It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by choos
 


Why have the scanning scope ? Please professor lay it out here. What pray tell was its purpose ?


You haven't explained to us how NASA put those probes on target to Mars and Venus since they didn't have astronauts looking through scanning scpoes.

Redundancy is whats it's all about.
What does Mars have to do with the Moon?? NOTHING. Those probes were not until after Apollo 75-76
edit on 5/15/2012 by longjohnbritches because: not




posted on May, 15 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 



What does Mars have to do with the Moon?? NOTHING. Those probes were not until after Apollo 75-76


They used an inertial guidance system similar to that used by Apollo. They worked fine without an astronaut manning the sextant. Decisively's argument is completely spurious, and he knows it.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Originally posted by samkent

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by choos
 


Why have the scanning scope ? Please professor lay it out here. What pray tell was its purpose ?


You haven't explained to us how NASA put those probes on target to Mars and Venus since they didn't have astronauts looking through scanning scpoes.

Redundancy is whats it's all about.
What does Mars have to do with the Moon?? NOTHING. Those probes were not until after Apollo 75-76
edit on 5/15/2012 by longjohnbritches because: not


Mariner 4 flew past Mars on July 14, 1965

That according to Wiki.

And the Russians started sending probes in 1962. I assume they had more then just a hope and a prayer in volved with their navigation systems.

The whole context of 'they couldn't navigate to the Moon' is just plain stupid.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


No one claims, probes did not go to the moon. the Russians were ahead of us in this. No one claims things were not landed on the moon. Many things have been landed there. No one claims cislunar space and beyond cannot be effectively navigated. It can be so navigated and has been been been, past tense many times over.

My claim is that on this particular spaceship, the Apollo command module ships of Apollos 11 through 17, the optics/guidance/navigation system was logistically untenable. It did not work, and as such, we know Apollo to be fraudulent. This claim is based on the fact that Alan Shepard himself explicitly stated he was not sure as to the identities of the stars that he sighted. He said he was not sure a sighted star was indeed star "so and so". As Shepard by his own admission was not sure of his stars, then he was by his own admission unsure of his platform alignment, and unsure of his platform alignment, Alan Shepard most certainly did not go to the moon. Alan Shepard was not a genuine lunar astronaut. Alan Shepard never flew aboard an Apollo ship as there was uncertainty regarding the attitude/platform alignment reliability of what now we know to have been phony spaceships, the whole lot of them.

Likewise, we know Apollo optics/guidance/navigation as conventionally presented is a full on ruse job because Ken Mattingly himself said the scanning scope was useless from the time of LM pick up until lunar orbit was achieved. Were the astronauts to lose the platform during that time, then a P51, a from scratch platform alignment, could not be carried out. This, because under such circumstances, the sextant is not helpful . The 28 power sextant is only of help when already well aligned and looking to confirm a reasonably solid alignment such as in the context of running a P52, fine align in the context of P52 activity. Because platform loss was a very real possibility, a contingency that the astronauts even "trained for " in their simulators, and because at the same time, in the face of this very real possibility, the Apollo 16 ship of Ken Mattingly carried a useless scanning scope, not only useless, but known before the Apollo 16 Saturn V launch even to be useless, given the extensive prior experience with Apollo's 9 through 15, one sees the Apollo 16 mission, and with it all of Apollo, as horrendously fraudulent. This, as one would not risk 3 men's lives launching them into cislunar space with no viable way to realign their platform were they to lose it.

We as such see that all of Apollo is fraudulent.
edit on 15-5-2012 by decisively because: comma



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



My claim is that on this particular spaceship, the Apollo command module ships of Apollos 11 through 17, the optics/guidance/navigation system was logistically untenable. It did not work, and as such, we know Apollo to be fraudulent.


But it did work, nor was it even necessary. The optical sextant was there for two reasons:

1. It provided triple redundancy should both of the primary navigation systems fail.

2. It gave the crew something to do in between actual activities. Jim Lovell took star sightings even when they weren't called for. He liked doing the math. He was so bored that he started filling in the Os and Ps on his flight plan.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by decisively
 



My claim is that on this particular spaceship, the Apollo command module ships of Apollos 11 through 17, the optics/guidance/navigation system was logistically untenable. It did not work, and as such, we know Apollo to be fraudulent.


