Disclosure of the Moon Landing Hoax: Part 2

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

none of which - of course has any bearing on the veracity of the apollo program

originally posted by: Ove38
What ? The Largest Cruise Ship in the World is Five Times the Size of Titanic

Show us man on the moon today ! and we will believe you ! it shouldn't be that hard ? just one man !

Or one woman.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter
I'm so glad to see that you are not sexist.
Not that it's relevant.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

none of which - of course has any bearing on the veracity of the apollo program

John M. Logsdon p92:

Nixon's budget decisions were communicated to Paine by Flanigan, not Mayo as would normally have been the case. Flanigan told Paine that "the President says that he doesn't have enough money within the next couple of years and must accept limitation of activity," that "the President will agree that at some time we will go to Mars," that Nixon "did not see the need to go to the moon six more times," and that "the President was alarmed [in the sense of being concerned about their future costs] about the space station and shuttle." Nixon's skepticism regarding the value of additional lunar landing missions was to be a recurrent theme during the next two years.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

do you even read your own cited material - again how does that have any bearing on the veracity of the apollo program ?

originally posted by: turbonium1

I've already explained why there's no description. It's ASSUMED to be a moon rock, that is the goal.

And I've also explained why it was not an 'official' event, for the same point it wasn't described as a 'moon rock'..

so they gave out ONLY one assumed moon rock during the entire goodwill tour, mid way through?

He was able to recall the 'little..stone' given to Drees, and he also recalled Drees being 'quite taken' with it. What do you have to support your case?

he can probably recall many meetings but that doesnt mean it is 100% accurate.. memory doesnt always work like that.. his memory was fuzzy at best..

Both were in the same drawer, true.

were there any other items in the drawer??

A card states - 'With the compliments'. You say this card could be referring to any gift, like chocolates. You are aware It means the card refers to a gift. You even suggest the card itself could have been the gift, to boot!

guess you didnt think that was possible?? the card is to commemorate the Apollo 11 visit, and that is what it is.. there is no mention of gift, so it could be nothing to anything!!

If you ignore everything else stated on the card, it could refer to any gift....perhaps chocolates...

But the card refers to a gift, and who presented the gift, and what the gift commemorates - and you know it does.

and you are adding your own fairytail to the card.. do you still think its an engraved plaque?? there is no mention of the word "gift" you cant even confirm whether or not a gift was accompanied by the commemoration card..

You are blatantly choosing to ignore it, and shows that you are being dishonest.

ignoring what?? the card states its to commemorate the astronauts visit.. how do you know the card itself is not to commemorate their visit?? you are making up a fairy tales..

The card clearly matches up to the fake 'moon rock'.

how so?? the ONLY indication they are linked was that they were found in the same drawer!! what else was in the drawer??

So a counterfeit bill would have the receiver of this bill named on a card, and this card must be found stapled to this bill.... otherwise, it cannot be considered a genuine counterfeit bill!!

These bills are stated to be genuine money, or it was not intended to be taken as genuine money, by your same 'logic'.

Intent to fool someone with a fake bill, or a fake moon rock...do you grasp the whole idea of it, now?

we are not talking about fake money..

bottom line is YOU cannot link the card to any gift at all.. doing so is making up fairy tales.

You realize it refers to a gift, so we can move along..

the card itself could be the "gift" its to commemorate the visit and the card does just that!! moving along indeed.

You are correct, in saying "...Drees was given the fake moon rock..".

However, Drees is the only one KNOWN to us. Saying ONLY Drees got a fake moon rock, is one's opinion.

Maybe others exist, but they are not known to us...not yet, at least.

so you want to base your fairy tale on evidence that doesnt exist??

No...

Nobody knows how the fake moon rock was presented to Drees, as no photos taken at the time, afaik. The 'official' display cases cannot be any sort of valid comparison, to an unknown display of the fake moon rock.

