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

a reply to: bobbypurify

In the forty years since the lunar landings, the Hoax believers have not made one single discovery. They have turned up no secret documents authorizing the hoax, they have found no backstage photographs, no confessions, no historical evidence whatsoever. If a field of research is legitimate, there are always new developments. The Whisper is pretending he has discovered something new. All he has found is an inaccurate newspaper story. That is not evidence of anything but hurried or inaccurate journalism.

On the other hand, all of the flight manuals for the Apollo program are available online. If you have a genuine question, they can be searched and an answer found. New facts and interpretations of the space program continue to emerge. A recent book looks at the role siting important NASA installations in the southern part of the United States played in desegregation and the Civil Rights Movement! That's right, LBJ used the Apollo Project as part of his Great Society program!

a reply to: DJW001

Honestly, DJ - everything I've seen has looked to be more of a simulation on Earth/LEO and often in this argument, as noted by particular posts, is that I'm just supposed to trust NASA. Nothing shown to me as proofs could not be replicated here on or near Earth. That's what I like to discuss. How it could be done here rather than proof of authenticity.

As to the article, at least in this thread I think both sides have made compelling arguments. Although, one side just repeats NASA in that "no rocks were given out" during that tour, while the newspaper seems to disagree. Could it have been a mistake by a journalist, absolutely!! But if more and more articles/sources agree with the OP, well, an honest investigator would also give more credence instead of just siding with an authority

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: TheWhisper

You do realize that ATS members can confirm sources too, yes?

And it can be done by a multitude of people here, and from all around the world since ATS is a international forum. You can get much faster results by posting it here than doing it all by yourself.

TW is sure that many good ATS members are honest people. To claim that the journalist of the article is wrong needs prove.

TW whisper has never ever seen an news article from 1969 that stated that Drees got a present from the Ambassador. Still it is now a fact that a piece of petrified wood was given to Drees.

"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...

Why is it that some people here like to disqualify the article TW found without producing any prove. The only argument they repeat is that other newspapers did not mentioning the moon rock given to the queen. That is no prove that the journalist who wrote the story TW found is wrong.

If this is what is seen as prove on ATS then we put a great question mark at it.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: DJW001

Honestly, DJ - everything I've seen has looked to be more of a simulation on Earth/LEO and often in this argument, as noted by particular posts, is that I'm just supposed to trust NASA. Nothing shown to me as proofs could not be replicated here on or near Earth. That's what I like to discuss. How it could be done here rather than proof of authenticity.

As to the article, at least in this thread I think both sides have made compelling arguments. Although, one side just repeats NASA in that "no rocks were given out" during that tour, while the newspaper seems to disagree. Could it have been a mistake by a journalist, absolutely!! But if more and more articles/sources agree with the OP, well, an honest investigator would also give more credence instead of just siding with an authority

You are correct that the journalist could had made a mistake but that needs proof. The people who claim that the article is incorrect should come up with a rectification about that article. It is common practice for journalist in the Netherlands to do that.

That other newspapers do not mention the moon rock given to the queen means nothing. It seems highly unlikely that this journalist made up a story about a moon rock. Sometimes a journalist is picking up information throw connections and publishes it. That way you are the only one who has the story.

Like with the rock given to Drees it must have been done in private as not anything is to find back about Drees getting a moon rock (if anyone has an 1969 article about it feel free to share it). Still it is a fact today that a rock was given to Drees without any source article referring to it.

"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...

a reply to: TheWhisper

I agree and that's why I haven't come to a conclusion on the event. There's still too much info that needs to come forward, from both sides.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: TheWhisper

I agree and that's why I haven't come to a conclusion on the event. There's still too much info that needs to come forward, from both sides.

The second source that is found will be released but first TW likes to find out if the third and fourth source people informed TW about are correct. With three or even four sources the story becomes proven beyond the reasonable doubt.

If TW would find a rectification of the article it will also be published here. TW doubts that some people who claim the article is wrong would do the same when they find a article that confirms the article TW found.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: TheWhisper

What did the second source translate to? Sorry if I missed it, this thread has so much interpretation it's hard to understand what's going on sometimes.

TW has not released it yet after the third and forth source are check TW will upload all info that supports the source article that is used to start this thread. It is not written by a Dutch person that makes it even more interesting.

a reply to: bobbypurify

The Dutch National Geographic reported the following:

“De meeste maanstenen zijn in het bezit van musea, koningshuizen of voormalig regeringsleiders. President Nixon gaf de maanstenen tussen 1969 en 1973 weg als relatiegeschenk.
www.nationalgeographic.nl...

"Most moon rocks are in position of museums, royalties and former heads of states. President Nixon did give away moon rock between 1969 and 1973 as gifts."

So Rocks are given away in 1969 who did get this rocks and who did hand then over? Another source TW found is telling that the Apollo 11 astronauts did hand out moon rocks during the goodwill tour. We will not release that source yet as we still following other leads. More and more it seems that someone is not telling the truth!

TW a journey towards the truth for all mankind.

To be continued.....

a reply to: TheWhisper

I'm really happy you're investigating this. Very good work and way to remain undistracted from some of the typical responses you'll receive for challenging official Apollo narrative

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: TheWhisper

I'm really happy you're investigating this. Very good work and way to remain undistracted from some of the typical responses you'll receive for challenging official Apollo narrative

Finding a typo in a forty year old newspaper is not "challenging the official Apollo narrative."

