ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: gtvc on February 06, 2015, 11:11:57 AM
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html) What do you think?
-
Old news. The rock was not handed over by the astronauts but by the US Ambassador as a private gift to the then Prime Minister, who later donated it to the museum. There was never any official claim that this rock was from the Moon, therefore, from a hoax point of view, it is a non-story. The closest connection to Apollo 11 is that the original gift was made during the Apollo 11 tour.
-
Yea, pretty much fiction.
It wasn't a rock, was not given to Holland and was not given by the Apollo 11 crew.
-
The moon rock was never given to the former Dutch PM. It has been proven beyond doubt that the rock was incorrectly identified as moonrock by his sons. The so called rock was found in a drawer, after his death, also in the draw was a dedication card,"presented by the Apollo 11 astronauts during their word tour...etc" The card was given to dignitaries attending the world tour event and related to signed photo's and other gifts. Drees heirs, incorrectly linked the card to the rock.
The Netherlands, along with other countries did receive a dedication plaque with some lunar regolith set in plastic. calls to NASA asking whether they had received any moon rock was therefore given an affirmative as they did indeed receive some samples. But NO country or individual was given a large lump of Moonrock, especially a former PM who was last in office in 1958, 11 years before Apollo.
Additionally this is a really old story, so I don't understand why the Telegraph is highlighting it today? The rocks authenticity was actually called into question by a visiting NASA employee. For a detailed description of what I have written here please see Phil Webbs excellent videos on the subject, "The Moonrock of the Netherlands!" :)
-
Additionally this is a really old story, so I don't understand why the Telegraph is highlighting it today?
The Telegraph article was from 29 August 2009.
-
Thank you but the news was posted today in History channel latinoamerica and I wanted to know the true ;) :D
-
Thank you but the news was posted today in History channel latinoamerica and I wanted to know the true ;) :D
Ah right. I've seen a similar thing happen on the BBC site. They have a "Most Read Article" section. Every now and then a seemingly random article will surface, usually one with little or relevance to whats in the news on the day in question. Glitch in the Matrix?
-
Thank you but the news was posted today in History channel latinoamerica and I wanted to know the true ;) :D
It was good of you to check it out. A lot of people would just read it and believe it without question.
-
Actually, I rather like this one from the other point of view. Like a lot of the technical aspects of Apollo, when you bring up the geological samples to the credulous laymen they often respond with the idea that geologists wouldn't know the difference; that someone had to tell them the rocks came from the Moon, they hadn't seen that exact rock before so they shrug and agree.
In this case, as I have heard the story, a geologist was strolling through the museum on his day off, noticed the exhibit...and it took him literally seconds to realize something was off. By under a minute, he knew he was looking at something that could not possibly be from the Moon.
This is roughly what would happen if any of the hoaxies ludicrous ideas of trick photography or faked radio transmissions or made-up performance of rocket engines were to attempt to pass the real, working professionals out in the world.
-
Don't HBs think that special effects artists would be able to spot trickery in Apollo film and video?
-
Don't HBs think...?
That's as far as that needed to go ;)
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html) What do you think?
The samples handed out were cased in acrylic.
http://www.collectspace.com/resources/moonrocks_apollo11.html
The Dutch 'rock' is a piece of petrified wood, and it is believed that it got mixed up with an invite card to a party event on the "Apollo-11 Astronauts Goodwill Round-the-World Flight Tour."
PhilWebb50 has covered the subject in two videos:
You can see that the official samples in the first link I posted do not match with the Dutch sample in their presentation.
-
Don't HBs think that special effects artists would be able to spot trickery in Apollo film and video?
It's so odd wrapping your head around it. According to them, it is obvious certain kinds of special effects were used...such as flying by wire. According to people with actual experience (I don't have much, but I've been technician on four different shows and worked with both Foy and SFX in setting up the flight hardware) nothing is alike. The "tells" the hoaxies point to aren't applicable to standard industry methods, and the "tells" an industry insider would use don't show up anywhere.
And -- showing their lineal descent from the fabled Monk Plus -- will immediately reply that completely non-standard, ad-hoc methods were used, which the hoaxie finds immediately recognizable...due to their experience with how the standard methods work and look.
-
All special effects people spot the obvious signs of fakery, but they don't reveal it because it would jeopardise their careers and/or they would be murdered. Presumably by people on this board.
-
All special effects people spot the obvious signs of fakery, but they don't reveal it because it would jeopardise their careers and/or they would be murdered. Presumably by people on this board.
NASA doesn't pay me enough for that. Not at $2 a post. In any case, I'm quite happy shilling with the odd post here and there. The money buys the drinks at Christmas. I don't think I'd go as far a murder.
-
All special effects people spot the obvious signs of fakery, but they don't reveal it because it would jeopardise their careers and/or they would be murdered. Presumably by people on this board.
