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: 24
17
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2015 @ 03:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

middendorf was named.. but Drees was not named.. kind of strange that the receiver of the gift isnt on the plaque at all..


yea one of only two people, of which only one remains alive, so basically he can claim whatever he wants..

that only middendorf can confirm..



As nobody else was there, except the late Mr. Drees, only Middendorf CAN confirm the story.

You say he must be a liar, without any evidence of lying.

The account seems quite sincere, and certainly nothing to indicate, or even to suggest, that he is lying.


He is not lying, no matter how desperately you wish him to be.




posted on May, 2 2015 @ 04:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

As nobody else was there, except the late Mr. Drees, only Middendorf CAN confirm the story.

You say he must be a liar, without any evidence of lying.


im not saying he MUST be a liar.. im saying there is a possiblity of it.. you are the one who is dead set on him being completely clean..


The account seems quite sincere, and certainly nothing to indicate, or even to suggest, that he is lying.
He is not lying, no matter how desperately you wish him to be.


you mean apart from giving Mr Drees petrified wood and a commemoration card which has no indication of having any affiliation with the petrified rock apart from being in the same drawer??

no where on the card does it say its a rock, no where on the card does it say its for Mr Drees, no where on the card does it mention the word gift, the rock had no protection whatsoever from the elements, no where in the Apollo 11 sample list is there anything remotely similar to the petrified wood, the only moon rock at the time on display was behind glass in the smithsonian..

why should they feel an obligation to give a moon rock to Mr Drees during the goodwill tour and NOT the Queen??

Mr Drees had bad eyesight and hard of hearing.. given all of these facts, you can safely judge with certainty that Middendorf had only the purest of intentions and gave Mr Drees a supposedly priceless rock with no strings attached..



posted on May, 2 2015 @ 04:47 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

No-one says he's lying, just elderly and confused.

Your challenge is simple: find any statements anywhere where Middendorf unequivocally and unambiguously states specifically that he gave the fossil to Drees.

You are totally reliant on media reports that have joined some tenuous dots to make a story, when in fact there is no evidence that the tattered bit of card and the rock are related in any way at all until two artists made an exhibition and put them together.



posted on May, 2 2015 @ 05:52 AM
link   
There isn't even any context to the conversation where the quote comes from. Just typical shoddy reporting that everyone else copies. You see it all of the time, strangely ATS members question everything unless it reinforces their conspiracy plot in their head - then the flimsiest things become evidence.
Odd behaviour, not sure how psychologists would classify it but completely unhelpful to anyone.

Some people are best to embrace their destiny on a production line I guess, kudos for at least trying to better themselves beyond their capabilities though.



posted on May, 2 2015 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: AgentSmith

Odd behaviour, not sure how psychologists would classify it but completely unhelpful to anyone.


I'd say it's just straight up confirmation bias. Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, many people on here start with a conclusion (and not just limited to the topic of apollo) and then work backwards to find what supports their pre-conceived notions.



posted on May, 3 2015 @ 02:21 AM
link   

a reply to: onebigmonkey
No-one says he's lying, just elderly and confused.


propagandist would have you believe that Middendorf was just an incompetent dupe regarding knowledge of the moon rock, but it is otherwise blatantly obvious he was in some degree involved in a disinformation project in deliberately disseminating its propagation...




posted on May, 3 2015 @ 03:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: DelMarvel

At the times that this footage was shown, TV was grainy and nobody had home recorders (or very few). Plus, everything was broadcast from a screen and most of the public did not view the entire Apollo catalogue of photos. Now, the Internet came along and that's when I believe photos were starting to become manipulated.

I mean, it doesn't look like the moon to me and many others. The photos look fake. The videos look fake. The rover is silly. But, it's unpatriotic to doubt the veracity of Apollo so it's like swimming upstream trying to have an honest discussion about this.


It doesn't matter about the TV IMAGES still images were taken on 70mm film with Hasselblad cameras and the resolution of those images are better than HD or 4K !

The images look fake to YOU we have already seen that most HOAX believers & the so called experts hoax believer web sits use DON'T understand how photography works, prime example trying to show parallax errors from images shot to make a panorama.

