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

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 9 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
In Section 3.3.15 of the Apollo 8 Technical Crew Debriefing Report , Cislunar Navigation and Navigational Star Sightings, one finds the following statement made by James Lovell;

"During the early part of the flight I could not see anything through the scanning telescope that I could recognize, for instance - a constellation. I could see several stars, but I couldn't pinpoint them because I didn't know the surrounding stars. As long as we did not move the spacecraft around, got some distance from the earth and its light, it was possible to see constellations in the scanning telescope. Several factors are involved here. One, of course, is that you must become dark-adapted. You must be dark-adapted before you can see stars. When you first look through the scanning telescope, you see nothing but blackness."

So clear enough, and indeed it makes sense. It would have to be so were any of this real. One must be dark adapted to see stars, and so sight them, and so align an Apollo CM IMU.

Obviously nobody told Alan Shepard that. Well not to worry too much, it is not as though Alan was actually in cislunar space and at risk to go off course and fly into the sun or anything like that.

Here is Alan Shepard from the Apollo 14 Technical Crew Debriefing Report Section 7.0(7-6)(Caps below in the quote mine)

"During the case of the flight, in almost every case, neither are you dark adapted, nor are you in a position where you have time to get dark adapted and positively identify the star through the telescope because of the external lighting and particles. So about all you can do in that one is let the optics drive and if there is a star in there you assume its the right one and take a whack at it and see if it meets the rules. If your platform's good enough to sight the star, what's the sense of doing it ? Or if you really think you need a star check, then allow yourself enough time in the flight plan to positively identify it, which means BEING DARK ADAPRTED, no urine dumps and so on. 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. "

I know, I know, you are thinking, "This is one of the most insanely incriminating things I have ever read as regards Apollo Inauthenticity".

So of course Lovell has it correct, and Shepard goes to the bottom of the class, and were Shepard ever actually in cislunar space aboard an Apollo craft, armed with that kind of "logic" and star sighting cavalier attitude, he may well have gone not to the bottom of the class , but rather, straight into the sun.

Of course, were Apollo real, one would have had to have been absolutely certain as regards the star identity when sighting them to align the IMU. As Alan Shepard was far from certain, not even dark adapted no less, and as Shepard's colleague Lovell would agree with the rest of us, must dark adapt to sight, and must sight to guide and navigate given the need for absolute accuracy as regards IMU alignment, we see indeed Apollo was not real, fraudulent. We hare yet another very elegant and absolute proof of Apollo Inauthenticity.

Apollo we know to be fraudulent because we see ever so plainly here that the navigation/guidance system is simply not fundamentally viable. Don't believe me ? Read it again, and again, and again, it's right there, in Alan Shepard's own words.

edit on 9-5-2012 by decisively because: title tooo long so fixed
edit on 9-5-2012 by decisively because: moved "of the Apollo 8 Technical Crew Debriefing Report" phrase
edit on 9-5-2012 by decisively because: added "I"
edit on 9-5-2012 by decisively because: added quote mark
edit on 9-5-2012 by decisively because: added quotation marks
edit on 9-5-2012 by decisively because: spacing
edit on 9-5-2012 by decisively because: added "that"




posted on May, 9 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
I don't think I will flag this.
I don't think I will star this.
As a matter of fact, I don't think I will even respond to this.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


MORE NONSENSE!

/end thread......



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


It's a fabulous find actually.

Well, that Alan Shepard bit was something many of us were well aware of previously, but the direct contraindication by his colleague Lovell, well it is splendidly over the top !

I would encourage the curious to read the entire Lovell section so referenced.

R.I.P. Apollo R.I.P.
edit on 9-5-2012 by decisively because: spacing, added previously
edit on 9-5-2012 by decisively because: aqdded Lovell



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   


I know, I know, you are thinking, "This is one of the most insanely incriminating things I have ever read as regards Apollo Inauthenticity".


Actually, no, I was thinking that this was another piece of evidence that you have absolutely no idea how to evaluate anything that has ever happened in the universe to anyone at any time. But that's just me.

edit on 9-5-2012 by mrwiffler because: zcvs



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Oh boy...

Lovell is talking about ideal conditions for seeing constellations...nothing else...he says he could see stars. He's not talking about ACTUALLY navigating. Shepard on the other hand is talking about his experience with ACTUALLY navigating in limited, not ideal circumstances. Nothing in Lovell's statement negates what Shepard had to say.

