Lovell and Shepard Star Sighting Contradiction Proves Navigation Bogus and Apollo Inauthenticity

reply to post by decisively

I began to study Apollo one year ago.

You started studying Apollo one year ago? No wonder you have so few arguments! That's why you keep repeating the same debunked thing over and over again. You're arguing with people who have spent two years on a single Apollo thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You don't have the depth or breadth of knowledge, and are certainly weak on reasoning skills. More importantly, you don't have the stamina to go the distance. You couldn't even finish four years of High School.

Originally posted by dragonridr

Having to use stars for navigation was obsolete by the time the Apollo missions occurred.Navigation was controlled by mission control not the astronauts. Listen to the course correction mission control tells them when and for how long to fire thrusters it was all plotted by computers on the ground.Originally they believed the astronauts would be plotting there course, but with some advances made it proved to be better for mission control to handle it.So your argument kind of disproves your theory actually.Why have something redundant that was no longer needed if they faked it?

Nonsense.

These star charts were used by astronaut and Command Module Pilot, Michael Collins, during training sessions prior to the Apollo 11 mission launched in July 1969.

Star charts were an important piece of navigation equipment used by the astronauts during the Apollo missions, enabling them to fix their location at any given time.

These star charts were donated to the National Air and Space Museum by Michael Collins in 1985.

airandspace.si.edu...

The inertial navigation system on the Apollo spacecraft was tightly integrated with the guidance computer itself. They were effectively one machine. The exact orientation of the spacecraft was critical to the computer-controlled rocket firings so that orientation had to be as accurate as possible. But gyros drift, and the INS could not keep its orientation accurately enough for more than about a day. That's when the astronauts got to shoot the stars. The procedure was known as "P52" (program 52) and it was as close as the astronauts came to manual navigation for the most part. In P52, the astronaut would re-align the inertial platform by requesting a particular star out of the standard list of 37. The computer would then electronically point the sextant at the expected position of that star. The astronaut would then look through the sextant (which had a high magnification for a sextant: 28x) and he would adjust the pointing by a few hundredths or a few tenths of a degree until the star was right on the crosshairs. He would press a button. The computer would read the offset in angle electronically to a precision of a thousandth of a degree, and the pointing error would be displayed. The astronaut would then accept or reject the adjustment and repeat the procedure with a second star. That was it. No manual reading of scales. No paper calculations or table look-ups. No adjustments for refraction or "irradiation" or anything else. You'll note that this "P52" process was really using the sextant as an astro-compass: the angles were relative to the orientation of the ship, not angles between celestial bodies.

More here: fer3.com...

Apollo for a year, medicine for 33 now

reply to post by DJW001


Sorry to bust up Apollo's little party DJW001, but with all due respect, they really do need, NASA does, to trot out a couple of their docs to debate me. I mean, it is of course not mandatory, they can stall all they like , continue to stonewall as they do, but if it's not me, it's gonna' be a guy doing his/her internship now that will come on board in 5 years, or a kid in college now headed for med school. They may as well take their medicine now, let Armstrong off the proverbial hook, let the guy die in proverbial peace. What a wasted life, lying the whole time, lying with every breath, to protect some clowns that wanted to build better ICBMs/SLBMs and equipment to track/defend the same flying in from the other side. He would have been better off teaching 7th grade.

Bluff all you like DJW001, but truth is, and we all know it here, as regards the phony Borman cislunar diarrheal illness, Shepard's bogus Meniere's disease cure, Slayton's a-fib issue, no one has ever effectively countered my claims and associated air tight demonstration of Apollo Inauthenticity. And in the world of Apollo, it is indeed I, decisively, and a half dozen friends who are the experts here, experts without peer.

I don't claim to know everything about Apollo, make plenty of mistakes. That said, in broad outline, I am ever so right on, and without hesitation claim to have proven beyond any doubt that Apollo is full on BULL. Indeed, owing to the work done by my colleagues and myself, there is no longer any question whatsoever as regards Apollo Inauthenticity, nary a NASA doctor within a light year brave enough to brave a debate with even the weakest of us, the docs that do Apollo fraud.

