Disclosure of the Moon Landing Hoax: Part 2

originally posted by: turbonium1

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.

by the fact that this idea was formed by Drees grandchildren, the idea that the rock and card were related.

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

he would have received a large lunar rock from the US state department to show the Netherlands a few months after the goodwill tour..

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?

he would have spoken to NOS news but like has been said earlier.. his memory of the events is unclear.. the reporter told him the lunar rock he gave to the netherlands was faked, and as far as he might know the only lunar rock he gave the netherlands was a the large one a few months after the goodwill tour..

how do you know he hasnt mixed up these events when he isnt sure of the details?

originally posted by: choos
by the fact that this idea was formed by Drees grandchildren, the idea that the rock and card were related.

It's their idea? You have any evidence of this? No, you came up with that "idea", right?

originally posted by: choos
he would have received a large lunar rock from the US state department to show the Netherlands a few months after the goodwill tour..

As usual, no evidence to support your claim.

originally posted by: choos
he would have spoken to NOS news but like has been said earlier.. his memory of the events is unclear.. the reporter told him the lunar rock he gave to the netherlands was faked, and as far as he might know the only lunar rock he gave the netherlands was a the large one a few months after the goodwill tour..

His memory is clear enough to recall the event, not an excuse for his inability to recall the 'exact details' of a previous event - his getting the 'rock' from the State Dept.. And even then, he recalls who gave it to him.

He is not confused about giving Drees the 'rock'. He even noted how interested Drees was in getting "the little piece of stone".

Saying he is unclear, his memory is fuzzy, and so on, does not hold up. It is just an attempt to dismiss his account, because you cannot admit it is the truth, or even admit it MIGHT be the truth.

Truth is not a horrible monster, it is a good thing. Whether you like it or not, some day, you will have to face up to it.

originally posted by: choos
how do you know he hasnt mixed up these events when he isnt sure of the details?

He is not sure of the exact details of a completely different event - his receiving of the 'rock'. He knows the State Dept gave it to him, however.

Trying to make it look like he is all mixed up about everything, because he isn't sure of the exact details of a single event, is pure nonsense.


It has to be taken as a true account, unless there is a valid reason to doubt it. To be unsure of the exact details of a specific event from 40 years ago has nothing to do with a fuzzy memory. I'd like to know how many events you can recall , in exact detail, from just 5, or 10, or 20 years ago... Because if you cannot do that, it shows you are mixed up, confused, and have a fuzzy memory!!

You should get the point, by now...

originally posted by: turbonium1

It's their idea? You have any evidence of this? No, you came up with that "idea", right?

yes its their idea, they were the ones who found the card and the rock in the same drawer..

are you saying that they saw the two items and decided that they were completely unrelated???

As usual, no evidence to support your claim.

umm.. OBMonkey has shown you this already.. it isnt my fault that you chose ignorance towards it.

His memory is clear enough to recall the event, not an excuse for his inability to recall the 'exact details' of a previous event - his getting the 'rock' from the State Dept.. And even then, he recalls who gave it to him.

he recalls who gave it to him?? show me one article that says this.. all i have read is that he said the US state department gave it to him not whom.. if you cant provide this you are making stuff up again.

He is not confused about giving Drees the 'rock'. He even noted how interested Drees was in getting "the little piece of stone".

so was the acting PM when he showed the real lunar rock to him a few months after the goodwill tour.. just as pointed out by OBMonkey again, how do you know he isnt confusing the two?

Saying he is unclear, his memory is fuzzy, and so on, does not hold up. It is just an attempt to dismiss his account, because you cannot admit it is the truth, or even admit it MIGHT be the truth.

Truth is not a horrible monster, it is a good thing. Whether you like it or not, some day, you will have to face up to it.

pity that you have to rely on a fuzzy memory of events and pin all your hopes on it without any backing evidence..

all you have is one quote from an old man trying to remember something from 40+ years ago.. and nothing else..

He is not sure of the exact details of a completely different event - his receiving of the 'rock'. He knows the State Dept gave it to him, however.

you said he even knew who gave it to him just earlier..

Trying to make it look like he is all mixed up about everything, because he isn't sure of the exact details of a single event, is pure nonsense.

