Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Jim Irwin's Apollo 15 Hasselblad auction (2014)

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Link to Smithsonian www.smithsonianmag.com...

In the Smithsonian link they are quoting heavily from a forum called collectspace.com which is a website for space collectors. Duh.

Anyway, the guys over at collectspace have some serious questions about the provenance of this particular and unique, Apollo 70mm Hasselblad, lunar used item.

I have read numerous things about this camera. It was the camera that malfunctioned with Jim Irwin was taking pictures of Dune Crater. This camera contains a unique reseau patterned glass plate which adds the cross-hairs to negatives that you should look for on every 70mm image...


A small plate inside with the number 38—the same number that appears on the NASA snapshots—"is 100-percent proof that this camera is the real thing and really was on the moon," Coeln said.

Read more at: phys.org...


This is Dune crater, main image is from LRO, the inset shows a cropped section of the A15 traverse map around Dune Crater.


This is the pan that Jim Irwin was taking when the camera malfunctioned.


Another snip from from phys.org says,

NASA's only camera to have made it to the moon and back as part of the Apollo manned missions will be auctioned in Vienna on March 21, organisers said Thursday.

Read more at: phys.org...


It's interesting to see NASA sit this out. If this camera was authentic Apollo lunar landing equipment, NASA would probably say that the camera was property of the US Government... like they did in the case of Ed Mitchell's Mauer 16mm which also caused a great deal of scuttlebutt.

NASA has a long, proud tradition of preserving and protecting Apollo artifacts. They go to extreme lengths to preserve the camera negatives and moon rocks in environmental chambers with round-the-clock armed security.... because these artifacts are so priceless.

If NASA doesn't wan't this camera at auction, then, it is reasonable to presume that NASA probably believes it's a fake. That's what I know from NASA's past behaviour... NASA has shown to be diligently covetous of all Apollo Relics, including the stamped envelopes from the Apollo-gate 15 stamp debacle. If this was a real, Jim Irwin, broke down camera, NASA would be scooping it up... so my reasoning goes that this camera is a total fraud. It can't be the camera. Well? What do you think?




posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 01:04 AM
link   
for additional information:

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 




While 13 identical cameras landed on the Moon, only number 1038 came back. The normal procedure was to leave the cameras behind along with other equipment in order to save liftoff weight, which could be used for taking more rock samples back to Earth. Irwin's camera was the exception because the film magazine jammed, so the camera had to return to remove it.




Westlicht says that number 1038 eventually ended up in the hands of private collector Alain Lazzarini, author of the book Hasselblad and the Moon. It comes with extensive documentation and is identified by the number 38 on the reseau plate, which can be seen on photographs taken with the camera, the NASA number P/N SEB 33100040- S/N 103 engraved on the body, and the number P/N SEB 33101018-301 S/N 1003 HASSELBLAD REFLEX CAMERA FILM MAGAZINE on the magazine.

The auction will be held on March 22, when the starting bid for the Moon camera will be €80,000 (US$108,000) with estimates of the final price set at €150,000 to €200,000 (US$203,000 to US$270,000). Source www.gizmag.com...



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 01:20 AM
link   
This is the camera that you claimed was a smoking gun right? The camera whose absence proved some sort of shenanigans by someone somewhere for some reason or other? Kind of blows that right out of the water doesn't it?

If you'd read more of the collectspace article, and the thread devoted to it, you'd know that NASA can't lay claim to anything the Apollo astronauts now have, and that this camera is out of their jurisdiction (having been through a private sale already). I have no doubt that if NASA did show an interest in either stopping the sale or buying it then the conspiracy crowd would claim that they were suppressing evidence.

You will also have found out from the collecspace site that both Gene Cernan and Alan Shepard's camera both made it back to Earth, and I believe there is evidence that Dave Scott (also Apollo 15) brought his home (the number 31 is visible on a picture of the moon well after the LM was discarded.

It wouldsn't surprise me if there aren't more of these cameras hidden away - as far as I am concerned the astronauts earned their souvenirs.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by onebigmonkey
 



If you'd read more of the collectspace article, and the thread devoted to it


Yeah, I know. I can see you posting over on that forum.
The provenance of this camera is extremely questionable. The serial numbers on the camera housing and the serial number on the film magazine means nothing. What about the lens?

Nobody knows where this camera was before the previous auction? Red Flags!

