|
Post by slang on Oct 17, 2010 19:01:49 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. - 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. As I understand it, it was donated to the museum as part of a large collection of stuff, not as a single noteworthy item. Drees was a very famous politician here, and it is not strange that part of his private possessions were donated to that particular 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. And this exhibit was an art exhibit, not an exhibit to celebrate or remember the moon landings. The exhibit was set up in relation to maintenance or restructuring work of the museum building. This can be verified on the museum website.
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Oct 17, 2010 22:38:43 GMT -4
- Once on display, a qualified geologist immediately identified it as petrified rock just by looking at it. Cz They were more thorough then just look at it. A physicist and 'space entrepreneur' by the name of Arno Wielders saw the stone at the exhibition and thought it was odd. He contacted a NASA friend at the Lunar Sample facility who told him there was no record of the stone. Together with 2 geologists he got to take a closer look. The stone was identified as a piece of jasper, a mineral unknown in lunar samples. A small shard was subjected to x-ray spectrography, polarised-light microscopy, and electron microscopy. It is very definitely a piece of petrified wood. - 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. Middendorf remembers giving Drees a stone. See my post #70 quoting this: www.usatoday.com/travel/destinations/2009-08-27-rijksmuseum-moon-rock_N.htmSo the riddle remains, why give Drees anything, Middendorf must have met a awful lot of people that day, and why give him this?
|
|
|
Post by philwebb59 on Oct 18, 2010 0:00:43 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 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. Jarrah's exact words are "In October 1969, during their goodwill tour, the Apollo 11 crew gave a moon rock to the then US Ambassador to the Netherlands, J. William Middendorf, who in turn presented it to former Dutch Prime Minister Willem Drees." If the astronauts were present during the presentation, why didn't they give Drees the rock directly? - 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.
|
|
|
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 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 gillianren on Oct 18, 2010 2:13:19 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: [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.
|
|
|
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 Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Oct 18, 2010 3:38:28 GMT -4
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 * Cz So basically we got nuthin'. I'm not even sure anymore we can place Drees himself at the 'scene of the crime'. Maybe he got the thing in the mail. The whole story is pretty apocryphal. Unless someone shows up who was there and does remember we might never know the ins-and-outs of this particular story. Which wouldn't be any of the astronauts. 25 countries in 35 days, it must all be a blur.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 18, 2010 10:51:57 GMT -4
So basically we got nuthin'. No to be glib, but what you have is history. Even in modern times the study of history is fraught with inconsistencies and blatant inaccuracies just such as this. We have equally credible reports telling us contradictory facts. And even if we resolve the contradiction, there still isn't enough fact to answer our question without some inductive leap. Conspiracists tend to predicate their work on the presumption that true history is devoid of such contentions and ambiguities. They wrongly believe that a true story will be told clearly, without inconsistency, and that every detail they later come to believe is important will be supported amply by surviving document, witness, or artifact. Then when they delve into the history of the events through which they want to weave a conspiracy story, they seize upon normal inconsistency and an ordinary vacuum of evidence and build that into a suspicion of coverup. "Where are the tapes? How did those rocks get there? Why doesn't the crew seem ecstatic at the press conference? Blah blah blah! This just isn't right, I must be 'onto something.'"
|
|
|
Post by kallewirsch on Oct 18, 2010 10:54:12 GMT -4
I can even imaging some worker in the museum having to collect the "stone" from the archives, seeing 2 of them and taking the bigger one, since surely the US didn't give anway such a small pice of stone, berely visible, as a gift.
Ask 10 persons around you, not involved into science what moon rocks look like or what petrified wood looks like and I guess 9 of them won't know.
Same here. A lot of replies told us that NASA never gave away such big samples. But who else knows this? I don't think that some workers in some art museum will know this. One can sell them nearly anthing as beeing a moon rock and they wouldn't notice.
If NASA would present a 'moon rock' which later turns out to be some stone from the rocky mountains, then this is a different story. But from an art museum I don't expect scientific accuracy which is not related to their paintings. Everybody has heared from stories about scientific museums where some pieces where on display mislabeled for years or decades without somebody notecing.
Just my 10 cents.
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Oct 18, 2010 11:49:26 GMT -4
So basically we got nuthin'. No to be glib, but what you have is history. It's frustrating. I like to figure things out, but the darn data won't sit still. I can even imaging some worker in the museum having to collect the "stone" from the archives, seeing 2 of them and taking the bigger one, since surely the US didn't give away such a small piece of stone, barely visible, as a gift. I'm still convinced there never was a moon rock. The astronauts met something like 50 monarchs, presidents, and heads of government on their tour, none of them got one. Giving one to Drees would be such a diplomatic faux pas not even the State Department could have conceived the idea. Now giving one, a big one, to premier Kosygin would have been a nice touch. /jk
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Oct 18, 2010 12:40:47 GMT -4
The card looks to me to actually be part of an invitation.
Are there any other examples of this card, or cards like it showing up?
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Oct 18, 2010 12:46:17 GMT -4
Not to put a downer on things but why are we doing the research for the HB camp?
|
|
|
Post by philwebb59 on Oct 18, 2010 12:48:44 GMT -4
I beg to differ. Have a look at what the card actually says: ===> Image cut <=== 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. 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. I think you read more into what I said than I intended. Actually, I was agreeing with you. I did not say that the card was a facsimile, but that it may have been attached to something -- my guess -- a facsimile of a photo of the Apollo 11 plaque. The card does not say, "This gift is presented to Wellem Drees with the compliments of...," but simply, "With the compliments of..." The recipient is not identified. So, it could be something that the diplomatic corps was handing out at the exhibition. The fact that there's a venue and date at the bottom of the card indicates (to me at least) that it was attached to a souvenir from the exhibition.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Oct 18, 2010 13:26:16 GMT -4
Not to put a downer on things but why are we doing the research for the HB camp? Historical speculation is fun?
|
|