Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
village_idiot

AS11 Astronauts give fake moon rock to dutch

78 posts in this topic

Please show exactly where it is said that the Ambassador "spent days/months" looking for a rock.

Please also show exactly where it is said anywhere on the plaque that this rock is from the Moon.

Finally, please show exactly where it is said anywhere that NASA had anything to do with this.

Cz

In retrospect to this guy it doesn't really matter. In his head he was thoroughly convinced the Apollo missions were faked before this little moon rock incident, so to him this is just "back up" to his claims even if when you really think about it it's neither here nor there.

Honestly, think about it. They had moon rocks, or at least more convincing fakes than that piece of wood, like I posted above.

Hypothetically if the Apollo Missions were faked, then they could have still given the Dutch a real moon rock from the aforementioned space probe missions. Or assuming that those missions were faked they could have given a far more convincing fake.

So really, this means nothing. The way I see it, if NASA faked the moon landing they would have done a better job faking it. The fact that the petrified piece of wood can be so easily outed as not a moon rock from simple visual inspection shows that it was a mix up and not a deliberate faking by NASA; they would have done a better job faking it in that hypothetical scenario.

But yeah, to him it doesn't matter. He was convinced Apollo was faked before this little mix up was discovered.

Edited by Kacen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you have to say about the fact we had moon rocks before the Apollo missions? We got them from space probes, so did the soviets.

Actually, we didn't have samples known to be from the Moon until Apollo 11. The Soviet sample return missions weren't successful until Luna 16 in 1970. The 3 successful Luna probes returned a grand total of 326 grams (2/3 of a pound) of Lunar soil and pebbles.

Also, the US never had a robotic Lunar sample return program. Why would they need one when they had Apollo that would eventually bring back thousands of times more material than the Soviet robotic probes...?

Dunno if you believe NASA's space probe missions were fake (and if so, by extant the soviet ones as well?).

Whether he or anyone else believes in "NASA's space probe missions" is irrelevant since they never existed in the first place.

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_Program

Hmm...this must have been what I was thinking of.

They did send probes, but seeing as these never returned to earth, you're right, they couldn't have brought moon rocks back.

That said, part of my point still stands that they could have offered far more convincing "fakes" even if the Apollo Missions never occurred...

I mean using his logic he must believe no one on earth has moon rocks, at least NASA, and so he must think all moon rocks are fake...how does he account for the petrified wood not looking like any of the other moon rocks we have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of simply giving him a real Moon rock, which they (supposedly) had plenty of collected by Apollo, the Ambassador spent days/months beforehand trying to find a piece of petrified wood that would pass for a Moon rock!

Plenty of moon rock? At the time, NASA just had the 11 kg from Apollo 11. They were hardly likely to give several hundred grams to a retired politician in a foreign country at a time when the world's geologists were lucky to get a gram or two each to study.

There is not a shred of evidence that NASA were involved in this at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go, some possible evidence that the 1st Moon landing was faked. According to a dutch museum a moon rock given to them by Armstrong et al, was fake. Turns out it was a petrified piece of wood.

Either

1) They didnt go to the moon, and Nasa has conned the world.

2) The rock is from the moon, and indicates that trees once grew there. We know it has water, but could the moon have once have had an atmosphere,and trees.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8226075.stm

This is a good example of Occam's Beard*

*© 747400

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually think this is kind of funny. That's one hell of a practical joke! LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I see are shoddy excuses .

Well, of course you do.

So, the US Ambassador was just "trying to impress" him!

Right.

Instead of simply giving him a real Moon rock, which they (supposedly) had plenty of collected by Apollo, the Ambassador spent days/months beforehand trying to find a piece of petrified wood that would pass for a Moon rock!

Makes perfect sense. If you live in Apollo-world, at least.

But not in the real world.

Make perfect sense, since there were no Moon rocks given out to anyone at that time, and, if you understand diplomats and the Department of State....it makes absolutely perfect sense.

That's the real world!

This thing had nothing to do with NASA or Apollo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of simply giving him a real Moon rock, which they (supposedly) had plenty of collected by Apollo, the Ambassador spent days/months beforehand trying to find a piece of petrified wood that would pass for a Moon rock!

So instead the same NASA, who was trying to fool the world, who (according to YOU) managed to fool i.e. the people of Honeysuckle Creek, was so utterly stupid to hand out obvious fake rocks?

Yeah that makes definetely more sense than a simple misunderstanding or mixup.

Once again, Turbs shows that he has no clue about the real world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, Turbs shows that he has no clue about the real world.

Gotta admit he's good for the occasional laugh, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NASA had nothing to do with it?!?! What a joke!!