But of course you won't see that.
edit on 9-5-2012 by mrwiffler because: dgfh



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by mrwiffler
 


So, by way of your comment then you agree with Alan Shepard, dark adaptation and with it firm star identification for marking are not necessary to align an IMU and so navigate an Apollo vintage ship ?
edit on 10-5-2012 by decisively because: removed "sighting"



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by mrwiffler
 


So mrwiffler, Lovell is not talking about sighting stars to align the IMU ? Geeee, that strikes me as odd. So is he just playing with the equipment, just getting all dark adapted for yuks ?

That means according to you the Alan Shepard approach is the correct one, no need to be dark adapted, no big deal if you get it right or not. It is not as though you are going to fly off course or anything.
edit on 12-5-2012 by decisively because: removed "that"
edit on 12-5-2012 by decisively because: sight>align



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   

So, Did Borman not dark adapt to sight stars as well, just like Shepard. Shepard and Lovell BOTH didn't dark adapt to sight stars?????

reply to post by mrwiffler
 


That is very interesting mrwiffler, according to you then NONE OF THE ASTRONAUTS WOULD DARK ADAPT TO SIGHT STARS. So they all did it like Shepard mrwiffler, all of the Apollo astronauts including Lovell and Armstrong, all of them did not dark adapt, and were never in a position to dark adapt if they had wanted to ? All of the Apollo astronauts sighted stars to align the IMU and then walked away not sure that the star sighting, a star sighting so very critical in aligning the IMU/platform so they would fly to the moon and not Venus, they all walked away from the sighting not sure if in Shepard's words the star was indeed star "so and so", or rather if it was some other star altogether ? Is that how the navigation system worked mrwiffler ?
edit on 13-5-2012 by decisively because: don't>didn't
edit on 13-5-2012 by decisively because: removed "then", added "?"



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   

The more one looks into this Shepard gaffe, the more profound one's realization of the enormity of this Apollo Commander's self incrimination

reply to post by mrwiffler
 


Take a look now at Alan Shepard's full comment on the telescope/sextant/star sighting/platform alignment issue.

From section 7 of the Apollo 14 Technical Debriefing, Alan Shepard speaking here(For those not familiar, P51 is the program/activity the astronauts are to engage in if their "platform"/computer's sense of orientation is completely lost. Completing a P51 activity "restores" the what had been a completely lost IMU/platform alignment to a full/perfect/functional reoriented state. A P52 is the program/activity the astronauts engage in to routinely UPDATE their "platform"/computer's sense of orientation, the platform believed to always be drifting just ever so slightly over time from what the computer thinks the platform's orientation is. In this latter case, the assumption is that more likely than not, the alignment is already very very good as the drifting is presumably so very slow, so very incremental. So the thinking is when they do a P52, the alignment is close to spot on to begin with, though obviously this need not be so, and indeed the concern about "drift" is the very reason to do the P52 run and "update" the platform, however little or lots it has drifted. The moon is a LONG way off and the platform's being out of alignment just a tiny bit will throw the spaceship way off course, the distances involved being so vast.) Here's Shepard;

"One general comment about these sextant star checks that we ran. And that has to do what Stu commented about the P51 failure. The way things are planned and the way it’s run in the CMS, there’s no question about the fact where the star is because there is either enough dark adaptation or the star ball is bright enough in the CMS so that you get a good cross check on the actual star identification through the telescope prior to looking at it through the sextant. "During the case of the flight, in almost every case, neither are you dark adapted, nor are you in a position where you have time to get dark adapted and positively identify the star through the telescope because of the external lighting and particles. So about all you can do in that one is let the optics drive and if there is a star in there you assume its the right one and take a whack at it and see if it meets the rules. If your platform's good enough to sight the star, what's the sense of doing it ? Or if you really think you need a star check, then allow yourself enough time in the flight plan to positively identify it, which means BEING DARK ADAPRTED, no urine dumps and so on. 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. "

So according to Shepard, when they drill for this in their CMS, their COMMAND MODULE SIMULATOR on earth, they see the stars in the SIMULATOR's TELESCOPE and are fully dark adapted, and as such, they recognize the stars well in the context of their native constellation. In consequence, they are supremely confident when it comes time to actually mark the stars in the SIMULATOR'S sextant field.

