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

a reply to: DJW001

Gotcha, and thanks!

originally posted by: eriktheawful
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.

TW agrees that the people have to wait before they come to a conclusion, the problem is that many here have already made up their mind. Some have done a 5 minute researches as stated on this thread and that is it. LOL

The none productive discussion is due to the people who do a 5 minute investigation and tell that that is enough. First TW would like to see a rectification of the article that started this tread. Without a rectification the article stands. When the complete investigation is finished all information will be released. How can a thread be marked Skunk when the source article is never debunked as wrong. It is outlandish as the Queen of the Nederlands did get a moon rock according the article. This thread should be "really above top secret" as none of you had ever seen this story that the Queen got a moon rock from the Apollo astronauts. The fake moon rock of Drees rock and the rock given to the Queen are two different events that took place on the same day. The Drees moon rock was fake so the moon rock given to the Queen must also be fake as NASA followers tell no moon rock at all was given to anyone during the visit. Well if they want to be right then the moon rock Given to the Queen must also be fake.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: DJW001

Gotcha, and thanks!

"Geo source TW provided sit with this whole conversation? It did seem to imply rocks were given out in 1969."

Ask for a source for the claim and you will see that it is not backed by facts. Moon rock are given away in 1969 it easy to prove.

a reply to: TheWhisper

I don't follow, buddy? What do you mean? I find this all intriguing so be as clear as possible.

Problem is the trip in question was October and the order to make the gift samples was November. Still 1969. Still too late. And also pointed out before.

a reply to: TheWhisper

I'm afraid you do not understand what the RATS forum is for.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: TheWhisper

I don't follow, buddy? What do you mean? I find this all intriguing so be as clear as possible.

The Nixon Administration did give moon rocks away in 1969. That is clear but when and to who that is the question. Well according the article that started this thread the Dutch Queen got one moon rock. None of this people here who claim the article is wrong has found a rectification. The article is not debunked and therefore it is used as evidence.

Drees did get a moon rock that is exposed as a fake moon rock, a second fake moon rock given to the Dutch Queen would be the beginning of the end for the faked Apollo moon landings.

a reply to: TheWhisper

Your suddenly and mysteriously infallible press have provided one known article. All other available information (apart from the articles you linked to written by you under your other pseudonym awe130) indicates the article is wrong. The photographic evidence you tried to provide and still uiltilise on your off site articles are proven fake (it's a commerative disk not a rock) by clearer versions and video.
All you have is one newspaper clipping on one side and a mound on the other, indicating *shock horror* its wrong.
By your logic, we should not be questioning anything like 9/11 or the fact the moon landings happened.
You're right in one thing though, based on your self linking and fake photos it shouldn't be in SW - but in HOAX.

Provide the information you have or admit you're wrong, quit wasting everyone's time and embarrassing yourself.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: TheWhisper

I'm afraid you do not understand what the RATS forum is for.

It will only make the ATS forum look unreliable in the end. They got a really above top secret thread and failed to recognize it.
Until date nobody has been able to debunk the article that started this thread. The Dutch Queen did get a moon rock from the Apollo astronauts is stated in at least one Dutch newspaper.

a reply to: TheWhisper

Really? So the over 300kg of rocks retrieved by Apollo missions available for loan to institutions around the world are fake? As well as the various public displays of material on permanent loan?
Not including the gifts of course.

curator.jsc.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: TheWhisper

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: TheWhisper

I'm afraid you do not understand what the RATS forum is for.

It will only make the ATS forum look unreliable in the end. They got a really above top secret thread and failed to recognize it.
Until date nobody has been able to debunk the article that started this thread. The Dutch Queen did get a moon rock from the Apollo astronauts is stated in at least one Dutch newspaper.

ROFL!

Again: You do NOT understand what the RATS forum here on ATS is for!

Keep posting. Once you get your post count up high enough, you'll have access to it.....and then maybe you'll understand what RATS is actually used for.

