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

a reply to: MissVocalcord

"However you claim you have other sources backing up this news paper; Now it is time for you to come clear; where are they?"

That is true and they will be released when all information is collected. Maybe if you had looked more then 5 minutes (not online) you would had also found it.

TheWhisper
If your answer is no then by not mention the moon rock given to the Queen by most media means not it did not happen.

You are again trying to attach two unrelated events to each other for no reason. I gave you a source stating explicitly two gifts were given; a moon rock wasn't one of them.

Are you saying my source is wrong and three gifts were given? According to your own logic you shall first have to find a rectification for my source being wrong; until then only two gifts were given and a moon rock isn't one of them.
This is a direct contradiction with the claim in the news paper in your TS.

It is clear that former PM Willem Drees did get a piece of petrified wood from the US ambassador, who did not know it was a fake moon rock the following quote from the old ambassador can be found at the website Telegraph.co.uk. Now anyone has a source article of Middendorf giving a "moon rock" to Drees. TW has atleast on article that states the Queen got one moon rock from the Apollo astronauts.

“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...

originally posted by: MissVocalcord

TheWhisper
If your answer is no then by not mention the moon rock given to the Queen by most media means not it did not happen.

You are again trying to attach two unrelated events to each other for no reason. I gave you a source stating explicitly two gifts were given; a moon rock wasn't one of them.

Are you saying my source is wrong and three gifts were given? According to your own logic you shall first have to find a rectification for my source being wrong; until then only two gifts were given and a moon rock isn't one of them.
This is a direct contradiction with the claim in the news paper in your TS.

They are not unrelated as it is the same visit and it is about moon rocks. You just like to ignore one and have no arguments to debunk the other one. It is not debunk-able as other sources confirm the TS source.

originally posted by: TheWhisper
They are not unrelated as it is the same visit and it is about moon rocks.

This topic is about an allegedly given moonrock to the Dutch Queen on 9 october 1969.

The story about the rock from Drees is completely different for a lot of reasons and I consider therefore as off-topic;
And there are also other topics about it;
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You just like to ignore one and have no arguments to debunk the other one.

Why are you ignoring my source which explicitly says only two gifts were given; moon rock wasn't part of the deal.

a reply to: MissVocalcord

"This topic is about an allegedly given moonrock to the Dutch Queen on 9 october 1969."

Correct and you cannot ignore the protocol that a head of state should get the most important gift. US ambassador Middendorf has confirmed that a rock was given to Drees and the he was not aware that it was not real.

“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.

The Queen is the head of state and should get an equal (or even bigger) gift this is just standard protocol. That means that the Queen also should had got a moon rock as the article in the newspaper reports. To give Drees a bigger rock as the Queen is against any protocol so the moon rock given to the Dutch Queen should be as big or bigger. It is against protocol to give the Queen a smaller or even no moon rock at all. Your attempt to see this two events separate is not correct as explained above.

a reply to: MissVocalcord

Good luck, you're arguing with a special one here. Even I don't really bother

a reply to: MissVocalcord

"Why are you ignoring my source which explicitly says only two gifts were given; moon rock wasn't part of the deal."

Those two gift are given that is fine but a moon rock is also given as explained to you before about the protocol when you visit a head of state.

a reply to: MissVocalcord

"Why are you ignoring my source which explicitly says only two gifts were given; moon rock wasn't part of the deal."

TW doesn't ignore the two gifts it is okay that those to gift are given.

Again protocol when a head of state is visited.

It is inline with the protocol that the Apollo 11 crew would present a moon rock to the Queen and the ambassador to Drees. The guests of honor (Apollo11 crew) would present to moon rock to the head of state (The Queen) and the Ambassador to other people former PM Drees in this case. It all fits together when you follow the protocol. Where is the moon rock that is reported as given to the Dutch Queen that is the question. As the moon rock given to Drees is proven to be fake, the moon rock given to the Dutch queen must also be to big to be a real moon rock.

originally posted by: TheWhisper
a reply to: MissVocalcord

"Why are you ignoring my source which explicitly says only two gifts were given; moon rock wasn't part of the deal."

TW doesn't ignore the two gifts it is okay that those to gift are given.

Again protocol when a head of state is visited.

It is inline with the protocol that the Apollo 11 crew would present a moon rock to the Queen and the ambassador to Drees. The guests of honor (Apollo11 crew) would present to moon rock to the head of state (The Queen) and the Ambassador to other people former PM Drees in this case. It all fits together when you follow the protocol. Where is the moon rock that is reported as given to the Dutch Queen that is the question. As the moon rock given to Drees is proven to be fake, the moon rock given to the Dutch queen must also be to big to be a real moon rock.

You sure are a class act buddy. What's your motto? - "If you can't prove something, make **it up."

originally posted by: AgentSmith

originally posted by: TheWhisper
a reply to: MissVocalcord

"Why are you ignoring my source which explicitly says only two gifts were given; moon rock wasn't part of the deal."

TW doesn't ignore the two gifts it is okay that those to gift are given.

Again protocol when a head of state is visited.

