Everything We Have Been Taught About Our Origins Is A Lie!!

a reply to: tizza2k

here is 2 more for you: listverse.com...listverse.com... that-are-allegedly-alien/

blog.world-mysteries.com/.../top-10-unexplained-ancient-artifacts-fact-or- fiction/‎CachedSimilar

GO FOR IT TIGER,you are right on the Money now.

Just stick with the Title of your thread in your lifes Journey and you will figure out everything you wnt to know,once you are off the mind -altering Pseudo-reality you were born into you will QUICKLY be able to figure things out which you never even aknowledged or considered before in your life.

Now your job it to help everyone figure out exactly WHO HAS DONE THIS TO HUMANITY,name names and make sure history is written the right ways.

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein

originally posted by: paraphi
If the hammer was really old the wood would have long rotted away. The "team of archaeologists" would not use radiocarbon dating for the rock, which could well have been concrete. In fact, this is such a hoax as to be silly.

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein
There is no way to be able to find a date to old relics with our flawed systems, carbon dating is such a joke I never believe anything they put dates on.

Are you able to give a reason why you think radiocarbon dating is a joke. On the whole it is accurate and this is supported by "in the field" evidence by archaeologists. In fact, do you know anything of the science behind RCD?

Regards

Sure....When about 90% of the carbon dating articles date something like so..

If you mean to assert that 90% of C14 dating reports involve contamination from "old" carbon (as most of those examples are) - absorbed from surrounding solution - then I can tell you've never, ever read even a portion of a single C14 lab report or summary of any C14 analysis.

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein
This is just a minor example of what I am talking about, anytime I read a carbon dated OLD object it is dated between 60,000 and 2 million years old....Now how in the world would anyone look at the range and believe a word they are saying?

Given that C14 dating cannot even be used on articles older than 60,000 years, how can anyone believe a word you're saying?
That shows that when it comes to C14 dating, you actually have no idea at all what you're talking about.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Givin that decay is not constantly

Why read any of the reports as they will all be wrong?

If your "constant" is fluctuating then to use it as a timekeeper is ridiculous


How do c14 and all other decaying isotope timekeepers, work?

So what's so odd about someone getting hammered 400 million years ago?

originally posted by: UNIT76
a reply to: tizza2k



there's a group of people with a vested interest in undermining the established world order & present scheme of things..

what better way to do it than stunts that get everyone talking about ancient aliens, forbidden history & leprechauns,

check the topic about egyptian runes carved in an australian cliff (..pretty much the same thing going on over there)

G,day mate, some would suggest that you have wriiten the first sentence back to front.
i would also suggest that you look a bit further into the very odd out of time and place finds down here in Aussie.
now about this hammer and chisel.
carbon dating is as has been mentioned here already. not that exact

a reply to: tizza2k

The really funny thing about ooparts is that when you first discovered them and read the details, you felt your mind opened, the scales fell from your eyes and your whole world view changed as a result of what you read. But now you face the challenge of reading the balanced evidence rather than the florid one sided woo that did not contain accurate information and was not properly tested. Now if you really are open minded when you read further research you face the reverse process of realising it was all a load of tosh and the people who presented this info in the first place either did not know much about natural processes or simply lied to you.
There are provable, testable explanations for all ooparts i've ever seen, and they will challenge your preconceptions once again. Enjoy the ride.

originally posted by: sirhcsemaj

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein
a reply to: tizza2k
....There is no way to be able to find a date to old relics with our flawed systems, carbon dating is such a joke I never believe anything they put dates on. Not saying this couldn't be possible, just saying the system in which we use is garbage.

Yes, the carbon dating system is a joke. In fact, it constitutes a religion. Like religion, scientists make assumptions that they have no way of ever verifying, especially not within the near short-term. But I guess whatever floats one's boat. "Carbon dating is science. I'll subscribe to that religion."

Why is it joke? Please explain what is wrong with carbon dating.

Now before you reply please note three things:

1. Carbon dating cannot be used on anything that was not originally alive. So NOBODY who knows about carbon dating will use it to age rocks.

2. The physics behind carbon dating is well understood and is a very accurate dating method if there is enough original organic material to test.......like the wooden handle.

3. Carbon dating is limited to ages less than around 50000 years. So if anyone states "blah blah bah carbon dated at 1million years" they are talking out of their rear end. That said the limit is well beyond the age of a creationist earth and thus the creationists always slate it.

a reply to: yorkshirelad


Then why use a dating system that is flawed

Ridioactive decay IS NOT CONSTANT

until you answer that all radioactive decay timekeepers are fundamentally flawed

And , effectively , useless

originally posted by: Another_Nut

Why read any of the reports as they will all be wrong?

