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: 8
17
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 07:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: turbonium1

false.. drees children thought it was a genuine moon rock.. they mistakenly attributed petrified wood found in a draw with a placard from the good will tour..

in nearly every news article it says Middendorf gave the petrified wood as a personal gift..

no moon stone was given as a personal gift to former PM's.. real moon rocks were given by the US gov to "head of state", such as a queen..



The US Ambassador confirmed the account, it's valid.

He even described it as a 'little stone', so what more do you need?
edit on 25-4-2015 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 07:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: turbonium1

false.. drees children thought it was a genuine moon rock.. they mistakenly attributed petrified wood found in a draw with a placard from the good will tour..

in nearly every news article it says Middendorf gave the petrified wood as a personal gift..

no moon stone was given as a personal gift to former PM's.. real moon rocks were given by the US gov to "head of state", such as a queen..



The US Ambassador confirmed the account, it's valid.

As I said before.


The US Ambassador did not claim it was a lunar sample. The only confirmation he gave was that he donated the petrified wood to the former President.

You have been asked many many times now: Provide evidence that he (or anyone from the Goodwill tour) claimed it was a lunar sample.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 07:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheWhisper

A. do you agree to how the old lady was humiliated?


I don't care.


B. how do you know it was a real moon rock she had?


How do you know it isn't?

The opinion of Joe Kloc in "The Case of the missing moon rocks" (amongst others) is that it is likely to be a small speck obtained from cleaning suits and other materials. Armstrong signed a sworn affidavit saying he did not give away any lunar rocks, so either this woman's husband is lying or she was.



C. You call the CBS news spam, was it not CBS who covered some moon landings live is that also considered spam by you?


I did not call CBS news article spam. I called you a spammer. Please don't deny that you have posted this video in several other places already and tried to make some sort of irrelevant and spurious claim of significance about it.
edit on 25-4-2015 by onebigmonkey because: typos



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 07:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: turbonium1

false.. drees children thought it was a genuine moon rock.. they mistakenly attributed petrified wood found in a draw with a placard from the good will tour..

in nearly every news article it says Middendorf gave the petrified wood as a personal gift..

no moon stone was given as a personal gift to former PM's.. real moon rocks were given by the US gov to "head of state", such as a queen..



The US Ambassador confirmed the account, it's valid.

He even described it as a 'little stone', so what more do you need?


how sure are you that he is telling the truth??

how sure are you that he wasnt trying to deceive an elderly old man who had trouble seeing and hearing into getting into his favour??

you also know that the truth is that not moon rocks were gifted during the goodwill tour.. the moon rock gifts werent even made yet..


'I think' is a simple clue for one giving an opinion, and is much better than putting 'foot in mouth', by going off on a tangent.

As you try and avoid the main issue, of course.


funny coming from the guy who thinks centrifugal force doesnt exist without gravity..

but anyway.. "I think" is pretty much all you present..
edit on 25-4-2015 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 07:39 AM
link   
The petrified wood is a great example. Why in the world, would they be given a bag, with a stone in it and the apollo astros name on it, and it ends up petrified wood? That makes no sense. I mean none. Even if you believe apollo, you have to be critical of this manuever. To defend this nonsense is irrational and may determine your bias. Why would anyone give out sacks of petrified wood with astronauts' names on it? I wouldn't even take that as a Halloween hand out!
edit on 25-4-2015 by bobbypurify because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 07:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: turbonium1

false.. drees children thought it was a genuine moon rock.. they mistakenly attributed petrified wood found in a draw with a placard from the good will tour..

in nearly every news article it says Middendorf gave the petrified wood as a personal gift..

no moon stone was given as a personal gift to former PM's.. real moon rocks were given by the US gov to "head of state", such as a queen..



The US Ambassador confirmed the account, it's valid.

As I said before.


The US Ambassador did not claim it was a lunar sample. The only confirmation he gave was that he donated the petrified wood to the former President.