It is inline with the protocol that the Apollo 11 crew would present a moon rock to the Queen and the ambassador to Drees. The guests of honor (Apollo11 crew) would present to moon rock to the head of state (The Queen) and the Ambassador to other people former PM Drees in this case. It all fits together when you follow the protocol. Where is the moon rock that is reported as given to the Dutch Queen that is the question. As the moon rock given to Drees is proven to be fake, the moon rock given to the Dutch queen must also be to big to be a real moon rock.

You sure are a class act buddy. What's your motto? - "If you can't prove something, make **it up."

Accrding the quout from the Telegraph:
“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.

"But that it’s not real, I don’t know anything about that"
indicates that even the old Ambassador thought it was a real moon rock.

I am so confused now in this thread. too many twists and turns

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: DelMarvel I'm not going to explain how it works, Compartmentalization, because you will just keep dragging it out with impossible questions:

In other words, questions about specifics of how this hoax would have worked are "impossible questions."

I'll take it to the other thread.

a reply to: DelMarvel

Yes, you'll just keep furthering the questioning and exhausting me of responses, then pounce when you cherry pick a derived weakness in my reasoning. I don't need to know every detail of how they compartmnetalized to know that's most likely how they achieved what they wanted to without spilling the beans to the Guy that mops on the lower level of NASA. That's ridiculous

originally posted by: TheWhisper

originally posted by: AgentSmith

originally posted by: TheWhisper
a reply to: MissVocalcord

"Why are you ignoring my source which explicitly says only two gifts were given; moon rock wasn't part of the deal."

TW doesn't ignore the two gifts it is okay that those to gift are given.

Again protocol when a head of state is visited.

It is inline with the protocol that the Apollo 11 crew would present a moon rock to the Queen and the ambassador to Drees. The guests of honor (Apollo11 crew) would present to moon rock to the head of state (The Queen) and the Ambassador to other people former PM Drees in this case. It all fits together when you follow the protocol. Where is the moon rock that is reported as given to the Dutch Queen that is the question. As the moon rock given to Drees is proven to be fake, the moon rock given to the Dutch queen must also be to big to be a real moon rock.

You sure are a class act buddy. What's your motto? - "If you can't prove something, make **it up."

Accrding the quout from the Telegraph:
“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.

"But that it’s not real, I don’t know anything about that"
indicates that even the old Ambassador thought it was a real moon rock.

I was referring to :

the moon rock given to the Dutch queen must also be to big to be a real moon rock.

You just engage in circular reasoning to build your arguments, there was no moon rock given to the Queen.
The same paper refers to the Moon landing as real, but I bet you don't accept that.
People like you are a waste of time to debate anything with.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
I am so confused now in this thread. too many twists and turns

The queen did get some Apollo 11 moon rock with a dutch flag.
en.wikipedia.org...

The rocks are not given by the Apollo 11 astronauts on 9 October 1969. Most people here agree on that.
Image of the rocks and display.
en.wikipedia.org...

So the question is what is given to the Queen by the Apollo 11 crew. It is absolutely impossible that the Queen did get nothing and Drees a big moon rock. The US ambassador is quoted in the telegraph.co.uk saying.

“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.

"But that it’s not real, I don’t know anything about that" so he also thought it was a real moon rock. Now then the Queen must also be presented with a moon rock. As she is the head of state the guest of honer would present the moon rock (Apollo 11 crew) to the queen. This must be a similar rock in size but most likely bigger. according protocol will the Ambassador present gift to other people in this case Drees with a moon rock. Well the moon rock presented to the Queen must at least be as big as the moon rock Drees got. That is what is going on. Just global protocols when countries sent representative to a head of state.

a reply to: AgentSmith

Don't worry; I know with whom I'm dealing

a reply to: TheWhisper
I posted a reply here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I'm not discussing anything about the Drees stone here further. (unless new information becomes available which would allow for such a thing)

originally posted by: TheWhisper
Those two gift are given that is fine but a moon rock is also given as explained to you before about the protocol when you visit a head of state.

No it isn't fine. The source is very explicit only two gifts were given; not three. Especially if it would be something special like a piece of moon rock, that would have been mentioned. It wasn't ...

originally posted by: MissVocalcord

originally posted by: TheWhisper
Those two gift are given that is fine but a moon rock is also given as explained to you before about the protocol when you visit a head of state.

No it isn't fine. The source is very explicit only two gifts were given; not three. Especially if it would be something special like a piece of moon rock, that would have been mentioned. It wasn't ...

It is mentioned in a newspaper did you forget about that? That the moon rock given to the Dutch Queen is not mentioned by other newspapers is irrelevant as the moon rock given to Drees is also not mentioned anywhere but still he got a moon rock that was later found to be petrified wood. Like TW explained to you before when you just simply follow the protocol the Queen should also been given a moon rock as big or more likely bigger then the "moon" rock given to Drees.

Your two gift you keep talking about are not a issue it is the moon rock given to the Dutch Queen we all talk about here. Find a rectification that was placed in 1969 about that article and you may have a point. TW doubts ids as you need to go for the next newspaper also. LOL