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...
" 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
edit on 15-5-2012 by decisively because: removed
edit on 15-5-2012 by decisively because: commas