Museum's "moon rock" is just a rock

Discuss

18 Responses to “Museum's "moon rock" is just a rock”

  1. Anonymous says:

    I wonder what happened to the original. I bet you can find it on the black market.

  2. dragonfrog says:

    This is a great discovery! With any luck, this rock can be cross-referenced to geographic survey data to pinpoint the location of the sound-stage where the original lunar landing took place.

  3. funkyavocado says:

    People in Amsterdam getting stoned. Go figure.

  4. Anonymous says:

    That Middendorf. Such a joker.

  5. Marcel says:

    In my view, this only adds to the objects provenance. Now we can put a sign next to the stone saying: Moon rock given by US ambassador to dutch government which turned out to be totally fake!

    I like it a lot!

    O, and btw, Van Gogh?! Never really existed. We so totally made that guy up.

  6. trr says:

    Hmmm…petrified wood…SW USA…southern Nevada…Area 51…it all makes sense now.

  7. Ilovechocolatemilk says:

    I can see this as potential fuel for those dumb conspiracy theories you hear about the moon landing being faked.

  8. Anonymous says:

    It’s not a Moon rock that turned out to simply be petrified wood…it’s a Moon rock that turned out to be petrified wood from the fucking Moon! HOLY SHIT!

    BIG difference.

  9. dougp says:

    My guess is someone switched the rocks before it was donated to the museum.

  10. Anonymous says:

    The sub headline is going to give NASA headaches. Our own research and chemical analysis of lunar samples shows that we did land on the Moon because our samples match the Apollo sample chemical composition with a good figure of merit. Although NASA like other agencies does censor and scientists are willing to go the extra mile and commit scientific misconduct and fraud for their respective employer it not always the case as in the one below.

    http://www.bccmeteorites.com/misconduct-planetary.html

  11. Anonymous says:

    “It’s a nondescript, pretty-much-worthless stone,”

    Gee, that goes equally well for the other moon rocks.

    Really ought to have spent the money feeding people outside the military-industrial complex.

  12. philipb says:

    Wouldn’t be the first fake in a Dutch museum.

    http://www.meegeren.net/

  13. Anonymous says:

    I’m sure no one believed that a false rock, delivered in 1969, would fuel these hoax idiots claims today. It was awefully stupid on somebody’s part…weather it was with Middendorfs’ knowledge or not…who knows?

  14. Lobster says:

    “The museum had vetted the moon rock early on by checking with NASA”

    Why do I imagine a guy from NASA on the phone saying, “Sure it’s real!” while making jerk-off gestures to his co-worker?

  15. Halloween Jack says:

    It wasn’t a rock… it was a rock… lobster!

  16. mujadaddy says:

    “We’re whittlers on the moon;
    We spit in a spittoon;
    Or at least we could,
    but there ain’t no wood,
    So we sing a whittlin’ tune”

  17. Anonymous says:

    It is only worthless here. On the moon it’s a rare Earth rock.

  18. nanuq says:

    Finding petrified wood on the moon really would have been a spectacular discovery.

Leave a Reply