Disclosure of the Moon Landing Hoax: Part 2

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

the argument of missing tapes ONLY applies to the apollo 11 mission - so does that mean you accept the veracity of A 12 ~ 17 ? because the pack up tapes for those are availiable

lastly - your other " arguments " have nothing to do with the veracity of the apollo program

Let's turn the table, do you accept A 11 was hoax ?

a reply to: Ove38

no - because of the overwhelming evidence for the apollo missions

i brought this up to highlight the intulectual dishonesty and hipocrisy of the appollo hoax believers

the " argument " was made that the missing appollo 11 backup tapes was evidence that apollo 11 was a hoax - thus the question

edit to add :

it was actually you - with this " gem " :

The missing tapes prove that something is wrong with the Apollo 11 story.

so does the availiability of the A12~17 backup tapes prove there is nothing wrong with the A12~17 story ?????????????????

thats your own " logic " accept it - or move the goal posts - again

a reply to: ignorant_ape

They have the goal posts on wheels haven't you noticed. The hoax believers have to attack 1 specific but never look at the total evidence. It's very much like this.

See apollo hoax believers never look at anything in there entirety only 1 small part. That's why the goal posts move they can't argue 99.9 percent of it. So that .1 percent becomes critical. Like when the astronauts make a mistake which if it was faked logic dictates mistakes wouldn't happen. Reminds me of people that just can't seem to grasp anything in its entirety.

originally posted by: dragonridr

They have the goal posts on wheels haven't you noticed. The hoax believers have to attack 1 specific but never look at the total evidence.

I am realizing this now. They have to attack minor details because there are no big picture theories about how a hoax like this would have been pulled off that would pass anyone's laugh test.

originally posted by: choos
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..

You have read "all" the evidence, with nothing to support your claim!

The quote is valid evidence, with all the evidence supporting it.

originally posted by: choos
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..

You know I'm referring to the Drees' family account , so please cut the crap.

originally posted by: choos
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..

Why would the museum still think it was a real moon rock, then?

You always go on about how NASA never gave out any moon rocks...

NASA said it "could be" a moon rock, which means you made up a BS claim.

originally posted by: choos
and middendorfs account is not complete..

It's more than enough to raise serious questions, in fact.

originally posted by: choos
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.

You conclude they (ie: NASA) would never do such a thing - you assume they don't need to, you assume they could easily fool people with real moon rocks...

Do you realize what you are saying - that NASA was totally capable of faking all moon rocks, even the scientists would be fooled by them!

If they COULD fool the scientists with real moon rocks, it's possible they DID fool the scientists with fakes, as well!

That's where your argument comes in - NASA didn't need to create fakes from petrified wood, because they had real moon rocks, to use in any fraud. Since this fake was just petrified wood, that means NASA could not have been involved.

You are wrong, it means no such thing.

As I told you, this fake moon rock was never meant to fool scientists. Even if we assume they didn't need to use petrified wood to pass off a fake moon rock, what is the PURPOSE of a fake?

They would also have a limited supply of real moon rocks for fakes, and might need to set them aside for future scientists to study.

Many factors could be in play, beyond that

It might have been a stupid thing, and not logical at all - just like you suggest.

Which means it was all a stupid mistake - after all, we humans can make incredibly stupid mistakes, it happens all the time.


No excuses for what they did.

originally posted by: choos

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..

The first attempt to hoax a manned moon landing was riskier than all the other missions afterwards ....combined.

It should be said all of these missions were nearly perfect to use in a hoax, as it was impossible for anyone to verify they actually happened as NASA claimed.

A manned moon landing has to be taken on NASA's word, as we cannot prove it ourselves.


The first mission has to convince everyone around the world that men went to the moon, and landed on the moon, and walked on the moon. And they all returned to Earth, safe and sound.

All three astronauts must say they landed on the moon, 'til death.

NASA had no idea if the world would be fooled or not, as such a hoax had never been attempted, before.

