|
Post by randombloke on Oct 16, 2010 12:51:27 GMT -4
All I know is that the A16 sample in the Science Natural History Museum in London is huge, relative to the dust samples from A11, about the size of my fist, and possibly amongst the most valuable pieces in the collection. It's neat because you can see the zap pits etc.
Edit: whoops, wrong museum. I occasionally get them confused because they're part of the same complex. Also, the NHM has a vial of cometary diamond dust from before the solar system was born. I think that is utterly rad.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 16, 2010 13:44:52 GMT -4
All I know is that the A16 sample in the Science Natural History Museum in London is huge, relative to the dust samples from A11, about the size of my fist, and possibly amongst the most valuable pieces in the collection. It's neat because you can see the zap pits etc. Edit: whoops, wrong museum. I occasionally get them confused because they're part of the same complex. Also, the NHM has a vial of cometary diamond dust from before the solar system was born. I think that is utterly rad. Maybe I owe myself a trip to go and see these things... sounds really very interesting. Diamond dust that is pre-solar system. Cool.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 16, 2010 13:53:11 GMT -4
So, why would someone present a much bigger sample to only one country? I agree. When I saw the petrified wood and the CTers hollering, I had that facepalm moment. If the CTers are to think that the US presented samples that big then they are dumber than I can possibly imagine. As though the US were going to give away half their lunar rock collection. They simply don't get it do they. The samples are of great scientific value, so the US aren't going to just throw them away. Typical here in the UK. The sample that was presented to the 'People of the UK' is kept in the study at No 10 for all of us to see.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Oct 16, 2010 14:18:32 GMT -4
Apparently the moron can't even ask a legitimate question. While all 3 Apollo 11 astronaut's names were on the presentation card that came with the "rock" that was given to Drees, it was Ambassador Middendorf who presented the rock in the first place. There is nothing anywhere (that I can find, at least) that states that Neil, Buzz or Mike were there at the presentation. Cz It was supposed to be a rock from the moon. So this is a clear proof of fake. Like it or not. Really? Where on the plaque does it say that?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Oct 16, 2010 14:22:47 GMT -4
I have to tell you, that rock wouldn't fool me, much less a trained geologist. And I don't even mean me now, after having taken a college geology course and then spent time selling jewelry. I mean me in grade school, where I had regular exposure to a natural history museum. Come to that, I'm pretty sure my mother owns a piece of petrified wood. It's pretty distinctive stuff. If it were supposed to be a piece of Moon rock, why don't we have records of geologists from the area crying fake?
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Oct 16, 2010 14:23:47 GMT -4
It was supposed to be a rock from the moon. Nope. So this is a clear proof of fake. Nope. Nope. It only makes me laugh. I think you suffer from a lack of imagination. You've got it in your head that the only possible explanation for this is that NASA (or whoever) intentionally deceived the former Dutch Prime Minister. But I can think of all sorts of ways that a piece of petrified wood could become mislabelled over the course of 40 years. For example: 1. The Moon sample is presented to the Dutch Prime Minister 2. The sample is given to the museum, who put it on display. 3. Years later the museum decides to renovate and items are placed into temporary storage. 4. While moving some geology exhibits a careless worker accidentally mixes up the moon rock and petrified wood. No one notices the mistake until last year. Simple. It doesn't involved any criminal behaviour, just a clumsy museum worker who doesn't want to get into trouble. For all we know, the actual lunar sample is located in a storage crate labelled "petrified wood" So I ask you, galaxy, what evidence do you have that your explanation is right and mine is wrong? I think yours is wrong too. There never was a Moonrock. The real ones were received by the Queen and much later. [url=http://historiek.net/index.php/200907052097/Nieuws/Julianas-maanstenen-te-zien-in-museum-Boerhaave.html ]They[/url] are tiny. www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXrfyoGyjP0Translation of the clip description: The astronauts Neil Armstrong, Edwin E. Aldrin and Michael Collins, the crew of Apollo-11 that has flown to the moon, arrives under large interest at the Palace on the Dam in Amsterdam. There they are received in the Mozes and AƤronhal by queen Juliana, princes Bernhard and Claus and the princesses Magriet and Irene. The astronauts offer a microfilm with the message which Juliana had given along and a copy of the plaque which they have placed on the moon. In the RAI they open with minister-president P.J.S. de Jong the exhibition Maanvaart '69, where ao stands displayed the Apollo-8 with which the astronauts Frank Borman, James A. Lovell and William A. Anders have flown around the moon.(The astronauts were only in town for a few hours. No mention of old Drees.) No reason why anyone would give a Moonrock to an elderly retired (though highly respected) statesman on the day they actually met the Queen and the then current prime-minister. Comedy of Errors.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 16, 2010 14:27:17 GMT -4
It was supposed to be a rock from the moon. So this is a clear proof of fake. Like it or not. What was supposed to be a rock from the Moon? This obvious piece of petrified wood? I don't think so. No one is that inept. It would be like trying to pass off a garden hose as a rare snake species. If you're going to say, "This is a Moon rock," you should at least provide a rock that looks a little like the other samples, not something that's quite clearly and obviously something else. It's not "clear" proof of any sort of fake, unless both the fakers and fakees are monumentally stupid.
|
|
|
Post by Daggerstab on Oct 16, 2010 14:31:29 GMT -4
All I know is that the A16 sample in the Science Natural History Museum in London is huge, relative to the dust samples from A11, about the size of my fist, and possibly amongst the most valuable pieces in the collection. At first I thought you might be talking about the UK's Apollo 17 Goodwill Moon Rock, but it seems that you are right - there is an Apollo 16 rock on display: www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/space/planets-solar-system/moon/samples/(There is a photo. It's encased in a pyramid, not a ball like the other rocks.) Is it a gift, or is it loaned to the museum?
|
|
|
Post by galaxy on Oct 16, 2010 14:32:41 GMT -4
It was supposed to be a rock from the moon. Nope. Nope. Nope. It only makes me laugh. I think you suffer from a lack of imagination. You've got it in your head that the only possible explanation for this is that NASA (or whoever) intentionally deceived the former Dutch Prime Minister. But I can think of all sorts of ways that a piece of petrified wood could become mislabelled over the course of 40 years. For example: 1. The Moon sample is presented to the Dutch Prime Minister 2. The sample is given to the museum, who put it on display. 3. Years later the museum decides to renovate and items are placed into temporary storage. 4. While moving some geology exhibits a careless worker accidentally mixes up the moon rock and petrified wood. No one notices the mistake until last year. Simple. It doesn't involved any criminal behaviour, just a clumsy museum worker who doesn't want to get into trouble. For all we know, the actual lunar sample is located in a storage crate labelled "petrified wood" So I ask you, galaxy, what evidence do you have that your explanation is right and mine is wrong? I think yours is wrong too. There never was a Moonrock. The real ones were received by the Queen and much later. [url=http://historiek.net/index.php/200907052097/Nieuws/Julianas-maanstenen-te-zien-in-museum-Boerhaave.html ]They [/url] are tiny. www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXrfyoGyjP0Funny as heck bablefish translation of the clip description: The astronauts Neil Armstrong, Edwin E. Aldrin and Michael Collins, the crew of Apollo-11 that to the maan has flown, arrives under large interest at the palate on the dam in Amsterdam. There they become in the Mozes and AƤronzaal receive daisy and Irene by queen Juliana, princes Bernhard and Claus and the princesses. The astronauts offer a microfilm with message which Juliana had given and a copy of the plaquette which they have placed on the maan. In the RAI they open P.J.S. with minister-president the young the tentoonstelling Maanvaart ' 69, where oa stand established Apollo-8 with which the astronauts Frank Borman, James A. Lovell and William A. differently for the maan have flown.(The astronauts were only in town for a few hours. No mention of old Drees.) No reason why anyone would give a Moonrock to an elderly retired (though highly respected) statesman on the day they actually met the Queen and the then current prime-minister. Comedy of Errors.[/quote] Are Middendorf and Drees in this short clip ?
|
|
|
Post by Daggerstab on Oct 16, 2010 15:00:11 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Oct 16, 2010 15:08:08 GMT -4
Are Middendorf and Drees in this short clip ? I think Middendorf is the tall guy on the far left at 0:28. Vadertje Drees is definitely not in it, he was very recognisable. Drees was 83, and near deaf and blind at the time so I suspect he was with a group of handshakers in an anteroom of the RAI. The Rijksmuseum (which is an arts, crafts, and history museum, not a science museum) only received the plaque after Drees' untimely death in 1988. Someone at the estate had catalogued it as 'Moonrock'. Nobody knows who or why. Middendorf, who lives in Rhode Island, told Dutch broadcaster NOS news that he had gotten it from the U.S. State Department, but couldn't recall the exact details.
"I do remember that (Drees) was very interested in the little piece of stone," the NOS quoted Middendorf as saying. "But that it's not real, I don't know anything about that."www.usatoday.com/travel/destinations/2009-08-27-rijksmuseum-moon-rock_N.htmIt might have been Middendorf, who seemed to have believed the rock was a Moonrock, who gave Drees the wrong impression. U.S. ambassadors to The Hague are invariably political appointees. They get picked for their political connections, not smarts.
|
|
|
Post by capricorn1 on Oct 16, 2010 15:23:48 GMT -4
Are Middendorf and Drees in this short clip ? Hi Galaxy. As you are still around, can you tell us why it is proof of a hoax? What does it actually prove? To me it looks like a bit of wood.....and I really can't see how anybody would think otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Oct 16, 2010 17:04:13 GMT -4
The possibility exists that it wasn't just a clumsy worker; moon samples are VERY valuable and there is a black market for such items. Perhaps it wasn't error but intent, and the desire to make some money by selling a genuine moonrock.
The possibilities are numerous.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 16, 2010 17:56:47 GMT -4
The text was translated by a Dutch friend: Exactly 40 years ago the whole world was breatlessly watching two astronauts doing the first steps on the Moon. Not only they left their footprints and a flag on the Moon, but they took something back as well: moonrocks, billions of years old. From July 8 - August 30 the Boerhaave museum shows two original samples of moongrit of the Apollo missions, for everyone to see. There are some authentic Apollo-footages to be seen, with the source of the small rocks. There is a small presentation showing the visitor historic photos and videos, proving the huge value of these manned spaceflights. American astronauts of the Apollo program took 382 kilos of moonrocks with them back to Earth, during the six manned spaceflights to the Moon. To show the succes the American president Nixon presented the heads of state from a lot of countries a sample from the soil. These came from the famous first Apollo 11 flight in 1969, as well as the Apollo 17 in 1972, together with a flag of the country that was on board of the lunar module. The Dutch queen Juliana gave her moonrocks to the Dutch museum. Because of the 40th anniversary of the manned flight to the Moon the rocks can be viewed by the public. The first sample came with Apollo 11 from the Mare Tranquillitatis, de landing site where the Apollo landed. These rocks are some 4 billion years old basalt. The second sample was collected by Apollo 17 at the Littrow Taurus mountians.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 16, 2010 19:03:54 GMT -4
The possibility exists that it wasn't just a clumsy worker; moon samples are VERY valuable and there is a black market for such items. Perhaps it wasn't error but intent, and the desire to make some money by selling a genuine moonrock. The possibilities are numerous. While true that there are multiple possibilites, I'd suggest rather then giving a ship full of examples, it is better to stick to the most obvious one, that it never was, nor was meant to be, a moonrock, and that someone in the chain has gotten confused in believing it was. At this point the simple thing is that anyone claiming it was a faked rock has to show that it was meant to be a moonrock in the first place. As of yet I have never seen anyone actually able to show that the rock was presented as a genuine moonrock, and until that happens, there is little point of going further.
|
|