It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

250,000 Year old aluminium object found

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lice000
a reply to: MaximRecoil

I see, so these ancient aliens may not be so ancient at all...they could be from the future


This statement of yours presupposes the existence of "ancient aliens", which means it doesn't logically follow from anything I typed (i.e., it is a non sequitur).




posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Lice000

Enjoyed your wit, thanks for the chuckles ... fastest four pages I read here in a while.




posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Well it's even on the Mail Online, so surely must be true!

www.dailymail.co.uk...



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: 83Liberty
Well it's even on the Mail Online, so surely must be true!

www.dailymail.co.uk...


That is not the only site it is on, it is on many other prestigious journalistic websites such as.
www.mirror.co.uk...
CNN is too busy turning our youth into gay communists to run the story.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 03:59 PM
link   
It the mounting plate for a generation 2 Flux Capacitor, commonly used in time machines. Looks like someone decided to stay and the time machine either rotted away or was scraped.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lice000

originally posted by: 83Liberty
Well it's even on the Mail Online, so surely must be true!

www.dailymail.co.uk...


That is not the only site it is on, it is on many other prestigious journalistic websites such as.
www.mirror.co.uk...
CNN is too busy turning our youth into gay communists to run the story.


It is on several Romanian sites as well, and the public TV station TVR Cluj thought it was newsworthy enough to do a news segment on it:

ziuadecj.realitatea.net...

If it is in fact older than Alcoa, it is obviously well beyond newsworthy. It is clearly made of primarily aluminum; you can tell that by the manner in which it corroded (including the corrosion byproducts) as well as the hue of the bare metal in the uncorroded interior of the hole that was recently drilled in one side.

Determining that it is primarily aluminum isn't hard to do either; all you have to do is compare its mass to its volume (i.e., determine its density). Aluminum is far lighter for a given volume (i.e., less dense) than any other metal which was used for manufacturing products prior to Alcoa coming along, such as iron/steel; copper and copper-based alloys; lead, tin, and their alloys; gold, silver, and their alloys, etc. Magnesium is lighter than aluminum, and is considered to be the "lightest useful metal", in terms of creating strong, structural type components, but it is only useful for that when alloyed with aluminum (about 9%). Magnesium alloys such as this didn't come along until the early 1900s.

It is also clearly a real object, given that it is shown being handled by people in that news video, and there are quite a few different pictures of it from various angles on other sites as well. I suppose they're just being foolish, right? They should ask you about it and you can, without any basis whatsoever, inform them that it is nothing; something to be the object of a particularly low-rent variety of sarcasm.
edit on 10/20/2016 by MaximRecoil because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: FauxMulder
The object definitely looks interesting. Some say it is proof that UFO's visited us far in the past. What are your thoughts on this object?

I'll reserve judgment until more credible sources of information arise.
Until then, if it screams 'modern', and the alloying does indicate such, logic demands we wait for further credible info to indicate otherwise.
If you hear hoofbeats in Texas, odds are not Zebra.


edit on 20-10-2016 by namelesss because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: FauxMulder
The object definitely looks interesting. Some say it is proof that UFO's visited us far in the past. What are your thoughts on this object?

I'll reserve judgment until more credible sources of information arise.
Until then, if it screams 'modern', and the alloying does indicate such, logic demands we wait for further credible info to indicate otherwise.
If you hear hoofbeats in Texas, odds are not Zebra.



The fact that it's on display at the National Museum of Romanian History lends some credibility. I'm sure they don't display just any old object off the street:


It is the most important museum of history and archeology in Romania, both by size (developed area) and by heritage; It is also one of the most important actors of contemporary Romanian archeology and archeology leader (a term which refers to archaeological excavations associated investments to prevent destruction of historical heritage).


Various ATS forum members may not see anything special about it, but it seems that the people who have actually handled it and studied it see something special about it. They've already kept it for 43 years, something I wouldn't expect anyone to do with an easily-explainable, highly corroded piece of aluminum alloy scrap metal, and now it's in a museum.



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 12:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: MaximRecoil
The fact that it's on display at the National Museum of Romanian History lends some credibility. I'm sure they don't display just any old object off the street:

Aside from that being the logical fallacy of an 'appeal to authority', I agree with you that it lends "some" credibility. Where we seem to differ is the meaning of 'some'. To me, I would imagine that the National Museum of Romanian History would not have the resources at it's disposal to go too deeply into any particular 'mystery'. The economic climate...


