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

reply to post by OmegaLogos


Explantion: Continued from previous page ...

Now to QUOTE a very well known aviation technical term ....

Fly by the seat of one's pants. [phrases.org.uk]

Meaning
Decide a course of action as you go along, using your own initiative and perceptions rather than a pre-determined plan or mechanical aids.

Origin
This is early aviation parlance. Aircraft initially had few navigation aids and flying was accomplished by means of the pilot's judgment. The term emerged in the 1930s and was first widely used in reports of Douglas Corrigan's flight from the USA to Ireland in 1938.

That flight was reported in many US newspapers of the day, including this piece, entitled 'Corrigan Flies By The Seat Of His Pants', in The Edwardsville Intelligencer, 19th July 1938:

"Douglas Corrigan was described as an aviator 'who flies by the seat of his pants' today by a mechanic who helped him rejuvinate the plane which airport men have now nicknamed the 'Spirit of $69.90'. The old flying expression of 'flies by the seat of his trousers' was explained by Larry Conner, means going aloft without instruments, radio or other such luxuries."

Two days before this report Corrigan had submitted a flight plan to fly from Brooklyn to California. He had previously had a plan for a trans-Atlantic flight rejected (presumably on the grounds that the 'Spirit of $69.60 wasn't considered up to the job). His subsequent 29 hour flight ended in Dublin, Ireland. He claimed that his compasses had failed. He didn't openly admit it but it was widely assumed that he had ignored the rejection of his flight plan and deliberately flown east rather than west. He was thereafter known as 'Wrong Way Corrigan' and starred as himself in the 1938 movie The Flying Irishman.

The 'old flying expression' quoted above (although it can't have been very old in 1938) that refers to trousers rather than pants does suggest that the phrase was originally British and crossed the Atlantic (the right way) prior to becoming 'flies by the seat of one's pants'.

Personal Disclosure: Exactly what failure rate was nasa willing to live with in the RACE for the Moon?

If the answer is none ... they would never have launched!

If the answer is some ... then they were willing to 'fly by the seat of their pants'!!!

I hope that helps CLARIFY A. Shepards comments and put them into a context that can be FULLY understood.

reply to post by OmegaLogos


This is actually quite meaningless ---


"Personal Disclosure: Exactly what failure rate was nasa willing to live with in the RACE for the Moon?

If the answer is none ... they would never have launched!

If the answer is some ... then they were willing to 'fly by the seat of their pants'!!! "


I have asked NASA worshipers to give Risk Assessments since I first posted here at ATS.
All I ever get is opinions and hearsay.
It is inconceivable especially do to the extreme military compliment to NASA --
to not have the exact percentages of a missions success or failure prior to lift off.
Idiotic at the least.

Originally posted by longjohnbritchesI have asked NASA worshipers to give Risk Assessments since I first posted here at ATS.

Which tells us three things:
1. You do not understand the 'burden of proof'
2. You are too lazy to go find stuff for yourself and/or
3. You can't even Google it (not that it is the best way to find such stuff, in the case of projects that date back to the 60's and 70's)

For heaven's sake, here is the VERY FIRST link from googling - it's a PDF for Apollo 15.
Apollo 15 Changes Review & Updated Risk Assessment System

The risk management process was a key part of the Apollo process, and was given a very high priority after the tragic Apollo 1 fire.

I'm guessing that you won't bother examining the above - if you did, you would see how comprehensively NASA management examined the risks (in this case mainly by thoroughly examining the Apollo 14 mission, looking for *anything* that could be seen as an issue and implementing the necessary changes, additional levels of redundancy, new procedures and checks. It's a very comprehensive document (despite it being the first link you would have stumbled over - if you had actually TRIED).

I'd offer you many more documents, but you know what they say about casting pearls..

All I ever get is opinions and hearsay.

'Opinions and hearsay' to you is anything you don't want to hear - anything that might threaten your belief. Try sticking your fingers in your ears and crying Lalalala - that works too.

It is inconceivable especially do to the extreme military compliment to NASA --
to not have the exact percentages of a missions success or failure prior to lift off.

Risk assessments are NEVER going to give you 'exact percentages' - that's just plain silly. If you knew anything about risk management you would know that, at least.

Idiotic at the least.

Indeed.

reply to post by CHRLZ


Who cares about 15. It is Apollo 11 total risk assment before lift off.
You don't got that.
I have asked NASA direct and they don't got it.
Can't assess a hoax. fail

reply to post by OmegaLogos

You cannot fly to the moon by the seat of your pants. One must be POSITIVE as regards the indentities of the sighted stars.

You do not understand. You cannot fly to the moon, PERIOD, unless you are sure the star you have sighted was sighted accurately. There must be absolute certainty as regards aligning an IMU, ASK ANY NASA ENGINEER PAST PRESENT OF FUTURE. THAT IS A FACT. If you are not sure about your IMU's alignment, the seat of your pants will be burned up when your heiny hits the sun.

