|
Post by Czero 101 on Nov 26, 2010 19:09:44 GMT -4
How many of us will watch that film, and just to loudly pick apart any technical inaccuracies, I wonder? Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Nov 23, 2010 4:35:36 GMT -4
Instead of conceding that his folks had probably seen a film of another Mercury flight, Duane simply would not be dissuaded from his position. To this day he insists that his parents watched Gus Grissom's face on live TV during his Mercury flight. Unable to actually produce said video (NASA wiped out all evidence of it, you see, because it would have ruined Gus's status as a martyred hero) he cites, as his sole piece of evidence, a single phrase in a secondary encyclopedia article written for children that says the Mercury capsules had TV cameras. Unless the author was thinking specifically of an experimental slow scan TV camera flown unsuccessfully on Gordon Cooper's Mercury orbital flight, this statement is easily shown to be incorrect. But the facts simply don't matter. Once straydog stakes out a position he defends it to the death. Did you ask him if the encyclopedia he was using as his source also said that the Moon landings actually happened as history recorded...? Would've been interesting to watch him twist in the wind on that one... Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Nov 16, 2010 8:55:02 GMT -4
I'm sorry, but any person who sees and uses Duane "StupidDog" "StrayDog" Daman as a credible source of information needs to have their head examined, and probably needs to have any academic accreditation revoked.
Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Nov 10, 2010 8:02:33 GMT -4
A møøse once bit my sister. Have the people who were responsible for sacking the people who were supposed to sack the moose, been sacked? Yes, but they were sacked before they could sack the people who were supposed to sack the moose. The people who sacked them have themselves, been sacked, and the moose has wandered off into the forest. (the person who let the moose out has been sacked)Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Oct 31, 2010 9:26:48 GMT -4
"Oh, I'm an Apollogist and I'm ok... I sleep all night and debunk all day..." Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Oct 30, 2010 13:45:51 GMT -4
Yes it is...
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Oct 30, 2010 6:20:26 GMT -4
Stop that, that's silly! Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Oct 26, 2010 19:04:09 GMT -4
I said "aeronautician because I'm french, not because I don't have competences in aeronics. Ok... so you're ignorant in two languages then... Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Oct 26, 2010 8:13:39 GMT -4
I'm an aeronautician engineer, and I perfectly know how the LCM and the LEM must behave. Man, oh man... that's probably the funniest thing I've read in a while. Thanks very much for the good laugh this morning. If you really were an "aeronautical engineer", you would have called yourself an "aeronautical engineer" and not made up the word "aeronautician". Epic fail... Next time at least have the brains to use a spell check. Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Oct 18, 2010 15:01:53 GMT -4
The professional historian or scientist knows what to do when observation becomes inconsistent or runs counter to his expectations. He begins a systematic, well-organized, empirically-directed search for the cause of the discrepancy. He doesn't immediately attribute it to Red Lectroids.lol... great post AND an obscure Buckaroo Banzai reference t'boot... Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Oct 18, 2010 3:15:51 GMT -4
I beg to differ. Have a look at what the card actually says: [that same image again] The card does not appear to be a facsimile of any other ceremony or presentation. Quite the opposite, it looks as though it were made specifically for Middendorf's presentation of the "item" to Drees. You're disagreeing with something he didn't say. He didn't say the card was a facsimile. He said it might have come with the facsimiles of the plaque photo. He seems to quite agree that it's an original card to something. That, indeed, seems about the only thing not in dispute by anyone. You may be right, however, I still stand behind my point that the card appears (at least to me) to be specific to the "item". If it were part of some other presentation of " facsimiles of the plaque photo given to Queen Juliana", wouldn't there be other examples of this card showing up somewhere? Also, it is noted on other sites, including NASA pages, that the items presented to Queen Juliana were presented by the astronauts themselves, not by Middendorf. For example, from chapter 10 of the NASA publication "Before This Decade is Out:
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Oct 18, 2010 1:32:00 GMT -4