But it did work, nor was it even necessary. The optical sextant was there for two reasons:

1. It provided triple redundancy should both of the primary navigation systems fail.

2. It gave the crew something to do in between actual activities. Jim Lovell took star sightings even when they weren't called for. He liked doing the math. He was so bored that he started filling in the Os and Ps on his flight plan.


To see you type that a man is not even required equiptment to go to the moon is refreshing.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 



To see you type that a man is not even required equiptment to go to the moon is refreshing.


And I am quite sure that decisively is pleased by your support.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   
I'm still waiting for a hoaxer to come forward with evidence of the hoax

please understand I'm not speaking of ignorance of astronomy and how it is turned into anomolies, I'm talking about evidence of how the hoax was carried out, like the location of the soundstage in a hollywood basement large enough to film the apollo 15 rover missions

than we can all say "fake!"

it might be fun



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
I'm still waiting for a hoaxer to come forward with evidence of the hoax

please understand I'm not speaking of ignorance of astronomy and how it is turned into anomolies, I'm talking about evidence of how the hoax was carried out, like the location of the soundstage in a hollywood basement large enough to film the apollo 15 rover missions

than we can all say "fake!"

it might be fun


Here is what you are up against.
Have a ball.

Absolutes - definition of Absolutes by the Free Online ...
www.thefreedictionary.com/Absolutes - Similarto Absolutes - definition of Absolutes by the Free Online ...

ab·so·lute ( b s -l t , b s -l t ). adj. 1. Perfect in quality or nature; complete. 2. Not mixed; pure. See Synonyms at pure. 3. a. Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; ...



1. Perfect in quality or nature; complete. 2. Not mixed; pure. See Synonyms at pure.
3.a. Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional: absolute trust.


Legal burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[url]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof [/ur]

- Similarto Legal burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is a lower standard of proof than the "Preponderance of the Evidence" standard. ... Preponderance of the evidence, also known as balance of probabilities is ...




So you see, you and any NASA worshiper would be destroyed in a court of law.

Just on circumstantial evidence alone.

The star identification scenario in this thread is only one in a many.

Bazinga ljb

edit on 5/15/2012 by longjohnbritches because: link



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
The star identification scenario in this thread is only one in a[sic] many..

..examples of people with no knowledge of the topics whatsoever, displaying that lack of knowledge on a conspiracy forum.

I agree, if you put it that way.


Longjohn, do me a favour - point out a post of yours that has rigorously and properly expounded any of your claims. That would be:
- in your own words
- using logic
- using proper cites and references
and
- in a simple step by step fashion.

You know, the sort of thing that would be expected in, oh.. say .. a courtroom. Or amongst a group of engineers, or scientists - folks who sort of .. know stuff.

Please pick your very, absolute, favorite 'proof' or 'evidence'. Because, as of course you would well know, scatter-gunning ignorant anecdotes is no way to make a case.

By doing that, everyone here can see whether your 'support' of the op is of any worth.

BTW, as an aside, do you think sockpuppets are a valid way to pretend your views have wider support? The OP believes they are, as 'he' happily admitted earlier.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


ah circumstantial evidence heres one of my favourites from one of decisively's persona:


My friend sammy and me proved neil armstrong phony because we went to the Antiquarium book store and bought the biography of neil armstrong called first man which is the one he wanted because it is authorized and we found the picture of neil in the middle of the book selling chrysler cars so he cannot be real because he is a salesman and a real astronaut would not sell cars and sammy's dad said he thinks we will be famous
www.bautforum.com...



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
The star identification scenario in this thread is only one in a[sic] many..

..examples of people with no knowledge of the topics whatsoever, displaying that lack of knowledge on a conspiracy forum.

I agree, if you put it that way.


Longjohn, do me a favour - point out a post of yours that has rigorously and properly expounded any of your claims. That would be:
- in your own words
- using logic
- using proper cites and references
and
- in a simple step by step fashion.

You know, the sort of thing that would be expected in, oh.. say .. a courtroom. Or amongst a group of engineers, or scientists - folks who sort of .. know stuff.

Please pick your very, absolute, favorite 'proof' or 'evidence'. Because, as of course you would well know, scatter-gunning ignorant anecdotes is no way to make a case.