How would NASA know if the astronauts would keep it all in secret? What if they spilled the beans?


It worked, to perfection.

That's why they knew it would work for all the later missions.

The risk was in first doing the hoax. It was not more risky to do it later, it was less risky. They knew what risks were involved, based on the first mission being hoaxed. So later missions were more refined, they only improved in hoaxing it.

originally posted by: turbonium1

You have read "all" the evidence, with nothing to support your claim!

The quote is valid evidence, with all the evidence supporting it.

no it isnt.. the quotes you mined are all the same from one single source being copied and pasted without any checking.. you know this because it says that the moon landings happened 50 years ago from 2009, putting the moon landing in 1959..

good sources!!

You know I'm referring to the Drees' family account , so please cut the crap.

drees family was never part of the passing of the rock.. not even close, they only knew of the rock when they found it in the drawer.. so if you are basing your story on the drees family account that you are basing your story on misinformation, because they are just guessing..

originally posted by: choos
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..

Why would the museum still think it was a real moon rock, then?

because the drees family told them so..

You always go on about how NASA never gave out any moon rocks...

NASA said it "could be" a moon rock, which means you made up a BS claim.

NASA gave real moon rocks as gift to the netherlands.. what the netherlands did with those rocks NASA never kept track of, they didnt need to.. NASA knew netherlands had some real moon rocks, so it is very possible that this museum could have had one of those..

get it??

It's more than enough to raise serious questions, in fact.

so one old mans incomplete fuzzy account of an incident that may or may not have happened is enough to raise serious questions??

You conclude they (ie: NASA) would never do such a thing - you assume they don't need to, you assume they could easily fool people with real moon rocks...

theres no logical reason to do so, when they had the ability to make examples that can fool trained professionals for over 40 years.

Do you realize what you are saying - that NASA was totally capable of faking all moon rocks, even the scientists would be fooled by them!

If they COULD fool the scientists with real moon rocks, it's possible they DID fool the scientists with fakes, as well!

you dont follow what im saying.. if they were capable of faking moon rocks of the caliber that can fool trained professionals why use petrified wood as a fake moon rock at all??

That's where your argument comes in - NASA didn't need to create fakes from petrified wood, because they had real moon rocks, to use in any fraud. Since this fake was just petrified wood, that means NASA could not have been involved.

half right, if they had the capability to fake moon rocks that can fool professionals then why resort to petrified wood? there is simply no logical reasonto do so.

You are wrong, it means no such thing.

oh ofcourse because you said so..

As I told you, this fake moon rock was never meant to fool scientists. Even if we assume they didn't need to use petrified wood to pass off a fake moon rock, what is the PURPOSE of a fake?

not meant to fool scientists.. but what if the drees family had someone that knew a bit about geology?? you are painting NASA like they were deliberately trying to get caught faking the moon landings.. it doesnt make any sense.

They would also have a limited supply of real moon rocks for fakes, and might need to set them aside for future scientists to study.

they would?? who says you?? you hoax believers made the impression that it was easy to make..

Many factors could be in play, beyond that

It might have been a stupid thing, and not logical at all - just like you suggest.

Which means it was all a stupid mistake - after all, we humans can make incredibly stupid mistakes, it happens all the time.

No excuses for what they did.

atleast you realise that your story is completely illogical..

originally posted by: choos

so one old mans incomplete fuzzy account of an incident that may or may not have happened is enough to raise serious questions??

Yes, indeed.

The US government would be involved in a fraud, by his account.


You cannot support his account being false, or being incoherent, or he's just a confused old man who doesn't remember his own name.

You want his account to be anything but the truth.... why is that?


Do you fear it possibly being the truth, so much?

Sad, so very sad.

originally posted by: turbonium1

Yes, indeed.

The US government would be involved in a fraud, by his account.

it depends, how do you know that he was referring to the Drees rock and not the actual lunar rock shown to the netherlands a few month later? how do you know that he isnt confusing these two??

