Vaporizing the Bolshoi

There is no question that Apollo was fraudulent, by that I mean the Apollo missions were not missions that sought to land men on the moon. That said, they were doing plenty of things with the American taxpayer's money, using Apollo as a cover for said nefarious activities which included but were not limited to; program development for ever improving systems for ICBM/SLBM tracking/targeting/perfomance. Mercury/Gemini/Apollo served to cover for the development of the Dyna-Soar, which once developed was our SPACE SHUTTLE. Mercury/Gemini/Apollo sought to cover for the development of the Manned Orbital Lab, which once developed was our SKYLAB.

Can we get at more in the way of details ? Perhaps we can.

During the Apollo era and then into the 1970s, the Americans and Soviets both developed systems to employ celestial navigation for their SLBMs. The American system employed a single star tracking technique, The Soviet system employed a two star tracking method.

One cannot use an off the shelf star chart for this. An SLBM that tracks a star for celestial navigation purposes does not know where and when it will be launched. Launched into the sun, or into the night ? What star should be tracked, not only tracked but followed, from where to where ?

The choice of star will be different if the BOOMER launches the SLBM from the North Atlantic vs the South Pacific, in autumn vs spring, 12 noon vs 12 midnight, and so forth, an insanely complex system.

How was this acheived ? I believe it was achieved in the context of the manned space efforts, they covered for developing the hardware/software/logistics to do this.

A TRANSCENDENTAL CLUE ??????

Why are the Apollo astronauts so star phobic ? Perhaps it has to do this. We know for a fact that our SLBMs were able to find the stars, and they do to this today as well, our ICBMs and SLBMs employ celestial navigation. So the missiles see stars, not only see them , but track them as they go. If a missile can see a star, then so too can an astronaut, rain or shine. WITH THE SUN AROUND OR NOT, A MISSILE WILL FIND ITS STAR, AND IF THIS IS TRUE, WHICH IT IS, THEN THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN TRUE FOR AN APOLLO ASTRONAUT AS WELL. I think this is one of the reasons that the astronauts are so star averse. They did not want us to know they were working on a missile star sighting system, not directly of course. The apollo astronauts were never in cislunar space. When I say "working", I mean the astronauts are participating in a cover for a program that is developing among other things, a celestial navigation system for SLBMs. Almost certainly the Apollo astronauts were here on earth during the fraudulent missions. The Apollo astronaut participation is not direct. Their participation has to do with pretending to go to the moon, and in so doing, they provide a cover for launching the necessary hardware into space that is needed for American military activities/programs.

Why does Armstrong say in the Apollo 11 voice transcript after essentially traversing the entirety of cislunar space ? ;


"Houston, it's been a real change for
us. Now we are able to see stars again and recognize
constellations for the first time on the trip. The sky
is full of stars, just like the nights out on earth.
But all the way here, we have just been able to see stars
occasionally and perhaps through the monoculars, but
not recognize any star pattern."

The dude has gone 200,000 miles across the entirety of cislunar space and he saw squat in terms of stars ? No way jack, this dude is hiding a big fat juicy SECRET !!!! If a missile can see a star, even with the sun around, even with the sun influencing the particular star to be chosen for tracking, and our missiles can see stars, even with the sun around, our defense depends on this. Ditto for the Russian missiles, see the stars they need to navigate/guide them. If American and Russian missiles see and then track stars once found, then so too can astronauts see stars and then track them once found.

I think the Apollo astronauts denied stars in some broad sense, not absolutely, but for the most part they DISCOURAGED AND DISCOURAGE US FROM THINKING ABOUT THE STARS, because Apollo was for one thing about stars, about figuring out how it would be that our missileS could find and track them on their way to vaporizing the Bolshoi.

reply to post by decisively


I'm sorry, but my brain can make no sense of this thread.
I should mention that I've had this problem with several of your other threads too.
So I'm wonder if the problem really is mine.

reply to post by decisively


And, yet another utterly pointless ranting about Apollo?

Oh, and whilst the few scattered facts RE: ICBMs and such are interesting historically, the assertion that there was a "nefarious program" to develop them, that was using Apollo as a "cover story" is simply ludicrous.