We don't know why the fake moon was removed from its display case, only that it was..

why do you keep saying it was removed from the display case?? THERE WAS NO DISPLAY CASE AT ALL!! unless you can prove otherwise it did not exist, there is simply no evidence to suggest that there is or ever was a display case..

do you see what i mean when i say you are making things up just to fit into your fairytale??

first engraved plaques and now display cases... please.. work with the evidence available, not imaginary evidence!!!

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
1 - wrong by your " metric " hundreds of other statesmen world wide should have been equally eligable to recieve this " secret gift " too

First of all, the question you asked me was "Why give Drees anything?" I suggested some good reasons why Drees was chosen.

You did NOT ask me 'Why give Drees anything, if "hundreds of other statesmen" were "equally eligible"...

No matter, I'll answer that as well..

Drees was not just one of the most popular PM's in Dutch history, he is regarded (as polls) to be THE BEST PM IN DUTCH HISTORY. So, when the Apollo 11 goodwill tour visited the Netherlands, who would you consider as "equally eligible" as Drees, to present a fake "moon rock"? Not many, I'd think, would compare to the best PM in Dutch history.

Another thing - why do you assume other fake rocks were NOT given out, that only Drees received one? You have no idea if anyone else got a fake rock, Likewise, I cannot say that other fake rocks WERE given out, at that time, because I do not know if any were.

Even if "hundreds of other statesmen" were "equally eligible", some of them could have received other fake rocks, too.

I think that settles the issue, now.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
2 makes no sense - why couldnt drees spot it as a fake ????????????????

It makes no sense he would spot it as a fake.

Drees was a politician, not a geologist, and was an old man with poor eyesight (and hearing) at the time, to start with.

The Dutch museum received the rock in 1992. Do you know when it was found to be fake? 17 YEARS LATER, in 2009!
It was exhibited for over 10 years within that period. And nobody who saw it, in all that time, thought it was a fake, or at least, ever told the Museum it was a fake. So, how many people would have seen the fake rock over that time?

It doesn't really matter, does it? You should get the point, by now.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
3 - as you cite honesty and integrity as reasons to give drees a gift - the same traits come back to bite you when you alledgedly atempt to give him a fake in secret .

You don't get my point - Drees was a good candidate for the fake rock because the Dutch people regarded him as a man of honesty and integrity. That doesn't mean he was a saint, only that people SAW him that way. Anyway, he was a politician, and, like most 'good, honest' politicians, would have been quite capable of keeping secrets.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
4 - no you have not - you wave your hands furiously - but no corrolation

That really addresses the issue, thanks!..

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Ove38
Both of you understand, that the problem is, that this is unrepeatable to this very day ! No one is going to the moon ! Just go and we will believe you !

No body built the Titanic again either that's hardly a valid point. Plenty if things in history only happened once but in your world view I guess it didn't happen.

Although I agree with the spirit of your post, that is not entirely accurate. The third Olympic class liner Brittanic was completed after Titanic sank, and was sunk herself in WWI. Their older sister and class leader Olympic sailed for two decades plus and was credited with sinking an enemy sub during her WWI service.

However, I get your meaning, and agree that just because no one is currently flying to the moon does not mean no one ever did. One of many logical fallacies hoax believers just LOVE to employ.

a reply to: turbonium1

I guess you guys missed this so I'll post it again here is the list of gifts that were handed out with those cards.

There were three major items for the astronauts to present to heads of state and other dignitaries during the Apollo 11 World Tour. These include the following:

Replica of the plaque left on the Moon mounted on a walnut backing. A plaque was presented to the leading official at each city.
Replica of Goodwill Message disc left on the Moon, eight-power magnifying glass and framed photograph. These were presented to the signers of each of the individual messages that were contained in the original message disc. Nations on the Apollo 11 World Tour that provided goodwill messages included on the message disc include the following: Argentina, President Juan Carlos Ongania; Australia, Prime Minister John Gorton; Belgium, Baudouin I, King of the Belgians; Brazil, President Arthur Da [243] Costa E. Silva; Colombia, President Carlos Lleras Restrepo; Congo, President J.D. Mobuto; India, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi; Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi Aryamehr; Italy, President Guiseppe Sarget; Japan, Prime Minister Eisaku Sato; Korea, President Park Chung Hee; Mexico, President Gustavo Diaz Ordaz; Netherlands, Juliana R.; Norway, King Olav R.; Pakistan, A.M. Yahya Khan; Thailand, Bhumibol Adulyade, King of Thailand; Turkey, President Cevdet Sunay; United Kingdom, Elizabeth R.; Vatican, Pope Paul VI; Yugoslavia, President Josip Broz-Tito; Canada, Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
Color photographs from the Apollo 11 mission (8" x 10" mounted on 11" x 14" mats; 11" x 14" mounted on 16" x 20" mats) were autographed aboard the aircraft for presentation to lesser dignitaries (i.e. ministers, ambassadors, mayors, etc.

history.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: turbonium1

The Dutch museum received the rock in 1992. Do you know when it was found to be fake? 17 YEARS LATER, in 2009!
It was exhibited for over 10 years within that period.

Not true. The rock was first displayed with the card in 2006 when two conceptual artists put the two items together for an art exhibit.

Once again:

There is no evidence whatsoever that shows Drees was given this fossil by anyone remotely connected with the Apollo 11 goodwill visit.

There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone ever claimed that this was a lunar rock.

Not one piece of evidence exists to support this story.

Not,

One.

Piece.

originally posted by: choos
so they gave out ONLY one assumed moon rock during the entire goodwill tour, mid way through?

I've explained this point, over and over again, but it's not getting through...

We do not know if any other fake rocks were given out during the goodwill tour. We know that one fake rock WAS given out, at this point. Considering how long it took before we DID find one fake rock, and only because it was donated to a museum, for which it was never intended - to be in public view......well, I'd say it is very possible more fakes were given out, Of course, It's also possible that other fakes were not given out.

The point is - we do not know.

originally posted by: choos
he can probably recall many meetings but that doesnt mean it is 100% accurate.. memory doesnt always work like that.. his memory was fuzzy at best..

The article noted..

Middendorf, who lives in Rhode Island, told Dutch broadcaster NOS news that he had gotten it from the U.S. State Department, but couldn't recall the exact details.

usatoday30.usatoday.com...

So - he knows who gave him the fake rock, before he presented it to Drees - he knows it came from The State Department. He cannot recall 'the exact details', refers to details of HIS (Middendorf's) receiving the rock - that's all.

Do you recall every detail of every event in your past? If you don't, then you must conclude that your memory is "fuzzy at best", by the same 'logic'....

He recalled getting the fake 'moon rock' from the State Dep't, not the exact details, though..He recalls that he gave it to Drees, and recalls how Drees reacted to the fake 'moon rock' - that "..he was very interested in that little piece of stone.."

He assumed it was a REAL moon rock, since he knows nothing of it being 'not real'.

originally posted by: choos
were there any other items in the drawer??

The article only said these two items were found in the same drawer.

If other items were also in that drawer, or not, doesn't matter - only these two objects are linked together, in the same drawer, and they are linked when the Drees family took both items out of the same drawer, as one, and given as one thing, to the museum.

originally posted by: choos
guess you didnt think that was possible?? the card is to commemorate the Apollo 11 visit, and that is what it is.. there is no mention of gift, so it could be nothing to anything!!

"With the compliments of US Ambassador ..." -
"To commemorate the visit of the Apollo 11 astronauts to the Netherlands.."

Middendorf presents Drees with this card, by itself, as a gift. And, on an entirely unrelated occassion, Middendorf presents Drees with a fake moon rock, which is also by itself, as a gift. The card and fake moon rock are both gifts, but given to Drees in two separate presentations, then!!

Sure, that works!!

originally posted by: choos
and you are adding your own fairytail to the card.. do you still think its an engraved plaque?? there is no mention of the word "gift" you cant even confirm whether or not a gift was accompanied by the commemoration card..