The US Ambassador is on a Goodwill Tour - with the Apollo 11 astronauts - and gives the Dutch VIP a supposed Moon rock. The Dutch museum comes into possession of the rock, and calls NASA to confirm that it is a genuine Apollo Moon rock.

NASA does not tell the Dutch it cannot be a genuine Moon rock. Indeed, they give the Dutch the impression that it IS a genuine Moon rock. Why would NASA do that?

NASA has EVERYTHING to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NASA has EVERYTHING to do with it.

You have no evidence whatever to link the rock to NASA. The ambassador said he got it from the State Dept., not NASA. NASA were not handing out souvenir moon rocks to anyone at that date. Where is the link to NASA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NASA had nothing to do with it?!?! What a joke!!

The US Ambassador is on a Goodwill Tour - with the Apollo 11 astronauts - and gives the Dutch VIP a supposed Moon rock. The Dutch museum comes into possession of the rock, and calls NASA to confirm that it is a genuine Apollo Moon rock.

NASA does not tell the Dutch it cannot be a genuine Moon rock. Indeed, they give the Dutch the impression that it IS a genuine Moon rock. Why would NASA do that?

NASA has EVERYTHING to do with it.

G'day Turbonium

Where do you get the idea that NASA gave the Dutch the impression the rock was a genuine moon rock? I think you need to read the original article again:

The museum had vetted the moon rock with a phone call to NASA, Van Gelder said.

She said the space agency told the museum then that it was possible the Netherlands had received a rock: NASA gave moon rocks to more than 100 countries in the early 1970s, but those were from later missions.

"Apparently no one thought to doubt it, since it came from the prime minister's collection," Van Gelder said.

Note what NASA said: they gave moon rocks to more than 100 countries in the early 1970s, but those were from later missions.

The US ambassador gave the rock to the former PM in October 1969. That is not the early 1970s, and not from the later missions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only got a poor translation of an article in Russian, but this says that the origin of the rock in question has been traced. It comes from Arizona.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NASA had nothing to do with it?!?! What a joke!!

The US Ambassador is on a Goodwill Tour - with the Apollo 11 astronauts - and gives the Dutch VIP a supposed Moon rock. The Dutch museum comes into possession of the rock, and calls NASA to confirm that it is a genuine Apollo Moon rock.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Ambassador was not on the goodwill tour with the Apollo 11 Astronauts.

The Ambassador was on duty in country. The Apollo 11 astronauts just happened to be going to that country.

He gave a rock in commemoration of the landing of the Apollo 11 mission on the Moon. This was not something involving NASA, and likely, no one knew about it save him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

G'day Turbonium

Where do you get the idea that NASA gave the Dutch the impression the rock was a genuine moon rock? I think you need to read the original article again:

Note what NASA said: they gave moon rocks to more than 100 countries in the early 1970s, but those were from later missions.

The US ambassador gave the rock to the former PM in October 1969. That is not the early 1970s, and not from the later missions.

You're missing the point, Peter (g'day back to you, btw)...

According to the article, NASA told them "it was possible..."that they had indeed received a genuine Moon rock.

If NASA didn't give out "genuine" Moon rocks in 1969, then doesn't it make sense that NASA would have mentioned it to the Dutch at that time?!?!

Of course it does. NASA would have simply said "Sorry, but if you received ae rock in 1969, then it can't be a genuine Apollo Moon rock, because we never gave out any Moon rocks until the early 1970's".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're missing the point, Peter (g'day back to you, btw)...

According to the article, NASA told them "it was possible..."that they had indeed received a genuine Moon rock.

If NASA didn't give out "genuine" Moon rocks in 1969, then doesn't it make sense that NASA would have mentioned it to the Dutch at that time?!?!

Of course it does. NASA would have simply said "Sorry, but if you received ae rock in 1969, then it can't be a genuine Apollo Moon rock, because we never gave out any Moon rocks until the early 1970's".

Maybe the museum didn't mention the date, maybe whoever they asked at NASA wasn't aware of when the souvenir rocks were distributed, maybe turbonium is reading a lot more into this than is actually there. After all, the Dutch still have two genuine samples on public display in another museum, so if the guy at NASA just looked up a list of recipients and found that the Dutch goverment was included...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nice one thumbsup.gif thanks

Hmm... if you now really think that starchy's post was meant as serious.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm... if you now really think that starchy's post was meant as serious.....

thanks :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the article, NASA told them "it was possible..."that they had indeed received a genuine Moon rock.

The article says...

The museum had vetted the moon rock with a phone call to NASA, Van Gelder said.

She said the space agency told the museum then that it was possible the Netherlands had received a rock: NASA gave moon rocks to more than 100 countries in the early 1970s, but those were from later missions.[/quote]

I think that's rather clear, actually.

