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 1
Still Waters

500-Million-Year-Old Vessel?

36 posts in this topic

A metallic vessel was found after an explosion of rock in Dorchester, Mass., in 1852. The questions raised by this finding are, how did the vessel get into rock that's more than 500 million years old, and did it really come from inside the rock?

http://www.theepocht...vessel/?photo=2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been to creationist lectures where they make this and other claims. They try to show that the dating methods are flawed since modern objects are found in what is supposed to be ancient rock.

What is missing here is the impression in the rock left by the object. If there were a cast of the object evident in the puddingstone, then a case could be made that this is an out of place object. Similar claims of objects in lumps of coal are often listed in places discussing such objects. The impressions in the coal are never shown. Creationists discuss Civil War buttons being found in coal lumps, yet there are no lumps of coal showing the impression of a button. There are also no places that creationists can show where a tremendous amount of organic material has accumulated and been turned into recent coal.

Here is an object supposedly encased in puddingstone yet the place it was encased is nowhere to be found.

The London Hammer is much more interesting since the concretion was kept with the hammer. There really isn't much to this story of the Dorcester vessel.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This artifact was dug up in 1852, back when they still published stories about Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill in the newspapers and called them real. It very easily could just be a story of fiction.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you all think the story is phony, than the fact that they say the artifact came from fifteen feet under will mean nothing, I am sure.

This stuff really tic's me off:

"Debunking website Bad Archaeology states that the vessel probably didn’t come from inside the rock and those who found it wrongly assumed it did when they found it at the site of the explosion. The website says it resembles recent artifacts."

So debunkers did their "wave the magic wand, and PRESTO, solved! And that is "science"?

How the cluck would THEY know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you all think the story is phony, than the fact that they say the artifact came from fifteen feet under will mean nothing, I am sure.

This stuff really tic's me off:

"Debunking website Bad Archaeology states that the vessel probably didn’t come from inside the rock and those who found it wrongly assumed it did when they found it at the site of the explosion. The website says it resembles recent artifacts."

So debunkers did their "wave the magic wand, and PRESTO, solved! And that is "science"?

How the cluck would THEY know?

Well, they "said" a lot of things in the 1800's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you all think the story is phony, than the fact that they say the artifact came from fifteen feet under will mean nothing, I am sure.

This stuff really tic's me off:

"Debunking website Bad Archaeology states that the vessel probably didn’t come from inside the rock and those who found it wrongly assumed it did when they found it at the site of the explosion. The website says it resembles recent artifacts."

So debunkers did their "wave the magic wand, and PRESTO, solved! And that is "science"?

How the cluck would THEY know?

I guess you didn't read my post in which I discussed such things as Civil War buttons found in lumps of coal.

You might not be familiar with puddingstone. It is a conglomerate which is quite hard. The matrix holding the cobblestones is hard. Explosives used to break this material up would be as likely to shear the object as free it from its confinement. I'll bet that the vessel was not filled with stone. Was it? Do you know one way or the other? I'll bet that the vessel was relatively free of corrosion. Was there pitting or missing sections?

There have been more than 1 story from that time frame which were printed for fun. There are tales of giants from that time frame such as the Cardiff giant. There are lots and lots of stories which turned out to be hoaxes.

So how do supporters wave their magic wands and presto its a true story? How are you going to support this story? Are you going to show that the matrix of the puddingstone has invaded the vessel? Are you going to show the portion of the puddingstone that the vessel was imbedded in? How the cluck are you going to turn this fairy tale into a rational story that will lead to a new understanding of our universe?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you all think the story is phony, than the fact that they say the artifact came from fifteen feet under will mean nothing, I am sure.

This stuff really tic's me off:

"Debunking website Bad Archaeology states that the vessel probably didn’t come from inside the rock and those who found it wrongly assumed it did when they found it at the site of the explosion. The website says it resembles recent artifacts."

So debunkers did their "wave the magic wand, and PRESTO, solved! And that is "science"?

How the cluck would THEY know?

for you and anyone else interested, here's the bad archaeology article that i assume is referenced.

http://www.badarchaeology.com/?page_id=300

i couldn't find any link to it on the epoch times article, (is it there?) and that was bugging me, so i looked it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A metallic vessel was found after an explosion of rock in Dorchester, Mass., in 1852. The questions raised by this finding are, how did the vessel get into rock that's more than 500 million years old, and did it really come from inside the rock?

http://www.theepocht...vessel/?photo=2

Of the two questions above, the latter is rational.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like a candle holder to me.

