52 replies to this topic

[pareidolia.effect]

Swede, on 25 November 2011 - 01:58 AM, said:

To amplify on RedSquirrel's request, could you provide more information in regards to the provenience of these objects. The reference to Spain is rather vague.

To follow up on Muezenhamster's comment, given the apparent presence of a sprue consistent with a gang mold, the round object does present the appearance of a musket/rifle ball.

Some additional questions:

Given the apparent slight irregularities in the diameter of said ball, how was the 13mm measurement taken? Also, to what degree of decimal accuracy was the scale utilized in the weight measurements?

Reasons for the above questions:

13mm = .51 caliber. An average lead ball of this diameter, depending upon purity and entrapped micro-bubbles will weigh ~ 177 grains (Avoirdupois).

177 grains = 11.46 grams.

13 grams = 200.616 grains.

Thus you would appear to be presenting an object with a density greater than lead. The lack of significant oxidation combined with the coloration would be rather consistent with lead.

It may be possible that more accurate metrics can resolve this matter.

.

The objects were found in eastern Spain (Mediterranean), in an area owned by my family on the mountain. There were underground and that area is not archaeological, nor is there archaeological remains of ancient civilization.

The measuring instrument to calculate the weight I used is not very accurate, I have no other. But I tried to gauge the weight using different euro coins in order to know the possible error of weight. These are the results:


Weight as a measure obtained using the gram:

1 Euro coin (€):
official weight: 7,5 grams
Weight measured 5 times: 8 grams
Weight measured 1 times: 7 grams

1 50 cents € coin (€):
official weight: 7,8 grams
Weight measured: 8 grams

1 20 cents € coin (€):
official weight: 5,74 grams
Weight measured: 6 grams


1 10 cents € coin (€):
official weight: 4,1 grams
Weight measured 5 times: 4 grams
Weight measured 1 times: 5 grams

Sphere:
13 grams


Weight as a measure obtained using lb (only sphere):
Weight measured 5 times: 0,030 lb
Weight measured 1 times: 0,032 lb


Weight as a measure obtained using oz (only sphere):
Weight measured 5 times: 0,46 oz
Weight measured 1 times: 0,50 oz


I think the weight error does not vary more than 0.5 grams, at most 1 gram.


The diameter measurement using a template I get it calibrated and counting the millimeters of a millimeter rule that scans while the sphere.

I do not value the irregularities in diameter because they are minimal. Nor do I appreciate about weight because the material is shifted in these irregularities.

Thank you for your interesting questions and contribution to the subject.

Sorry for my English.

[pareidolia.effect]

ohoake, on 25 November 2011 - 05:37 AM, said:

Atlantis was utterly and completely destroyed and for good reason (due to the levels of corruption due to the sway of inter-dimensional forces that were conducting the most horrific experiments whilst in control of the populace). What was left of the Law of One was swept away into hiding places to be found at a date when this knowledge would be necessary in order restore the essential connections (which have not left us, but we are distracted endlessly from them). Religious figures and orders such as the Jesuits roamed the planet in search of documentation, artifacts, and wagging tongues (shaman) who knew of these times and put them to the sword and destroyed what they could find for their masters. Those who control the past control the future.

Many souls incarnate from Atlantis are here and as they germinate (they will come to remember the knowledge, the laws of One) it will awaken in them as they assist in the transformation. There is no greater hiding place than in the DNA of a human body just waiting for reformatting from the photons from the sun. The movement to stop this happening has been in full swing for the last ten years with aerosol spraying, deflecting the photons and other means to disrupt the systematic enrichment of those who have come back to assist these changes. I'm not saying that there won't be incredible archaeological discoveries, but Atlantis is utterly and completely toast.

Many of the civilizations such as Indus Valley, Egypt, Sumer (the sunken Sumer in Gulf of Persia) as well as various others that are rarely mentioned were satellite and breakaway civilizations from Atlantis as the darkness rose with the infiltration and there have been many occupations at these sites over hundreds of thousands of years. Even though so many artifacts are deemed to be from that fabled continent, the TRUE artifacts (ones that survived) are in the possession of forces that have used them as a means to remain in control over a apathetic and misinformed populace... but not for long.

Interesting information. thanks

[Abramelin]

pareidolia.effect, on 25 November 2011 - 11:54 AM, said:

Interesting information. thanks

Information? What about another label, like "fantasy"?

[Swede]

pareidolia.effect, on 25 November 2011 - 11:52 AM, said:

The objects were found in eastern Spain (Mediterranean), in an area owned by my family on the mountain. There were underground and that area is not archaeological, nor is there archaeological remains of ancient civilization.

