Vaporizing the Bolshoi

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 


The problems are different. BOOMER turns on a dime and launches from anywhere. Maniner is a PLANNED mission. The SLBM improvs much more and does it with deadly accuracy.

They say an ICBM has much less tolerance for inaccuracies, problems with platform aligns than would an imagined Apollo ship.

An SLBM, unlike a land based and siloed ICBM, does not know from where it will launch.
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: comma
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: added "and"




posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


are you saying the mariner probes cannot rotate??
once in orbit, rotation is simple, orientation can change in any which way once something is in orbit.

SLBM will know where they are launched, in the same manner that a submarine will need to know its location, submarines have various methods of knowing its location. and that includes radio navigation if it needs it/star navigation/IMU navigation/etc.etc.

i think you are underestimating the accuracy of an IMU.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Not helpful in any sense whatsoever....






Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by decisively
 


If you are asking me, I would not know.


No stars are visible from a submerged submarine, moron. That makes twice.


Your intent in asking your original question was obvious, as was mine in responding. I am rather surprised you answered my clearly intentioned response as you did , though it makes the point that indeed I was trying to make. You are more interested in name calling and this type of thing than debating Apollo.

Look, I understand that it bothers people when we pick on the astronauts, but they brought this on themselves, and as mentioned, they are fair game and were warned, in so many words by me and other as well.

Their lying to the American People and Congress, and my attacking them for doing so, has nothing to do with our interaction, other than that it is the subject matter of our debate. Better said, my poking fun at Armstrong does not give you the right to call me names, use offensive language directed at me personally. I never attacked you. Neil Armstrong DID attack me.

I am undecided as to whether I shall respond to any of your posts moving forward. You were warned, in so many words, and so if I do not respond to you further, you have my reason.

I honestly thought you might have learned something from this.

Anyhoo, no big, as I have said, we would be posting regardless.........We do not need your challenges in order to make progress , nor do we find your personal insults relevant or helpful in any sense whatsoever......
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: caps
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: comma
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: caps
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: caps
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: caps
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: moved the headline
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: added "my clearly intentioned response"
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: added "that"
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: spelling
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: on > in



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   
I'll just focus on the more interesting parts of that post...

Originally posted by decisively
...
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: caps
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: comma
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: caps
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: caps
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: caps
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: moved the headline
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: added "my clearly intentioned response"
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: added "that"
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: spelling
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: on > in

That stuff is much more interesting than the drivel above it, as it paints a picture of the person at the keyboard. PEBKAC, as they say... Try and get it right the first time, dec - haven't you had enough practice with posting here? Are you perhaps reverting to your 'dastardly' persona? Maybe you should get Timmy to take over..

And a small tip, dec - speaking as 'WE' is generally reserved for Royalty.. or folks with Dunning-Kruger. But whatever floats your boat.
(although i have to observe that in terms of that boat, your bailing efforts do not appear to be working, ie attracting any new interest. When DJW and choos tire of you, who will be left to keep you company?)

BTW, here's a relevant graph that my friend, Jimmy, showed me... I think it's about Apollo orbital diarrhea on a lost bird of perp gonads ... at least that's what I think he said...



PS - Look Ma, no edits required!



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Care to comment on the thread's topic ? Do you believe it is the case, or is not the case, that Apollo was a cover for various programs that made SLBM celestial navigation a reality ?



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by PluPerfect
 



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!!


It's funny that I don't recall it. I'm certain that I would remember saying something like that. Maybe it's possible you have mixed me up with somebody else?

Alan Shepard went to the moon to gratify his own ego. He said so on network television interviews before the launch. During the interview his fellow fakers, Roosa and Mitchell, had a difficult time to say anything positive about the man.

Alan "The Miracle of Meniere's" Shepard. I'll tell you right now Apollo 14 I don't believe in the official narrative. I don't believe he had an ear problem. I don't believe he had surgery. But I do believe that he pissed his pants on Mercury, shorted out the electronics in his spacesuit when his CIA handlers down at mission control ordered him to urinate --- because the experts of the day didn't anticipate that he'd be locked, bolted inside the capsule for more than about 40 minutes.

