Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 1 votes

Ooparts


  • Please log in to reply
74 replies to this topic

#1    Awake2Chaos

Awake2Chaos

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 862 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2013

Posted 14 January 2014 - 11:13 PM

I've seen many threads dedicated to individual Ooparts, but not one on the general topic.  If there is, forgive me for the redundancy.

I have always found Ooparts interesting; mostly because they challenge Evolutionism.  Most in the scientific community will not entertain them because to do so would be career suicide.  And no one wants to undertake the task of trying to reconfigure history to accomodate them.

If you are not familiar with Ooparts, they are defined as:

Quote


an object of historical, archaeological, or paleontological interest found in a very unusual or seemingly impossible context[1] that could challenge conventional historical chronology by being "too advanced" for the level of civilization that existed at the time, or showing "human presence" well before humans were supposed to exist.


http://en.wikipedia....-place_artifact

For example:

1820 From The American Journal of Science and Arts, 1820 comes the account of an ancient tool discovery. At a quarry near Aixen-Provence, France, in 1788, 40 or 50 feet below ground in a layer of limestone were found coins, petrified wooden handles of hammers, pieces of other petrified wooden tools, and a quarrymen's board. The limestone was 300 million years old.

Here's a list of recorded discoveries: http://s8int.com/page12.html  This is just one of many sites out there, but I thought it was a pretty comprehensive list.

What they suggest is that we are clueless as to the evolution of man, and that man has indeed evolved not just once, but over and over again.  It raises many questions; if they are authentic and indeed represent many advanced civilizations past; then what happened to those civilizations, and how did man re-emerge and re-establish themselves after their demises?

Definitely a lot of fun to ponder the possibilities.



#2    Awake2Chaos

Awake2Chaos

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 862 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2013

Posted 14 January 2014 - 11:25 PM

To put it in perspective:

The first biologically modern Homo Sapiens evolved around 100,000 years ago in Africa. However, it was until about 50,000 years ago that they developed modern behaviours such as jewelry-making, wall painting, musical instruments, funeral customs, religion, long-distance trade, fishing, advanced language and abstract thought.


Moderator Edit to add source link

2c. Plagiarism and copyright: If you quote text from an external web site then please always provide a source link. Members are asked to copy only as much as is necessary when quoting material from external sources, do not copy and paste entire articles or web pages.

Edited by Daughter of the Nine Moons, 15 January 2014 - 04:37 AM.
2c. Plagiarism and copyright: If you quote text from an external web site then please always provide a source link.


#3    third_eye

third_eye

    _ M Ġ ń Ř Ī Ş_

  • Member
  • 12,294 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia

  • - God has no religion ~ Mahatma Gandhi -

    "Legio nomen mihi est, quia multi sumus"

Posted 14 January 2014 - 11:36 PM

Posted Image

not many remembers this one and much less even believes it to be anything other than a hoax ~ much more don;t even want to speak of it ~
but its still one of my favorites ~

:yes:



Quote

The watch is a miniature, in the shape of a ring, and thought to be just barely over a century old. But it was a fully functional watch, and it stopped at 10:06 am. On its back, the English word “Swiss” is engraved. It doesn’t take a genius to know that the Chinese use characters, not letters, so it couldn’t be a coincidence.

Much have been made of the characters 'Swiss' engraved on it ... if it was a hoax ... why would anyone for the life of me used the English words instead of Chinese characters ?

~

He who postpones the hour of living rightly ... is like the rustic who waits for the river to run out ... before he crosses.
Horace - Roman lyric poet & satirist 65 BC - 8 BC
~

third_eye cavern ~ bring own beer


#4    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 18,410 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 14 January 2014 - 11:36 PM

Bad Archaeology has a very good section on Ooparts and I highly recommend to anyone "browse through it".

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#5    Awake2Chaos

Awake2Chaos

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 862 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2013

Posted 14 January 2014 - 11:40 PM

View PostLeonardo, on 14 January 2014 - 11:36 PM, said:

Bad Archaeology has a very good section on Ooparts and I highly recommend to anyone "browse through it".

I'm sure there's many hoaxes and mis-interpretations....but all of them?  

I don't buy that they're all 'mistakes'.

That was an interesting site;  my beef with it, however, is it's obviously biased to discount any Oopart as 'bad' archaeology.  It would be nice to find a site that doesn't display bias one way or the other, but comes at the topic from a neutral position.

Edited by Awake2Chaos, 14 January 2014 - 11:45 PM.


#6    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 18,410 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 14 January 2014 - 11:54 PM

View PostAwake2Chaos, on 14 January 2014 - 11:40 PM, said:

I'm sure there's many hoaxes and mis-interpretations....but all of them?  

I don't buy that they're all 'mistakes'.

That was an interesting site;  my beef with it, however, is it's obviously biased to discount any Oopart as 'bad' archaeology.  It would be nice to find a site that doesn't display bias one way or the other, but comes at the topic from a neutral position.

