The moon is made of wood

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

The moon is made of wood

Postby nomo » Fri Aug 28, 2009 1:29 pm

Fake Dutch 'moon rock' revealed


Image
The piece of 'rock' supposedly brought back from the moon, seen in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, 27 August 2009
The lump of 'moon rock' had been on display for decades


A treasured piece at the Dutch national museum - a supposed moon rock from the first manned lunar landing - is nothing more than petrified wood, curators say.

It was given to former Prime Minister Willem Drees during a goodwill tour by the three Apollo-11 astronauts shortly after their moon mission in 1969.

When Mr Drees died, the rock went on display at the Amsterdam museum.

At one point it was insured for around $500,000 (£308,000), but tests have proved it was not the genuine article.

The Rijksmuseum, which is perhaps better known for paintings by artists such as Rembrandt, says it will keep the piece as a curiosity.

"It's a good story, with some questions that are still unanswered," Xandra van Gelder, who oversaw the investigation that proved the piece was a fake, was quoted as saying by the Associated Press news agency.

"We can laugh about it."

The "rock" had originally been been vetted through a phone call to Nasa, she added.

The US agency gave moon rocks to more than 100 countries following lunar missions in the 1970s.

US officials said they had no explanation for the Dutch discovery.


Image
User avatar
nomo
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 1:48 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The moon is made of wood

Postby whipstitch » Fri Aug 28, 2009 2:46 pm

nomo wrote:US officials said they had no explanation for the Dutch discovery.[/b]

Image


I knew that moon landing was a hoax!
User avatar
whipstitch
 
Posts: 415
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 12:28 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby barracuda » Fri Aug 28, 2009 3:10 pm

Within the context of the black market for moon rocks it's understandable that this would happen. These displays are probably easy targets for an employee heist.
The most dangerous traps are the ones you set for yourself. - Phillip Marlowe
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12890
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby slimmouse » Fri Aug 28, 2009 5:46 pm

barracuda wrote:Within the context of the black market for moon rocks it's understandable that this would happen. These displays are probably easy targets for an employee heist.


Any other "conspiracy theories" out there as to how this isnt the genuine artifact as was given to the Dutch PM ?

:scaredhide:
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Postby Project Willow » Fri Aug 28, 2009 5:54 pm

Link, please. Thank you.
User avatar
Project Willow
 
Posts: 4798
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 9:37 pm
Location: Seattle
Blog: View Blog (1)

Postby Jeff » Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:20 pm

slimmouse wrote: Any other "conspiracy theories" out there as to how this isnt the genuine artifact as was given to the Dutch PM ?


He hadn't been PM since 1958, so another question might be, why would he have warranted receipt of an authentic moon rock so soon after the first mission? There weren't many of them around in 1969. And this wasn't going to a learning institution, it was for the private collection of a long-retired Dutch politician. It makes more sense that it wasn't legit.

My guess is it was a Buzz Aldrin prank. I bet he pulled that shit a lot.
User avatar
Jeff
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11134
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 8:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby slimmouse » Fri Aug 28, 2009 8:04 pm

Jeff wrote:
slimmouse wrote:.
My guess is it was a Buzz Aldrin prank. I bet he pulled that shit a lot.


Indeed Jeff.

Pullin shit piled upon pulled shit.

Long before I listened to this guy (below) , I was strongly of the opinion that there were in fact 2 space programmes.

Can I prove it ? Well, even if I could you could bet your bottom dollar it would be "another pile of shit ."

But, just out of interest ;

http://www.consciousmedianetwork.com/members/mbara.htm

Your thoughts folks ?

And on edit. I would bet a pile of shit a mile high that the aforesaid Dutch PM shook hands in a strange, if all too familiar way.

Not that I could care less. AFAIC Its not about them now, rather its about us.
Last edited by slimmouse on Fri Aug 28, 2009 8:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Postby Ben D » Fri Aug 28, 2009 8:42 pm

http://origin.wusa9.com/news/watercoole ... ryid=90297

The museum acquired the rock after the death of former Prime Minister Willem Drees in 1988. Drees received it as a private gift on Oct. 9, 1969 from then-U.S. ambassador J. William Middendorf during a visit by the three Apollo 11 astronauts, part of their "Giant Leap" goodwill tour after the first moon landing.

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."
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Sat Aug 29, 2009 12:00 am

slimmouse wrote:
barracuda wrote:Within the context of the black market for moon rocks it's understandable that this would happen. These displays are probably easy targets for an employee heist.


Any other "conspiracy theories" out there as to how this isnt the genuine artifact as was given to the Dutch PM ?

:scaredhide:


Fuckin' a.

Its pertirfied wood from the moon.
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10622
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby 2012 Countdown » Sat Aug 29, 2009 3:03 am

Just looking at the photo, before even reading any text, I immediatley said to myself, that looks just like petrified wood from the petrified forest (here in the American west). Now if my untrained eye spotted this instantly from this one photo, how come it took so long to question? Honestly, it isn't as though I have a 'trained' eye. I visited the area on vacation, once, long ago. This rock screams petrified wood!

Exhibit A:
Image

Exhibit B:
Image


slimmouse wrote: But, just out of interest ;

http://www.consciousmedianetwork.com/members/mbara.htm

Your thoughts folks ?


