Well I can't prove it in a rigorous sense frenat......,
Prove it. Prove they couldn't find the stars among so many. I'll bet you can't.
Well I can't prove it in a rigorous sense frenat......, but I can do a dang good job approximating rigor.
As many of you have, I too have spent time investigating how it was that the SR-71 Blackbird navigated. Knowing that the SR-71 was equipped with an authentic, fully functional, very REAL, Astro-Inertial Navigation System, ANS, the relevance in one's studying the Blackbird system with regard to making some type of determination of the Apollo system's credibility is more than obvious.
Before discussing that system as a way to emphasize how WANTING the bogus Apollo system was shamelessly pretended to be, I'd like to quickly mention that in Col. Richard Graham, U.S.A.F. (ret.)'s informative FLYING THE SR 71 BLACKBIRD, the colonel informs us at electronic book location 3451 that STARS WERE VISIBLE IN THE DAYTIME, not to mention much brighter at night as compared with our ground level experiences. So much for astronauts claiming stars are not visible in the day from altitude as based on their horrendously bogus pupilary constriction malarkey. I'll move on to something all the more substantive, though the star point is not one to viewed as a passing anecdote. It is relevant and very damaging to the bull fed to us by Armstrong and crew. Forward.......
Graham wrote another book, SR-71 REVEALED. Graham flew the legendary plane for 7 years and then worked in a capacity as an instructor subsequent to his "retiring" from mission piloting duties. Page 65 of the REVEALED book is where Graham discusses the ANS, the SR-71's Astro-Inertial Navigation System. The ANS was a star tracking navigational system. For optimal performance, 2 stars were tracked/identified. The chronometer of the Habu(another name for the SR-71 Blackbird derived from the Japanese name for a venomous snake) was accurate to within 100th of a second and supplied the Julian Date along with Greenwich Time. The Blackbird's computer featured a star catalog numbering 61 stellar navigational "skymarks/landmarks".
In the Blackbird's case, the computer would select the best stars based on earth latitude/longitude, date, time, pitch, roll, sun location. The star selection was done by computer. The best star is chosen given the conditions that obtained with respect to the variables just mentioned. The computer would go through its catalog one by one, looking for the brightest potentially identifiable star first. If not found, it would "look for" the next brightest candidate from its catalog, and so forth. The Habu employed a telescope like star tracking device in its search.
Once the Blackbird's ANS had found 2 appropriate stars, the pilot would see a light indicating "star "ON" ". So in this way star tracking was automatic, though a pilot could help out if the weather were say overcast and the pilot understood how it might be of help to the system to figuratively "point it in the right direction" say.
Given the time/date and the positions with respect to the craft of known, computer cataloged stars, the Habu could determine its position precisely. Once oriented, the plane would read a tape, a computer program, that directed the flight automatically/by way of ANS for the mission's entirety. Of course the piulots could override this as/if needed.
The point here is that the star finding capabilities are much better for a bird like the real Habu than for a pretended Eagle. The Habu uses important clues, earth latitude and longitude, yaw, roll sun location, and star brightness considerations to hunt for and find stars. The AGC allegedly knew its location to a fair degree of precision to begin with but the field of stars to be searched by the AGC/astronaut combo in the Apollo case, is very much NOT predictable as in the Habu/Blackbird case. The "weather", star visibility, is very much an unknown in the Apollo case. If the Habu computer is looking for Menkent and cannot find it, it will search for another star automatically based on the relevant variables as described. As the constellation patterns and so forth are predictable in the earth flight Blackbird case, it stands to reason the bird will find 2 stars as it looks over what amounts to a FAMILIAR GEOMETRICALLY UNDERSTANDABLE AND SO DECIPHERABLE FIELD OF STARS. This is not true in the Apollo case.
In the Apollo case there allegedly are NO CONSTELLATIONS per the astronauts themselves to help determine a star's identity. Sometimes there would be too many stars if operating in dark side conditions for an astronaut to select and verify a star. Remember, Apollo needs the astronaut to confirm the star's identity. This is not the case with the Habu.
How would Aldrin know Rigel was Rigel without Rigel floating about in the company that it usually keeps? There may be more around it than usual, or fewer, or none. If the computer directs Aldrin's/Collins'/Armstrong's attention to an area of space where the light from Rigel should be, so the computer thinks, how can they be sure which is which, if there now are 3 stars right there, instead of just one as they often describe, pretending not to be able to see stars well?
The astronauts in Apollo perform one of the roles that the computer does for the Habu, but since there are many clues for the Habu's computer to employ in positive identification of stars, but not so in the Apollo case, one plainly sees the Habu ANS to be a sensible system, while the Apollo system must be imaginary. Not imaginary in the minds of its creators, those at MIT, but in the minds of its employers, NASA and the astronauts. For the CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE AGC OPERATES ARE VARIABLE WITH RESPECT TO STAR VISIBILITY AND THE PATTERNS OF STARS ENCOUNTERED IN THE APOLLO CASE WILL NOT BE CONSISTENT AS THEY ARE IN THE HABU CASE. The Apollo star sighting protocol ignores this concern and does NOT take this serious objection to the system's requisite dependability into account.
One can now see in comparing the 2 systems how the Habu system would be reliable, and while the Apollo system could be seen to work for some of the stars some of the time, its performance would clearly be wanting in terms of its consistently being able to provide for accurate sightings.
All considered, we may quite rightfully view the Apollo system as woefully inadequate given the inherent risks of a trip to the moon and the need for dependable navigation, with accurate star sighting as a feature of dependable navigation.
We conclude with unmitigated metaphysical certainty that Apollo is fraudulent.