Interesting you find me so ill informed. I believe it was you not but two pages back that suggested the IMU/platform could be aligned by way of uploading data from the ground tracking system. Call me what you like, but if I am ignorant/naive, what does that make you DJW001 ? Perhaps the most fundamental aspect of the entire optics/guidance/navigating system and you had not a clue ? So let's cut it with the jive JDW001, I run circles around Chaikin, Harland, and you when it comes to familiarity with Apollo's real history, not to mention my familiarity with the fundamentals of their imaginary machines. I am thrice as smart, thrice so well informed, and that is quite literally a fact, despite my short time seriously investigating these shenanigans.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I make plenty of mistakes, but nevertheless, I have made more progress identifying PERPS than any other Apollo Historian heretofore, with the more than likely only notable exception of ATS's own SayonaraJupiter. Truth be told, it is indeed an honor to be "bested", if I may use such an awkward term in this regard, by such a talented, dedicated and courageous investigator.

By the way, I've nailed another, none other than NASA's once celebrated Public Address Man, Jack King. I know I need not encourage you to check out my upcoming posts as regards the good Mr. King and how he was a member of the crew that screwed us all so good, your heroes, THE MAVENS OF LUNAR CHARADE. Despite your words suggesting mine to be a mind operating but a plane above that of half moronic, oh my DWJ001, how you do ever so follow my every post !!! One life to live and you spend so very much of yours in this ever so anemic effort to counter me.

Why is that DJW001 ? Why spend so many precious hours of your life battling a "kook". I certainly have not been able to figure it out, your fascination with my "platform", a platform with its own most recalcitrant attitude.

Why is it DJW001 that you read my posts and spend so much precious time with me ?

reply to post by decisively

Sorry to bust up Apollo's little party DJW001, but with all due respect, they really do need, NASA does, to trot out a couple of their docs to debate me.

Why?

Bluff all you like DJW001, but truth is, and we all know it here, as regards the phony Borman cislunar diarrheal illness, Shepard's bogus Meniere's disease cure, Slayton's a-fib issue, no one has ever effectively countered my claims and associated air tight demonstration of Apollo Inauthenticity. And in the world of Apollo, it is indeed I, decisively, and a half dozen friends who are the experts here, experts without peer.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Do I need to go on? The bottom line is, even if we grant your premises, you have not been able to use them to reach your conclusions.

Interesting you find me so ill informed. I believe it was you not but two pages back that suggested the IMU/platform could be aligned by way of uploading data from the ground tracking system. Call me what you like, but if I am ignorant/naive, what does that make you DJW001 ? Perhaps the most fundamental aspect of the entire optics/guidance/navigating system and you had not a clue ? So let's cut it with jive JDW001, I run circles around Chaikin, Harland, and you when it comes to familiarity with Apollo's real history, not to mention my familiarity with the fundamentals of their imaginary machines. I am thrice as smart, thrice so well informed, and that is quite literally a fact, despite my short time seriously investigating these shenanigans.

Where did I say that they wouldn't need to use the sextant to realign the platform? After they had uploaded the data record from Earth, they would use the sextant to correct any drift from the previous reading, the way they normally did. . Contrary to your assertions, the sextant worked just fine. Only Dr. Smith on "Lost In Space" uses the word "thrice."

By the way, I've nailed another, none other than NASA's once celebrated Public Address Man, Jack King. I know I need not encourage you to check out my upcoming posts as regards the good Mr. King and how he was a member of the crew that screwed us all so good, your heroes, THE MAVENS OF LUNAR CHARADE. Despite your words suggesting mine to be a mind operating but a plane above that of half moronic, oh my DWJ001, how you do ever so follow my every post !!! One life to live and you spend so very much of yours in this ever so anemic effort to counter me.

I'm not the one who is compelled to boast in self defense.

Why is that DJW001 ? Why spend so many precious hours of your life battling a "kook". I certainly have not been able to figure it out, your fascination with my "platform", a platform with its own most recalcitrant attitude.

Why is it DJW001 that you read my posts and spend so much precious time with me ?

How much time do you suppose it takes me to type 500 characters?

Borman took seconal twice, the second time, to intentionally try and give himself diarrhea in outer space. This, in an effort to have his cabinmates aspirate his own stool ?

reply to post by DJW001

reply to post by decisively


Hey, I've read a few of your posts in this thread and it seems that you do like to frame your arguments with large initial source posts. Have you thought of trying the 'official debates' forum on here? You can offer to debate someone on a specific topic, get someone else to agree and get the mods to set it up. There's a set format and set rules so that nobody can get an advantage, and then the mods assess the quality of peoples posts and post their verdict.

It seems a really good system to me, but I wish more people used it.

reply to post by DJW001


Hardly boasting, and need not defend anything. We write Apollo's history in these pages . You can take it or leave it. It is the truth too be sure, but you are by no means obliged to educate yourself, especially since you seem to prefer that funny old story about those silly old men who pretended to fly rockets across cislunar space.

