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.

 

Disclosure of the Moon Landing Hoax: Part 2

page: 10
17
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: choos


NASA no longer has an unlimited budget..


NASA never had "an unlimited budget".




posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheWhisper
a reply to: onebigmonkey
What you say is easy to debunk.
"US officials said they had no explanation for the Dutch discovery."
news.bbc.co.uk...



The Rijksmuseum, which is perhaps better known for paintings by artists such as Rembrandt, says it will keep the piece as a curiosity.


Imagine that, the museum keeps the fake moonrock (from the fake moonlandings) as a curiosity.
edit on 25-4-2015 by webstra because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: bhornbuckle75

Awesome video.Loved it.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
An excellent analysis:

/youtube video/

Warning: contains image of Nixon.


I guess you'll have to ignore your own post! rofl


Oops, you broke my golden rule.

I'll re-iterate it here so that it's valid for this thread too.

Any post that mentions Nixon gets ignored.


So you broke your own Golden Rule. If you don't like any of the Nixon material can't you just skip over it?

Nixon invites the Apollo 12 crew (and 2 of their wives) to the White House for dinner, a movie and an overnight stay.

Nixon: Let's watch a movie
Astros: Yes! Sir!
Nixon: Roll film
*** It's a space disaster movie, "Marooned" ***


You can ignore my post or break your Golden Rule. Four months after they watched "Marooned" there was Apollo 13. And that is just one of thousand reasons why Richard Nixon belongs in every Apollo thread!



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 01:12 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: TheWhisper



p.s. any chance you could stop talking in third person?? i read somewhere that people that argue in third person do so because they consider the topic is too subjective and wish to distance themselves from it..


Thank you.Speaking in the third person also makes what you say "supposedly " more important.
edit on 25-4-2015 by buckwhizzle because: Screwed up



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheWhisper

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: turbonium1

They have to say Apollo is genuine,


The Russians have to say Apollo is genuine? The Chinese have to say it? The Indians have to say it? The Japanese have to say it?

Why? Who could possibly be enforcing that?

Once again, this gigantic story with huge amounts of data as well as physical evidence was made up a half century ago and no engineer or scientist anywhere in the world has reported any disqualifying discrepancies in all that time?

The Pope said the world was flat, the kings and queens said the world was flat, scientist in those days said the world was flat. Then Someone sails around the world and it was round. A quote of Einstein will rape it all together what TW has to say.

"If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!"



Even if true that is totally irrelevant to my question .

The post I was responding to said contemporary researchers have to say Apollo was genuine.

Why would the Russians, Chinese, Indians, Western Europeans, etc. all have to say that? The Chinese now have first hand experience examining the lunar surface via their own probe. Certainly they would be able to tell that the U.S. samples were fraudulent if the U.S. was foolish enough to hand out petrified wood as lunar rocks. Why would they be involved in the cover-up? The Russians have brought back samples on their own. Why would they keep silent, especially after the Soviet Union collapsed along with tight control of information?



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Arguing about the rock in the Netherlands is a distraction; an example of the hoax believers trying to focus on minute issues. So what if one small rock with questionable provenance was not really from the moon? Look at the big picture:

Apollo brought back over 800 pounds of lunar samples. They have been studied all over the world. No real researcher has identified any sample given to them by NASA for research as phony. Certainly that would be the case if the U.S. was in the habit of giving out easily identifiable petrified wood samples as lunar rocks.
edit on 25-4-2015 by DelMarvel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: combatmaster

This guy does exactly what he says non-believers do... they hope they do not understand the technogogical jargon or theory behind their arguments..

And I remember seeing a docu about the photograph technical aspects of the apollo 11 photographs. The guy explaining Haselblads and such was an expert in the field.. The arguments which he tries to deliver with a certain heldback arrogance are flimsy and unfounded. In brief, I do not belief at least half of what he says..




posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Here is a site with much more background details and the sceintific proof that the moonrock was faked.

from Frank Beuk, the man who was responsible finding the fraud.

It's in dutch.

De maansteen van Drees



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: webstra
Here is a site with much more background details and the sceintific proof that the moonrock was faked.

from Frank Beuk, the man who was responsible finding the fraud.

It's in dutch.

De maansteen van Drees


~sigh~

It is not a fake. It is a genuine piece of petrified wood. No-one ever said it was a moon rock. No-one. Not one person from NASA, or the US, and certainly not an Apollo astronaut, ever claimed it was from the moon. Not. One. Person. Got that?