If we want scientific proof it is different, it should be easy to take some sample scrapings off of it and do a metallurgical test to see what elements are there. In many cases the metal can be pointed back to a country of origin and a time of construction. My guess would be it would test as locally made and current with the time period it was found.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well, they "said" a lot of things in the 1800's.

Maybe they did, Imaginarynumber1, but, that does not *prove* that this particular article is a spoof.

I am disappointed that the type of metal in the composition is not more properly addressed, though

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Maybe they did, Imaginarynumber1, but, that does not *prove* that this particular article is a spoof.

I am disappointed that the type of metal in the composition is not more properly addressed, though

Doesn't prove that it isn't, either.

The period is so riffe with hoaxes and outright lies that there is little reason to assump!e that it is not a hoax.

There's just no credibility there. If ancient aliens told !e that 2 plus 2 is 4 I would have a hard time believing them because everything else out of their mouths are complete fabrications.

Edited by Imaginarynumber1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you didn't read my post in which I discussed such things as Civil War buttons found in lumps of coal.

Well, you would guess wrong. I surely did see it.

I have a theory - not one that I feel *must* be the case, just something I contemplate.

We now know of string theory, 11 dimensions.

How do we know whether there are or not, ways to transcend the dimension, of which time is one of them, and perhaps it is, that items, and people, disappear in time.

Again, I am not insisting this is the case, but we should not at all scoff at all ooparts, "just 'cuz"

You might not be familiar with puddingstone. It is a conglomerate which is quite hard. The matrix holding the cobblestones is hard. Explosives used to break this material up would be as likely to shear the object as free it from its confinement. I'll bet that the vessel was not filled with stone. Was it? Do you know one way or the other? I'll bet that the vessel was relatively free of corrosion. Was there pitting or missing sections?

I, of course, cannot answer your questions. Like to see it one day, I live not far from Dorchester.

There have been more than 1 story from that time frame which were printed for fun. There are tales of giants from that time frame such as the Cardiff giant. There are lots and lots of stories which turned out to be hoaxes.

Yup. but that does not *prove* that this story in particular is a hoax.

So how do supporters wave their magic wands and presto its a true story?

They don't.

How are you going to support this story? Are you going to show that the matrix of the puddingstone has invaded the vessel? Are you going to show the portion of the puddingstone that the vessel was imbedded in? How the cluck are you going to turn this fairy tale into a rational story that will lead to a new understanding of our universe?

such questions!

I wish I just knew the composition to it. By the way, what is your take on the Piri Reis map?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for you and anyone else interested, here's the bad archaeology article that i assume is referenced.

http://www.badarchae...om/?page_id=300

i couldn't find any link to it on the epoch times article, (is it there?) and that was bugging me, so i looked it up.

THanks for sharing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't prove that it isn't, either.

The period is so riffe with hoaxes and outright lies that there is little reason to assump!e that it is not a hoax.

There's just no credibility there. If ancient aliens told !e that 2 plus 2 is 4 I would have a hard time believing them because everything else out of their mouths are complete fabrications.

total agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you all understand, I am not totally "sold" one way or the other.

I also don't rush to an answer just for the sake of siding immediately. you have to have *proof* to do that. and I can wait.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just in case nobody's mentioned it yet, things made of thin metal and blown up by dynamite tend to be a little untidier than the Dorchester Pot.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Dorchester pot, on display is *not* enclosed in stone, yes.

here are some that are. https://www.pinteres...cyc129/ooparts/

THE ABBEY MINE SCREW IN FELDSPAR

A piece of feldspar from the Abbey Mine in Treasure City, Nevada, in 1865, was found to contain a two-inch metal screw, which had oxidized but left its from and the shape of its threads within the feldspar- the stone itself was calculated as being 21 million years old. It seems we've been here FAR longer than 250,000 yrs and CERTAINLY longer than the RIDICULOUSLY short 6000 "SOME" postulate.

post-124371-0-87483400-1397432501_thumb.

One more comment about the Dorchester pot. We know that the story was also covered in Scientific American I feel fairly certain they vetted the newspaper article to make certain they are not running wiht a hoax.

just my opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carbon dating is very innacurate!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well, you would guess wrong. I surely did see it.

