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: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by esteay812
 


trying to discredit him for all his past...and recent comments about ufos....trying to use his words to make him and others who believe look crazy....

Easy to figure out.




posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Yeah.. I know I just didn't want to out and out say there was no way it had pictures on it to be courteous.

There is no way there would be a camera full of unexposed moon pics floating around out there..
and I agree that he shouldn't be allowed to sell it. It wasn't his and it was created and sent to space at extraordinary cost to the tax payers. Of course all his BFF's on this site have already ridiculed me for that belief and said they are trying to discredit Mitchell. Even though he discredits himself through his actions.

Also if he had any sense he'd mark down his autograph price. I went there to look at them and probably would have given 10 or 15 bucks for one.. he would make so much more at that price.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by esteay812
 


Probably just want it back because it's a super expensive piece of a equipment that Mitchell shouldn't be making money off of. He appears to be a publicity whore and very greedy (you can buy his autographed picture for 75 bucks a pop at his website). Honestly if it's to be sold for 60,000 bucks, it should go to the tax payers.. but really just to a museum.


That about sums it up. Try stealing from a government job site....You will be made an example of.

I mean think about it. It is just like getting done with a dry wall job and you keep a company air compressor...I think the boss would be pissed if he found out......

The guy kept a piece of history....Expensive history and now he is selling it....lol....If he would of kept quiet he would have never got caught.
......

He is going to have to sell alot of autographs to pay for the legal bills

edit on 2-7-2011 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by DN38416
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...#


A bit like "What's up Tiger Lily?" We all know the real point of going to moon was for that really special secret chicken salad recipe-- Nixon loved his chicken salad.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


I understand what you mean, but I don't agree with your analogy.

Finishing a drywall job and keeping the company air compressor would be more like going to the moon and keeping the space ship or the space suit.

What Edgar Mitchell has done would be better compared like this, using your analogy as a referecne:

Finishing a drywall job and taking a sheetroc nail that was left behind to be thrown away would be similar to - though on a much smaller scale of importance - keeping a camera, or any other material item, that was to be left behind on the moon.

I have a question about this;

A mission is started that sends man (or woman) to the moon. We all know we can't go anywhere without leaving a trace of our presence in the form of litter, so several items are left behind on the moon.

40 years pass by and I come along with a personal space craft I have constructed. I fly myself to the moon, independently. When I arrive I find the remnants of the mission that brought humankind to the moon for the first tim ein modern history

The moon is still desolate, with no known life living or visiting there. As a souvenier of my voyage, I collect the 40 year old camera and bring it home with me.

A bit of time goes by and I no longer need/want the camera, so I decide to sell it. NASA finds out about this and demands the property be returned to them.

Should it be returned? They left it there all those years ago and, as far as I know, no one owns the moon and there is no government body or judicial system set up on the moon.

That is the case, then why would I have to return a camera that was left there?

If an alien found the camera, would they be required to return it? What about any alien artifacts that may be found by me on my mission, would they too be claimed as NASA property and leave me obligated to hand that type of artifact over to them as well? Why or Why Not?



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by esteay812
 


Definitely not! A nail? Do you know how much it costs to send anything to space?! Remember when that astronaut lost that bag of tools? Yeah that bag of tools was 100,000 dollars. Not just because the tools but because of the cost of sending them to space. So yeah unless you are talking about a ten thousand dollar nail you are way off the mark. That camera probably tens of thousands of dollars to send to space and was a super expensive camera to boot.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


THat's where I stand on it. So many variables we are unsure of though so who knows. I think the government is just peeved that this man has property that does not belong to him and he is making profit off of it. It should be in a NASA Museum by all rights if it is indeed government property.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by esteay812
 


Definitely not! A nail? Do you know how much it costs to send anything to space?! Remember when that astronaut lost that bag of tools? Yeah that bag of tools was 100,000 dollars. Not just because the tools but because of the cost of sending them to space. So yeah unless you are talking about a ten thousand dollar nail you are way off the mark. That camera probably tens of thousands of dollars to send to space and was a super expensive camera to boot.