NASA doesn't pay me enough for that. Not at $2 a post. In any case, I'm quite happy shilling with the odd post here and there. The money buys the drinks at Christmas. I don't think I'd go as far a murder.
~cough~ Nectar points ~cough~
-
Yea, pretty much fiction.
It wasn't a rock, was not given to Holland and was not given by the Apollo 11 crew.
Since when has petrified wood not been a rock?
-
As I work in the TV industry it means if I spilled the beans about really happened with wires and sfx, I'd have to arrange for my own killing.
-
You could fake it, you know.
-
As I work in the TV industry it means if I spilled the beans about really happened with wires and sfx, I'd have to arrange for my own killing.
If you're good enough with SFX you only have to make people believe you're dead.
-
If you're good enough with SFX you only have to make people believe you're dead.
He would have to have a new account here and pretend that he knows nothing about Apollo cameras. :(
-
Apollo cameras, hey? Don't those things capture light through the eyepeice and beam that on the wall through the lens?
-
Apollo cameras, hey? Don't those things capture light through the eyepeice and beam that on the wall through the lens?
I point you in the direction of Live TV from the Moon by Dwight Steven-Boniecki.
-
Such a shame what happened to that guy . . . .
-
Such a shame what happened to that guy . . . .
It is sad, but he's the one who signed the NASA shill contract. He knew the risks...
-
It is sad, but he's the one who signed the NASA shill contract. He knew the risks...
He really will be a loss to Apollo shills. He was the main film propagandist and created a wonderful cover story that was technically faultless, covering many aspects of the alledged landings and their documentation. I hope the new Dwight can fill the gap.
-
He really will be a loss to Apollo shills. He was the main film propagandist and created a wonderful cover story that was technically faultless, covering many aspects of the alledged landings and their documentation. I hope the new Dwight can fill the gap.
I'm sure that he will be fine. Rumour has it that he will be getting fitted with the upgraded MkIV mind control device. Much better battery life, apparently, and improved reception from NASA HQ even when indoors....
-
Much better battery life, apparently, and improved reception from NASA HQ even when indoors....
Can we all get that upgrade or is only for newbees? I'm currently using Mark 2, but found I almost blurted out the 'twoof' when near my microwave oven. It was a close run thing.
-
Much better battery life, apparently, and improved reception from NASA HQ even when indoors....
Can we all get that upgrade or is only for newbees? I'm currently using Mark 2, but found I almost blurted out the 'twoof' when near my microwave oven. It was a close run thing.
Its OK Luke, you can make one of these and wear it when you are warming up that pizza slice.....
(http://diablo.incgamers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/index.jpg)
-
Its OK Luke, you can make one of these and wear it when you are warming up that pizza slice.....
(http://diablo.incgamers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/index.jpg)
That cat has had just about enough of this bullshit.
-
Its OK Luke, you can make one of these and wear it when you are warming up that pizza slice.....
(http://diablo.incgamers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/index.jpg)
More likely, the cat is the one in charge.
That cat has had just about enough of this bullshit.
-
Wait until you find out where they stuck the new antenna. The new contract never mentioned _that_!
-
Wait until you find out where they stuck the new antenna. The new contract never mentioned _that_!
Welcome to the board new-Dwight. Glad to have you here.
-
I'm taking no chances whatsoever......
(http://i57.tinypic.com/2mchkx4.jpg)
-
Thanks for the welcome. Now, down to business:
Jay, Jay, Jay, Jay, Bob, Dwight, Jay, Jay, Jay, Jay, completely :ignore gillianren, Jay, Jay, Jay.
-
Thanks for the welcome. Now, down to business:
Jay, Jay, Jay, Jay, Bob, Dwight, Jay, Jay, Jay, Jay, completely :ignore gillianren, Jay, Jay, Jay.
You almost have it, now you JUST NEED SOME CAPS!!
-
YOU PACK OF CROOKS SHOULD ALL ROT IN JAIL
Jay, Jay, Jay etc
how was that?
-
YOU PACK OF CROOKS SHOULD ALL ROT IN JAIL
Jay, Jay, Jay etc
how was that?
Intersperse with MR WINDLEY and LIAR WINDLEY while calling him Good Sir for ironic effect. Then you have it.
-
I'm taking no chances whatsoever......
(http://i57.tinypic.com/2mchkx4.jpg)
Don't you think, you exaggerate a little bit? ;D
-
The really funny thing is that we radio engineers actually do sometimes use specially designed rooms that are well shielded from external radio signals. They're called "screen rooms". And that room would not be a very good "screen room", not by a long shot. For one thing, the window is completely uncovered. For another, the seams between the sections of foil are not sealed. For a third, sealing these seams would be difficult because aluminum forms a thin insulating layer of aluminum oxide.
