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.

 

Judge Denies Apollo Astronaut's Motion to Dismiss Moon Camera Lawsuit

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   
I really don't understand what the big fuss is about this camera. I am sure that there have been other threads about this in the past, but this is a new development on this subject. I just wonder if there was some actual photos that were left in the camera and its not actually the camera that NASA wants back. If anything, I think it needs to go to a museum for others to be able to look at and appreciate it.

news.yahoo.com...
Just who owns a camera flown to the moon — the astronaut who saved it as a souvenir or the government that wanted it left on the lunar surface — will need to be settled in court, a judge ruled this week.


Why did they want to keep it on the moon? what would have been the point? Anyway, I am going to do a more thorough search on this to see what the big deal is about it. If it is merely a case of rights to the camera, I think the government has a lot more to worry about than that, imho.
edit on 7-10-2011 by Veritas1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-10-2011 by Veritas1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-10-2011 by Veritas1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Veritas1
 


Where's the link for your external source??? I'm sure everybody wanna read the original article.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard
 


Here is a link. And the astronaut in question is none other than Edgar MItchell himself. After reading the article, I think they should let him keep it.
www.space.com...



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard
 


My apologies...I went back and added the link,



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by MissSmartypants
 


thank you for posting the link. Im sorry I didn't put it in the OP. I just put it in.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   
I doubt NASA's reasons for wanting to leave it on the moon were nefarious. More than likely, it was a decision based on the weight limits for lifting off the surface of the moon. They were probably just trying to shed as many pounds as possible for lift off.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
The fuzz is propably about that if the camera would end up in certain hands, then certain people could prove that first moonshots are fake. It has something to do with the camera and its capabilities.. Why else they would act like that?



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by WeekendWarrior
 



Can we not turn this thread into "the moon landings were faked" argument please? There is always more than one possibility in every scenario.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
The reason to leave it on the moon - contamination worries I'm sure - unless the "Camera" is not a camera at all.

Who knows ..... I do know that nothing is ever as easy as it seems,



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by DerbyCityLights
 
That is my sincere opinion of why they want the camera. No intention to change the topic mate




posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Veritas1
 




Just who owns a camera flown to the moon — the astronaut who saved it as a souvenir or the government that wanted it left on the lunar surface

Why did they want to keep it on the moon? what would have been the point?


NASA owns the camera, they paid for it. They intended to leave it on the moon to save weight for the LM liftoff to get them back to earth, fuel was an extremely rationed commodity, and calculated with little to spare. Most all expendable items brought to the lunar surface were intended to stay there for the success of the mission to sustain life of the astronauts.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by WeekendWarrior
The fuzz is propably about that if the camera would end up in certain hands, then certain people could prove that first moonshots are fake. It has something to do with the camera and its capabilities.. Why else they would act like that?


I can make a hat, prove me wrong.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by WeekendWarrior
 


I'd say the whole thing amounts to no more than -

A) He, and the other astronauts were ordered to leave it there and he disobeyed that order. (reason are not important and we're not getting into the 'fake landing' bs)
B) The equipment astronauts are given to use during a mission is not and does not become the personal property of a single one of them just because the mission is done with it and that person decides they want it.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by WeekendWarrior
 



Usually when a thread about the moon or something related to it pops up, it degenerates into a "we went there! No we didn't!" argument. This thread has the possibility of becoming something much more than that. Just trying to head that off at the pass.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
They intended to leave it on the moon to save weight for the LM liftoff to get them back to earth, fuel was an extremely rationed commodity, and calculated with little to spare.


Read the Space.com article carefully. It states that the camera was to be left on the Lunar Module when the LM was jettisoned from the Command Module after returning from the Moon. The LM then crashed back on to the Moon's surface.

The Federal government can be quite anal when it comes to property. I have worked on two recovered aircraft that were from WWII, in both cases we had to go through a process to obtain ownership of the planes, because the US Navy still maintains ownership of every one of it's aircraft or ships lost during all wars.

Mitchell should have gotten a "Transferance of Property" document from NASA. I believe his statement that NASA allowed him to keep the camera. When you remember how the astronauts had to go through decontamination and quarrentine, there would have been no way for him to have conceled that he had the camera.

He will probably win the rights to the camera after the trial.

As far as the "We faked the Moon mission" crowd is concerned, think about this. MItchell is one of the people who knows for sure. Why would NASA take a chance of pissing him off and having him spill the beans over an old camera?
edit on 7-10-2011 by JIMC5499 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   


As far as the "We faked the Moon mission" crowd is concerned, think about this. MItchell is one of the people who knows for sure. Why would NASA take a chance of pissing him off and having him spill the beans over an old camera?




posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Grissom bitched about the the crew module, look what happened to him, so I assume all the other astronaughts don't want to rock the boat too much.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Most people are aware of how NASA shuns all of their former astronauts that go public with controversial claims..

This is another example of how they retaliate when they find a good way to do it, like this camera issue..

One of the earlier nasa directors has been denied his retirement pension and had his life ruined by nasa in retaliation for blowing the whistle on "controversial" issues..


I



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
seriously....the man is 80 years old, he is probably selling the camera to survive and pay for his care.

does NASA have nothing better to do then harrass old men over antiquated equipment that was just going to be smashed anyway...geez



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Iseladore
 


It's more a US Government thing than a NASA specific one. Uncle Sam doesn't mess around with what he considers his property.

If 'NASA' said he could keep it, but didn't give him at least a hand-receipt for it, then such an agreement is not valid and the camera remained US Gov. property that he did not have legal permission to take. If he does have such a document transferring the camera to him from an authorized person, then he's fine.

It may be a bit silly in this case and seem unfair to a bystander, but that is how this sort of thing works in the government and especially so in every branch of the military...so assuming he did not get the aforementioned hand-receipt, then the astronaut should have known better.
edit on 7-10-2011 by Dashdragon because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join