Isn't that right?
edit on 6/4/2012 by SayonaraJupiter because: tags



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


been through all of that.. and seems you have ignored it all completely.. so whats the point in repeating it?



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Oh, backpedaling now on the Apollo 14 SEQ Bay accidental pendulum? Was it "not" you who admitted the physics of that demonstration, per the video?

Here, once again...see if this looks familiar (if not, then consider as if for the "first time", and realize it is irrefutable proof that the video footage occurred in 1/6th G.....and therefore is irrefutable proof of the reality of *at least* Apollo 14 actually being on the Moon. Therefore, with the abundance of evidence, ALL other Apollo missions were equally valid):



Here's another version of the pendulum example:



Now, from another mission (Apollo 16), more proof of the Lunar gravity...showing impossible physics of motion on Earth....and impossible in an atmosphere:




I'll tell you right now Apollo 14 I don't believe in the official narrative.


That's about like saying "I don't believe in the official narrative of the Titanic disaster"....(or any other historically significant event). It's like me saying that "I don't believe YOU exist, even though you type posts on ATS....I also don't believe in YOUR narrative for what you had for breakfast yesterday"... (should you decide to mention it for all to read).



I don't believe he had an ear problem. I don't believe he had surgery.


OK, "Doctor" Sayonara......yet, it IS an historical fact. Vetted by many, many people. (See above....your personal incredulity means not one whit of anything, in the big scheme of reality).



But I do believe that he pissed his pants on Mercury, shorted out the electronics in his spacesuit when his CIA handlers down at mission control ordered him to urinate...


Your "standards" of "belief" are slippery, aren't they?

Yes, he DID have to urinate in the suit.....and all that was affected was his ego, and some of the medical telemetry.....until the urine evaporated, and then all worked fine again.

(Edit to add some more detal):

But, his so-called "CIA handlers" (LOL!! THAT is typically hilarious!) did not "order" him to pee.....he, and get this....asked permission:


Because the planned flight was only 15 minutes long, no one gave much thought to the issue of personal waste disposal. However, Shepard was strapped into his capsule some three hours before liftoff and after a couple of hours on his back, asked for "permission to relieve his bladder." After some debate, the engineers and medical team decided that this would be OK, presumably realizing that the alternative – postponing the launch while Shepard visited the bathroom – would not amount to a NASA publicity coup. Starting with Gus Grissom's flight, strap-on urine receptacles were provided for the astronauts' use.


Source

Since it is apparent that even basic facts in research are incorrect in your posts, I'd suggest you refrain from further embarrassment, and take some time to properly study the history......



If you'd researched the facts, you'd see that there was an unanticipated delay in the launch....typical of the space program.


--- because the experts of the day didn't anticipate that he'd be locked, bolted inside the capsule for more than about 40 minutes.


It was actually more than 3 hours!

News Flash! Even airlines have delays, too! Unanticipated little problems can crop up......and THAT is with well-proven technology that is not nearly as complicated as a spacecraft.

Alan Shepard quote of the day:


Alan Shepard did pee in his suit and then say, after three hours of being immobilized in a tiny capsule, "Why don't you just fix your little problem and light this candle?" but he was also a guy who said, "You know, being a test pilot isn't always the healthiest business in the world" so he understood the risks. 96% chance of survival was acceptable risk.


(As related in the book, "The Right Stuff"

Not one of the current "keyboard warriors" who denigrate the space program (and likely weren't even alive then) are worthy of even shaking the hands of any of those men, either now for the ones still alive, or the ones that have died......





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



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



Care to comment on the thread's topic ? Do you believe it is the case, or is not the case, that Apollo was a cover for various programs that made SLBM celestial navigation a reality ?


How would using a sextant to refine the inertial guidance system on a lengthy voyage to the Moon help develop a system that could refine the the guidance system of a missile that took less than 90 minutes to reach its target automatically? Wouldn't it have been more practical to test the system by sub-orbital flights?



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by PluPerfect
 


ProudBird,

oops, I mean,

PluPerfect.

