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

Originally posted by samkent
Despite his claims being BS, I can't help but wonder why he doesn't post his many claims in the Space section??

Hi sam.
I think it is because the silly de bunkers have a greater leeway to hang them selves. You know like nasty attacks and flying Elmos and such.
They couldn't get away with that in a less Speculative forum.
hope that helps ljb

reply to post by ProudBird


No, incorrect

To guide/navigate an alleged Apollo ship across the cislunar vacuum, the IMU must be aligned with great accuracy. Small errors in alignment will translate to great misses because of the vastness of space, 240,000 miles no less to the moon. The great distances involved mean there is very little room for any error in platform alignment whatsoever.. So again, the point cannot be over emphasized, star sightings must be made with absolute confidence.

Alan Shepard is saying in the above repeatedly referenced quote that he was not absolutely confident. As such, we identify him as very much NOT an astronaut, for he could not fly through cislunar space under such uncertain circumstances. And as Shepard is a fraud, so too is the entirety of the Apollo program and indeed all of the United States Manned Space Effort.

reply to post by decisively

And as Shepard is a fraud, so too is the entirety of the Apollo program and indeed all of the United States Manned Space Effort.

Your opinion does not make it so. No one has ever brought up the claims you have. And you don't even have any hard proof just your interpretation of events.

And the sheer number of claims you make put you in the light of someone grasping at straws.

They were navigating probes to other planets before Apollo. So your claims are total rubbish.

reply to post by samkent


Correct,

Not mine indeed, rather Alan Shepard's opinion makes it so. HE says he lacks absolute confidence in his sightings, and as such, Alan Shepard's views as regards the logistics of the AGC and the method whereby stars are sighted to align the platform PROVES APOLLO INAUTHENTICITY.

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by samkent

 

Correct,

Not mine indeed, rather Alan Shepard's opinion makes it so. HE says he lacks absolute confidence in his sightings, and as such, Alan Shepard's views as regards the logistics of the AGC and the method whereby stars are sighted to align the platform PROVES APOLLO INAUTHENTICITY.

I take it as he was second guessing his readings/ability. Which is perfectly normal given the circumstances. When you take star sightings on the ocean your life is not in danger x number of hours later. You simply take another set of readings and change your course as needed.
With Apollo you may not have enough fuel to correct your course later. Hense the second guessing or 'absoute confidence'.

So I did a simple test. I went out my front door, from a normally lit room, and I could immediately see lots of stars. My house lights were on, my bare CF porch light was on, and my neighbours flood lights were on too. So I stare at my bare porch light for 5 seconds, look away, and the stars are still visible. I still have a spot burned in my vision from looking at the porch light, but it didn't stop me seeing the stars, didn't need to dark adapt. I got a small and large pair of binoculars out, looked at my porch light again, and immediately looked through the bins, lots of stars visible. Now add to that Edgar Mitchell saying the stars are 10 times brighter in space than they are from Earth, and something does not add up here. What gives?

reply to post by GaryN


So because you can't simulate one point the entire program was fake?

Originally posted by samkent

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by samkent

 

Correct,

Not mine indeed, rather Alan Shepard's opinion makes it so. HE says he lacks absolute confidence in his sightings, and as such, Alan Shepard's views as regards the logistics of the AGC and the method whereby stars are sighted to align the platform PROVES APOLLO INAUTHENTICITY.

I take it as he was second guessing his readings/ability. Which is perfectly normal given the circumstances. When you take star sightings on the ocean your life is not in danger x number of hours later. You simply take another set of readings and change your course as needed.
With Apollo you may not have enough fuel to correct your course later. Hense the second guessing or 'absoute confidence'.

All that Absolute confidence stuff looks like it is for ACTORS.
It says nothing about being star blind and loosing the way for you and your crew. Damn good thing they didn't wind up on Mars. NASA wouldn't even have that mission to bilk us with these days.
LOL ljb
How to Create Absolute Confidence: 6 steps - wikiHow
www.wikihow.com/Create-Absolute-Confidence - Similarto How to Create Absolute Confidence: 6 steps - wikiHow

Mar 24, 2011 ... How to Create Absolute Confidence. Easy steps towards creating absolute confidence.

reply to post by GaryN


Ya know, here in the LA area.....I went OUT of my home, at nearly 11 PM (2300 hours) local time.....it was breezy, no...and I mean NO clouds in the sky.....and I could NOT see many stars, at all.....just the few brightest in magnitude.

