ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: EngineerSteve on August 30, 2018, 12:25:03 AM
-
I had been hearing about a Moon-rock that was "presented" to Holland, but used as proof we didn't go to the moon because it was Fake (petrified).
I just found this excellent piece of research on it. I commented to the OPs to contact you, but here is the link to his answer on the Quora Q&A site:
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-we-give-holland-a-fake-moon-rock/answer/Del-de-la-Haye
Here is another comment under another answer to the question with information from another researcher:
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-we-give-holland-a-fake-moon-rock/answer/Eric-Schwertfeger/comment/71671763
-
Yeah, I've known about most of the details about this for awhile. Why would NASA would even use a piece of petrified wood as a fake moon rock? Sure, an art museum didn't catch it, but any geologist would once they got a close look at it, and, indeed, they did just that!
Conspiracy theorist's 'evidence' tends to break down once you get a chance to think about it, but, with this, you barely even have to rub two neurons together for it fall apart.
-
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=319216
another thread about it at ISF
-
The country is called the Netherlands.
Dagnabit!
-
Nothing new there...
https://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=770.0
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/thread/2541/fake-apollo-rock-netherlands
-
Yes Phil Webb produced a couple of youTube videos back in 2010 debunking this nonsense.
-
It wouldn’t make much sense for either the astronauts or NASA to give anyone fake moon rocks. Surely they’d know that the moon rocks would be tested by competent geologists. Thus, it would be better and easier not to hand out any moon rocks at all assuming it was a hoax. The “hoax” version of the story doesn’t really make much sense when you think about it.
-
Some hoaxies come up with stuff that you do have to think about and explain to debunk (non-parallel shadows, no stars etc). This isn't one of them. Anyone with a 3rd Grade or better education can debunk this right off the bat.
When was the last time a hoaxie brought anything new to the table? All we ever seem to get now is regurgitated rubbish that has been repeatedly debunked for the last 40-50 years.
-
The story has a few flaws. Mainly, no moon rocks were given to the US States or countires until 1970,
Not quite true; when I looked into this a few years ago I found that the first Goodwill lunar rock sample was presented on December 31, 1969, by Spiro Agnew to Ferdinand Marcos, in the Philippines.
See: https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-dec-16-2011-president-ferdinand-e-marcos-receives-from-us-vice-president-69509452.html?pv=1&stamp=2&imageid=7033488A-22D4-4949-B74B-554E1273B36A&p=90011&n=0&orientation=0&pn=1&searchtype=0&IsFromSearch=1&srch=foo%3dbar%26st%3d0%26pn%3d1%26ps%3d100%26sortby%3d2%26resultview%3dsortbyPopular%26npgs%3d0%26qt%3dvice%2520president%2520spiro%2520agnew%26qt_raw%3dvice%2520president%2520spiro%2520agnew%26lic%3d3%26mr%3d0%26pr%3d0%26ot%3d0%26creative%3d%26ag%3d0%26hc%3d0%26pc%3d%26blackwhite%3d%26cutout%3d%26tbar%3d1%26et%3d0x000000000000000000000%26vp%3d0%26loc%3d0%26imgt%3d0%26dtfr%3d%26dtto%3d%26size%3d0xFF%26archive%3d1%26groupid%3d%26pseudoid%3d%26a%3d%26cdid%3d%26cdsrt%3d%26name%3d%26qn%3d%26apalib%3d%26apalic%3d%26lightbox%3d%26gname%3d%26gtype%3d%26xstx%3d0%26simid%3d%26saveQry%3d%26editorial%3d1%26nu%3d%26t%3d%26edoptin%3d%26customgeoip%3d%26cap%3d1%26cbstore%3d1%26vd%3d0%26lb%3d%26fi%3d2%26edrf%3d%26ispremium%3d1%26flip%3d0
-
The story has a few flaws. Mainly, no moon rocks were given to the US States or countires until 1970,
Not quite true; when I looked into this a few years ago I found that the first Goodwill lunar rock sample was presented on December 31, 1969, by Spiro Agnew to Ferdinand Marcos, in the Philippines.
See: https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-dec-16-2011-president-ferdinand-e-marcos-receives-from-us-vice-president-69509452.html?pv=1&stamp=2&imageid=7033488A-22D4-4949-B74B-554E1273B36A&p=90011&n=0&orientation=0&pn=1&searchtype=0&IsFromSearch=1&srch=foo%3dbar%26st%3d0%26pn%3d1%26ps%3d100%26sortby%3d2%26resultview%3dsortbyPopular%26npgs%3d0%26qt%3dvice%2520president%2520spiro%2520agnew%26qt_raw%3dvice%2520president%2520spiro%2520agnew%26lic%3d3%26mr%3d0%26pr%3d0%26ot%3d0%26creative%3d%26ag%3d0%26hc%3d0%26pc%3d%26blackwhite%3d%26cutout%3d%26tbar%3d1%26et%3d0x000000000000000000000%26vp%3d0%26loc%3d0%26imgt%3d0%26dtfr%3d%26dtto%3d%26size%3d0xFF%26archive%3d1%26groupid%3d%26pseudoid%3d%26a%3d%26cdid%3d%26cdsrt%3d%26name%3d%26qn%3d%26apalib%3d%26apalic%3d%26lightbox%3d%26gname%3d%26gtype%3d%26xstx%3d0%26simid%3d%26saveQry%3d%26editorial%3d1%26nu%3d%26t%3d%26edoptin%3d%26customgeoip%3d%26cap%3d1%26cbstore%3d1%26vd%3d0%26lb%3d%26fi%3d2%26edrf%3d%26ispremium%3d1%26flip%3d0
Is that a Goodwill rock or an exhibition rock?
https://www.stripes.com/blogs-archive/archive-photo-of-the-day/archive-photo-of-the-day-1.9717/moon-rock-on-display-in-the-philippines-1970-1.274712#.W4kuRuj0mM8
The case it's in suggests the latter? Certainly other rocks of the size were also doing the rounds as museum exhibits - Holland had their own in late January 1970.
(http://i67.tinypic.com/macwt5.jpg)
And here's the one that visited Prague:
(http://i66.tinypic.com/aysolk.jpg)
They all look as though they would fit inside that box Geno's handing over :)
Moot point anyway - the Goodwill gifts were commissioned in November 1969, and at the time of the tour the lunar samples ahd only just been released to the scientific community.
-
A discussion around the Lunar samples with a HB usually reveals how completely dishonest they can be - a fake moon rock of unknown origin apparently means all Apollo (and Luna) samples are also fake.
I do have a further question though. If we compare the Apollo 17 sample collection with those from earlier missions is there a noticeable difference in "quality". By that I mean did the presence of a professional geologist on the lunar surface result in improved sample selection? I would have assumed it did but when looking through available post mission analysis reports I haven't seen anything which comments upon this. The answer is likely self evident to any planetary scientist but as a layperson I thought I'd ask. :)
-
A discussion around the Lunar samples with a HB usually reveals how completely dishonest they can be - a fake moon rock of unknown origin apparently means all Apollo (and Luna) samples are also fake.
I do have a further question though. If we compare the Apollo 17 sample collection with those from earlier missions is there a noticeable difference in "quality". By that I mean did the presence of a professional geologist on the lunar surface result in improved sample selection? I would have assumed it did but when looking through available post mission analysis reports I haven't seen anything which comments upon this. The answer is likely self evident to any planetary scientist but as a layperson I thought I'd ask. :)
Take a geologist to a mountain and tell him he can collect as many rocks in a ten minute time frame. I doubt there would be that much difference than an engineer with a few months geologic training. Although I have no hard evidence, I suspect that they selected rocks that looked interesting to them.
-
Take a geologist to a mountain and tell him he can collect as many rocks in a ten minute time frame. I doubt there would be that much difference than an engineer with a few months geologic training. Although I have no hard evidence, I suspect that they selected rocks that looked interesting to them.
Besides, they're moon rocks. Basically any of them would be a treasure trove of scientific data, I'd think.
-
As the missions progressed the EVAs got longer and spread further afield, giving them access to a wider range. Added to that is that later sites were chosen specifically for their geological interest rather than ease of access.
-
A discussion around the Lunar samples with a HB usually reveals how completely dishonest they can be - a fake moon rock of unknown origin apparently means all Apollo (and Luna) samples are also fake.
I do have a further question though. If we compare the Apollo 17 sample collection with those from earlier missions is there a noticeable difference in "quality". By that I mean did the presence of a professional geologist on the lunar surface result in improved sample selection? I would have assumed it did but when looking through available post mission analysis reports I haven't seen anything which comments upon this. The answer is likely self evident to any planetary scientist but as a layperson I thought I'd ask. :)
Take a geologist to a mountain and tell him he can collect as many rocks in a ten minute time frame. I doubt there would be that much difference than an engineer with a few months geologic training. Although I have no hard evidence, I suspect that they selected rocks that looked interesting to them.
To an extent, that was true that samples came from whatever looked interesting. What other criteria had they to work with? On A17 Schmitt, an actual geologist, went up.
Geologist who are also test pilots are just a little thin on the ground.
