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

reply to post by decisively


yes he is, if he needed to do a P51 he would have to work time in to being dark adapted. once dark adapted he can positively sight stars no problems. the problem is in the flight plan there is no time to sight stars manually as auto optics is much faster and efficient.

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by bokonon2010

 

bokonon, it is 360 degrees every 20 minutes/18 degrees per minute/3 tenths of a degree per second, or 1080 degrees/3 spins per hour. It is fairly slow. The PAO for Apollo 15 here(history.nasa.gov...);


"This is Apollo Control at 66 hours, 1 minute. Apollo 15, at present time, continuing at its Passive Thermal Control mode and the crew [are] about 4 hours away from the scheduled time of awakening. In the Passive Thermal Control mode, the spacecraft is rotating about its longitudinal axis at the rate of about 3 revolutions per hour to maintain uniform exposure to the Sun and the proper thermal control of the spacecraft."

Do you know how many windows Apollo had? My guess is you dont and your grasping at straws but hey keep moving the goal post evertime your proved wrong.Eventually your where your at now so far outside the stadium that your not even playing the game.

reply to post by dragonridr


I cannot tell to whom this is addressed. If your post is addressed to me dragonridr, the point is, and as FACT it stands, NASA's claim about PTC is that the ships spun 'round 360 degrees in 20 minutes, three times around in one hour.

reply to post by choos

What about Michael Collins ? In CARRYING THE FIRE, he said he could not see the constellation when he was sighting Menkent....

So in the case of Michael Collins and Apollo 11, were he to need to realign the platform and run a P51, he would fail because he could not identify Menkent in Centaurus at all. He could not see Centaurus. He depended totally on the sextant. But with a P51 the sextant cannot help him.

Can the sextant help Alan Shepard when he runs a P51 ?

I am worried about these astronauts. I believe they may get lost up there, No ?

Originally posted by dragonridr
your proved wrong.

Please prove your personal claim.
Re: www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by choos


Maybe they should just do what DJW001 suggested and in the case of complete platform loss and the need to run a P51, they should simply upload the ship's attitude from Houston, No ? Seems simple 'nuff.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by decisively


he needed to be dark adapted,, although tricky since they are so close to the earth still.

Collins
I have no comment about the ISS. Optical subsystem B2, light transmittance telescope and sextant – as we said previously, the sextant was a very useful instrument as long as the platform was kept in alignment within plus or minus 0.9 degree. Then stars would be visible in the sextant and it was very useful. The telescope, on the other hand, was a very poor instrument because of the light loss through it, not being able to detect star patterns without a considerable period of dark adaptation. That's all I got on that.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

but if he had to do a P51 than its possible but requires times. apollo 12 was able to. you are not allowing dark adaptation into your argument..

000:53:35 Aldrin: Okay. Noun 71, we used 30 and 37; four balls 1; Noun 93, plus 00016, plus 00033, plus 00152; GET 00:48:15; check star 34. Over.

000:54:02 McCandless: Roger. Say again check star.

000:54:06 Aldrin: Check star 34.

000:54:09 McCandless: Roger. We copy. And the angles look good.

history.nasa.gov...

confirmation from ground, and you can confirm the angles from the star charts too if needed.

its like you are completely ignoring the need for dark adaptation and seeing only what you want to see.

Oh choos, you kidder, you aren't even quoting the good stuff, I was referencing CARRYING THE STERNO

reply to post by choos


It was in CARRYING THE FIRE that Collins explicitly claimed he could not see Menkent in Centaurus. As such, he was dependent on auto optics.

We may therefore conclude, were Collins platform to have gone out, he could not have realigned it and the astronauts would have died. This cannot be true, and so the whole thing we see now must be fraudulent.

Why don't you quote the relevant CARRYING THE FIRE SEGMENT choos ? You have the book. You know what I am talking about.

reply to post by decisively


if the platform went out they wouldnt just sit there and go.. "oh no now we are screwed" and do nothing.

they would have tried to find menkent, which includes checking star charts for angles, comparing it to the scopes angles with a valid refsmmat. that close to launch a launch refsmmat would be sufficient. infact they could have flown to the moon using the launch refsmmat if they wished just it was easier to relate with differing refsmmat.

why dont you read about how apollo 12 was able to re-establish the platform once they were back in orbit?

there is no problems, just more difficult.

and can be confirmed from ground and star charts.

reply to post by choos


But Collins says in CARRYING THE FIRE THAT HE CANNOT FIND MENKENT WITHOUT THE AUTO OPTICS.

reply to post by decisively


thats because he didnt attempt to get fully dark adapted..

which part of fully dark adapted do you have problems with??

they can see stars its just difficult and they can pitch in together to help by looking out the windows as they did for apollo 12.

if they need confirmation than houston can check it, or they can carefully use the star chart.

reply to post by choos

How 'bout some red glasses for gosh dang sake ?

