SQUIDS, that are so sensitive they can measure resonance just from the earth's magnetic field. We don't have any magnets in there."
http://oldcomputers.net/ibm5100.html
Project Mercury is mentioned here. Just thought this was interesting.
Project Mercury is mentioned here. Just thought this was interesting.
How do you use Quotes on here? I was replying to Pro7's post.
Even I would agree that its not possible. However I saw what I saw and I tried my best to interpret it. It is clear to me that I cannot interpret what I do not understand. Mechnor did say that one of the chips on the processor werent actually being 'used simultaneously'.
Even I would agree that its not possible. However I saw what I saw and I tried my best to interpret it. It is clear to me that I cannot interpret what I do not understand. Mechnor did say that one of the chips on the processor werent actually being 'used simultaneously'.
Similar threads
