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 -

250,000 years old aluminum object


Merc14

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, danielost said:

It should be pointed out that the photos in the article are mainly fakes. The photo for Port Royal shows delicate arches that are supposed to have survived a massive earthquake. FAKE! Check the link below to see that it is ruins with a few timbers left in place.

http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/sunken-pirate-stronghold-at-port-royal

Quote

On the morning of June 7, 1692, a massive earthquake estimated at a 7.5 magnitude hit the island. The city, largely built over sand, suffered instantly from liquifaction, with buildings, roads, and citizens sucked into the ground.

Yonaguni is a natural formation. It has some hoaxers pretending it is a sunken city which is a joke.

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4220

Quote

Schoch noted what is, I think, the single most damning point against the idea that Yonaguni is manmade:

"...The structure is, as far as I could determine, composed entirely of solid 'living' bedrock. No part of the monument is constructed of separate blocks of rock that have been placed into position. This is an important point, for carved and arranged rock blocks would definitively indicate a man-made origin for the structure - yet I could find no such evidence."

Dwarka doesn't exist at all. It is a made up place. It is a legendary place as explained by DieChecker. Here is a link describing the ruins that run offshore from the present inhabited area.

http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=1585

DieChecker already covered the Lion City well.

The Cleopatra story includes videos that show the stone arches from the Port Royal story. Yes, hoaxers steal material from each other and falsely present the images as something other than they are. Here are some links where you can get real information and not the misleading site you linked to.

http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/exploring-cleopatras-sunken-palace/

http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/Media/royal-quarters-cleopatra-underwater-museum/story?id=10866120

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2010/05/25/divers-explore-ruins-cleopatras-palace.html

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
6 hours ago, Harte said:

Not saying it's not part of a Messerschmitt, but I don't see anything in the pic at that site that looks like this object.

Harte

Its even not an image of a ME262 landing gear, its an image of a RC A/C landing gear.

@ qx: nice try, but sorry, no banana.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been looking at available ME262 drawings and pictures online and can't find that part either. I should point out that i don't have a background in engineering so i could be worng.

Just to clear something up (i haven't bothered to read all posts in this thread, but this is worth repeating):

It's not possible to directly date an element, such as iron (Fe) or aluminium/aluminum (Al). What we can date is a ratio of an element to a radio-active isotope of that element, e.g. C12("regular" carbon) to C14 (radio-isotope) but only if we know a few things

- What was the original ratio of the element to its radioisotope at the time of the "creation" of the element

- The rate of decay of the radioisotope.

A simplified example, using C14 dating:
We know the ratio of C14 to C12 in the atmosphere (actually the ratio between "normal" CO2 and "C14" CO2)
A plant incorporates CO2 indiscriminatly. Thus the reatio between C12 and C14 is the same in the plant and in the atmosphere.
When the plant dies, it no longer incorporates CO2. From this point on the radioisotope C14 decays, thus altering the C14/C12 ratio.
The older the sample (longer time since plant death) the less C14 there will be in the sample.
And since we know the rate of decay of C14 we know the age of the sample.

This ONLY works for organic samples (plants, animals, bacteria etc.)

We cannot appply this to iron or aluminum/aluminium because what we would get, if possible, is the date of the "creation" of the element,  which most likely happened Billions of years ago inside a star that then died and spewed the formed elements all over the universe...

The only way we can date something inorganic, such as stone and metal is by inference from it's surroundings: if we wind a stone axe in an earth-layer containing 8.000 year old organic samples, we CAN INFER that the axe must have been dropped there around 8.000 years ago. If we dig up the said axe and then drop it in a layer with dinosaur remains (i.e. 65 million years old layer) we have no real means to date the axe. Would the conclusion therefore be that the dinosaurs made the axe...?

Edited by Flog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that the dating was based on the proximity of the piece of metal to fossils that were dated based on species information. This was along the banks of a river and the bones, mastodon bones IIRC, appeared to be an alluvial deposit, most likely a flood deposit. I do not believe that a reliable source dated the deposit. Rather, the dating was based on asking how old the bones were and then assigning the same age to everything in the vicinity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally, evidence that mastodons drove excavators!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, stereologist said:

My understanding is that the dating was based on the proximity of the piece of metal to fossils that were dated based on species information. This was along the banks of a river and the bones, mastodon bones IIRC, appeared to be an alluvial deposit, most likely a flood deposit. I do not believe that a reliable source dated the deposit. Rather, the dating was based on asking how old the bones were and then assigning the same age to everything in the vicinity.

The funny part is that not only does no one know who found the object, or when. But no one has seen these bones, or identified where exactly anything was found. Its all just a story. The object could have come right out of a coal mine and been sold to some idiot as an alien artifact for all we know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally figured this one out.

It's not an aircraft part.

It's not an excavator tooth.

It's not part of an alien craft's landing gear.

It's a ... cheese straightener!

Harte

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, stereologist said:

My understanding is that the dating was based on the proximity of the piece of metal to fossils that were dated based on species information. This was along the banks of a river and the bones, mastodon bones IIRC, appeared to be an alluvial deposit, most likely a flood deposit. I do not believe that a reliable source dated the deposit. Rather, the dating was based on asking how old the bones were and then assigning the same age to everything in the vicinity.

Which frankly, as mentioned earlier, the location will screw up trying to establish a date through relative dating. 

 I used to snorkel a rover, and found a bend where, as it happened, floating debris would sink down and accumulate. There was a large collection of bottles there, and pulling them out to look they covered a range of at least forty years. Some had been there awhile, others were fresh and still had their paper labels on them. 

 In some rivers here you can find megalodon teeth, and they'll be sitting loose, eroded from the sediment. Friend of mine used to collect them, and often find golf balls in the muck near them. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

In some rivers here you can find megalodon teeth, and they'll be sitting loose, eroded from the sediment. Friend of mine used to collect them, and often find golf balls in the muck near them. 

Sure....or it could have been aliens playing golf and using megalodons as caddies.

Edited by Flog
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Flog said:

Sure....or it could have been aliens playing golf and using megalodons as caddies.

That is a version of golf I could actually see myself playing.

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.