Here is China's ChangE 3 video



So what are your thoughts now

How come none Apollo pictures "from the moon surface" look like this ? There are obviously white or normal colored rocks on the moon !



edit on 3-5-2015 by Ove38 because: Text fix



posted on May, 3 2015 @ 03:49 AM
link   
a reply to: bobbypurify

I have a question which is bugging me for some time now... Maybe you, or someone else can give me a satisfying answer.

The question is why other space going nations do not blow the lid of the hoax. Russia is able to tell us if the Apollo cabin with its crew was able to pass the Van Allen radiation belts. I mean, these guys must have data about those belts and combined with the data of the cabin construction they should be able to say to the world that the USA technology is based on a lie...or not. Or countries with powerfull telescopes could take a look at the landing sites to see if there are these Apollo remains present.

Any idea?

thx a lot..


edit on 3/5/2015 by zatara because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2015 @ 03:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: zatara
a reply to: bobbypurify

I have a question which is bugging me for some time now... Maybe you, or someone else can give me a satisfying answer.

The question is why other space going nations do not blow the lid of the hoax. Russia is able to tell us if the Apollo cabin with its crew was able to pass the Van Allen radiation belts. I mean, these guys must have data about those belts and combined with the data of the cabin construction they should be able to say to the world that the USA technology is based on a lie...or not. Or countries with powerfull telescopes could take a look at the landing sites to see if there are these Apollo remains present.

Any idea?

thx a lot..


If you ask me, I believe the Apollo landing modules (LM) are there (they were flown there unmanned 1969-72) So what is there for Russia to say ? no one was exposed to radiation !
edit on 3-5-2015 by Ove38 because: text fix



posted on May, 3 2015 @ 04:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: zatara
a reply to: bobbypurify

I have a question which is bugging me for some time now... Maybe you, or someone else can give me a satisfying answer.

The question is why other space going nations do not blow the lid of the hoax. Russia is able to tell us if the Apollo cabin with its crew was able to pass the Van Allen radiation belts. I mean, these guys must have data about those belts and combined with the data of the cabin construction they should be able to say to the world that the USA technology is based on a lie...or not.


We do have massive amounts of data on the VAB from both NASA and non-NASA sources. As well as doing their own work on the belts at the same time as Van Allen, the Soviets sent live specimens around the moon and back in a Zond probe, and India's recent Chandrayaan probe collected radiation data on the way to the moon. Surveyor and Lunar Orbiter probes also collected data.

None of them found data that contradicted the data from Apollo, or that cast doubt on a human's ability to pass through the belts.

Not one single person claiming that Apollo missions did not happen has ever been able to demonstrate that the astronauts would have received a fatal dose of radiation given the length of time they were in the belts and the trajectory they took.



Or countries with powerfull telescopes could take a look at the landing sites to see if there are these Apollo remains present.


There isn't a telescope powerful enough to view the landing sites with that level of detail - the mirrors required would need to be enormous.

China, India and Japan have all taken photographs of Apollo landing sites and confirm not just the surface features shown by Apollo images (ones that were not known about before Apollo), but also evidence of Apollo activity on the surface. They support the US LRO probe's photographs of the landing sites completely.



posted on May, 3 2015 @ 05:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos
im not saying he MUST be a liar.. im saying there is a possiblity of it.. you are the one who is dead set on him being completely clean..


You can argue that it's possible for anyone to be a liar, unless there is proof to show it is otherwise.

Of course, it is impossible for us to prove he is telling the truth, or is lying, or is confused, or so on...

That's why we have to take everything into account - the available evidence, mainly - and assess if his story is valid, or not valid, to that point.

And that's why his account is a problem for you, and all the Apollo-ites...because if it is the truth, it supports the hoax argument. With all of the evidence showing that it IS the truth, you make up ridiculous, far-fetched scenarios, which you call "possible'. Same as winning the 'Mega-Millions State Lottery' (MMSL) is possible. Same as winning the 'MMSL' lottery for 30 weeks in a row is "possible".

A 'smoking gun' proof is not required to show my argument holds up as valid, or to show that your argument is flawed, from start to finish.


originally posted by: choos
you mean apart from giving Mr Drees petrified wood and a commemoration card which has no indication of having any affiliation with the petrified rock apart from being in the same drawer??


No. All of the evidence indicates that Middendorf DID NOT KNOW it was petrified wood. Nothing supports your claim that the card was not linked to the fake 'moon rock', it matches perfectly, in all details.