Even according to the Editor of Collectspace.com Robert Pearlman,


Based on the information released publicly to date, no, we do not know how Irwin's camera entered private hands.


edit on 2/5/2014 by SayonaraJupiter because: to add



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 03:16 AM
link   

SayonaraJupiter
Nobody knows where this camera was before the previous auction?


Every normal person knows where it was.... on the Moon!!



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 03:52 AM
link   

SayonaraJupiter
If NASA doesn't wan't this camera at auction, then, it is reasonable to presume that NASA probably believes it's a fake.


No it isn't.


SayonaraJupiter
... so my reasoning goes that this camera is a total fraud. It can't be the camera. Well? What do you think?


www.youtube.com...



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Stupid youtube videos now?

I remember reading somewhere that NASA deemed it necessary to DUMP the Apollo Hasselblad camera's on the surface of the moon because of weight considerations. Oh yea, here it is, right here!
Hasselblads On The Moon

www.abovetopsecret.com...

When I brought up the subject of the missing cameras with Apollo Defenders they agreed with the weight arguments, they agreed with NASA and the lack of Hasselblad's brought back. Now, we find out, from Robert Pearlman, the editor of collectspace.com that :


Conclusion: Yes, also the Apollo 15 CDR's HEDC was brought back. Source www.collectspace.com...


This means 2 Hasselblad camera's from Apollo 15 made it back from the "moon". Which means weight was not a consideration when bringing back the cameras, as the Apollo Defenders have argued.

Maybe Apollo Defenders want to review that thread and see how wrong they all were about the quantities of Hasselblads returned from the "moon".



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Pfft! Yeah. Like anybody went to the Moon.
Tell me another one.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 04:23 PM
link   

SayonaraJupiter
Stupid youtube videos now?

I remember reading somewhere that NASA deemed it necessary to DUMP the Apollo Hasselblad camera's on the surface of the moon because of weight considerations. Oh yea, here it is, right here!
Hasselblads On The Moon

www.abovetopsecret.com...

When I brought up the subject of the missing cameras with Apollo Defenders they agreed with the weight arguments, they agreed with NASA and the lack of Hasselblad's brought back. Now, we find out, from Robert Pearlman, the editor of collectspace.com that :


Conclusion: Yes, also the Apollo 15 CDR's HEDC was brought back. Source www.collectspace.com...


This means 2 Hasselblad camera's from Apollo 15 made it back from the "moon". Which means weight was not a consideration when bringing back the cameras, as the Apollo Defenders have argued.

Maybe Apollo Defenders want to review that thread and see how wrong they all were about the quantities of Hasselblads returned from the "moon".



And was this a discovery by a hoax believer, or an 'Apollo defender'? Did some conspiracy kook uncover a great secret or was it someone who believes Apollo happened as documented and that astronauts landed on the moon. Oh wait, it was me. An 'Apollo defender'.

You always argued that leaving the cameras behind, or 'hiding' the ones they brought back was a deliberate attempt to falsify evidence. You even claimed Irwin's camera was dropped in the ocean. All this time they are in a display cabinet in a private collection, all covered in moondust.

The argument that weight mattered and this is why they were supposed to leave them is a perfectly reasonable one and in the absence of evidence to prove otherwise there was no reason to dispute it. That astronauts may have ignored those instructions is entirely understandable. I'd even bet that there is more moon rock in existence than documented in the Apollo samples, because if I was up there I'd sure as hell have a pebble for myself.

Unfortunately for you what this camera will prove, if it is indeed the genuine article, is that Hasselblad cameras made it to the moon in the hands of astronauts, took photographs and then came back again. Which is kind of what 'Apollo defenders' have been saying happened all along.

What happens to your argument now?



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by onebigmonkey
 



And was this a discovery by a hoax believer, or an 'Apollo defender'? Did some conspiracy kook uncover a great secret or was it someone who believes Apollo happened as documented and that astronauts landed on the moon. Oh wait, it was me. An 'Apollo defender'.


Very true. But now you must deal with the fact that Dave Scott smuggled another Hasselblad 70mm on Apollo 15 and his camera now needs to accounted for here on earth.


You always argued that leaving the cameras behind, or 'hiding' the ones they brought back was a deliberate attempt to falsify evidence. You even claimed Irwin's camera was dropped in the ocean. All this time they are in a display cabinet in a private collection, all covered in moondust.