-
If we compare the Apollo 17 sample collection with those from earlier missions is there a noticeable difference in "quality". By that I mean did the presence of a professional geologist on the lunar surface result in improved sample selection? I would have assumed it did but when looking through available post mission analysis reports I haven't seen anything which comments upon this.
You might find more about that subject, and in greater detail, by reading the entire Apollo 17 Lunar Surface Journal. There's plenty of information there about Jack Schmitt's capabilities as both Lunar Module Pilot and geologist, starting at just the third paragraph, Crew Selection. Such as:
Gene continues.
"Anyway, I know that there were people who thought that Jack had a lot to prove. He got the Apollo 17 assignment because he was a geologist and there were some people saying he wasn't an aviator, that he shouldn't fly, that he couldn't handle it. So Jack probably had a little cross to bear in proving to those people that, not only could he handle the geology - which came natural - but also that he could handle the other requirements of being a Lunar Module Pilot."
"Some time ago I told you that Jack was an 'adequate' pilot, and I want to clarify that. Jack in a T-38 was an adequate (airplane) pilot. He wasn't a great pilot, but he didn't have the experience to be a great pilot. And, quite frankly, I don't think he had the aptitude or the desire to be a great pilot. Jack flew airplanes in NASA because he had to fly. That was one of the squares to fill to get on the Moon. And that's not a knock. I flew with Jack in T-38's, and I think Jack was a safe and an adequate pilot. I don't think Jack thought he was the greatest pilot in the world. Most people who want to fly big-time or fly off aircraft carriers, if they're not a little arrogant and don't think they're the best pilot in the world, they should get in some other business. And, since we came back, Jack hasn't flown. To be a great pilot, you've got to think you can do it better than it had ever been done before. You know your limitations, but you have to be a little arrogant. I used to say, 'I dare the guidance system on the Apollo Saturn V to fail, because I can get us into orbit.' And if I didn't think I could get us into orbit, then I shouldn't have been there. And I knew I could land that lunar module closer than anybody else had done to their desired landing point. Whether I'm a few feet long or short, really didn't matter, but I had to go into that mission thinking that. It's the kind of arrogance - not egotism - that you have to have. And Jack didn't have that when it came to flying an airplane. Adequate is the word I used."
[Snip]
"Now, when it came to flying the lunar module, 'adequate' does not describe Jack's ability to fly in the righthand seat of the lunar module. He was outstanding."
[Snip]
"Jack knew the systems. He knew the AGS computer. He knew the PGNS computer. He knew the dynamics. He knew what we were going to be looking at. Now, when I say 'fly', Jack didn't have much of a chance to land it (in the simulators) and Jack didn't have much of a chance to fly the rendezvous, but that wasn't his job. He trained hard. He studied hard; and he worked hard. Jack was not an 'adequate' lunar module pilot; he jumped in with both feet and was an outstanding lunar module pilot. Now, contrast that with Joe Engle. Joe was born with a stick and rudder in his hand. Joe Engle is probably the finest stick and rudder aviator that I've ever flown with in my entire life. He could make an airplane do things that I don't have guts enough to make it do. So Joe was an outstanding aviator. In contrast, Joe was only an adequate lunar module pilot.
IIRC further on, during the EVAs, there are comments from Gene about Jack doing a better job of picking samples than he would have, and there are questions and comments from Eric Jones that are relevant to the subject.
-
a fake moon rock of unknown origin apparently means all Apollo (and Luna) samples are also fake.
Fido is a dog.
Fido has fleas.
Therefore, all dogs have fleas.
QED
When I see an argument on the internet, on either side of an issue, in which the conclusion actually follows from the premises, I am extremely surprised. It's an extraordinarily rare event.
The particular fallacy that even many people with years or scientific or engineering training seem to love is that any argument with a true conclusion is valid. If you demonstrate that the world is round by a fundamentally flawed method, and someone points it out, then they're obviously a flat-earther.
-
a fake moon rock of unknown origin apparently means all Apollo (and Luna) samples are also fake.
Fido is a dog.
Fido has fleas.
Therefore, all dogs have fleas.
QED
When I see an argument on the internet, on either side of an issue, in which the conclusion actually follows from the premises, I am extremely surprised. It's an extraordinarily rare event.
The particular fallacy that even many people with years or scientific or engineering training seem to love is that any argument with a true conclusion is valid. If you demonstrate that the world is round by a fundamentally flawed method, and someone points it out, then they're obviously a flat-earther.
The Doctor: All elephants are pink. Nelly is an elephant, therefore Nelly is pink. Logical?
Davros: Perfectly.
The Doctor: Hmm. You know what a human would say to that?
Tyssan: Elephants aren't pink...
- Destiny of the Daleks -