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

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.

Again, a good point to pursue with the Rijksmuseum.

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.

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

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.

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"?

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.

The "totally intentional deceit" was specifically in reference to the actions of the US Ambassador. However, from all indications so far, it appears NASA was not being very up-front and honest, either.

Imo, it's really not relevant as to exactly when the Dutch vetted the rock in their phone call to NASA. Whether it was in 1969, or in 1988, or just within the last year, it makes little difference. It only matters what was said in that phone call.

And while we don't (yet) know exactly what was said, it was clearly good enough to satisfy the Dutch that their rock was indeed genuine.

We already have enough evidence to conclude that the US Ambassador had to have lied to the former Dutch PM.

And whatever NASA exactly tell the Dutch, it was clearly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We already have enough evidence to conclude that the US Ambassador had to have lied to the former Dutch PM.

Perhaps there was some kind of misunderstanding...? I mean, its not like the plaque with the rock says anything about the rock being from the Moon... or about NASA for that matter.

Then again, perhaps the former Dutch PM only heard what he wanted to hear and believed what he wanted to believe, despite what all the evidence in front of him said.

You know what that's like, don't you Turbs...? ;)

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "totally intentional deceit" was specifically in reference to the actions of the US Ambassador.

Fair enough, but to be fair, you didn't indicate that.

However, from all indications so far, it appears NASA was not being very up-front and honest, either.

Why? For all we know, they're only going to answer the questions which were asked, and not try to second-guess what the Rijksmusem person was asking about. Again, we don't know who in NASA answered these questions, or exactly what they said. So again I think it's premature to draw conclusions and assign blame when we don't have all the evidence.

Imo, it's really not relevant as to exactly when the Dutch vetted the rock in their phone call to NASA. Whether it was in 1969, or in 1988, or just within the last year, it makes little difference. It only matters what was said in that phone call.

Quite true. Which is why I wish you wouldn't make so many accusations without knowing that.

And while we don't (yet) know exactly what was said, it was clearly good enough to satisfy the Dutch that their rock was indeed genuine.

Yes, and until we know who in the Rijksmuseum had that vetting job, and what was said in the conversation, why don't we withhold judgement?

We already have enough evidence to conclude that the US Ambassador had to have lied to the former Dutch PM.

That's probably a reasonable conclusion. Either that or told only the truth, just not all of it, and let the poor old man draw his own conclusions. Still, either way, that proves nothing against NASA.

And whatever NASA exactly tell the Dutch, it was clearly

What were you going to say here?

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.