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.

 

Vaporizing the Bolshoi

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Here, you used the wrong term in this commentary...so, I fixed it for you:


[snip]



The hilarious part about all of this is, as I already pointed out, that SayonaraJ already acknowledged the reality of Apollo 14, and its landing on the Moon!!


The level of inconsistency, and outright disingenuous double-speak by the tiny, tiny handful of hard-core delusional individuals who continue to cling to a long-discredited "hoax" claim, because of some odd, psychological *need* for attention speaks more to a particular unstable mental state, than to any who strive to set the record correct, and counter the nonsense.


I'd suggest a peek over at the 'JREF Forum' to see what this individual who has been "lauded: with "praise" has been up to...and, witness the smack-down given out by the many members of that Board who know far, far about the technical and scientific details of space travel in general, and Apollo in particular.

Take note of the embarrassingly bad mistakes made, and the claims regarding the Apollo LM power supply.

And, most glaring of all, the "challenge" that was made (**), when it was inferred that there were "no" photos of the Astronauts after splashdown, as they exited the Command Modules. Greatly amusing to see a person make such an imbecilic claim, and than be shown picture after picture refuting it.

(**) Here, read it for yourselves.....wonderfully fun.

Post 7764

Note the poor understanding of the huge amount of documentation from the Apollo missions......and, the specific mention of "YouTube videos" in the so-called "challenge".


Perhaps by specifying YT vids, it was a pre-planned goal to weasel out, once the factual photographs that destroy the claim were produced? (Just *because* they were not on YouTube? Is that the sort of mentality to deal with, when it comes to "hoax" believers? Seems so....).

Here, a few responses:

Post 7779

And:

Post 7782

And:

Post 7783


How's it feel to see an so-called "Apollo hoax" (cough) *expert* shown to be a total fraud?




edit on 3-6-2012 by PluPerfect because: (no reason given)
edit on 5/6/12 by masqua because: removed altered quote
extra DIV




posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   
i liked the bit about vapourizing the bolshoi.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by PluPerfect
 


I like how he calls the intelligent majority a "Small congregation" when only 6% - 18% (depending on which poll you choose to believe is more accurate) of Americans doubt the Apollo missions.

Such a hilarious little fringe group. A drone-like following where logic is nowhere to be found, critical thinking is like a poison, and proper research is avoided like the plague because their deluded governmental paranoia clouds their every judgment. Truly the hipsters of the conspiracy world, where anything will be believed as long as it's not "too mainstream, man."



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Sorry decisively, even the ancients used star charts. They have been around since antiquity.

Instraments and Star Charts
Sumerian Star Chart replica



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Gibborium
 


He surely must know this, since he is a "champion navigator by stars" (what the hell? celestial navigation tournaments or something? lmao) and "the best with a sextant in a small group of sailors."

Very odd claims indeed. He is a sailor, a physician, and an Apollo historian!



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Let your imagination go, a General in a Candy Store

reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Hopefully you've had a chance to review my little summary by now CHRLZ;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

VAPORIZING THE BOLSHOI is a sorely needed ATS thread. We're light years beyond proving Apollo fraudulent and then some, matter-0-fact.

We'd like to explore here in this new thread not how it was that Apollo was fraudulent, but given that it was fraudulent, what in fact were the programs/military objectives that Apollo covered for.

To be sure, Apollo as fraud is FACT, and moreover, very old news to boot. This is not to say demonstrating/detailing Apollo's fraudulence is not worth our ongoing attention. Actually, as Apollo researchers, we have a duty in this regard. It is our findings that result in the meting out of some justice. When we identify a PERP, for example the recently identified Apollo fraud insider, tax payer rip off artist and unconvicted felon, PAO Jack King, we do what the American Justice system has not been able to do, bust the PERPS' sorry chops. So no question we'll continue to indict, present evidence and heiny spank the jive infested rumps of the PERPS, bring their identities to the public's attention, but we also want at this time to begin to make more of an effort to explore the possibilities as regards WHAT THEY REALLY WERE UP TO.

Let your imagination go a bit CHRLZ.........

Here's an idea I like. Say you were a USAF General, or US Navy Admiral and could have anything you wanted as regards your ICBM/SLBM system, what might that be ? This is THE question that we want to be asking, BECAUSE IT WAS THIS QUESTION THAT APOLLO WAS AN ANSWER TO. What's "missing" in the public mind when it comes to explaining ICBM/SLBM accuracy ? They say they can park these bad boys in your bathtub. How is that ? You don't just give it just the right push and just the right amount of English and have the thing sail up and back and SPLASH !!!!!! into Khrushchev's tub. The thing is actively navigated/guided in real-time. Celestial Navigation for ICBMs/SLBMs began fairly early on. American SLBMs early on sighted one star, Russian SLBMs, or so we are told anyway, sighted two. But what else do we know ? NOTHING...... Perhaps our ignorance regarding this is a transcendental clue. We know the missiles sight/sighted stars, but we don't know exactly how they pulled/pull off this insanely complicated activity.