- The rock was given to Drees privately by Middendorf and, despite their names appearing on the presentation card, there is no evidence whatsoever that Neil, Buzz or Michael were at the presentation The card appears to have been given. What went with it, if anything, is unknown. As has been previously stated, some sources say that Middendorf does remember giving the rock to Drees. From Halcyon's USA Today link above: It is interesting to note that in another article, it is reported that Middendorf doesn't remember giving the rock to Drees: newsblog.projo.com/2009/08/moon-rock-equal.htmlWhich one is correct...? * shrug * Yes, I realize that. I just didn't find it necessary to say that, alomng with other items deemed historically valuable, the family donated this rock to the museum. Also, I have read a lot about Drees' history in order to present information about this "petrified wood incident" on other forums, so I understand his import to the Dutch people. Just as an FYI, I am 1/2 Dutch on my father's side, so this issue holds a particular interest for me as well. Yes it can. Here's the link to the information page at the Rijksmuseum's website: www.rijksmuseum.nl/pers/tentoonstellingen/fly-me-the-moon?lang=enHere's a link to the press release in MS-Word format: www.rijksmuseum.nl/attachments/persmap/HNRkunstprojecten/Persbericht%20Fly%20Me%20To%20The%20Moon_ENG.docHere's a link to the exhibit's flyer in pdf format: www.rijksmuseum.nl/attachments/persmap/HNRkunstprojecten/pdfmaansteen.pdfThere's also a link to an image of the rock, but you need to sign up to the museum's website in order to down load it. It is, however, available elsewhere. Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Oct 18, 2010 1:17:54 GMT -4
The card came from something that was handed out at the "Journey to the Moon '69" exhibition, probably facsimiles of the plaque photo given to Queen Juliana. I beg to differ. Have a look at what the card actually says: The card does not appear to be a facsimile of any other ceremony or presentation. Quite the opposite, it looks as though it were made specifically for Middendorf's presentation of the "item" to Drees. Yes, I know what JW said. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, JW can't seem to get the facts straight and come up with a question that properly addresses the facts. You will also notice that I have pointed out that there is no evidence putting the Apollo 11 crew with Middendorf when the "item" was presented to Drees. - The museum did call NASA to try and get some verification of the rock and were told that while it was possible, only samples from later Apollo missions were given out in the early 1970's. Apparently the museum did no other followup. The Rijksmuseum is an art museum. They probably don't authenticate very many things outside of art. The info-person they talked to at NASA probably didn't even know the astronauts went on a Goodwill tour before the phone call. It's probably the same info-person who constantly refers me to the NTRS, even after I've told them I've already checked there. [/quote] Yes, I know what the Rijksmuseum is. I have been to the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, albeit when I was much younger. You will also notice that in the part of my post that you are quoting I did mention that the museum apparently didn't do any other follow up other than the phone call to NASA. I hope that you are not making the assumption that I believe that this "petrified wood incident" adds anything to the hoax proponents side of things, or that I believe in a Moon landing hoax. You would be quite mistaken in that assumption. Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Oct 17, 2010 18:09:38 GMT -4
Does anybody know when the Apollo 11 sample display was actually gifted to The Netherlands? The presentation card shows the date as October 9th, 1969. Actual samples weren't distributed until after the Apollo 17 mission. Things that need to be remembered: - The rock was given to Drees privately by Middendorf and, despite their names appearing on the presentation card, there is no evidence whatsoever that Neil, Buzz or Michael were at the presentation - At the time of the presentation, Drees was nearly 83 years old, almost completely blind and almost completely deaf. - After the "rock" was given to Drees it went into his personal collection and stayed there for the next 19 years until his death in May 1988. - After Dress' death his family found it and, believing it to be an actual moon rock, donated it to the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam - a fine art museum. - Once at the museum, it was in storage for another 18 years until the "Fly Me To The Moon" exhibit opened in October of 2006. - The museum did call NASA to try and get some verification of the rock and were told that while it was possible, only samples from later Apollo missions were given out in the early 1970's. Apparently the museum did no other followup. - Once on display, a qualified geologist immediately identified it as petrified rock just by looking at it. Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Oct 15, 2010 2:44:02 GMT -4
Nah, man. This is totally a conspiracy. The trapped minors are actually Greys who were working on a super weapon inside the Earth. When the American government heard about it, they deliberately imploded the mine, and extracted the Greys (disguised as humans, of course) to obtain their knowledge through brain straws. The American Government is actually run by Reptellians, by the way. But I think everyone already knows that. Throw in the "fact" that they used HAARP to cause the collapse and you have a CT trifecta.... Cz
|
|