I completely disagree. As I said earlier, this is most likely a carefully planned character attack on Dr. Mitchell, in an attempt to demonize and discredit one of the ONLY TWELVE (12) people ever to walk on the moon, who also happens to believe in Alien Biological Entities, possibly living on this planet

Truth is, we may never know the truth, but I offer the following Video as something to think about as to WHY NASA wants to silence this guy...



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Only because mention of it was dropped in a previous post to this thread, I watched the video The Dark Side of the Moon again, and found the thread here at ATS.

If you have never watched it, and especially if you do not appreciate being toyed with, you may wish to make use of my notes.

When I first saw it, long ago, I did not give it a chance to reveal itself as humor-- and left the room grumbling about the inaccuracies and criminal abuse of context only to be told by other who had stayed to the end, that it was all a joke.

ON TOPIC: Perhaps this is like copyright infringement when even friendly and minor violations must be vigorously enforced or else you lose the ability to enforce them. Maybe all really had been settled, but that cannot be allowed by NASA to be the public version, lest they find the inventory of undisplayed, obsolete relics evaporate from their sight and be dispersed by employees via eBay.

I suspect we will see this "settled out of court for an undisclosed amount." Probably laughing it over drinks with Mitchell buying a round as fulfillment of the "undisclosed amount."
edit on 2-7-2011 by Frira because: minor edit for clarity



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
So this astronaut kept a camera that was used during the 1971 mission. Is this like staying in a room in Vegas and absconding with a tagged furnishing or something?



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Frira
 


Quote: Only because mention of it was dropped in a previous post to this thread, I watched the video The Dark Side of the Moon again, and found the thread here at ATS.

If you have never watched it, and especially if you do not appreciate being toyed with, you may wish to make use of my notes.

When I first saw it, long ago, I did not give it a chance to reveal itself as humor-- and left the room grumbling about the inaccuracies and criminal abuse of context only to be told by other who had stayed to the end, that it was all a joke.

From the CBC website:
How could the flag flutter when there's no wind on the moon? During an interview with Stanley Kubrick's widow an extraordinary story came to light. She claims Kubrick and other Hollywood producers were recruited to help the U.S. win the high stakes race to the moon. In order to finance the space program through public funds, the U.S. government needed huge popular support, and that meant they couldn't afford any expensive public relations failures. Fearing that no live pictures could be transmitted from the first moon landing, President Nixon enlisted the creative efforts of Kubrick, whose 2001: a Space Odyssey (1968) had provided much inspiration, to ensure promotional opportunities wouldn't be missed. In return, Kubrick got a special NASA lens to help him shoot Barry Lyndon (1975). A subtle blend of facts, fiction and hypothesis around the first landing on the moon, Dark Side Of The Moon illustrates how the truth can be twisted by the manipulation of images.
With use of 'hijacked' archival footage, false documents, real interviews taken out of context or transformed through voice-over or dubbing, staged interviews, as well as, interviews with astronauts like Buzz Aldrin and others, Dark Side Of The Moon navigates the viewer through lies and truth; fact and fiction. This is no ordinary documentary. Its intent is to inform and entertain the viewer, but also to shake him up - make him aware that one should always view television with a critical eye.

What i said in my post was that i did not know what happened, and YES some of the documentary was a fabrication, but only to a degree. I don't believe any Government would allow something that was said to be pure truth about fooling the American people to be aired, especially on a CBC documentary. What my point was, it puts into question what did happen that is all. it does not state that it was ALL lies it says , "lies and truth, fact and fiction" a documentary meant to "inform and entertain" , and that "one should always view television with a critical eye." That means all things like what everyone saw on TV about the moon landing as well as the documentary in question. I don't take everything i see on TV literally, all I said was it puts things into question.When people of that calliber, and the positions they were in at the time, and at the time of the interview go on any program and say the things that were said, well we know that they are'nt comedians. So make of it what you will that's the only premise i put forth.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
It was given to him by NASA years ago! Let him keep it... I think he earned it, not to mention he is a Legendary American Hero, who the hell cares about a camera with all the problems in the U.S. right now, are ya kidding me!!! Why do they want it so bad? Hmmm, makes ya wonder, I hope he has a copy of what was on it... blow the cover off disclosure!!!



