Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

originally posted by: turbonium1

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.

What about the atoms that make up the spacecraft that have gone through the VABs and ventured out to the Moon and planets? Those atoms have electrons. What about the electrons in the atoms that make up a deep-space meteoroid that can eventually find its way to the surface of the Earth?

There are electrons that are bound to atoms, and then there are free electrons (not bound to atoms).

a reply to: turbonium1

So you are now making the claim that electrons of all kinds are incapable of crossing the van allen belt. I'm sure you don't realise it but that means you are now arguing that all matter will be stopped by the VAB's. You are now making the argument that all meteorites are hoaxes as well, the conspiracy grows yet the evidence remains at zero.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: Misinformation

No, it's what people who are tired of you posting faked photos and videos, dishonestly editing quotes, posting information without sourcing it, deliberately misinterpreting people's arguments and not acknowledging when you've been proved wrong say.

Just so people don't forget the point in all your diversionary tactics:

There is no evidence whatsoever that Middendorf gave Drees any piece of petrified wood.

There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone from the goodwill tours gave Drees anything, as he wasn't present during the few short hours the Apollo 11 crew were in Amsterdam.

There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone ever claimed that it was a lunar rock, and given that no lunar rocks had been released from quarantine by the time of the tour it is impossible for it be one.

The fossilised wood was an art exhibition piece. Everything else is hoaxer BS.

No photographs exist prior to Apollo that show the details in Apollo imagery, details subsequently confirmed by probes from many nations - not just the US.

Wikipedia "Testing of the Rijksmuseum "moon rock" in 2009 showed it to be a piece of petrified wood, likely from Arizona. The Rijksmuseum had insured this "moon rock" for ƒ100,000 (€50,000 [$85,000] in 2012 currency) upon its receipt. An investigation showed that United States Ambassador J. William Middendorf II had presented Drees with the "moon rock" on October 9, 1969. The Apollo 11 astronauts were visiting the Netherlands at that time on a goodwill tour"

a reply to: Ove38

Gee I know this will come as an absolute shock to you, but wikipdeia is wrong.

W-R-O-N-G

No-one has ever denied that it was not moon rock.

What is being denied is that it was ever claimed to be a moon rock, and I don't give a flying one what wiki says, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Middendorf gave that rock to Drees, or claimed that it as a moon rock, or that Drees was anywhere the Apollo 11 astronauts on the day they visited, or that the business card presented with it in the art exhibition had anything to do with it.

Art exhibition stunt. Prove otherwise.

If you can find a reputable source that supports the claim, then go ahead and produce it.

I read the first few pages, there were many claims that astronomers (even amateur) have photos of the the landing sites taken from their telescopes on Earth, but nobody posted a photo. Are those photos posted somewhere in this thread, or were those claims just BS?

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
I read the first few pages, there were many claims that astronomers (even amateur) have photos of the the landing sites taken from their telescopes on Earth, but nobody posted a photo. Are those photos posted somewhere in this thread, or were those claims just BS?

There are no telescopes on Earth or in Earth orbit that are powerful enough to see the Apollo equipment on the Moon.

All images of the Apollo hardware on the moon have come from orbit, the best ones being from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbit (LRO). Some of those show the footpaths of the astronauts and the lunar rover wheel tracks, along with some of even the smaller equipment (such as backpacks).

a reply to: Ove38

The Wikipedia article is just parroting what various news sources reported without any supporting evidence. They all made the terribly flawed assumption that since all moon rocks come from NASA then this rock came from NASA even though the only ones to claim it to be a moon rock was the Rijksmuseum. If the widely speculative story were true that would mean Drees, a private citizen was the only person on the planet outside of a very select few at NASA to be allowed to even be in the same room as a moon rock let alone be given one. Why would the US government gift a moon rock, something of extreme value to a private citizen without so much as taking a photograph of the event. There are photographs and news stories of all the commemorative rocks being given out, so why doesn't a single piece of evidence exist of the "first" lunar gift being given out? Why did the US government decide to give this honour to a private citizen and not a government or at least someone in power? Wouldn't many of the USAs allies be offended that they didn't get a moon rock but some private Dutch citizen get's one? Like all hoax evidence, there is a complete absence of evidence that this story ever happened, it also makes no logical sense that it would happen.

Before turbonium makes his or her weekly appearance here's a little reminder of the things we're all waiting for despite repeated requests:

1. Any kind of evidence whatsoever that Apollo astronauts would have, and did, receive any kind of lethal dose in their passage through the VAB

2. Any kind of evidence whatsoever that shows that anyone from the US Goodwill tour gave any kind of rock to former Dutch PM Drees, who was asleep at the time, or that anyone made any kind of claim that it was a moon rock apart from the Artists using it in an exhibition.

