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

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 14 2012 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by mrwiffler
 


That's what I got from it..

What nonsense. Man it's painful sometimes seeing how hard some people just want things to be the way they are. Must be such a boring existence for them.




posted on May, 14 2012 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


No, you have it backwards (well, "backwards" depending on circumstances):


The platform's orientation is what the computer uses to find the stars...


Yes......to REFINE and continue to correct errors in the (inevitable) drift due to precession errors that accumulate (especially, as back then, with mechanical gyroscopes...now (even without GPS enhancements), the use of "laser-ring" gyros minimizes the old mechanical friction-induced errors, that required more frequent corrections.

----(Might wish to "Google" precession as it applies to gyroscopes, and friction....I'd link it, but I feel that sometimes a search for information is more 'rewarding' if conducted on one's own initiative, and quest for further knowledge....and personal edification.....)----

Losing "alignment" the (inertial reference platform) because of a power (electrical) interruption, on a spacecraft, is FAR more serious that a similar event on an airplane, down here in Earth's atmosphere. (***)

(***) Since, although airplanes, of course, operate in a three-dimensional environment, ONE component of those three is altitude.....above the surface. UNLIKE a spacecraft, in a vacuum, and many thousands of miles away from a planet (or a Moon)....


AND, just as on airliners, even losing "Main" electrical power is not immediately going to equal losing 'alignment' of the inertial references.....there are battery back-up contingencies. Of course, ANY system can suffer severe losses, and be "knocked off-line".....so, specifically for spacecraft, a method to provide an emergency re-alignment, using HUMAN observations (as in, via the on-board sextant) gives a preliminary stabilization, relative to the "baseline' reference...

...."shooting" a few stars....("shooting" is slang for using the sextant to sight known reference stars) could then be inputted, to aid in platform re-alignment.....AFTER that, the computers could further refine, to make the "tolerances" within the standard, as originally aligned, prior to launch.

I tend to the impression that you really do not know what you're talking about.....and, this is a layman's error, usually......

edit on Mon 14 May 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by amongus
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.



Indeed. As I pointed out here, this is the same troll who has done this at 'BAUT' (the Bad Astronomy and Universe Today forum), ApolloHoax.net and JREF (James Randi's Educational Forum). he and his sockpuppets have been banned from all those venues.

He happily admits his sockpuppetry here, but I guess that's OK with moderators as long as he isn't spotted doing it here..? Despite wasting bandwidth with multiple threads all on the same topic? Yeah, whatever.

For anyone who actually gives a toss about his ridiculous and flawed attempts to misrepresent Apollo topics (especially navigation), you'll find his claims completely and comprehensively deBUNKed at the forums I listed above. Just search for "Lost Bird" - that being his mantra.. Also, have a chuckle at his now-banned "dastardly" persona, who has .. wait for it ... won prizes for his sextant use, and knows all about this stuff (or so his sister.. no wait, girlfriend.. says..!!!) Honest - it's all so true!!

It's sad, in a way.

If this was me, I would take the hint from the stars and flags that I was NOT getting (only 2 flags for Bart, and the same here? Way to go, Dec!!).... Decisively, have you not noticed that even the most ridiculous threads and posts here garner more attention than your efforts?

The reason for that is, I suspect, that you are 'known'. If not, then I guess it's because your presentation and attitude isn't exactly garnering interest or .. sympathy.. Doesn't the huge 'Operation Lune' team (snort/chuckle) have public relations advisers on the art of doing this .. properly?

Anyway, I hope it continues to work out so well for you. Carry on..


Godlike next? (sorry, injoke..) And I'd stick to the Skunkworks - that was a wise move



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by decisively
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"


No the astronauts made course corrections it was the ground that told them how.Its called telemetry mission control made sure they were on target not the astronauts.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


PLEASE provide ALL of the technical data that has led you to form this "opinion" as a basis for this thread.....to include, ALL of the transcripts, and other supporting data, (WHICH I can then go over, and help you to interpret, and understand).....which has led you to this "conclusion". With mission timelines, and mission "Flight Plans" that coincide, along with any of the alterations to the original, "pre-launch" "Flight Plans" that were made during the dynamic, and on-going missions, to adapt to changing parameters.

For, THAT is what pilots do....we "adapt" to changing conditions....constantly.

Those who do NOT grasp this basic concept? Seem to be doomed to "fail" at grasping the Space Program as a whole, and Mercury, Gemini, the Apollo and ALL other programs to have followed since......(not to mention, aviation and aerospace.....in the most basic and generalized sense.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


they got banned on apollohoax boards too, as patrick1000 and fattydash, i didnt think they were the same people but guessed they were the same group of "friends".

but chess club eh? hahaha classy
edit on 14-5-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 



Indeed. As I pointed out here, this is the same troll who has done this at 'BAUT' (the Bad Astronomy and Universe Today forum), ApolloHoax.net and JREF (James Randi's Educational Forum). he and his sockpuppets have been banned from all those venues.