The measuring instrument to calculate the weight I used is not very accurate, I have no other. But I tried to gauge the weight using different euro coins in order to know the possible error of weight. These are the results:


Weight as a measure obtained using the gram:

1 Euro coin (€):
official weight: 7,5 grams
Weight measured 5 times: 8 grams
Weight measured 1 times: 7 grams

1 50 cents € coin (€):
official weight: 7,8 grams
Weight measured: 8 grams

1 20 cents € coin (€):
official weight: 5,74 grams
Weight measured: 6 grams


1 10 cents € coin (€):
official weight: 4,1 grams
Weight measured 5 times: 4 grams
Weight measured 1 times: 5 grams

Sphere:
13 grams


Weight as a measure obtained using lb (only sphere):
Weight measured 5 times: 0,030 lb
Weight measured 1 times: 0,032 lb


Weight as a measure obtained using oz (only sphere):
Weight measured 5 times: 0,46 oz
Weight measured 1 times: 0,50 oz


I think the weight error does not vary more than 0.5 grams, at most 1 gram.


The diameter measurement using a template I get it calibrated and counting the millimeters of a millimeter rule that scans while the sphere.

I do not value the irregularities in diameter because they are minimal. Nor do I appreciate about weight because the material is shifted in these irregularities.

Thank you for your interesting questions and contribution to the subject.

Sorry for my English.

Thank you for providing the clarification.

In regards to the provenience: Though the information is still rather vague, a couple of points to bear in mind 1) That there are no documented archaeological sites in the area does not rule out the possibility of archaeological remains being recovered. Citizens, hunters, soldiers, etc. have often "lost" items that are later recovered at some distance from more densely habitated areas 2) "Ancient" civilizations would not need to be a factor.

As to your methodology: Yes, can see where there is the potential for critical error. To be thorough in regards to diameter, one would need to utilize a dial caliper or micrometer accurate to at least two decimals. Then take two readings at 90⁰ of each other and two more at 90⁰ to the first two. An average of the four would be a reasonable approximation.

For the mass factor, a digital scale would be optimal. Lacking this, one could utilize a graduated cylinder, measure the H₂O volume displaced, and convert.

To reflect the effect of the potential error to date: You acknowledge a possible error of .5 > 1 gram. A 13.6 mm lead ball would weigh ~ 200 grains. A 14 mm lead ball would weigh ~ 216 grains. Thus, even a slight error in your calculations can effect the determination of the nature of the object.

Working from photographs is hardly ideal. However, given what is visible, and in combination with the two sets of metrics recently presented, it may be speculated that the round object is indeed a lead ball of approximately .50 to .52 caliber. It should be noted that if it is a lead ball from a hand mold, it is indicative of a poorly molded ball (possible reason for discard). Ball of this caliber range were not uncommon during the latter 18th, 19th, and, in some areas, the early 20th centuries.

Therefore, you may be in possession of a rather common but none the less interesting artifact of relatively recent manufacture.

.

[Swede]

Abramelin, on 25 November 2011 - 12:47 PM, said:

Information? What about another label, like "fantasy"?

Maybe more like "sheer, unadulterated, and wholly unsubstantiated fantasy"?

.

[Oniomancer]

Swede, on 25 November 2011 - 02:59 PM, said:

Working from photographs is hardly ideal. However, given what is visible, and in combination with the two sets of metrics recently presented, it may be speculated that the round object is indeed a lead ball of approximately .50 to .52 caliber. It should be noted that if it is a lead ball from a hand mold, it is indicative of a poorly molded ball (possible reason for discard). Ball of this caliber range were not uncommon during the latter 18th, 19th, and, in some areas, the early 20th centuries.

Therefore, you may be in possession of a rather common but none the less interesting artifact of relatively recent manufacture.

Possible more recent and less interesting then that.  I have a lead musket ball I found on a trail but I can't be sure how old it is because like most states, New York has a specific muzzle-loader hunting season. My brother even hunts with one. I don't know how it is in Europe though.

[Swede]

Oniomancer, on 25 November 2011 - 03:54 PM, said:

Possible more recent and less interesting then that.  I have a lead musket ball I found on a trail but I can't be sure how old it is because like most states, New York has a specific muzzle-loader hunting season. My brother even hunts with one. I don't know how it is in Europe though.

Hi Oniomancer - Yes, you are quite correct that the ball could be of even more recent origin. My temporal range is based on a number of factors.

The ball would appear to be hand-cast, possibly (as per sprue) from a gang mold. If so, it would be from a rather crudely shaped mold. This is not unknown. We have recovered hand-carved molds made from such materials as soapstone and even hardwood.