3. Any kind of evidence whatsoever that it is physically impossible for solid objects (made up as they are of atoms and their sub-atomic components) to pass through the VAB.

4. Any kind of evidence at all.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Any kind of evidence whatsoever that shows that anyone from the US Goodwill tour gave any kind of rock to former Dutch PM Drees, who was asleep at the time, or that anyone made any kind of claim that it was a moon rock apart from the Artists using it in an exhibition.

Again, let's look at what Middendorf himself stated...

"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.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

So there is a "little piece of stone".

"Drees was very interested" in that "little...stone".

How do you explain this stone, which Drees was so interested in?

You don't.

What you keep on arguing is 'none of the moon rocks were given out at the time'. This assumes the astronauts actually landed on the moon, retrieved moon rocks, returned to Earth with these moon rocks.....and they didn't give out any of the Apollo moon rocks during their 'Goodwill Tour'.

You can't explain it. And you can't avoid it, either.

If someone had counterfeit bills, and 'bought' a car you were selling on Craigslist, it's the very same thing as someone giving out a fake 'moon rock'!!

A counterfeit bill looks like a real bill, so you sell the car. Then, you go to your bank to deposit the cash....

They find out your bills are counterfeit. They ask you to recall where/who gave you these bills..

Investigators track the bills to find out who is behind it, etc.


The counterfeiter does not say 'These are real bills', to prove the bills are used in deliberate fraud


Same as it doesn't have to say 'moon rock' on a plaque, to prove it was meant as such...


Do you get the point here?

originally posted by: turbonium1

Do you get the point here?

from your own article you posted

"Nasa gave moon rocks to more than 100 COUNTRIES following lunar missions in 1969 and the 1970s."

i had no idea Willem Drees was a country?

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

What is being denied is that it was ever claimed to be a moon rock, and I don't give a flying one what wiki says, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Middendorf gave that rock to Drees, or claimed that it as a moon rock, or that Drees was anywhere the Apollo 11 astronauts on the day they visited, or that the business card presented with it in the art exhibition had anything to do with it.

Art exhibition stunt. Prove otherwise.

If you can find a reputable source that supports the claim, then go ahead and produce it.

The Dutch museum was given the 'rock' by the Drees family.

The Drees family donated the 'rock' to the museum, after the death of ex-PM Drees, as owner of this 'rock'.


But who gave Drees this 'rock'?

In the same drawer where the 'rock' was, there was a card..

And the card names Middendorf, who may be connected to the 'rock', in some way...

So Middendorf recalls the 'little piece of stone', and how Drees was very interested in it.


Middendorf says he knows nothing of it not being real, however.


Do you have any case at all, or not?

a reply to: turbonium1
I have a question.
Where is the part about it being a Moon rock?

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

Do you get the point here?

from your own article you posted

"Nasa gave moon rocks to more than 100 COUNTRIES following lunar missions in 1969 and the 1970s."

i had no idea Willem Drees was a country?

I never said he was, nice try.

Now, please explain the 'rock', if you even can..

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

Do you get the point here?

from your own article you posted

"Nasa gave moon rocks to more than 100 COUNTRIES following lunar missions in 1969 and the 1970s."

i had no idea Willem Drees was a country?

I never said he was, nice try.

Now, please explain the 'rock', if you even can..

the explaination is in the article itself.

so ill repeat so that maybe if i repeat it enough it might go through..

NASA gave moons rocks to more than 100 countries.

Willem Drees is a citizen and NOT a country as far as i know. so the article is clearly saying NASA did not give moon rocks to a citizen.

originally posted by: turbonium1

The Dutch museum was given the 'rock' by the Drees family.

The Drees family donated the 'rock' to the museum, after the death of ex-PM Drees, as owner of this 'rock'.


But who gave Drees this 'rock'?

In the same drawer where the 'rock' was, there was a card..

You can stop putting the commas around 'rock' , it's feeble and doesn't make the point you think it does - it is a rock. Fossilised trees count as rocks. What it isn't, never was and was never claimed to be, is a 'moon rock'.

And if you look very carefully at the photograph of that drawer and the card they do not seem to belong together - everything in that drawer is labelled and pinned in place. Apart from the card and the rock.

And the card names Middendorf, who may be connected to the 'rock', in some way...

'May be'? You not so sure now? Is that because you have no evidence?

So Middendorf recalls the 'little piece of stone', and how Drees was very interested in it.

