NASA

Tom, are you 100% sure that the rock in question the same rock that was presented to Mr. Drees in 1968?  Is there any chance that Mr. Drees (or someone else) may have switched the original rock with a piece of petrified wood?  Is it really inconceivable that such a rare and priceless artifact could have been stolen and replaced with a similar looking rock?

So Prime Minister Drees stole his own moon rock?

It sure takes a vivid imagination to be an RE'er. All of these inside-jobs, optical illusions, and whimsical scenarios to think up. As an RE'er one must make up a constant stream of fanciful excuses for the host of evidence against NASA's missions and the earth's globularity.

Even when NASA is caught " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">airbrushing the photos of the lunar surface (1 and a half minutes in) RE'ers will mumble to themselves that the flagrant fakery was done just to make the photo look prettier, despite the fact that it's supposed to be an honest and accurate record of man's trip to the moon and the particular airbrushing done does nothing to enhance the quality of the photo.

Quote from: markjo on February 26, 2011, 05:28:18 PM

Tom, are you 100% sure that the rock in question the same rock that was presented to Mr. Drees in 1968?  Is there any chance that Mr. Drees (or someone else) may have switched the original rock with a piece of petrified wood?  Is it really inconceivable that such a rare and priceless artifact could have been stolen and replaced with a similar looking rock?

So Prime Minister Drees stole his own moon rock?

It certainly takes a vivid imagination to be an RE'er. All of these inside-jobs, optical illusions, and whimsical scenarios to think up. As an RE'er one must make up a constant stream fanciful excuses for the host of evidence against NASA's missions and the earth's non-globularity.

Even when NASA is caught " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">airbrushing the photos of the lunar surface (2 minutes in) RE'ers will mumble to themselves that the flagrant fakery was done just to make the photo look prettier, despite the fact that it's supposed to be a record of man's trip to the moon and the particular airbrushing done does nothing to enhance the quality of the photo.

give it a rest you are being very rude

So Prime Minister Drees stole his own moon rock?

Are you suggesting that there is such a thing as an honest politician?

Quote from: markjo on February 26, 2011, 05:28:18 PM

Tom, are you 100% sure that the rock in question the same rock that was presented to Mr. Drees in 1968?  Is there any chance that Mr. Drees (or someone else) may have switched the original rock with a piece of petrified wood?  Is it really inconceivable that such a rare and priceless artifact could have been stolen and replaced with a similar looking rock?

So Prime Minister Drees stole his own moon rock?

It sure takes a vivid imagination to be an RE'er. All of these inside-jobs, optical illusions, and whimsical scenarios to think up. As an RE'er one must make up a constant stream of fanciful excuses for the host of evidence against NASA's missions and the earth's globularity.

Even when NASA is caught " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">airbrushing the photos of the lunar surface (2 minutes in) RE'ers will mumble to themselves that the flagrant fakery was done just to make the photo look prettier, despite the fact that it's supposed to be an honest and accurate record of man's trip to the moon and the particular airbrushing done does nothing to enhance the quality of the photo.

i thought it got established that you cant really use another person's word as evidence

it must take a vivid imagination to be a FEer. all these od theories, disagreements, and complexity one must think up.  as an FEer one must make a constant stream of conspiracy theories, excuses, and far fetched speculation, along with purposeful misinterpretations to fight against evidence for nasa's missions, earth's globularity, and gravity.

even when nasa shows us images of a round earth, let us track the ISS, show use shuttle launches, give samples of space debris for research, plan and make missions to investigate other planets, and when others show pictures that show a objects below a horizon line, a curved horizon, gravitometers, and observations that show the earth is round from the sun's rays, FE'ers mumble to themselves "i didnt see it, so it cannot be used as evidence" or "its a comspiracy" or that they shall reject information that goes against them, but HO! this fits with us, lets use this!, despite the fact that many other honest men and women tell us that nasa has been there, done that, and that the earth is round, and that space travel exists, and that satelites work in our daily lives that show the earth is round

*note, this is not directed to every FE'er, just the one that has posted the 3rd post above me

Quote from: markjo on February 26, 2011, 05:28:18 PM

Tom, are you 100% sure that the rock in question the same rock that was presented to Mr. Drees in 1968?  Is there any chance that Mr. Drees (or someone else) may have switched the original rock with a piece of petrified wood?  Is it really inconceivable that such a rare and priceless artifact could have been stolen and replaced with a similar looking rock?

So Prime Minister Drees stole his own moon rock?

It sure takes a vivid imagination to be an RE'er. All of these inside-jobs, optical illusions, and whimsical scenarios to think up. As an RE'er one must make up a constant stream of fanciful excuses for the host of evidence against NASA's missions and the earth's globularity.