BTW...the Astronauts had no problems, nor difficulties, sighting stars, when it was necessary.....but, there certainly was no point in "star-gazing" while en-route, since the stars do NOT change positions, relative to one another, in the sky.

One more thing.....try this, at night, in your car (if you have one). Pick a nice, clear night.....with lots of "stars" in the sky, and sit in a parking lot or someplace with our interior dome lights on......(this re-creates the normal situation on-board the Apollo Command Modules, for the majority of their journeys).

Given the presence of the internal lighting, come back and describe how "easy" is is to see the stars. Oh, and instead of a passenger car, maybe should use one of those utility-type vans, with smallish windows.....black out the windshield, since it's FAR larger than any windows on the Apollo spacecraft.

If THAT little experiment doesn't make it clear, to anyone, the situation facing the Apollo Astronauts when attempting to catch views outside the Capsules? Then, the only possible explanation for someone denying Apollo's factualness is one of an extreme disconnect with the facts, and the reality.....of science, and just plain common sense.

Originally posted by Aliensun
reply to post by decisively

 

I'm sorry, but my brain can make no sense of this thread.
I should mention that I've had this problem with several of your other threads too.
So I'm wonder if the problem really is mine.

It's not, don't worry.

reply to post by Aliensun

Start with the non-conspiracy stuff, study up on how missiles track stars to navigate

Very speculative, though more likely than not correct, as funny as that sounds.

Start without Apollo.

Our SLBM system employs celestial navigation. That is not conspiracy theory stuff. That is how the missiles work. Think about that for a moment. How would you in some general sense go about building that system, a system that allowed for your SLBMs/ICBMs to track stars as they flew, optics/navigation/guidance. How would you build this system ?

Answer that question, and it was answered in the 1960s, THAT IS HOW OUR MISSLES WORK, and I bet you wind up at Apollo. Give it a try.

Start with the nonconspiracy stuff. Study up on how the missiles work, and in particular, how they track stars. You will find the Russian missiles track two stars, ours track one.

Go for it...............

Here's a bit of a primer, give this a read

www.dtic.mil...

Originally posted by decisively


Answer that question, and it was answered in the 1960s, THAT IS HOW OUR MISSLES WORK, and I bet you wind up at Apollo. Give it a try.

Nah, it is not necessary to go to the moon for this....

The addition of stellar guidance to a submarine launched ballistic missile
(SLBM) system imposes special computational requirements on the fire control
system. In general, the stellar guidance algorithms use the observable misorientations
of the guidance inertial platform derived from an inflight star
sighting and a statistical representation of the weapon system errors to obtain
an estimate of the errors in the guidance computed state vector (i.e., position,
velocity, and inertial platform misorientation). In practice, these errors are
estimated by the application of a precomputed gain matrix to the sighting information.
The computation of this gain is a fire control responsibility. The
improvement in weapon system accuracy achievable through incorporation of this
stellar inertial guidance scheme is dependent on the orientation of the guidance
inertial platform, i.e., the star to be sighted. An additional fire control
task, therefore, is the selection of a star (from a catalog of stars) which
enhances the observability of system errors and restricts the propagation of
non-observable system errors. The implementation of algorithms to perform these
tasks in a time constrained environment is the subject of this paper.

Read more:
www.dtic.mil...

After the Tom Stafford Contradiction thing, everybody and their mother knows Apollo was ever so fraudulent, We need a thread to start taking a look in whatever detail circumstances/materials allow, what they were up to

reply to post by PluPerfect


So we have established with unmitigated metaphysical certitude that Apollo was fraudulent, was a program that did not land men on the moon.

On the other hand, they were not playing patty-cake with our money. What were they doing ?

Well we know they were doing missiles. But what exactly with missiles ?

Celestial navigation. They were developing THAT system, among other things of course. Apollo is not a cover just for this. But it was a cover for missile celestial navigation development, and we know that, at least we are suspiciuous of it , because it explains the astronauts profound star phobia so well.

reply to post by paradox

AHHHH But you miss the point, the astroanuts should be able to see what the missiles do, and the missiles see stars....

If the missiles can see stars, then so too can the astronauts. Why do the astroantus say they can't see them. The missile sees them, so why not the astronaut ?
The missile is bothered every bit as much by the sun and earth shine too, but still get's its star, so too would be the case with the astronauts. Why are they lying about this ? Because of this connnection.... And,

When a missile goes up, how is a star selected ? How depending on time of day ? How depending on time of season ? How depending on target ?

We had no off the shelf "star charts" for anything this complex in the early 1960s, something we could "load into a computer" to do this, But the Polaris missiles were indeed tracking stars very early on. Who developed this system ? Apollo helped......

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by paradox

 

AHHHH But you miss the point, the astroanuts should be able to see what the missiles do, and the missiles see stars....

If the missiles can see stars, then so too can the astronauts. Why do the astroantus say they can't see them. The missile sees them, so why not the astronaut ?
The missile is bothered every bit as much by the sun and earth shine too, but still get's its star, so too would be the case with the astronauts. Why are they lying about this ? Because of this connnection.... And,

When a missile goes up, how is a star selected ? How depending on time of day ? How depending on time of season ? How depending on target ?

We had no off the shelf "star charts" for anything this complex in the early 1960s, something we could "load into a computer" to do this, But the Polaris missiles were indeed tracking stars very early on. Who developed this system ? Apollo helped......

edit on 2-6-2012 by decisively because: fixed headline

edit on 2-6-2012 by decisively because: spelling spacing They>: astronauts

edit on 2-6-2012 by decisively because: spelling caps

edit on 2-6-2012 by decisively because: spelling

edit on 2-6-2012 by decisively because: spelling

This paragraph alone counters every point you just made. As you will notice, celestial guidance in missiles was used well before the Apollo missions, so contrary to your opinion (yes, opinion) humans were not stupid cavemen in the 1960s. Sorry to inform you.

Stars have been mapped for about as long as humans have looked at the sky. As a "championship navigator with a sextant," you should know all about this, no?

Celestial guidance was first used in the American Snark missile (Nortronics stellar-inertial guidance) first flown on 06/08/1953. It uses star positioning to fine-tune the accuracy of the inertial guidance system after launch. As the accuracy of a missile is dependent upon the guidance system knowing the exact position of the missile at any given moment during its flight, the fact that stars are a fixed reference point from which to calculate that position makes this a potentially very effective means of improving accuracy. In the Trident system this was achieved by a single camera that was trained to spot just one star in its expected position (it is believed that the missiles from Soviet submarines would track two separate stars to achieve this), if it was not quite aligned to where it should be then this would indicate that the inertial system was not precisely on target and a correction would be made.
en.wikipedia.org...

For example, the sun, as well as polaris (able to be seen in daylight with a telescope) could be used as reference points.

Aren't all your other threads on this topic worthy any more, decisively?

That's 'decisively', aka:
Patrick1000
Fattydash
DoctorTea
MaryB
HighGain
BFischer
BSpassky
mvinson
Sicilian
piersquared
vigilantnight
ChrisEnt
Patrick1000
TotallyStokedDude
Dastardly
...
Yes, they are all names that decisively uses in his webtravelz.. (I've got a couple to add, but not just yet..) It's also worth noting how decisively initially presented himself as a person with a disability (his words), using a persona (Dastardly) that he has ADMITTED to using on other forums - here's the 'early' decisively:

from when i was about 5 i started to play with a sextant and i had a disability but it turned out i was good with patterns and numbers very fast with numbers and patterns and because i was on the boat and always looking at the stars and learning how to use a sextant for real i became a good navigator and could sight stars and navigate without electronics better than anybody we knew in san diego and when i was eleven there was a contest for this kind of thing and even some famous sailors entered the contest and i won very easily and some people did not believe i could possibly do what i did but it was easy because i was always on a boat all my life and could see an ascension or something and not even using a tool could tell almost exactly what it was so then i got interested in apollo with two friends timmy and charlie ...

Is that the same decisively we see *now*? Why use that 'pretense' (which I have to say I find very offensive to people who have genuine disabilities)? Is this an honest person? You be the judge, dear reader.