It is not engraved, but it is indeed a plaque, by definition -

An ornamental tablet, typically of metal, porcelain, or wood, that is fixed to a wall or other surface in commemoration of a person or event.

www.oxforddictionaries.com...

It is a plaque, as a tablet to commemorates the visit of the Apollo 11 astronauts to the Netherlands.

Would you like to show me any examples of a card which is a gift in itself? Can you show me another card that states 'With the compliments of so and so', and/or a card that states 'to commemorate such and such event', to describe itself as something given "with the compliments of so and so", as a gift, to commemorate significant events...like the visit of the Apollo 11 astronauts to the Netherlands, for example?

Please go ahead...

I look forward to all your supporting evidence on that. Cards as the gift, how wonderful...

originally posted by: choos
ignoring what?? the card states its to commemorate the astronauts visit.. how do you know the card itself is not to commemorate their visit?? you are making up a fairy tales..

Fairy tales would be something you can't show exists in the real world, like printing "With our compliments" on a card is saying the card is a gift, in itself, and is how we commemorate historical events, in presentations to world leaders, as describing it on the card makes it a commemorative of the event, in itself

originally posted by: choos
we are not talking about fake money..

We are talking about fakes, in both cases, that's the point here.

originally posted by: choos
why do you keep saying it was removed from the display case?? THERE WAS NO DISPLAY CASE AT ALL!! unless you can prove otherwise it did not exist, there is simply no evidence to suggest that there is or ever was a display case..

It's been mentioned as being in a case, although it cannot be proven. Nor can it be proven there was no case, either.

With or without a case, and with or without a card, is not relevant. We know that a fake 'moon rock' was presented by Middendorf to Drees, all under the false assumption that it was a real moon rock.

You can't excuse that, or avoid that, it is a fact.

a reply to: turbonium1

We know that one fake rock WAS given out, at this point.

Define fake rock.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos
so they gave out ONLY one assumed moon rock during the entire goodwill tour, mid way through?

I've explained this point, over and over again, but it's not getting through...

We do not know if any other fake rocks were given out during the goodwill tour.

Yes we do. No rocks of any description were given out during the goodwill tour. None.

We know that one fake rock WAS given out, at this point.

No, 'we' do not know this. You are desperately clinging on to a false claim that one was with no supporting evidence whatsoever.

Considering how long it took before we DID find one fake rock, and only because it was donated to a museum, for which it was never intended - to be in public view......well, I'd say it is very possible more fakes were given out, Of course, It's also possible that other fakes were not given out.

It is more likely that no rocks were given out to anyone, because none were given out on the goodwill tour.

None.

The point is - we do not know.

No, the point is you do not know, but are continually claiming that you do.

The article noted..

Middendorf, who lives in Rhode Island, told Dutch broadcaster NOS news that he had gotten it from the U.S. State Department, but couldn't recall the exact details.

usatoday30.usatoday.com...

So - he knows who gave him the fake rock, before he presented it to Drees - he knows it came from The State Department. He cannot recall 'the exact details', refers to details of HIS (Middendorf's) receiving the rock - that's all.

Really?

You know that for certain? How do you that? Where in any of his statement does he specifically describe the fossil wood? Or giving it to Drees?

An old man is responding to sudden and unexpected questions about an event decades before.. You can't be sure Middendorf knows what is being referred to. My contention is that he is recalling a different rock, the one from the 1970 Rotterdam exhibition. Prove otherwise. Notice in this quote:

"I do remember that (Drees) was very interested in the little piece of stone,"

'Drees' is in brackets, meaning that it is the reporter who has made the link, not Middendorf.

Do you recall every detail of every event in your past? If you don't, then you must conclude that your memory is "fuzzy at best", by the same 'logic'....

He recalled getting the fake 'moon rock' from the State Dep't, not the exact details, though..He recalls that he gave it to Drees, and recalls how Drees reacted to the fake 'moon rock' - that "..he was very interested in that little piece of stone.."