By doing that, everyone here can see whether your 'support' of the op is of any worth.

BTW, as an aside, do you think sockpuppets are a valid way to pretend your views have wider support? The OP believes they are, as 'he' happily admitted earlier.


Now that you have been sworn in Mr or Ms CHRLZ,
Tell me?
If the worlds governments have wasted zillions of taxpayer's money to reach the moon as a step towards mans deep space exploration. Why has it been abandoned for 40 years or so with out even having a plan at the moment.?
You can have a sock puppet convention to figure this one out if you want.
edit on 5/16/2012 by longjohnbritches because: sock puppets



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


no one has stopped going to the moon in the last 40 years.
china has gone and taken photos of the moon with chang'e program and investigating if lunar mining is viable.
japan sent Hiten and SELENE.
euro space agency sent SMART 1 for x-rays and infra red imagery.
India has sent Chandrayaan-1.
BMDO and NASA sent the Clementine missions in 94 lunar prospector in 98 LRO in 09 and GRAIL in 2011 which has a very high detail map of the lunar gravity.

russia would have kept sending probes too had they not run out of money.

its much cheaper to use non-manned mission.
the worlds government has definitely been visiting the moon, pup
edit on 16-5-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-5-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by choos
 


Our side NEVER claimed collectively that the moon was not and is not being explored by equipment sent from the earth. We do not deny Ranger, Surveyor, LUNA and the modern probes. We do not deny sophisticated scientific equipment has been soft landed on the moon.

We deny that NASA sent 12 men by way of its Apollo equipment/program and landed them on the moon 1969-1972 and returned them safely to earth. THAT ! did not happen. The vast majority of us doing Apollo research claim nothing else.
edit on 16-5-2012 by decisively because: spelling

edit on 16-5-2012 by decisively because: spelling



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by choos
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


no one has stopped going to the moon in the last 40 years.
china has gone and taken photos of the moon with chang'e program and investigating if lunar mining is viable.
japan sent Hiten and SELENE.
euro space agency sent SMART 1 for x-rays and infra red imagery.
India has sent Chandrayaan-1.
BMDO and NASA sent the Clementine missions in 94 lunar prospector in 98 LRO in 09 and GRAIL in 2011 which has a very high detail map of the lunar gravity.

russia would have kept sending probes too had they not run out of money.

its much cheaper to use non-manned mission.
the worlds government has definitely been visiting the moon, pup
edit on 16-5-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-5-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)


Convieniently left out the man and the Zillions.
Oh yeah, got a ocean front for me in Kansas??
too much ljb



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


it was in reply to this:

If the worlds governments have wasted zillions of taxpayer's money to reach the moon as a step towards mans deep space exploration. Why has it been abandoned for 40 years or so with out even having a plan at the moment.?


there are many plans on looking at the moon.. tell me how sending a few men in a rover covering less than 15miles of lunar surface is more efficient than scanning the landscape 50-150 miles above the lunar surface?

tell me how landing a man on the moon is going to give you more information about the moon than what the GRAIL satelites or even the LRO can provide?

you are all constantly spewing about how the government is wasting money on landing man on the moon missions so when they go for a cheaper option to study the moon they have been faking it? damned if they do damned if they dont.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



Our side NEVER claimed collectively that the moon was not and is not being explored by equipment sent from the earth. We do not deny Ranger, Surveyor, LUNA and the modern probes. We do not deny sophisticated scientific equipment has been soft landed on the moon.

We deny that NASA sent 12 men by way of its Apollo equipment/program and landed them on the moon 1969-1972 and returned them safely to earth. THAT ! did not happen. The vast majority of us doing Apollo research claim nothing else.


This is a positive claim. You cannot take refuge behind the "cannot prove a negative BS." Stand and deliver.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by GaryN
 

STARLIGHT OF KRYPTONITE, part one



As mentioned previously GaryN, I have a rather amusing anecdote to share with you as regards Apollo, the question of its authenticity, and the "astronauts seeing stars" issue as that relates to Apollo fraud generally. It is a long story relatively speaking, but very much worth the retelling. It is a story that has much to say with respect to how easy it is for very smart people to be duped by authority that spouts nothing more than silly jive, jive that a person with average intelligence could spot as such were the circumstances not so extraordinary. Give this a read. It is on the long side, but i guarantee you will find it worth your while.