Depends on what sort of 'mistake' is being made. Take the 'crystal lens' Oopart. The people at Bad Archaeology do not deny it functions as a lens, but argue this is coincidental to it's purpose as a piece of jewellry and it is not 'evidence of advanced ancient technology'.

The mistake in this case, is intepreting the artifact in a modern context by utilising our knowledge of lenses. It is an artifact, but it is not an 'Oopart' when placed in the proper, ancient, context of a piece of jewellry.

Edited by Leonardo, 14 January 2014 - 11:54 PM.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#7    Awake2Chaos

Awake2Chaos

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 862 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2013

Posted 15 January 2014 - 12:05 AM

View PostLeonardo, on 14 January 2014 - 11:54 PM, said:

Depends on what sort of 'mistake' is being made. Take the 'crystal lens' Oopart. The people at Bad Archaeology do not deny it functions as a lens, but argue this is coincidental to it's purpose as a piece of jewellry and it is not 'evidence of advanced ancient technology'.

The mistake in this case, is intepreting the artifact in a modern context by utilising our knowledge of lenses. It is an artifact, but it is not an 'Oopart' when placed in the proper, ancient, context of a piece of jewellry.

I agree.  

Those that are found embedded in the different geological strata.....how did they get there?  Especially the deeper levels of rock beds.

They've got stratigraphy down to a pretty definite science now-a-days.

edit:  I've heard people argue the 'flood' theory, that most, if not all, Ooparts can be blamed on a catastrophic flood at some point in our history.  Doesn't make sense if you understand how strata are formed.

Edited by Awake2Chaos, 15 January 2014 - 12:07 AM.


#8    Swede

Swede

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,816 posts
  • Joined:30 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 January 2014 - 01:30 AM

View PostAwake2Chaos, on 15 January 2014 - 12:05 AM, said:

I agree.  

Those that are found embedded in the different geological strata.....how did they get there?  Especially the deeper levels of rock beds.

They've got stratigraphy down to a pretty definite science now-a-days.

edit:  I've heard people argue the 'flood' theory, that most, if not all, Ooparts can be blamed on a catastrophic flood at some point in our history.  Doesn't make sense if you understand how strata are formed.

A few notes:

1) "s8int" may not be the most accurate of references, particularly in regards to interpretation (major understatement).

2) Be conscious of the dates of "oopart discoveries", the state of research during the relevant time period, the details/provenience of the "recoveries", the qualifications of the "discoverers", and the state of journalism at the time, particularly in regards to how these factors may be currently misrepresented by certain elements.

3) Should you wish to present specific "ooparts" that are of concern to you, these can likely be addressed.

Lastly, bear in mind that the very origin of the term "ooparts" can be traced to fringe "literature".

Edit: Terminology.

Edited by Swede, 15 January 2014 - 01:33 AM.


#9    qxcontinuum

qxcontinuum

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,201 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:in between

  • The age of stupid is upon us. Scientific conclusions are drawn from missing data, resuming to suppositions and guessing.

Posted 15 January 2014 - 04:17 AM

I remembered one and googled it;

The 'London' Hammer, Texas, USA:

The fossilised 'London Artefact' has gained notoriety in recent years following its display in an exhibition of anomalous artefacts in the year 2000. It is a perfect example of the anomalous nature of some archaeological discoveries. On the one hand, we are presented with a hammer, clearly of human design; While on the other hand, it is embedded in a rock found in a region formed of predominantly cretaceous rock.



The Facts:

The rock was found in June, 1934 sitting loose on a rock ledge beside a waterfall near London, Texas. (4)

The site is part of a large geographical zone called the Edwards Plateau. It primarily consists of Cretaceous rock. (4)

A recent radiocarbon-dating test was performed on a sample of wood removed from the interior of the handle. The results showed inconclusive dates ranging from the present to 700 years ago. (4)

The sandstone, within which the hammer has become embedded was dated by dr. A. W. Med of the British Geological Research Centre.

The Hammer is identical to commonly used 19th century miners hammers, of American provenance.

It was soon pointed out by the geologist NCSE researcher John Cole that minerals dissolved from ancient strata can harden around a recent object (5), making it look impressive to someone unfamiliar with geological processes. He said of it:

The stone is real, and it looks impressive to someone unfamiliar with geological processes. How could a modern artefact be stuck in Ordovician rock? The answer is that the concretion itself is not Ordovician. Minerals in solution can harden around an intrusive object dropped in a crack or simply left on the ground if the source rock (in this case, reportedly Ordovician) is chemically soluble (Cole, 1985).


#10    Oniomancer

Oniomancer

    Soulless Minion Of Orthodoxy

  • Member
  • 3,608 posts
  • Joined:20 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Male

  • Question everything

Posted 15 January 2014 - 04:20 AM

View PostAwake2Chaos, on 14 January 2014 - 11:40 PM, said:

I'm sure there's many hoaxes and mis-interpretations....but all of them?  

I don't buy that they're all 'mistakes'.