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: TheWhisper

I'm really happy you're investigating this. Very good work and way to remain undistracted from some of the typical responses you'll receive for challenging official Apollo narrative

Don't you think it is time that ATS places this thread back under conspiracies. The OP article gets more and more support from other sources. TW will first release supporting sources like this Dutch National Geographic report.

The silence of the people who claim TW was releasing skunk information is always the best reward one can get for its work.

a reply to: DJW001

hahaha, sticking to your guns, DJ! Maybe it is a typo but I'll need more evidence. The Whisper is doing a good job. Maybe a rock was given out on the goodwill tour. Whoa!!!

a reply to: TheWhisper

Speaking in third person does not help your case. Worst, it sounds like you have multiple people using your account.

Refusing to allow other ATS members help research sources, also speaks volumes.

You keep using the royal "We" when you post TW.

Why is that. Care to explain?

a reply to: TheWhisper

"Most moon rocks are in position of museums, royalties and former heads of states. President Nixon did give away moon rock between 1969 and 1973 as gifts."

The so-called "Good Will Moonrocks" were encased in plastic and mounted on a display. Others were encased in lucite pyramids. Scientific samples were shipped in metal containers filled with inert gas. If it is not in a plastic sphere mounted on a plaque, in a lucite pyramid or shipped in an inert gas, it is not intended to be a moonrock.

So Rocks are given away in 1969 who did get this rocks and who did hand then over?

Here is a list of recipients:

Inside the United States, displays were given to all 50 states and 4 territories: American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico.

Outside the United States, the following countries received displays:

Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Ceylon (current Sri Lanka), Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo (Brazzaville), Congo (Kinshasa), Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Muscat and Oman, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, South Korea, Southern Yemen, Soviet Union, Spain, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Taiwan, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Kingdom, Upper Volta (current Burkina Faso), Uruguay, Vatican City, Venezuela, South Vietnam, West Germany, Western Samoa, Yemen, Yugoslavia and Zambia. [1][2]

Also, displays were given to the United Nations.

Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Fiji, Solomon Islands (in that time a British overseas possession), Mozambique (in that time an overseas province of Portugal), Qatar, Tonga and United Arab Emirates didn't receive display of Apollo 11, but they received display of Apollo 17. [2]

Another source TW found is telling that the Apollo 11 astronauts did hand out moon rocks during the goodwill tour. We will not release that source yet as we still following other leads. More and more it seems that someone is not telling the truth!

en.wikipedia.org...

President Nixon liked to give them out personally, but sometimes they were awarded by a diplomat or a NASA official. Many of these samples have '"gone missing."

a reply to: TheWhisper

Don't you think it is time that ATS places this thread back under conspiracies. The OP article gets more and more support from other sources.

Be thankful it's not been put in [HOAX!] where it belongs! You have made an absolute non-case. No-one is claiming that the Dutch government never received a Goodwill Moonrock. All that is being contested is whether or not it was presented personally to the Queen during the first visit of the Apollo 11 astronauts. If it was, then it in no way affects what some call "the historical narrative," it merely adds a bit of trivia to it.

a reply to: TheWhisper

Apollo is a sacred cow. You just have to understand that you will be approached by posters who almost seem offended and often, mods as well! Comes with the territory. I would not worry for you can't control where your threads are placed ultimately. But if you're onto something, then the truth will win.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: TheWhisper

Apollo is a sacred cow. You just have to understand that you will be approached by posters who almost seem offended and often, mods as well! Comes with the territory. I would not worry for you can't control where your threads are placed ultimately. But if you're onto something, then the truth will win.

All he has to do is prove that the Queen was personally given a rock by the Apollo astronauts, for which he has only one, very likely erroneous, source, and that this rock was fake, for which he has absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Either the OP is a fool, or this thread is an intentional [HOAX!]

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: TheWhisper

Speaking in third person does not help your case. Worst, it sounds like you have multiple people using your account.

Refusing to allow other ATS members help research sources, also speaks volumes.

You keep using the royal "We" when you post TW.

Why is that. Care to explain?

TW is one and the same person, the we is the respect to people who help and provide search result and information. So don't worry about the TAC TW is well aware of them. Thank you for bring your concern to our attention.

Anyway what about the moon rocks that are given away in 1969. The Dutch National Geographic report is a very reliable source.

a reply to: TheWhisper

Anyway what about the moon rocks that are given away in 1969. The Dutch National Geographic report is a very reliable source.

It would help if you read other people's posts. No-one is disputing whether or not "moon rocks" were distributed in 1969. The issue is whether or not your one newspaper article was correct when it claims the Apollo 11 astronauts gave one to the Queen personally. Also, you have yet to explain why you think this alleged moon rock might be fake!

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: DJW001
That's what I like to discuss. How it could be done here rather than proof of authenticity.

Feel free to discuss that.

Let's start with who brought Stanley Kubrick's coffee. Since every possible minute issue is up for discussion.

We could also discuss how it is that the special effects experts who supposedly made these films managed to make it through the seventies in Hollywood without a single one ever getting blitzed and spilling the beans to somebody.

And I'm still interested in that specific description of the "couple of hundred" people that could have pulled this off on their own without any of the other thirty thousand plus NASA workers finding out.