Was Pamela Moore Pretty?

Re: For a change, RMT...:)

As I have also told you many times before, I can only go with YOUR words, and you keep changing them. HOW am I supposed to reach a CORRECT understanding of your interpretation if every time I point out a problem with your latest version of your interpretation, you CHANGE YOUR STORY!?
Click to expand...

There you go, you do not understand what the interpretation is about. Thats why you say this:

"You seem to forget how many times you changed your "point" about the emulator. First it was just an emulator, then it was SOFTWARE only (that point is still not addressed from the last reply), and then it suddenly became ONLY A THIRD PARTY EMULATOR. And for that matter, you have STILL NOT PROVEN that it was "IMPOSSIBLE" to make such an emulator before 1998. That is another part of your "interpretation" that has either changed or you no longer are interested in discussing"

They are all part of the same interpretation, same story.
 
Re: For a change, RMT...:)

There you go, trying to ignore my points again. Go ahead, ignore, ignore, ignore. It doesn't change the FACT that you have not, and cannot, prove ANYTHING related to whatever your ever-changing interpretation is.

RMT
 
Re: For a change, RMT...:)

note on said discussion ; aliens will, on further , always think about, a, spacecraft in space. perhaps chickens, will now, travel in, said vehicles.
 
Lack of imagination! Wrong attitude! Made into a political holocaust, when none is needed!

Taken to task by others when attitude was not meant by Creedo, just awkward in expression when dealing with some subjects!

Thou shalt not give a man's attitude concerning any female.

Now, you may complain about this:

http://music.download.com/temporalanalogy/3600-8363_32-100759572.html?tag=listing_song_artist

Will see if anyone likes -- --- ---- free!
Free MP3 ----- Free!

Disclaimer:
Feel free to find one of the thousands of other artists also!

Home of the Brave, Land of the Free!
The Rockets Red Glare, the Bombs Bursting through Air!
Gave Proof Through the Night, That Our Flag Was Still There!
Oh, say, does that Star-Spangled Banner o'vr Wave?


It still can be like that one comedy bit, where someone enters into McDonalds or somewhere with a gun and everyone else pulls out their guns and aims those guns at the person entering into the place with a gun!

Feel like your the person who entered into the place with a gun, while everyone else pulls out their own!

Creedo, I do not think that the subject that you brought up is time-travel related, and entering into a sewer pit is something that some people do do for a job!

Forgetting trash in the World may be one of human's biggest problem. Out of sight, out of mind!
But what of the others who take it away to the land-fill, and remind you that they already assume that since the trash is out of your way, you may feel --- free --- to create some more!

If some people left to their own devices, they may end up covered over in trash he/she/alien-self created while everyone else --- decided to leave it where you created it --- and decided that you were not worth your own trash, for making it in the first place!
 
T-not o, technically' your an ass.

I had to ask about Pamela Moore, as she is a past subject.

Nothing taken to the sewers, nor intended that way.

In Pamela's last post here, she admitted to something.

This throws the covers off allot of things concerning her.

What is additionally funny about her, is I have two separate images of her, which has really peaked my curiosity, of what's she is about, not any access to her.

In genetics experiments, when they start to infuse advanced gene materials into humans, to start to look babydollish in appearance.
Save this for a possibility.

Pamela has more laterality to her, but I would never offend.

I think with a few of the answers given here, well some retork, was out of character.

But afterall, she was one of the realiers of a major portion of said Titoric information.

So no, not dare ever to offend her.All I asked, was she pretty.

If the people who answer here, want to drag this through the garbage can then that's their problem, not mine.

And don't dare insinuate to me, that in your comparison to me, that Im less in the social sence to you.

Pamela is part of history and in the sence of John Titor, she has played this as one does a well string minuet.

Did you know that RMT can dim lights, when he's upset.

Start looking at the characters your playing with on this board.

It may serve you well in your caution zones, to be less insulting?
 
Hercules,

Here is Pamela's ILLOGICAL stuff:

This is the same model of computer John took back to the future. Its an IBM Series 5100, type 5110 (Thanks Pamela for the images)

http://www.anomalies.net/time_travel/john.html

Not to mention that LABEL: "show of proof".

That is COMPLETELY ILLOGICAL, whatever be the argument. Moreover, Bob Dubke's comments about secret functions are about 5100, not 5110. 5110 did not inherit all the charecteristics of s/360.

LOGICAL thinking is necessary for solving the mystery of Titor,
Click to expand...

I know that this thread is many months old. I just saw it for the first time and had to respond.

You actually failed to glean a big clue here about the Titor Saga. It is about "The label".