We on this side are always ever so curious to know why you are so interested in reading our "kook" posts. What it is that motivates you ? Do you not have better things to do ? Time's a wasting .......

reply to post by decisively

Borman took seconal twice, the second time, to intentionally try and give himself diarrhea in outer space. This, in an effort to have his cabinmates aspirate his own stool ?

No; it was the only test that could be performed to confirm the differential, you tin plated buffoon.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by exponent

Have you thought of trying the 'official debates' forum on here? You can offer to debate someone on a specific topic, get someone else to agree and get the mods to set it up. There's a set format and set rules so that nobody can get an advantage, and then the mods assess the quality of peoples posts and post their verdict.

I would be delighted to debate Dr. Smith here! What do you say, decisively?

Decisively, I know what you really want is a public debate with physicians from NASA. I hope you realize this will never happen. I am offering you a chance for a public open debate on any one aspect of Apollo of your own choosing. It would be conducted on the ATS Debate Forum according to the rules laid out here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Check your U2Us. The gauntlet has been thrown down. Man up or get lost.

reply to post by exponent

Calling all NASA Docs, Wanna' debate and end this, help the astronauts finally get some sleep at night ?

Would love to debate NASA physicians, it would end the Apollo thing once and for all. Would also love to debate in public , face to face or in any other forum(electronic, written) any of the Apollo fraud perpetrators I have named as such.

I am not all that interested in debating publicly rank and file citizens who believe themselves to be "patriotic" by defending this nonsense whether they honestly buy in to Apollo as a manned moon landing "reality" or are hired guns for the cowards that actually hatched and maintain this ruse and themselves know this to be flat out BULL to begin with.

I do not consider someone like Obama, someone privy to the hoax to be a PERP, sort of an innocent bystander. But still, I would like to debate an ex president like Clinton say, someone that knows Apollo fraudulent for a fact and still wants to try and push it.

Obviously intelligence service personnel are aware of this; Israeli, French, German, Brazil, China, Japan. I might be willing to debate an intelligence service worker, former one , assuming the person was pushing the official story for whatever reason. But I would need help because I am so medically oriented. Here in this forum , I only touch peripherally really on the medical stuff. Many of the important details as regards the Borman diarrhea in outer space fraud I do not go into, way too technical, the stuff about INFLUENZA for example. So if I debated an intelligence person type, I would be able to play this card, but unless he/she had a doc with him/her, could only really go into it to the degree that I do here.

Outside of medical stuff , I would need "help", SayonaraJupiter type, someone good at the other concerns/issues.

One of the reasons I post here is to help me work through my arguments for the non medical stuff. Along with a couple of friends that also do this with me, we are the world's experts on Apollo and its bogus medicine. Not that other capable physicians could not become as knowledgable, as expert, it is just we have been the first to really dig in and turn everything up, the details of the off target medical BULL. At this point, we are isolated almost in our expertise, though in our medical center, there are those curious about what we do and we have never encountered a physician that did not follow our logic and ultimately agree with us in principal. It does take a lot to get there however, a high degree of suspicion to begin with . Who would ever have thought that a sure fire way to prove Apollo's fraudulence and render the goons that defend the official story utterly impotent would be by way of studying the MEDICINE OF APOLLO ? It is so wild and more importantly SO TRUE.

We sort of informally divide responsibilities. A few friends that also share this interest, they dig through medical materials, uncover things, uncover the phony Apollo medical BULL. I do most of the writing and the LOST BIRD stuff, BOGUS APOLLO LIGHTNING HIT STUFF. Because infectious diseases are my big strength , sometimes I push my buddies to look at this or that with regard to the Borman illness, especially the INFLUENZA concern, huge issue there we never touched on in this forum, not in any meaningful sense, Apollo 8 and the Hong Kong Flu .

I believe I mentioned in another post to GaryN about my communicating with some astronomers about the astronauts visual claims. I am not an ophthalmologist, but am very good with human physiology fundamentals and am quite familiar with what can and cannot be seen under any given circumstances. Some of the astronomers I communicated with changed their approach to the problem, changed the way they answered my initial questions when they realized their answers had "hoax" implications. Recall I mentioned, at least I think I did, that I never mentioned in writing to them that I was an Apollo historian who viewed the missions as a cover for military undertakings/programs. At that time, as a matter of fact, I was not sure what I thought. I was fact finding and checking. That would be an interesting debate. NASA probably has some of their own astronomers, let's debate them as regards what could be seen under what circumstances in cislunar space.

The best debates would be the ones that would settle it though. Of these, nothing comes close to debating the medical concerns. Unless you are a physician yourself, it probably is difficulty for you to appreciate this. But were a NASA physician to debate me about the Borman diarrheal incislunar space incident, it would become apparent in fairly short order, by that I mean within a couple hours of discussing these facts openly, that the illness never occurred and that there was not a functional toilet on the Apollo ships.

reply to post by decisively


I don't believe there are any rules against private consultation. The objective is to present a singular argument as clearly and confidently as possible. This thread is obviously not going to reach a conclusion, and so at least through this method there can be no argument about the results of the debate, as it is not a public process.

I can't tell if your post is an elaborate 'no' to the gauntlet thrown down, or if you are just setting the stage for your ideal debate. I have to say if you want to debate actual NASA experts you've probably come to the wrong place. You'd need to set up a pretty big event and offer some incentives for people to want to attend, so for now I think this is the best anyone can really do.

reply to post by exponent

Why We Post

Not the intention of this thread. We are sort of writing Apollo's history here, albeit informally. That is one intention, historical. As we write more and more, our errors become fewer. This, with the much appreciated help from our detractors.

We post as these words find their way to the ears of John Aaron, and Gene Kranz, and Frank Borman, and Emil Schiesser, and newly identified PERP PAO Jack King, and Rocco Petrone, and Craft, and Berry, and the rest of the YoYos that signed on to this. They learn that not only do we know WHO EXACTLY IT IS THAT THEY ARE BUT WHAT EXACTLY IT IS THAT THEY DID. This is exceedingly important as a small amount of justice is served. They go to their graves knowing their chops have been busted, and busted big time, and that as time marches on, their names will be associated with great shame and not great fame for it is only inevitable that all the more in the way of details as regards the fraud will surface.

We write out of respect for ourselves and for our country.

No one believes this thread will push Obama to the point that he tells his staff to announce to the public that Apollo was/is a charade. Of course that is what he should do. But he's a bit brainwashed. By the way, I like Obama for the most part and suspect he's doing what he thinks is right, maintaining the secret as all presidents have post the phony landings. I would imagine Obama gets briefed on this stuff occasionally, not necessarily Apollo, but whatever, the advancement of public knowledge as regards national secrets of the Apollo fraud type.

reply to post by decisively


I see, so in essence you have posted a 5 paragraph version of 'no'. It seems that you could continue to write your history with the benefit of having defeated a detractor in a debate. I don't see that there's any particular downside to taking the challenge unless you believe you would lose.

You can look at previous debates on there if you are concerned about impartiality, but I haven't seen the mods with any particularly harsh decisions before.

reply to post by decisively


borman and influenza?

interesting.. have you got any evidence of that? as opposed to the acute 24hrs gastroenteritis that was at KSC before launch?

btw.. why would NASA script a tummy bug in? given thats its a sealed environment and no where to go, wouldnt it make it obvious to doctors around the globe that such a scenario is too ludicrous?

did nasa deliberately script it on purpose to have YOU personally, the first "doctor" ever in 40 years, to work out that they didnt go to the moon?

reply to post by exponent

Need to be a little careful

I need to be a little careful. Not that I am not interested in a public debate. But some "bad people" from another forum hacked my smart phone to find out who it was/is that I am. Sort of silly, because it is no secret. My friends and I that do this are very open and proud of what we do. On the other hand, if I were to publicly debate someone , I want it to count. If some people mess with me because they know who I am, no big, but I won't do this stuff unless it is worth my time and the risk of wide open exposure. I don't like computer and phone hackers. Imagine you would not like someone doing that to you now would you ?

reply to post by choos


Let's not go there. Bring a doc on choos or go to medical school.. The way NASA docs run from this, I imagine you'll have finished school, done your residency and returned to debate me as an expert before a current NASA doc does.

reply to post by decisively


Well I am definitely not insisting on any sort of public debate, I don't know you or any of your details, so I have no idea whether you have made anything public. I suggested a debate on here, which is conducted under your screen name and is as anonymous as you want. It seems that you've already been issued a challenge, so you'd just have to agree on a specific topic and set the rules.

Come on man! If you're actually a group of people who all share ideas then that should make you an even stronger candidate surely?

reply to post by decisively


im not talking doctor stuff, im talking LOGIC

reply to post by exponent

Thanks exponent, perhaps is a good suggestion,

I'll look into it, perhaps is a good thing to do, best to you.....