The rock's plaque is dated October 9, 1969...

On 11 September 1969, the Interagency Committee on Back Contamination issued a release of the lunar samples effective at 12:00 on 12 September 1969 to NASA.

It was several weeks down the road, in early October 1969 when the first samples of lunar rocks were picked up by the principal investigators (those contracted to perform in-depth studies on the lunar rocks by NASA). The several week delay was because of the preparation of slivers that most of the PIs required to do their studies. These samples were handled with very strict accounting and security procedures governing the use of these samples, so as to prevent theft or unauthorized use of the samples.

A symposium discussing the results of independent investigator results was held in January of 1970, and no samples were even put on display until after these samples were released to principal investigators, let alone given away...

There is no possible way that anyone was given a sample Moon rock in October of 1969, as the scientific samples were just being picked up by the investigators so as to begin their anaylsis. Apollo 11 had no rocks with them, this fellow was obviously not given a Moon rock, and it was obviously a politician doing his political thing...

And, the article states the facts. NASA gave away samples of Moon rock in the early 1970s...not in October of 1969, a mere few weeks after they had been relesed to scientific investigators under very tight security and accounting procedures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're missing the point, Peter (g'day back to you, btw)...

Well, I think I'm seeing some point!

According to the article, NASA told them "it was possible..."that they had indeed received a genuine Moon rock.

If NASA didn't give out "genuine" Moon rocks in 1969, then doesn't it make sense that NASA would have mentioned it to the Dutch at that time?!?!

Of course it does. NASA would have simply said "Sorry, but if you received ae rock in 1969, then it can't be a genuine Apollo Moon rock, because we never gave out any Moon rocks until the early 1970's".

Yes, and the fact that NASA apparently didn't say that suggests to me that the Dutch didn't indicate to NASA when the rock was given to their PM.

I'm thinking of two possible conversations could have taken place...

Conversation 1:

Dutch: We have this rock which was given to a former PM in October 1969, and we're wondering if it's a genuine Moon rock.

NASA: Well, it's possible it's a genuine Moon rock. We gave moon rocks to more than 100 countries in the early 1970s, from the later Apollo missions.

Dutch: Oh, wait...

Conversation 2:

Dutch: We have this rock, and we're wondering if it's a genuine Moon rock.

NASA: Well, it's possible it's a genuine Moon rock. We gave moon rocks to more than 100 countries in the early 1970s, from the later Apollo missions.

Dutch: {go back and check when the rock was given to the PM, and find out it was in October 1969} Oh, wait...

Now to me, the first conversation makes no sense, and it appears also to not make sense to you. The second one makes a lot more sense, and the difference is that the Dutch didn't tell NASA the rock's provenance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

starchy, I pick option #1. KennyB

You might like to reply on the Moon Hoax thread (the one that's four hundred and something pages long...), but would you mind telling us how you think the Apollo missions were faked, and why it was necessary? Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and the fact that NASA apparently didn't say that suggests to me that the Dutch didn't indicate to NASA when the rock was given to their PM.

I'm thinking of two possible conversations could have taken place...

Conversation 1:

Dutch: We have this rock which was given to a former PM in October 1969, and we're wondering if it's a genuine Moon rock.

NASA: Well, it's possible it's a genuine Moon rock. We gave moon rocks to more than 100 countries in the early 1970s, from the later Apollo missions.

Dutch: Oh, wait...

Conversation 2:

Dutch: We have this rock, and we're wondering if it's a genuine Moon rock.

NASA: Well, it's possible it's a genuine Moon rock. We gave moon rocks to more than 100 countries in the early 1970s, from the later Apollo missions.

Dutch: {go back and check when the rock was given to the PM, and find out it was in October 1969} Oh, wait...

Now to me, the first conversation makes no sense, and it appears also to not make sense to you. The second one makes a lot more sense, and the difference is that the Dutch didn't tell NASA the rock's provenance.

Neither one of those conversations add up

The Dutch vetted the rock. They certainly knew it was given to their former PM in 1969, during the Apollo 11 Goodwill Tour. It makes sense that they would have brought up such an important fact to NASA. Even if they (somehow) forgot to mention it, why wouldn't NASA have asked them when they got it?

But, let's assume both the Dutch and NASA forget to bring it up. NASA tells them it was a "possible" genuine Moon rock, because more than 100 countries had received Moon rocks from later missions in the 1970's. Then, we either have to assume the person "vetting" the rock on behalf of the Dutch museum isn't sure when they got the rock, and needs to follow up on it later, or he/she already knew when they got it (in 1969), but just forgot to tell NASA.

In either case, the Dutch would not have spent decades continuing to believe it was a genuine Moon rock!!