Game Over



You need to get yourself a good plumber? Let me recommend you a few.

edit on 6/4/2012 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


so i take it you cant explain those videos?
edit on 5-6-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 01:40 AM
link   

This is actually quite an astonishing development....

reply to post by choos
 


First of all , I'd like to emphasize that this is a thread seeking to establish what it was EXACTLY that the Apollo program did with our parents' money. By that I mean, "what EXACTLY was Apollo a cover for ? "

There are plenty of other threads where we can discuss the pendulum, the weightlessness in cislunar space, the feather/hammer dropping and so forth.

As discussed in detail in an earlier post here;

www.abovetopsecret.com...


We as Apollo historians are engaged in three broad fields of research. We demonstrate Apollo's fraudulence over and over by showing how it is that this long narrative is inconsistent, internally incoherent, and irrational. We seek to explain the fraud's contrived and bogus "internal" efforts at the self establishment of authenticity.The pendulum example is one case in point. We seek to provide the details as regards the what it is EXACTLY that Apollo was a cover for.

Other posters here on this thread can suite themselves, no big as far as I am concerned, what others are into. As for me, I really want to get into this, focus on this specific topic here. It is one of the reasons that I work in multiple threads. Apollo threads have a tendency to deteriorate into these meaningless and STRUCTURELESS free-for-alls.

My views regarding this issue are as follows. It is an official story side strategy, a PERP strategy, to push any discussion of underlying/root activity, however cogent or nutty those discussions may be, over into the free-for-all realm. As long as the PERPS have guys discussing rocks and photos, it is no big deal. Who really cares ? That'll go on 'til Gene Kranz stops with the bogus tears and feign pained joys of fraudulent touch downs, that is, for fritzin' ever and ever and ever.

What PERPS don't like is when we on our side talk not about rocks and pics, but about how it is that we know Kranz is a PERP, for example how it was that he knew the LM would be used as a "lifeboat" 15 minutes into the ever so bogus Apollo 13 drama. PERPS HATE !!! our naming names, and we LOVE !!! that. So anything to keep us from that, rocks, pics, pendulums, is what the opposition employs cuz' what else have they got really ? Nothing but fake rocks and pics and videos.

What PERPS like even less is when not only do we point out who indeed the taxpayer rip off artists are, who it is EXACTLY that is micturating on our backsides and telling us that it is really only just raining, but EVEN MORE SO, WHAT THEY DESPISE IS WHEN WE TALK/WRITE ABOUT WHAT THE APOLLO PROGRAM WAS REALLY A COVER FOR. THIS IS BECAUSE IT PLACES THE FRAUD IN ITS APPROPRIATE CONTEXT. THE FRAUD WAS NOT A SILLY CHARADE EFFECTED TO ONE UP THE RUSKIES, BUT RATHER , WAS A HIGH STAKES GAME, ONGOING, ABOUT WHO COULD VAPORIZE THE OTHER DUDES PIANISTS BEST. WHO COULD KILL THE OTHER SIDES CHILDREN WITH GREATER EFFECTIVENESS, WHO COULD DUPE THEIR CITIZENS BEST INTO BELIEVING THEIR MANNED SPACE PROGRAM WAS PEACEFUL WHEN THE WHOLE WHILE SPACE WAS BEING SEEDED WITH EQUIPMENT INTENDED TO KILL US. AND SINCE EACH OF US HAS BUT ONE LIFE TO LIVE, SUCH ACTIVITY WOULD BE VIEWED BY ANY SANE PERSON AS JUVENILE AND ABHORRENTLY SO.

Actually, this thread here, in this VERY sense, is one of the most important threads in all of ATS. It hits, and it hits hard at the generic aversion of the Apollo Fraud PERPS to give any ground in this regard. We can nail them left right and center on the pics or even LOST BIRD, but if Apollo is not about anything, SO WHAT ? So for us, it is more than critical that we work in this category, the third of my well defined 3 categories of Apollo research, if for no other reason than to send the clear message to everyone, including the PERPS, that we know this was about something, and we are going to figure it out and expose it ALL, just like we have exposed the lying heinies of Gene Kranz, and Jack King and Emil Schiesser and the rest of the D minus rate thespian Apollo crew.

