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

Good news! I have found a retraction printed by the newspaper the next day. I guess TW needs to admit TW made a mistake.

originally posted by: KissaCat
The New York Times once published that space flight of any kind was an impossibility and did not print a correction until July 17, 1969. After Mercury, Gemini, a few Apollo flights, and the Soviet flights, it would not have occurred to you that perhaps the newspaper was wrong?

That's all I'm asking, it doesn't occur to you the paper might be wrong in its report? The fact that only the queen of the Netherlands supposedly got a rock, whereas nobody else in the world was gifted with a rock on that tour, doesn't strike you as strange?

Or is it just something against your agenda, so you ignore it?

Other source also confirm that a moon rock was given the the Netherlands during that visit.

a reply to: KissaCat

I think the important thing that TW is showing here is that there's written evidence, whether a mistake or not, that states otherwise. The entire story is weird. Why would anyone try to pass petrified wood as moon rocks? It's interesting to ponder and I guess it really makes others angry. It's a good thread with good information from both sides. People just get emotionally attached to a particular view then ruin the thread with bickering.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: KissaCat

I think the important thing that TW is showing here is that there's written evidence, whether a mistake or not, that states otherwise. The entire story is weird. Why would anyone try to pass petrified wood as moon rocks? It's interesting to ponder and I guess it really makes others angry. It's a good thread with good information from both sides. People just get emotionally attached to a particular view then ruin the thread with bickering.

Thank you for that observation. Anyway someone claims to have found a rectification of the article now it gets interesting.

originally posted by: DJW001
Good news! I have found a retraction printed by the newspaper the next day. I guess TW needs to admit TW made a mistake.

You more then welcome to post it.

a reply to: TheWhisper

My guess is he's messing with you. Because you withheld sources. But, maybe he found something. DJ is resourceful

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: TheWhisper

My guess is he's messing with you. Because you withheld sources. But, maybe he found something. DJ is resourceful

As long as the rectification is not posted it adds only more credibility to the source article.

originally posted by: TheWhisper

originally posted by: DJW001
Good news! I have found a retraction printed by the newspaper the next day. I guess TW needs to admit TW made a mistake.

You more then welcome to post it.

DJW001 will not post the evidence because it is not available online. In the meantime, DJW001 would have you try to prove the rectification does not exist. If you cannot prove the rectification does not exist, that proves that the rectification must exist. Right?

a reply to: TheWhisper

Have a look at this,
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: TheWhisper
a reply to: TheWhisper

Have a look at this,
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Everyone knows astronauts train underwater. If the Moon Landings were filmed underwater, the sharpness of the images would be blurred by the intervening liquid. Nice attempt to avoid proving that there was no retraction published the next day.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: TheWhisper

originally posted by: DJW001
Good news! I have found a retraction printed by the newspaper the next day. I guess TW needs to admit TW made a mistake.

You more then welcome to post it.

DJW001 will not post the evidence because it is not available online. In the meantime, DJW001 would have you try to prove the rectification does not exist. If you cannot prove the rectification does not exist, that proves that the rectification must exist. Right?

Nieuwsblad van het Noorden 10 oktober 1969 ?

a reply to: TheWhisper

There is no credence to the article whatsoever on the basis of logic and fact.

Unless you believe and would like others to believe that the purpose of the Apollo 11 crew world tour was to only give a moon rock to the queen of the Netherlands. One would think that if this was true, the heads of state of other countries, especially those who contributed to the Apollo program, would raise a bit of a stink. Since that did not happen, and it is well known that a moon rock was not among the gifts the crew gave out on their tour at any time, the article must be wrong. I don't need any published correction to know that.

a reply to: webstra
Do you understand now why TW is not releasing more sources on this thread.

originally posted by: TheWhisper
a reply to: webstra
Do you understand now why TW is not releasing more sources on this thread.

Please explain.

originally posted by: TheWhisper
a reply to: webstra
Do you understand now why TW is not releasing more sources on this thread.

Yes: because they do not exist, obviously.

originally posted by: DJW001
Good news! I have found a retraction printed by the newspaper the next day. I guess TW needs to admit TW made a mistake.

I gave you the link of the paper the next day.

Where is the rectification DJW001 ?

originally posted by: KissaCat
a reply to: TheWhisper

There is no credence to the article whatsoever on the basis of logic and fact.

Unless you believe and would like others to believe that the purpose of the Apollo 11 crew world tour was to only give a moon rock to the queen of the Netherlands. One would think that if this was true, the heads of state of other countries, especially those who contributed to the Apollo program, would raise a bit of a stink. Since that did not happen, and it is well known that a moon rock was not among the gifts the crew gave out on their tour at any time, the article must be wrong. I don't need any published correction to know that.

What you think is irrelevant it is what you can prove. The article that the Queen got a moon rock from the astronauts stands. No rectification is uploaded by someone who claims to have found it.

originally posted by: webstra

originally posted by: TheWhisper
a reply to: webstra
Do you understand now why TW is not releasing more sources on this thread.

Please explain.

Have you read this thread, any serious question is made into a circus. When the investigation is finished the complete information will be uploaded. But that will not be this thread.

originally posted by: TheWhisper

originally posted by: webstra

originally posted by: TheWhisper
a reply to: webstra
Do you understand now why TW is not releasing more sources on this thread.

Please explain.

Have you read this thread, any serious question is made into a circus. When the investigation is finished the complete information will be uploaded. But that will not be this thread.

Yes a have read ALL the moonhoax threads here on ATS, don't you worry.

Can't wait for your next information, also from holland ?

a reply to: TheWhisper

So how is it that this singular honour was given to the Dutch Queen? Why not HRH Queen Elizabeth? and why did Drees get a Moon Rock? The man had been out of politics since 1958. What ever way you look at this story, it doesn't add up! The Middendorf statement keeps getting parroted on this thread, but the basis of that was a single phone call to a man in his 80's forty years after the event. He remembered Drees being interested in a small stone, of course he does, the rocks were in the OFFICIAL samples sent to many world leaders. These were indeed handed over by the Ambassador, don't you think that this is the "Small" stone he is referring too? The fake piece of petrified wood (which incidentally was spotted by a NASA employee on vacation) hardly fits the description.

No proof for any of these claims!