Real screen rooms generally use copper sheets or gauze, with careful attention paid to the edges and especially to any feedthroughs (power, communications, etc). The edges of doorways have copper 'finger stock' pressing against the (conducting) doors to ensure a good electrical seal when closed.
-
The really funny thing is that we radio engineers actually do sometimes use specially designed rooms that are well shielded from external radio signals. They're called "screen rooms".
The electronics laboratory in the department where I studied for my doctorate was screened. The technicians that ran the jobs for the research staff/students worked in the room, it was essentially a Faraday cage.
I'm sure you could seal those aluminium strips with a glue stick. ;)
-
Screen rooms require a lot of maintenance to maintain their isolation. Many years ago I wanted to demonstrate an audio problem that appeared with our mobile phones only when they transmitted at high power. Our phones have closed-loop power control, and since we had a test cell site on the roof of our building that produced a strong signal inside, a phone would normally transmit at very low power. I needed to introduce over 100 dB of attenuation between the phone and the cell antenna, so I naturally went into a nearby screen room and closed and latched the door.
To my surprise the phone kept working. And it still wasn't transmitting enough power to make the problem appear. Only when I put it inside a metal cabinet in the screen room did the attenuation finally increase enough to make the call drop.
Although it had once been NSA-certified, the screen room hadn't actually been used as one for many years. It was being used as just another lab. Cables were taped over the finger stock in the doorway, and enough shoes had stepped on them so it didn't make a very good seal when I removed the cables and closed the door. (Needless to say, it hadn't been closed in some time).
As an aside, this experience makes me very skeptical of any shielding devices that might be used to enclose electronic devices to thwart surveillance. If you're Edward Snowden, it's best to just leave them behind. (Try removing the battery from an iPhone...)
-
I'm taking no chances whatsoever......
(http://i57.tinypic.com/2mchkx4.jpg)
Don't you think, you exaggerate a little bit? ;D
..my wife called upstairs to ask what I was laughing about... ;D
..y'all are killin' me!
-
I have found an interesting phenomenon regarding cell phones. My apartment building and couple neighbouring ones have common parking garage. 1st parking level is half underground, 2nd level is next to and half level below 1st and 3rd again half level lower and under 1st level.
When I drive to my own parking square on 3rd level I usually have decent cell reception. As soon as I get out of my car calls usually drop and my phone shows no reception. I thought getting out of a car shaped Faraday cage would give me better reception not worse :o
Lurky
-
I have found an interesting phenomenon regarding cell phones. My apartment building and couple neighbouring ones have common parking garage. 1st parking level is half underground, 2nd level is next to and half level below 1st and 3rd again half level lower and under 1st level.
When I drive to my own parking square on 3rd level I usually have decent cell reception. As soon as I get out of my car calls usually drop and my phone shows no reception. I thought getting out of a car shaped Faraday cage would give me better reception not worse :o
Lurky
Some cars have external aerials. For example, some Fords have heated windscreens that really do turn the car into an effective Faraday cage (virtually invisible wires are embedded i the windscreen). These cars "pipe" to signals into the car to get round this problem.
-
I have found an interesting phenomenon regarding cell phones. My apartment building and couple neighbouring ones have common parking garage. 1st parking level is half underground, 2nd level is next to and half level below 1st and 3rd again half level lower and under 1st level.
When I drive to my own parking square on 3rd level I usually have decent cell reception. As soon as I get out of my car calls usually drop and my phone shows no reception. I thought getting out of a car shaped Faraday cage would give me better reception not worse :o
Lurky
Some cars have external aerials. For example, some Fords have heated windscreens that really do turn the car into an effective Faraday cage (virtually invisible wires are embedded i the windscreen). These cars "pipe" to signals into the car to get round this problem.
Thanks for the answer. My car is 2001/Mk3 Ford Mondeo Station Wagon with heated rear window only. Do car makers install external aerials to all cars regardless if optional heated windscreen is ordered to simplify manufacturing?
Lurky
edit: typo
-
Radio propagation is tricky. It's simple enough in free space, where everything propagates by the inverse square law. JPL routinely does link budgets for interplanetary spacecraft with hundredths of a decibel precision, and they're usually right on.
Land mobile radio is a whole different beast. There is almost never a direct line-of-sight path from transmitter to receiver; everything is scattered and diffused over multiple paths. Whether those signals combine constructively or destructively at a receiver can change when the receiver moves mere fractions of a wavelength. If you've ever played with a laser and noticed its interference patterns, well, that's the same thing.
Much (nearly all, actually) of the R&D into radio in recent decades has been to overcome multipath. My company did it with spread spectrum CDMA that allowed the receiver to separate (some) of the multipath signals so they could be combined constructively in the receiver. Several base stations could transmit to you at once, with your phone combining the best signals from each.
Newer schemes like LTE and the recent versions of WiFi break up the data into a bunch of low speed parallel streams that are less affected by multipath, with the receivers again putting them back together.