He recalls how someone was interested in a piece of stone. He does not state who, who does not say which rock, neither does he say he gave the rock. There is nothing there to link Drees and the fossil, or Middendorf and the fossil, or Drees and Middendorf.

He assumed it was a REAL moon rock, since he knows nothing of it being 'not real'.

And you are assuming, with no supporting evidence other than vague and ambiquous reporting, that he is referring to the fossil.

The article only said these two items were found in the same drawer.

If other items were also in that drawer, or not, doesn't matter - only these two objects are linked together, in the same drawer, and they are linked when the Drees family took both items out of the same drawer, as one, and given as one thing, to the museum.

It is an assumption that the Drees family made the link. There is no proof to support that. There is also nothing to support the claim that the two items were ever linked together. The first time they were definitely linked together was for an art exhibit. By two artists. Who made a lot of publicity and money from it.

originally posted by: [post=19328982]

"With the compliments of US Ambassador ..." -
"To commemorate the visit of the Apollo 11 astronauts to the Netherlands.."

Middendorf presents Drees with this card, by itself, as a gift. And, on an entirely unrelated occassion, Middendorf presents Drees with a fake moon rock, which is also by itself, as a gift. The card and fake moon rock are both gifts, but given to Drees in two separate presentations, then!!

Sure, that works!!

You have no proof whatsoever that Middendorf gave Drees a fossil. None.

originally posted by: [post=19328982]

It is not engraved, but it is indeed a plaque, by definition -

An ornamental tablet, typically of metal, porcelain, or wood, that is fixed to a wall or other surface in commemoration of a person or event.

www.oxforddictionaries.com...

It is a plaque, as a tablet to commemorates the visit of the Apollo 11 astronauts to the Netherlands.

It is a piece of card. You can see creases on the card. It is not mounted on anything.

Would you like to show me any examples of a card which is a gift in itself? Can you show me another card that states 'With the compliments of so and so', and/or a card that states 'to commemorate such and such event', to describe itself as something given "with the compliments of so and so", as a gift, to commemorate significant events...like the visit of the Apollo 11 astronauts to the Netherlands, for example?

Please go ahead...

I look forward to all your supporting evidence on that. Cards as the gift, how wonderful...

I look forward to you producing any evidence to support the claim that Middendorf gave the fossil to Drees.

Fairy tales would be something you can't show exists in the real world, like printing "With our compliments" on a card is saying the card is a gift, in itself, and is how we commemorate historical events, in presentations to world leaders, as describing it on the card makes it a commemorative of the event, in itself

You clearly have not been to corporate events.

originally posted by: choos
we are not talking about fake money..

We are talking about fakes, in both cases, that's the point here.

No, you are. The fossil is not a fake rock. It is a genuine rock. No-one ever claimed it is a moon rock. You have no evidence that anyone ever did.

It's been mentioned as being in a case, although it cannot be proven. Nor can it be proven there was no case, either.

By whom? When? Sources? No? Nothing.

Here it is in a case:

www.bikvanderpol.net...

It is not the case you are claiming.

I posted

With or without a case, and with or without a card, is not relevant. We know that a fake 'moon rock' was presented by Middendorf to Drees, all under the false assumption that it was a real moon rock.

You can't excuse that, or avoid that, it is a fact.

it is not a fact.

If it was a fact you would be able to offer evidence.

You never have, despite repeated requests.

There is no proof that anyone gave Drees this rock from the Apollo goodwill tour.

There is no proof that anyone ever claimed it was lunar in origin.

If you have some, post it.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

There is no evidence whatsoever that shows Drees was given this fossil by anyone remotely connected with the Apollo 11 goodwill visit.

There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone ever claimed that this was a lunar rock.

Not one piece of evidence exists to support this story.

We have the fake moon rock. It was in Drees possession, until his death, and then it was donated to the Dutch museum.

We have Middendorf stating how the fake moon rock came into Drees' possession. Middendorf stated that he - personally - presented it to Drees.

Middendorf said he knows nothing of it - the 'moon rock' - he gave to Drees as being 'not real'. Which means Middendorf had always thought it WAS real, having no knowledge of it being NOT real.