You have been asked many many times now: Provide evidence that he (or anyone from the Goodwill tour) claimed it was a lunar sample.


Lets see:
The Apollo astronauts came to the Netherlands. Fact
The US ambassador hands a rock to former PM Drees. Fact

[US Ambassador]
Dear Mr Drees as the US ambassador of the Netherlands I would like to hand you a some petrified wood. This (worthless) rock is a symbol of the friendship between our countries and to commemorate the visit of the Apollo 11 astronauts to The Netherlands.

[Drees]
Thank you US ambassador of the Netherlands, are you sure it is a worthless rock of petrified wood?

[US Ambassador]
Absolutely, Neil and Buzz walked on the moon and you get a some worthless petrified wood.

[Drees]
I am speechless Mr Ambassador, I never ever would had dreamed that I would get a worthless rock of petrified wood. I promises you that I will take good care of it. Thank you Apollo 11 astronauts and US ambassador of the Netherlands.




posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: bobbypurify

Sounds to me like they got caught red handed and the defenses offered in this thread sound like damage control. It does not make sense to give a bag of petrified wood with Apollo 11 astros on it. None. It does however, make sense that this bag supposedly had a moon rock in it. Duhn, Dunn, dunnnnnnnn



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: TheWhisper

Haha, great post



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 07:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
The petrified wood is a great example. Why in the world, would they be given a bag, with a stone in it and the apollo astros name on it,


Since when did it suddenly end up in a bag with the astronaut's name in it?

There is absolutely no evidence, anywhere, that shows that any claim was made by anyone involved with the donation that it was claimed to be a lunar rock.


and it ends up petrified wood?


It was always petrified wood - no-one claimed otherwise.


That makes no sense. I mean none.


Precisely - it's a non-story and the whole slant on it placed by people who dispute Apollo has no foundation in fact.


Even if you believe apollo, you have to be critical of this manuever. To defend this nonsense is irrational and may determine your bias. Why would anyone give out sacks of petrified wood with astronauts' names on it? I wouldn't even take that as a Halloween hand out!


I for one am not critical of it because everything I have read about the matter says that it was never given as a lunar sample, never claimed to be lunar sample, and only ended up in a museum described as one thanks to a series of Chinese whispers starting with the confused mind of an old man. Describing it as a 'manoeuvre' is a dubious bit of debating technique that places a motive behind the action that you have no proof existed.

If it's the best the anti-Apollo crowd have, it's pathetic.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 07:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheWhisper

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: turbonium1

false.. drees children thought it was a genuine moon rock.. they mistakenly attributed petrified wood found in a draw with a placard from the good will tour..

in nearly every news article it says Middendorf gave the petrified wood as a personal gift..

no moon stone was given as a personal gift to former PM's.. real moon rocks were given by the US gov to "head of state", such as a queen..



The US Ambassador confirmed the account, it's valid.

As I said before.


The US Ambassador did not claim it was a lunar sample. The only confirmation he gave was that he donated the petrified wood to the former President.

You have been asked many many times now: Provide evidence that he (or anyone from the Goodwill tour) claimed it was a lunar sample.


Lets see:
The Apollo astronauts came to the Netherlands. Fact
The US ambassador hands a rock to former PM Drees. Fact

[US Ambassador]
Dear Mr Drees as the US ambassador of the Netherlands I would like to hand you a some petrified wood. This (worthless) rock is a symbol of the friendship between our countries and to commemorate the visit of the Apollo 11 astronauts to The Netherlands.

[Drees]
Thank you US ambassador of the Netherlands, are you sure it is a worthless rock of petrified wood?

[US Ambassador]
Absolutely, Neil and Buzz walked on the moon and you get a some worthless petrified wood.

[Drees]
I am speechless Mr Ambassador, I never ever would had dreamed that I would get a worthless rock of petrified wood. I promises you that I will take good care of it. Thank you Apollo 11 astronauts and US ambassador of the Netherlands.





You are making something up as evidence? Nothing new there then...