Additionally, The introductory post here emphasized the CONTRADICTION. Lovell sees stars and understands they must be sighted accurately for this thing, Apollo guidance/navigation, to work. His colleague Shepard contradicts Lovell, and contradicts him fatally so.

Apollo is fraudulent.....

reply to post by decisively


you still complaining about them not seeing stars?

remember the scanning scope is redundant it was planned as a primary use of navigation, but eventually computers from ground ended up being more efficient. the scanning scope was not vital for navigation only used as backup, if it was needed than a lot of time is required to be fully dark adapted.

sextant had no problem seeing stars.

and lastly unmanned spacecrafts?? how do they navigate??
more spcifically:
Soviet luna program, especially luna 10 which orbitted the moon in 1966
US lunar orbiter program which took photos of 99% of the moon surface from 66-67
US surveyor probes doing soft landings on the moon from 66-68
pioneer probes
voyager probes
Soviet Lunokhod

reply to post by decisively


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?

Originally posted by choos
reply to post by decisively

 

you still complaining about them not seeing stars?

remember the scanning scope is redundant it was planned as a primary use of navigation, but eventually computers from ground ended up being more efficient. the scanning scope was not vital for navigation only used as backup, if it was needed than a lot of time is required to be fully dark adapted.

sextant had no problem seeing stars.

and lastly unmanned spacecrafts?? how do they navigate??
more spcifically:
Soviet luna program, especially luna 10 which orbitted the moon in 1966
US lunar orbiter program which took photos of 99% of the moon surface from 66-67
US surveyor probes doing soft landings on the moon from 66-68
pioneer probes
voyager probes
Soviet Lunokhod

Should have read down further you said the same thing.And if you noticed in the quote he didnt say he couldnt see the star he just had to assume mission control got it right because it was hard for him to tell if it was the right star.Luckily for them mission control made sure they maintained there course in fact amazingly very few course corrections were done.

I think it's pretty well known that the guiding principles for conspiracy theorism /wearing a tinfoil hat include these basic tenets:

1. Ignore the concept of 'Burden of Proof'. That way you can say any old thing, and make out that it is the opposing side that needs to do all the work.

2. Make sure you do as LITTLE work as possible. I mean, who wants to do anything but look at the first page of Google results (preferably without scrolling, of course..).

3. CHANGE THE GOALPOSTS! Yes, if ever someone directly proves you wrong, then quickly change the goalposts, if not the complete topic.

So here above is a perfect example (thanks, longjohn):

1. He states, and I QUOTE:

I have asked NASA worshipers to give Risk Assessments since I first posted here at ATS.

Anyone see where he mentioned Apollo 11? - he even used the plural form..

2. I gave him a direct link to the very first response that appears if you google the obvious terms ('apollo risk assessment') - and clearly pointed out that it was that VERY FIRST link from the simple Google search that HE had defined - it happened to be about Apollo 15.

3. So, trapped by that unexpected problem, longjohn immediately changes the goalposts!

Who cares about 15. It is Apollo 11 total risk assment before lift off.

Right. So NOW it's only the Apollo 11 one - he then expects me to dance off and do more of his work. It's a wonder he didn't go back and edit his original request to try to squirm out of it - too late now.


Thanks, ljb for that superb demonstration of Steps 1, 2 & 3 - I'm sure decisively applauds you and will give you a star.

I am Hardly Complaining, Simply Pointing Out That If Alan Shepard Was Not Sure As To The Identities Of The Stars He Sighted, Then He Did Not Go To The Moon

reply to post by choos


The point is not one of seeing stars. The astronauts see stars, so what ? So what do I care ?

But when Alan Shepard says that when he did sight a star, he was not sure that the star was "so and so", was not certain of its identity, that translates to his being NOT an astronaut and having not gone to the moon.

He is actually one of the dimmest of the the lot, Shepard, contrary to popular opinion.

Most of the astronauts are of average intelligence, Armstrong is an exception , very clever, devious, like a fox type of thing.

Lovell was second best at the art of dishing out space jive, though not good. Note how he is stuck in one gear. He tells the Apollo 13 story the exact same way over and over and over, same anecdotes, blah blah blah, obviously rehearsed, rehearsed in some broad general sense.

Shepard really botched the star sighting thing, fatal irrationality, and given the comments of the other astronauts like Lovell, astronauts that said they did positively identify stars, this Shepard statement amounts to a fatal inconsistency as well. Be that as it may, one cannot cross cislunar space without knowing with certainty which star is Rigel, which is Sirius and so forth.

Very fake, and reveals Shepard to have been a particularly poor choice as a key active big time stage performing PERP AKA astronaut, simply was not a very smart guy, perhaps below average intelligence, Shepard.

