Disclosure of the Moon Landing Hoax: Part 2

a reply to: DelMarvel

I was wrong about the glitch. I've learned thanks to you all. I was trying to learn and I did. Now, my stance has evolved and I proved how this was achieved. Rock formations are subjects of perspective change, house rock didn't, then I illustrated how after thinking about it. It's a 2-d cut out in front of a static backdrop, the only way it can be explained. Thanks

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: turbonium1

Middendorf states everything with clarity, in the quotes.

Then you will have no problem identifying specifically where it is that he says that he personally gave this specific rock to Drees, and where he specifically claims it is a lunar rock.

Any time you like.

He is quoted as follows...

"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...

The article explains that Middendorf gave the fake moon rock to Drees..


I'm posting the source, as written.. I'm not the source.

It's up to you to contact the source, if you have any problems with it....yes?

For you, the article is not specific about a point, and it spins a quote, and so forth...

Without a sliver of evidence to back up your claims, in doing so...

No go..

a reply to: turbonium1

your article says this:

The rock was given to Willem Drees, a former Dutch leader, during a global tour by Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin following their moon mission 50 years ago.
J. William Middendorf, the former American ambassador to the Netherlands, made the presentation to Mr Drees and the rock was then donated to the Rijksmuseum after his death in 1988.

your article claims he made the presentation to Drees during the goodwill tour, have you got any proof that Drees was present during the Goodwill tour??

as far as im aware, Drees was not present during the goodwill tour, Drees never met with any of the Apollo 11 astronauts..

a reply to: bobbypurify

so the background behind house rock is a 2d painted image.. house rock is a 2d cardboard cutout.. and the foreground is real??

just trying to get your version of the story straight..

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: turbonium1

Middendorf states everything with clarity, in the quotes.

Then you will have no problem identifying specifically where it is that he says that he personally gave this specific rock to Drees, and where he specifically claims it is a lunar rock.

Any time you like.

He is quoted as follows...

"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...

The article explains that Middendorf gave the fake moon rock to Drees..


I'm posting the source, as written.. I'm not the source.

It's up to you to contact the source, if you have any problems with it....yes?

For you, the article is not specific about a point, and it spins a quote, and so forth...

Without a sliver of evidence to back up your claims, in doing so...

No go..

The U.S. ambassador gave Drees the rock during an Oct. 9, 1969 visit by the Apollo 11 astronauts to the Netherlands. Drees's grandson, also named Willem, told the AP his grandfather had been out of office for more than a decade and was nearly deaf and blind in 1969, though his mind was still sharp.

"My guess is that he did not hear well what was said," said the grandson. "He may have formed his own idea about what it was.

abcnews.go.com...

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: 3danimator2014

After everything, it still comes down to one thing.

We could NOT chance failure...

Geopolitically, we COULD NOT FAIL getting to the moon and everyone at the time thought it was, if not impossible, highly improbable that we could get people there and back safely.

I know that buzz and neil DID go into space because my dad picked their capsule up in the middle of the ocean, with them in it.

That doesn't mean they landed on the moon, that means they went into space.

Jaden

This is such an excellent point.

There needs to be much more scholarship directed at NASA's 1968 transition in leadership in relation to the 1968 elections. In so many space race history books there is the tendency to skip over the 1968 transition and go straight to the glorious American victory in the Moon Race. So many of our history books skip right over the reason "Webb Quits NASA, Says U.S. Lags".



According to John M Logsdon's 2015 "After Apollo?" on p36:

Somewhat to Webb's surprise, Johnson immediately accepted [on September 16, 1968-SJ] Webb's resignation, effective on Webb's 62nd birthday, October 7, and sent Webb to the White House press room to announce that action. Asked by a reporter to comment on the status of the space program, Webb responded "I am not satisfied with the program. I am not satisfied that we as a nation have not been able to go forward to achieve a first position in space."

These are extremely damning words coming from the outgoing NASA administrator

"I am not satisfied with the program."

Could Webb be alluding to the existence of a covert "program" that could simulate a successful Apollo 11 lunar landing using live television as the basis for manufacturing consent?

We are constantly reminded by NASA and Apollo Defenders that "oh, including television on Apollo was a last minute decision." However, Richard Nafzger admitted in his oral history that preparations were being made months in advance of Apollo 8 even though the decision hadn't been made yet with regard to the question of using tv cameras on Apollo missions.

Some of you who have been reading this thread page by page might like to refer back to my earlier comments regarding the SSTV equipment sabotage in Sydney Australia. That story of the explosion of the SSTV equipment really needs to be looked at in closer detail. Nafzger's history is telling. He is telling us his story about how important TV was to the Apollo lunar landing program.

Can you imagine if NASA had decided that Apollo should have no TV events? Nixon would over rule NASA and order them to use television. Nixon was concerned and obsessed with controlling reality through the news media, particularly, TV.

All the Nixon experts will tell you that Nixon was obsessed with how the public perceived the media and his administration; how he projected himself in the media and that is why he hired marketing people to be his closest advisors.

Look now in 1968!!
Who is running for President in 1968?

Richard Nixon, the television savvy, hard core anti-Communist, a fervent and dedicated high stakes poker player ( all the biographers admit to Nixon's fascination and fury at the power of television...) Richard Nixon would never accept an Apollo mission failure on live television it's just not what television was designed for... in Richard Nixon's inebriated mind he knows that he needs to "catch Kennedy's pass", land the #ing thing on the "Moon", do it on live t.v. have the ticker tape parades in three cities on t.v. and celebrate this glorious achievement on t.v. every goddamn year forever until the end of time!

Tom Paine becomes acting Nasa administrator on October 7, 1968.

Quoting from John M. Logsdon's "After Apollo?" p53:

Almost by default, Tom Paine thus became Richard Nixon's choice as NASA administrator.

President Nixon himself would have preferred to offer the position to Apollo 8 commander Frank Borman, with whom he had become impressed in the first weeks of his administration.

Let's dig even deeper on Logsdon p54:

Haldeman reported that he and Nixon, "in his pajamas and pretty well out ... discussed the NASA appointment briefly. He said go ahead on Paine, the Deputy, unless I thought we could do Borman." Haldeman did not think that Borman would take the job, and thus the choice of Paine as the head of NASA was made.

President Nixon announced the nomination on March 5 as he presented a trophy to the Apollo 8 astronauts at the White House, saying "there has been a great deal of interest as to who would be the new head of NASA. I will admit right now that we have searched the country to find a man who could take this program now and git it the leadership that it needs, as we move from on phase to another. This is an exciting period, and it requires the new leadership that a new man can provide."

He added, "but after searching the whole country for somebody, perhaps outside the program, we found as is often the case, that the best man in the country was in the program, and that is why I am announcing today [March 5, 1969-SJ] that Dr. Paine, who is now the Acting Director of NASA, will be appointed the Director of NASA."

Hey, wait a minute. I thought this position was called 'NASA administrator' and not 'NASA director'.

Was Nixon hiring Tom Paine to direct his Apollo movie hoax?

Paine was confirmed by the Senate on confirmed by the Senate on March 20, 1969. During his leadership the first seven Apollo manned missions were flown, in which 20 astronauts orbited the earth, 14 traveled to the Moon and four walked upon its surface. Source history.nasa.gov...

After he was confirmed by the Senate, Paine needed to be sworn into office. What date was Paine sworn in?

originally posted by: Ove38
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Marcus Allen !

Thanks for that!

originally posted by: wmd_2008
video of Barbara Streisand singing "Send In The Clowns"

That is correct. The Apollo astronauts were clowns.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
.....You want photos of Apollo en route to the moon taken from Earth? Here's a website for you to ignore:

www.astr.ua.edu...

Boy that's a great pictures you found of Apollo 11 en route to the moon, I see nothing !

www.astr.ua.edu...

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Was Nixon hiring Tom Paine to direct his Apollo movie hoax

Why would he do that if Kubrick had been working on it for years?

a reply to: Ove38

Not my problem.

Do you have any photographs of any of the Apollo missions in Earth orbit during their missions, as opposed to the evidence on that website that shows them en route to the moon?

No? Thought not.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
We are constantly reminded by NASA and Apollo Defenders that "oh, including television on Apollo was a last minute decision."

No, that is not true. You are not constantly reminded and it was not a last minute decision. What is true is that some people (including astronauts) felt it was an unnecessary distraction, and that it was not necessarily something that should be publicly available as a live media show managed to coincide with network schedules. TV was a tool, not a publicity medium. When they got the pictures back they realised that actually the publicity value was priceless. So what?

However, Richard Nafzger admitted in his oral history that preparations were being made months in advance of Apollo 8 even though the decision hadn't been made yet with regard to the question of using tv cameras on Apollo missions.

Nice use of the loaded term 'admitted'. He 'admits' nothing. He describes a series of events. Show me where he says the decision hadn't been made, given that he discusses TV from Apollo 7. This document, which you have been given before, describes how the planning for TV started almost as soon as planning for Apollo:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Apollo 8 images showing the Earth from space appeared in the newspapers the day after transmission. Bam - there goes the hoax argument.

Some of you who have been reading this thread page by page might like to refer back to my earlier comments regarding the SSTV equipment sabotage in Sydney Australia. That story of the explosion of the SSTV equipment really needs to be looked at in closer detail. Nafzger's history is telling.