Even when NASA is caught " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">airbrushing the photos of the lunar surface (2 minutes in) RE'ers will mumble to themselves that the flagrant fakery was done just to make the photo look prettier, despite the fact that it's supposed to be an honest and accurate record of man's trip to the moon and the particular airbrushing done does nothing to enhance the quality of the photo.

This is BS. Most of your posts are high in quality, but this is just lies. Nothing needs to be imagined. RE is entirely self consistent and consistent with observations. What inside jobs are you talking about? And there's a difference between fake and altered. The magazine publishers obviously made the picture longer to fit the page

So Prime Minister Drees stole his own moon rock?

That's no more implausible than saying NASA and the scientific community are in on a conspiracy.

Tom you don't seem to be looking at the facts for what they are, but for what you want them to be.

It does not say they were moon rocks, it could have been a symbolic representation of a moon rock, since a moon rock would cost millions of dollars to get. It's a waste to science if they gave them away.

It also doesn't show that the item presented to the prime minister was a moon rock. All you have is a separate note that isn't even mounted on anything. If the gift was that important they would have mounted it and said what it was.

This story has so many holes it's like a fart in a colander.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 26, 2011, 08:14:33 PM

So Prime Minister Drees stole his own moon rock?

That's no more implausible than saying NASA and the scientific community are in on a conspiracy.

Tom you don't seem to be looking at the facts for what they are, but for what you want them to be.

It does not say they were moon rocks, it could have been a symbolic representation of a moon rock, since a moon rock would cost millions of dollars to get. It's a waste to science if they gave them away.

It also doesn't show that the item presented to the prime minister was a moon rock. All you have is a separate note that isn't even mounted on anything. If the gift was that important they would have mounted it and said what it was.

This story has so many holes it's like a fart in a colander.

I think also that Tom seems to be confusing could happen with did happen

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 26, 2011, 08:14:33 PM

So Prime Minister Drees stole his own moon rock?

It also doesn't show that the item presented to the prime minister was a moon rock. All you have is a separate note that isn't even mounted on anything. If the gift was that important they would have mounted it and said what it was.

This story has so many holes it's like a fart in a colander.

He was not the prime minister at the time of the gift.

Berny
Lets check all the facts

Quote from: DDDDAts all folks on February 27, 2011, 05:51:53 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 26, 2011, 08:14:33 PM

So Prime Minister Drees stole his own moon rock?

It also doesn't show that the item presented to the prime minister was a moon rock. All you have is a separate note that isn't even mounted on anything. If the gift was that important they would have mounted it and said what it was.

This story has so many holes it's like a fart in a colander.

He was not the prime minister at the time of the gift.

Berny
Lets check all the facts

Where did I say he was the prime minister at the time?

I think that Berny may have been pointing that out to Tom.

This is BS. Most of your posts are high in quality, but this is just lies. Nothing needs to be imagined. RE is entirely self consistent and consistent with observations. What inside jobs are you talking about? And there's a difference between fake and altered. The magazine publishers obviously made the picture longer to fit the page

Here's a link to the scene in question at the 1 minute 30 second mark:



The people who airbrushed that part into the picture didn't make it "longer to fit the page". The picture doesn't fit or fill the page with that little part they added in. You're talking nonsense.

The pictures from the moon are clearly being manipulated.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 26, 2011, 08:14:33 PM

So Prime Minister Drees stole his own moon rock?

That's no more implausible than saying NASA and the scientific community are in on a conspiracy.

Tom you don't seem to be looking at the facts for what they are, but for what you want them to be.

It does not say they were moon rocks, it could have been a symbolic representation of a moon rock, since a moon rock would cost millions of dollars to get. It's a waste to science if they gave them away.

On the previous page of this thread I've already established that William Maddendorf, the then-US Ambassador who gave the moon rock to former Prime Minister Drees, is quoted as being under the impression that the rock was from the surface of the moon.

It also doesn't show that the item presented to the prime minister was a moon rock. All you have is a separate note that isn't even mounted on anything. If the gift was that important they would have mounted it and said what it was.

Again, William Middendorf, the US Ambassador who gave the rock to Prime Minister Drees, is still alive and went on record saying that he trusted that the rock from the astronauts was genuine. He was under the impression that the rock he was giving to the Drees was a rock from the moon.

This story has so many holes it's like a fart in a colander.

No. You just need to read the damn thread.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on February 27, 2011, 02:32:20 AM

This is BS. Most of your posts are high in quality, but this is just lies. Nothing needs to be imagined. RE is entirely self consistent and consistent with observations. What inside jobs are you talking about? And there's a difference between fake and altered. The magazine publishers obviously made the picture longer to fit the page

Here's a link to the scene in question at the 1 minute 30 second mark:



The people who airbrushed that part into the picture didn't make it "longer to fit the page". The picture doesn't fit or fill the page with that little part they added in. You're talking nonsense.