And here are all the 12 (that's TWELVE) threads he has started here trying to drum up support for his lost cause:
Vaporizing the Bolshoi ...
Neil Armstrong, Talk About ...
Lovell and Shepard Star ...
No end to it, NASA medical ...
An Apollo fraud perpetrators ...
Lost Bird Proves Apollo ...
Alan Shepard Is So Much ...
The Invisible Lightning of ...
How Do 400,000 Smart People ...
Simple Irrationalities Are ...
Bart Sibrel Has Been Discovered ...
The Apollo Missions Are ...
(I haven't linked to them - just visit his profile if you are genuinely interested in his repetitious garbage)

But he seems to have dropped most of them now.. Yes, it's all working *really* well for you, decisively! Just look at the huge number of converts you have grabbed!! Oh wait, Sayo and Boko were already apollo deniers.. So that leaves... hmm. No-one?

Now remember folks, decisively is a doctor, he tells us. Makes you wonder how he finds the time.. (Actually, I don't wonder - I have a good mental picture of what decisively really is..)

reply to post by CHRLZ


LOL!!
I think I am dying. My stomach is hurting from laughing

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...

Almost certainly Aliensun, this shall prove to be one of the most interesting and worthwhile threads ever established here on ATS, or in any forum for that matter dealing with subject matter of a "conspiratorial" ilk

reply to post by Aliensun


As I have pointed out in posts appearing in other, though related ATS threads, modern Apollo historians treat subjects belonging to 3 broad categories.

Category A) We study the Apollo narrative and highlight its numerous contradictions, inconsistancies, internal incoherencies and irrationalities. In this way, studying, detailing and documenting such contradictions/inconsistancies/incoherencies/irrationalities, the "Eagle as Lost Bird" internal incoherency for example( www.abovetopsecret.com...) we have established without any question whatsoever the incontrovertible fraudulence of Apollo. By "fraudulence" here we serious Apollo historians mean nothing more, but very importantly nothing less, than a program which did not land men on the moon, but rather, served as an overt cover for American covert efforts to weaponize space. This, done in violation of national and international law, an outrageous self betrayal of all we hope to be about, hope our children might one day be about. With respect to this primary category, we have shown by way of careful characterization/Apollo narrative elucidation, that this interminal, self congratulatory, long winded space yarn is indeed a narrative riddled with internal incoherence, a tale so inconsistent, so irrational, and so self contradictory, that it cannot be other than necessarily untrue. Our "narrative analysis approach" is a method beyond reproach, and its employ has yielded nothing less than the full on, off the hook sensational, and most importantly, unimpeachably sound demonstration that the collective Apollo narrative is a story of robust and undeniable internal incoherence, and as such, is a tale ever so necessarily untrue. Kudos go to all dilligent and serious students of Apollo for their fraud establishing efforts related to this primary category, Kudos to those that have gone before me, work with me now however directly or indirectly, and those who have yet to pick up, but will wield a pen at some point in the however near or distant future. Working out of a sense of self respect and genuine patriotism, your skills are only matched, and sometimes even bested, by your courage.

Category B) Having already established beyond any doubt that the Apollo narrative is internally incoherent, and as such, the moonlanding story is necessarily untrue, we Apollo researchers seek to explain the fraud's contrived and bogus "internal" efforts at the self establishment of authenticity. Astronauts floating in zero G cabins, pendulums swinging in "lunar one sixth G gravity", and so forth. These video events are found to be woven in and out of this tale, and though it is a tale ever so internally incoherent and therfore necessarily untrue, such "staged scenes" create a false sense of Apollo authenticity. "THEY MUST BE ON THE MOON", Apollo official narrative apologists proclaim, " LOOK AT HOW THE SPEED OF THEIR GAIT IS 41% THAT OF THEIR EARTH WALKING SPEED, A WALKING SPEED EQUAL TO SQUARE ROOT OF 1/6 TIMES THAT OF THEIR TERRESTRIAL GAIT, EXACTLY THE SPEED ONE WOULD EXPECT THESE INVERTED PEDULUMS OF ASTRONAUTS TO OPERATE AT WHEN PATROLLING ABOUT THE MOON." Working in this category is obviously more difficult than in Category A. It is easier to show Apollo fraudulent by highlighting contradictions than it is to demonstrate how it was exactly the zero G cislunar illusions were created, especially considering different methods may have been employed at different times for any given illusion. But we certainly do not shrink from attacking the Apollo fraud perpetrators on this front, and to be sure, we work with great enthusiasm and SUCCESS, at least relatively speaking, in terms showing how it was these illusions may have been created. This is a great subject. It desrves and shall receive attention as a thread unto itself.