Some of you who have been reading this thread will remember how SJ made great play out of insisting that the incident occurred 3 weeks before Apollo 11, when it was in fact it was three months. SJ never responded to my correction. SJ also continues to use the word 'explosion', when Nafzger doesn't. SJ is making a mountain out of molehill.

a reply to: turbonium1

So all you have is what the Daily Telegraph reports someone remembering from 40+ years ago, not what the anyone actually said? No photographs of the event? No film or TV? No list of persons present?

I know more things about this than you do, because I actually bought the exhibition book, and it has more pictures in it that aren't generally available.

Here is the drawer containing Drees' effects:



and here is a close up of the card:



Everything in the drawer has a number on a small piece of card next to it, and everything in the drawer has little retainers to stop them moving when it is opened.

Except for two things: the card, and the fossil.

Isn't that just a tiny bit strange?

The numbers of the empty spaces, which presumably are on display elsewhere, are not those of the fossil. The fossil's catalog number can be found at the Rijksmuseum. The card has no catalog number. You will not find it in the museum's online catalog. It is not photographed with the fossil. It is not mentioned anywhere.

Isn't that just a tiny bit strange? The card arguably has more value than a piece of fossilised wood, and it is essential to the fossils' 'back story'. So where is it?

Here is the rock on display for the art exhibition:



There is no card with it.

My opinion? The card and rock were put together by two artists for an exhibit. Everything else is Chinese whispers.

originally posted by: choos

it isnt with clarity, if it was with clarity he would be giving exact details!!!

Yes, let's assume that quote is everything he recalls of the event , since nothing else is said in the article!!

Get serious, now!

The clarity is what he said about the event - as he is quoted on it, in this article.

originally posted by: choos

and you can believe him that NASA/US gov decided to pass off a "lunar sample" which was not catalogued at all, even though they were completely capable of creating real lunar samples to fool geologists to this day, all just to try to fool an old ex-PM as he was the perfect candidate even though it was enough to fool Middendorf..

You can't think of any reason to use petrified wood instead of the genuine lunar material, which was available, if they wanted to try fool someone on the Apollo landings... so it makes no sense NASA would have created this fake moon rock, then.

But, even if we assume NASA had lunar samples capable of being fakes, it doesn't change the fact petrified wood was used to create - at the very least - one fake moon rock....

It is like asking why would they try to fake more manned moon landings, if they had already fooled the world with the first one?

The exact reasons would only be known to them, of course.

As the question why the USSR wouldn't have exposed a hoax, it makes no sense, until you look at their silence on JFK making no sense, a few years earlier...since nothing is that simple, black & white, as we're told it is, in all our history books.

For why they'd use petrified wood - it is not meant to be studied - as a sample which you've described.

This fakery is meant to impress, and is never meant to be studied.

Both are meant to fool people, as genuine Apollo lunar samples. ]

The first type - commonly known - is given to the scientific world, for study. Being a genuine sample, it then convinces all the world's scientists that Apollo's claim must be factual. These samples are very small, and not much to look at, but are still genuine samples...

The second type was not known to exist - until recently, that is. It was not meant to become known to exist, in fact. It was not a genuine sample, not meant for any scientists to study. It is given to a politician, and meant to be very impressive to gaze upon, unlike the boring little dust samples, given to scientists.

It didn't work out so well, in the end.

originally posted by: choos
he can say what he wants.. he is the only person left that can give any sort of story regarding the drees rock.. so you are relying on one persons long term memory.. which is not always reliable..

His account cannot be confirmed by Drees, the only other person who was present at the time.

But all the available evidence is certainly enough to conclude his account is valid.


We know the event took place.

We know Middendorf was at the event.

How do we know?

Can you explain how it is we know about this?


The Drees estate donated an object to the Dutch museum. What did the Drees family think they were donating to the Dutch museum? They thought it was a genuine moon rock, of course.

And, how did the Drees family come to believe it was a real moon rock in the first place?

The only person who could have told them it was a real moon rock, was the ex-PM Drees..

If not, they got the idea from the 'card'.

Anyway, they believed it was a genuine moon rock...

And they knew the moon rock had been a gift to their father (and/or grandfather), too..

It's donated to the museum under the belief it was a genuine moon rock...

And how did the Drees family know who gave their father a 'genuine moon rock'?

How did the Dutch museum know who presented the 'moon rock'?


The ex-PM might have told his family that the 'moon rock' was a gift from Middendorf.

Or they found out by the card, which named Middendorf...


The museum could not know who gave Drees the fake moon rock - unless from the card, or the Drees family mentioning his name.

How else could the museum have contacted Middendorf, right?


The Drees account was totally confirmed by Middendorf, in fact.

Middendorf gave the same story, as Drees, and the Drees family, along the way.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

My opinion? The card and rock were put together by two artists for an exhibit. Everything else is Chinese whispers.

