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.

 

Second Fake Dutch Moon Rock Given To The Queen Of The Netherlands By Apollo 11 Crew!

page: 14
10
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 03:37 AM
link   
Are we going to just keep repeating ourselves Wesley 2? OK.. Though I'll also add that as MissVC pointed out the quote doesn't even imply he was given anything. Maybe as English is not your first language you don't get it, but it is mine and she is 100% correct.

So everything you have hinges on:


"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.


Which is an out of context quote, presumably from 2009 when the article originates - which is 40 years after the alleged event and when Mr Middendorf is an 85 year old man.

How do you know he's talking about the petrified wood? Because a newspaper implies it? Why are you so happy to put this much trust in the same media that assures you Apollo happened, but which you do not believe?

What is the context of this conversation?
Is he talking about the same stone we are?
How was the question put to him, was it in a suggestive manner that could result in memory implantation?
Could he be confused?
Does he suffer any neurological issues now as a result of his age?
Is he lying to save face and doesn't actually remember?

Remember - the only connection between the petrified wood and the commemorative card are that they were found in a draw together (and probably with other things) after Dree's death. They were put together for an artistic exhibition in 2006 and a narrative drawn up by independent, non-official parties. It was 2009 when it was tested and found to not be a piece of the Moon.
You really are going to let your argument hinge on an out of context quote from an 85 year old man 40 years after an event? based on a narrative constructed by a pair of artists in 2006 that the card and rock went together and were presented in 1969? And then build your fantasy narrative about the Queen having a 'fake moon stone' on that?
Did someone not teach you that you're not supposed to build a strawman argument against yourself?


TRANSLATED: From October 6 through November 19, 2006 the art project 'Fly me to the moon "was presented. Central to this project was one of the oldest objects in the collection of the Rijksmuseum: a moonstone. The Rotterdam artist duo Liesbeth Bik and Jos van der Pol presented in this project various issues in this never before shown to the public object, including whether the Rijksmuseum will open a branch on the moon.

www.rijksmuseum.nl...

Just some of the questions you could ask, but you won't because it's inconvenient and the only thing that loosely ties you to your fictional narrative that 'due to protocol' the Queen 'must' have received a rock too. And to 'confirm' this both in your OP and on your private blogs you use a likely altered photograph of poor quality that does not show adequately she is actually holding a commemorative disc. The pictures have been made available you as has video, there is no question she has no stone, yet you continue to deceive and present your pictures as implied evidence. You also fail to acknowledge any of the various things I have brought up above and other people have presented to you over the course of this embarrassing [HOAX] thread.




posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 03:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheWhisper
When you disagree with that quote we advise you to contact The Telegraph newspaper who published this quote.

Again you are not reading (or understanding) what is written:

I do not disagree with the quote; I disagree with your interpretation of it. Just like you misinterpreted my reply. You simply don't seem to understand what is written or worse, you do this intentionally.


TS is happy to see that you are willing to connect this two stories together.

You are more then welcome to reply here: www.abovetopsecret.com...



originally posted by: TheWhisper
The question where is the moon rock given to the Dutch Queen by the Apolo 11 astronauts.

The Queen didn't get a moon rock (also not a fake one) from the Apollo 11 astronauts on 9 October 1969.



originally posted by: TheWhisper
Middendorf has confirmed that he did give a "moon rock" to Drees.

There we go again; Middendorf never confirmed such a thing: "interested" != "given" , already told you this before, so now you can ignore it again, and repeat your nonsense.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 05:04 AM
link   
a reply to: MissVocalcord
Other Dutch websites are also interested in the moon rock given to the Queen by the Apollo 11 crew during their visit 9 October 1969.
urubin.com...



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 05:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheWhisper
a reply to: MissVocalcord
Other Dutch websites are also interested in the moon rock given to the Queen by the Apollo 11 crew during their visit 9 October 1969.
urubin.com...


And unsurprisingly a date from 4 days back and signed awe130 like your own website and your Infowars article you submitted. Using your own material as sources again are we?



