Yes, you do need to dissect a raccoon. If you think you can learn anything about what a raccoon's internals by watching a raccoon decompose do you are clearly delusional. Dissecting a raccoon and studying its organs would constitute an experiment which would get to the truth of the matter. Observing a decomposing raccoon and then thinking that you know anything about the internals of a raccoon is a disgusting action befitting of an astronomer.
Astronomers are looking at stars and trying to explain the chemical reactions in them, without direct samples, through observation alone. They guess at the distance and size of distant stars based on their color. Watching a "family" of stars would not give you any more information about stars when you are still ignorant about very basic things such as what they are made of, their age, and how distant they are.
Here's an example using your analogy.
You're been watching the hundreds of raccoon in your backyard for some time. You've come up with various hypotheses about them, things like 'raccoon are strict herbivores,' 'raccoon are mammals,' etc. Some of these hypotheses you've been able to rule out, like raccoon being strict herbivores, simply by watching them and seeing them eat meat. For other hypotheses you've collected some valuable supporting evidence, like raccoon being mammals. You notice that they don't lay eggs and that they give live birth to their young, for example, ruling them out as reptiles. We could go on and on.
Now you watch many raccoon decay. Based on all of the information you've already collected, and by comparing that information to what you know about things
that have been studied in a laboratory setting, you can make some pretty accurate predictions about what you'd expect to see when a raccoon dies and decays. You're likely to see a heart, liver, intestines, a bunch of blood, etc. It could have been falsified. You could have seen six hearts and no blood and whatever else. But, you didn't. You saw exactly what was predicted by the leading theories in biology.
All you've done is collect light from a dead raccoon. Now you absolutely know what is going on inside the raccoon. You know about it's internal organs, cell biology, and everything else modern science has to say about those organs themselves that were revealed by the decay.
What's delusional about that?
The planets are easily predicted, as they follow patterns in the sky. This is how modern astronomers predict the position of the planets, and how the Ancient Greeks and Ancient Babylonians were able to predict the position of the planets thousands of years ago, despite the fact that they did not even believe in the heliocentric model of RET.
Here's a sample chart from 2007 showing the longitude of the planets in the sky:
This, of course, says nothing about the nature of the solar system they were predicted under. It is simply the method astronomers have been using to predict the position of the planets for thousands of years, up to the modern present. If you believe that this constitutes a proof of your model you are sad and mistaken.
What's sad is how intentionally deceitful you have to be to make a point. I literally laughed out loud when I discovered what mikulaforecasting is.
Mikulaforecasting is a website that attempts to forecast market changes using stuff like planetary positions and powers of nine. They're selling a book with chapter titles like "CHAPTER 2: Forecasting Prices: Using Cell Numbers" and "CHAPTER 15: Mikula’s Square of Nine Planetary Angles." Seriously, Google all of that 'square of nine' garbage that's plastered all over their stuff. They're trying to sell you market predictions. Terrible ones. I hope you didn't buy.
Please try and provide a legitimate, credible source that agrees with any of the claims you're making.