I came across this vid a few weeks ago. It is well worth a watch and answers rationally, why angles are chosen, and how some occult dictates are founded upon 'practical' considerations.
User avatar
2012 Countdown
 
Posts: 2293
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 1:27 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby AhabsOtherLeg » Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:13 am

If there'd been worthwhile forestry and logging prospects on the moon, Canada would've got there first. Even ahead of the Mayans.
User avatar
AhabsOtherLeg
 
Posts: 3285
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:43 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Penguin » Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:39 am

Hey, I used to have one petrified piece of moon wood just like the last one above!
Penguin
 
Posts: 5089
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Penguin » Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:43 am

AhabsOtherLeg wrote:If there'd been worthwhile forestry and logging prospects on the moon, Canada would've got there first. Even ahead of the Mayans.


We call it "natural forestry" over here. You know, in natures cycles, a grown up swath of timber is naturally clearcut, after which the new trees get planted by nature and start a new cycle towards the end, where they will spoil and rot unless a new round of clearcutting is done in time to prevent the decay and wastage.

It just glosses over the fact that clearcutting is a wholly fucking different thing than forest fires, which by the way are all put out today. Regards, resident forest ecologist.

At least Canada still has some pristine woods left, we mostly don't. I mean, you can even get prosecuted for trying to manage your woodlands in a different way from this paradigm of naturalness. Though its true that Canada does probably hold some kinds of records of "largest area clearcut in one go" too. But they got nothing on us wrt. draining mires, we are the world leaders in that inanity.
Penguin
 
Posts: 5089
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby AhabsOtherLeg » Sat Aug 29, 2009 5:06 am

Penguin wrote:Hey, I used to have one petrified piece of moon wood just like the last one above!


I've been called a lotta things, but... hehehe...

Penguin wrote:We call it "natural forestry" over here. You know, in natures cycles, a grown up swath of timber is naturally clearcut, after which the new trees get planted by nature and start a new cycle towards the end, where they will spoil and rot unless a new round of clearcutting is done in time to prevent the decay and wastage.

It just glosses over the fact that clearcutting is a wholly fucking different thing than forest fires, which by the way are all put out today. Regards, resident forest ecologist.

At least Canada still has some pristine woods left, we mostly don't. I mean, you can even get prosecuted for trying to manage your woodlands in a different way from this paradigm of naturalness.


Ah, c'mon. T'was just a joke. Canada, Scotland, Finland - we all manage our forestry in the same way nowadays. Badly. 'Twas always thus, as well. Canada just has more of it to manage, and more of a reputation for it's 'management' - Lumberjack Song, Alberta, and so on... yes, I'm actually citing the Lumberjack Song as evidence.

Don't get smart, though - I remember when you cited Adamski!

I used to love going up the woods as a younger, but yes, they nearly all stood in lines, and were technically awaiting their harvesting. Natural woodland is a whole different thing, but I can't write off the feelings I got back then from what was, I suppose, just a massive plantation. But a forest is a forest, anyway. It's not interested in what it's being grown for. Trees are a damn sight bigger than the folk who plant them.

Where were we?

Aye, Canada does have pristine woods - and long may they remain so.

Do you reckon normal, natural forest fires are healthy, then? It does seem to be the case.
User avatar
AhabsOtherLeg
 
Posts: 3285
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:43 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Penguin » Sat Aug 29, 2009 5:30 am

Yes, normal fires are the natural way in our woodlands, at least. As well as in Canada. Fires usually never kill all the trees, the large pines f.ex. often survive several fires in their lifetime, and hence stay as natural seeding stock for after the fire. Also there is a plethora of so called pioneer species that have adapted to fire-created conditions (high carbon, high nutrient content for the ash and coal) that have now become rare or threatened. Up until a 100 years ago fires were common, nowadays burns are only done in limited scale in conservation areas, and in a controlled fashion.

After a fire the area is first colonized by the pioneer species (of trees, birches etc.), then as the forest ages, depending on location (wetness, nutrients, ...) spruces or pines follow, and the deciduous trees vanish little by little - but are usually present wherever an opening has formed in the canopy, due to a large pine or spruce being felled by a storm etc.

So there are two mechanisms for tree renewal in natural conditions - small scale openings forming due to large trees falling (when usually their roots also rip an opening in the forest floor, creating a good surface for new seeds to take) - and in large scale, fires that create larger openings with some trees left standing.

Small scale opening cuttings were long completely illegal, and are still looked at badly by the authorities - this since at one time selective cuttings of only the largest and best (genetically too) trees were carried out, which will lead to problems as well. And of course that is said to not be economically viable (they always say that).

Also, we have way less tree species than North America due to last ice age making many extinct. Size of forest plots is also on the average very small, and cuttings are made plot by plot, after which only one species of tree is usually planted (exception being spruce planted mixed with birch, birches provide cover and nutritious leaf matter, and are cut off after a couple decades to give room and light for the spruces to grow) - hence, mixed forests have become rarer, and the landscape has become highly fragmented. Forest roads are also splitting even pristine areas into a jigsaw puzzle when looked at from the air.
Penguin
 
Posts: 5089
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests