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.

 

U.S. government sues Apollo astronaut over camera

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


To all Gen Xer's: there were no RAM chips at the time. 32k memory was big stuff. Imagine a wire grid with a magnetic donut at each intersection. We were working on Control Data 6600 machines with punch-cards. Electronic cameras were decades away.

The camera had film in it.

It is Federal property. Likely, they let him keep it as a long term loan but he can't sell it because stealing Federal property and selling it is, not surprisingly, illegal. He'll have to give it back.




posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree
reply to post by esteay812
 


I can only assume that this camera may be able to to be used to prove that NASA has lied


Really? You can wonder, but if it truly is all you can assume, that is something to worry about.

I am not being flippant-- that is a very concerning statement you have made and such statements are far too common on this site. That is not normal, healthy thinking. It is one thing to have a healthy suspicion, it is quite another to claim that the only assumption you can draw is as you wrote.

You need to get off the Internet, go outside, get some sunshine, meet people, read a book, come home and watch a good movie, and perhaps build something with you hands.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Oh yeah, well it might have historical value and sure would fetch far more in about 500 years than what it's worth now, but to walk out with it back then would have been a breeze




posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
This is not the first time I have heard of something like this-- long ago, there was a similar matter.

Vaguely, I am associating it with Alan Bean and his spacesuit. It maybe only that I saw that suit in Fort Worth about the time when I heard about astronauts being asked to return items they had kept and used for public speaking and such. Seems like it was a spacesuit and the Grissom family, maybe?

(Googling-- be right with you...)

Yeah, that was it. A museum went belly-up and NASA took possession of everything from its programs that had been displayed in it. The Grissom family got back those items on display which it had provided, except the spacesuit.

And you get it, right (?), that Gus Grissom did not survive to go on the talk circuit to earn money speaking as a pioneer astronaut? If I recall, it was that the worry was that his family would use the suit for something absurdly ridiculous like paying bills. (Sarcasm intended).

I was sitting in a Texas airport the day the Challenger exploded on launch-- or maybe the day after. I hear a page for "Passengers Grissom, White and Chaffee, please meet your party at..." and realized NASA was flying those families in to help the other grieving families. It broke my heart. And then, the government fights that family over Gus Grissom's space suit. Even his family is heroic.

In that instance, and probably like this camera-- NASA had seen no value in the item until much later.

I am reminded of Ross Perot, founder of EDS, made a bid for Presidential nominee, famous for putting a mercenary team together to rescue American employees from Iran -- all around great guy. He made his start working for IBM selling the then new System 360. He found a scrap machine of no value, and had it restored, the control panel in his office, with the lights hooked up to blink. The thing is probably worth a ton of money again-- but for its intrinsic and historic value-- not for its original purpose. That he got when no one else wanted is simply good thinking. Likewise the astronaut.

That camera is worthless as a camera, and if the astronaut valued it when the government did not... of course he did and Good for him. I want our heroes and their families to benefit-- because I don't think we can adequately repay them for what they have done for us all.

It is about the people, more than the items. The items have value because of what those persons associated with them did and experienced. I wouldn't walk thirty yards out of my way to see the camera, but I would walk three miles out of my way to hear or meet the man.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Shamatt
 





To the young people on this thread talking about what may be "on" or "in" the camer.


To the old, wise, and educated people posting in this thread. I said I never knew what or how they stored film and for that matter what could be in or on the camera.... afterall aren't things in space or on the Lunar Surface a bit different than on Earth? I guess I coulrd read every history book on the planet and still not know enough, since there have only been a few visits to the moon and none in quite sometime where a man walked on the surface.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


A bit off topic, but how young do the Gen x-ers go? and how old are they now? Isn't our current president a Gen X-er? I imagine it is easy for many to believe there may be more to the story than what is being shown. This point may give reason to imagine there could be some technology used in the camera at the time that we were unaware of as being available at the time.

There may not have been any, but I see it as just fun with speculation - if there can be such a thing.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
How about dust from the Moon being, or not (?), ON the camera?

It may sound like a stretch, but... Or could there be an imprinting of space rad on the camera from its trip, does that happen?

Just throwing ideas...

But about the case itself, it seems pretty rude as a way to recover something that wasn't accounted for in the first place...



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by esteay812
reply to post by pteridine
 


A bit off topic, but how young do the Gen x-ers go? and how old are they now? Isn't our current president a Gen X-er? I imagine it is easy for many to believe there may be more to the story than what is being shown. This point may give reason to imagine there could be some technology used in the camera at the time that we were unaware of as being available at the time.

There may not have been any, but I see it as just fun with speculation - if there can be such a thing.