Do you understand this?

It is a fake 'moon rock'. So this is pure fraud, no matter how you slice it.

So the only relevant question is - who was behind the faking of this 'moon rock'?

It is either US government agencies, like NASA, who did it...or it is Middendorf

If Middendorf created the fake moon rock, then he would have to be lying about how it came into his possession, via the State Department.
He would need a very strong motive for it, as well. How would he benefit from presenting Drees with a 'moon rock', then? It has little benefit to him, if at all. He has no real motive. A moon rock cannot be used for monetary gain, or to con an old man into revising his will - this is because a moon rock cannot be sold by the recipient, as no moon rocks can be sold, or purchased, by anyone. A moon rock has, in essence, zero financial benefit.

Middendorf had no motive for creating a fake moon rock, to give out to Drees.

What clinches it, though, is what Middendorf said, as quoted in the article...

Middendorf said he knew nothing of it (the 'moon rock') being 'not real'. But if Middendorf was behind the fake moon rock, he would have said he ALWAYS KNEW it was 'not real'. Nobody else was there, except the late Mr. Drees.
Middendorf would never be found responsible for giving out a fake moon rock, and it becomes a 'misunderstanding' by someone who assumed it was a real moon rock. No big deal.

So it had to be the government agencies behind it, then...

The motive to fake a moon rock is very obvious - it is done to support their own fake moon landing.

That's who made a fake moon rock, out of petrified wood.

a reply to: turbonium1

So the only relevant question is - who was behind the faking of this 'moon rock'?

Actually, the question is where and when did Middendorf tell Drees it was a moon rock.

But that question isn't really relevant because it is not a moon rock at all. It is a piece of petrified wood. So, if Middendorf told Drees it was a moon rock, he was very mistaken because moon rocks bear no resemblance to petrified wood.

1) Considering the massive amount of documentation confirming the lunar missions and the variety of research done on the material brought back the issue of this one rock is beyond inconsequential.

2) Apollo 11 landed on the moon approximately 180 days after Nixon took office. He obviously had next to nothing to do with developing the project one way or the other. His policies regarding funding space exploration could have had no effect of the first Apollo missions as he hadn't even been in office long enough to submit a budget.

originally posted by: turbonium1

I've explained this point, over and over again, but it's not getting through...

We do not know if any other fake rocks were given out during the goodwill tour. We know that one fake rock WAS given out, at this point. Considering how long it took before we DID find one fake rock, and only because it was donated to a museum, for which it was never intended - to be in public view......well, I'd say it is very possible more fakes were given out, Of course, It's also possible that other fakes were not given out.

The point is - we do not know.

it doesnt matter how many times YOU explain it.. the fact is YOU are making up your own fairy tale to fit into the known story.. only ONE piece of petrified wood is known, it was wrongly assumed it was a moon rock.. explaining that there "could" be others is a fairy tale..

The article noted..

Middendorf, who lives in Rhode Island, told Dutch broadcaster NOS news that he had gotten it from the U.S. State Department, but couldn't recall the exact details.

usatoday30.usatoday.com...

So - he knows who gave him the fake rock, before he presented it to Drees - he knows it came from The State Department. He cannot recall 'the exact details', refers to details of HIS (Middendorf's) receiving the rock - that's all.

Do you recall every detail of every event in your past? If you don't, then you must conclude that your memory is "fuzzy at best", by the same 'logic'....

He recalled getting the fake 'moon rock' from the State Dep't, not the exact details, though..He recalls that he gave it to Drees, and recalls how Drees reacted to the fake 'moon rock' - that "..he was very interested in that little piece of stone.."

He assumed it was a REAL moon rock, since he knows nothing of it being 'not real'.

he cant recall the details.. which means his memory is fuzzy.. you are basing your entire story on a fuzzy memory..

The article only said these two items were found in the same drawer.