Middendorf said he got the fake 'moon rock' from the State Dep't, gave it to Drees, and said he didn't know anything about it not being real.

The first sentence ... "With the compliments of...US Ambassador of the United States of America'...

Do you understand the term "With the compliments of..."? It means something is linked to the card, which is a gift, which is given "With the compliments of" someone, or some group.... The card would also have been placed with that gift, perhaps above it, or below it, of course.

So the card is...ahem...'linked' to the gift...

The card names Middendorf as the person who gives out this gift, as well.

The card states the gift is to commemorate the visit of the Apollo 11 astronauts to the Netherlands.

A gift was given by Middendorf to Drees, which was a fake 'moon rock'. A moon rock would be the perfect gift to commemorate the visit of astronauts who collected rocks from the moon, no?


What is NOT linked, that's the better question here...


originally posted by: choos
no where on the card does it say its a rock, no where on the card does it say its for Mr Drees, no where on the card does it mention the word gift, the rock had no protection whatsoever from the elements, no where in the Apollo 11 sample list is there anything remotely similar to the petrified wood, the only moon rock at the time on display was behind glass in the smithsonian..


I've explained the reason why it has no description of ANY kind.

Why do you think his name would need to be put on the card? He had the card and 'moon rock', in his possession, so why is it relevant to name him on the card, other than you just saying it's relevant?

It wasn't protected because they took it out of the display it was presented in, obviously, and that's why the card is not 'linked' to it anymore, physically, on the display.

And you should know by this point why it doesn't need the word "Gift" put on the card, in order to know it is, indeed, a gift....right?


originally posted by: choos
why should they feel an obligation to give a moon rock to Mr Drees during the goodwill tour and NOT the Queen??


You don't understand the point here...

It is not 'an obligation'. They are giving out a fake 'moon rock' in a private ceremony, which has nothing to do with 'official' presentations to QEII, etc., which are public ceremonies.


originally posted by: choos
Mr Drees had bad eyesight and hard of hearing..


And certainly that would have made him an excellent candidate for passing off fake moon rocks, I'd say!


originally posted by: choos
given all of these facts, you can safely judge with certainty that Middendorf had only the purest of intentions and gave Mr Drees a supposedly priceless rock with no strings attached..


Given all of the facts available to us, there is nothing to suggest Middendorf's account in not true. Certainly there would be a motive to pass off a fake moon rock, if they had faked the Apollo 11 moon landing . However, it would need quite a stretch to accept Middendorf had a motive, or even any grounds, to create and give out a fake moon rocks, if it had been a real moon landing. It doesn't even work in a logical sense, to think a moon rock would be used for personal gain, as it has no value, and it also assumes there IS something to gain, and Middendorf knew about those potential gains, and that he desired those gains.

The US Government also had the means, capability to create the fake moon rock, far more than Middendorf. It isn't important to the issue, but I wanted to mention that point, anyway..

As I said earlier, if Middendorf was behind it, he would've said the gift was already known to them, as a token, not a genuine 'moon rock'. He would say someone must have thought it was a real moon rock, over the years, etc. Middendorf is immediately off the hook, and solves the whole problem, with nobody the wiser.



posted on May, 3 2015 @ 05:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: zatara
a reply to: bobbypurify

I have a question which is bugging me for some time now... Maybe you, or someone else can give me a satisfying answer.

The question is why other space going nations do not blow the lid of the hoax. Russia is able to tell us if the Apollo cabin with its crew was able to pass the Van Allen radiation belts. I mean, these guys must have data about those belts and combined with the data of the cabin construction they should be able to say to the world that the USA technology is based on a lie...or not.


We do have massive amounts of data on the VAB from both NASA and non-NASA sources. As well as doing their own work on the belts at the same time as Van Allen, the Soviets sent live specimens around the moon and back in a Zond probe, and India's recent Chandrayaan probe collected radiation data on the way to the moon. Surveyor and Lunar Orbiter probes also collected data.

None of them found data that contradicted the data from Apollo, or that cast doubt on a human's ability to pass through the belts.

Not one single person claiming that Apollo missions did not happen has ever been able to demonstrate that the astronauts would have received a fatal dose of radiation given the length of time they were in the belts and the trajectory they took.



Or countries with powerfull telescopes could take a look at the landing sites to see if there are these Apollo remains present.


