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.

 

Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

page: 59
57
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 02:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

Middendorf said Drees was 'quite taken with that little stone', iirc.


Which little stone? When? Does Middendorf say he gave it to him, or that he made any specific claims about it? Does Middendorf confirm anything at all in his interview about it?



And Middendorf noted that he wasn't aware of it 'not being real, or anything'....

So what do you suppose he is talking about, then? ...


Read the context of the quote and tell me with any certainty that he is referring to the moon rock, or the fossil. He is being called out of the blue by journalists and asked about something from nearly half a century before.

'Supposing' is not 'knowing', it is deciding on someone's behalf what they meant without actually having any facts involved.



It doesn't make sense to say that Drees liked a little piece of stone, and say he didn't know anything about it being real or not, if he's not talking about the 'moon rock', here!!


It doesn't make sense to call it a moon rock, because it never was and no-one ever said it was apart from a pair of artists for an exhibition. It doesn't make sense to put words into peoples' mouths based solely on an publicity for an art stunt and draw definitive conclusions from something so insubstantial.



A label is not needed, since it was, indeed, presented as a genuine 'moon rock', at the time... The label matches it, even so ...


It was not, no-one ever presented it as a moon rock, no moon rocks were being given out because they were still in quarantine at the time and Drees was not there during the goodwill visit.




You don't think it's meant to be a genuine rock, because they never gave genuine moon rocks out to anyone, at the time... so what??

It was given in a private ceremony, not in public.


Nope, didn't happen, you're making that up.




So why is a little piece of stone mentioned by Middendorf, in the first place?


Because some artists invented a story that journalists latched on to and asked him.




However, he says he doesn't know anything about that little stone as 'not being real'..

So, he must have believed it WAS real, since he knows nothing of it 'not being real'!!


This cannot be explained any other way, that's why you don't even try to...



I have more than tried to, I have explained it in full many times: this whole story is a fabrication by two Dutch artists for an art exhibition.

A business card and a fossil were placed next to each other by them, no-one else. No moon rocks were given out by the Apollo 11 crew, no moon rocks were give out by anyone on this visit, no rocks were given at all. No-one from NASA, or the US, ever made any claim that this was a moon rock. No-one from Drees' family has ever claimed it was a moon rock. If you have even the tiniest fragment of evidence that proves me wrong then now's your chance to provide it.




posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 02:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1




So why is a little piece of stone mentioned by Middendorf, in the first place?

Because someone specifically asked him about it.
Long, long after the fact.


And it confirms Middendorf had this 'little stone', which he had earlier received from the US government, possibly the State Dep't.

Which was not a moon rock, at all. It was petrified wood, in fact. It was a deliberate fake, a so-called 'moon rock'.


It cannot be excused as anything else, but a fake moon rock, found many years later...



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 02:10 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1




Which was not a moon rock, at all. It was petrified wood, in fact.
Quite obviously, actually.


It was a deliberate fake, a so-called 'moon rock'.
So called, by whom?


It cannot be excused as anything else, but a fake moon rock, found many years later...
Who are you not excusing?



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 02:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

originally posted by: turbonium1

Middendorf said Drees was 'quite taken with that little stone', iirc.


Which little stone? When? Does Middendorf say he gave it to him, or that he made any specific claims about it? Does Middendorf confirm anything at all in his interview about it?



And Middendorf noted that he wasn't aware of it 'not being real, or anything'....

So what do you suppose he is talking about, then? ...


Read the context of the quote and tell me with any certainty that he is referring to the moon rock, or the fossil. He is being called out of the blue by journalists and asked about something from nearly half a century before.

'Supposing' is not 'knowing', it is deciding on someone's behalf what they meant without actually having any facts involved.



It doesn't make sense to say that Drees liked a little piece of stone, and say he didn't know anything about it being real or not, if he's not talking about the 'moon rock', here!!


It doesn't make sense to call it a moon rock, because it never was and no-one ever said it was apart from a pair of artists for an exhibition. It doesn't make sense to put words into peoples' mouths based solely on an publicity for an art stunt and draw definitive conclusions from something so insubstantial.