But read Shepard's own words there. IN FLIGHT, in contradistinction to the simulator situation, they are NOT dark adapted, NOT seeing the stars in the context of a constellation , and very much NOT SURE OF WHICH STAR IS WHICH WHEN THEY ARE MARKED.

Of course, none of this is real, and as such, we come to understand what is going on as a misunderstanding on Shepard's part. He wants to downplay people's expectations about astronauts seeing stars in cislunar space. But it is a huge gaffe. He way over does it. He tells us things that simply cannot be true. Why drill someone in a SIMULATOR and in so doing present an activity that is very much unlike the real in flight situation ? If they are not going to be dark adapted in cislunar space, they should train that way in the simulator, as astronauts NOT dark adapted.. And as pointed out previously, Shepard here makes an unambiguous statement that there was uncertainty in flight as regards the identiy of the stars so sighted to align the platform. With this, one concludes Alan Shepard never was "in flight". HE NEVER TRAINED FOR THIS ! AND "WHEN IN SPACE", SHEPARD IS UNCERTAIN AS TO WHETHER OR NOT HIS COMPUTER KNOWS IN WHICH DIRECTION THE SHIP'S NOSE IS POINTED.

Apollo is fraudulent.
edit on 14-5-2012 by decisively because: spelling
edit on 14-5-2012 by decisively because: added, "Completing a P51 activity "restores" the what had been a completely lost IMU/platform alignment"
edit on 14-5-2012 by decisively because: added "state"
edit on 14-5-2012 by decisively because: where>what
edit on 14-5-2012 by decisively because: marking> mark, added "space", added "?" added "as astronauts NOT dark adapted"
edit on 14-5-2012 by decisively because: added "OR NOT", HE>SHEPARD
edit on 14-5-2012 by decisively because: spelling



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


Oh. My. God.

Please stop with all the different Apollo conspiracy threads! Its like whack a mole...as soon as it seems one of your threads has been pounded, another one pops up.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by amongus
 


Care to take a shot at this point here yourself ? What do you think about Alan Shepard not having absolute confidence in his cislunar star sightings ? Sad as regards Shepard, though Armstrong, he is the one whose fall will really hurt ALL OF US SO VERY TERRIBLY...



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


good programming lets the computer know where certain stars will be. P52 will find those stars, once found it can correct its drift. if they do this constantly on the way to the moon, than there is no chance of flying to the sun.

why would the programming point the sights at a different star?



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 


No, you are incorrect.

The astronauts and only the astronauts confirm a star in the activity of IMU alignment. The computer offers a star as a choice, an option, and the astronaut confirms or rejects. Astronaut Shepard is telling us here that he was not certain about his confirmations, and not certain in most if not all cases, and so, as such, one may conclude he never flew an actual mission. He must be certain, just like he was in the simulator.
.

Very cut and dry here. Our most incriminating find to date . Check the mainstream stuff, DIGITAL APOLLO, THE APOLLO GUIDANCE COMPUTER and references of that ilk.

Shepard cannot "unsay" this , and there is no ambiguity in his statement. He is VERY DIRECT here
What he is trying to do is down play the idea that Apollo astronauts may have been dark adapted in cislunar space which opens up a huge can of worms. But in so doing this, he tells us he was not sure in which direction his spaceship was pointed.

Take this one to the bank big time. Apollo is fraudulent.
edit on 14-5-2012 by decisively because: removed "not"



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


yes they look through the sextant which has the star smack bang in the middle. they maintain a steady attitude, choose which star by doing the P52 look through the sextant to make sure there is a star there. plug it in do it on a different star and there you have it, the computer can work out how far the IMU has drifted since its last check.

this is what they done. the hard part was looking through the optical scope to spot the constellation, but since the computer was already pointing at the constellation its a confidence thing. many many many times they have practiced it and not once had the computer failed to point it at the right star, this led them to have enough confidence into not having to check the constellation which will require alot of time to adapt to the dark.
edit on 14-5-2012 by choos because: correcting to maintain steady attitude



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 


No incorrect,

"a star", not necessarily THE STAR is offered by the computer in the sextant field. Shepard is not dark adapted and he may not see any stars, or if he does, as quoted above, he is not sure that it is star "so and so". Additionally, Shepard may see stars he has never seen before. The Sextant has an aperture of 4 cm and so collects more light than does Shepard's 2 pupils. Instead of 6000 stars, with a 4 cm aperture, he could easily see 30,000, 5 times as many, or even many more.