I will actually be introducing a thread at some point dedicated to the pendulum, and the weightless scenes and the feather/hammer nonsense. As I mentioned previously, the subject deserves its own thread.That said, it is an astonishing development to be able to say, and pause and think about this for a moment, THAT THE VERY BEST THE OFFICIAL APOLLO STORY SIDE CAN DO NOW IN TERMS OF CITING EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF APOLLO'S AUTHENTICITY IS TO POINT TO THE PENDULUM AND SAY "EXPLAIN THAT".

This is off the hook sensational, really is. What ever happened to all the rest of the OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, like Neil Armstrong's words/descriptions, SHOT THROUGH AND THROUGH, EXPOSED AS THE BULL IT QUITE LITERALLY IS.

So here I'll do missiles, their guidance/navigation/optics and Apollo's roll in the covering for the programs that developed this stuff. Not to mention discuss the other nefarious space weaponizing military activities for which Apollo covered. This topic is way too important for me to be distrated by your pendulum. Take it to one of my other threads where I will be all too happy to discuss it. No way I am giving this topic/thread up. This one really churns Armstrong's colon good
edit on 5-6-2012 by decisively because: added "developed this stuff" This topic is way too important for me to be distracted by your pendulum. Take it to one of my other threads where I will be all too happy to discuss it. No way I am giving this topic up. This one really churns Armstrong's colon good.
edit on 5-6-2012 by decisively because: spelling
edit on 5-6-2012 by decisively because: spelling
edit on 5-6-2012 by decisively because: apostrophe, spacing, added quotes and "?"
edit on 5-6-2012 by decisively because: spacing
edit on 5-6-2012 by decisively because: comma
edit on 5-6-2012 by decisively because: added "and"
edit on 5-6-2012 by decisively because: removed "the"
edit on 5-6-2012 by decisively because: spacing
edit on 5-6-2012 by decisively because: added "really only just"
edit on 5-6-2012 by decisively because: scene> scenes
edit on 5-6-2012 by decisively because: spelling
edit on 5-6-2012 by decisively because: removed "added"



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


you havent said why man on the moon is a cover for BM development when the cold war is more likely the cover for SLBM, to you not even the cuban missile crisis was a good enough cover for BM development.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 

Only getting warmed up here. We have about 3 or 4 hundred pages to go on this thread. It will prove to be by far one of ATS's most interesting threads for the reasons mentioned.



I am only getting warmed up.

What Apollo covered for must have been in direct violation of important treaties. Off the top of my head , I'll say it covered for programs that worked in violation of the partial test ban treaty Kennedy signed in 1963, as well as the outer space treaty of 1967.

Also, even activities not in violation of treaty had to have been viewed as congressionally/publicly unpalatable.
So they did them anyway, just like Iran/Contra, only these were a million times worse type of thing. Worse because the weapons systems involved are so deadly.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



What Apollo covered for must have been in direct violation of important treaties. Off the top of my head , I'll say it covered for programs that worked in violation of the partial test ban treaty Kennedy signed in 1963, as well as the outer space treaty of 1967.


so apollo was a cover for testing nukes in space?



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



Only getting warmed up here. We have about 3 or 4 hundred pages to go on this thread. It will prove to be by far one of ATS's most interesting threads for the reasons mentioned.


Only three or four hundred pages? I knew you were a quitter. The rest of us have logged over six hundred pages.


I am only getting warmed up.


Then why do you keep repeating yourself?


What Apollo covered for must have been in direct violation of important treaties. Off the top of my head , I'll say it covered for programs that worked in violation of the partial test ban treaty Kennedy signed in 1963, as well as the outer space treaty of 1967.


How? Did anyone detect any nuclear explosions in space? Even if Apollo were used to develop guidance systems for SLBMs, as you bizarrely propose, how would this violate the Outer Space Treaty of 1967? Be specific. Ask your lawyer friends to help you.


Also, even activities not in violation of treaty had to have been viewed as congressionally/publicly unpalatable.


In what way? Be specific.