I have a theory - not one that I feel *must* be the case, just something I contemplate.

We now know of string theory, 11 dimensions.

How do we know whether there are or not, ways to transcend the dimension, of which time is one of them, and perhaps it is, that items, and people, disappear in time.

Again, I am not insisting this is the case, but we should not at all scoff at all ooparts, "just 'cuz"

I, of course, cannot answer your questions. Like to see it one day, I live not far from Dorchester.

Yup. but that does not *prove* that this story in particular is a hoax.

They don't.

such questions!

I wish I just knew the composition to it. By the way, what is your take on the Piri Reis map?

People have claimed all sorts of things like Civil War buttons in coal. You are suggesting that objects somehow get passed around in time? Why make strange assumptions to justify what is likely to be a hoax? As far your idea goes remember that the Earth is in motion as it turns, goes around the Sun, and the Sun is passing through space. The Earth is a long way from the place it was during the Civil War. How is an object going to move through time and also adjust its position in all of the other dimensions to have it come back to rest on the Earth. Think about it.

There are many examples of puddingstone. Climbing shops used to sell a pamphlet called blasted rock that listed a large number of pudding stone outcroppings in the Boston area. No need to go to one specific place.

I don't need to prove that this story is a hoax. It is a typical hoax of that time period. That vessel is probably long since mysteriously vanished as have almost all of the other hoaxes from that time period.

I asked: "So how do supporters wave their magic wands and presto its a true story?" The problem for the supporters is that they have no evidence that this metal object was imbedded in the stone. I doubt the vessel is still available. The buttons and gold chains and all of the other objects I've heard about that were found at that time are long gone. The supporters still believe despite the lack of supporting evidence. The supports do have their magic wand. I believe it is called ignorance. You might want to keep the story alive until it is shown to be a hoax. I prefer to say, "Fun read, but please show me something that makes me want to believe the story." You and I both know that is never going to happen.

The questions I asked are basic questions. Finding the imprint of the vessel in the stone should be a trivial matter. That's a basic issue isn't it? The story claims the vessel was inside the rock. Please show that to be the case. That should be the first question - show that there is something to the story. If even the simplest issues of the story cannot be verified it seems that there is no reason to believe the story.

Off topic, but the Piri Reis map is a map. There are some outlandish claims made about the map.

Edited by stereologist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Dorchester pot, on display is *not* enclosed in stone, yes.

here are some that are. https://www.pinteres...cyc129/ooparts/

THE ABBEY MINE SCREW IN FELDSPAR

A piece of feldspar from the Abbey Mine in Treasure City, Nevada, in 1865, was found to contain a two-inch metal screw, which had oxidized but left its from and the shape of its threads within the feldspar- the stone itself was calculated as being 21 million years old. It seems we've been here FAR longer than 250,000 yrs and CERTAINLY longer than the RIDICULOUSLY short 6000 "SOME" postulate.

post-124371-0-87483400-1397432501_thumb.

One more comment about the Dorchester pot. We know that the story was also covered in Scientific American I feel fairly certain they vetted the newspaper article to make certain they are not running wiht a hoax.

just my opinion

The first object is obviously a fossil. I do not believe the black rock is feldspar. Feldspars have obvious cleavage and the rock does not.

The next photo is of crinoid stems. They are common fossils. There is another crinoid fossil below that. Itis the yellow "screw". Notice that the lines on the screw do not spiral but are perpendicular to the shaft. There is also an iron pot supposedly found in coal, but where is the pot imprint in the coal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Earl.of.Trumps are you really hoping that the SciAm vetted the article? I'll bet article was sent in to the magazine by a local reporter. That is often how these articles get into things. That's how a string of hoaxes have been played across the newspapers in recent years. You hope someone else does the job. A number of articles tell how a worker dies in their city and is at their desk 3 days before someone discovers the death. It's sad that a story like this grabs enough interest that people do not consider checking up the story. The businesses turn out to be real but the deaths do not.

Carbon dating is very innacurate!

Not true. It is accurate and new methods are making it more and more accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And do not forget...1852!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People have claimed all sorts of things like Civil War buttons in coal. You are suggesting that objects somehow get passed around in time?

Yes and thank you for using the word "suggesting".

Why make strange assumptions to justify what is likely to be a hoax? As far your idea goes remember that the Earth is in motion as it turns, goes around the Sun, and the Sun is passing through space. The Earth is a long way from the place it was during the Civil War. How is an object going to move through time and also adjust its position in all of the other dimensions to have it come back to rest on the Earth. Think about it.