You cannot support his account being false, or being incoherent, or he's just a confused old man who doesn't remember his own name.

sources from 1969 dont mention any rocks given out during the good will tour.. Rob48 posted one article that mentioned the first rock moon rock given as a gift was a few months after the good will tour..

drees was not even present during the goodwill tour.. i believe drees was present when middendorf showed the queen and drees a real lunar rock several months after the goodwill tour.

You want his account to be anything but the truth.... why is that?

Do you fear it possibly being the truth, so much?

because your story is wrong.. you cant back up anything of your story at all.. the only thing you have is a quote from middendorf and you cant even support that quote with other sources..

the only sources that support that quote is from sources copy pasting from the same source..

simple question when was the Apollo11 lunar mission 1959 or 1969?? why does two of your sources indicate that the Apollo 11 landing occurred during 1959??

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

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..

The first attempt to hoax a manned moon landing was riskier than all the other missions afterwards ....combined.

It should be said all of these missions were nearly perfect to use in a hoax, as it was impossible for anyone to verify they actually happened as NASA claimed.

your opinion.. so no one can verify it happened but you believe you can prove it was faked??

That's why they knew it would work for all the later missions.

The risk was in first doing the hoax. It was not more risky to do it later, it was less risky. They knew what risks were involved, based on the first mission being hoaxed. So later missions were more refined, they only improved in hoaxing it.

ummm.. so what you are suggesting was that Apollo 11 fakery was a test and seeing the success of Apollo 11 fakery they continued with Apollo 12, 13, 14.. etc.

they measured the success of the hoax within 5 months.. as well as improving the imagery and introducing colour..

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: dragonridr

They have the goal posts on wheels haven't you noticed. The hoax believers have to attack 1 specific but never look at the total evidence.

I am realizing this now. They have to attack minor details because there are no big picture theories about how a hoax like this would have been pulled off that would pass anyone's laugh test.

All six "moon" landings during Richard Nixon's first term .... just a minor detail is it? Not big picture enough?

Like many other Americans, Nixon quickly lost interest in continuing Apollo flights to the moon. As early as December 1969, after the first two lunar landings, he remarked that "he did not see the need to go to the moon six more times." When the Apollo 12 crew visited the White House that month, mission commander Pete Conrad came away "disappointed and disillusioned." Source John M. Logsdon "After Apollo?" p.282

On May 18 [1970], he [RN] asked Ehrlichman "did you get those moon shots knocked off?" Ehrlichman replied "we're working on it." Nixon suggested "do your best." Source Logsdon, p.180

Speaking of laugh test we should be laughing at those claims of Wernher von Braun, George Mueller, Tom Paine and others who were lobbying for a Apollo-derived, manned Mars missions in the 1980's, space tugs and space stations with 50 man crews! What comedy!!

Then there is Nixon, the puppet-master of the 71-72-73 budget, fidgeting over a billion dollars in the space budget YET he always has a billion dollars to bomb Laos, Cambodia or North Viet Nam. Hilarious!!

The space shuttle decision (with arm twisting and sand bagging by his long list of budget cronies) kept USA in low earth orbit for 40 years... didn't they estimate 40-50 shuttle launches per year? Those laughable space experts... they were joking around!! So many fingers in the pie, STG, OMB, let's not forget how Nixon placed "space" in the bucket belonging to the new "Domestic Council" run by his royal hound, Ehrlichman!!

Apollo Defenders should read Logsdon's book because 1. Logsdon is a moon landing believer and 2. he takes the big picture on Nixon's Apollo, which is something that Apollo Defenders have failed to take seriously and 3. he also takes the insider perspective with regard examining the years long processes of ratcheting down NASA's budget, shutting down Saturn V production and the nullification of NASA's fantasy of manned Mars missions in the 1980's.