It has to be taken as a true account, unless there is a valid reason to doubt it. To be unsure of the exact details of a specific event from 40 years ago has nothing to do with a fuzzy memory. I'd like to know how many events you can recall , in exact detail, from just 5, or 10, or 20 years ago... Because if you cannot do that, it shows you are mixed up, confused, and have a fuzzy memory!!

You should get the point, by now...

why does it have to be taken as a true account?? in 1969 there was no official rocks given to anyone during the goodwill tour.. a moon rock of that size, if real, would have been invaluable..

why would Middendorf believe that giving such a valuable gift to someone who had been out of office for 11 years, with no publicity what-so-ever, be such a normal thing??

they presented a real lunar rock to show the netherlands a few months after the goodwill tour, they didnt invite Drees with his much larger rock.. Middendorf was even in attendance he never mentioned Drees and his rock..

why are you ignoring all these points??

you take one quote that you think proves something nefarious and completely ignore everything else..

I go away for a weekend and a bit like my cat's dinner things are still being regurgitated ad nauseum:

originally posted by: turbonium1
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?

It's the only thing that is factually certain in this whole story.

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.

It is false. There is no evidence whatsoever that any rock was given by anyone to anyone during the goodwill tour. Drees was not there, it makes no sense for him to get one, and no rocks were give out. Drees appears in no photographs, TV footage or guest lists. Logic, reason, and lack of supporting evidence for your claim completely rule out your version of events.

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?

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Middendorf believes he is discussing the fossil in question?

"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?

We have a source that says Middendorf spoke to NOS, but nothing from NOS directly. We do not, therefore, know exactly what was said, or if we hear his words spoken directly or just related to us.

We do not know if he was referring to Drees or whether the reporter inferred that, and we do not know if Middendorf believed he was referring to the genuine lunar rock presented to the Netherlands by the US Government or the one that visited the Netherlands on tour to Rotterdam in 1970.

You have absolutely nothing concrete to base a story on other than a vague newspaper report. You don't even have anything remotely wispy.

If so, where is your evidence for it?

Oh the irony...

Hopefully to shine a light on the sources for the claims, I'm not going to translate things one on one here, but please ask if you have requests.
I'll try to keep this post as 'unbiased' as possible and add any comments/thoughts myself in a post later on...


The NOS story has been published on their website and it was also a short item in the tv news.

The original story can't be found on the current website, but is archived:
Maansteen_blijkt_versteend_hout

The origin/reason for this news item was because in that month (I think it was August 2009) an article was published in "Oog". It is a magazine published by the Rijksmuseum. The complete magazine was about fake/forgery.


However the Rijksmuseum never found out themselves it wasn't a 'fake' moon stone. Arno Wielders was the first one to identify the rock as not a moon rock. He did this around October 2008 when he saw the stone at the "Fly Me to the Moon" exhibition. Wielders called with a moonrock curator at NASA he knew and this person told him nothing was known about this rock.
www.newscientist.nl...
www.kennislink.nl...


Parts of the USAtoday site indeed are NOS based claims, others however seem not, and certain things seem plain wrong. The USAtoday and other sources seem to have used an article published by AP which I can't find the origin of.

"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."

This is more or less a direct quote from the NOS, except that it doesn't say "Drees" but "he". (referring to Drees).
However nothing is known about which and how the question has been asked, it is just a single quote.

"it was mounted and placed above a plaque that said"

I'm not sure what the source for this is, but it is definitely not a plaque, more somethink like a businesscard.

"He said the rock, which the museum at one point insured for more than half a million dollars"

I'm not sure when the exchange rate was this high, but it seems like they simply added a "0". The highest amount the rock was assured at was 50,000 euro.

Open question to those posting about the petrified wood: Why is it that if NASA says they did something and then provides thousands of photographs, hours of video and film, warehouses full of scientific data and over 1000lbs of geological samples confirming everything as well as multiple third parties verifying it, it can't be believed; but when a newspaper makes a claim with zero supporting evidence, it's suddenly infallible?

a reply to: captainpudding

That's easily answered it fits in with the hoax believers mindset.

a reply to: MissVocalcord

The highest amount the rock was assured at was 50,000 euro.

I'm out of my depth here...but isn't that an outrageous figure for a piece of petrified wood ? I mean...my house is worth something like that.

I would say the origin of the Drees 'moon' rock story is at the time the heirs of Dress gave the rock to the Rijksmuseum in 1991. This is the first traceable moment in time where the rock is connected to the card from Middendorf.