Titor never quite got it straight about what model IMB computer he traveled to 1975 to obtain. In some posts he said "IBM 5100", in others he said IBM "5110". But he was very specific about the year that he traveled to to pick it up - 1975.

Because he specified 1975 the correct conclusion is that he meant "IBM 5100". It was released in 1975. The "IBM 5110" was not released until 1978.

However, when Pamela received the label in the mail from Titor it was from an "IBM 5110" - it says so right on the label. That's why she originally posted the IBM 5110 photo. It matched the label. It wasn't until we (Pamela and I) went back and saw the inconsistencies in his posts that the problem with the label became clear:

Titor purposely tried to mislead her by sending the wrong label. This one doesn't make much sense. Pamela was just about his only ally and friend.

Or, as happened in other circumstances, he got confused about some of the details in his sci-fi story and turned what was originally a "typo" into a hard artifact of the story...the IBM 5100 label.

Pesonally, I think that it was the latter case. He was generally good about keeping the gross details consistent but there were some "little" details, like the exact model PC, that he failed to keep consistent.

The bottom line becomes this: all of the debate about what an IBM 5100 or IBM 5110 can or can't do is irrelevent. It has nothing at all to do with the problem encountered. Titor said he went to 1975 to pick up an IBM 51xx computer. The only such model in existence at that time was the "5100". He sent Pamela the label from a 1978 model "5110". Wrong computer entirely and one which was not invented until three years after Titor's visit to 1975.

The "which computer does what" arguments are laid moot.

BTW: Once Pamela realized that there was an inconsistency between the label and the details in his written account online she posted her observation about the problem with the label.
 
Darby,

Thanks for the reply.

Actually, it is not interesting to discuss about Titor anymore.

But this particular IBM 5100 plot has always fascinated me.

Because he specified 1975 the correct conclusion is that he meant "IBM 5100". It was released in 1975. The "IBM 5110" was not released until 1978.

The "which computer does what" arguments are laid moot.
Click to expand...

Actually, the IBM computer does not “do” anything more than basic computing. But the significance of the computer is that, IBM decided to make the first desktop model in a very short period and bring it quickly to market. For this, they emulated the entire system 360 architecture into the ROM of the IBM 5100. This information can be found in this IBM journal dated 1991. I think this journal is not accessible now, but I copy pasted the information in another thread

Once again, the quickest way to show feasibility and produce a prototype was to emulate an existing machine that already had APL programmed for it. In this case, the Model 1130 was chosen. Thus, APL\1130, a system that had its origins in Elsie, the earlier Los Gatos machine, and that had been ported by emulation to the Model 1130, where it was eventually converted to native 1130 architecture code, was now ported to a new machine in which Los Gatos was also involved in the hardware design. The functioning prototype, know as SCAMP (Special Computer APL Machine Portable), was produced in the short time of six months, and was successful in persuading the General Systems Division to proceed with a production machine.% At present the SCAMP prototype, an APL machine that was the unique forerunner of the first production personal computer, resides in the collection of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DCz9 The production machine was designed at IBM’s General Systems Division laboratory at Rochester, Minnesota, and was made available as a product, the IBM 5100 machine, in 1974-less than a year and a half from the start. This remarkably short development cycle for such a complex new product can be attributed in large part to the fact that emulation was used again, even in the final product. This time, however, although the same Palm internal engine was used, System/360 architecture was emulated rather than 1130 architecture, so that the up-to-date APLSV product system could be used as the APL facility with virtually no modification.

http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/304/ibmsj3004C.pdf
Click to expand...

The fact that the 360 emulation was in IBM 5100 was a secret at that time(1975), but I guess it was exposed by IBM in the 1990s.

My point was, the hoaxer very well knew that the IBM 5100 was a special machine in the sense it had the entire s/360 architecture emulated inside its memory.

This is apparent when Titor said “Think back to the early days of the computer and how much work and cleverness it took to fit those programs into such small areas of memory. Has more and cheaper memory brought better programs or just more programs?”


The hoaxer knew that IBM 5100 was the special machine and not 5110. Anyone would know this, by looking into the journal. This was what was confirmed by Bob Dubke. I don’t know why Titor used IBM 5110, but why would he use 5110 and send a label, if he clearly knew 5100 is the special machine?

If look into the production of 5110, it took some 3 years for its design, and it did not emulate the 360 architecture.

The system 360 later evolved into system 370, system 390 and the z series all of them compatible with the system 360. So if you could find a way to hack system 360, you can access all its derivatives. This hacking was not done until 1999 when Roger bowler came up with a Mainframe emulator, which emulated s/360 and fully compatible with 370, 390 and the z series.