We are not talking about navigation per se here, the only way to align the IMU/platform was by way of sighting stars

reply to post by dragonridr


If one cannot sight stars with absolute positivity, one then does not know with absolute positivity the attitude of the spacecraft and therefore cannot go anywhere in space. One then knows not up from down from sideways, figure of speech of course.

As Shepard says he was not certain as regards the identities of the stars he sighted, then he was not sure about his platform, and from this we may conclude with absolute unmitigated metaphysical certitude that he did not go to the moon. He is a phony "ain'tstronaut" as we say, and all of Apollo is BOOM, in one stroke, demonstrated fraudulent.

Note again, of all the people to miss this point, it is Shepard. Who would have thought ? Then again, what we read is so much malarkey. This exposes Shepard as a man of at best average intelligence, very much not up to dealing with the rigor and demands of effectively lying on the world stage like this, incapable of understanding the "logic of the Apollo fable".

Fascinating , No ?

reply to post by decisively

The point is not one of seeing stars. The astronauts see stars, so what ? So what do I care ?

your whole argument of them not seeing stars is that if they cant see stars they cant navigate to the moon.

so now you dont like your argument??
now you want to move your goalposts?

do you remember which flight the pendulum was on?? thats right apollo 14, oh look alan shepard was on apollo 14.
you said the pendulum has no green screen effects and was done in real time as the astronauts. you cant drive the pendulum without flexing the ribbon and you cant add in a mystical device to slow the swing at the pivot and shelf.

you have effectively said it was done on the moon. alan shepard was on that flight? now you are saying shepard cant navigate to the moon.. but somehow they teleported to the moon to film the pendulum??

also how did all the probes navigate to where they wanted to go? all those unmanned probes.. did they have a tiny owls inside to do the star sightings to navigate for them?

No Incorrect, My Argument Is That Alan Shepard Said He Was Not Sure When He Sighted A Star That It Was In Fact Star "so and so" , as such, he was not sure about his platform alignment and so never went to the moon.

reply to post by choos


Same point to you. I am not talking here about navigation per se. I am first and foremost addressing the issue of the need to align the Apollo Inertial Platform very accurately, this before navigation through space can be even considered. One cannot move through space without knowing where one's head is.

Alan Shepard says he sees stars and so fine. He sees stars. He says when he then sights them that he is not absolutely sure what star it was he sighted. THAT !!! is a no no. That means he never was in space.

Read about the IMU/platform and you will understand the point. You are confusing navigating with aligning the platform. You are also confusing the point about seeing stars with astronaut inconsistencies as regards seeing stats. Those of us that know Apollo to be the obscene fraud that it is do not object to the astronauts' claims of not seeing stars at certain times under certain circumstances, we object to the inconsistencies.

In the Apollo 14 debriefing Stu Roosa said he was well dark adapted at times, so why wasn't Shepard ? The only explanation is this is fake, and so it is. This is all rather easy, demonstrating Apollo fraudulence. It is a bit harder to know with certainty the details of what they were up to when they stole our parents money and continue to steal ours in a sense as I assume we pay for their pensions for bogus work they never did.

reply to post by decisively

No Incorrect, My ArguMent Is That Alan Shepard Said He Was Not Sure When He Sighted A Star That It Was In Fact Star "so and so" , as such he was not sure about his platform alignment and so never went to the moon.

Except that, as has been endlessly repeated, he did not have to use the sextant to align the IMU, therefore your argument is specious.

reply to post by decisively


auto optics seemed sure.. ground control seemed sure.. the only one not sure is you??

NASA and the soviets is able to guide probes to orbit and land on the moon before the apollo missions (for nasa and during the apollo for the soviets), they can even guide probes past pluto.. yet they cant guide three men to the moon??

your arguments are inconsistent. more so than what you believe nasa to be.

No, I am sure what I read, Alan Shepard was the one not sure.

reply to post by choos


Let's review, Alan Shepard from The Apollo 14 Debriefing Report;

"So, although we passed the star checks in every case, it's the kind of thing that gives you a little confidence but not one we could positively say, "Okay this is star so and so, " like you can do in the simulator."

Shepard cannot positively say this is star so and so. As such he does not know which direction his space ship is pointed, nor does anyone on the Earth. As such, we may conclude with utter confidence that Apollo is fraudulent.

reply to post by longjohnbritches


off topic.. i chose tiny owls because of their night vision as it should keep decisively happy.

reply to post by DJW001


You are incorrect.

Yes you do use the sextant to align the IMU. Every time they do a fine align, check and fine align the platform they use the sextant.

reply to post by decisively


good programming sets the auto optics pointed at the star.. the sextant has no problems seeing stars... they used P52 in most cases.. they are able to do it without P52 but it takes time and is inefficient when the are no issues.. which makes the optics redundant.

everyone had full confidence in the computer and ground calculations. these are people who are able to send probes to the moon..

how does a probe navigate to the moon when it has no astronauts inside?? does NASA fit a tiny little owl in there?