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

page: 8
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 20 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 


DJW001 just told you choos they do not use the sextant to align the IMU. Shouldn't you check with him before going on with this ?




posted on May, 20 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


im beginning to think they didnt even use the sextant.. i think they used the alignment optical scope, which is also used to assist with docking procedures. not to be confused with the scanning scope.
edit on 20-5-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 




You do not understand. You cannot fly to the moon, PERIOD, unless you are sure the star you have sighted was sighted accurately.

Mariner 4 navigated to Mars in 1964. 5 years before Apollo 11 went to the Moon.
And it didn't sight any stars at all!

So your whole star complaint is wrong. Pure BS.

You should learn your space hardware history before jummping to silly conclusions.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by decisively
 




You do not understand. You cannot fly to the moon, PERIOD, unless you are sure the star you have sighted was sighted accurately.

Mariner 4 navigated to Mars in 1964. 5 years before Apollo 11 went to the Moon.
And it didn't sight any stars at all!

So your whole star complaint is wrong. Pure BS.

You should learn your space hardware history before jummping to silly conclusions.

I think not.
You misunderstand the total premise.
If the course of the spacecraft was predetermined or handled by ground control why have all the BS display and banter for the cameras and microphones. Pure hogwash.
One thing you are correct about though. It does not take a man to fly to the moon and back.
Good for you sam.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


its a confidence thing. and i believe they still needed to fine tune it, trying to get "all-balls" which will increase the accuracy involved, reduce fuel consumption and reduce travel time.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 



You misunderstand the total premise.
If the course of the spacecraft was predetermined or handled by ground control why have all the BS display and banter for the cameras and microphones. Pure hogwash.


No, longjohn, it is you who misunderstands the whole premise of this thread. It is founded on the idea that only by using the sextant could the astronauts navigate to the Moon, and that the sextant was not serviceable. As it turns out, it was completely unnecessary.

As for the whole rigamarole of sighting the stars, let me explain. The astronauts had about a week in which they literally had nothing to do but eat, sleep and take a few pictures. Such a situation is boring, and can lead to personal friction. As a child, when my family traveled cross country, my parents, knowing my inclinations, would cunningly appoint me "navigator." I would dutifully follow our progress on a road map, calling out the names of towns we were passing and calculating when we would next be able to stop for FOOD GAS LODGING. This prevented back seat disputes over whose elbows were where. The astronauts weren't children, but it was the same psychological trick. Jim Lovell loved it.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


No, incorrect

The thread's main premise is that Lovell and Shepard's views regarding the seeing and sighting of stars in cislunar space are contradictory, and since both cannot be true, neither are. And as such, all of Apollo is proven in one fell phony Eagle swoop NOT to be fraudulent.

The emphasis here is indeed on the primacy of contradiction, the primacy of exposing internal incoherence per se. That said, it is true, the contradiction does translate directly to an indictment of platform alignment logistics as full on bogus.
edit on 21-5-2012 by decisively because: Added "That said as regards the primacy of contradiction, exposing internal incoherence, it is true, the contradiction does translate directly to an indictment of platform alignment logistics as full on bogus.
edit on 21-5-2012 by decisively because: added "the emphasis is indeed on"
edit on 21-5-2012 by decisively because: spelling



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by DJW001
 


No, incorrect

The thread's main premise is that Lovell and Shepard's views regarding the seeing and sighting of stars in cislunar space are contradictory, and since both cannot be true, neither are. And as such, all of Apollo is proven in one fell phony Eagle swoop NOT to be fraudulent.

The emphasis here is indeed on the primacy of contradiction, the primacy of exposing internal incoherence per se. That said, it is true, the contradiction does translate directly to an indictment of platform alignment logistics as full on bogus.
edit on 21-5-2012 by decisively because: Added "That said as regards the primacy of contradiction, exposing internal incoherence, it is true, the contradiction does translate directly to an indictment of platform alignment logistics as full on bogus.
edit on 21-5-2012 by decisively because: added "the emphasis is indeed on"
edit on 21-5-2012 by decisively because: spelling


Police get contradictory stories all the time.Its human nature no one experiences the same thing the same way.So if thats the best you have this is an incredibly stupid argument.Now ive noticed the goal post moved again in this thread with the admitting they could get there by ground control.Then decide well look there stories contradict so they cant have gone to the moon. This argument makes as much sense as saying its dark in space and couldmt see where they were going.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


Shepard:
"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."

