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: 47
17
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2015 @ 02:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
You really have sucked Google dry on this one. Any other factoids you think we're short of?


Yes, here's another picture of them before they went to the Moon Travel '69 exhibtion in Amsterdam, 9 October 1969 they still look completely baffled by the "moon" rock





posted on May, 17 2015 @ 02:56 AM
link   
Misunderstanding


edit on 5/17/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/17/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 03:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey


No, they haven't. Drees certainly never confirmed anything, it is not even certain that he donated the fossil, or the card. All we know that is that his family donated his effects to the Rijksmuseum. The two items were allegedly part of that collection. See my post about the drawer.

Middendorf did not confirm that he gave him any rock at all, never mind this specific one. I believe his comments about it concern the event pictured in Ove32's post above. There is more proof to support that than your contention.



Middendorf is quoted in the article, which came from an interview he had done with DOS News.

"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.


You claim the quote above was taken out of context, by the author of the article?

From the same article...

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.


Do you also claim the above comments were all made up by the author, too? Do you think he is fabricating the whole story? Or is he just making up the parts of the story you can't fit into your argument?

Here is a link to the article, btw...

usatoday30.usatoday.com...

Another source, saying much the same thing..

The museum acquired the rock after the death of former Prime Minister Willem Drees in 1988. Drees received it as a private gift on Oct. 9, 1969, from then-U.S. ambassador J. William Middendorf during a visit by the three Apollo 11 astronauts, part of their "Giant Leap" goodwill tour after the first moon landing.

www.telegraph.co.uk...


There are many more sources that posted the very same story, both in English, and in Dutch. They only reworded it, as the examples above.


You now are questioning every one of these sources, do you realize that? Indeed, you are.

You are saying the original article took the quote out of context, for a story that was largely fabricated by the author, and that all the other sources accepted the article as true, without checking out whether or not it WAS true...


This is quite a claim, is it not?

As you like to talk about my lack of proof, it's truly revealing when you make grand, sweeping claims like this, with absolutely no proof to support it...



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 03:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: Ove38
This picture was taken September 15, 1969 They sure look like they have never seen a lunar rock before.




It's a press event for the presentation of an Apollo 11 rock to the Smithsonian. Do please tell us what someone looks like when they have seen a lunar rock before, in your vast experience of this.


The box looks similar to the one given by the astronauts to the Netherlands.

United States Ambassador John William Middendorf and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands


Looks like, but isn't. It's just the way the chose to show them. I posted this the other week. Your point?

Only the base is a bit different, could it be the same manufacturer made the one given to the Smithsonian and the one given to the Netherlands ?


edit on 17-5-2015 by Ove38 because: text fix



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 03:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Ove38

Gee - do you think it's possible that two very similar display cases mounting a lunar rock in the same way were made by the same people?

It's a different display case and a different rock.

What, again, is your point?



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 03:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

Middendorf is quoted in the article, which came from an interview he had done with DOS News.

"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.


Where does it say that Middendorf gave him the rock? Which words there do you interpret as meaning Middendorf gave Drees the fossil?



You claim the quote above was taken out of context, by the author of the article?


I am claiming that the word 'Drees' is put in there after the fact. It does not appear as a direct quote in the version you link to in USA today, it is in brackets.



From the same article...

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.


The only source for that claim is the card that you now claim is irrelevant to your story.

There is no actual evidence other than that card for the claim.

There is no proof that the card and rock are related in any way other than being photographed together in odd circumstances. They do not even appear together in the exhibition that started this, and the card is not in the museum catalog.



Do you also claim the above comments were all made up by the author, too? Do you think he is fabricating the whole story? Or is he just making up the parts of the story you can't fit into your argument?


You are the only person making things up here. Are journalists always 100% accurate in reporting facts? Do they occasionally re-write quotes to fit the story better? What do you think?



Here is a link to the article, btw...

usatoday30.usatoday.com...

Another source, saying much the same thing..