Why not? There's nothing to say they can't be. Argument by numbers rarely works anyway. If they're all wrong for a variety of different reasons, they become statistically less significant as a group. If you place them in context with all other conventional archeological finds too, then they can be interpreted as an expected error rate relative to the whole. As it is, you can't even prove most of the older ones even existed since all we have are stories, not the actually alleged ooparts.

Quote

  That was an interesting site;  my beef with it, however, is it's obviously biased to discount any Oopart as 'bad' archaeology.  It would be nice to find a site that doesn't display bias one way or the other, but comes at the topic from a neutral position.

You don't think s8int is biased in favor of ooparts?

Edited by Oniomancer, 15 January 2014 - 04:21 AM.

"Apparently the Lemurians drank Schlitz." - Intrepid "Real People" reporter on finding a mysterious artifact in the depths of Mount Shasta.

#11    Awake2Chaos

Awake2Chaos

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 862 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2013

Posted 15 January 2014 - 04:25 AM

View PostOniomancer, on 15 January 2014 - 04:20 AM, said:

Why not? There's nothing to say they can't be. Argument by numbers rarely works anyway. If they're all wrong for a variety of different reasons, they become statistically less significant as a group. If you place them in context with all other conventional archeological finds too, then they come across as an expected error rate relative to the whole. As it is, you can't even prove most of the older ones even existed since all we have are stories, not the actually alleged ooparts.



You don't think s8int is biased in favor of ooparts?

Of course s8int is in favor of Ooparts, lol, isn't that obvious?  ;)


#12    stereologist

stereologist

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,189 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 January 2014 - 04:32 AM

View Postqxcontinuum, on 15 January 2014 - 04:17 AM, said:

I remembered one and googled it;

The 'London' Hammer, Texas, USA:

The fossilised 'London Artefact' has gained notoriety in recent years following its display in an exhibition of anomalous artefacts in the year 2000. It is a perfect example of the anomalous nature of some archaeological discoveries. On the one hand, we are presented with a hammer, clearly of human design; While on the other hand, it is embedded in a rock found in a region formed of predominantly cretaceous rock.



The Facts:

The rock was found in June, 1934 sitting loose on a rock ledge beside a waterfall near London, Texas. (4)

The site is part of a large geographical zone called the Edwards Plateau. It primarily consists of Cretaceous rock. (4)

A recent radiocarbon-dating test was performed on a sample of wood removed from the interior of the handle. The results showed inconclusive dates ranging from the present to 700 years ago. (4)

The sandstone, within which the hammer has become embedded was dated by dr. A. W. Med of the British Geological Research Centre.

The Hammer is identical to commonly used 19th century miners hammers, of American provenance.

It was soon pointed out by the geologist NCSE researcher John Cole that minerals dissolved from ancient strata can harden around a recent object (5), making it look impressive to someone unfamiliar with geological processes. He said of it:

The stone is real, and it looks impressive to someone unfamiliar with geological processes. How could a modern artefact be stuck in Ordovician rock? The answer is that the concretion itself is not Ordovician. Minerals in solution can harden around an intrusive object dropped in a crack or simply left on the ground if the source rock (in this case, reportedly Ordovician) is chemically soluble (Cole, 1985).
There is also the llano hammer which was discovered in an arkose. The arkose is a recently cemented sedimentary rock. The source of the gravel is from an intrusive dated to over a billion years old. The llano hammer is not an oopart. It has been misrepresented as such.

Another object I have recently seen misrepresented as oopart included a crinoid stem claimed to be a 300My old bolt.


#13    Awake2Chaos

Awake2Chaos

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 862 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2013

Posted 15 January 2014 - 04:36 AM

Okay, let me pose this question to you guys and gals:

Are there any Ooparts that seem legit to you, or do they all seem misrepresented/misinterpreted?  

That is what I am trying to accomplish with this thread; to see where others stand on them as a whole.


#14    stereologist

stereologist

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,189 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 January 2014 - 04:43 AM

Reading some of the s8int list I notice that several claim to have discovered nails in stone. Let's suppose that these are true tales. It is likely that the discoverer stated nail when they did not know what they were inspecting. It is likely they found a rutile crystal inside of the quartz. The reports of live animals found buried in deep rocks certainly seems questionable. Back then many small papers inserted "fun facts". These fun facts included the discovery of buttons in lumps of coal. These stories were not true. They were there to delight their readers and they surely did. Many of these stories listed there remind me of the "fun facts" of yesteryear.


#15    stereologist

stereologist

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,189 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 January 2014 - 04:49 AM

The problem with the oopart listed in that S8int article is that they cannot be located. It would be interesting to examine these items or apply modern techniques of today or tomorrow on them. But, alas these amazing discoveries are just stories today. The human bones in stone and all the rest are gone. That's because they never existed in the first place.

Reading down a bit I finally bumped into a reference to the "American Antiquarian". That newspaper was one of the places many of these "fun facts" were listed.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users