If other items were also in that drawer, or not, doesn't matter - only these two objects are linked together, in the same drawer, and they are linked when the Drees family took both items out of the same drawer, as one, and given as one thing, to the museum.

why doesnt it matter?? if these two items were linked together because they were in the same drawer why dont the other items matter???

and why are you saying they they were pulled out as one item?? where is your proof of this?

"With the compliments of US Ambassador ..." -
"To commemorate the visit of the Apollo 11 astronauts to the Netherlands.."

Middendorf presents Drees with this card, by itself, as a gift. And, on an entirely unrelated occassion, Middendorf presents Drees with a fake moon rock, which is also by itself, as a gift. The card and fake moon rock are both gifts, but given to Drees in two separate presentations, then!!

Sure, that works!!

as far as i know, Drees was not present during the good will tour.. he never met with the astronauts.. want to try again?

It is not engraved, but it is indeed a plaque, by definition -

An ornamental tablet, typically of metal, porcelain, or wood, that is fixed to a wall or other surface in commemoration of a person or event.

www.oxforddictionaries.com...

It is a plaque, as a tablet to commemorates the visit of the Apollo 11 astronauts to the Netherlands.

Would you like to show me any examples of a card which is a gift in itself? Can you show me another card that states 'With the compliments of so and so', and/or a card that states 'to commemorate such and such event', to describe itself as something given "with the compliments of so and so", as a gift, to commemorate significant events...like the visit of the Apollo 11 astronauts to the Netherlands, for example?

Please go ahead...

I look forward to all your supporting evidence on that. Cards as the gift, how wonderful...

you did say that my story was completely out of whack because you believed an engraved plaque was involved.. which leads one to believe you belived that an engraved plaque was involved from the beginning..

a card as commemoration is plenty good.. your disbelief wont change the possibility of it.
are you able to confirm that any gift was given during the goodwill tour as a commemoration gift??

Fairy tales would be something you can't show exists in the real world, like printing "With our compliments" on a card is saying the card is a gift, in itself, and is how we commemorate historical events, in presentations to world leaders, as describing it on the card makes it a commemorative of the event, in itself

BAM, just like your entire story..

We are talking about fakes, in both cases, that's the point here.

if you used a fake cheque you might have a more accurate analogy.. fake money is a bit of a fail..

It's been mentioned as being in a case, although it cannot be proven. Nor can it be proven there was no case, either.

With or without a case, and with or without a card, is not relevant. We know that a fake 'moon rock' was presented by Middendorf to Drees, all under the false assumption that it was a real moon rock.

You can't excuse that, or avoid that, it is a fact.

what do you mean with or without a card is not relevant?? the sole reason that the rock was assumed linked with the card was because they were found in the same drawer.. without the card this wouldnt be an issue at all..

and no you do not know that a fake moon rock was presented by middendorf to drees.. the best you got is a fuzzy memory of a personal gift.. no presentation..

originally posted by: turbonium1


We have the fake moon rock. It was in Drees possession, until his death, and then it was donated to the Dutch museum.

In Drees' possession? Yes. Donated to the Rijksmuseum? Yes. Fake moon rock? No. It was never claimed to be a moon rock by Drees, anyone connected with Drees, or Middendorf. No proof again I see.

We have Middendorf stating how the fake moon rock came into Drees' possession. Middendorf stated that he - personally - presented it to Drees.

No, we don't. Show me any quote, anywhere, that has Middendorf himself saying he gave Drees the rock. Anything.

Middendorf said he knows nothing of it - the 'moon rock' - he gave to Drees as being 'not real'. Which means Middendorf had always thought it WAS real, having no knowledge of it being NOT real.

Show me the text where it unambiguously states that Middendorf is referring to the fossil in Drees' possession. Anything at all from Middendorf himself, not some vague journalist's interpretation.

Do you understand this?

Do you understand what "Please provide evidence" is?

It is a fake 'moon rock'. So this is pure fraud, no matter how you slice it.

The only fraud is by the artists.

So the only relevant question is - who was behind the faking of this 'moon rock'?

Bik van der pol.