He happily admits his sockpuppetry here, but I guess that's OK with moderators as long as he isn't spotted doing it here..? Despite wasting bandwidth with multiple threads all on the same topic? Yeah, whatever.


Although decisively desperately deserves to be banned, the Mods are too subtle for him. His trolling pattern suggests that he wants to be banned. The Mods aren't going to let him put another notch in his trolling iron. He can waste the rest of his ill spent life posting the same rubbish here over and over again. Eventually, he will get frustrated and/or bored and leave on his own. Won't you decisively? Decisively, are you still there?



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
Although decisively desperately deserves to be banned, the Mods are too subtle for him. His trolling pattern suggests that he wants to be banned. The Mods aren't going to let him put another notch in his trolling iron. He can waste the rest of his ill spent life posting the same rubbish here over and over again. Eventually, he will get frustrated and/or bored and leave on his own. Won't you decisively? Decisively, are you still there?


I'm perfectly happy with that! But I think it is important to point out his .. er .. history.. so that anyone who bites knows exactly what type of poster they are encouraging 'debating'..


Or in this case, what they are NOT debating .. eg, say, a group of chess-playing doctors..?



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by mainidh
 


How interesting,

So mainidh, what do you believe accounts for the Lovell/Shepard contradiction ? By the way, there are many more "contradictions/Apollo narrative internal incoherencies as regards this issue. It is of course an Apollo narrative Achilles Heel as we all have come to recognize. Fascinating, no ?

Would it make sense to you to run Command Module Simulations under fully dark adapted conditions when by Apollo 14, surly everyone knew the "navigators/guidance" boys aboard the CM's were in almost all cases not dark adapted ? How could one ever be confident on the occasion of a from scratch platform realign, P51, if you were not sure your star was indeed "star so and so" ? If you were not able to reliably realign your IMU on the occasion of platform loss, you could of course not go to the moon, correct ?

What do you personally, mainidh, believe accounts for the fact that despite such glaring inconsistencies/internal incoherencies/irrationalities/contradictions having existed for 40 some years, they have yet to be publicly debated at all, let alone with the same enthusiasm that the "pics and rocks" have ?

What do you personally, mainidh, believe accounts for Shepard's gaffe here ? Of course one needs to be certain as regards the stars they have sighted under the circumstances so discussed. After all, you can't go to the moon if you are unaware as to the direction of your spaceship's rump's pointing. How could a person so high up in the "fraud chain" botch it so badly ?

Given this resounding revelation as regards Alan Shepard's omission that he did not know how to pretend to fly his pretend space ship, it seems the "debriefers" were people outside of the fraud, men not in the know, otherwise something like this would not have occurred. At least that is my take, would you agree ?
edit on 14-5-2012 by decisively because: added "from scratch " and P51
edit on 14-5-2012 by decisively because: added "despite", have> having, added "they have yet to be", added "let alone with the same enthusiasm"
edit on 14-5-2012 by decisively because: removed comma, added "that"
edit on 14-5-2012 by decisively because: bad> badly



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



So mainidh, what do you believe accounts for the Lovell/Shepard contradiction ?


As has been pointed out numerous times, there is no contradiction.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


theres no contradictions in the apollo story..

there are many contradictions in your stories though, which can only mean one thing... and i think you know what i mean. (just incase i mean, yours is the hoax)
edit on 14-5-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Fascinating, your claim that there is no contradiction.......

Regardless, material contradictions aside, wouldn't you agree that Alan Shepard's uncertainties as regards his star sightings is a problem ? By that I mean, Alan claims he went to the moon and back and was not certain about his star sightings, not absolutely confident that any given star sighted was indeed star "so and so". As such, Alan was not absolutely certain as regards his platform alignment, and as such, his ship's attitude. Don't you think that is a risky thing DJW001, flying to the moon and not being absolutely certain as to the direction in which your space ship is pointing ? I certainly don't want to go to the moon with Alan if he is not certain that the star he just sighted is for a fact star "so and so" and that he knows the nose of his ship is pointed at the moon and not Pluto. .

Gotta' love that Alan, quite a risk taker for such a wealthy man....... No ?
edit on 14-5-2012 by decisively because: added "Alan"



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


im certain you are misreading it. he has no doubt that the p52 program points the optics at the correct stars, they all had high confidence in running the P52 program.

the only contradiction here is that you think shepard wasnt able to navigate to the moon yet you proved yourself the accidental pendulum (which was shepards flight) was done on the moon. remember NO green screen means the astronauts were shot together at the same time and speed as the pendulum. it cant be slowed down because when sped up to 2.4x the human movements becomes unnatural.

so you are contradicting yourself. which means.. you are fake. not to mention that you contradict yourself about who you are as well.
edit on 14-5-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



Fascinating, your claim that there is no contradiction.......


