Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
abhijit_b

Mysterious spheres under Teotihuacan Pyramid

54 posts in this topic

The yellow spheres could be some sort of symbolic offerings to the gods, which would have been deposited into some receptacle with a collection point in the tunnels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Notes from the Webmaster:

As there usually is when it comes to OOP artifacts, there is some controversy over the Klerksdorp Spheres. Most skeptics bash Cremo on his supposed source (a weekly world article), rather than address the object itself and conveniently ignore the fact they were mentioned a great deal earlier than Cremo's 1993 book. For example:

  • Barritt, D., 1982, The Riddle of the cosmic cannon-balls: Scope Magazine. (June 11, 1982)
  • Pope C. and B. Cairncross 1988. "Cosmic Cannonballs a geologic explanation: ARIP View. no. 1., pp. 5-6. (ARIP = Association for the Rational Investigation of the Paranormal)
  • Nel, LT., H. Jacobs, J.T. Allen and G.R. Bozzoli 1937. Wonderstone. Geological Survey of South Africa Bulletin no. 8

For a good counter-argument, see the Wikipedia article on the Klerksdorp Spheres. In summary, the main arguments against them are:

  • Some geologists who have studied these objects argue that the objects are not manufactured, but are rather the result of natural processes.
  • Not all are perfectly spherical, and some have varying shapes. (Yet there do exist some that are perfectly spherical with the afore-mentioned unusual balance.)
  • What NASA reportedly said is being contested.
  • What Mr Marx stated regarding their "perfect" balance was misquoted, although he still argues they are enigmas.

However, at this point, it has yet to be proven conclusively either way as to whether these are legitimate OOP artifacts or not. Until these can be firmly debunked, I will leave with the other artifacts. You the reader must decide for yourself whether or not you think these are man-made.

https://www.forbiddenhistory.info/?q=node/26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also:

Who shot Neanderthal Man?

The Museum of Natural History in London displays an early Paleolithic skull, dated at 38,000 years old, and excavated in 1921 in modern Zambia. bullet_hole1.jpgOn the left side of the skull is a perfectly round hole nearly a third of an inch in diameter. Curiously, there are no radial split-lines around the hole or other marks that should have been left by a cold weapon, such as an arrow or spear. Opposite the hole, the cranium is shattered, and reconstruction of the fragments show the skull was blown from the inside out, as from a rifle shot. In fact, any slower a projectile would have produced neither the neat hole nor the shattering effect. Forensic experts who have examined the skull agree the cranial damage could not have been caused by anything but a high-speed projectile, purposely fired at the prehistoric victim, with intent to kill. bullet_hole2.jpgIf such a weapon was indeed fired at the man, then one of two conclusions can be made: Either the specimen is not as old as it is claimed to be, and was shot by a European in recent centuries, or the remains are as old as claimed, and the marksman was ancient too. In view of the fact that the Paleolithic skull was excavated from a depth of 60 feet, mostly of lead rock, the second conclusion is more plausible. But who possessed gunpowder 38,000 years ago? Certainly not Stone Age man himself.[1]

Auroch Survives Bullet

An aurochbullet.jpgauroch's skull was excavated, (currently on display in the Paleontological museum in Moscow), and determined to be several hundred thousand years old. It too has a small hole in the frontal part that has no radial lines. This, combined with similar features to the above, suggest a small projectile. More interesting is the fact that the hole did NOT happen after death- the wound had partially healed!

https://www.forbiddenhistory.info/?q=node/7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't take Cremo (a Creationist, as he himself admitted) and his "Forbidden History" very seriously. Not because he's a Creationist, but his sources of information often suck major.

Btw, all those artifacts have been discussed on UM, Harsh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't take Cremo (a Creationist, as he himself admitted) and his "Forbidden History" very seriously. Not because he's a Creationist, but his sources of information often suck major.

Btw, all those artifacts have been discussed on UM, Harsh.

Thought as much. But Cremo's work is based on better footing then most other Fringe authors. Cremo uses sources from the mainstream and reports from the mainstream for most of his work.

Though do you have specific refutations of Cremo's sources? Would be very interested to look into those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Notes from the Webmaster:

As there usually is when it comes to OOP artifacts, there is some controversy over the Klerksdorp Spheres. Most skeptics bash Cremo on his supposed source (a weekly world article), rather than address the object itself and conveniently ignore the fact they were mentioned a great deal earlier than Cremo's 1993 book. For example:

  • Barritt, D., 1982, The Riddle of the cosmic cannon-balls: Scope Magazine. (June 11, 1982)
  • Pope C. and B. Cairncross 1988. "Cosmic Cannonballs a geologic explanation: ARIP View. no. 1., pp. 5-6. (ARIP = Association for the Rational Investigation of the Paranormal)
  • Nel, LT., H. Jacobs, J.T. Allen and G.R. Bozzoli 1937. Wonderstone. Geological Survey of South Africa Bulletin no. 8

For a good counter-argument, see the Wikipedia article on the Klerksdorp Spheres. In summary, the main arguments against them are:

  • Some geologists who have studied these objects argue that the objects are not manufactured, but are rather the result of natural processes.
  • Not all are perfectly spherical, and some have varying shapes. (Yet there do exist some that are perfectly spherical with the afore-mentioned unusual balance.)
  • What NASA reportedly said is being contested.
  • What Mr Marx stated regarding their "perfect" balance was misquoted, although he still argues they are enigmas.