The pictures from the moon are clearly being manipulated.

Quote from: DDDDAts all folks on February 27, 2011, 05:51:53 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 26, 2011, 08:14:33 PM

So Prime Minister Drees stole his own moon rock?

That's no more implausible than saying NASA and the scientific community are in on a conspiracy.

Tom you don't seem to be looking at the facts for what they are, but for what you want them to be.

It does not say they were moon rocks, it could have been a symbolic representation of a moon rock, since a moon rock would cost millions of dollars to get. It's a waste to science if they gave them away.

On the last page of this thread I've already established that William Maddendorf, the then-US Ambassador who gave the moon rock to former Prime Minister Drees, is quoted as being under the impression that the rock was from the surface of the moon.

Quote from: DDDDAts

It also doesn't show that the item presented to the prime minister was a moon rock. All you have is a separate note that isn't even mounted on anything. If the gift was that important they would have mounted it and said what it was.

Again, William Middendorf, the US Ambassador who gave the rock to Prime Minister Drees, is still alive and went on record saying that he trusted that the rock from the astronauts was genuine. He was under the impression that the rock he was giving to the Drees was a rock from the moon.

Quote from: DDDDAts

This story has so many holes it's like a fart in a colander.

No. You just need to read the damn thread.

I've looked at what you've put and what others have put and the facts are obvious.

Yes it adds to the point that NASA maybe lying about something, but the basis for that fact has very weak foundations. The reason for that have already been given in this thread, but for some weird reason you don't want to acknowledge them, because you want the facts to appear how you want them to be and not for what they are.

Tom,
   I hope people will look at the link above, maybe the truth will start to shine in. There is alot of evidence that NASA faked some of their photographs and evidence. If you really did something why do you need to lie and create evidence.
  
  It is a high hurdle to clear, realizing that NASA may have lied, and has never sent a man to the moon. About 1 year ago I had no idea that NASA  could or would lie. Brainwashing the masses seems to work pretty well for the elite,however, the truth shall set you free.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on February 27, 2011, 02:32:20 AM

This is BS. Most of your posts are high in quality, but this is just lies. Nothing needs to be imagined. RE is entirely self consistent and consistent with observations. What inside jobs are you talking about? And there's a difference between fake and altered. The magazine publishers obviously made the picture longer to fit the page

Here's a link to the scene in question at the 1 minute 30 second mark:



The people who airbrushed that part into the picture didn't make it "longer to fit the page". The picture doesn't fit or fill the page with that little part they added in. You're talking nonsense.

Yes it does. It makes the picture appear longer. Magazines do stuff like this all the time. That's what you do if you want to manipulate a real photograph. Now if the landing was faked, they could just go back to their miniature studio, and snap another photo. Or go back to photo shop and add some more stuff. All this does is prove that the photo was manipulated, not that the original was a fake, or that all NASA photo's are faked

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 27, 2011, 12:37:32 PM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on February 27, 2011, 02:32:20 AM

This is BS. Most of your posts are high in quality, but this is just lies. Nothing needs to be imagined. RE is entirely self consistent and consistent with observations. What inside jobs are you talking about? And there's a difference between fake and altered. The magazine publishers obviously made the picture longer to fit the page

Here's a link to the scene in question at the 1 minute 30 second mark:



The people who airbrushed that part into the picture didn't make it "longer to fit the page". The picture doesn't fit or fill the page with that little part they added in. You're talking nonsense.

Yes it does. It makes the picture appear longer. Magazines do stuff like this all the time. That's what you do if you want to manipulate a real photograph. Now if the landing was faked, they could just go back to their miniature studio, and snap another photo. Or go back to photo shop and add some more stuff. All this does is prove that the photo was manipulated, not that the original was a fake, or that all NASA photo's are faked

 TVOR what you may not realize, this one small piece of a whole lot of evidence of moon landing fakery.

Yes it does. It makes the picture appear longer. Magazines do stuff like this all the time. That's what you do if you want to manipulate a real photograph. Now if the landing was faked, they could just go back to their miniature studio, and snap another photo. Or go back to photo shop and add some more stuff. All this does is prove that the photo was manipulated, not that the original was a fake, or that all NASA photo's are faked

First of all it's from a book, not a magazine. Secondly, they don't "do it all the time".

Highlighted parts from the video: http://i52.tinypic.com/2vccg11.jpg

The RE excuse is that the publisher did it to "fill up empty space" or something like that. That doesn't fill up empty space. There's still a whole lot of empty space. Why would a publisher tamper with a NASA photograph like that? It makes no sense.