The museum acquired the rock after the death of former Prime Minister Willem Drees in 1988. Drees received it as a private gift on Oct. 9, 1969, from then-U.S. ambassador J. William Middendorf during a visit by the three Apollo 11 astronauts, part of their "Giant Leap" goodwill tour after the first moon landing.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

There are many more sources that posted the very same story, both in English, and in Dutch. They only reworded it, as the examples above.


Wow - all these different news articles with almost identical wording - it's as if they were picking them up from a central news agency type thing and being used to fill up column inches....


You now are questioning every one of these sources, do you realize that? Indeed, you are.


Yes, just as I am your twisted interpretation of words they didn't say into words you wish they had said. In all probability it is one source, adapted for multiple news outlets. Do some research on how news agencies work.


You are saying the original article took the quote out of context, for a story that was largely fabricated by the author, and that all the other sources accepted the article as true, without checking out whether or not it WAS true...


Pretty much bang on. This is how newspapers work. Unless you are going to accept that every news report saying Apollo landing on the moon is a fact are also true and not made up...


This is quite a claim, is it not?

As you like to talk about my lack of proof, it's truly revealing when you make grand, sweeping claims like this, with absolutely no proof to support it...


You have so far posted two news articles that you think is proof, yet they contain no proof whatsoever of your claim.

That is my point. The quotes in the articles appear in slightly different forms in two different sources indicating that someone is filling in the gaps to make it sound better. Even then they do not actually provide solid proof of your claims.

Here it is again:

There is no proof whatsoever that anyone remotely connected with the Apollo 11 goodwill tour gave anyone any kind of rock.

There is no proof whatsoever that anyone ever claimed the the Drees rock was ever lunar in origin.

No proof. None.

I will continue to repeat this until you get it.

edit on 17-5-2015 by onebigmonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 04:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos
so you want to base your entire story on a very incomplete recalling of events??


No, but even if I did, it would be a lot better than what you have, which is absolutely nothing.

I base it on the Drees account, who gave the fake moon rock to the Dutch museum, under the belief it was real.

I base it on the Dutch museum believing it was a real moon rock, by presenting it as a real moon rock for more than a decade.

I base it on Middendorf's account, as well, which completely fits in with the Drees account.

I base it on the Dutch museum investigating it, and verifying the entire story, as true.

I base it on the author who posted the original story, which quoted both the Dutch museum and Middendorf, on the matter.

I base it on every other source who later posted the story afterwards, written in English and Dutch, giving the exact same account as every other source I've mentioned above.


You base your argument on....what, exactly?


originally posted by: choos
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..


Wrong. Some do, and some do not. I do not know, but I think it is possible they did, or could have, to a certain degree.


originally posted by: choos
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 doesn't matter whether or not they were capable of it, since they didn't in this case. That's all that really matters here.


originally posted by: choos
yes why is that?? why risk faking more than one mission?


Money, for one, is enough reason to fake more than one mission. The greatest risk was with attempting one fake landing, period. I think it was riskier to try the first one, alone, than it was for all the subsequent missions - combined. That's because they didn't know if it would work at all, for it had never been attempted before. After it worked out perfectly, they knew they could fake all the subsequent missions with very little risk of being caught..


originally posted by: choos
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..


No, the point is JFK was the ideal opportunity for the USSR to pounce on their great 'enemy' with, but in fact, they did absolutely squat. That proves they were not the great enemy of America, like we were always told.


originally posted by: choos
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..


Faking moon landings would certainly have risks, no doubt, no matter how you slice it.

Again, it doesn't matter what could be faked, so much better, the fact is it was faked that way. And it also worked, which you seem to forget was the whole purpose of doing it, and was the only thing that mattered to the perpetrators.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 04:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
You are the only person making things up here. Are journalists always 100% accurate in reporting facts? Do they occasionally re-write quotes to fit the story better? What do you think?


It comes from several, independent sources, not just one. You think they are all making up the same story, because they are not always 100% accurate?

It is you making things up, I have cited the sources on this. You have created your own twisted version on what took place, without a sliver of proof to back it up.


originally posted by: onebigmonkey
Wow - all these different news articles with almost identical wording - it's as if they were picking them up from a central news agency type thing and being used to fill up column inches....