The very first thing which seems to go wrong is the 'research' at this point. The Rijksmuseum has said they tried to verify the rock with NASA which said 'it was possible'. Now when we take a look at the quote in the AP article on this:

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.

First of all the Netherlands did receive pieces of moon rock from the Apollo 11 mission. So the article is dead wrong on this point.
However these weren't handed out at the time Drees allegedely received his moonrock. Did the Rijksmuseum even mention the Middendorf card when calling NASA? Did the Rijksmuseum tell anything about the rock (e.g. size, color, etc)?

The main problem is simply that from this point on everybody took the connection between the Middendorf card and the rock for granted; based on what seems like one sloppy phonecall.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
I'm out of my depth here...but isn't that an outrageous figure for a piece of petrified wood ? I mean...my house is worth something like that.

That is another problem with the original research from the Rijksmuseum. It is rather high for this piece of petrified wood, however it is also rather low for a real piece of moon rock. Somebody must have given a value to it, somebody who apparently had no clue what was in his hands.
Well, as a defence; the Rijksmuseum normally doesn't deal with this kind of things I guess.

And I don't know what your house looks like, but I do hope it is worth more then your average piece of petrified wood

a reply to: choos

Do you not get it??? The equipment that was used to convert the supposed raw sstv signal was replaced by nafsgera week or two before the broadcast...

That equipment could have been anything, it could have included a pre-recording of the moon landing, it could've included equipment to broadcast from an alternate source...

The fact that it was replaced by them takes away any third party controls over what equipment was used and becomes awfully coincidental that it needed to be replaced all of a sudden right before the event...

Me, I don't particularly care about the particulars.. As I've stated, we could not geopolitically afford to fail, and surely couldn't afford to fail publicly...

Jaden

a reply to: Masterjaden

2 questions :

1 who supplied the origional equipment ?

2 who supplied the replacement equipment ?

a reply to: Masterjaden

Why would they need to destroy and replace equipment?

If these people were so good all they had to do was feed in the allegedly prepared footage?

Why involve Australia at all? Why not schedule it all so it comes through Houston?

Where were the dishes pointing when they received all the TV, comms and equipment telemetry?

Many of the people involved are still around, why not listen to them:

a reply to: MissVocalcord

It might be something or it might be nothing st all....this whole fake moon rock thing. beating a dead horse sort of thing. might be just a time killer.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Masterjaden

2 questions :

1 who supplied the origional equipment ?

2 who supplied the replacement equipment ?

Howard Hughes.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: MissVocalcord

It might be something or it might be nothing st all....this whole fake moon rock thing. beating a dead horse sort of thing. might be just a time killer.

I thought that too, until it was determined that Middendorf was a Nixon appointee and a rabid, dedicated, anti-Communist.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

How does being anti communist tie in with fake moon rocks ?

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

WRONG : [ again ] so citation required

but as you refference a single source for both sets of equipment - the next question SHOULD be obvious

so answer that too

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

How does being anti communist tie in with fake moon rocks ?

Middendorf was a Nixon appointee and a CIA employee, basic research. It is important to remember that Middendorf was put in the position, by Richard Nixon the 37th President of the United States.

So far there has been no discussion about who was in charge of the LRL from July 1969. If Middendorf had access to the LRL he might have been tricked into transporting a fake moon rock from the NASA lab to a foreign agent, in the Netherlands.

When the CIA is involved we have to believe that there will all kinds of crazy schemes with ulterior motives.

originally posted by: Masterjaden

That equipment could have been anything, it could have included a pre-recording of the moon landing, it could've included equipment to broadcast from an alternate source...

included a prerecording??

so about three weeks prior to Apollo 11 they estimated what a hurricane would look like on a specific day and got it accurate enough to fool meteorologists for over 40 years?

and equipment to broadcast from an alternate source?? so you saying that when a satellite dish are pointed at the moon they are really pointing at something else??

The fact that it was replaced by them takes away any third party controls over what equipment was used and becomes awfully coincidental that it needed to be replaced all of a sudden right before the event...

Me, I don't particularly care about the particulars.. As I've stated, we could not geopolitically afford to fail, and surely couldn't afford to fail publicly...

Jaden

why does this fact matter?? Nafzger was in charge of the SSTV installation in Australia.. why would he plan to sabotage his own installation to install super secret spy equipment? which would have required more man power to install given the limited time to repair it all.