Which rock is Middendorf referring to? Is it definitely this rock Does he state that specifically in the interview? Or is he referring to the actual moonrock that was donated officially later and put on display. Please cite your evidence to support your claim.

Middendorf says he knows nothing of it not being real, however.

Seems pretty clear that if he's referring to the actual moonrock donated to the Netherlands he believes it is real, and if he is referring to the fossilised tree then he believes it to be a genuine piece of fossilised tree. H does not say that he gave a moon rock, or that the moon rock wasn't real.

Do you have any case at all, or not?

Yes, and I have repeatedly made it, and I have the exhibition handbook to support it, not to mention other sources.

Where is the evidence to support your claim?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1
I have a question.
Where is the part about it being a Moon rock?

It doesn't need 'Genuine Moon Rock' written below it, as counterfeit money doesn't need to say 'genuine' on it. Or to put 'genuine money' on a plaque, placed below the bill.

You think any other 'rock' would have been presented to commemorate the Apollo 11 'manned moon landing'?

'This genuine chunk of petrified wood, from Arizona, is to commemorate 'Apollo 11's manned moon landing''??

What are you suggesting, here?

a reply to: turbonium1

What are you suggesting, here?

I asked you "Where is the part about it being a Moon rock?"
Your list of facts did not include that part.

a non partisan examination of the evidence of the alledged " drees moon " rock " " farce .

1 - the alledged " moon rock " was aledgedly presented to drees in a secret ceromony

1a - all known presentations of verified moon rocks were done at publisised events

2 - alledged " moon rock " aledgedly presented to drees was larger than the sum of the official gifts given to european states

2a - all official gifts were of comparable size . the only official favoritism ever shown was the quantity given to accademic insitutions and space agencies

3 - the alledged " moon rock " aledgedly presented to drees was given for " reasons "

3a - no one has opined any rational explaination of " reasons "

4 - the alledged " moon rock " aledgedly presented to drees was ` loose ` - just a naked " rock "

4a - all official moon rocks not designated for scientific analysis were encapsulated in resin

5 the alledged " moon rock " aledgedly presented to drees - turned out - upon cursory visual examination to be petrified wood

5a - petrified wood is an amazing mineral - and easily identified , there are terrestrial bassalts that would if labeled " moon rock " be near impossible to correctly identify by VISUAL examination only

and hoax believers actually wonder why thier claims are not taken seriously ?

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

Which rock is Middendorf referring to? Is it definitely this rock Does he state that specifically in the interview? Or is he referring to the actual moonrock that was donated officially later and put on display. Please cite your evidence to support your claim.


Seems pretty clear that if he's referring to the actual moonrock donated to the Netherlands he believes it is real, and if he is referring to the fossilised tree then he believes it to be a genuine piece of fossilised tree. H does not say that he gave a moon rock, or that the moon rock wasn't real.

No, Middendorf mentions that he - Middendorf - had originally received the 'rock' from the State Dep't. That is not the 'official' rock, which is well-documented.

That alone shows the 'official rock' is not the 'rock' he is referring to.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a non partisan examination of the evidence of the alledged " drees moon " rock " " farce .

1 - the alledged " moon rock " was aledgedly presented to drees in a secret ceromony

1a - all known presentations of verified moon rocks were done at publisised events

2 - alledged " moon rock " aledgedly presented to drees was larger than the sum of the official gifts given to european states

2a - all official gifts were of comparable size . the only official favoritism ever shown was the quantity given to accademic insitutions and space agencies

3 - the alledged " moon rock " aledgedly presented to drees was given for " reasons "

3a - no one has opined any rational explaination of " reasons "

4 - the alledged " moon rock " aledgedly presented to drees was ` loose ` - just a naked " rock "

4a - all official moon rocks not designated for scientific analysis were encapsulated in resin

5 the alledged " moon rock " aledgedly presented to drees - turned out - upon cursory visual examination to be petrified wood

5a - petrified wood is an amazing mineral - and easily identified , there are terrestrial bassalts that would if labeled " moon rock " be near impossible to correctly identify by VISUAL examination only

Nobody even knew the 'rock' existed, until Drees died, and his family had decided to donate it to the Dutch Museum!

It was meant to NOT be studied, or seen in public, but it came out after his death, and THAT is how we know it was a fake 'moon rock'. They probably had no great concern of it ever being discovered as a fake, at that time.

The fact is a fake 'moon rock' was given to Drees, in a private ceremony. It's now known about, so many years later.

Why would they fake 'moon rocks', unless they faked the moon landing, there'd be no other good reason for any fakery....