It is supported by the evidence:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Regardless, material contradictions aside, wouldn't you agree that Alan Shepard's uncertainties as regards his star sightings is a problem ? By that I mean, Alan claims he went to the moon and back and was not certain about his star sightings, not absolutely confident that any given star sighted was indeed star "so and so". As such, Alan was not absolutely certain as regards his platform alignment, and as such, his ship's attitude. Don't you think that is a risky thing DJW001, flying to the moon and not being absolutely certain as to the direction in which your space ship is pointing ? I certainly don't want to go to the moon with Alan if he is not certain that the star he just sighted is for a fact star "so and so" and that he knows the nose of his ship is pointed at the moon and not Pluto. .


Your ignorance of celestial mechanics is appalling. They were on an orbital path that would take them to the Moon even if the nose of the craft were pointed at Alpha Centauri. The sextant was used to confirm the inertial tracking. What are the odds that three random stars would happen to be exactly where the computer calculated the correct stars to be?

Note: your posts are so repetitive that merely linking back to earlier posts in the thread are sufficient to refute them. You are so industrious, yet so lazy.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 


Try this; this shall help you get the point. Forget about the P52. Imagine they need to run a P51. Now the computer is no help. Indeed, they have to help the computer find the ship's attitude in such a circumstance, when the platform is lost altogether. And they must be prepared to do this at any given time. They have to be able to execute a P51 successfully at any time. It is an important contingency to be prepared for. And according to Alan himself, they cannot do this.

Of course none of this is real. We are all more than familiar with NASA's claim that the platform drifts slowly, so in the setting of a P52, the star is going to be right there, in the center of the sextant. That said, Alan Shepard is telling us here that he's not dark adapted, so it doesn't matter how good a job the sextant does on any given P52, Shepard may well be star blind and not see the star. Or if he can see it, and assuming there is uncertainty as regards the IMU alignment, he has nothing independent of the computer's best sense of which star is which to confirm that very same computer's star offering.. This, by way of periodic manual star sightings. Better said, manual confirmations of star positions, and as such, the computer's sense of its attitude. A P52 is done to correct the computer, fine align the platform As such, for the fine align to have any meaning/value, it must occur outside the context of the computer's sense of things. You cannot independently verify the computer's sense of things with the computer's own sense of things.

Imagine the platform drifts 5 degrees for whatever reason, and you do a P52. Now of course you do not know it has drifted 5 degrees, this is the whole point of doing P52s, to check to see if it has drifted. Now what ? Could be a big problem. Lose the platform altogether and Alan Shepard is in big trouble. He is not sure of his sightings, sees no constellations, and so will not be able to determine the ship's attitude.

Thankfully it is only a massive taxpayer rip off and scientific fraud. Shepard's life is not at risk. The only thing Shepard's in danger of is being found out, no danger of flying into the sun. It's of course all fake. Has to be.

Great find for our side, no wiggle room here....

edit on 14-5-2012 by decisively because: added "periodic"
edit on 14-5-2012 by decisively because: added, "Better said, manual confirmations of star positions, and as such, the computer's sense of its attitude"
edit on 14-5-2012 by decisively because: spacing



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


noo, you are misinterpreting.. all shepard is suggesting is you need to be dark adapted to be able to use the scanning telescope. since that one has the lighting issues, that will take about 45mins to be fully dark adapted, which mean no jettison of wastes and turning exterior lights off and not facing anything too bright. but it is possible it just requires time which they didnt have the luxury of.

once the scanning telescope identifies the constellation they can sight the star with the sextant. ground will need to help them with the reference platform i believe but with a reference platform, and the now sighted stars the computer now has its orientation in space. what is so hard to understand about being dark adapted?

and the sextant HAS NO LIGHT PROBLEMS:

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...

everyone can use the sextant and see the stars clearly there is no problems with being dark adapted with use of the sextant. shepard is reffering to using the scanning telescope which has lighting issues, you need to be dark adapted to see stars with the scanning telescope, NOT the sextant.


ask your navigator friend whether stars move or not. he will tell you that no matter what your orientation the STARS WILL NOT MOVE FROM THEIR POSITION. these positions are stored in the computer, so all that needs be done is run the P52 program and tada!! theres the star, minor corrections are needed (getting all-balls) and now they have the drift from the reference orientation.

you just shot yourself in the foot with this argument.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



Imagine the platform drifts 5 degrees for whatever reason


Name one reason why a gyroscope would be off 5 degrees from its expected position.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Despite his claims being BS, I can't help but wonder why he doesn't post his many claims in the Space section??





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join