Beuk did not discover anything, as the article makes clear - he is merely reporting it.

There isn't actually any proof at all that the card from the Ambassador (suggested by some to be a generic thing possibly not even related to the rock) was actually presented with the petrified wood. Even the Ambassador is unsure in some reports whether he actually gave him the stone.

For all anyone here knows the stone was a souvenir from from somewhere else entirely (petrified wood is not difficult to get hold of) that got mixed up with a card from a newly appointed Ambassador when an old man died and someone put 2+2 together and made 5, just like the conspiracy people are doing.

If this is your best, you're moon hoax delusions are done.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   


Beuk did not discover anything, as the article makes clear - he is merely reporting it.


"It's a nondescript, pretty-much-worthless stone," said Frank Beunk, a geologist involved in the investigation."

Here



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 06:00 PM
link   
The whole fakemoon rock scandal shows that america is not acting mature to their closest friends, like holland is.

I'm proud that a fellow dutchman discovered this fakemoon rock.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: webstra

Please provide even a shred of evidence that America, or even an American was involved in this . . . several people have asked multiple times that the hoax camp provide some kind of relation between this piece of petrified wood and the US government and/or NASA, this request is constantly ignored, as is all other evidence presented to the hoax theologians.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

^^^ This.

If you had a lot of money and knew what you were doing, you could buy the equipment to verify this for yourself. Anyone is allowed to shine a laser at the Moon and have it reflect back and be detected -- they don't hide the coordinates of those reflectors.

So, Moon landing Hoaxers -- the onus is on you to prove we didn't go to the Moon. Who wants to pony up the money to buy the computers and lasers to test the reflectors independently?


Uh, sorry, you've got it backwards. The onus is on those who make the claims.

FYI



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Maverick7
The (vast) preponderance of the evidence shows that the Moon landings occurred. In fact, all of it does.

Valid evidence to the contrary is non-existent. Lots of weak claims borne from ignorance (and desperation), but evidence? Nope. Case in point:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 4/25/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 06:43 PM
link   
...and since i notice that queen juliana did not fancy nixon. It's not a big step imagining nixon doing it all over again, but much more stupid. Petrified wood, i can't stop thinking nixon laughing his eyes wet making his next fraud.

It would not be the first time that a man fells over a womans anger

edit on 25-4-2015 by webstra because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 11:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: webstra
...and since i notice that queen juliana did not fancy nixon. It's not a big step imagining nixon doing it all over again, but much more stupid. Petrified wood, i can't stop thinking nixon laughing his eyes wet making his next fraud.

It would not be the first time that a man fells over a womans anger


problem is.. the US GOV never gave out any kind of rocks during the good will tour to any nation..

only Middendorf gave Drees petrified wood during the goodwill tour..

so what you should be claiming is that Middendorf disliked the queen and decided to give petrified wood to an old Ex-PM to spite the queen for whatever reason.. which makes no sense.. but moon hoax theories never make sense anyway..
edit on 25-4-2015 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 12:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
The US Ambassador did not claim it was a lunar sample.


He clearly believed it was a lunar sample, as I'll explain below..


originally posted by: onebigmonkey
The only confirmation he gave was that he donated the petrified wood to the former President.


Provide evidence he said this..


originally posted by: onebigmonkey
You have been asked many many times now: Provide evidence that he (or anyone from the Goodwill tour) claimed it was a lunar sample.


I have told you many many times now it was assumed to be a lunar sample, so while I've seen no evidence that anyone 'claimed' it was a lunar sample, it doesn't matter, because they believed it was a lunar sample.

Middendorf said...

"I do remember that Drees was very interested in the little piece of stone. But that it's not real, I don't know anything about that," Mr Middendorf said.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

First, Middendorf describes it as a "piece of stone". Obviously, that proves he did NOT know it was actually wood. So, we now have proven he thought it was a stone.

But, here is the most significant thing he said...

"But that it's not real, I don't know anything about that"

He doesn't know anything about it being "not real".

Which is, he believed it WAS real, since he doesn't know anything about it being NOT real.

On the contrary, if he did NOT believe it was real, he would say something like 'I already knew/assumed/was told that it was NOT real'.

This should be clear to you, by now...



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1




First, Middendorf describes it as a "piece of stone". Obviously, that proves he did NOT know it was actually wood. So, we now have proven he thought it was a stone.

Petrified wood is a stone. That's why it's called petrified.

It is the result of a tree or tree-like plants having completely transitioned to stone by the process of permineralization.
en.wikipedia.org...



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join