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by DN38416
What i said in my post was that i did not know what happened, and YES some of the documentary was a fabrication, but only to a degree. I don't believe any Government would allow something that was said to be pure truth about fooling the American people to be aired, especially on a CBC documentary.
Hi and welcome to ATS. I can see you're new here. This site has tags for quoting other ATSers (normally just go to their post and click "quote" button and you'll get the quote tags automatically, just trim the quote to the relevant part and type after the close quote tag, like I just did to your post). That's how it should look.

For quoting external sources, instead of posting "From the CBC website:" just post the actual link to the place where you found the material you're quoting. After that, click the "EX-TEXT" button and paste the material you want to quote. You can get a 3 day ban for not doing that, though in your case you tried, so they won't ban you.

Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ** by springer

MANDATORY 3 DAY POST BAN on the first offense

Regarding the Mockumentary, I don't understand your point about fact versus fiction. Yes it contained some of each, otherwise it wouldn't be a mockumentary. But are you saying you can't get the facts by going to the NASA website? NASA wasn't involved in the Roswell coverup, or any other coverup that I know of, with the possible exception of some temperature sensor data.

The mockumentary had me going for a while too, until it got to the part where he said his kids were having fun playing with the dead body. I realized at that point it couldn't be real, so for me at least, I didn't have to watch it all the way to the end to figure out they weren't serious.


Originally posted by Frira
I suspect we will see this "settled out of court for an undisclosed amount." Probably laughing it over drinks with Mitchell buying a round as fulfillment of the "undisclosed amount."
I suspected it would end with Mitchell returning the camera to NASA, that would settle it out of court. It's not that hard to do, other astronauts returned NASA property when they were asked to. And they've already asked Mitchell to return it several times before this.
edit on 2-7-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by DN38416
What i said in my post was that i did not know what happened, and YES some of the documentary was a fabrication, but only to a degree. I don't believe any Government would allow something that was said to be pure truth about fooling the American people to be aired, especially on a CBC documentary.
Hi and welcome to ATS. I can see you're new here. This site has tags for quoting other ATSers (normally just go to their post and click "quote" button and you'll get the quote tags automatically, just trim the quote to the relevant part and type after the close quote tag, like I just did to your post). That's how it should look.

For quoting external sources, instead of posting "From the CBC website:" just post the actual link to the place where you found the material you're quoting. After that, click the "EX-TEXT" button and paste the material you want to quote. You can get a 3 day ban for not doing that, though in your case you tried, so they won't ban you.

Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ** by springer

MANDATORY 3 DAY POST BAN on the first offense

Regarding the Mockumentary, I don't understand your point about fact versus fiction. Yes it contained some of each, otherwise it wouldn't be a mockumentary. But are you saying you can't get the facts by going to the NASA website? NASA wasn't involved in the Roswell coverup, or any other coverup that I know of, with the possible exception of some temperature sensor data.

The mockumentary had me going for a while too, until it got to the part where he said his kids were having fun playing with the dead body. I realized at that point it couldn't be real, so for me at least, I didn't have to watch it all the way to the end to figure out they weren't serious.


Originally posted by Frira
I suspect we will see this "settled out of court for an undisclosed amount." Probably laughing it over drinks with Mitchell buying a round as fulfillment of the "undisclosed amount."
I suspected it would end with Mitchell returning the camera to NASA, that would settle it out of court. It's not that hard to do, other astronauts returned NASA property when they were asked to. And they've already asked Mitchell to return it several times before this.
edit on 2-7-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification


Thanks for the info, as well as the welcome.
As for the part about me saying documentary, i did so because that is what the CBC producers described it as. If it were a true mocumentary i believe it would have no truth but be all ficticious.

A mockumentary is a "mock documentary", a parody of the often earnest nature of the documentary film genre. Although the term mockumentary didn't enter pop culture until the release of Rob Reiner's groundbreaking comedy This is Spinal Tap, many filmmakers over the years have created fictionalized documentaries and false newsreel footage for comedic effect.



Regarding the "going to NASA website" to look for any information of a cover-up is pretty ridiculous. I am quite sure they would not have a section for the things they don't want you to know.
Also i have no idea what doc. you were watching but CBC Passionate Eye Dark Side of the Moon had nothing at all to do with Roswell at all , nor did i even mention Roswell.
hope the edit of this post makes all happy~
edit on 06/29/2011 by DN38416 because: messed up quoting someones post.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by DN38416
Regarding the "going to NASA website" to look for any information of a cover-up is pretty ridiculous. I am quite sure they would not have a section for the things they don't want you to know.
I wasn't suggesting to go there for the coverup explanation, but for the facts.