Yes, you are correct, Collins says his eyes are always constricted and that is why he cannot see stars. You would think he would be smarter about this being a fighter pilot. My friends and I bought a USAF flight surgeon's manual and some aerospace medicine texts including one where Charles Berry wrote the manned space flight chapter. The flight surgeon's manual was from 1968 and the aerospace text 1972 I think, but not quite sure 'cuz I don't have it with me. We read about what the fighter pilots knew , well at least we think we know what they knew because one book said they had to know about really important things like how dark adaptation mostly had to do with replenishment of consumed light sensitive elements in the retinae. Takes like 30 or 40 minutes. Did you know some fighter pilots wear red glasses to "dark adapt" and still read ?

wiki.answers.com...

www.telescope.com...
(see 3 and 4 below)

3) If you are in a light-polluted location consider wearing dark glasses or special red night-vision goggles at all times except when looking through the eyepiece. It may seem odd to wear dark glasses at night (and certainly don’t do that when you’re driving), but it can be a real help.

4) When you need some light to see what you’re doing, use a dim red flashlight, the dimmer the better. A red light with adjustable brightness is very handy because it allows you to dial down the brightness to the bare minimum required. (Red light works best because it is less efficient than white light at breaking down the iodopsin and rhodopsin that allow your eye to see in the dark.)

Boy that Charles Berry isn't a very good flight surgeon. He doesn't even read his own books. Those poor astronauts were having so much trouble seeing their constellations. Alan Shepard doesn't think he was ever dark adapted. Wonder why they didn't pass out dark red shades, or just plain ol' fancy red glasses and at least have the CM guy sighting stars put 'em on so he could find Centaurus and be sure the simulator, errhhh, I mean ship, wasn't going to crash into a giant piece of styrofoam asteroid.

This is not bad about the red glasses, sure coulda' come in handy on those pretend Apollo ships....

reply to post by decisively


books.google.com... zoVpsuLp1iaSw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zZi8T4OVGbDKiALL_u2KDg&ved=0CF8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

reply to post by decisively


i know about red light.

do you know why red light is not as good as a low dim white light for night vision??

all those sites are telling you how to preserve night vision not obtain it.

im not exactly sure what a red filter will do with helping to seeing stars apart from maybe making it harder to distinguish. dark glasses i dont know, wouldnt it make it even harder to see something so dim? you are in a light polluted area after all.

This is not bad about the red glasses, sure coulda' come in handy on those pretend Apollo ships....

again how is red glasses going to help them get to being fully dark adapted?? it will help maintain it once achieved but thats not the issue here.

Google "Charles Berry, Apollo "

reply to post by choos


I am a doc remember, and I brought the subject up, and just gave a reference that explicitly addressed your point/question, and again my question was choos , "Why didn't Charles Berry bring the subject up when he found out the Apollo ain'tstronauts had trouble with dark adaptation ? Why didn't the Chuckster recommend the red shades ? "

Google "Charles Berry, Apollo" and you get this;

www.google.com...:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a

Somewhat reassuring that the doctor is being acknowledged for his strong lack of effort and incompetence.

reply to post by decisively


a doctor hmm? you mean a doctor who conveniently forgets that reduced activity will make one feel colder?

post by decisively
They may have been sick. Their equipment may not be working. They were PERFECTLY COMFORTABLE ON THE MOON A MINUTE AGO, and now they feel so cold ? Why is that ?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

also mister doctor about the redlight.. there more to it than that:

When worn in normal illumination, red goggles will not interfere significantly with the ability to read most maps, charts, manuals, etc.,

Read more: wiki.answers.com...

that is only half the reason.. and its not that it wont interfere significantly, its that red lines one white backgrounds will be completely invisible. there is another reason why red is no good.. you are a doctor maybe you can tell me?

reply to post by decisively

I am a doc remember, and I brought the subject up, and just gave a reference that explicitly addressed your point/question, and again my question was choos , "Why didn't Charles Berry bring the subject up when he found out the Apollo ain'tstronauts had trouble with dark adaptation ? Why didn't the Chuckster recommend the red shades ? "

Google "Charles Berry, Apollo" and you get this;

www.google.com...:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a

Somewhat reassuring that the doctor is being acknowledged for his strong lack of effort and incompetence.

You are sick. Your actions will have consequences.

reply to post by choos

One's rods are relatively insensitive to red light at lambda=650 nm

My general sense about the red light business choos is as per my medical physiology book reference above;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Rods are relatively spared when wearing the red specs, and so in the light with your red shades on, you see with your cones and "remain dark adapted", at least as far as your more-important-in-the-dark rods go.

To be perfectly honest, physiology fundamentals is a strength of mine, yet I honestly did not know about this, pilots wearing red glasses in the context of dark adaptation concerns until I began to study Apollo one year ago.

I also did not know that pilots turned their heads, turned their eye so that dim light would fall on their more peripheral, and more sensitive, rods. And so forth.

Reading aerospace medicine texts with regard to this sort of thing was new to me. That said, my Apollo fraud bread and butter topics, the Borman, Shepard, Slayton scams; I 'ved owned that stuff since I was an intern some 28 years ago.

At any rate, Berry is a big fat quack, that is a FACT indeed indeed indeed.

reply to post by DJW001


Consequences indeed, give Gene Kranz a big fat notice that he didn't scam us blind. He scammed us, but we now know what he did. Nice consequence, No ?

reply to post by decisively



still not getting the answer i want, nevermind.

p.s. is that your book?? google? maybe i should call myself a doctor....

what would you have ordered for borman?

a mission abort? and for neil and buzz's sleep? another mission abort?

what exactly should have stopped shepard from flying? vertigo or hearing?

and slayton.. if he made lifestyle changes no alcohol, no cigarettes active lifestyle, given that it was acute, how will pick up his irregular heart beat?