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."


how are these contradictory??

shepard says if you want to use the scanning scope you need to allow yourself time to get dark adapted and no urine dumps.
lovell says if you want to use the scanning scope you must be dark adapted (which takes time) otherwise you will only see blackness.

they are both saying the same thing when it comes to sighting stars with the scanning scope... the difference is lovell planned for himself to get dark adapted since optical navigation is one of his favourite methods. so than how is this contradictory?
edit on 21-5-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-5-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 


Lovell is certain as regards his star sightings. If he attempts to sight Sirius and finds it and so marks it as part of a platform align, then he is certain the star is Sirius. Shepard is not.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


lovell is NOT certain of the stars.. he cannot make out the constellations with the scanning scope.

lovell quote:
"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."

he cant make out the surrounding stars..
edit on 21-5-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 


Well if Lovell is uncertain of the stars, then he is in big trouble as well out there in cislunar space. If he lacks certainty, Apollo is sunk. Well it is sunk already anyhoo.

Keep in mind, in Lovell's case there, he does not have the LM to contend with which created an alleged star sighting problem for those packing the lander. Regardless, to be able to align the IMU/platform, Lovell must be able to see stars within the context of a constellation. This is because the platform may need to be aligned from scratch at any time, and from anywhere. Under these circumstances the sextant is no help.

You might want to check your facts, give James a call....
edit on 21-5-2012 by decisively because: spelling



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


Shepard and Lovell are talking about two different things. You're getting really confused.

Shepard is talking about the real-world. What they actually did. Star sighting wasn't that important. Lovell is talking about the conditions that are necessary for sighting whole constellations. There is no contradiction at all.

Hey decisively, why don't you just give up. Not one of your arguments makes any sense.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


lovell was talking about being near earth when there was alot of light. hence the "During the early part of the flight".. that is when he could not recognise any constellations.

once a bit of distance from earth is obtained (for more ideal conditions) and you enable yourself to get fully dark adapted he says he can see stars. so when he is in trans lunar injection he is able to sight stars with the scanning scope. but during earth orbit a few stars can be made out but not enough to 100% positively identify it even while dark adapted.

shepard is saying the same thing.. if you really want to sight stars with the scanning scope than you need to enable yourself time to be fully dark adapted.
edit on 21-5-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 


No incorrect

That is only part of what Lovell says.

Lovell says as one gets further from the earth, it is easier to see stars. And you really need to read the entire Lovell quote. It is very long that section and I only included the most relevant part. However, all of that quote is relevant to the topic of debate here.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


thats what i said!!

that part about hard to find constellations is from near earth due to the light.

once further out you can see stars better, but you have to be dark adapted.

shepard says the same thing.. although he doesnt get dark adapted as he never planned for it, but he does say that IF you REALLY wanted to sight stars than you have to PLAN time in to get dark adapted.

there is no contradiction.
edit on 21-5-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



Lovell says as one gets further from the earth, it is easier to see stars.


No, he doesn't. This is just further evidence of your poor reading comprehension skills, Lucky.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   

I beg your pardon

reply to post by DJW001
 


From the Apollo 8 Technical Crew Debriefing, 3.3.15, page 18, James Lovell;



"A second factor is the spacecraft attitude with relationship to the sun and/or the earth and the moon. When we're close to the earth and we're maneuvering near the earth, there's enough reflected light in the scanning telescope to make stars not visible in the scanning telescope. This is very similar to earth orbital flights. As we moved away from the earth, about halfway between the earth and the moon
or a little bit less, it was very easy to see constellations or stars in the dark areas of the sky."

As I mentioned earlier, Lovell claimed one could see stars better when further away from the earth.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


you need to add, while dark adapted..

now than.. how does this contradict what shepard says?

be detailed.. because i dont see it, they both say you need to be dark adapted to sight the stars. only difference is lovell exercised manual star sightings whereas shepard used the computer.. as well as everyone else, as it was more efficient at finding the correct star.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 


Read all of what Lovell says in the deberiefing about navigating. Too much to be quoted in full here, but in sum, when Lovell sighted a star, he did so with solid confidence, Shepard, not so. As such, given Shepard's lack of confidence, we may conclude all of Apollo fraudulent, not because Shepard REALLY LACKED CONFIDENCE, but rather, he did not understand his own ruse well enough to finesse the star sighting business so that it was even marginally credible. We can dismiss him as an Apollo astronuaut, BOOM!!! , immediately after reading the above referenced critical comments of his as they betray the views of a man in space who would not know his attitude . Not OK. Shepard is so identified as a fraud and so too is all of Apollo identified as fraudulent.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join