It certainly is not for what you think it is.

originally posted by: AgentSmith
a reply to: TheWhisper

Your suddenly and mysteriously infallible press have provided one known article. All other available information (apart from the articles you linked to written by you under your other pseudonym awe130) indicates the article is wrong. The photographic evidence you tried to provide and still uiltilise on your off site articles are proven fake (it's a commerative disk not a rock) by clearer versions and video.
All you have is one newspaper clipping on one side and a mound on the other, indicating *shock horror* its wrong.
By your logic, we should not be questioning anything like 9/11 or the fact the moon landings happened.
You're right in one thing though, based on your self linking and fake photos it shouldn't be in SW - but in HOAX.

Provide the information you have or admit you're wrong, quit wasting everyone's time and embarrassing yourself.

Correction all what TW has released is one newspaper article that states that the Dutch Queen got a moon rock from the Apollo astronauts. Find a rectification that is what you guys should do. Without it you have only empty words and you assume the article is wrong. The strange thing is that none of you have found other supporting articles of the article that started this thread. Maybe some have also already found them lol.

originally posted by: eriktheawful

originally posted by: TheWhisper

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: TheWhisper

I'm afraid you do not understand what the RATS forum is for.

It will only make the ATS forum look unreliable in the end. They got a really above top secret thread and failed to recognize it.
Until date nobody has been able to debunk the article that started this thread. The Dutch Queen did get a moon rock from the Apollo astronauts is stated in at least one Dutch newspaper.

ROFL!

Again: You do NOT understand what the RATS forum here on ATS is for!

Keep posting. Once you get your post count up high enough, you'll have access to it.....and then maybe you'll understand what RATS is actually used for.

It certainly is not for what you think it is.

No you are correct TW doesn't know what it is, it sounds like a nasty place.

TW hopes it has nothing to do with silencing people who have a different opinion. people who find official newspaper articles that are not inline with what some ATS member's think. The news article is stating that the Dutch Queen got a moon rock from the Apollo astronauts on 9 October 1969.

Is it a problem that people disagree with the official story that no moon rock were given to anyone during that visit?

a reply to: TheWhisper

No. That is not how ATS works.

If you had been a member here long enough, you would understand that.

YOU are the one making a claim based upon a single news article that was published back in 1969.

That is all you have. A single source. You claim to have others, but refuse to post them.

The person making the claim is the one that needs to prove is, and a single news source does not in anyway validate the claim.

If you'd bother to look at the rest of ATS, you will see threads that get posted all the time about something happening with a source.
One of the first thing that ATS members do is try to validate what the thread is about by finding other sources that are also reporting the same thing.

In many cases, especially if it is breaking news, all we have is a single source, or other reporting agencies that are basing their report upon that single source.

During that time, whatever is posts is highly suspect, until other independent sources also start reporting about it, but not from the single original source.
Many times the information conflicts, changes or simply is not the same. Sometimes everything matches.

It is not up to the membership here to disprove what you are saying. It is up to you to prove what you are saying. So far, no one else in this thread has been able to find another source besides your one single news article, nor have you provided additional news sources to back up the original article you found.

You've not proven anything so far except that there is a single news article that exists and is apparently mistaken, as all other articles from other news reporting agencies at the time say something different.

A redaction by the newspaper is not needed. What is needed is you providing other sources that back up the claims of that single, one, news article.

So far: you've failed to do that.

a reply to: TheWhisper

It's difficult enough to follow threads without you confusing things by using the third person. Frankly, I"m at the point where I'm just skipping over your posts.

a reply to: eriktheawful
As TW stated before not one source article from 1969 is found that states that Drees got a moon rock from Middendorf.
Question: What is the source for the fake moon rock given to Drees based? Can you show source material of what today is know as the fake moon rock of Drees.

The only source is Middendorf who had to remember something that happened 40 year before. If TW remembers correct he was 85 years old in 2009. When Drees got the rock in 1969 he was already old and almost deaf and blind. The family of Drees told what Drees told them.

Does ATS have more sources accept everyone quoting the sources above in one or the other way?

How would ATS label a story based on the information that is used to explain the fake moon rock of Drees?

originally posted by: DelMarvel
a reply to: TheWhisper

It's difficult enough to follow threads without you confusing things by using the third person. Frankly, I"m at the point where I'm just skipping over your posts.