What a fraud



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 05:26 AM
link   
a reply to: TheWhisper

Not to mention that the only 2 comments are your own! You can't even get sock puppets and shills right.
Getting anything on the equivalent if The Verge isn't actually an achievement, or maybe it is when you set your sights under a rock I guess... Haha!



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 05:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: AgentSmith

originally posted by: TheWhisper
a reply to: MissVocalcord
Other Dutch websites are also interested in the moon rock given to the Queen by the Apollo 11 crew during their visit 9 October 1969.
urubin.com...


And unsurprisingly a date from 4 days back and signed awe130 like your own website and your Infowars article you submitted. Using your own material as sources again are we?



What a fraud

You call the news article a fraud wow, any prove for your claim that the news article is a fraud.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 06:20 AM
link   
a reply to: TheWhisper


You call the news article a fraud wow, any prove for your claim that the news article is a fraud.


No, the news article was mistaken. This has been definitively proven. It is your exploitation of this error that constitutes fraud. The fact that your case rests on the infallibility of the Dutch press is at odds with your professed belief that they have been lying about the truth of the Moon landings. You know that your evidence is not evidence, and you repeatedly claim you have additional evidence that you refuse to reveal. I'm done with wasting my time here. ATS has nearly fallen to the level of GLP.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 06:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheWhisper

originally posted by: AgentSmith

originally posted by: TheWhisper
a reply to: MissVocalcord
Other Dutch websites are also interested in the moon rock given to the Queen by the Apollo 11 crew during their visit 9 October 1969.
urubin.com...


And unsurprisingly a date from 4 days back and signed awe130 like your own website and your Infowars article you submitted. Using your own material as sources again are we?



What a fraud

You call the news article a fraud wow, any prove for your claim that the news article is a fraud.


Nope, I'm saying you are. The evidence - the contents of this thread for anyone that reads it. ]

edit on 30-4-2015 by AgentSmith because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 06:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: TheWhisper


You call the news article a fraud wow, any prove for your claim that the news article is a fraud.


No, the news article was mistaken. This has been definitively proven. It is your exploitation of this error that constitutes fraud. The fact that your case rests on the infallibility of the Dutch press is at odds with your professed belief that they have been lying about the truth of the Moon landings. You know that your evidence is not evidence, and you repeatedly claim you have additional evidence that you refuse to reveal. I'm done with wasting my time here. ATS has nearly fallen to the level of GLP.

Apollo believer first tell that it was so strange that the Queen did not get a moon rock, then you get presented with a news article that tells the Queen did get a moon rock and now say that the source is wrong. LOL



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 07:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheWhisper
a reply to: MissVocalcord
Other Dutch websites are also interested in the moon rock given to the Queen by the Apollo 11 crew during their visit 9 October 1969.
urubin.com...


Please tell me this s your second source. That would be precious.

MissVocalCord, yes I am well aware of TheWhisper/awe130/lunaticx1/ Adrian And his tactics. What's amusing is he actually thinks he is pretty good at this stuff. Priceless humor right there...



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 07:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: DDBrock

originally posted by: TheWhisper
a reply to: MissVocalcord
Other Dutch websites are also interested in the moon rock given to the Queen by the Apollo 11 crew during their visit 9 October 1969.
urubin.com...


Please tell me this s your second source. That would be precious.

MissVocalCord, yes I am well aware of TheWhisper/awe130/lunaticx1/ Adrian And his tactics. What's amusing is he actually thinks he is pretty good at this stuff. Priceless humor right there...

No problem, for a moment TW thought you called the source article a fraud. Thank you for confirming that that is not the case.
The last line of the caption states that the Queen of the Nederlands "got a replica of the message the Apollo astronauts left behind on the moon and a MOON ROCK."



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 07:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: DDBrock

originally posted by: TheWhisper
a reply to: MissVocalcord
Other Dutch websites are also interested in the moon rock given to the Queen by the Apollo 11 crew during their visit 9 October 1969.
urubin.com...


Please tell me this s your second source. That would be precious.

MissVocalCord, yes I am well aware of TheWhisper/awe130/lunaticx1/ Adrian And his tactics. What's amusing is he actually thinks he is pretty good at this stuff. Priceless humor right there...