This shall put it in perspective for you choos. If you were correct, they would not have to do the P52 checks, the computer knowing exactly where the star is to begin with.

What if the platform has drifted 1%, or 10% for whatever reason ? What if the platform is lost in cislunar space and a P51 is required ? Alan Shepard says he CMS practiced dark adapted, now he is NOT. He may see no stars given his not being dark adapted, he may see 5 times as many stars or more if he just happens to be dark adapted for whatever reason and is looking down or cross sun. How does he know the star presented is "THE STAR" ? Well now he definitely doesn't, not if the platform is off by 5% or was completely lost for whatever reason.

Finally, the best way to look at this; and it was not unreasonable to think that somewhere out there, during some mission, the astronauts would have lost their platform, is to consider how the astronauts would have fared were they indeed called upon by circustances to run a P51 and realign their platform from scratch. Now it is true that in the case of the Apollo 12 lightning strike the platform was lost and found again , but here I want to consider the special case of losing the Apollo CM platform in cislunar space. The very fact that a P51 program exists affirms all acknowledged the need to realign the platform from scratch as a very reasonable possibility and contingency.plans had been made.

Now if Shepard lost his platform in cislunar space, the computer is of no use whatsoever. The computer knows not where it is. Once the platform is lost, the computer has no star to offer. Shepard now needs to run a P51, not a P52. He is not dark adapted, and by his own admission could not identify stars with any certainty at all. The situation is completely unlike that for which he drilled with good dark adaptation and constellation context.


Cut and dry, cannot realign their platform in cislunar space, unable to deal with such a reasonably anticipated contingency, Apollo is proven fraudulent right there. The guidance/navigation system is simply not viable.
edit on 14-5-2012 by decisively because: spelling
edit on 14-5-2012 by decisively because: spelling, added "?"
edit on 14-5-2012 by decisively because: spelling
edit on 14-5-2012 by decisively because: spelling



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


nono see the computer gets the angles of the stars so it can find out its oreintation relative to the stars and relative to the original reference attitude, from this it compares it to the attitude shown from the IMU. this is how it works out the drift in the IMU.

the sextant had NO problems sighting stars:

The sextant clearly does not suffer from the low light transmission and the light scatter problem of the scanning telescope. This was as expected. The narrow field of view, the use of a simple mirror rather than a complex prism to point the line of sight, the better light shielding possible, and the magnification makes the sextant's visibility of stars superior. (superior to the scanning scope)

www.ibiblio.org...

with the spacecraft held in a steady attitude, the sextant's movable line of sight was pointed towards a specified star. Once the star was accurately aligned in the eyepice graticule, a button is pressed to tell the computer to note the star's apparent position with respect to the slightly misaligned platform. it repeats on a different star. i think this is the "all-balls" part.

once two stars are marked than the computer know the orientation of the galaxy, once it knows the orientation it can know the drift of the IMU to the original reference point.

if however the computer forgets its original reference point, than they have to get dark adapted and use the scanning telescope and repeat without the help of the P52 program.. and this will take about an hour.

thats all it needs, the computer just needs its orientation away from the original reference orientation.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 


No incorrect

In the case of a lost platform and the need to run a P51, the computer no longer knows where the stars are in relation to the ship's orientation in space, only in relation to one another. The ship's attitude in the case of a lost platform is unknown. YOU must find the stars, and tell the computer which is which.
edit on 14-5-2012 by decisively because: added "in relation"
edit on 14-5-2012 by decisively because: added "orientation in space"



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 


The platform's orientation is what the computer uses to find the stars. when the platform is lost, the computer has nothing to offer.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


yes but when the platform is lost than they are notified and than they get dark adapted and sight some stars etcetc. but this wasnt the case, it only ever happened once, and there were no problems there.

actually i think twice one the computer lost which way was up and the other due to gimbal lock. but this was rectified with help from ground and being dark adapted. Overall takes about an hour.
edit on 14-5-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-5-2012 by choos because: added overall





new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join