There is also a problem with the article's comment about more than 100 countries receiving Moon rocks in the 1970's. It is not a direct quote from Van Gelder (Dutch museum). It may be a comment made by the author of the article, not by NASA. Indeed, it makes no sense for NASA to have said such a thing, because if they had, then the Dutch would not have kept on believing it was a genuine Moon rock for the next 40 years.

Unless you think the Dutch are complete morons, then the only logical conclusion is that NASA lied to the Dutch, and told them they had a genuine Moon rock from Apollo 11.

But it's not only how NASA "vetted" the fake rock for the Dutch. It's also about how much effort it would probably have taken them to come up with a fake rock like that in the first place. I mean, it's not as if petrified wood that resembles a Moon rock is easy to find.

There was obviously a concerted effort made beforehand (prior to the 1969 Goodwill Tour) to obtain this piece of Moon/Apollo fakery.

Totally intentional deceit.

Edited by turbonium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you think the Dutch are complete morons, then the only logical conclusion is that NASA lied to the Dutch, and told them they had a genuine Moon rock from Apollo 11.

But it's not only how NASA "vetted" the fake rock for the Dutch. It's also about how much effort it would probably have taken them to come up with a fake rock like that in the first place. I mean, it's not as if petrified wood that resembles a Moon rock is easy to find.

There was obviously a concerted effort made beforehand (prior to the 1969 Goodwill Tour) to obtain this piece of Moon/Apollo fakery.

Totally intentional deceit.

Once again, you're getting a long way from the facts.

The rock doesn't resemble moon rock in the least, as was obvious the very first time that a geologist looked at it.

Second, the rock isn't claimed to be a moon rock, compare the inscription on its plaque from those of the later distribution of Apollo samples.

The recipient, an elderly retired politician, apparently believed it was a moon rock, but so far we've got no idea whether he was told that it was or whether it was a misunderstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither one of those conversations add up

The Dutch vetted the rock. They certainly knew it was given to their former PM in 1969, during the Apollo 11 Goodwill Tour. It makes sense that they would have brought up such an important fact to NASA. Even if they (somehow) forgot to mention it, why wouldn't NASA have asked them when they got it?

Yes, a responsible vetting process should have provided all the available evidence to NASA. But people are human, and make mistakes. Also, remember the Rijksmuseum is primarily an art museum, not a science one, so quite possibly the person who was given the job of doing the vetting didn't know the right questions to ask. Perhaps we should find out what the Rijksmuseum people actually asked NASA.

But, let's assume both the Dutch and NASA forget to bring it up. NASA tells them it was a "possible" genuine Moon rock, because more than 100 countries had received Moon rocks from later missions in the 1970's. Then, we either have to assume the person "vetting" the rock on behalf of the Dutch museum isn't sure when they got the rock, and needs to follow up on it later, or he/she already knew when they got it (in 1969), but just forgot to tell NASA.

Again, a good point to pursue with the Rijksmuseum.

In either case, the Dutch would not have spent decades continuing to believe it was a genuine Moon rock!!

Well, this point depends on when the Rijksmuseum contacted NASA. The article from which this story is drawn doesn't say. So this is another point we need to clarify.

There is also a problem with the article's comment about more than 100 countries receiving Moon rocks in the 1970's. It is not a direct quote from Van Gelder (Dutch museum). It may be a comment made by the author of the article, not by NASA. Indeed, it makes no sense for NASA to have said such a thing, because if they had, then the Dutch would not have kept on believing it was a genuine Moon rock for the next 40 years.

Good point, and something else to clarify with the Rijksmuseum - did NASA actually say this to the museum?

Unless you think the Dutch are complete morons, then the only logical conclusion is that NASA lied to the Dutch, and told them they had a genuine Moon rock from Apollo 11.

There's another alternative. That is to withhold judgement until we get answers to the issues you've raised.

On that basis, I think it's unfortunate that you've reached your conclusion and made a claim. I'd prefer to collect all the evidence before drawing too many conclusions.

But it's not only how NASA "vetted" the fake rock for the Dutch. It's also about how much effort it would probably have taken them to come up with a fake rock like that in the first place. I mean, it's not as if petrified wood that resembles a Moon rock is easy to find.

There was obviously a concerted effort made beforehand (prior to the 1969 Goodwill Tour) to obtain this piece of Moon/Apollo fakery.

Pardon? It's petrified wood. It can be found all over the world. The article even calls it "nondescript". And where does the article say it "resembles a Moon rock"?

Totally intentional deceit.

Come on, Turbonium, that's a completely unfair charge to lay when we don't know what the Rijksmuseum people actually asked NASA, when they contacted NASA, or what NASA said in response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.