Because what happened was very strange, so strange views may be welcome here.

And why are you so sure it was a hoax? If it is, they sure fooled Scientific American. Good luck!

I wonder what people at SA would say about that article today. In fact, I'd love to see the article.

I bet it is more insightful than the newspaper article.

Now, when I suggest that an object is pushed along the time dimension, I am saying like, *instantly*.

So the civil war buttons went back in time at about the same location. Also, there are cases where

people in air crafts disappeared, came back 9 hours later, only to be lost again. (Bermuda triangle)

So, one can claim that an object may be moved on one or more dimensions, as well. maybe.

There are many examples of puddingstone. Climbing shops used to sell a pamphlet called blasted rock that listed a large number of pudding stone outcroppings in the Boston area. No need to go to one specific place.

I don't need to prove that this story is a hoax. It is a typical hoax of that time period. That vessel is probably long since mysteriously vanished as have almost all of the other hoaxes from that time period.

I asked: "So how do supporters wave their magic wands and presto its a true story?" The problem for the supporters is that they have no evidence that this metal object was imbedded in the stone. I doubt the vessel is still available. The buttons and gold chains and all of the other objects I've heard about that were found at that time are long gone. The supporters still believe despite the lack of supporting evidence. The supports do have their magic wand. I believe it is called ignorance. You might want to keep the story alive until it is shown to be a hoax. I prefer to say, "Fun read, but please show me something that makes me want to believe the story." You and I both know that is never going to happen.

Maybe :-*

The questions I asked are basic questions. Finding the imprint of the vessel in the stone should be a trivial matter. That's a basic issue isn't it?

Yes, of course it is a basic issue. that is why I posted links to artifacts that were clearly still in the rock.

The Dorchester pot, is *imo*, not the best example for that reason.

The story claims the vessel was inside the rock. Please show that to be the case. That should be the first question - show that there is something to the story. If even the simplest issues of the story cannot be verified it seems that there is no reason to believe the story.

To answer involves logic, and a little faith, but that is not proof. I understand your view, but here goes.

As I know, and perhaps, as we both know it, whenever a large blast like that occurs, the area is cleared and a mettle mesh or net is placed over the area to prevent debris from flying all over the place. With that said, If -after the blast, that pot was *under* the net, then the case is virtually proven.

Maybe witnesses said that to the newspaper, to Scientific American. But we don't know.

Off topic, but the Piri Reis map is a map. There are some outlandish claims made about the map.

Yeah, it is off topic. I think I'll do a thread on that one day soon. And I love maps, so I do want to

purchase a copy of it. It's awesome

Good posting

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Earl.of.Trumps are you really hoping that the SciAm vetted the article? I'll bet article was sent in to the magazine by a local reporter. That is often how these articles get into things. That's how a string of hoaxes have been played across the newspapers in recent years. You hope someone else does the job. A number of articles tell how a worker dies in their city and is at their desk 3 days before someone discovers the death. It's sad that a story like this grabs enough interest that people do not consider checking up the story. The businesses turn out to be real but the deaths do not.

Not true. It is accurate and new methods are making it more and more accurate.

you pose scenarios that seem likely.

you know me. unlikely things can and do happen, no way to prove it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem with the "artifact" (beyond its modern design with elements that are present in Hindu iconography and art of the 1800's) is geological. During the purported time of its being placed in what would become the rock, Massachusetts was under the ocean (see below.) Portioins of New England are still at the bottom of the world, away from the central land mass that would eventually become America.

514.jpg

During the Devonian (some 200 million years ago), the fragment that becomes New England jams up against the American continent. By this time the puddingstone has turned into solid rock and it becomes involved in the Alleghenian Orogeny (http://www.geol.umd.edu/~jmerck/geol100/lectures/25.html)

306.jpg

So the rock involved in the "fossil" undergoes mountain building (severe deformation) and then a bit later gets sunk again under the ocean. This deformation would significantly distort anything within those beds -- and the heat would, of course, damage and change the material.

------------------------------

The "TL/DR" version: The rocks in that area have hand a lot of pressure, twisting, and turning on them and this shows up in the rock bed. Anything in the rock would have been mooshed and twisted over 500 million years. The object isn't mooshed or damaged. Therefore: fake.

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 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.