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.

 

NASA Sues Ed Mitchell -- supposedly over a 40-years-ago swipe

page: 2
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by SNAFU38
 

There's more to this story than was written up in the article.

Mitchell admits that NASA asked him to return the camera.

Then he says he thought that situation was "resolved".

Well, if he didn't return the camera when they asked him to return it, then how did he think it was resolved? That's the part of the story we aren't being told.

If he had chosen to donate the camera to a museum, I doubt that NASA would be suing him, but that's just my personal opinion.

The other thing that occurs to me, is that it they let Mitchell keep the $80,000 from selling the camera, won't the other astronauts who actually returned the stuff NASA asked them to return be getting penalized? In my book, it's wrong to penalize people for doing the right thing, and reward them for doing the wrong thing. So there are a number of issues to factor in.

I'd like to know "the rest of the story".

Jim Oberg, you posted this article, any insights from your contacts on the part of the story that we're NOT being told?




posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
So, what does this do to the Moon-landing hoax advocates?



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Well if what you say is true (& I have no reason to doubt we dont have the full story at all), then fair enough. It is interesting they let him keep the money though, & is perhaps an admission they know they owe him for what he's done.

Maybe they are after him & not all the other 'souvenir hunters' (as everyone does from their job) because he is so vocal about the UFO subject, but thats off topic, though an idea.

If there was a dispute over the camera in the past, then yes he probably has done the wrong thing, but, even as a foreigner, I still stand by the fact he is a living legend, a national treasure to the USA & its space program, & they should cut the man some slack. I am still a bit surprised that these people dont get taken care of for life & it had to even come to this.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
estimated value of said camera -Pre lawsuit (and subsequent attention garnered) $60,000 - $80,000
Value post lawsuit ?????

NASA is simply helping a former employee capitalize on his investment -
See they're really not all that bad!



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SNAFU38
It is interesting they let him keep the money though, & is perhaps an admission they know they owe him for what he's done.
Oops I made a typo , the "it" in my post was supposed to be "if". There is no money. The $80,000 is the estimated value of what the camera would sell for at auction which Mitchell would receive (less auction expense). NASA intervened and the camera was pulled from the auction before it was sold.

And you may have missed my point (probably my fault due to my typo) which was, if Mitchell gets effectively an $80,000 bonus, why shouldn't all the other astronauts who did the same thing be entitled to the same bonus? It's a question of consistent treatment of all the Apollo astronauts.
edit on 1-7-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 
Okay, I posted it in the ten minutes before going to work and skimmed the article to see Federal involvement.



Could NASA be trying to set an example to other NASA employees, that stealing NASA property is not encouraged?


It'd be fine by me if that's the case and they chase down the guy who's been named and identified in the NASA lawsuit about the Kecksburg reports. He allegedly left NASA with a box-file of some three years (iirc) of reports related to the time-period of Kecksburg.

ETA: Here's the jist of my point...


It is interesting to note that Paul Willis was the recipient of the letter from the National
Records Center stating that the fragology files (68A2062) have been missing since
1987. The letter to him is dated 3/28/96, in response to his inquiry requesting the files.
His middle initial is M. (Paul M. Willis), and he was Headquarters Records/Forms
Manager for NASA. His phone at the time was 358-0621.

Would it be possible to conduct a further search for these missing boxes, retrieved by Mr.
Willis and not returned, by tracking down Mr. Willis? It would also be interesting to find
out if he conducted a further search for the fragology files at the time, or if he may know
anything more about their whereabouts.

I was told that since Mr. Willis was no longer a government employee, it was beyond what is
required by the FOIA or the settlement agreement to try to find him and see what he may or may
not know.
NASA lawsuit conclusion




edit on 1-7-2011 by Kandinsky because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Seems like a sad petty waste of time to be honest.

The cost of the legal shenanigans will vastly outweigh the worth of the camera.

Cant see any real value in this. Either NASA has developed cabin fever after being starved of a worthy challenge for 3 decades, or its somebody using the levers of bureaucracy to settle a grudge.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
It'd be fine by me if that's the case and they chase down the guy who's been named and identified in the NASA lawsuit about the Kecksburg reports. He allegedly left NASA with a box-file of some three years (iirc) of reports related to the time-period of Kecksburg.
I'd be in favor of NASA recovering those files! So that's a good point.

But there's also the matter of $80,000 which makes the camera case a little more complicated. I doubt those files are worth much, NASA was just lazy.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join