The apparent caliber is a bit unusual for most modern pieces. Common modern calibers in this range for rifles are .50 (taking a patched .490 or .495 ball) and .54 ( usually taking a patched .530 or .535 ball). In addition, most modern higher-end commercially produced ball ala Hornady, et. al., is swaged, eliminating the sprue and resulting in a slightly higher density. Modern hand molds produce a notably more uniform ball and, most commonly, a different sprue structure.

The apparent Spanish ball would, however, be serviceable (at closer ranges) for a wadded or patched load in a circa 28 gauge (.55 caliber/13.8mm) smoothbore. More consistent with the proposed time period.

Won't bore you with more detail (ouch, unintentional pun!). This happens to be both a professional and personal specialty.

Would be interested to learn more about the ball that you recovered. While likely modern, you are in an area that could reveal ball from the Civil War or earlier periods. Any specs/photos appreciated.

Swede

Edit: Italics.

Edited by Swede, 25 November 2011 - 06:54 PM.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Swede, on 25 November 2011 - 06:53 PM, said:

Hi Oniomancer - Yes, you are quite correct that the ball could be of even more recent origin. My temporal range is based on a number of factors.

The ball would appear to be hand-cast, possibly (as per sprue) from a gang mold. If so, it would be from a rather crudely shaped mold. This is not unknown. We have recovered hand-carved molds made from such materials as soapstone and even hardwood.

The apparent caliber is a bit unusual for most modern pieces. Common modern calibers in this range for rifles are .50 (taking a patched .490 or .495 ball) and .54 ( usually taking a patched .530 or .535 ball). In addition, most modern higher-end commercially produced ball ala Hornady, et. al., is swaged, eliminating the sprue and resulting in a slightly higher density. Modern hand molds produce a notably more uniform ball and, most commonly, a different sprue structure.

The apparent Spanish ball would, however, be serviceable (at closer ranges) for a wadded or patched load in a circa 28 gauge (.55 caliber/13.8mm) smoothbore. More consistent with the proposed time period.

Won't bore you with more detail (ouch, unintentional pun!). This happens to be both a professional and personal specialty.

Would be interested to learn more about the ball that you recovered. While likely modern, you are in an area that could reveal ball from the Civil War or earlier periods. Any specs/photos appreciated.

Swede

Edit: Italics.

I enjoyed reading your post Swede... you got me interested inmore info about the ball that was found and if there may be historical value to the find. Even if it is modern it seems to be a neat find all on its own.

[pareidolia.effect]

Swede, on 25 November 2011 - 02:59 PM, said:

Thank you for providing the clarification.

In regards to the provenience: Though the information is still rather vague, a couple of points to bear in mind 1) That there are no documented archaeological sites in the area does not rule out the possibility of archaeological remains being recovered. Citizens, hunters, soldiers, etc. have often "lost" items that are later recovered at some distance from more densely habitated areas 2) "Ancient" civilizations would not need to be a factor.

As to your methodology: Yes, can see where there is the potential for critical error. To be thorough in regards to diameter, one would need to utilize a dial caliper or micrometer accurate to at least two decimals. Then take two readings at 90⁰ of each other and two more at 90⁰ to the first two. An average of the four would be a reasonable approximation.

For the mass factor, a digital scale would be optimal. Lacking this, one could utilize a graduated cylinder, measure the H₂O volume displaced, and convert.

To reflect the effect of the potential error to date: You acknowledge a possible error of .5 > 1 gram. A 13.6 mm lead ball would weigh ~ 200 grains. A 14 mm lead ball would weigh ~ 216 grains. Thus, even a slight error in your calculations can effect the determination of the nature of the object.

Working from photographs is hardly ideal. However, given what is visible, and in combination with the two sets of metrics recently presented, it may be speculated that the round object is indeed a lead ball of approximately .50 to .52 caliber. It should be noted that if it is a lead ball from a hand mold, it is indicative of a poorly molded ball (possible reason for discard). Ball of this caliber range were not uncommon during the latter 18th, 19th, and, in some areas, the early 20th centuries.

Therefore, you may be in possession of a rather common but none the less interesting artifact of relatively recent manufacture.

.

Thanks for the information provided and thank you for your interesting opinion.

[Wordless Wanderer]

pareidolia.effect, on 25 November 2011 - 11:47 AM, said:

For those who say that this is pareidolia, I'm with them, my nickname suggests. The objective is the intention of them and their excessive amount so small an area.

feature:

The perfect harmony between the incident light in the faces and the shadows generated, the volume.

The details, for example, in the last video image, video:   minute 0:51 to 0:58 minute, perfectly displayed the details of the hull and the shadows, eyes and the iris, the shadows are well on the light source incident on the face.