From my perspective, leaving Apollo cameras behind on the "moon" is like an assassin dropping his gun into a lake. Every Apollo Hasselblad should be treated like Lee Harvey Oswald's Manlicher-Carcano... imho.

How Jim Irwin's Hasselblad got into private hands? That is a good mystery for Apollo Defenders to solve next. There is like a 40 year gap in the provenance of that camera. Good luck proving that camera is authentic, it's probably a very good fake.


The argument that weight mattered and this is why they were supposed to leave them is a perfectly reasonable one and in the absence of evidence to prove otherwise there was no reason to dispute it. That astronauts may have ignored those instructions is entirely understandable. I'd even bet that there is more moon rock in existence than documented in the Apollo samples, because if I was up there I'd sure as hell have a pebble for myself.


I understand this to mean that you would give the Apollo astronauts a free pass if they smuggled material back from the moon? That goes against NASA policy. NASA has a control policy with regard to artifacts returned from the moon. Let's not forget that Apollo 15 are already know to have smuggled envelopes on their flight which was against the rules and those astronauts were all basically fired.




Unfortunately for you what this camera will prove, if it is indeed the genuine article, is that Hasselblad cameras made it to the moon in the hands of astronauts, took photographs and then came back again. Which is kind of what 'Apollo defenders' have been saying happened all along.


Wrong, the Apollo Defenders have argued (since 2012) that the Apollo Hasselblad cameras were dumped on the "moon" due to weight considerations. Now we find out that weight was not much of a consideration, but, smuggling was a consideration.


What happens to your argument now?


Well, my argument was about the provenance of Apollo cameras (back in 2012) and the provenance of Apollo negatives so I think that I'm in pretty good shape with regard to my argument.

Jim Irwin's Hasselblad, the item now up for auction, does not have a provenance dating back to those missing years. If I had any money I would bid on it and I would take that camera for a full forensic workout including extensive film testing, which might be a problem, because the Apollo film stocks are no longer in production.

OBM, in all honesty, would you bid on that camera if you had the money?



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 01:29 AM
link   
FYI:

Conversation about lunar Hasselblad's continues here:

Hasselblads On The Moon
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Apparently, nobody knows how many Hasselblad cameras were left on the "moon" and nobody knows how many Hasselblad cameras came back to Earth from the Apollo missions.

If you ask a simple questions like " How many Hasselblad cameras did Apollo astronauts take to the moon?" with a follow-up question " How many Hasselblad cameras did Apollo astronauts bring back from the moon?" ....

By asking these simple questions, and they are simple factual questions, we have discovered numerous red flags in the Apollo narratives.

Nobody knows the answers to these questions. The Apollo Defenders are going crazy trying to find a way out of this historical dilemma. It is a red flag for sure.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 02:47 AM
link   

onebigmonkey
You will also have found out from the collecspace site that both Gene Cernan and Alan Shepard's camera both made it back to Earth, and I believe there is evidence that Dave Scott (also Apollo 15) brought his home (the number 31 is visible on a picture of the moon well after the LM was discarded.

It wouldsn't surprise me if there aren't more of these cameras hidden away - as far as I am concerned the astronauts earned their souvenirs.


OBMonkey, Cris Kraft en.wikipedia.org... doesn't agree with you. He fired three astronauts for smuggling envelopes. en.wikipedia.org...

So how much Apollo smuggling are you comfortable with?

Here is example of how NASA continues to interfere with the sales of Apollo souvenirs,

May 17, 2013 — The joystick controller used to steer the Apollo 11 spacecraft to the moon, the original recording of Neil Armstrong's heartbeat when he took humankind's first "small step" onto the lunar surface, and the complete tool kit carried on NASA's final manned moon mission won't be auctioned later this month, despite international headlines that heralded the rare space artifacts' sale.

The rare moon memorabilia was pulled from the sale after NASA requested time to look into the artifacts' ownership, according to RR. The agency's general counsel wanted to ensure that the items were no longer federal property.
Source www.collectspace.com...


Who was running that auction?


RR Auction, a New Hampshire-based online auction house that specializes in autographs but has in recent years held space history-themed memorabilia sales, had featured the now-withdrawn Apollo-era artifacts in videos and releases issue to promote their current auction ending on May 23.


RR Auction is the same auction house selling off Jim Irwin's Apollo 15 lunar Hasselblad.

Now that's interesting.





new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join