However, at this point, it has yet to be proven conclusively either way as to whether these are legitimate OOP artifacts or not. Until these can be firmly debunked, I will leave with the other artifacts. You the reader must decide for yourself whether or not you think these are man-made.

https://www.forbidde...info/?q=node/26

The issue is that the people and websites that hawk the Klerksdorp Spheres are showing only the concretions that are spherical or next to spherical in shape. There are other concretions found in the same area as the "Spheres" which are not spherical in shape at all.

The ones that are prominent on such sites looks like the one below

Ottosdal1.jpg

But they never show the shape of the majority of the Spheres.

These objects should be called Ottosdal Sphere rather than Klerskdorp spheres.

klerksdorp.jpg

A detalied analysis of the Ottosdal Sphere can be found at this link, which also has some interesting photos of the spheres

rncse28.1-hein1.jpg

rncse28.1-hein2.preview.jpg

rncse28.1-hein3.preview.jpg

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought as much. But Cremo's work is based on better footing then most other Fringe authors. Cremo uses sources from the mainstream and reports from the mainstream for most of his work.

Though do you have specific refutations of Cremo's sources? Would be very interested to look into those.

You can start with a search on UM (this subforum) and enter "Cremo".

Or....

The Hidden History of the Human Race is a frustrating book. The motivation of the authors, "members of the Bhaktivedanta Institute, a branch of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness" (p. xix), is to find support in the data of paleoanthropology and archaeology for the Vedic scriptures of India. Their methods are borrowed from fundamentalist Christian creationists (whom they assiduously avoid citing). They catalog odd "facts" which appear to conflict with the modern scientific understanding of human evolution and they take statements from the work of conventional scholars and cite them out of context to support some bizarre assertion which the original author would almost certainly not have advocated. Cremo and Thompson regard their collection of dubious facts as "anomalies" that the current paradigm of paleoanthropology cannot explain. Sadly, they offer no alternative paradigm which might accommodate both the existing data and the so-called anomalies they present; although they do indicate that a second volume is planned which will relate their "extensive research results" to their "Vedic source material" (p. xix). Kuhn noted that "To reject one paradigm without simultaneously substituting another is to reject science itself" (1970, p. 79); and that is precisely what Cremo and Thompson do. They claim that "mechanistic science" is a "militant ideology, skillfully promoted by the combined effort of scientists, educators, and wealthy industrialists, with a view towards establishing worldwide intellectual dominance" (p. 196).

The work is frustrating because it mixes together a genuine contribution to our understanding of the history of archaeology and paleoanthropology with a bewildering mass of absurd claims and an audaciously distorted review of the current state of paleoanthropology.

-

Cremo and Thompson's ignorance of the basic data of archaeology is exemplified by their reference to the Venus of Willendorf as a work of "Neolithic" rather than Paleolithic art (p. 84) and their mistaken identification of a nondescript stone blade from Sandia Cave as a "Folsom point" (p. 93). Folsom points are highly specialized and distinctive artifacts and, although the excavators of Sandia Cave did recover several from that site, a Folsom point is not what is depicted in the photograph reproduced by Cremo and Thompson (p. 93). Moreover, although they have plumbed the depths of 19th-century literature in search of crumbs of data that support their rather vague notions about the extreme antiquity of Homo sapiens, they are not abreast of the latest developments in the field of archaeology. They refer to claims of great antiquity for artifacts from the Calico, Pedra Furada, Sandia Cave, Sheguiandah, and Timlin sites, but are apparently unaware of recent (and some not so recent) work concerning these sites which substantially refutes (or calls into serious question) the claims of the original investigators (e.g., Cole and Godfrey, 1977; Cole et al., 1978; Funk, 1977; Haynes and Agogino, 1986; Julig et al., 1990; Kirkland, 1977; Meltzer et al., 1994; Preston, 1995; Schnurrenberger and Bryan, 1985; Starna, 1977; Taylor, 1994).

-

Cremo and Thompson are selectively credulous to an astonishing degree. They accept without question the testimony of 19th-century goldminers and quarrymen, but treat with extreme skepticism (or outright derision) the observations of 20th-century archaeologists. That Von Koenigswald purchased Pithecanthropus fossils from native Javanese causes Cremo and Thompson "uneasiness" (p. 164); but they blithely accept Taylor's purchase of the "Foxhall Jaw" from "a workman who wanted a glass of beer" (p. 133) without similar unease. The authors are critical of archaeologists for rejecting the very early radiometric dates for technologically recent stone artifacts at Hueyatlaco, Mexico (pp. 91-93), but they are as quick to reject radiometric dates which do not agree with their preconceived interpretations (pp. 125, 139-140).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/lepper.html

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also:

Who shot Neanderthal Man?