ATS has lots of threads about NASA coverups, you can read those if you're interested. I've read a lot of them. There are two points of view but usually the arguments claiming the stuff on NASA isn't factual fall apart under scrutiny, if you find any exceptions to that you can post in the appropriate thread.



Also i have no idea what doc. you were watching but CBC Passionate Eye Dark Side of the Moon had nothing at all to do with Roswell at all , nor did i even mention Roswell.
Yeah sorry I was sort of including a reference to a post before yours which had a video of Edgar Mitchell talking about a Roswell coverup, and my point was, yes there was a coverup at Roswell but NASA wasn't involved. It's the military who's hiding things, not NASA. So I believe in coverups, but that people looking at NASA are just looking in the wrong place.


Hope my quote's and Ex-Texts worked and make the T&C.
I can see you tried. Thanks.
But it didn't work right. After you click "quote" and start typing your reply, you have to make sure you're typing after the close quote tag. You typed before the close quote tag. Type after it next time.

At this point, you can click "edit" to edit your post, and move the close quote tag from the very end to where it should be. You can probably still fix the tags in your previous post too, you have 2 hours to fix it from the time you post.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Whoever "gave" him the camera probably never put through the paperwork to release it. Somewhere along the line, it didn't get through the bureaucracy. So technically, the camera is still government property. In other words, it's considered stolen.

Just like you can't recover WWII era aircraft from the bottom of some lake in the U.S. and legally sell the parts to aircraft enthusiasts. It technically still belongs to the government. Usually groups that recover these aircraft for museums have to go through heaps of paperwork and get approval before they can start the process.

There's likely not that much special or unusual about the camera. It's 1960's tech, and the film has been processed and gone. The only remarkable thing about it is that it's been to the moon, and in the possession of an astronaut that can vouch for that fact.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by DN38416
From the CBC website:
How could the flag flutter when there's no wind on the moon?

Hi! Welcome!

I'm too new to know to look to see if someone else is newer!

The answer to the fluttering flag is easy to find on the Internet and the answer was common knowledge at the time. Every network I watched back in those days mentioned it, because the whole nation was engaged in learning about space travel and travel to the moon-- plenty of astronauts, scientists and other experts to point out and explain. You can also simply look at it and see the answer.



During an interview with Stanley Kubrick's widow ...

Well... In a word, No.

That interview was every bit as real as Astronaut David Bowman-- which was not at all.


... especially on a CBC documentary...


But it was not a documentary, it just looks like one; which is exactly the point.

We probably should take this conversation into that thread where I posted the response to the video, because we are way off topic; and the Mitchell/Camera thing is an important one. Pardon me for causing this distraction.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


I believe the analogy I gave wasn't too far off, considering the relative nature of each scenario.

The camera could be worth multi-trillion dollar amounts, but that does not change the fact that the NASA didn't find it valuable enough to bring back. Instead they were going to leave the camera on the lunar surface to meet it's own fate, outside of anything NASA could deliver.

If an alien went to the moon before us, dropped off a piece of their equipment, then we went there and found it. Would it be ok for us to take the equipment and study it here?

What if an alien came to Earth and left a piece of equipment. Would it be ok for us to take that and study it?



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by esteay812
Maybe all those who wrote him off as a quack or someone who has since lost his mind will be eating their words. Hopefully this turns into something huge. One small step...


Stealing sure does help that reputation out don't it? First I thought he was a little crazy but then it turns out he is a thief apparently in need of money so now he seems totally sane.


What do you suppose is on the camera? Lenses? Gears? Motors? Do you think the camera remembers what it saw or has an internal supply of film?

How does stealing anything help his Edgar's rep at all? Honestly, how does that make him more credible?



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by esteay812
 


You lost me with the alien bit.
They had asked him for the camera back several times prior to him trying to sell it. He knew likely knew they wouldn't be okay with him selling it.

edit on 3-7-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join