|
Post by LunarOrbit on Oct 16, 2010 19:30:18 GMT -4
So let me see if I understand. What you and Halcyon Dayz are saying is that the petrified wood was presented to the Dutch Prime Minister to commemorate the visit by the Apollo 11 astronauts, but it was never claimed to be a moon rock?
That sounds really strange to me because there is no connection between petrified wood and Apollo that would make it a sensible gift. It would be like commemorating a visit by Charles Lindbergh with a statue of a man on a horse. I'm sure Lindbergh rode a horse at some point, but that's not what he was famous for.
If I were in charge of presenting gifts to commemorate the Apollo 11 crew's visit, I would try to think of some kind of gift that was related to Apollo 11 in some way. If they couldn't present a moon rock, then surely they could come up with something better than a piece of petrified wood. Maybe a framed mission patch, for example.
So am I just misunderstanding you?
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Oct 16, 2010 20:11:58 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. And here you can see the two samples given to the state of Nederland - obviously safe and sound: www.museumboerhaave.nl/DePers/week1/week1.htmlETA: Already presented earlier by Daggerstab. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 16, 2010 20:20:13 GMT -4
If I were in charge of presenting gifts to commemorate the Apollo 11 crew's visit, I would try to think of some kind of gift that was related to Apollo 11 in some way. If they couldn't present a moon rock, then surely they could come up with something better than a piece of petrified wood. Maybe a framed mission patch, for example. It defies logic that if one was trying to perpertrate a huge hoax that one would draw attention to oneself by trying to palm off a piece of wood as rock. So yes, a mission patch or something similar would be the thing to present. But then I put myself into the conspiracy mind and operate opposite logic, which would be to say that, 'Ah yes, but by presenting something like a patch you are showing you are trying to hide something as there is nothing from the moon, so you have to make it look like something came from the moon.' So, surely one would just present a piece of rock in that case rather than petrified wood (I know it's not that simple). The CTers are loving the whole petrified wood story. Personally I'm enjoying too, as it shows that rational thinking is... well... absent. The whole conspiracy story is more fanciful than the time the local vicar's tea party, when the women's institute heard the local supermarket had reduced Mr Kipling's cakes by 90%.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Oct 16, 2010 20:58:16 GMT -4
I don't believe the petrified wood and the plaque that is shown with it in the photograph were originally together. I believe they became associated through some sort of mix up at some point over the last 40 years. Something was presented to the former Dutch Prime Minister by the US Ambassador on October 9, 1969 to commemorate the visit by the Apollo 11 crew. It might not have been a moon rock, but I can't believe they would give him a piece of petrified wood either. It just doesn't make sense as a gift because it isn't relevant to Apollo in any way.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 16, 2010 21:32:10 GMT -4
So let me see if I understand. What you and Halcyon Dayz are saying is that the petrified wood was presented to the Dutch Prime Minister to commemorate the visit by the Apollo 11 astronauts, but it was never claimed to be a moon rock? That sounds really strange to me because there is no connection between petrified wood and Apollo that would make it a sensible gift. It would be like commemorating a visit by Charles Lindbergh with a statue of a man on a horse. I'm sure Lindbergh rode a horse at some point, but that's not what he was famous for. If I were in charge of presenting gifts to commemorate the Apollo 11 crew's visit, I would try to think of some kind of gift that was related to Apollo 11 in some way. If they couldn't present a moon rock, then surely they could come up with something better than a piece of petrified wood. Maybe a framed mission patch, for example. So am I just misunderstanding you? I suspect that someone in the State Department thought it was a good idea at the time. What is clear is that NASA didn't go about giving away Apollo 11 moon rocks willynilly, we also know that all rocks given out are scrupilously recorded as such, so there is zero evidence that any rock given was indeed a moon rock. Until it can be shown that somehow the DoS managed to convince NASA to part with a large moon rock to be given away, and no record was made of that event, the burden of proof is still with those claiming that the original presentarion was of a moon rock.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 16, 2010 21:34:04 GMT -4
I don't believe the petrified wood and the plaque that is shown with it in the photograph were originally together. I believe they became associated through some sort of mix up at some point over the last 40 years. Something was presented to the former Dutch Prime Minister by the US Ambassador on October 9, 1969 to commemorate the visit by the Apollo 11 crew. It might not have been a moon rock, but I can't believe they would give him a piece of petrified wood either. It just doesn't make sense as a gift because it isn't relevant to Apollo in any way. I suspect that someone in the DoS thought it was a cool looking rock. I doubt that they knew it was petrified wood.