It is the most important museum of history and archeology in Romania, both by size (developed area) and by heritage;

(Smiles) My Texas neighbor's back yard is larger than Romania. It is a tiny bubble in a world filled with science and scientists. I will expect that if this is so, then we will be hearing lots more in the future.
Or the future might just be mercifully silent, as it is on so many 'claims'.
I'd say great, lets solve this one, boys and girls.
But firse I'd want to be more sure of whether or not there really is something to 'solve'.

It is also one of the most important actors of contemporary Romanian archeology and archeology leader (a term which refers to archaeological excavations associated investments to prevent destruction of historical heritage).


Various ATS forum members may not see anything special about it, but it seems that the people who have actually handled it and studied it see something special about it.

That is just too intensely subjective for me to respond.


They've already kept it for 43 years, something I wouldn't expect anyone to do with an easily-explainable, highly corroded piece of aluminum alloy scrap metal, and now it's in a museum.

So the scrap metal sits, lacking any drama, until now, when the Museum might gain some $ by dragging up 'Nessie'?
Perhaps.
Perhaps they have something 'special'?
I dunno.
I'll stay tuned!

"Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true." - Demosthenes

tat tvam asi (en.wikipedia.org...)



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 01:38 AM
link   
a reply to: MaximRecoil

Where was it again? Romania?
Yea...
I doubt the science lab is an accurate one..
I'm just really having major doubts about all that's claimed about this excavator tooth.
I doubt it's made of aluminium, I doubt it's older than 50 years, although I do think it was created by a semi-intelligent race.
Us.



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 01:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: namelesss
Aside from that being the logical fallacy of an 'appeal to authority',


You wanted more credible sources. How can more credible sources be provided without you thinking it is an "appeal to authority" fallacy? By the way, "appeal to authority" is only a fallacy if it isn't a legitimate authority. Respectable museums of history are generally accepted as an authority in the area of the type of items they display. They have labeled this aluminum thing as "origins unknown", which carries a lot more weight than if Joe Sixpack off the street says he doesn't know what it is. With a good-sized chunk of aluminum like that, obviously machined or cast into a particular design intended for a particular function, in 43 years, you'd expect that someone would have figured out what it is, if it were actually an unremarkable item.


I will expect that if this is so, then we will be hearing lots more in the future.
Or the future might just be mercifully silent, as it is on so many 'claims'.
I'd say great, lets solve this one, boys and girls.
But firse I'd want to be more sure of whether or not there really is something to 'solve'.


What else can they do? They've had it dated multiple times, and in all cases it was deemed to be far older than Alcoa. If it is really 400 years old at the youngest, then it shouldn't exist according to mainstream history.

I would like to see the details of the tests they've done on it, especially the list of the 12 metals said to be in the alloy. But regardless of that, this won't go anywhere. The general public doesn't accept anything earthshaking as true unless it is confirmed by mainstream media outlets and/or the government and/or the military. In this case, skeptics can always suggest the dating procedure was invalid, no matter who does it or what method they use. There's no such thing as an infallible dating method, so that's the only shadow of doubt it needs to be widely ignored.

As for me, the fact that it hasn't been identified in the 43 years since it has been discovered, not even roughly identified into a category of its basic function, says a lot. The Armchair Internet Expert claims that it is an excavator bucket tooth are laughable, given that it's made primarily of aluminum, doesn't have the holes for the retaining pin to attach it to a bucket in the first place, and it has two original holes which serve no function for a bucket tooth, other than to make it worse at being a bucket tooth by collecting rocks and dirt in those holes.
edit on 10/21/2016 by MaximRecoil because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 01:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: GreenGunther
a reply to: MaximRecoil

Where was it again? Romania?
Yea...
I doubt the science lab is an accurate one..


Your baseless doubt is noted.


I'm just really having major doubts about all that's claimed about this excavator tooth.


From my previous post:

The Armchair Internet Expert claims that it is an excavator bucket tooth are laughable, given that it's made primarily of aluminum, doesn't have the holes for the retaining pin to attach it to a bucket in the first place, and it has two original holes which serve no function for a bucket tooth, other than to make it worse at being a bucket tooth by collecting rocks and dirt in those holes.


I doubt it's made of aluminium, I doubt it's older than 50 years, although I do think it was created by a semi-intelligent race.
Us.


From another previous post of mine:

It is clearly made of primarily aluminum; you can tell that by the manner in which it corroded (including the corrosion byproducts) as well as the hue of the bare metal in the uncorroded interior of the hole that was recently drilled in one side.



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 02:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Lice000

Well, thank youi for making me laugh like a moron


Priceless....

BT



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 04:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: MaximRecoil

originally posted by: namelesss
Aside from that being the logical fallacy of an 'appeal to authority',


You wanted more credible sources. How can more credible sources be provided without you thinking it is an "appeal to authority" fallacy?

If one uses the data from the 'reliable' sources to come to one's own (tentative) conclusions, that takes it beyond the fallacy. If one merely parrots the 'expert' because he is the expert, therein lies the fallacy.


By the way, "appeal to authority" is only a fallacy if it isn't a legitimate authority.

No! Everyone's 'authority' is 'legitimate', to hear them tell it! *__-


Respectable museums of history are generally accepted as an authority in the area of the type of items they display. They have labeled this aluminum thing as "origins unknown", which carries a lot more weight than if Joe Sixpack off the street says he doesn't know what it is.

They are equal, no one seems to know. One's ignorance is the same thing as anyone else's ignorance.
The 'genius' doesn't know, the fool doesn't know.
Give it to MIT or someplace with the equipment to remove the mystery.
Anyway, if you are looking for 'weight' for mystery, MIT or CalTech... takes it head over heals over the Romanian museum! Romania.


With a good-sized chunk of aluminum like that, obviously machined or cast into a particular design intended for a particular function, in 43 years, you'd expect that someone would have figured out what it is, if it were actually an unremarkable item.

Or... or... it sat in a box in the back of the closet for 43 years.
There isn't a Romania-full of Indiana Joneses with unlimited expense accounts examining the contents of every dusty box.
If you have what you think is a diamond, you send it to the world's leading experts for opinion.



I will expect that if this is so, then we will be hearing lots more in the future.
Or the future might just be mercifully silent, as it is on so many 'claims'.
I'd say great, lets solve this one, boys and girls.
But firse I'd want to be more sure of whether or not there really is something to 'solve'.


What else can they do? They've had it dated multiple times, and in all cases it was deemed to be far older than Alcoa. If it is really 400 years old at the youngest, then it shouldn't exist according to mainstream history.

That "if" is the pivot. And it's a mighty big "if"! *__-


I would like to see the details of the tests they've done on it, especially the list of the 12 metals said to be in the alloy. But regardless of that, this won't go anywhere.

We seem to be in agreement, there!
Everyone just ate up the 21 gram 'soul' leaving the body, but when the actual tests were examined, it was found to be 'wanting' on many levels.... just poor science (makes great imaginary worlds). And the results refuted, yet how many still 'believe' the 21 gram 'soul' story?
I would have to go through the entire thing with an extremely fine comb... though, others equally and more qualified will do so, if necessary.
Before the 'consensus' declares Martians or 'time-travellers'...


The general public doesn't accept anything earthshaking as true unless it is confirmed by mainstream media outlets and/or the government and/or the military.

Yes, folks incapable of thinking for themselves.


In this case, skeptics can always suggest the dating procedure was invalid, no matter who does it or what method they use. There's no such thing as an infallible dating method, so that's the only shadow of doubt it needs to be widely ignored.

Yes, those with an agenda, or 'beliefs' to feed, can use statistics to say and support anything.
Honest, sane folks just keep their eyes open.


As for me, the fact that it hasn't been identified in the 43 years since it has been discovered, not even roughly identified into a category of its basic function, says a lot. The Armchair Internet Expert claims that it is an excavator bucket tooth are laughable, given that it's made primarily of aluminum, doesn't have the holes for the retaining pin to attach it to a bucket in the first place, and it has two original holes which serve no function for a bucket tooth, other than to make it worse at being a bucket tooth by collecting rocks and dirt in those holes.

Last excavator bucket teeth I remember were made of very hard and wear resistant steel/carbide, not 'aluminum'!
I'm waiting with an open mind. It might take a year, or a century to 'solve the mystery'.
No doubt there will be many rolling eyes! *__-



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 07:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: namelesss
If one uses the data from the 'reliable' sources to come to one's own (tentative) conclusions, that takes it beyond the fallacy. If one merely parrots the 'expert' because he is the expert, therein lies the fallacy.


Again, it is only a fallacy if the authority isn't a legitimate authority.


They are equal, no one seems to know. One's ignorance is the same thing as anyone else's ignorance.
The 'genius' doesn't know, the fool doesn't know.


No, they are not equal. If you think you have a rare coin and you show it to some random person off the street who knows nothing about coins, and he says, "I've never seen anything like that before," it is meaningless. However, if you take it to coin expert and he says he's never seen anything like it, then that carries a lot more weight, for obvious reasons.


Give it to MIT or someplace with the equipment to remove the mystery.


What equipment would that be? By the way, my context wasn't in the area of lab tests, it was in the area of identifying it by sight. In 43 years, no one has been able to do that, even though it was found in Romania, and it is a part large enough that it would seem to belong to a rather large and conspicuous machine. You don't find it odd that people in Romania can't identify such a part that was found in their own country which shouldn't have been more than 85 years old at the time? And how did it get 33 feet down into the ground?


Anyway, if you are looking for 'weight' for mystery, MIT or CalTech... takes it head over heals over the Romanian museum! Romania.


Do you think Romanians are particularly stupid? From the article linked to in the OP:


According to tests, the object is made of 12 metals, 90% aluminium, and it was dated by Romanian officials as being 250,000 years old. The initial results were later confirmed by a lab in Lausanne, Switzerland.


Do you think the Swiss are particularly stupid?


Or... or... it sat in a box in the back of the closet for 43 years.


Why keep it at all?


There isn't a Romania-full of Indiana Joneses with unlimited expense accounts examining the contents of every dusty box.
If you have what you think is a diamond, you send it to the world's leading experts for opinion.


They did send it around, according to the article linked to in the OP. In all cases, it was determined to be far older than it was supposed to be. On the one hand you talk about not having an unlimited expense account, and on the other hand you suggest that they should be sending it to the world's leading experts for opinion. Labs don't do tests for free, and in the end, what do you have? An opinion and/or the results of a fallible test, neither of which actually prove anything.


Last excavator bucket teeth I remember were made of very hard and wear resistant steel/carbide, not 'aluminum'!
I'm waiting with an open mind. It might take a year, or a century to 'solve the mystery'.
No doubt there will be many rolling eyes! *__-


Yes, they are made of steel; hardened steel at that. Making bucket teeth from aluminum would be ridiculous. Clawing into rocky ground under the tremendous force of hydraulic pistons would tear aluminum to shreds and/or crack/break it in short order. Besides, that object has no set of holes for a retaining pin to attach it to a bucket anyway. People offering the bucket tooth explanation were apparently fooled by that hole which has been recently drilled into one of the two "ears", not realizing that both "ears" need a hole in order to accommodate a retaining pin, or that the complete lack of corrosion in the interior of the hole means it was drilled post-discovery. They also don't have an explanation for the two original holes that it does have, one large, one small, perpendicular to, and intersecting each other, near the middle of the object.



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 07:23 PM
link   
By looking at some more of the Romanian sites (with semi-coherent translating by Google), I found various claims of the alloy composition. In one case there were multiple alloy compositions listed on the same site, along the names of the labs that did the tests:


The National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Department archaeometallurgy. The results were the following: aluminum - 80.5%, tin - 6.5%, copper - 6%, silicon - 4%, zinc - 2%, lead - 0.5% Antimony - 0.5%, in addition they were highlighted traces of silver, nickel, manganese and iron.



MMPG - ICPMMN - Baia Mare - AND RESEARCH CENTER FOR RADIOACTIVE METAL - Magurele - Bucharest - Analysis Bulletin no. 334 on A-1975-sample symbol CNST - Bucharest: Al - 74.17% Cu - 4.62% Zn - 1.81% Pb - 0.11% Sn - 0.33% Ni - 0 , 0024% Bi - 0.0003% Ag - 0.0002%, Co - 0.0023%, Cd - 0.11% Zr - 0.20%. Ga - traces and Si - now. Note: Due to lack of material, they could not dose other elements, although their presence was detected during analysis. Section chief, Dr. Ing. Niederkorn I. Chief collectively researchers. Ing. Neciu St., Researcher. Princ., M. Gradin.



