paperdyer Posted April 9, 2014 #26 Share Posted April 9, 2014 If this was faked, why would someone put a clam shell with it? I would think that would be a cause for question right off the bat. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calibeliever Posted April 9, 2014 #27 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Let us assume that the hammer is 'only' 700 years old. Seven hundred years ago there were no Europeans or Asians in Texas. The native Indians did not work in iron so this tool is really an out of place artifact. The idea that it might be as old as a seam of coal is ludicrous. The best explanation, if the 700 year old hypothesis is correct, is that the hammer came to the London,Texas location via trading among the Indians. It was manufactured in Europe or Asia and somehow found it's way to the new world via a rare and unrecorded maritime contact, perhaps a shipwreck, or from a single wandering European who, over time, found himself in the Americas. Actually, evidence keeps trickling in that Europeans, Norse and possibly Egyptians were in the Americas long before the famed Columbus voyage. Personally I've always felt the academic claim that we were too technologically backward to build boats that would survive the voyage 2000 years ago to be preposterous. The Mediterranean was a robust melting pot of competition, bustling with advanced sea-faring capability. You know at least a few fools tried it and made it back! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted April 9, 2014 #28 Share Posted April 9, 2014 The problem with supposing it to be even 700 yeas old is that it is made like a hammer from no more than 100 years ago, not earlier. It's an 1800s hammer that has been covered in a concretion. It was found and has since that time been misrepresented by some individuals that consider it to support their literal interpretation of the bible. The 1920s spark plug is being used to tout the existence of Atlantis. Both of these show that concretions form rapidly. A friend of mine showed me concretions around grass roots. Are the grass roots hundreds or millions of years old or did the concretions form quickly? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted April 9, 2014 #29 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Sure it wasn't the Ancient Chinese ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DigitalDreamer Posted April 9, 2014 #30 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Decide for yourself, here is a great site to check out: http://www.discovery...ts/OOPARTS.html real or not, the possibility of these being genuine is staggering, and of course everything posted on Wikipedia is 100% accurate and factual since anyone and everyone with an opinion can be a contributor. I am not a Christian and I am not pushing their (websites creators) agenda (especially the Dino ****), the articles surrounding these items are fascinating to read, (until they get preachy). horrendous avatar but the read was quite the chuckle! I thank ya,mate 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted April 9, 2014 #31 Share Posted April 9, 2014 (edited) I thought it had already been shown that the hammer, and the handle matched EXACTLY other hammers from when the quarry was in use. And that it had been shown that limestone can quickly settle into a stone like form in less then a year. Some mason dropped his hammer into a rock slurry pile and the limestone hardened around it. Till there is a C-14 done on the handle, I'm going to be very skeptical. I bet if they do a chemical analysis on the metal of the hammer head, they will find it is 19th century steel made locally. Edited April 9, 2014 by DieChecker 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+OverSword Posted April 9, 2014 #32 Share Posted April 9, 2014 (edited) snip Edited April 9, 2014 by OverSword Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xYlvax Posted April 10, 2014 #33 Share Posted April 10, 2014 Maybe the natives were visited by our neighboring 'gods' and were taught such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PersonFromPorlock Posted April 10, 2014 #34 Share Posted April 10, 2014 A hammer in the gut of a dinosaur fossil with chew marks on it I might buy: a well-worn OOPART report recycled one more time, not so much. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baz Dane Posted April 10, 2014 #35 Share Posted April 10, 2014 Here's an example of how the hammer, or spark plug(which the article is referring to) can be made. Nothing ancient about it... If he's correct... http://archyfantasies.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/the-10-most-not-so-puzzling-ancient-artifacts-the-coso-artifact/ "...water begins to oxidize the metal, the oxidation acts like glue sticking things too it (like the sand in the sand candle), and the larger the bit of metal, the bigger the concretion will grow. Just like in the example, you need something for the concretions to adhere to, like the string, only here it’s our ferric object which also causes the oxidation... " 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qxcontinuum Posted April 10, 2014 #36 Share Posted April 10, 2014 This is just showing how false and wrong carbon dating can be.... Nothing more! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorvir Posted April 10, 2014 #37 Share Posted April 10, 2014 This is just showing how false and wrong carbon dating can be.... Nothing more! No, it doesn't actually. Just shows us that hoaxes and misidentification happens. And that people still tend to leap to the wildest conclusions with doing no critical thinking or scientific research whatsoever. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Posted April 10, 2014 #38 Share Posted April 10, 2014 The agree with the person who said it looks like the rock was chisled to fit the hammer. I think that maybe the handle was broken where it is in order to fit the handle through an existing hole. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted April 10, 2014 #39 Share Posted April 10, 2014 The agree with the person who said it looks like the rock was chisled to fit the hammer. I think that maybe the handle was broken where it is in order to fit the handle through an existing hole. Exactly what I thought, a suspicious place to get a break, yet NOT if it was inserted..after! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oniomancer Posted April 10, 2014 #40 Share Posted April 10, 2014 I thought it had already been shown that the hammer, and the handle matched EXACTLY other hammers from when the quarry was in use. And that it had been shown that limestone can quickly settle into a stone like form in less then a year. Some mason dropped his hammer into a rock slurry pile and the limestone hardened around it. Till there is a C-14 done on the handle, I'm going to be very skeptical. I bet if they do a chemical analysis on the metal of the hammer head, they will find it is 19th century steel made locally. But there's where the fun starts, because the one chemical analysis done, by creationist approved chemists, showed the presence of chlorine, which supposedly couldn't have been alloyed with the metal under present atmospheric conditions, hence the multi-million year dating. What they don't tell you of course is that common iron absorbs chlorine atoms over time. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewild Posted April 14, 2014 #41 Share Posted April 14, 2014 I once got really 'in to' OOPARTS when I first read about them, many moons ago! But Ive learned lots more stuff since then!! Check this page, scroll down to 'Analysis' http://paleo.cc/paluxy/hammer.htm . thank you for the link, I do love extra materials for researching. It is interesting! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenemet Posted April 14, 2014 #42 Share Posted April 14, 2014 This is just showing how false and wrong carbon dating can be.... Nothing more! Uhm... there's nothing to carbon date there. The hammer's far too new for carbon dating and the rock isn't carbon date-able. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted April 14, 2014 #43 Share Posted April 14, 2014 This is just showing how false and wrong carbon dating can be.... Nothing more! Wrong. No carbon dating was done on the object. Had there been the mystery would be over and the creationists would have one less hoax to post. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PersonFromPorlock Posted April 14, 2014 #44 Share Posted April 14, 2014 Before we come down too hard on the Creationists, let's keep in mind that any good argument for Divine creation makes Cthulhu possible. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesseCuster Posted April 15, 2014 #45 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Decide for yourself, here is a great site to check out: http://www.discovery...ts/OOPARTS.html Dear God, that's an awful website. It's the website of a Young Earth Creationist organisation that has articles about how the theory of evolution leads to the Holocaust and the Columbine massacre, about how the amount of dust on the moon proves the universe is only a few thousand years old, about how dinosaurs existed in America 1000 years ago, etc.It's the kind of nonsense that the mainstream YEC organisations (which are crackpots to begin with) are so embarrassed about that they have pages on their websites imploring people not to use these kind of arguments because it further embarrasses their already fringe ideas. I wouldn't trust a website like that if it told me 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesseCuster Posted April 15, 2014 #46 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Uhm... there's nothing to carbon date there. The hammer's far too new for carbon dating and the rock isn't carbon date-able. qxcontinuum is one of those people who thinks that "carbon dating" is a blanket term for any means of dating old things. If he doesn't understand what the phrase "carbon dating" actually means I somehow doubt his ability to be able to dismiss it as inaccurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vance665 Posted April 15, 2014 #47 Share Posted April 15, 2014 The wood handle should be a dead giveaway this isn't very old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calibeliever Posted April 16, 2014 #48 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Decide for yourself, here is a great site to check out: http://www.discovery...ts/OOPARTS.html real or not, the possibility of these being genuine is staggering, and of course everything posted on Wikipedia is 100% accurate and factual since anyone and everyone with an opinion can be a contributor. I am not a Christian and I am not pushing their (websites creators) agenda (especially the Dino ****), the articles surrounding these items are fascinating to read, (until they get preachy). It's this kind of dribble that keeps confusing our young folk. It IS fun to read but it's so twisted in it's presentation that it's impossible to take seriously. I can take any anomoly I find and create a "story" around it. That doesn't make the story true, it just means I have a good imagination. When there are more than one explanations for things science likes to start with the most likely then work backward. It doesn't just make stuff up then work in the facts that fit and ignore the rest. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted April 16, 2014 #49 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Before we come down too hard on the Creationists, let's keep in mind that any good argument for Divine creation makes Cthulhu possible. Well, I can't speak for anyone else but personally, and upon some reflection, I'd prefer that Cthulu not exist, if you don't mind. Harte 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PersonFromPorlock Posted April 17, 2014 #50 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Well, I can't speak for anyone else but personally, and upon some reflection, I'd prefer that Cthulu not exist, if you don't mind. Harte Spoilsport. Cthulhu's gonna getcha for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now