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Oct 16, 2010 23:33:15 GMT -4
So let me see if I understand. What you and Halcyon Dayz are saying is that the petrified wood was presented to the Dutch Prime Minister to commemorate the visit by the Apollo 11 astronauts, but it was never claimed to be a moon rock? It doesn't look like a moon rock. It's to big the be a gift moon rock. Moon rocks were not available at the time. This is 9 October 1969. Only 2 1/2 months after the Apollo flight. That sounds really strange to me because there is no connection between petrified wood and Apollo that would make it a sensible gift. It would be like commemorating a visit by Charles Lindbergh with a statue of a man on a horse. I'm sure Lindbergh rode a horse at some point, but that's not what he was famous for. If I were in charge of presenting gifts to commemorate the Apollo 11 crew's visit, I would try to think of some kind of gift that was related to Apollo 11 in some way. If they couldn't present a moon rock, then surely they could come up with something better than a piece of petrified wood. Maybe a framed mission patch, for example. And that's the weird part... The astronauts presented the Queen herself with some Apollo items, a copy of the microfilm with messages left on the Moon, and a copy of the plaque left on the Moon. Private citizen* Drees got this plaque. Someone** at State send this plaque to Middendorf to present to Drees, I don't know if Middendorf requested it, or if there was some networking involved by people associated with Drees. Middendorf apparently didn't know what it was, but he remembers a rock. Drees didn't know what it was either. Neither men are known to have had scientific interests. Nixon gave the Queen the real rocklets 'in the early 70s'. (Can't find an exact date.) Those are now at Museum Boerhaave. *He was Minister of State but that is a honorary title without formal competence. **Now deceased according to Middendorf, so unavailable for questioning.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Oct 17, 2010 4:02:38 GMT -4
Not really been following this but to me that card, if it is card, looks a bit cheap for such a gift?
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Oct 17, 2010 4:11:04 GMT -4
I'm unsure, but weren't all gift samples given in lucite? If so, it may have been to prevent the sample being "split up".
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 17, 2010 5:49:40 GMT -4
I'm unsure, but weren't all gift samples given in lucite? If so, it may have been to prevent the sample being "split up". That is exactly what Buzz describes in the video Jarrah has put up. Looking at the other samples given to other nations, I would be surprised if any CTer can argue that the wood is evidence of fakery, as it looks nothing like the other samples. They will, because they are totally dishonest.
|
|
|
Post by galaxy on Oct 17, 2010 7:16:06 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 17, 2010 7:31:13 GMT -4
Why doesn't it look like a moon rock, to you ? Erm, because it is reddish for a start? Do you think it is fair to put a colour photograph next to a black and white photograph and ask for a comparison? What particular features makes the Dutch wood look like the moon rock, at least in your opinion. Further, how does this actually support the argument that the missions were hoaxed? I cannot connect the two in my mind. The other samples were encased in lucite and much smaller in comparison. How do you explain this discrepancy?
|
|
|
Post by galaxy on Oct 17, 2010 7:42:01 GMT -4
Do you have a 1969 colour photograph of the rocks ?
|
|
|
Post by capricorn1 on Oct 17, 2010 7:51:17 GMT -4
Why doesn't it look like a moon rock, to you ? Dutch moon rockThat picture is not the petrified wood specimen.......it isn't even the same shape as it. You can cleary see the Dutch gift is rounder and uniformly dark brown.......nice try though. ;D
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Oct 17, 2010 7:56:27 GMT -4
It would be nice if you cited all your sources, and maybe didn't steal other people's bandwidth by hotlinking, galaxy. The article that goes with that picture is here.The article that goes with the moon rock picture you posted (but conveniently didn't link to) is here.The NASA lunar sample compendium can be found here and the original paper regarding sample 14310 can be found here.Edit: Photographs of most of the lunar samples can be found somewhere in the lunar sample atlas and 14310's page is hereAnyway, it looks totally unlike moon rock in several respects, not least of which is the colour. Have you ever looked up?The moon is quite clearly almost entirely grey in colour. True there were some orange-ish soils found by one of the later missions, but that certainly wasn't returned in '69. Also obvious are the effects of water erosion and mineralisation, neither of which are possible on the moon.
|
|