Page 222 - Lunacy and the Age of Deception

rock because it was in the prime minister's own collection, and they had vetted the acquisition by
a phone call to NASA.

According to an article published by the Rijksmuseum, at one time the rock was insured for
approximately half a million dollars, but its actual value is probably no more than around $70...

Researchers from the Free University of Amsterdam immediately doubted the rock was from the
moon, and began extensive testing. The tests concluded the rock was petrified wood. U.S. embassy
officials were unable to explain the findings, but are investigating.

Even though the tests found the piece is not of lunar origin, the Rijksmuseum curators say they will
keep it anyway as a curiosity.
[Source: http://phys.org/news/2009-09-moon-fake.html]

An NBC report on the same event added the further detail that the petrified wood was likely from
the state of Arizona. Among the statements worth noting in this event include the disclosure that
NASA vetted this gift when it was presented to the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. In other words,
NASA verified that they had given an authentic Moon rock to former Dutch Prime Minister Willem
Drees, Jr.. Some questions remain to be answered. Who doctored this piece of petrified wood to
make it appear like a Moon rock? Why would NASA engage in a deception like this? The last
question is easy to answer if one disbelieves the story of NASA having sent men to the Moon and
back. NASA, of course, insists that other Moon rocks which they have gifted to people and nations
are authentic.

Some comic relief might be obtained when one considers that a prestigious Dutch museum hosted
a special exhibition, billing it as an “exploration of the unknown, colonization of far-away places
and bringing back of treasures.” Yet the great treasure they had on display was a piece of petrified
wood from the not-so-remote state of Arizona. Maybe the exhibition will inspire some Dutchmen
to explore and colonize the American Southwest. I am reminded of similar frauds, or mistakes,
perpetrated by scientists of anthropology.

A renowned archaeologist who was the overseer of a museum in Chicago which contained many
exhibits relating to the evolution of man and early life on earth, stated, “The depictions of
evolutionary progress are limited only by the imagination of the theorist and the gullibility of the
hearers.” This was a remarkably candid statement from a man who was a professed evolutionist.

I did quite a bit of research into evolutionary claims when I was in my twenties. I found much
deception present. A classic example is Nebraska Man. In 1922 a single molar tooth was unearthed
in Nebraska. Professor Henry Osborn, the head of the Department of Paleontology at the American
Museum of Natural History, claimed that the tooth belonged to an early hominid (an ancestor of
modern man). From this one tooth, an artist’s depiction was drawn up of what this early man looked
like. The illustration was published in the Illustrated London News. The reconstruction was
described as “the expression of an artist's brilliant imaginative genius.”

In my research I discovered that the depictions of prehistoric man are based upon very little evidence.
A tooth, a fragment of a jawbone, or a piece of skull, may be all that the archaeologist discovered.