My theory was Titor leaked out the memory chips in 1998 that made this possible.
 
Welcome back, Herc. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I don’t know why Titor used IBM 5110, but why would he use 5110 and send a label, if he clearly knew 5100 is the special machine?
Click to expand...
Perhaps he was just having trouble keeping his fake story straight?

The system 360 later evolved into system 370, system 390 and the z series all of them compatible with the system 360. So if you could find a way to hack system 360, you can access all its derivatives.
Click to expand...
This last statement is not necessaily true. It assumes forward compatibility, which has not been ascertained. A more correct statement would be "...if you could find a way to hack system 360, you can access all of the legacy applications developed under it." You cannot say that you can access all of its derivatives because you do not know what other features and capability those derivatives may have (and did) add that was over-and-above the existing system 360. This is the issue of forward compatibility, which I know you are aware of. You cannot claim that s/360 is forward-compatible with s/370 and beyond until you can claim that these later systems added no new functionality or features (which would be a bit hard to believe given the advancements in technology).

My theory was Titor leaked out the memory chips in 1998 that made this possible.
Click to expand...
So now we finally have you "on the record" for stating what your theory is. Does that mean you won't change it if I proceed to point out why there are flaws in it? The biggest flaw is that it relies on Titor being a real time traveler, which I think we are now seeing was never true.

RMT
 
This last statement is not necessaily true. It assumes forward compatibility, which has not been ascertained. A more correct statement would be "...if you could find a way to hack system 360, you can access all of the legacy applications developed under it." You cannot say that you can access all of its derivatives because you do not know what other features and capability those derivatives may have (and did) add that was over-and-above the existing system 360. This is the issue of forward compatibility, which I know you are aware of. You cannot claim that s/360 is forward-compatible with s/370 and beyond until you can claim that these later systems added no new functionality or features (which would be a bit hard to believe given the advancements in technology).
Click to expand...

Very well, I know I could not argue with you, because you tend to go for semantics. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Do you agree with me that Hercules emulator is fully compatible with S/370, s/390 and the latest z/series?

If you do, then it is a s/360 emulator written by Roger Bowler. If so, then all of them are fully compatible with s/360. If not, then he would have seperately written emulators for each of the architectures. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Jay Maynard(Maintainer): Hercules was the first open source emulator for the complete 370/390/z/Arch instruction set.

Roger Bowler(Creator): As Hercules has proved, it's within the capability of a single individual to write a complete S/360 emulator in around 6 months which runs on modern cheap hardware.
Click to expand...

Perhaps he was just having trouble keeping his fake story straight?
Click to expand...

I am not arguing Titor is real, but that 5110 label thing is something I would not do if I were the hoaxer. :D
 
Do you agree with me that Hercules emulator is fully compatible with S/370, s/390 and the latest z/series?
Click to expand...
Well, no. I cannot agree that it is "fully" compatible because as even the creator of Hercules has admitted, you still must have the OS that runs on top of the S/360, 370, and 390 hardware before it would be "fully compatible".


And oh, BTW, this is not just an issue of semantics but a highly technical issue. Amateurs are the ones who tend to address simple compatibility rather than addressing the real issue of both FORWARD and BACKWARD compatibility. And if you know the ins-and-outs of emulation, these are major issues for any emulator.

I am not arguing Titor is real, but that 5110 label thing is something I would not do if I were the hoaxer.
Click to expand...
Well, I would certainly agree with you there, and I would also add that it was a pretty large blunder for Titor to send a photo of a 5120 to Pamela! You see, this is why I have always dogged you on your "theory". It relies on too many things that not only cannot be verified, but it ignores these facts that Titor could not and did not keep his story straight with his later evidence. He started the story with the 5100... then came the 5110 label... and finally the 5120 photo. A person who utilizes science and logic in their analysis would see that these elements tend to tear apart his story, and therefore your theory as well.

Sorry... but you have to look at ALL the data, not just the data you like. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
RMT
 
I find it interesting you ignore me Hercules. I could solve ANY problem that Titor's boss needed solved with my PC from 2006 yet you ignore this fact. Perhaps I lack credentials?
 
And oh, BTW, this is not just an issue of semantics but a highly technical issue. Amateurs are the ones who tend to address simple compatibility rather than addressing the real issue of both FORWARD and BACKWARD compatibility. And if you know the ins-and-outs of emulation, these are major issues for any emulator.
Click to expand...