The issue is a fake moon rock was presented under the belief it was genuine.

It isn't relevant to debate about whether or not a card was included, in trying to avoid your main problem

a reply to: turbonium1

The issue is a fake moon rock was presented under the belief it was genuine.

Exactly wrong. The question is whether or not the piece of petrified wood was ever represented to be a Moon rock in the first place.

a reply to: turbonium1

The issue is whether it was even presented, or whether people are mistakenly recalling other events.

There is far more evidence to support my contention that the rock and card were put together by two artists for an exhibition and are entirely unrelated than there is for any claim that it was given by Apollo astronauts on the goodwill tour.

No matter how many times I have requested your proof that the fossil was donated on the goodwill tour you have been unable to provide. All quotes by Middendorf are ambiguous and subject to the effect of time on fading memory.

When you have your proof, please post it.

a reply to: turbonium1

You have no proof whatsoever that anyone from NASA gave that fossil to Drees.

You have no proof whatsoever that Middendorf gave Drees that fossil, unless you include one ambiguously worded supposed quote from a newspaper taken 40+years later. That same newspaper reported the Apollo missions as fact - do you think it's a reliable source?

You have no proof whatsoever that anyone ever claimed or implied the fossil was a lunar sample.

You have no proof whatsoever that Drees' family gave that rock the museum.

You have no proof whatsoever that the card belonged to Drees, or that it as donated to the museum.

You. Have. No. Proof.

originally posted by: turbonium1

Yes, let's assume that quote is everything he recalls of the event , since nothing else is said in the article!!

Get serious, now!

The clarity is what he said about the event - as he is quoted on it, in this article.

so you want to base your entire story on a very incomplete recalling of events??

But, even if we assume NASA had lunar samples capable of being fakes, it doesn't change the fact petrified wood was used to create - at the very least - one fake moon rock....

illogical.. every moon hoax believer is of the opinion that the real moon rocks were all fake, every one of them since they never went to the moon..

so effectively you are contradicting your own beliefs.. they had to use petrified wood to try to pass as a real moon rock when they were clearly capable of making much more realistic ones that are capable of fooling geologists for over 40 years..

It is like asking why would they try to fake more manned moon landings, if they had already fooled the world with the first one?

yes why is that?? why risk faking more than one mission?

As the question why the USSR wouldn't have exposed a hoax, it makes no sense, until you look at their silence on JFK making no sense, a few years earlier...since nothing is that simple, black & white, as we're told it is, in all our history books.

jfk is different only one person needs to shoot.. even if you include all the other shooter theories it still pales in comparison to the amount of effort needed for Apollo..

for Apollo atleast 27 astronauts were directly involved..

For why they'd use petrified wood - it is not meant to be studied - as a sample which you've described.
This fakery is meant to impress, and is never meant to be studied.
Both are meant to fool people, as genuine Apollo lunar samples.

they were capable of making real samples and they used a simple petrified wood.. this claim of yours is completely illogical.. if its so easy for them to make so many real samples that could fool genuine scientists what is a couple more?

The first type - commonly known - is given to the scientific world, for study. Being a genuine sample, it then convinces all the world's scientists that Apollo's claim must be factual. These samples are very small, and not much to look at, but are still genuine samples...

The second type was not known to exist - until recently, that is. It was not meant to become known to exist, in fact. It was not a genuine sample, not meant for any scientists to study. It is given to a politician, and meant to be very impressive to gaze upon, unlike the boring little dust samples, given to scientists.

It didn't work out so well, in the end.

you dont see the fallacy in your own argument??

even if it wasnt meant to exist, why use such an obviously fake moon rock when they were capable of making real ones?? it introduces a huge risk factor..

His account cannot be confirmed by Drees, the only other person who was present at the time.

But all the available evidence is certainly enough to conclude his account is valid.

We know the event took place.

We know Middendorf was at the event.

How do we know?

Can you explain how it is we know about this?

well, YOU know all this because of this one article that says so..

do you know what else the article says?? let me remind you:

The rock was given to Willem Drees, a former Dutch leader, during a global tour by Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin following their moon mission 50 years ago.

cant find it?? apparently the article believes the moon missions occurred 50 years ago and it was published in 2009!! putting the moon landings in 1959..

And, how did the Drees family come to believe it was a real moon rock in the first place?

The only person who could have told them it was a real moon rock, was the ex-PM Drees..

errr.. prove that the Ex-PM even told his family of that he had a moon rock.. every article i have read indicates that his family had no idea of its existance until they found it in his drawer..

And they knew the moon rock had been a gift to their father (and/or grandfather), too..

no they didnt.. they dont know who gave Mr Drees the rock, they guessed.. just like what you have been doing..