There isn't a telescope powerful enough to view the landing sites with that level of detail - the mirrors required would need to be enormous.

China, India and Japan have all taken photographs of Apollo landing sites and confirm not just the surface features shown by Apollo images (ones that were not known about before Apollo), but also evidence of Apollo activity on the surface. They support the US LRO probe's photographs of the landing sites completely.


China, India and Japan have all taken photographs of ......Apollo activity on the surface.

Now why would you need make up something like that ?
edit on 3-5-2015 by Ove38 because: text fix



posted on May, 3 2015 @ 05:15 AM
link   
*
edit on 3-5-2015 by Ove38 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2015 @ 05:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ove38

China, India and Japan have all taken photographs of ......Apollo activity on the surface.

Now why would you need make up something like that ?


Don't call me a liar - it's rude.

You missed out important parts of my post, here's what I put:


China, India and Japan have all taken photographs of Apollo landing sites and confirm not just the surface features shown by Apollo images (ones that were not known about before Apollo), but also evidence of Apollo activity on the surface


China's Chang'e-2 and India's Chandrayaan probe have both taken photographs that show surface details that are not visible in any photographs taken before Apollo, but are visible in Apollo images.

Chandrayaan has imaged Apollo 14 and Apollo 16 landing sites with sufficient detail to show the disturbances left by Apollo astronauts.

These two points are not made up, they are things I have researched and verified myself and also posted many times in this and the other Apollo thread here. You can research it yourself, all the information you need is out there.

Chandrayaan and Japan's Kaguya probe have both imaged surface alteration at Hadley Rille as a result of the LM engine. This has been published in scientific papers and has also been referenced in the Apollo threads here.



posted on May, 3 2015 @ 05:30 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Still waiting for your evidence, any at all, that shows Middendorf stating clearly and unequivocally that he gave the fossil to Drees.

Still waiting for any proof whatsoever that the rock was even linked to the card in any way before two artists put them together for an art exhibit.



posted on May, 3 2015 @ 05:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
...Chandrayaan and Japan's Kaguya probe have both imaged surface alteration at Hadley Rille as a result of the LM engine. This has been published in scientific papers and has also been referenced in the Apollo threads here.

You do understand that even if an Apollo landing module (LM) landed on the moon 1969-72, it doesn't mean someone was in it ?



posted on May, 3 2015 @ 05:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Ove38

You do understand that when you have that same LM photographed and broadcast on live TV on the moon in the presence of astronauts, and with surface features not known about before that LM landed, and with time and date specific images of Earth photographed from the moon and broadcast live on TV, and where a rocket was launched with those astronauts in it, and with every stage of the mission broadcast on TV, and with rocks brought back from the moon by those astronauts, and with scientific instruments transmitting data back from the moon in the places shown in the photos and on TV, that your claim begins to look a little desperate?



posted on May, 3 2015 @ 05:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: Ove38

You do understand that when you have that same LM photographed and broadcast on live TV on the moon in the presence of astronauts, and with surface features not known about before that LM landed, and with time and date specific images of Earth photographed from the moon and broadcast live on TV, and where a rocket was launched with those astronauts in it, and with every stage of the mission broadcast on TV, and with rocks brought back from the moon by those astronauts, and with scientific instruments transmitting data back from the moon in the places shown in the photos and on TV, that your claim begins to look a little desperate?


How do you know it's the same LM ? How do you know it was broadcasted from the moon ? BTW moon rocks don't look like that ! they look like this

edit on 3-5-2015 by Ove38 because: text fix



posted on May, 3 2015 @ 05:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Ove38


How do you know it's the same LM ? How do you know it was broadcasted from the moon ? BTW moon rocks don't look like that ! they look like this


How do you know the Chinese Yutu rover is really on the Moon? How do you know you are not a butterfly dreaming you are a man?



posted on May, 3 2015 @ 06:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Ove38


How do you know it's the same LM ? How do you know it was broadcasted from the moon ? BTW moon rocks don't look like that ! they look like this


How do you know the Chinese Yutu rover is really on the Moon? How do you know you are not a butterfly dreaming you are a man?


Because unmanned missions to the moon, is a common thing. But if one should believe Apollo photos its not.
edit on 3-5-2015 by Ove38 because: text fix




top topics



 
17
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join