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: onebigmonkey

Mr. OBM, I think you're trying to call out the Dutch integrity here. What motive would they have for lying? In your opinion, of course.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 07:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: onebigmonkey

Mr. OBM, I think you're trying to call out the Dutch integrity here. What motive would they have for lying? In your opinion, of course.


you should be calling Mr Middendorf's integrity here..

ask yourself why the US gov would give a moon rock to a FORMER prime minister who has been out of office for 11 years by the time of Apollo 11??

the real Apollo 11 moon rock gift was given to Queen Juliana.. the real Apollo 17 moon rock gift was also given to Queen Juliana.. no official lunar gifts was ever given to ex prime ministers..

Mr Middendorf gave Mr drees the petrified wood as a PERSONAL gift to Mr Drees..
edit on 25-4-2015 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 07:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: onebigmonkey

Mr. OBM, I think you're trying to call out the Dutch integrity here. What motive would they have for lying? In your opinion, of course.


If actually you read my posts carefully you will see that I have said quite clearly that classifying the petrified wood as a moon rock was a simple mistake.

Not a single shred of evidence exists that show this was a deliberate act of deception. The deliberate deception comes from people misrepresenting the event as some sort of definitive proof of something, which it patently is not.

I'm not sure how many times it needs saying in order for it to penetrate but here it is again: No-one involved in the Goodwill tour ever claimed it was a lunar rock.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter
Seeing as 99.9% of ATSers have never been to space i doubt anyone can really add their own ideas without basing it on some 3rd party data.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: onebigmonkey

Wait, implied meaning here, without claim, would tell me its a moon rock. What else could it be? They made baggies and had a stack of moon rocks and petrified wood and grabbed from the wrong pile? Okay



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: onebigmonkey

Mr. OBM, I think you're trying to call out the Dutch integrity here. What motive would they have for lying? In your opinion, of course.


If actually you read my posts carefully you will see that I have said quite clearly that classifying the petrified wood as a moon rock was a simple mistake.

Not a single shred of evidence exists that show this was a deliberate act of deception. The deliberate deception comes from people misrepresenting the event as some sort of definitive proof of something, which it patently is not.

I'm not sure how many times it needs saying in order for it to penetrate but here it is again: No-one involved in the Goodwill tour ever claimed it was a lunar rock.

"If actually you read my posts carefully you will see that I have said quite clearly that classifying the petrified wood as a moon rock was a simple mistake. "

On what is your conclusion based? The BBC website reports.

"US officials said they had no explanation for the Dutch discovery."
news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheWhisper

"US officials said they had no explanation for the Dutch discovery."


they have no explaination because it has nothing to do with them.. it was a personal gift from Middendorf to Drees..

and why does the placard not even have the recipients name??



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: onebigmonkey

Wait, implied meaning here, without claim, would tell me its a moon rock. What else could it be? They made baggies and had a stack of moon rocks and petrified wood and grabbed from the wrong pile? Okay


Nothing at all implies it as a moon rock. That's the point.

Again, you're not providing me with any kind of proof that this rock was handed out as a lunar sample, in bags or otherwise.

Show me some evidence that your version happened and maybe we'll have something to go on otherwise you're just making it up.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 08:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheWhisper
[
"If actually you read my posts carefully you will see that I have said quite clearly that classifying the petrified wood as a moon rock was a simple mistake. "

On what is your conclusion based? The BBC website reports.

"US officials said they had no explanation for the Dutch discovery."
news.bbc.co.uk...


Every article newspaper report and book I have seen leads me to that conclusion. It's the only honest one to make.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: TheWhisper

"US officials said they had no explanation for the Dutch discovery."


they have no explaination because it has nothing to do with them.. it was a personal gift from Middendorf to Drees..

and why does the placard not even have the recipients name??

"why does the placard not even have the recipients name??"
Mr Drees is one of the most important post WWII PM of the Netherlands. Are you questioning the integrity of Mr Drees with that question?




top topics



 
17
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join