It is either US government agencies, like NASA, who did it...or it is Middendorf

Or two Dutch artists for an art exhibit.

If Middendorf created the fake moon rock, then he would have to be lying about how it came into his possession, via the State Department.

Show me the evidence that he is referring to the fossil in any of his communications about it.

He would need a very strong motive for it, as well. How would he benefit from presenting Drees with a 'moon rock', then? It has little benefit to him, if at all. He has no real motive.

A moon rock cannot be used for monetary gain, or to con an old man into revising his will - this is because a moon rock cannot be sold by the recipient, as no moon rocks can be sold, or purchased, by anyone. A moon rock has, in essence, zero financial benefit.

Middendorf had no motive for creating a fake moon rock, to give out to Drees.

Precisely.

What clinches it, though, is what Middendorf said, as quoted in the article...

Middendorf said he knew nothing of it (the 'moon rock') being 'not real'.

And which bit of that says he is referring to the fossil, rather than the 1970 exhibit that he will remember handling, and the old man Prins Bernhard is photographed being very interested in?

But if Middendorf was behind the fake moon rock, he would have said he ALWAYS KNEW it was 'not real'. Nobody else was there, except the late Mr. Drees.
Middendorf would never be found responsible for giving out a fake moon rock, and it becomes a 'misunderstanding' by someone who assumed it was a real moon rock. No big deal.

So it had to be the government agencies behind it, then...

Logical fallacy.

You have made up a scenario based on no evidence, dismissed it as false, and drawn a false conclusion as an alternative again with no evidence.

The motive to fake a moon rock is very obvious - it is done to support their own fake moon landing.

That's who made a fake moon rock, out of petrified wood.

Gibberish.

There is no evidence that anyone remotely connected with the Apollo 11 goodwill tour gave Drees this fossil, there is no evidence that anyone ever claimed it was a lunar rock.

Not one piece of evidence. If there was evidence for your claim you would have posted it by now. You haven't. Your failure to provide supporting material for your own claim speaks volumes.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
An old man is responding to sudden and unexpected questions about an event decades before.. You can't be sure Middendorf knows what is being referred to. My contention is that he is recalling a different rock, the one from the 1970 Rotterdam exhibition. Prove otherwise. Notice in this quote:

"I do remember that (Drees) was very interested in the little piece of stone,"

'Drees' is in brackets, meaning that it is the reporter who has made the link, not Middendorf.

No, 'Drees' would have been put in brackets because the reader needs to know who "he" is referring to....

Middendorf actually would have said - "I do remember that he was very interested in the little piece of stone."

But we don't know who "he" is, if this was put as said in the article. We have no reference, because the sentence was taken out of an interview Middendorf did with NOS News. Unless the article posted more of his interview, before that sentence, we won't know who "he" is referring to. It is much easier to put someone's name in brackets, rather than trying to cram an entire interview within a one-page article, just to keep a single quote intact.

I'd love to find out what he said in the entire interview, but I can't find it anywhere so far. NOS News has an archive, but it doesn't go back far enough.

If anyone knows where to find it, please let me know.

What proof do you have that the author is not correct, anyway?

The "old man with memory problems" excuse doesn't work, either. You could say anyone has a memory problem simply because they are old, which is nonsense. You need to PROVE he has a bad memory, first of all, and then, you still have to prove what he is specifically saying here cannot be taken as valid, that it is flawed, and he is very confused, due to his memory problem.

You have proven nothing of the sort, as you well know.

a reply to: turbonium1

So you don't know, have yet again offered no evidence to support your claim, and are relying on inference and supposition to prop up your imaginary story.

Is this the best you have?

Have some photos of the exhibition in development from the link I already posted.

I can see a fossilised piece of wood in a cabinet. Not even a card to go with it yet.





e2a: Actually, given that this is from the exhibition book, it may even be the final installation.

Does it look like it has pride of place anywhere, other than being in the middle of a shabby room with some lights pointing at it?

This is what you're expending pages and pages arguing is a conclusive piece of evidence showing a hoax?

Really?