No, see below and you'll know better.



originally posted by: onebigmonkey
Yes, just as I am your twisted interpretation of words they didn't say into words you wish they had said. In all probability it is one source, adapted for multiple news outlets. Do some research on how news agencies work.


I know many of the Dutch sources had entirely different information than the two sources I posted, which you would know if you took your own advice and did some research.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 06:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos
so you want to base your entire story on a very incomplete recalling of events??


No, but even if I did, it would be a lot better than what you have, which is absolutely nothing.


my story is based on all the evidence that i have read..

your story is based on one quote and made up evidence.. but ofcourse your story is much more accurate..


I base it on the Drees account, who gave the fake moon rock to the Dutch museum, under the belief it was real.


you based it on Drees account?? im sorry but Drees was dead before anyone knew of the rock.. you are suggesting you are basing your story on an account that doesnt exist..

good one


I base it on the Dutch museum believing it was a real moon rock, by presenting it as a real moon rock for more than a decade.


and the museum was mistaken, as the only confirmation given by NASA was that it COULD BE.. not that it was, the only other people that made the connection was his grand children, who had no idea of its existence beforehand..

so you are basing your entire story on confusion.. good one..


I base it on Middendorf's account, as well, which completely fits in with the Drees account.


Drees does not have an account for what happened!!!! he was dead by the time they found the rock dont you understand???
and middendorfs account is not complete..


I base it on the Dutch museum investigating it, and verifying the entire story, as true.


their investigation went as far as phoning up NASA and asking if it was, and their reply was it could be/its possible..


I base it on the author who posted the original story, which quoted both the Dutch museum and Middendorf, on the matter.


they also stated the moon landing occurred in 1959..


I base it on every other source who later posted the story afterwards, written in English and Dutch, giving the exact same account as every other source I've mentioned above.


not really it looks like you are basing it all on one source.. because its the only source you are using.. whereas others have used many sources to prove you wrong..


You base your argument on....what, exactly?


on many news articles.. not just one like you.



Wrong. Some do, and some do not. I do not know, but I think it is possible they did, or could have, to a certain degree.


stop beating around the bush.. you know how illogical your argument is..

are the real moon rocks from the lunar surface or were they made on earth?



It doesn't matter whether or not they were capable of it, since they didn't in this case. That's all that really matters here.


it does matter, but since it destroys your story it doesnt matter anymore..

any logical person can see that if they can make fake lunar rocks to fool genuine geologists for over 40 years, they would have used them in every case, regardless of how trivial the event is.. it is simply too risky to risk such an obvious fakery.



Money, for one, is enough reason to fake more than one mission. The greatest risk was with attempting one fake landing, period. I think it was riskier to try the first one, alone, than it was for all the subsequent missions - combined. That's because they didn't know if it would work at all, for it had never been attempted before. After it worked out perfectly, they knew they could fake all the subsequent missions with very little risk of being caught..


you dont get how risk works do you??

you do it once, it succeeds.. great the risk paid off.. you do it again the risks rises exponentially!! it doesnt become easier as all the risks from the first mission will occur again in the next and the next but now with even more people involved..



No, the point is JFK was the ideal opportunity for the USSR to pounce on their great 'enemy' with, but in fact, they did absolutely squat. That proves they were not the great enemy of America, like we were always told.


you just dont get it..

killing someone takes TWO people at the very minimum.. the shooter and the victim..

faking Apollo will require ATLEAST 27 people.. the more people involved the more likelyhood of the secret being exposed.



Faking moon landings would certainly have risks, no doubt, no matter how you slice it.

Again, it doesn't matter what could be faked, so much better, the fact is it was faked that way. And it also worked, which you seem to forget was the whole purpose of doing it, and was the only thing that mattered to the perpetrators.


if it was faked in the way that you imagine it.. it is simply illogical.. you just dont see it as its your own point of view..

arguing the reasons to fake something does not mean that that is what definitely happened..



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter





originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

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


That is correct. The Apollo astronauts were clowns.