I find it's a lot more interesting and fun to review the Apollo narrative from sources other than NASA because we all know what the official narrative is. And when a book like Logsdon's comes out the Apollo Defenders ought to be ready to go along with the final conclusion of it ... which is that Richard Nixon's Space Doctrine (i.e. space is a domestic concern) was his ultimate legacy to US space exploration, to wit, cancel Apollo and stay in low earth orbit for forty plus years.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

non of which has any bearing on the veracity of the apollo program

a reply to: choos

simple question when was the Apollo11 lunar mission 1959 or 1969?? why does two of your sources indicate that the Apollo 11 landing occurred during 1959??

"Standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona such a Fine site to see"

Could be as early as 1952

originally posted by: choos
it depends, how do you know that he was referring to the Drees rock and not the actual lunar rock shown to the netherlands a few month later? how do you know that he isnt confusing these two??

I know it doesn't fit with his description..

"I do remember that (Drees) was very interested in the little piece of stone," the NOS quoted Middendorf as saying. "But that it's not real, I don't know anything about that."

If Middendorf was referring to the 'official' moon rock, you're saying he specifically recalls Drees being there, and was very interested in the 'little piece of stone'. Why would Drees be mentioned, among all the people who were present, and why would he mentionl Drees being "very interested" in it, among all the people who would also be interested in the piece? Middendorf is singling out Drees, and his reaction?

How do you even know if Middendorf and Drees were both present at the official presentation to the Netherlands?

And why would Middendorf say he knows nothing of it (the moon rock) not being real? That makes zero sense in your scenario. Do you think he's referring to the official moon rock, as not being real?

originally posted by: choos
sources from 1969 dont mention any rocks given out during the good will tour.. Rob48 posted one article that mentioned the first rock moon rock given as a gift was a few months after the good will tour..

Sources WOULD NOT mention any 'moon rocks' given out during the goodwill tour.

The official story, and you, say that no moon rocks were given out at that time. But, we know they gave out this 'moon rock', in a private ceremony.

No rocks were given out in public, this was private. Different thing.

originally posted by: choos
drees was not even present during the goodwill tour.. i believe drees was present when middendorf showed the queen and drees a real lunar rock several months after the goodwill tour.

This goes to your earlier point...

Whether or not Drees and Middendorf were both present for the 'official' event, I've already explained why the quote does not fit to this scenario.

Also, how do you know Drees was not present during the goodwill tour?


I asked you..

"You want his account to be anything but the truth.... why is that?

Do you fear it possibly being the truth, so much?"

originally posted by: choos
because your story is wrong.. you cant back up anything of your story at all.. the only thing you have is a quote from middendorf and you cant even support that quote with other sources..

I asked why you want his account to be anything but the truth...

You replied - because MY story is wrong...?!?

It is his account, not mine.

Again - why do you want the account to be anything but the truth?

Perhaps 'You can't handle the truth' fits in here...

It would mean fakes (ie: a fake moon rock) were used to convince people Apollo was genuine. That is why you say it cannot be true.

We can't hide from the truth, however.

originally posted by: choos
the only sources that support that quote is from sources copy pasting from the same source..

Iirc, there are other sources, so I'll try and confirm it ..

originally posted by: choos
simple question when was the Apollo11 lunar mission 1959 or 1969?? why does two of your sources indicate that the Apollo 11 landing occurred during 1959??

The 1959 is a typo, most likely, copied to another source.

We already know news sources often use the same, single report, either unchanged, or edited/revised in varying degrees.

My point is - they are different sources, no matter if they copy/paste the same, single report, or not. All that matters is whether or not it is an accurate, valid report.

a reply to: turbonium1

why are you attempting to claim that middenorfs answers to different questions are talking about the same thing ?

he is asked about his meating with drees .

and asked another question about the provenence of the petrified wood

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: turbonium1

why are you attempting to claim that middenorfs answers to different questions are talking about the same thing ?

he is asked about his meating with drees .

and asked another question about the provenence of the petrified wood

Look again...

"I do remember that (Drees) was very interested in the little piece of stone," the NOS quoted Middendorf as saying. "But that it's not real, I don't know anything about that."