And it's now common to use beam-forming antenna arrays, which is why some WiFi base stations have so many antennas. The principle was around for a long time, but until recently it was far too complex and expensive for anything but military and space applications. Times have changed!
-
Still waiting for an explanation why petrified wood is not a rock......
-
Still waiting for an explanation why petrified wood is not a rock......
You know how those pertrideniers are....
-
Still waiting for an explanation why petrified wood is not a rock......
In fairness I think even a few people here at this board have fallen foul of listening to the hoax claims, where CTs have dropped the petrified from petrified wood and referred to the Dutch rock as a piece of wood. You are indeed correct to highlight the falsehood and I for one appreciate your attention to detail as I found out about petrified tree stumps and the Gilboa fossil forest. Thanks Dalhousie.
-
Happy to be of service :)
-
So, given that some hoax believers are still trying to extract some juice from this dried lemon (both from our favourite Dutch nuisance and also on ATS), I thought I'd resurrect this thread to collect any additional thoughts and evidence (including maybe some of the stuff that made its way into the awe thread).
We know that this rock became famous largely as a result of it making its way into an exhibition called 'Fly me to the moon' by art duo Bikvanderpol, which used the stone as its centrepiece to try and provoke thought and discussion. Whether they put the stone and card together for artistic effect, or whether they genuinely came across them and took them as inspiration is debatable.
Some parts of the exhibition handbook are online, but I decided to actually buy a copy and there are images in there that are not available on the net. It's not hard to get hold of, but getting hold of a sensibly priced copy is not so easy - I got lucky :)
Here it is on my sofa:
(http://i57.tinypic.com/2zter1k.jpg)
What is also known is that it the rock and card were supposedly found in a drawer in the museum as part of material donated by Drees' family - some in 1991, some in 2003. The catalog number forms part of the title of the handbook: NG-1991-4-25. It's worth noting the obvious date format, but this does not coincide with the date of the donation as recorded in the book (February 1991). Other material (according to the book) was also donated in 1967.
This is the drawer:
(http://i58.tinypic.com/2898wzo.jpg)
and here is a close up of the fossil.
(http://i60.tinypic.com/2cge9uu.jpg)
It's worth noting a couple of things.
1. Each item shown has retainers that keep them in place when the drawer is opened, with two exceptions: objects with pins, and the card & stone.
2 Every item shown has a small label with its catalog number written on it. Except for the card and stone (the one that is visible on the close-up relates to the flag and plinth next to it).
I'd also add from my personal OCD perspective that the positioning of the card and stone is a little odd, given how well spaced all other items are. It also doesn't seem right to have one object on top of another one like this as it risks damage to the card if the stone moves.
Many of the other items on display have catalog numbers beginning 2003, although others are not shown in the online results from searching the museum catalog.
Here is the object, without card, being photographed for the book:
(http://i60.tinypic.com/2j2hims.jpg)
and here it is seemingly part of the exhibit, again without card.
(http://i57.tinypic.com/m9wrv7.jpg)
The book does show the stone and card together, and markings on the card show it is the same one as in the drawer. There is an online version of that image here:
http://www.bikvanderpol.net/214/fly_me_to_the_moon/
This doesn't look like the same display in the other photograph.
Now, for my money the discrepancies in the drawer suggest a bit of artistic skullduggery here, but then again it is a puzzle as to why the artists would randomly choose the moon as a subject for their exhibit. Artists, eh!
I think that's enough thought provoking for now :)
-
It's worth noting a couple of things.
1. Each item shown has retainers that keep them in place when the drawer is opened, with two exceptions: objects with pins, and the card & stone.
2 Every item shown has a small label with its catalog number written on it. Except for the card and stone (the one that is visible on the close-up relates to the flag and plinth next to it).
It also seems there are empty "slots" (e.g. on the far left in the middle, below the drawing). Can you read what those cards say?
-
No, sadly. They are consistent with being catalog numbers like the others, and the missing items are possibly on public display.
If you're getting at what I think you're getting at, I did consider whether the fossil and card were originally in those slots, and it is a possibility.
However I am not convinced that any are the right size for them, or in the vase of the card the right orientation. If they were neatly displayed in those slots, why not photograph them there?
It is all speculation based on nebulous detail, but it adds to the picture.
I've not seen a good quality image of the drawer online, and my magnifying glass on the original page doesn't help!
The little book, by the way, is a cool thing :)
-
I have, for my sins, spent much of this evening with an array of magnifying glasses, macro lenses and other bits and pieces.
I am not confident as to what the catalog numbers of the missing items are, but I am reasonably confident as to what they are not.
As another interesting aside, the original 'maansteen' can still be found in the Rijskmuseum listings under the catalog number, but the card does not seem as easy to find and it does not turn up in searches for 'Drees', 'Middendorf' or 'Apollo'.