So, what gives??

reply to post by decisively


do you know how competitve the astronauts were in obtaining "all-balls"?? do you know how accurate 00001 is.. i think on the highest they ever got was 00002.

and that is more than accurate enough.

reply to post by decisively


you are misreading and misinterpreting what shepard is saying. and spouting nonsense.

shepard had full confidence the computer knew where the stars were, IMU drift was never more than 1degree drift often times its below 0.5degrees this is a period of over several hours.. and they constantly update the IMU so its alignment is not off, these are included in course corrections. prior to EVERY burn they will do a P52.

the scanning telescope had trouble seeing stars nothing else, the sextant was perfectly fine is seeing stars and every astronaut had full confidence in the P52 program. the computer lost the reference orientation only twice i believe (from other missions) and they were immediately rectified with NO issues and help from ground.

reply to post by decisively


Alan Shepard and Jim Lovell???

From Apollo 8??

(Shepard was NOT on-board that mission of Apollo 8......wow!!! What a "clever" attempt to smear history....or, "attempt" to 're-write' it.....

Fail, as usual..........

Guess you STILL do not understand the technology, but instead, wish to apply what LITTLE you do know, and attempt to impugn the knowledge of so, so, so MANY others.

How pathetic!!

Lovell was on 8....but, NOT Shepard.

Man, better "CASTLE your "king".....the board has your number, and is MANY moves ahead of you...."check" in three moves.......

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by GaryN

 

Ya know, here in the LA area.....I went OUT of my home, at nearly 11 PM (2300 hours) local time.....it was breezy, no...and I mean NO clouds in the sky.....and I could NOT see many stars, at all.....just the few brightest in magnitude.

So, what gives??

You still had your sun sunglasses on?

Seriously though, I can only see the brightest stars here most nights due to marine air haze. (Pacific N.W.) No clouds. If you have any atmospheric haze at all, the lights from a big city will obviously scatter that light and dim your view, but there is nothing in space that should do that.

reply to post by GaryN


No sunglasses, at night.....



Nope.....YOUR experience, in YOUR local area?? OK.....depends on the amount of "light pollution" in your vicinity....here in LA? LOTS of "light pollution...."....but....YOU (and I) were not looking though a SEXTANT ....which....well, have you ever used a telescope???

I had a boyhood friend, across the street, who owned a telescope.....(His Dad was an engineer of some kind....he BUILT a SAILBOAT...a FRIGGIN' sailboat in his backyard.....His BACkYARD!!!

Yeah, the boat got winched out....we even SAILED upon her....so this kid, my "across-the-street friend had a "Super-Dad"....who bought him a TELESCOPE...and I stayed up late, looking though it....at age 9 to 13....so, yeah....I have a "bit" of "experience"........with the "concept" of dark adaptation........AND to find a star, when using OPTICS............

Countless as the stars decorating the sacred firmament upon which is hooked our untouchable and so beloved moon are the problems with the Apollo CM scanning telescopes. This one with Ken Mattingly's, yet another stark raving proof of Apollo Inauthenticity.

reply to post by choos


A P51 program/activity was to be carried out on the occasion of IMU/platform loss/disorientation. Unlike a P52 which was a program to more or less fine align an already well aligned IMU, P51 was employed when a major realignment was called for, such as in the case with Apollo 12. Alleged to have been struck by lightning, the IMU was way out of whack, completely useless and had to be realigned from scratch.

If we assume Apollo to have been real, the ability to realign the platform at any time would have been an important contingency for which to prepare, and indeed, astronauts trained for this type of thing in simulations, realigning an IMU from scratch.

With this in mind, lets' take a look at Ken Mattingly and his CM telescope. Here is Ken Mattingly, Apollo 16 CM Pilot from section 6.0 of the Apollo 16 Debriefing Report(www.hq.nasa.gov...),Translunar Coast;

" I never was able to use the telescope for anything, except
t o see the LM radar and the quad, from the time we picked
the LM up until we got into lunar orbit. It was due to the
tremendous number of particles that were floating around that,
I guess, came from the LM. It was just like everyone talked
about - if you do a sighting right after a water dump. We
were continually populating the environment with these little
things popping off. So the telescope - except for objects
like the Earth and the Moon - is essentially useless. The
sextant was beautiful. The auto optics put it in there.

Everytime we made our REFSMMAT change we used the same technique
of going to SCS and recording the shaft and trunnion
angles. And it ' s a good thing because the telescope was
useless. The first time we did this, the auto optics did not
place the stars in the sextant f i e l d of view after we had
torqued it to the new REFSMMAT. We picked them up with no
loss of time because we had the shaft and trunnion available
and we could crank it in and press on. "

No, not a typo, you read it right. Fasten your seat belt before you read it again or you may well fall from your chair and injure yourself. Ken Mattingly did indeed say that from the time of LM acquisition until lunar orbit, the telescope was USELESS. Let me repeat that , USELESS. This, owing to all of the particles floating about, or so Ken claimed.

So yet another startling discovery as regards the logistic non-viability of the Apollo CM optics/guidance/navigation system. The IMU/platform must be meticulously aligned with an accuracy beyond fabulous. Astronaut Mattingly is saying here that if anything goes wrong with the platform in a major way during a staged Apollo Mission, and indeed it might, that is why the P51 program exists, that is why they feign to drill with it, pretend to practice the P51 activity in the simulator, they won't be able to realign the platform, find the stars in their constellations through their useless telescope. As such, we have another example here of outrageously self incriminating dialog, and with it, proof of Apollo Inauthenticity.

One might counter that if they lost the platform in cislunar space they could dump the LM and so dump the particles perhaps, but ejecting the LM was never a part of a P51 contingency. Such a call to eject the LM is bogus in that it fixes NASA's problem only after I have pointed it out.

Some say that Apollo can be proven inauthentic by virtue of astronaut claims that they NEVER see stars. This of course is not true. The astronauts must be able to see stars. The relevant feature of the charade is that the astronauts must have it both ways, see stars at times and be able to deny them at times. Of course they must be able to see them to align the IMUs of both the LM and CM, so they cannot deny stars altogether. On the other hand, if they see stars, they can then be called upon to see the McDonald Observatory blue-green laser which was brighter than most, if not all stars, in the cislunar sky. If one admitted constellations, one might be asked, "DID YOU SEE THE SOUTHERN CROSS, HYDRA, TAURUS, SCORPIO ?" How could they manage to field such difficult questions ? They might say yes to the Southern Cross when it could not possibly have been in view. Difficulties with accounting for what one saw during such an imaginary trip multiply scores fold once stars are admitted to the forensic equation here.

So the astronauts have star phobia. They deny stars in a quasi-absolute sense, just letting the tiniest bit of light through in their feeble attempts to true the steering mechanism on a story from which the wheels have flown off

@decisively

Ken Mattingly did indeed say that from the time of LM acquisition until lunar orbit, the telescope was USELESS. Let me repeat that , USELESS. This, owing to all of the particles floating about, or so Ken claimed.

With a regular telescope, would tiny, sunlit ice crystals close to the spacecraft be visible? Wouldn't they be totally out of focus due to depth of field?

reply to post by GaryN

@decisively

PLEASE do "not" be deceived by this "poseur"....read up-thread, and in other threads where we ALL ahave participated.......

"DENY" ignorance.........it is not just a "mantra"....it is an incentive...........

reply to post by GaryN


GaryN,

The claim of the astronauts from the time of Apollo 8 and James Lovell's description of trying to "guide and navigate across cislunar space" is that at various times and in various ways, thousands and thousands of particles drift about the spacecraft's area and they are for the most part indistinguishable from stars. As such, any attempt at star sighting is impossible.

So in the case cited above, Mattingly says the particles were LM dependent. Urine dumps allegedly caused this problem. Stage separations caused it, and so forth.

reply to post by decisively


just like everybody says, if you want to use the scanning telescope you need to be dark adapted and NOT do any waste dumps before hand.. he is talking about the scanning telescope, you know, the wide view one-power telescope used to identify constellations, this had lighting issues. the sextant is a narrow field 28 power scope, it did not have any lighting issues it was able to spot stars easily without being dark adapted.

the scanning telescope since its a wide view scope will pick up alot of debris and waste particles floating around after a waste dump.. thats what he is saying. here later says the sextant was beautiful, the auto optics put it there meaning the computer was able to find the stars perfectly and the sextant had clear visibility on the star when the reference orientation was good.

during different stages of flight they needed different reference orientations, one on take off, one for lunar transit etc.etc. the scanning telescope is useless because they are time limited and unable to be fully dark adapted to sight stars. but guess what? all they need are about 45mins to be fully dark adapted and no waste dumps and than they will be able to see constellations with the scanning telescope.

and if they have a refsmmat (the reference orientation) they can get the trunnion and shaft angle which is all the sextant needs to find the star from that refsmmat which ground would know and can work out for them. there are many other ways to align the IMU. another is to use the gravity from earth/moon.

reply to post by GaryN


I agree with you GaryN, and the descriptions given by astronauts about when they saw stars and did not see them for such and such a reason were/are absolutely ridiculous. I shall share with you an amusing and very enlightening anecdote tomorrow when I have time to write more.