This thread is about the fake moon rock given to the Dutch queen on 9 October 1969. Maybe the moderator can pointed out to you that this thread is not about TW.

originally posted by: TheWhisper
a reply to: eriktheawful
As TW stated before not one source article from 1969 is found that states that Drees got a moon rock from Middendorf.
Question: What is the source for the fake moon rock given to Drees based? Can you show source material of what today is know as the fake moon rock of Drees.

The only source is Middendorf who had to remember something that happened 40 year before. If TW remembers correct he was 85 years old in 2009. When Drees got the rock in 1969 he was already old and almost deaf and blind. The family of Drees told what Drees told them.

Does ATS have more sources accept everyone quoting the sources above in one or the other way?

Who would ATS label a story based on the information that is used to explain the fake moon rock of Drees?

Your post above is what here at ATS we call "Deflecting"

Your OP is NOT about the prime minister nor the US ambassador.

Your OP is NOT about the US ambassador giving the prime minister a rock.

The title of your thread is:

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

The information you posted in your OP and the image your posts is about the Apollo 11 astronauts giving the Dutch Queen a moon rock.

The rock the prime minister was given by the US ambassador is not the topic of this thread. There are threads about that already here on ATS. If you wish to discuss that, I suggest you take it to those threads, or create a new thread on the subject if you have new information or a new perspective that those threads do not cover.

In the mean time: you still have yet to provide other sources to help prove your OP of this thread, which is: Second Fake Dutch Moon Rock Given To The Queen Of The Netherlands By Apollo 11 Crew!

It is up to you to prove your OP. That is how ATS works.

Deflecting and trying to change the subject is not how you go about that.

originally posted by: eriktheawful

originally posted by: TheWhisper
a reply to: eriktheawful
As TW stated before not one source article from 1969 is found that states that Drees got a moon rock from Middendorf.
Question: What is the source for the fake moon rock given to Drees based? Can you show source material of what today is know as the fake moon rock of Drees.

The only source is Middendorf who had to remember something that happened 40 year before. If TW remembers correct he was 85 years old in 2009. When Drees got the rock in 1969 he was already old and almost deaf and blind. The family of Drees told what Drees told them.

Does ATS have more sources accept everyone quoting the sources above in one or the other way?

Who would ATS label a story based on the information that is used to explain the fake moon rock of Drees?

Your post above is what here at ATS we call "Deflecting"

Your OP is NOT about the prime minister nor the US ambassador.

Your OP is NOT about the US ambassador giving the prime minister a rock.

The title of your thread is:

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

The information you posted in your OP and the image your posts is about the Apollo 11 astronauts giving the Dutch Queen a moon rock.

The rock the prime minister was given by the US ambassador is not the topic of this thread. There a threads about that already here on ATS. If you wish to discuss that, I suggest you take it to those threads, or create a new thread on the subject if you have new information or a new perspective that those threads do not cover.

In the mean time: you still have yet to provide other sources to help prove your OP of this thread, which is: Second Fake Dutch Moon Rock Given To The Queen Of The Netherlands By Apollo 11 Crew!

It is up to you to prove your OP. That is how ATS works.

Deflecting and trying to change the subject is not how you go about that.

"Second fake moon rock" that means there is a first fake moon rock otherwise there could not be a second fake moon rock.
That means that both fake moon rocks are involved otherwise the the article that started this thread would had been called "Fake moon rock given to the Dutch Queen."

ATS accepted the title "Second Fake Dutch Moon Rock Given To The Queen Of The Netherlands By Apollo 11 Crew!"

Deflecting is comments like this:

originally posted by: DelMarvel
a reply to: TheWhisper

It's difficult enough to follow threads without you confusing things by using the third person. Frankly, I"m at the point where I'm just skipping over your posts.

a reply to: TheWhisper

I could type random letters and numbers in the thread title and ATS will accept it.....until a moderator changes it after someone complains about it.

Again: your thread is not about the rock that the prime minister had. It's about the Apollo 11 astronauts giving the queen a moon rock. At least that is what your OP states.

If you had wanted to discuss the prime minister, you should have included that in the OP, however, again, there are already threads on that subject.

If you desire to prove that the news article is correct (and all the others found by the ATS members who have posted in this thread so far are wrong), then you need to find more than the one news article (which another member on Page 3 had to provide the source for).

This is why your thread is in Skunk Works: it's highly speculative and does not really have supporting sources for it.