So they did them anyway, just like Iran/Contra, only these were a million times worse type of thing. Worse because the weapons systems involved are so deadly.


If they were not in violation of treaty, what was so bad about them? Now, please be specific about what sort of weapons they were testing, why they were so deadly and what evidence you have to support your claims. You won't, of course, but we still have six hundred pages to fill up with your nonsense.
edit on 5-6-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by sputniksteve
 

The term is intended to give one pause about destroying art and more importantly artists with nuclear weapons. I also thought about calling the thread , "VAPORIZING RICHTER". But the Bolshoi Theater and associated Art/Artists seemed/seems better.


Don't even think to take on our Bolshoi Theater in Moscow! We'll call our Russian Jews in Hollywood to create such awe and horror that you choke on your cola and mac:




posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by bokonon2010

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by sputniksteve
 

The term is intended to give one pause about destroying art and more importantly artists with nuclear weapons. I also thought about calling the thread , "VAPORIZING RICHTER". But the Bolshoi Theater and associated Art/Artists seemed/seems better.


Don't even think to take on our Bolshoi Theater in Moscow! We'll call our Russian Jews in Hollywood to create such awe and horror that you choke on your cola and mac:



This one was so out there I just had to give you a star!



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


Hey dude, hate to burst your bubble but they've had automated celestial navigation since the 1930's. Try searching for a "Fairchild A-4 (MX-10) Line-of-Position Computer"...

As per usual your grasp on the subject at hand is feeble at best.

Here's a sample of relevant patents from the 50's and 60's:

US 3154626 (A) Device for determining the position of a mark in a transparent or translucent plate or film PARSONS & CO SIR HOWARD G Oct 27, 1964
US 3135869 (A) Scanning system for photosensitive light tracking device KOLLSMAN INSTR CORP Jun 2, 1964
US 3122644 (A) Binocular star sensing system NORTH AMERICAN AVIATION INC Feb 25, 1964
US 3117231 (A) Optical tracking system HAYNES HAROLD E Jan 7, 1964
US 3053984 (A) Star tracking system HUGHES AIRCRAFT CO Sep 11, 1962
US 3034405 (A) Multislit scanner BIBERMAN LUCIEN M May 15, 1962
US 3029348 (A) Electro-optical servo system for coarse and fine positioning of transistors WESTERN ELECTRIC CO Apr 10, 1962
US 3027841 (A) Guidance system NORTHROP CORP Apr 3, 1962
US 3024699 (A) Light modulation system KOLLSMAN INSTR CORP Mar 13, 1962
US 3015249 (A) Tracking telescope NORTHROP CORP Jan 2, 1962
US 3009271 (A) Automatic control of earth-moving machines COLLINS RADIO CO Nov 21, 1961
US 3002417 (A) Automatic target finder and tracker for theodolites and the like ASKANIA WERKE AG Oct 3, 1961
US 3002098 (A) Reticle system for optical guidance systems RAYTHEON CO Sep 26, 1961
US 3002096 (A) Light tracking device KOLLSMAN INSTR CORP Sep 26, 1961
US 3001289 (A) Automatic navigator KOLLSMAN INSTR CORP Sep 26, 1961
US 3002097 (A) Dispersion scanner NORTHROP CORP Sep 26, 1961
US 3001437 (A) Diffusion scanner NORTHROP CORP Sep 26, 1961
US 3000598 (A) Roll stabilization system BUSH GEORGE B Sep 19, 1961
US 2999939 (A) Position detector GEN PRECISION INC Sep 12, 1961
US 2992334 (A) Follow-up or motion duplicating systems J W FECKER INC Jul 11, 1961
US 2972812 (A) Light chopper NORTHROP CORP Feb 28, 1961
US 2971437 (A) Apparatus for guided missiles HOWARD SURTEES Feb 14, 1961
US 2968736 (A) Cycling mechanism for photoelectrical devices ASKANIA WERKE AG Jan 17, 1961
US 2966823 (A) Tracking telescope with dual field optical system NORTHROP CORP Jan 3, 1961
US 2965763 (A) Position indicating device GEN ELECTRIC Dec 20, 1960
US 2958783 (A) Scanner NORTHROP CORP Nov 1, 1960
US 2949672 (A) Stationary field scanning system NORTH AMERICAN AVIATION INC Aug 23, 1960
US 2949030 (A) Gyroscopically stabilized optical system platform NORTH AMERICAN AVIATION INC Aug 16, 1960
US 2949536 (A) Method and means for vertical attitude determination LANGTON WILLIAM G Aug 16, 1960
US 2947872 (A) Star tracking system KOLLSMAN INSTR CORP Aug 2, 1960
US 2945414 (A) Optical scanning device SERVO CORP OF AMERICA Jul 19, 1960
US 2944763 (A) Guidance system REPUBLIC AVIAT CORP Jul 12, 1960
US 2943204 (A) Star sensing system NORTH AMERICAN AVIATION INC Jun 28, 1960
US 2941134 (A) Automatic motor control for celestial navigation device BENDIX AVIAT CORP Jun 14, 1960
US 2941080 (A) Astrometrical means and method HUGHES AIRCRAFT CO Jun 14, 1960
US 2941081 (A) Stellar orientation detector NORTH AMERICAN AVIATION INC Jun 14, 1960
US 2941082 (A) Photoelectric automatic sextant KOLLSMAN INSTR CORP Jun 14, 1960
US 2939962 (A) Fixed beam scanner NORTH AMERICAN AVIATION INC Jun 7, 1960
US 2931911 (A) Detector system for optical scanners NICHOLS LAWRENCE W Apr 5, 1960
US 2930894 (A) Optical sighting and tracking device REPUBLIC AVIAT CORP Mar 29, 1960
US 2923202 (A) Dual field optical system NORTHROP CORP Feb 2, 1960
US 2922332 (A) Electronic devices for locating and measuring indicia IBM Jan 26, 1960
US 2917967 (A) Photoelectric device, mainly for geodetical and astronomical instruments ASKANIA WERKE AG Dec 22, 1959
US 2913583 (A) Solar tracking system or the like HOFFMAN ELECTRONICS CORP Nov 17, 1959
US 2906883 (A) Position indicator HANSEN WILBUR W Sep 29, 1959
US 2905828 (A) Light tracking device KOLLSMAN INSTR CORP Sep 22, 1959
US 2870671 (A) Autocollimator for measuring angle of incident light beam FALCONI OSCAR R Jan 27, 1959
US 2867393 (A) Navigation device BENDIX AVIAT CORP Jan 6, 1959
US 2864959 (A) Target tracker NASTRONERO JOHN J Dec 16, 1958
US 2861192 (A) Contour follower apparatus ONERA (OFF NAT AEROSPATIALE) Nov 18, 1958
US 2824242 (A) Control circuit for positioning an object DRIVOMATIC Feb 18, 1958
US 2820906 (A) Radiant energy sensing system NORTH AMERICAN AVIATION INC Jan 21, 1958
US 2782626 (A) Angle measuring and correcting means NORTH AMERICAN AVIATION INC Feb 26, 1957
US 2763177 (A) Solar and stellar tracker NORTHROP AIRCRAFT INC Sep 18, 1956

edit on 5-6-2012 by mrwiffler because: ehe



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Kollsman made the navigation intruments for NASA. This whole thread is based on the fact that you haven't seen these patents:


US 2905828 (A) Light tracking device KOLLSMAN INSTR CORP Sep 22, 1959
US 2947872 (A) Star tracking system KOLLSMAN INSTR CORP Aug 2, 1960
US 2941082 (A) Photoelectric automatic sextant KOLLSMAN INSTR CORP Jun 14, 1960
US 3002096 (A) Light tracking device KOLLSMAN INSTR CORP Sep 26, 1961
US 3001289 (A) Automatic navigator KOLLSMAN INSTR CORP Sep 26, 1961
US 3024699 (A) Light modulation system KOLLSMAN INSTR CORP Mar 13, 1962
US 3135869 (A) Scanning system for photosensitive light tracking device KOLLSMAN INSTR CORP Jun 2, 1964






top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join