Uh Oh, I had it before, I don’t want to start it again, I very well admit whatever you say is 100% right, cuz I’ve become very busy now and I cannot spend too much time arguing with you. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif


I find it interesting you ignore me Hercules. I could solve ANY problem that Titor's boss needed solved with my PC from 2006 yet you ignore this fact. Perhaps I lack credentials?
Click to expand...

No, I did not ignore you, bogz, but you were talking about the AMD 4000+ processor, while I was talking about the memory chips in 5100 and hacking mainframe architecture, and not the processor in 5100. Hope you get what I am saying. Try hacking any mainframe application with the AMD processor. I hope you do not ignore this. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
I would also add that it was a pretty large blunder for Titor to send a photo of a 5120 to Pamela
Click to expand...

My understanding is those photos of the "5100" were taken by Pamela. Why do you say they were sent to Pamela from jt?
 
MEM,

My understanding is those photos of the "5100" were taken by Pamela. Why do you say they were sent to Pamela from jt?
Click to expand...

Pamela didn't take the photos and Titor didn't send them to her. She received them from a collector.

At that time she told me that she couldn't locate a photo of an IBM 5100 online. She checked online with a few IBM collectors and asked them if they had a photo of one for her. The one that she received was the 5110. As I recall she made it clear at that time that the photos were not of an IBM 5100 but the 5100 and 5110 looked very similar. The photo was submitted to her by a computer collector.

I can verify her claim. I also didn't find a good photo online of a 5100 in early 2001. There were a few listed for sale online but the sellers didn't have a photo with the ad.
 
Hi Darby,

Pamela didn't take the photos and Titor didn't send them to her. She received them from a collector.
Click to expand...
A collector who lived in Florida, one might say.
An interesting place in Florida, to boot! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

The one that she received was the 5110. As I recall she made it clear at that time that the photos were not of an IBM 5100 but the 5100 and 5110 looked very similar.
Click to expand...
I guess what I am suggesting is that you update the captions on THIS page. Clearly, what these photos are showing is a 5120. And I submit that the person who took the photo and sent it to Pamela had a vested interest in the Titor story.

Yes, the 5100 and 5110 DO look very similar as you can see in the IBM photos I have provided above. In fact, the only real discernable differences are the white fascia & keys on the 5100, whereas the 5110 has black fascia & keys. But now when you compare these to the 5120, you can see that the 5120 depicted in the photos sent to Pamela clearly have nothing to do with the Titor story of the 5100 or 5110 (choose yer poison).


RMT
 
Rainman,

In Titor's Saga he was very clear about what year he was to go to to pick up an IBM micro. That year was 1975. The only 51xx computer that he could have picked up was an IBM 5100. Yet he sent pamela the label from a 1978 IBM 5110. His Continuity Clerk didn't check the script, as it were, to make sure that the prop fit the story.

It doesn't make any difference what the IBM 5100 could or couldn't do with respect to the IBM 5110, 5120 or 86xx. He sent the wrong item to her.

But that might not be such a surprise because, as he told the story, he too got confused. Sometimes the item was a 5100 at other times it was a 5110. If he was a time traveler all he had to do was look to his left (or right) and look at the damned computer that he was dragging along with him through time. He had it with him - that was the reason for the time trip.


So I think that all the debate over the years about what an IBM 5100 can or can't do is irrelevent in the context of the story. Yes, he said that the 5100 had some "secret" ability that later model 51xx series computers didn't have. He said that he needed the 5100 - this being settled only after he was called on his inconsistency. Yet he sent Pamela the label from the computer that he said that picked up in 1975 - the label from a nonexistent 5110 in that year.

Its the wrong item so why should we really care what computer does what? We're chasing the smoke rather than the facts of the story as he told it and the hard (and faulty) evidence that he provided to proove himself to Pamela.

Chasing the smoke means that we're trying to proove that one computer does something that the other doesn't when the drill is supposed to be to validate or nullify his thesis - "I am from 2036".
 
No, I did not ignore you, bogz, but you were talking about the AMD 4000+ processor, while I was talking about the memory chips in 5100 and hacking mainframe architecture
Click to expand...

Then I simply was not clear enough. Any purpose what-so-ever that you can come up with for a 5100, I can negate my own knowledge, a pencil, a piece of papaer, and my computer including the keyboard, monitor, mouse and all the components.

Try hacking any mainframe application with the AMD processor. I hope you do not ignore this.
Click to expand...

That's easy enough, give me the raw machine code and I will tell you exactly what it does and I'll even write a better version in Ruby.

Now unless you doubt my credentials that should be the end of the story.
 
Back
Top