The Museum of Natural History in London displays an early Paleolithic skull, dated at 38,000 years old, and excavated in 1921 in modern Zambia. bullet_hole1.jpgOn the left side of the skull is a perfectly round hole nearly a third of an inch in diameter. Curiously, there are no radial split-lines around the hole or other marks that should have been left by a cold weapon, such as an arrow or spear. Opposite the hole, the cranium is shattered, and reconstruction of the fragments show the skull was blown from the inside out, as from a rifle shot. In fact, any slower a projectile would have produced neither the neat hole nor the shattering effect. Forensic experts who have examined the skull agree the cranial damage could not have been caused by anything but a high-speed projectile, purposely fired at the prehistoric victim, with intent to kill. bullet_hole2.jpgIf such a weapon was indeed fired at the man, then one of two conclusions can be made: Either the specimen is not as old as it is claimed to be, and was shot by a European in recent centuries, or the remains are as old as claimed, and the marksman was ancient too. In view of the fact that the Paleolithic skull was excavated from a depth of 60 feet, mostly of lead rock, the second conclusion is more plausible. But who possessed gunpowder 38,000 years ago? Certainly not Stone Age man himself.[1]

In looking at the picture with the supposed exit wound, I see a gentle slope around the hole that is twice the size of the hole. This does not appear to be an exit would but does remind me of Trepanning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trepanning This practice has existed since Neolithic times and IMO explains it nicely.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spheres? The objects pictured in the photo don't look spherical at all, rather, they look like rocks.

Of course, the headline "Rocks discovered beneath pyramid" wouldn't garner too much attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch, it will turn out that the pyramid wasn't built there, it was rolled there. They just collected up the left over balls and stored them in case they decided to move it later. Boom, simple! (Maybe wrong, but simple.)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

be careful with those spheres, they might be locked down there for a good reason.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

be careful with those spheres, they might be locked down there for a good reason.

Perhaps they would hatch into

Critters-03-g.jpg

Perhaps now there could be a reason of sudden demises of certain civilizations in South America!!! :innocent:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spheres? The objects pictured in the photo don't look spherical at all, rather, they look like rocks.

Of course, the headline "Rocks discovered beneath pyramid" wouldn't garner too much attention.

I agree with you, but I think there's a chance they may have been exposed to chemical or physical weathering. Not being a chemist or a geophysicist, though, I'm reluctant to say too much. (Although, Basset Hounds know, ignorance of a subject is rarely an obstancle for some people in this forum.)

--Jaylemurph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We will never hear about this again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The spheres were actually for dodge-ball. Yellow was the color of their country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay so a poster at another forum suggested that the "spheres" were used in the construction of the pyramid and when the builders were done they simply threw them under there. They may not have had the wheel but they sure did know how to make spheres. I kind of like his theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is like LOST, Egyptian version. So many twists and turns

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Lol! I see everyone has already seen the pics and come to the same conclusion, not very spherical nor metallic. Always a day late (or few days) and a penny short.

The spheres were actually for dodge-ball. Yellow was the color of their country.

The spheres were actually for dodge-ball. Yellow was the color of their country.

I would not want to get hit with that dodge ball... sphere or not! Ouch!

Edited by Lava_Lady
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hold on - if those pictures are robot-produced because of dangerous soil and tight quarters, who strung that grid and put the numbers down? Something doesn't compute.

Kinda like the first moon landing, if Armstrong was the the first to step foot on the moon who set up the camera to record it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do people even read articals now a days? They say the spears were coated with rusted Pyrite and due too decay over time it gave them the style that they have now. So anyone know; how they had tech to oxiode the pyrite(fools gold) 1500 years ago to be coated on the spear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder; how they had the tech 1500 years ago too process the pyrite to be able to mold it on the object.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do people even read articals now a days? They say the spears were coated with rusted Pyrite and due too decay over time it gave them the style that they have now. So anyone know; how they had tech to oxiode the pyrite(fools gold) 1500 years ago to be coated on the spear.

Early reports indicate that the clay "spheres" were coated with jarosite. We will need to await further analyses, but it may be tentatively speculated that the jarosite was powdered, mixed with a binder, and applied in a rather paint-like manner.

.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting finding.although on the whole part of the rituals make wonder who and really they were performing rituals to and worshiping?to gods yeah right i believe in a creator and all but not like religions though.how many of these spheres did they find though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the bagdad battery was used for electro coating!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the bagdad battery was used for electro coating!

Why use an exclamation mark? What you're saying is not fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad_Battery

-The bitumen completely covers the copper cylinder, electrically insulating it, so no current can be drawn without modifying the design. There are no wires or conductors with them. No electrical equipment is associated with them. A bitumen seal, being thermoplastic, is excellent for forming a hermetic seal for long-term storage. It would be extremely inconvenient, however, for a galvanic cell, which would require frequent topping up of the electrolyte (if they were intended for extended use). The artifacts strongly resemble another type of object with a known purpose – storage vessels for sacred scrolls from nearby Seleucia on the Tigris. Those vessels do not have the outermost clay jar, but are otherwise almost identical. Since it is claimed [by whom?] these vessels were exposed to the elements, it is possible [opinion] that any papyrus or parchment inside had completely rotted away, perhaps leaving a trace of slightly acidic organic residue.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.