Category C) is the subject of this dedicated thread. Modern Apollo historians, well aware of Apollo as fraudulent with respect to the program's claim of being about the meeting of President Kennedy's lunar manned landing goal, understand that Apollo was a cover for the American efforts to weaponize space. Persumably this country has been wildly successful with respect to these space weaponization efforts, as have our once (?) "cold war" adversaries, the Russians. We know in a general sense this space weaponization involved the development of highly sophisticated surveillance and reconnaissance systems, and systems associated with ICBM tracking/targeting/performance, but what were the details ? This thread ambitiously seeks to answer that very question.

reply to post by decisively


Why oh why would you ignore the other posts, decisively?

Is it because they completely contradict your entire "military Apollo" premise presented in this thread?

decisively, who has gained my attention once again, by beckoning to a small congregation of faithful Apollogists, kicking and screaming they arrive, and they keep coming back, flapping and flailing, waxing and waning, in poverty of truth; they keep coming back because they want to hear decisively's New Narrative of Apollo. They keep coming back because NASA has defrauded them and manipulated them.

A short time line of events for celestial guidance, the first 14 years. So basically, between 1953-1967, they were shooting rockets and hoping they would come close to the target. AFter April 1967, the United States and Soviet Russia had both demonstrated and duplicated the experiment by peer review.

Celestial guidance was first used in the American Snark missile (Nortronics stellar-inertial guidance) first flown on 06/08/1953. It uses star positioning to fine-tune the accuracy of the inertial guidance system after launch. Wiki.

On February 3, 1966 the Luna 9 spacecraft was the first spacecraft to achieve a soft landing on the moon, and hence any planetary body other than Earth, and to transmit photographic data to Earth. Wiki.

June 2, 1966, The successful soft landing of Surveyor 1 on the Ocean of Storms was the first one by an American space probe onto any extraterrestrial body. Wiki.

Surveyor 3 landed on April 20, 1967 at the Mare Cognitum portion of the Oceanus Procellarum . Wiki.


Ok. Now let's put this in perspective a year and a half later when Webb Quits.

reply to post by PluPerfect


Numerous examples of astronauts fumbling about with their lack of understanding in celestial guidance. It's a good thing the computer was guiding them or they would have been Lost In Space...

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Primary navigation for the Apollo missions was done from the ground.

This shows your lack of understanding in the fundamentals of the Apollo missions. I am sure decisively is happy you have starred and flagged him, although you and him both disagree on very very important parts of the Apollo program!

reply to post by decisively


The Bolshoi is a theater in Moscow from which the Bolshoi Ballet Company took its name.

Please refer to this Wikipedia link

The Bolshoi does not refer to the USSR or their Communist government.

You have referred to the Russian Communist government before by calling them the Bolshoi and I explained your error then too.

The Russian Communist government was founded during the Bolshevik Revolution and people with a leaning towards their philosophies are sometimes referred to in slang as "Bolshies". Please note that this is different than your spelling!

Please, at least, get the basics right. If you cannot get this right, what other nonsense is in your post.

reply to post by decisively


ICBMs are called "ballistic" missiles because they follow a ballistic trajectory.

They do not have to navigate.

They are pointed towards the target and upwards at a particular angle, the rocket engines burn for a specific duration and for the majority of their flight path they are simply falling following their planned trajectory.

When the missile reaches the correct altitude, an altimeter detonates the payload.

The OP argues for something that is neither actual or practical.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Utter nonsense, yet again:

Numerous examples of astronauts fumbling about with their lack of understanding in celestial guidance.

Are you aware of the term "cherry-picking"? .....this is also the fallacy of incomplete evidence.

How about, intentionally "poisoning the well" by using out-of-contextual snippets.....these tactics are related.

Stock in trade for each and every instance of an Apollo so-called "hoax" believer.

Each, and every time. And, quite obvious, as well.