The images show a "pareidolia" and that by capturing the same area of the sphere from another angle and lighting, show another "pareidolia" different. Which also includes other "pareidolia" also vary but maintain their position in the field.

What to invert the colors (only achievable by computer) appear new "pareidolia" that meet all of the above characteristics.

All "pareidolia" that appear have exact dimensions.


Too many coincidences and dozens of "pareidolia" in such a small space to let the chance is responsible.


Finally, the "pareidolia" principal of the sphere, by tracing the main elements that compose it, new information is received and interpreted by reflection symmetries (simple math done with the layout of the main face).

Anyone can check.

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVJ5xo44euE


Sorry for my English.

C:\Users\Administrator\Desktop\Untitled%201.png

Why would a superior race like Atlanteans leave their trace on a small sphere? Also this sphere doesn't have those "supposed" human faces engraved or embossed on it, It has a rough surface and numerous shapes and forms can be made out of it. So my question is why ATLANTIS or EXTRA TERRESTRIALS? I can make out symbols from Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, you name it and I'll be able to show you something similar on that sphere. And for the exact dimension thing, that is because you are perceiving it to be of same dimensions. Now for example I could see a face that you didnt highlight in your video and its not similar in size to the other "faces and human forms" that you have highlighted. Look at my POV of your sphere  
    
http://www.flickr.co.../in/photostream

[pareidolia.effect]

Wordless Wanderer, on 26 November 2011 - 10:31 AM, said:

C:\Users\Administrator\Desktop\Untitled%201.png

Why would a superior race like Atlanteans leave their trace on a small sphere? Also this sphere doesn't have those "supposed" human faces engraved or embossed on it, It has a rough surface and numerous shapes and forms can be made out of it. So my question is why ATLANTIS or EXTRA TERRESTRIALS? I can make out symbols from Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, you name it and I'll be able to show you something similar on that sphere. And for the exact dimension thing, that is because you are perceiving it to be of same dimensions. Now for example I could see a face that you didnt highlight in your video and its not similar in size to the other "faces and human forms" that you have highlighted. Look at my POV of your sphere  
    
http://www.flickr.co.../in/photostream

Very good work and image analysis. In all there are more images that show images or poreidolias than I indicated, that I explain in the videos that I have in Spanish. The Pareidolia in almost all the images you show are nested together. They come in different sizes, larger than 1 mm and less than 0.5 mm, but the vast Mallorie are between these two values. As an example I put the main face of the sphere, which then develops the layout, and has higher dimensions, but contains other pareidolia in that it does meet these dimensions. Thank you very much for your interest and you spend studying the images which I contribute. I look forward to your images with pareidolia. Thanks for your time.

Sorry for my English.

[Swede]

Aus Der Box Skeptisch, on 26 November 2011 - 03:08 AM, said:

I enjoyed reading your post Swede... you got me interested inmore info about the ball that was found and if there may be historical value to the find. Even if it is modern it seems to be a neat find all on its own.

Aus - Pleased that you found the contribution to be of interest. Thorough analyses of lead ball can lead to a number of cultural and temporal insights related to the last six to seven centuries. Am published on aspects of the topic.

.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Swede, on 26 November 2011 - 06:56 PM, said:

Aus - Pleased that you found the contribution to be of interest. Thorough analyses of lead ball can lead to a number of cultural and temporal insights related to the last six to seven centuries. Am published on aspects of the topic.

.

I would be interested in perusing your publications can you send me a link to any of it in a pm or on here... I would be very grateful.... I enjoy the little details of things that tend to get passed by while people explain the larger picture.

[Abramelin]

I am getting terribly tired by even trying to read all of this thread.

There is NO evidence whatsoever of any ancient alien intervention (and I don't believe what some 'rear-end-talker' aka "channeler" cooked up).

-

There is NO evidence of "Atlantis" ever existing.

What in gods name is this thread about?

A fantasy proving another fantasy??

Edited by Abramelin, 26 November 2011 - 09:10 PM.

[Wordless Wanderer]

Abramelin, on 26 November 2011 - 09:10 PM, said:

I am getting terribly tired by even trying to read all of this thread.

There is NO evidence whatsoever of any ancient alien intervention (and I don't believe what some 'rear-end-talker' aka "channeler" cooked up).

-

There is NO evidence of "Atlantis" ever existing.

What in gods name is this thread about?

A fantasy proving another fantasy??

Thank you for bringing that up. I really don't understand this obsession with Atlantis. Even if we suppose that the musket ball or sphere or whatever in God's name that is, has faces on it, why does it have be Atlantean? And frankly I dont see anything on that sphere that resembles anything alien. I can make out cartoon characters for sure. Like puss in boots from shrek