If your "constant" is fluctuating then to use it as a timekeeper is ridiculous

C14 doesn't fluctuate that much. Perhaps you mean the half life of C14 is fluctuating?
I read about a weird effect our sun has regarding this, but the effect is so small that it might change a C14 date by a week or two, and only if the C14 date was old enough (say, 30-50 thousand years.)

C14 reports give two dates - the "radiocarbon years" date and the estimated actual years. The radiocarbon years date is fitted to a calibration curve that is based on ages of materials that can be verified through other means, such as pottery styles, actual dated but ancient written materials, geological evidence like varves, coral growth and tree ring analyses.

The calibration curve is adjusted when new info arises.

The variation is always well represented in the date ranges given from C14 testing. The much older dates come with much wider ranges of reliability - given as plus or minus so many years.

It's not as if you can use C14 to pin down to the exact year how old a 40,000 year old object is.

But you can get almost that close with something 5,000 years old.

originally posted by: Another_Nut

How do c14 and all other decaying isotope timekeepers, work?

C14 decays into C12 at a known rate, a rate verified thousands of times through a well-known process that has been completely explained in particle physics.
C14 (and C12) is ingested by living organisms through either eating or breathing. Plants take it in during photosynthesis. Ingestion (of course) stops when the organism dies. The theory is that, at death the ratio of C14 to C12 in the organism is set. So, years later, some of the C14 will have decayed into C12. Since we know how long it takes for C14 to decay (because we know its half-life,) it is possible to estimate how long it has been since the material last ingested carbon.

Obviously, you have to have an assumption about what the ratio of C14 to C12 was during the organism's lifetime in order to have a starting point from which you can calculate how much C14 had decayed into C12, thus the calibration curves I mentioned.

It's not exact, but it is certainly no where near useless. If one cares to examine the world in enough detail, it is possible to estimate the fluctuations in the C14 to C12 ratio over pretty much the entire span of years C14 can be used for.

See, since it does decay, if the material is too old, there might be no C14 left in it at all. That's an oversimplification of it, but that's why it's no good beyond about 60,000 years before the present. It's actually about eight half-lifes and then it's shot. Beyond that age, the material has too little C14 in it to reliably test.

What I meant by old carbon contamination is that shellfish absorb old carbon more than most organisms because they live on the sea floor where shells have been crumbling for eons, leaving behind carbon that's already yielded most if not all of its C14. Some animals eat coral, which also absorbs old carbon from seawater for similar reasons.

Animals that eat shellfish a lot also get their C14 ratios skewed because of the low C14 in the shellfish they ate.

Animals that live in caves like fish in cave streams, even streams coming out of caves, can also have this problem. Same for objects like wooden spears or even bones, both of which intake old carbon from the water they're in (some of which cannot be separated from the original carbon in the object.) Limestone has a high carbon content and is dissolved in cave water (that's how caves are formed.) And limestone (understandably) contains very little C14.

It is impossible to use C14 dating on an organism that is still alive. These days, we are constantly spewing out old carbon - some of the oldest carbon in the world comes out of our smokestacks and tailpipes. We are ruining C14 dating for any future civilization unless they can find our records of atmospheric carbon isotopes pretaining to our own time period.

Harte

Oops

originally posted by: UNIT76
a reply to: tizza2k

there's a group of people with a vested interest in undermining the established world order & present scheme of things..
what better way to do it than stunts that get everyone talking about ancient aliens, forbidden history & leprechauns,
check the topic about egyptian runes carved in an australian cliff (..pretty much the same thing going on over there)

Ancient Egyptian doesn't use runes. It uses hieroglyphs.

carbon dating is a joke.

When mount st/helen erupted carbon dating assume a date thousands and thousands of years ahead of formation... Lmao.
Good luck with radio carbon dating theories about age. It honestly is a joke.

Anything that has to many contradictions is faulty and being used for the wrong purpose. Im sure we could use carbon 14 for many things but dating is not one of them.

Last I checked, you can't carbon date rocks. Only organic material.

The pages on this site go into great depth on two of the items on the OP's list (the hammer and the footprints);

The London Hammer: An Alleged Out-of-Place Artifact
The Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" Controversy
Courtesy of Paleo.cc.

Two very old, very tired and very much debunked claims.

