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: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Dashdragon
 


In 1985 I got a reclining ready room chair, with a fold down desktop, still in the box, because, the ship I was on was going into the yards and it would have cost more to ship the chair down to Jacksonville than it was worth. I was given paperwork transferring ownership of the chair to me, provided I had it off of the base with in 24 hours. I still have that paperwork. It is in a Ziploc bag taped to the bottom of the chair.

What you have here is some minor NASA bureaucrat who probably wasn't even borne when Mitchell's mission happened.




posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
It would be interesting to take that camera, load it up with film, stick it in an oven at 275 degrees and see if it will still take perfectly good shots. Then if that works, you could soak it in liquid nitrogen until it gets 275 degrees below 0. See if it works then.

Of course, should it fail then NASA may have questions to answer.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Ookie
 


Let's not get into that worn out debate here shall we?

Suffice to say - if you don't understand the basic flaw behind how your 'tests' differ from conditions on the moon...well...



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by DerbyCityLights
 


The weight of the camera would have been negligable. It appears to be about 8 inches by 10 inches in size or there abouts. We had a movie camera similiar to it back in the 70's if its the size it appears in the photo. The article said that the camera was supposed to be left on the lunar modual and would have been destroyed when it fell back to the lunar surface after take off. If thats the case what's the big deal? It should come under the heading of discarded goods. I think its a shame that the federal government is going after one of its astronauts in a court of law over something so trivial. Does this camera do anything special? It looks like a simple 16mm movie camera to me. I wish the article had been more comprehensive in why the govt is presueing this in the first place. What their claims are and what their case is.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by WeekendWarrior
 


But it doesnt even make sense. The camera was supposed to be left on the lunar modual. They would have already taken any film from the camera in preparation of it being left behind. What would be the point of taking movies with a camera and then leaving said camera and subsequent film on the surface of the moon where no one would ever see it? If it was never on the moon, the camera still would have been emptied prior to its being left behind in the " studio". Either way it does not make sense that an abandoned camera would have any film left in it to prove or disprove anything.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 02:59 PM
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?


don't be silly, there must be pictures of alien moon bases inside !!!



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienreality
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


Who? When? What issues? Please provide details for this claim.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iseladore
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

I am pretty sure he is getting retirement pay and social security to pay living expenses. No need to sell off possessions to live on. But you're correct in the triviality of the whole thing. If it was going to be trashed anyway what is the big deal?



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Ookie
 


Not getting you here. Why should the camera have to withstand such extreme conditions? The camera would have been with the astronauts. The astronauts were not subjected to those extreme conditions so the camera would not have been either.


*********************************************************************************************************************************
Nothing like getting to the end of the thread and finding out I have been talking to myself for the past 45 minutres.
edit on 7-10-2011 by karen61057 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Ookie
 
You are on the right track here! OP made a question and now its answered. Noboy is trying to get this thread off the track, simply answering the question




posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   
The whole problem here is not the fact the camera was going to be junked and therefore a trivial item. The problem comes in that they can’t allow any instance of this to happen as they have to be fair in their dispensing of justice. If they do not treat every case the same then the laws are worthless. The real issue here is if a government employee decides they want something a camera, a computer, or whatever. They simply could mark it as “defective” or “unusable” or whatever, and then say “Well since we are going to throw this away I will just take it home!” When in reality the item was never meant to be junked and is just elaborate theft.

In this case it is trivial, as it really was going to be junked, and was just a souvenir. Pilots do it all the time with parts from a plane they have flown etc. However they need to make a show of proper procedures or this sort of “souvenir collecting” can get out of hand, as people start to “trash” any item they desire.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ookie
It would be interesting to take that camera, load it up with film, stick it in an oven at 275 degrees and see if it will still take perfectly good shots. Then if that works, you could soak it in liquid nitrogen until it gets 275 degrees below 0. See if it works then.


Ookie, as Dashdragon and karen61057 have already pointed out, what you describe is not a valid simulation of the camera under lunar conditions.

Read this post to understand why.

Hope this helps.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join