The second sentence "But that it's not real..." is a continuation of his reply, following the first sentence. 'But that it ('the little piece of stone') is not real...'.


Why are you attempting to claim they are two completely separate answers?

originally posted by: turbonium1 among all the people who would also be interested in the piece? Middendorf is singling out Drees, and his reaction?

so you think that maybe they didnt mention Drees at all and middendorf just put him into the picture randomly?

How do you even know if Middendorf and Drees were both present at the official presentation to the Netherlands?

correction, i dont think Drees was present during any official lunar rock presentations.

And why would Middendorf say he knows nothing of it (the moon rock) not being real? That makes zero sense in your scenario. Do you think he's referring to the official moon rock, as not being real?

he could be, its hard to say, you need to keep in mind he is an ambassador not a geologist.

if he couldnt tell that the petrified wood was not a real moon rock then its likely he would also think that the real lunar rock was fake when a reporter tells him so..

Sources WOULD NOT mention any 'moon rocks' given out during the goodwill tour.

because no moon rocks was ever given out during the goodwill tour..

The official story, and you, say that no moon rocks were given out at that time. But, we know they gave out this 'moon rock', in a private ceremony.

you have yet to prove that Middendorf gave it to Drees

No rocks were given out in public, this was private. Different thing.

so how do you know it was given by Middendorf to Drees?? were you there??

This goes to your earlier point...

Whether or not Drees and Middendorf were both present for the 'official' event, I've already explained why the quote does not fit to this scenario.

ofcourse it doesnt fit into your scenario.. when you start making stuff up for your scenario not alot makes sense..

Also, how do you know Drees was not present during the goodwill tour?

because there is no mention of him being present.. only fabrication of events puts him there at the good will tour.. Drees never met with any of the Apollo 11 astronauts..

I asked you..

"You want his account to be anything but the truth.... why is that?

Do you fear it possibly being the truth, so much?"

its not his account, its YOUR account, its full of YOUR fabrication.. how can i possibly believe YOUR story that YOU fabricated with fabricated events??

start proving your story and maybe you might have a point.

I asked why you want his account to be anything but the truth...

You replied - because MY story is wrong...?!?

It is his account, not mine.

Again - why do you want the account to be anything but the truth?

Perhaps 'You can't handle the truth' fits in here...

no its your story, he gave his account.. and you twisted it with events that have yet to be proven.. get it?

It would mean fakes (ie: a fake moon rock) were used to convince people Apollo was genuine. That is why you say it cannot be true.

We can't hide from the truth, however.

first things first prove your version of events..

Iirc, there are other sources, so I'll try and confirm it ..

yea all repeating the same thing, mostly all copy and pasting the same things..

The 1959 is a typo, most likely, copied to another source.

We already know news sources often use the same, single report, either unchanged, or edited/revised in varying degrees.

My point is - they are different sources, no matter if they copy/paste the same, single report, or not. All that matters is whether or not it is an accurate, valid report.

no they are not different sources, they originate from one source.. they copy and pasted the same stuff.. they didnt do any of their own research and its blatantly evident..

originally posted by: choos

its not his account, its YOUR account, its full of YOUR fabrication.. how can i possibly believe YOUR story that YOU fabricated with fabricated events??

no its your story, he gave his account.. and you twisted it with events that have yet to be proven.. get it?

You don't get it -

It is NOT my story. I am not the source of this story, it is not my article.

The article states that Middendorf gave the fake moon rock to Drees, during the Apollo 11 goodwill tour. I did not fabricate this statement. It is in the article.

Same as the rest of the story is from the article, not me. The article quoted Middendorf, from NOS News, not me.

I have twisted nothing of the story, it is exact same story as written in the article.


This is the article, in its entirety...

AMSTERDAM (AP) — It's not green cheese, but it might as well be.
The Dutch national museum said Thursday that one of its prized possessions, a rock supposedly brought back from the moon by U.S. astronauts, is just a piece of petrified wood.