If you look below bobbypurify had already sent the clowns in before you and he kept the biggest one for last




originally posted by: bobbypurify

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

Salute to all the Apollo Reviewers out there including Richard Hoagland, John Lear, Jay Weidner, Rob Ager, John Logsdon, Mark Feeney, William Cooper, Bill Kaysing, Ralph René, Thomas Baron and his family, Gus Grissom and his family, Bart Sibrel, Jack White, David Percy, and many, many more.



Please reply to this post with the names of other important Apollo Reviewers.


Sayonara Jupiter, Ove, Webstra, Me, FoosM, Turbonium...

...Duhn Duhn duhn....JARRAH WHITE



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 07:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

It comes from several, independent sources, not just one. You think they are all making up the same story, because they are not always 100% accurate?


They all tell the same story. Using pretty much the same words. The USA Today story has this at the bottom:

"Copyright 2009 The Associated Press"

Know who AP are? Do some research.

All the reports have the same quotes from the museum, and also the same Middendorf quote if they bother to use that. You know, the one where he doesn't actually say he gave him the fossil and where Drees' name is dropped in by the journalist. If you read it carefully, it's not even a first hand quote from Middendorf, it's a report of a report.


It is you making things up, I have cited the sources on this.


No. You have repeatedly cited two news reports containing identical information, neither of which say what you claim they say. No matter how many times you claim they confirm your story, they do nothing of the sort.


You have created your own twisted version on what took place, without a sliver of proof to back it up.


I have provided evidence to back my version of events, spent good money on the exhibition handbook, provided photographs from it, and pointed out the gaping holes in your claims. Sorry about that.


I know many of the Dutch sources had entirely different information than the two sources I posted, which you would know if you took your own advice and did some research.


Then let's see them. I've been requesting proof from you no for pages and pages of discussion on this subject, now it seems you have some but haven't posted them?

Let's see your Dutch sources and what they say. Let's see if they confirm from Middendorf's own mouth that he gave Drees the rock. Let's see someone confirm that it was claimed to be a lunar rock. Let's hear from Drees' family that they definitely gave that rock and card to the museum and always knew about it.

Until you do:

There is no proof whatsoever that anyone remotely connected with the Apollo 11 goodwill tour gave anyone any kind of rock.

There is no proof whatsoever that anyone ever claimed that the Drees rock was ever lunar in origin.

No proof. None.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Ove38

Same display case and same rock in Prague later the same year:



(From 'Marketing the Moon')



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Ove38


Shortly after taking office in 1969, President Richard Nixon appointed Middendorf as United States Ambassador to the Netherlands. Middendorf served in this position from July 1969 until June 1973.


Richard Nixon thanks you for remembering him in the Apollo timelines.

Middendorf was Ambassador to the Netherlands July 9, 1969 – June 10, 1973.
Frank Borman had just returned from a trip to Soviet Russia with his family in early July 1969.

Middendorf's next job was "After returning to the U.S., he became Under Secretary of the Navy; " - Wiki
August 3, 1973 – June 20, 1974

Middendorf's next job was "soon enough he had been nominated and confirmed as Secretary of the Navy, serving until the end of the Administration of President Gerald Ford." - Wiki, but he was actually sworn in under Richard Nixon on April 8, 1974, if these dates on wiki are correct.
April 8, 1974 – January 20, 1977

Middendorf's next job was "During the Carter presidency, Middendorf was back in the private sector, as President and Chief Executive Officer of Financial General Bankshares " - Wiki

Middendorf's next job was "Next, he headed the CIA transition team (1980) for incoming President Ronald Reagan and was then named Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the Organization of American States (OAS), with the rank of Ambassador." - Wiki

Middendorf lived in Greenwich, Connecticut and was a neighbor of Prescott "Poppy" Bush.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

for obvious reasons Middendorf can neither confirm nor deny the totality of his actual various nefarious moon rock activities ...



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: choos


faking Apollo will require ATLEAST 27 people.. the more people involved the more likelyhood of the secret being exposed.


What happened to your 400,000 fallacy? You know, the fallacy that Apollo Defenders used to say that the 400,000 individuals working on the Apollo moon landing program had to be in on a hoax?