Not much tactics only the truth will do for TW.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 07:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheWhisper
Other Dutch websites are also interested in the moon rock given to the Queen by the Apollo 11 crew during their visit 9 October 1969.

Not websites but site... (besides urubin publishes almost anything on their website. According to the person who published it (dr.snuggles) you also have been a 'guestwriter' on the same site before)

So what? What has it to do with this thread? Are you boosting you own attention span? I really don't see the relevancy of posting this information in this thread. It's only purpose seems to be an ego boost. It sounds a bit tragic to be the only one replying to your own topics.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Fourth source is now under investigation this is not look good for the people who think that the rock of Drees was the only moon rock given away during the visit of the Apollo astronauts to the Netherlands. Obvious the Queen is the first one all of you can think of. Also it confirms the protocol when a head of state is visited. Some people here have already backpedaled on the idea that none moon rock at all was presented in the Netherlands.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: MissVocalcord

originally posted by: TheWhisper
Other Dutch websites are also interested in the moon rock given to the Queen by the Apollo 11 crew during their visit 9 October 1969.

Not websites but site... (besides urubin publishes almost anything on their website. According to the person who published it (dr.snuggles) you also have been a 'guestwriter' on the same site before)

So what? What has it to do with this thread? Are you boosting you own attention span? I really don't see the relevancy of posting this information in this thread. It's only purpose seems to be an ego boost. It sounds a bit tragic to be the only one replying to your own topics.

No the story is about the TS article and the second fake moon rock and the Dutch Queen. The rest of your comment is irrelevant.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 08:19 AM
link   
This thread belong in "Really Above Top Secret" as it starts to become clear that not only Drees received a "moon Rock". The astronauts presented a moon rock to the The dutch Queen. Evidence starts to pile up as this may well be above top secret what TW has released already.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheWhisper
This thread belong in "Really Above Top Secret" as it starts to become clear that not only Drees received a "moon Rock". The astronauts presented a moon rock to the The dutch Queen. Evidence starts to pile up as this may well be above top secret what TW has released already.


No, it should be plastered on the front page and featured on the ATS videos so that newcomers know what quality of thread to expect.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: TheWhisper

So, to sum up:

The OP of this thread is about a news article in a Dutch newspaper that states the Dutch Queen received a moon rock from the Apollo 11 astronauts during their visit there (the rock the prime minister received from the US ambassador is off topic, create a new thread for that, however there are already threads here on ATS about that).

The source is the news article itself that was published back in 1969.

The OP has claimed to have a 2nd and 3rd source confirming what is claimed in the original news article, but has yet to post these sources.

The OP has now claimed a 4th source that confirms their OP.

When asked for these sources, the OP has refused to provide them, even thought the vast membership of ATS can help verify those sources, and rather quickly considering ATS is an international forum that has membership here 24/7.

The only thing the OP has done since posting the thread is pretty much parrot the original news article that was published in 1969.

I'm failing to see why anyone is bothering to participate in this thread until the OP posts their 2nd, 3rd, and now 4th sources that help confirm their original news article.

Anything else (the Dutch prime minister, where this thread should be, etc) is completely off topic.

Maybe we should wait until the OP finally posts their 2nd, 3rd, and now 4th sources?

Otherwise, all this thread looks like is:

"Yes she did."
"No she didn't."
"Yes she did."
"No she didn't."
"Yes she did."
"No she didn't."

Not exactly productive discussion, and is not really going anywhere. If the OP of a thread is going to insist that their one single source is correct, and everyone else is wrong......why bother? Until they can show one of these "sources" they keep claiming.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

A much needed clarification and cliff notes of this thread. Thanks, sir. Now, where did the Nat. Geo source TW provided sit with this whole conversation? It did seem to imply rocks were given out in 1969.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: eriktheawful

A much needed clarification and cliff notes of this thread. Thanks, sir. Now, where did the Nat. Geo source TW provided sit with this whole conversation? It did seem to imply rocks were given out in 1969.


The first samples were released in 1969. It makes no mention of any being given to Queen Juliana, and is therefore irrelevant to the thread.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join