A label is not needed, since it was, indeed, presented as a genuine 'moon rock', at the time... The label matches it, even so ...


It was not, no-one ever presented it as a moon rock, no moon rocks were being given out because they were still in quarantine at the time and Drees was not there during the goodwill visit.




You don't think it's meant to be a genuine rock, because they never gave genuine moon rocks out to anyone, at the time... so what??

It was given in a private ceremony, not in public.


Nope, didn't happen, you're making that up.




So why is a little piece of stone mentioned by Middendorf, in the first place?


Because some artists invented a story that journalists latched on to and asked him.




However, he says he doesn't know anything about that little stone as 'not being real'..

So, he must have believed it WAS real, since he knows nothing of it 'not being real'!!


This cannot be explained any other way, that's why you don't even try to...



I have more than tried to, I have explained it in full many times: this whole story is a fabrication by two Dutch artists for an art exhibition.

A business card and a fossil were placed next to each other by them, no-one else. No moon rocks were given out by the Apollo 11 crew, no moon rocks were give out by anyone on this visit, no rocks were given at all. No-one from NASA, or the US, ever made any claim that this was a moon rock. No-one from Drees' family has ever claimed it was a moon rock. If you have even the tiniest fragment of evidence that proves me wrong then now's your chance to provide it.


Your claims are total nonsense...

Years after first getting the 'rock' donated by the Drees family, the Dutch museum finds out it is just petrified wood, not a 'moon rock'.

The Dutch museum had assumed it was a genuine moon rock, obviously. If they knew it was petrified wood, they would never have insured it for millions of dollars, as they did.

They likely called the Drees family, who gave them the 'rock'. Whatever they did, it led them to Middendorf...

Why would Middendorf be linked to the 'rock', if he wasn't involved in it?

Why is he recalling specific details of the event, if he was not involved in it?


You keep on saying it was all made up, which is purely a denial of the truth.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 02:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

They had many reasons for faking it, back then, but aluminum was not considered yet, as it is today.


No contradiction.


so what reason did they have to fake it??

i remember one of your reasons was that they werent able to protect themselves from GCR's so they had to fake the moon landing.
edit on 23-4-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 02:56 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1




Why is he recalling specific details of the event, if he was not involved in it?

Because he was specifically asked.

What details?



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 03:21 AM
link   
It was never claimed to be a 'moon rock', at any time, but the Dutch museum insured it for millions of dollars, so they were obviously a bunch of morons!

Middendorf said he knew nothing of it 'not being real', which doesn't refer to a 'moon rock', of course.

Who needs reality, anyhoo!!



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 03:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

They had many reasons for faking it, back then, but aluminum was not considered yet, as it is today.


No contradiction.


so what reason did they have to fake it??

i remember one of your reasons was that they werent able to protect themselves from GCR's so they had to fake the moon landing.


No, I didn't say that. Look back at my posts, if you doubt me.

They had many reasons it couldn't be done, not just one.

We can't do it now, for many of the same reasons.


Are you aware of what the VAB probes recently discovered?

www.nasa.gov...

An impenetrable barrier surrounds the Earth. Or a 'nearly' impenetrable barrier, anyway.


The barrier is at the lower edge of the upper VAB.

What does that say about the Apollo 'moon landings', then?


And how about everything else we've (supposedly) sent out beyond the VAB, too?



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 03:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

No, I didn't say that. Look back at my posts, if you doubt me.

They had many reasons it couldn't be done, not just one.

We can't do it now, for many of the same reasons.


you keep saying there are many reasons but ive asked you for what reason and your best reply is "many reasons"??

its almost like you dont know, that cant be it right?? there must be some reason that made going to the moon physically impossible..

or are you going to say that the level of technology was insufficient to protect the astronauts from deep space radiation, which is why they were forced to fake the moon landings???


Are you aware of what the VAB probes recently discovered?

www.nasa.gov...

An impenetrable barrier surrounds the Earth. Or a 'nearly' impenetrable barrier, anyway.

The barrier is at the lower edge of the upper VAB.