The star sighted would have to depend on where the missile was launched, when it was launched, time of year and so forth. Could yoiu simplify this ? Perhaps you could by making your own stars. Perhaps Apollo launched light emitting equipment, invisible lasers, something of that sort, parked them in earth-moon libration points(en.wikipedia.org...). Now you launch a ICBM/SLBM, you have a dependable , small menu of reference points, artificial stars to sight and so employ in navigation. Instead of having the bird look for Rigel, it goes up, through the atmosphere and into the dark and BOOM looks immediately for artificial light, perhaps invisible laser light or a signal of another sort coming from libration point 4, 5 or the moon itself if she was on the side of the launch and trackable. Now you know exactly where you are. The missile tracks the artificial star and now its really got something to work with. Perhaps the stars Rigel, or Sirius, or Menkent, or whatever would work as well, but my system is easier, MORE RELIABLE, you'd have more predictable success, WAY LESS COMPLICATED. Way less complicated if you can get your artificial stars into the sky above. Enter Apollo.

You fire up the Saturn V, lunch your tens of thousands of pounds worth of payload into the sky and BINGO, you are ready to VAPORIZE THE BOLSHOI.


edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: added link

edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: added CHRLZ

edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: It> this, adde "THE"

edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: caps

edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: your >Khrushchev

edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: added "actively navigated.... in real-time"

edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: added "!!!!!"

edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: added "anyway,"

edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: spelling

edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: added "pulled"

edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: caps

edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: 2,3 > 4,5

edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: added"?"



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


accuracy of ballistic missile is mostly from the IMU.. the IMU has been around long before the 1960's...

how is artificial stars more reliable than real stars?? sabotage on man made objects is not hard, delfection of laser beams is even easier..

you cant sabotage a fixed stars position or signal.. and that includes the sun.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Gibborium
 

If you want to take out the Kirov Ballet and Mariinsky Theater, your tracking star is gonna' depend on whether you launch in May or November



You miss the point. You need a SLBM system that "understands" what's the best star to sight and track in autumn vs spring, North Atlantic launch vs South Pacific launch, Beijing vs Leningrad as a target. How are you going to pull this off ? We know they did pull it off. We know present day Trident and Minutemen Missiles track "stars", employ celestial navigation. We know they do this, but not how.

I think Apollo provided the how......
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: comma

edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: added "?"



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 

Look out below !!!!! Incoming !!!!!



ICBM and SLBM IMUs/platforms are "checked" by way of celestial navigation. The point I am exploring here is; "How exactly is it that missiles track stars and in so doing obtain the data necessary to check the IMU/platform alignment in flight ?" We know this is done. We know the IMU/platforms are "checked" in midflight by way of star sightings and please see my previous reference for a few orienting points;

www.dtic.mil...


So I believe Apollo was a cover for the programs supplying the missing X factor. One explanation/possibility is that above. Apollo launched artificial stars for the birds to sight.
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: caps, added quotes and "?"

edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: spelling

edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: improved link



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


im thinking cameras lining up the horizon and the sun/moon or a star..

apollo was manned and even that had auto star aquisition.. previous to that they had unmanned satelites launching all over the place also most likely with auto star aquisition..

apollo's purpose was not to launch artifical stars at all. permanent stars and other celestial bodies have been providing updates for the IMU before any apollo mission flew.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 


They may well have sighted real stars. Apollo may well have helped with the development of a system that employed real stars. Both are options. that is why i encouraged CHRLZ to let his imagination go. We''l probably wind up solving for Apollo here in this thread. that is why this is such an exciting thread. We are on the verge of finding, coming to se APOLLO'S ULTIMATE SOLUTION.

It almost certainly has to do with this subject, and we have come far enough as researchers as regards Apollo per se and our fundamental understanding of the Polaris and Minuteman systems to put it all together. Very exciting times for Apollo researchers here, VERY EXCITING...



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


but it wasnt apollo.. they have been launching artificial satellites exploring other celestial bodies before they launched apollo..

this makes me believe auto-star tracking was well established and tuned well before the apollo launches..



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 

Feel Special ?



