Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Impossible artifacts


jethrofloyd

Recommended Posts

The London hammer

In June 1936 Max Hahn and his wife Emma were on a walk when they noticed a rock with wood protruding from its core. They decided to take the oddity home and later cracked it open with a hammer and a chisel. Ironically, what they found within seemed to be an archaic hammer of sorts. The rock encasing the hammer was dated to the Ordovician – more than 400 million years ago! But here’s the kicker – according to initial measurements, the hammer itself turned out to be more than 500 million years old. Apparently it’s so old that a section of the handle has begun the transformation to coal.

 

Aluminium wedge of Auid

In the beginning of 1974, a strange object was brought to light by a group of construction workers digging in the area of central Romania. The discovery was made at the depth of approximately ten meters, in the hard sediments of the river Mures. This artifact was discovered together with very ancient bones of a mastodon. At first, the finding appeared to be a dark stone, but after removing the thick crust of sand from its surface it was revealed a metal object of unknown origin. A detailed metallurgical analysis has revealed that the object in question was consisted of 89% aluminum, As we know, the aluminium was discovered in 1825 by H. C. Oerstred and produced for the first time on an industrial scale in France in 1854.

 

How to explain such examples?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
24 minutes ago, jethrofloyd said:

The London hammer

In June 1936 Max Hahn and his wife Emma were on a walk when they noticed a rock with wood protruding from its core. They decided to take the oddity home and later cracked it open with a hammer and a chisel. Ironically, what they found within seemed to be an archaic hammer of sorts. The rock encasing the hammer was dated to the Ordovician – more than 400 million years ago! But here’s the kicker – according to initial measurements, the hammer itself turned out to be more than 500 million years old. Apparently it’s so old that a section of the handle has begun the transformation to coal.

 

Aluminium wedge of Auid

In the beginning of 1974, a strange object was brought to light by a group of construction workers digging in the area of central Romania. The discovery was made at the depth of approximately ten meters, in the hard sediments of the river Mures. This artifact was discovered together with very ancient bones of a mastodon. At first, the finding appeared to be a dark stone, but after removing the thick crust of sand from its surface it was revealed a metal object of unknown origin. A detailed metallurgical analysis has revealed that the object in question was consisted of 89% aluminum, As we know, the aluminium was discovered in 1825 by H. C. Oerstred and produced for the first time on an industrial scale in France in 1854.

 

How to explain such examples?

With the search function here, though I'd wait until the update is completed.

 

Harte

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The London Hammer has been discussed here at U-M a few times. The problem is that the given dates are completely wrong. The rock was never dated to the Ordivician. There is the problem in a nutshell. The place where the hammer was found was Ordivician rock, but the rock encasing the hammer was not dated. The material coating the hammer is recent. The hammer is of the sort used in Texas only a few decades before the hammer was discovered. The mineral coating was a concretion. The hammer has never been dated to 500 Mya. It has been dated to a few decades before its discovery. The handle has not been turned to coal at all.

 

Quote

How to explain such examples?

The explanation is that the story is not true.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jethrofloyd, please identify the source of your quote when you copy and paste material from another site. There are dozens of places where you might have chosen to copy the material.

In the following link you can read about all of the contradictory remarks made about the hammer including that it was found in a Cretaceous area, not Ordivician. It tells how the rock was dated or not dated. The only consistent part of the story is that creationists are involved.

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/hammer.htm

In the following link is more information in which other creationists point out that Baugh is full of baloney.

http://www.badarchaeology.com/out-of-place-artefacts/very-ancient-artefacts/the-london-artifact/

Again the explanation is that the original story is fiction.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jethrofloyd, please tell us where you copied a story. Don't copy and paste without providing a link.

When you read a site such as the following concerning the aluminum wedge:

http://www.ancient-code.com/15-things-you-should-know-about-the-aiud-aluminium-wedge/

You get a lot of pointless fluff around the story which tells us nothing.

 

But this link

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Wedge_of_Aiud

Tells us that the wedge is a tooth from a digging machine.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jethrofloyd said:

Feel free to delate this tread. :)

What would be the reason for deleting it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because of I didn't know that the wedge it's tooth from a digging machine. I should have known better. Same for the London Hammer ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jethrofloyd said:

Feel free to delate this tread. :)

Around here, we usually like to play with our food for a little while. So, no dice. :devil:

 

Harte

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, jethrofloyd said:

Because of I didn't know that the wedge it's tooth from a digging machine. I should have known better. Same for the London Hammer ..

Don't mind them, they're just cranky. 

 Yeah a bit of Googleing might have answered these but then there wouldn't be a forum. Don't worry about it. 

 You didn't know, now you do. Relax. 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an idea.  Why not lets everyone search U-M for archival information on these two OOPArts and all the others. 

We limit quotes of search returns to a total of 4 per person for the entire life of the thread.

Posting opinion, evidence (with links,) etc. is not restricted.

See what we can drum up.

Of course, right when I think of something, it's something we can't do right now since the database's flammerjammer isn't modulated yet.

If we ever get started, choose your quotes wisely.

GrailKnight.gif

 

Harte

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's ok to re-ask questions. There are some things that need to rechecked at times. I originally learned about the Auid wedge here at U-M. I also learned quite a bit more about the hammer here at U-M.