Like many others, I found Neil Armstrong' s response to Patrick Moore, more than a tad suspicious, this the answer Armstrong gave in response to Moore who had asked during a 1970 BBC Interview for a description of the stars as they appeared in the lunar sky as viewed by the astronauts from the moon's surface and from cislunar space,.



It is an important point to emphasize that in addition to Armstrong's brief allusion to cislunar space in the context of answering Moore's question per the commander's video response above, he also made an explicit comment in the Apollo 11 Voice Transcript as regards not being able to see stars in any meaningful sense, in the context of constellations and what not, for essentially the entire ride to the moon.

I am a physician with a special interest in the basic sciences, human physiology and biochemistry. Armstrong's comments about what he saw "got to us", got to a few colleagues of mine, and got to me me me too. We knew they had to sight stars to navigate/guide/align their platform, and as physicians we knew in great detail the relevant aspects of the physiology of vision. Certainly he could see stars if he looked "down sun" at any rate, NO ?

We went to Michael Collins' CARRYING THE FIRE and read that Collins' claim was indeed similar to that of his commander, looking not only up, but looking down sun as well, Collins said he saw no stars with his naked eyeballs. Well that can't be we thought. We became de facto Apollo fraud investigators simply by virtue of our medical training. Rockets be damned we thought, this Apollo thing really could be jive. By the way, we stumbled across the video at a swimming pool party of all places, and right or wrong, on target or not, my friends viewed me as the most capable of our lot with a pen, and so it would be I for the most part that would function in the capacity of a designated writer for my little group, doing my best to write here and there, on forums, to scientists, to astronauts even, in an effort to see if we might really be on to something.

One of the things we did as would of course be obvious, was to look at all the accounts of other astronauts and see if they squared with Armstrong's. For example, we read Gene Cernan's, THE LAST MAN ON THE MOON(Don Davis coauthor, St. Martin Griffin's publishing 1999). On page 206 of the paperbound version we found this comment by Cernan regarding his experience in cislunar space;

"though we were in sunlight, all we saw was blackness and stars".

Buzz Aldrin wrote in MAGNIFICENT DESOLATION(coauthor Ken Abraham, Random House, 2009);

"We had to coordinate our times with Houston, since there was really no telling day from night in space. The sun was always shining, yet the sky around us was a constant black blanket dotted with millions of stars."

Edgar Mitchell wrote in THE WAY OF THE EXPLORER (Dwight Williams coauthor, New Page Books , 2008);

"Within only a few minutes, we had arrived. We were in outer space, that vast domain where I had once been taught the kingdom of heaven lay. Though space is only a vacuum, it is just as beautiful and strange as anything possibly conjured by a child's potent imagination. There is a sense of unreality here, with the absence of gravity and the tapestry of blackness broken only by an overwhelming glitter of stars that surrounded our craft."

But Michael Collins had written, and now to quote as below, NO STARS with the naked eyes were seen, and he even gave a reason for it. From CARRYING THE FIRE, Collins here relates his cislunar naked eye star seeing experience;

"...we are into constant sunlight. In a way there is constant darkness as well, for it depends on which way one looks. Toward the sun, nothing can be seen but its blinding disk, whereas down-sun there is simply a black void. The stars are there, but they cannot be seen because, with sunlight flooding the spacecraft, the pupil of the eye involuntarily contracts,..."

So without optics, and unlike his colleagues; Cernan, Mitchell and Aldrin just quoted, Collins says NO STARS.

edit on 17-5-2012 by decisively because: removed comma

edit on 17-5-2012 by decisively because: added "part"

edit on 17-5-2012 by decisively because: a spelling

edit on 17-5-2012 by decisively because: Added "It is an important point to emphasize that in addition to Armstrong's brief allusion to cislunar space, he makes and explicit comment in the Apollo 11 Voice Transcript as regards not being able to see stars in any meaningful sense, in the context of constellations and what not, for essentially the entire ride to the moon"

edit on 17-5-2012 by decisively because: added "in the context of answering Moore's question per the commander's video response above"

edit on 17-5-2012 by decisively because: spelling, added "Cat out of the bag ?

edit on 17-5-2012 by decisively because: spelling, added "Cat out of the bag ?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join