You are off topic, forget about Apollo for a second. Think about how a modern Trident launched from a BOOMER today would hit Moscow. Say two BOOMERS go out, one is off the North American coast near its Seattle port . The other is in the mid Atlantic. The missiles fly. Each Trident seeks Moscow, each employs celestial navigation, each sights stars, but the missiles of each boat will solve for this differently, and the solution difference will include a difference in the stars sighted/tracked and so forth.

Apollo covered for the systems that made this possible, whether the Tridents/Polaris missiles sight natural stars or artificial stars, regardless, Apollo covered for the systems that provided this solution.

The fact we know nothing of such a system, and that at the same time, such a system is AN ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT, proves my point.

I must be correct here, only details need to be worked out.

Here in ATS we have arrived at APOLLO"S SOLUTION, actually an epic moment/time in the history of Apollo research and you are a participant choos, feel special ?
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: commas , added "that"



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 

The SLBM Problem is unique, and as such, requires a unique solution



So what ? The SLBM problem requires its own unique solution. One unique element as regards this problem is the real time aspect. You cannot know what star will be sighted a week in advance of the launch, where the ultimately chosen star will be found, how it must be sought. The launch , coming at the moment of war will be a surprise, the BOOMER could be anywhere and so the system must be able to select the star on the fly, at less than a moment's notice. Go to launch depth and fire, NOW !!!!!!. What star will be tracked ? How ? Where to ?

The systems for which Apollo covered provided this solution....
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: that> the ultimately chosen



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


apollo didnt cover for it.. if anything the cold war was the cover for it...

the programs in a missile can have all star locations in its internal memory, when a trajectory is plotted than its initial position will be known its flight path will be known as well as the time taken with great accuracy, as well as star magnitudes/celestial bodies location.. the IMU guides the missile primarily, the IMU is a great deal more accurate, star sighting is just for periodic minor corrections, which are predetermined location and time.

how is any of this earth based trajectory got to do with launching man to the moon?


edit on 4-6-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


of course they can go anywhere.. the trajectories are all pre-planned. this includes flightpath and time. you have these two known values as well as known values of star/sun/moon/earths horizon/other planets location and their respective magnitudes and its not very hard for them to sight whatever it is they need.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 


You do not understand the fundamental logistics of the system choos. It is no different from the system as described for the pretended Apollo rockets. The IMU/platform and star sightings are NOT SEPARATE ENTITIES. One sights stars to be sure the platform is aligned. If the star is not sighted, the platform is no good.

You can have a missile, a space ship even, with an IMU/Platform only, AND NO OPTICS FOR FINE ALIGN/CORRECTION, but that missile will not find the birdbath in the backyard of Nikita Khrushchev's dacha, and the spaceship will not find the moon.

You seem misinformed in that you want to believe the IMU operates independently of star sightings. The IMU/platform is dependent on star sightings for the accuracy ultimately realized. This is why they have the star sightings, to improve the accuracy/quality of the alignment.

And keep in mind the an SLBM does not make single sightings. IT TRACKS ITS STAR AND SO THE PLATFORM CHECK IS ONGOING CONTINUOUS. Perhaps this more than anything underscores the DEPENDENCE OF PLATFORM ALIGNMENT ACCURACY ON STAR SIGHTING/TRACKING.
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: commas, added "and the spaceship will not find the moon"



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Do you realize that Bolshoi is not actually a word? I just looked it up seriously. Or are you talking about the Ballet and Opera company? Based on the logic you use in your arguments I think I can now deduce that everything else you say is made up too.

Isn't that how this works?

How was work today? Save any lives? Or are you on sabbatical?
edit on 6/4/2012 by sputniksteve because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 


no incorrect , as above



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 

Beyond ridiculous



If the missiles were as you say they were, PREPROGRAMMED, they would have no reason to employ the optics systems that the missiles of yesterday had and the missiles of today have.

A modern Trident is not preprogrammed in the sense to which you are making reference. We know this with absolute certainty because modern Trident missile sight stars, employ real time celestial navigation. Given this FACT, you CANNOT BE CORRECT.

Of course everything is not done on the fly, spontaneously, but your assertion that even the early SLBMs that sported optics and so employed real-time celestial navigation in their ultimate targeting solutions, did not utilize to advantage these optical systems and were somehow preprogrammed to hit Kiev is beyond ridiculous.

What you are arguing is no different from arguing that the Apollo ships in theory would have been capable of finding the moon without the optical systems they were alleged to have employed for fine aligning their imagined platforms.
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: systems> missiles, are>were

edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: added "modern"



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join