I gather his point was that the Baby-Boomers were around when it happened, and remember the changing technology first hand.

A lot of the details my generation takes for granted, are not obvious to the generation(s) which followed.

You can see the subsequent generations often anachronistically assigning both value and capability inappropriately.

The mountains of period technical data we have from that time, then, was created using type-writers. Hand written and transcribed or dictated to a stenographer and then typed. So when a Baby-boomer hears all of the mountains of paper trail is assumed as being created only to mislead as part of hoax-- we shake our heads because we know the effort to reach the moon was just within our grasp, and the effort to perpetuate such a hoax was not.

Does that help give perspective?

But then, heck, there is a popular video used to "prove" that the astronauts were faking the moon landing. The video shows the astronauts on their way to the moon looking out a window at the earth-- suggesting what we know is a bank of back-lit buttons inside the capsule is instead a studio light but with not so much as acknowledgment that the astronauts are seen floating in zero G. Reasoning rarely enters in.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by esteay812
 
According to Rush Limbaugh, Generation X is anyone born during 1965 and thereafter; mainly because the majority of them were born during the Presidency of Lyndon Johnson; research his "great society."

On topic: perhaps the camera could fall under right of salvage, since NASA intended to abandon it on the moon; therefore Mr. Mitchell salvaged it and they had to know he had it, considering the quarantine and de-con procedures used...


seeker



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by esteay812
 


I smell a screw-job...they have been trying to shut him up for years



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by EyesII
 





Isn't possession 9/10th of the law? I wonder what the statue of limitations is on this matter. What value could a film based camera have now? -E2


That's why NASA is filing suit, rather than pressing charges

In today's society, an allegation or accusation is all it takes to demonize someone. Never-mind the result of the suit. Remember, anyone can sue anyone over anything. It takes a jury to decide if the the reason is founded or unfounded.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by the seeker_713g
 


Regardless of NASA's intentions, the camera was not abandoned on the moon, so it is not salvage. It is not legal for a Federal employee to take any property and sell it, including scrap. He will have to give the camera back.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by esteay812
Wow!! How can a camera with such importance be taken without note?

I know the camera may have historical importance, but sueing* for it's return after such a long absence makes me wonder what may be on the camera to begin with.

I wonder what some of the un-doctored images from an original lunar camera would tell us about the moon and what may, or may not, have been hidden from us all these years?

I can imagine the lengths that me be gone to retrive the camera and it's contents.

Maybe the best thing was to get the evidence into the public arena and let us all know it exists - or maybe this is a planned step toward.... disclosure?

beta.news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 1-7-2011 by esteay812 because: tyops




The camera cant be all that important to NASA given the fact they have not missed it to this point.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Godsontoo
The camera cant be all that important to NASA given the fact they have not missed it to this point.
Why would you even say that?

All that proves is that you didn't even read the story.

Not only is that not a fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

How about reading the story?



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by chaztekno
I think maybe his statements regarding ET have led the good old U S of A trying to hurt him financially and discredit him in anyway possible, just another nail in his coffin for speaking up. I wonder why he's selling it though?, hard times? surely it would have been something you left your kids or to a museum.

That's what our wonderful, benevolent government does to people who hit too close to home.

They did it to Phil Schneider amd Bill Cooper. Why not Edgar Mitchell?



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by chaztekno
 


Because he's money hunggrrryy..
Like I said 75 bucks for an autographed picture at his website.
What kind of integrity is that for an astronaut, one of America's hero's?


Ugh $75, no Ty. Chances are the high price is a direct reflection of lack of sales
I dont fault him for selling whatever he wants, it's the American way



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   
I have NO idea what did or did'nt happen during that time, i was not there. But i do give creedance to those that were there. And I found the documentary from the CBC Passionate Eye Dark Side of the Moon. If you have not seen it I think you might find it interesting. Seeing as the people interviewed like Donald Rumsfeld,Henry Kissenger, ect. WERE there, what they have to say in this doc. is very telling of the mindset of the era, and does put into question what did happen.

video.google.com...#



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Haha, its just a camera guys. It probably doesn't mean anything, except this guy pulled it out of his attic and figured he could get a fair price for it. Now he's being sued by a disassembled branch of exploration. Life



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Ah! You seem to know a lot more about this that I do. I would be interested in reading some more, got any links?

It does seem, if you are right, well, NASA are being unfair. I guess they saw the $$$$ and decided on a change of policy! LOL



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   
All the corruption going on in government and they go after an elderly man 40 years after the fact for a camera...who just happened to be one of the last men to visit the moon?

WTF?

We are probably spending the same amount on a hammer in Iraq. We pay 1000 dollars for gallon of gas in Afghanistan and they go after a former Astronaut?

Stupid.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join