Rijksmuseum spokeswoman Xandra van Gelder, who oversaw the investigation that proved the piece was a fake, said the museum will keep it anyway as a curiosity.

"It's a good story, with some questions that are still unanswered," she said. "We can laugh about it."

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.

Middendorf, who lives in Rhode Island, told Dutch broadcaster NOS news that he had gotten the rock from the U.S. State Department, but couldn't recall the exact details.

"I do remember that (Drees) was very interested in the little piece of stone," the NOS quoted Middendorf as saying. "But that it's not real, I don't know anything about that."

He could not immediately be reached for comment Thursday.

The U.S. Embassy in the Hague said it was investigating the matter.

The museum had vetted the moon rock with a phone call to NASA, Van Gelder said.

She said the space agency told the museum then that it was possible the Netherlands had received a rock: NASA gave moon rocks to more than 100 countries in the early 1970s, but those were from later missions.

"Apparently no one thought to doubt it, since it came from the prime minister's collection," Van Gelder said.

The rock is not usually on display; the museum is primarily known for its paintings and other works of fine art by masters, such as Rembrandt.

A jagged fist-size stone with reddish tints, it was mounted and placed above a plaque that said, "With the compliments of the Ambassador of the United States of America ... to commemorate the visit to The Netherlands of the Apollo-11 astronauts." The plaque does not specify that the rock came from the moon's surface.

It was given at the opening of an exhibition on space exploration.

It was on show in 2006 and a space expert informed the museum it was unlikely NASA would have given away any moon rocks three months after Apollo returned to Earth.

Researchers from Amsterdam's Free University said they could see at a glance the rock was probably not from the moon. They followed the initial appraisal up with extensive testing.

"It's a nondescript, pretty-much-worthless stone," Geologist Frank Beunk concluded in an article published by the museum.

He said the rock, which the museum at one point insured for more than half a million dollars, was worth no more than euro50 ($70).

Van Gelder said one important unanswered question is why Drees was given the stone. He was 83 years old in 1969 and had been out of office for 11 years. On the other hand, he was the country's elder statesman, the prime minister who helped the Netherlands rebuild after World War II.

Middendorf was treasurer of the Republic National Committee from 1965 until 1969, when President Richard Nixon dispatched him to the Netherlands.

usatoday30.usatoday.com...


That is the story you think I fabricated and twisted.

You thought wrong.

a reply to: turbonium1

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.

the idea that the two items were related was formed by Drees grandchildren, the museum assumed incorrectly that the two items were related..

and you are still using the same quotes, copy pasted quotes.. you are still using the same source as before.. why dont you try sources from 1969/1970??

you have taken one quote regardless of whether or not its accurate to what happened, and fabricated a story around it.

Let's address some of the points in the article...

The museum acquired the rock after the death of former Prime Minister Willem Drees in 1988.

The above sentence we'd agree to be true, yes?

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. ?

Do you claim any part of the above is true, or do you believe it is completely false?

If you claim it is false, then what evidence do you have to support this claim? Saying it is false because you believe Drees was not there at the time, or makes no sense he would be receiving a moon rock, because no moon rocks were given out during the goodwill tour, are not considered to be evidence, btw.

Middendorf, who lives in Rhode Island, told Dutch broadcaster NOS news that he had gotten the rock from the U.S. State Department, but couldn't recall the exact details.

Do you think this was fabricated, too? Do you think Middendorf told NOS news that he got the rock from the US State Department?

If so, what evidence do you have to support that claim?

"I do remember that (Drees) was very interested in the little piece of stone," the NOS quoted Middendorf as saying. "But that it's not real, I don't know anything about that."

Do you claim the above is completely fabricated, or any part of it? Do you think that Middendorf even spoke to NOS news, or do you think that was also made up?

If you think the quotes are genuine, do you think they were deliberately taken out of context, from two completely different points, and seamlessly spliced together, to fit with the rest of the story/article?


If so, where is your evidence for it?