What does that say about the Apollo 'moon landings', then?


traversing through the VAB has been debunked many times already..
your hero Jarrah white tried to calculate the dose amount for traversing the VAB and he was shown to be a fraud.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


And how about everything else we've (supposedly) sent out beyond the VAB, too?


oh did you really just go there??

dont tell me you think geostationary satellites are fake too??
edit on 23-4-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 04:08 AM
link   
I suppose Apollo avoided the impenetrable barrier which they had not discovered yet!

And every probe we've sent out beyond the VAB avoided it, too!


It's not impenetrable because... nobody knew it ever existed...as all the Apollo-ites know so well about this 'phenomenon'



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 04:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

oh did you really just go there??

dont tell me you think geostationary satellites are fake too??


How can a nearly impenetrable barrier exist, but is completely avoided, each and every time??

Miraculous, truly it is, no doubt!!



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 04:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
I suppose Apollo avoided the impenetrable barrier which they had not discovered yet!

And every probe we've sent out beyond the VAB avoided it, too!

It's not impenetrable because... nobody knew it ever existed...as all the Apollo-ites know so well about this 'phenomenon'



seriously....... i dont even... im a bit speechless to the level of stupidity you have dropped too..

perhaps you should check out the orbital parameters of the probe that detected this "impenetrable barrier"

this is just dumb.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 04:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

oh did you really just go there??

dont tell me you think geostationary satellites are fake too??


How can a nearly impenetrable barrier exist, but is completely avoided, each and every time??

Miraculous, truly it is, no doubt!!


obviously because the probes that found this "impenetrable barrier" must have gone around it too right?? im going to have to save your quotes about this "impenetrable barrier" for later laughs.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 04:36 AM
link   
An impenetrable barrier must raise the question of how we could have gone through it, so many times, right?



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 04:44 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Oh dear Lord I am pmsl.

You didn't even read that report did you?

It's impenetrable to electrons.

Not spacecraft.

Please do try and read things properly before you post them.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 04:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

oh did you really just go there??

dont tell me you think geostationary satellites are fake too??


How can a nearly impenetrable barrier exist, but is completely avoided, each and every time??

Miraculous, truly it is, no doubt!!


obviously because the probes that found this "impenetrable barrier" must have gone around it too right?? im going to have to save your quotes about this "impenetrable barrier" for later laughs.


The probes didn't go around the barrier, they were in the lower VAB when it was spotted.

Next...



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 05:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

Oh dear Lord I am pmsl.

You didn't even read that report did you?

It's impenetrable to electrons.

Not spacecraft.

Please do try and read things properly before you post them.


What are cells made of?

Electrons, for one thing, are part of every living cell.

The barrier is impenetrable to electrons, right?

Right.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 07:16 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Desperate, absolutely desperate. You're not even trying to figure out why you're so wrong here.

Space probes are also made out of electrons. One of those went far enough out to work out the data the report presents. Do you get that?

It is not talking about an impenetrable barrier to physical objects, just a specific type of electron.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

oh did you really just go there??

dont tell me you think geostationary satellites are fake too??


How can a nearly impenetrable barrier exist, but is completely avoided, each and every time??

Miraculous, truly it is, no doubt!!


obviously because the probes that found this "impenetrable barrier" must have gone around it too right?? im going to have to save your quotes about this "impenetrable barrier" for later laughs.


The probes didn't go around the barrier, they were in the lower VAB when it was spotted.

Next...


woah easy there turbo..

have you checked out the orbital parameters of the van allen probes yet?


What are cells made of?

Electrons, for one thing, are part of every living cell.

The barrier is impenetrable to electrons, right?

Right.


speechless again.. im beginning to feel bad for making fun of you sometimes, its almost like you arent doing this deliberately.

but anyway saving this for laughs later.
edit on 23-4-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   
so how did big muley get down here and how did the mirrors get up there ?

if you are going to say "the russians or unmanned probes" please provide details such as launch dates and locations, pictures, quotes, data that is corroborated by a third party that I will determine if it is trust worthy or not.




top topics



 
57
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join