I'm not sure why people bring up such poor material constantly

C-14 dating is just fine if you do it right, however if you try to determine the age of those items older than 60,000 years old you will get an error, and analogy would be if you tried to take the temperature of liquid nitrogen with a house hold thermometer and it reads -40 F is the temperature of liquid nitrogen -40 F? Nope the instrument you are using cannot measure within the range....

originally posted by: AnuTyr
carbon dating is a joke.
When mount st/helen erupted carbon dating assume a date thousands and thousands of years ahead of formation...

Radiocarbon dating is used against organic material, not rock. You are trying to introduce another field. Before saying something is flawed, you really need to look at what it is. Whatever happened to the inquiring mind? Turn off YouTube for a day and do some real investigation.

Regards

I'm reading a "debunk" for this...someone posted a link...

London artifact

However, for years Baugh refused to allow the hammer to be C14 dated. In an exchange of letters between creationist Walter Brown and Jim Lippard in Creation/Evolution, Brown (1989) suggested that the hammer handle has not been dated because Baugh had three "understandable" conditions for dating it: that it be done with mass spectrometry, that Baugh be present during the dating, and that someone else pay for it. However, Lippard countered that no one has objected to the first two conditions, and that Baugh had no right to expect the third, since he's the one making the claims, and thus the one obligated to back them up

So...in conclusion....for all interested parties. This has not been proven HOAX...at least not yet.

The hammer is real, and it's been inspected a few times.

In essence, this could have been inspected, but apparently nobody wanted to pay for the lab.


This is essentially the "debunk" :

1. Convincing documentation that the hammer was once naturally embedded in an ancient rock formation, or

- this is lacking, not surprisingly.

2. Independent scientific evidence indicating a problematic age for the hammer.

- as quoted before...

originally posted by: AnuTyr
carbon dating is a joke.

What few realize is that there is something FAR more serious going on than just a joke.

Science has become nothing but a huge mind control OP with a stealth agenda.

Mainstream academia has been completely taken over and used as a mind control tool against the masses.

Science is now being used to cover up the truth about the real history of the Earth.

"The model of human prehistory built-up by scholars over the past two centuries is sadly and completely wrong, and a deliberate tool of disinformation and mind control. ...they demonstrate a systematic destruction of proofs that show another reality than that the official story. Falsifications and even destruction of such proofs has been common for more than two hundred years." LINK

"...the Illuminati eventually controlled the science departments in all colleges and institutions of higher learning. The plan was to stifle scientific knowledge and then twist what was left to fit the science they wanted the people to believe. They accomplished this by adopting new rules in regards to scientific research.

Secret Societies - Who Controls Knowledge?

In 1990, samples of various dinosaur bones were submitted for Carbon-14 dating to the University of Arizona’s department of geosciences’ laboratory of isotope geochemistry. Bones from an Allosaurus and an Acrocanthosaurus were among those sent to the university’s testing facilities to undergo a “blind” dating procedure (which means that the technicians performing the tests did not know that the bones had come from dinosaurs). Not realizing that the samples were from dinosaurs prevented “evolutionary bias”, and helped ensure that the results were as accurate as possible (within the recognized assumptions and limits of the C-14 dating method).

On the official stationery of the University of Arizona—a copy of the test results for the Allosaurus bones records amazingly that the oldest C-14 date assigned to those bones was a mere 16,120 years (and only 23,760 years for the Acrocanthosaurus fossils; see Dahmer, et al., 1990). Both dates are a far cry from the millions of years that evolutionists suggest should be assigned to dinosaur fossils. What really kills me about this admission is that the Darwinists are always howling about 'peer review'. So, when we give them truly unbiased peer review, in their very own labs nonetheless, they fall flat on their face. www.philadelphiaspeaks.com...

originally posted by: tizza2k
I was sent this and I thought it would interest alot of you guys :-)

Sorry in advance if this has already been posted.


In June 1936 Max Hahn and his wife Emma were on a walk beside a waterfall near to London, Texas, 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. What they found within shocked the archaeological and scientific community. Embedded in the rock was what appeared to be some type of ancient man made hammer.

A team of archaeologists analysed and dated it. The rock encasing the hammer was dated to more than 400 million years old. The hammer itself turned out to be more than 500 million years old. Additionally, a section of the wooden handle had begun the metamorphosis into coal. The hammer’s head, made of more than 96% iron, is far more pure than anything nature could have achieved without assistance from relatively modern smelting methods.

Pictures and more are via this link :-

www.maltanow.com.mt...

Here's a nice piece about the artefact.
It's not ancient (the artefact, not the article...).
The London Hammer