RE'er excuses are a dime a dozen. And bad ones at that.

dude that last post is BS.
"its a book not a magazine" lol. im pretty sure it wouldnt matter, thay are still printed on paper.
but like your link said why would NASA give out a moon rock after only having it for 2 months?

maybe the conspiracy is that NASA cameras broke and thay had to fake the images!

TB you should stand down or you will have a rep like new earth before long

dude that last post is BS.
"its a book not a magazine" lol. im pretty sure it wouldnt matter, thay are still printed on paper.
but like your link said why would NASA give out a moon rock after only having it for 2 months?

NASA would only be hesitant about giving it away if it they had really gone to the moon and the rocks were valuable.

However, as it's not from the moon it's not valuable. Hence why NASA would have no qualms about giving such things away.

Quote from: squevil on February 27, 2011, 04:58:48 PM

dude that last post is BS.
"its a book not a magazine" lol. im pretty sure it wouldnt matter, thay are still printed on paper.
but like your link said why would NASA give out a moon rock after only having it for 2 months?

NASA would only be hesitant about giving it away if it they had really gone to the moon and the rocks were valuable.

However, as it's not from the moon it's not valuable. Hence why NASA would have no qualms about giving such things away.

So... it's not a moon rock because it's not a moon rock?

Quote from: squevil on February 27, 2011, 04:58:48 PM

dude that last post is BS.
"its a book not a magazine" lol. im pretty sure it wouldnt matter, thay are still printed on paper.
but like your link said why would NASA give out a moon rock after only having it for 2 months?

NASA would only be hesitant about giving it away if it they had really gone to the moon and the rocks were valuable.

However, as it's not from the moon it's not valuable. Hence why NASA would have no qualms about giving such things away.

considering the ammount of effort they go to keep the conspiracy alive wouldnt you think they would of thought about it? i think there has been a misunderstanding at some point because:
a: they wouldnt give it away so soon
b: they guy they gave it to may of made some mistake
c: when does the media get anything right!?

also why petrified wood anyway? wouldnt this be the most obvious thing to analise to see what  it was? surely if they was going to give any fake rocks they would be grey and look like a stereotypical moon rock

If I iwas giving someone a fake moon rock, I'd make it a meteorite.

exactly, could actually pull that off i imagine. wonder what the FES think about meteors anyway? better go lurking...

And I would blast it with radiation to mess up any tests the future could run on it. The explanation for the blasting could be solar flares, and if they were found out, they could say they did it to kill any organisms that might have been living on it and the people who made the previous explanation simply did not know this.

see if us simpletons can easily come up with a solution then why cant some of the best scientists in the world?

see if us simpletons can easily come up with a solution then why cant some of the best scientists in the world?

And I spent about thirty seconds thinking about it.

considering the ammount of effort they go to keep the conspiracy alive wouldnt you think they would of thought about it? i think there has been a misunderstanding at some point because:
a: they wouldnt give it away so soon

You're assuming that they went to the moon and that the moon rocks are valuable.

b: they guy they gave it to may of made some mistake

A mistake like stealing his own moon rock?

c: when does the media get anything right!?

The media didn't give the Prime Minister a fake moon rock. NASA did.

also why petrified wood anyway? wouldnt this be the most obvious thing to analise to see what  it was? surely if they was going to give any fake rocks they would be grey and look like a stereotypical moon rock?

No one is saying that NASA is hiring the brightest people here. Petrified wood is easily mistaken as an earth rock. It looks interesting, which is why they gave it to the Prime Minister.

NASA was claiming that moon rocks were identical in composition to earth rocks, so they likely figured that any old rock on the side of the road would do.

And you continue to refuse to back up your allegation that the rock was presented as originating on the moon with facts.

And you continue to refuse to back up your allegation that the rock was presented as originating on the moon with facts.

Please read the thread. The Ex-US Ambassador who gave it to the Prime Minister said he was under the impression that it was from the moon.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45822.msg1145206#msg1145206

Quote from: General Disarray on March 01, 2011, 04:21:08 PM

And you continue to refuse to back up your allegation that the rock was presented as originating on the moon with facts.

Please read the thread. The Ex-US Ambassador who gave it to the Prime Minister said he was under the impression that it was from the moon.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45822.msg1145206#msg1145206

Those quotes don't say anything about the moon.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 01, 2011, 04:30:32 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on March 01, 2011, 04:21:08 PM

And you continue to refuse to back up your allegation that the rock was presented as originating on the moon with facts.

Please read the thread. The Ex-US Ambassador who gave it to the Prime Minister said he was under the impression that it was from the moon.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45822.msg1145206#msg1145206

Those quotes don't say anything about the moon.

His quote "If it came from the astronauts I would have thought it would be perfectly OK" implies that he believed it to be from the moon.

His quote "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" implies that he believed it to be the real deal.