Now you are down to 27 people? LOLOLOLOLOL.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: choos


faking Apollo will require ATLEAST 27 people.. the more people involved the more likelyhood of the secret being exposed.


What happened to your 400,000 fallacy? You know, the fallacy that Apollo Defenders used to say that the 400,000 individuals working on the Apollo moon landing program had to be in on a hoax?

Now you are down to 27 people? LOLOLOLOLOL.


At least he is going in the right direction :-).

I wouldn't be surprised if an apollogist tell that every people who watched the moonlanding on tv was involved.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Misinformation
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

for obvious reasons Middendorf can neither confirm nor deny the totality of his actual various nefarious moon rock activities ...


Obviously Middendorf is not just some guy Nixon picked up to be the Ambassador to Netherlands. He was a long time Republican party insider, wealthy banker, Bush family connections, etc. Middendorf was the Ambassador to the Organization of American States during the 1980's when under Reagan / Bush - as we all know in history - this was a time of gun running, drug running, terrorist violence and political assassination because of American interventionist policies in Central America.

The Middendorf story is starting to turn a little darker don't you think? I mean, when the New York Times says Middendorf was CIA, weellllllllll, that is definitely a red flag for an Apollo Reviewer. His connection to the DFMR scandal is then seen in a totally new and different context.

www.nytimes.com...



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   
As Apollo Reviewers we have the freedom to examine, in detail, Middendorf's possible motives in the DFMR scandal.

To wit, he spoke and revealed his world view, in 1984,


He said the Soviets have promoted violence in Central America and the Mideast “through a network of surrogates and terrorists. For this reason, the Jewish community and Americans in general need to devote careful attention to Central America which, like the Mideast, is vital to our national security.”


Wow, it turns out Middendorf eventually played a big role in hyping up the threat of Communism in Central America.


Middendorf noted that in Central America today a battle is being waged by “atheistic Communism to destroy our Judeo-Christian civilization.” He said that Communism in Central America is facing opposition from religious people — and therefore the church is often Communism’s target. He cited Nicaragua as an example, stating:
“Among the most out spoken anti-Sandinista forces in Nicaragua have been some of the churches and clergy in that country … The Sandinistas have made the religious institutions of their country a principal target of their activity and propoganda.” Source www.jta.org...


Wow, that is a hard core anti Communist rhetoric! Middendorf is suddenly a much more unsympathetic character in my view. Middendorf is clearly educated in the mindset and vernacular of the Cold War intelligence & national security establishments. He didn't come about his position as US Ambassador to the OAS by being disloyal to the people whom he served.

If Middendorf was working for the CIA at the time of the DFMR astronaut visit - it would cast a new shadow over the DFMR scandal and how it unfolded.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter


The Middendorf story is starting to turn a little darker don't you think? I mean, when the New York Times says Middendorf was CIA, weellllllllll, that is definitely a red flag for an Apollo Reviewer.


The New York Times also said Apollo 11 landed on the Moon. Why are they suddenly a credible source. Oh, incidentally, there were (and still are) Marxist "revolutionaries" in Latin America. The Sandinistas eventually came to power in Nicaragua and governed so poorly that they were eventually voted out in a popular election. I know anyone who doesn't think Stalin was a great guy is unlikable in your eyes but, once again, the NYT said man landed on the Moon. You can't pick and choose.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter


The Middendorf story is starting to turn a little darker don't you think? I mean, when the New York Times says Middendorf was CIA, weellllllllll, that is definitely a red flag for an Apollo Reviewer.


The New York Times also said Apollo 11 landed on the Moon. Why are they suddenly a credible source. Oh, incidentally, there were (and still are) Marxist "revolutionaries" in Latin America. The Sandinistas eventually came to power in Nicaragua and governed so poorly that they were eventually voted out in a popular election. I know anyone who doesn't think Stalin was a great guy is unlikable in your eyes but, once again, the NYT said man landed on the Moon. You can't pick and choose.


'Credible sources' like New York Times don't lie ALL the time. That would be very stupid...



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join