One of the interesting things to hear is a creationist talk when you have some idea of the material being discussed. There are many variations on these things and which variation is the favorite of the speaker can be fun to guess.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was proposed the London Hammer was not a concretion, in the geological sense, but that it was encased in a concrete like slurry produced by water and the fine powered produced in the quarry from cutting/breaking the stones into blocks?

Though I suppose the word "concretion" can also be used for such an event. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That makes sense that this would be encased in run off from the stone works. The exposed material shows a shell which is likely to be a fossil piece that was also encased with the material.

Another one of these "impossible" situations is the shoe print crushing trilobite fossil. Examples are shown below including a photo

http://thebiggestsecretsoftheworld.blogspot.com/2011/02/ancient-shoeprint-that-crushed-living.html

http://www.creationevidence.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=29

The place is a famous fossil site in Utah. It contains some superb specimens of trilobites. The shoe shape is actually a stain in the rock. Such stains are common at the site and come in a variety of shapes. This oblong shape has been labeled a shoe print. Why? Makes a good story. Notice the claim of the stitching being visible. You'd think that there would be a photo of the stitching. There are none. Some places claim it is a sandal print. They all claim that the trilobite is crushed. There is no evidence that the trilobite is crushed. In fact, the shoe print is amazingly flat unlike a shoe print made in soft material.

From the following link we learn that the fossil is in shale, a stone made from mud and silt.

http://u-digfossils.com/location.html

http://www.millardcounty.com/index.php/things-to-do/rock-hounding/trilobites

The entire story is bogus and pushed by creationists. One of the creationist lectures I attended offered to send a photo of the stitches since they surprisingly did not have one in their presentation. The lecturer apologized for it not being in the show and pretended to be embarrassed at the omission. I was sent a photo - the same one in the presentation.

Here is a site that discusses the actual rock. I see that I missed the idea that triobites were bottom dwellers in the ocean and not on the shore.

http://www.badarchaeology.com/out-of-place-artefacts/footprints-and-the-like/the-antelope-springs-%E2%80%98footprint%E2%80%99/

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always wanted a trilobite for a pet. Wouldn't that be fun?

One can see how such misunderstandings or misrepresentations would be so popular with creationists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

I've always wanted a trilobite for a pet. Wouldn't that be fun?

One can see how such misunderstandings or misrepresentations would be so popular with creationists.

The problem there is that it is a misrepresentation (which happens to be a nice way to classify a lie), as far as I remember there was a thingy that these creationists live by that seez something about not bearing false witness... but how would I know...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, questionmark said:

The problem there is that it is a misrepresentation (which happens to be a nice way to classify a lie), as far as I remember there was a thingy that these creationists live by that seez something about not bearing false witness... but how would I know...

"Bear false witness" usually implies some sort of oath, but the Bible also says not to take oaths.

However, there is this:

There are six things that the Lord hates,

    seven that are an abomination to him:

17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue,

    and hands that shed innocent blood,

18 a heart that devises wicked plans,

    feet that make haste to run to evil,

Proverbs 6:16

And:

Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another.

Ephesians 4:25

And lastly, this is almost enough to get me to convert:

 but test everything; hold fast what is good.

1st Thessalonians 5:21

Harte

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

I've always wanted a trilobite for a pet. Wouldn't that be fun?

One can see how such misunderstandings or misrepresentations would be so popular with creationists.

They do bite though ! 

 

hence the name .

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

I've always wanted a trilobite for a pet. Wouldn't that be fun?

One can see how such misunderstandings or misrepresentations would be so popular with creationists.

Chuckle! Though, given your "relationship" with felines:

http://www.umanitoba.ca/science/geological_sciences/stuff/geoaware/suletosi/

http://trilobites.info/lgtrilos.htm

.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, back to earth said:

They do bite though ! 

 

hence the name .

I found it was more like a serious gumming than a bite some of the bigger ones felt like a cat nozzling for a petting. For the larger Isotelus rex, you occasionally need a 16 gauge to keep them off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

I've always wanted a trilobite for a pet. Wouldn't that be fun?

One can see how such misunderstandings or misrepresentations would be so popular with creationists.

I've always loved trilobites. Have a fossil of one I wear on a chain.  

 

 I always found things like the Hammer and the Cisco artifact amusing. I grew up working in a factory in a sandy area. 

Used to dig up plenty of hammerhead and nails and wrenches heavily concreted into lumps of rust and sand.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Hanslune said:

I found it was more like a serious gumming than a bite some of the bigger ones felt like a cat nozzling for a petting. For the larger Isotelus rex, you occasionally need a 16 gauge to keep them off.

every little girl should have one

 

 

pettrilobite.jpg

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, shadowsot said:

I've always loved trilobites. Have a fossil of one I wear on a chain.  

 

 I always found things like the Hammer and the Cisco artifact amusing. I grew up working in a factory in a sandy area. 

Used to dig up plenty of hammerhead and nails and wrenches heavily concreted into lumps of rust and sand.

Coso Artifact:

coso-artifact1.jpg

 

Cisco artifact:

cisco-kid.jpg

 

Harte

  • Like 3
Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.