RESEARCH CENTER FOR RADIOACTIVE METAL - Magurele Commune - Analysis Bulletin nr.380, sample NK-2, brought by Dr. Eng. John Niederkorn: Al - 92.74% Si - 2.84%, Cu - 6.2% Zn - 0.95% Pb - 0.41% Sn - 0.33% Ni - 0.002% Bi - 0.0003, Ag - 0.0002%, Co - 0.002% Cd - 0.055, Zr - 0.20%.


Link< br />

The object was sent to the Institute of Archaeology in Cluj-Napoca, to be examined. Dr. Niederkorn analyzed the composition of this artifact and concluded that it is a very complex metal alloy. 12 elements came together to form the "heel aluminum Aiud". It is, thus, composed of 89% aluminum, 6.2% copper, 2.84% silicon, 1.81% zinc, 0.41% lead, 0.33% tin, 0.2% zirconium, 0.11% cadmium, nickel 0.0024%, 0.0023% cobalt, 0.0003% bismuth and gallium traces. In addition, this strange object is covered with a thin layer of aluminum oxide which is at least 300-400 old years.


Link

So it's all over the place, depending on who is doing the testing, with aluminum percentage ranging from 74.17% to 92.74%, which is a big difference. The ones that go out to the ten-thousandths place would seem to be the most accurate, though three of them do that and they still differ drastically from each other. The only thing I see in common among all of them, aside from aluminum being the primary metal, is copper being the second-most prominent metal, ranging from 4.62% to 6.5%, depending on the test.

On this Wikipedia page - en.wikipedia.org... - there is a list of some aluminum alloys by composition, and most of them have a very low copper percentage, except for 2014, 2024, and 2219 (2000 series), all of which have copper percentages similar to the test results of this mystery object. Wikipedia says this about the 2000 series alloy:


2000 series are alloyed with copper, can be precipitation hardened to strengths comparable to steel. Formerly referred to as duralumin, they were once the most common aerospace alloys, but were susceptible to stress corrosion cracking and are increasingly replaced by 7000 series in new designs.


As for the object's age, it seems they are going by the thickness of the aluminum oxide layer on it, which is said to be over 1mm thick. Various Romanian sites mentioned that, for example:


A totally unusual was the existence of an abnormal layer of aluminum oxide on the entire surface of the object. It is known that this metal oxidizes very hard in depth, usually covering itself with a protective oxide surface layer that limits the oxidation phenomenon of mass penetration of metal. The most plausible explanation seems to be from this point of view, very old object ... But aluminum was discovered in the laboratory in 1825 by Oersted, and its production industrially started only in 1883 ... in a century it was virtually impossible to produce an oxide layer so thick.

Has been said on this occasion that some experts have estimated by evaluating the aluminum oxide layer thicker than a millimeter object discovered at Aiud could have fantastic age of 250,000 years!


Link< br />
So it seems to be a cast and/or machined piece of Duralumin, found 33 feet down alongside mastodon bones, with a 1mm+ thick layer of aluminum oxide, and in 43 years, no one has identified it, even though, based on its size, it would seem to belong to a large and conspicuous machine, and should be easy to identify, especially by the people native to the country in which it was found. It's very bizarre.

ETA: This is interesting:


Corrosion protection
Although the addition of copper improves strength, it also makes these alloys susceptible to corrosion. For sheet products, corrosion resistance can be greatly enhanced by metallurgical bonding of a high-purity aluminium surface layer. These sheets are referred to as alclad, and are commonly used by the aircraft industry.

en.wikipedia.org...


That could explain the varying alloy composition results (though it says it's for sheet products, so it may not apply here), because the surface layer would be a different alloy than the rest of it. I wonder if there could be intermetallic alloys between the surface layer and the core as well.

Also interesting is that that same article says that Duralumin's composition and heat treatment were a German wartime secret.
edit on 10/21/2016 by MaximRecoil because: ETA



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   
I worked in the construction field as a foreman dealing with multiple excavators daily (before university), and I can tell you, that image screams excavator tooth.

I now work as a professional in a competitive, logic driven field. However, I lack a lot of post-secondary education in the sciences, aside from a geology, and some archeology options. But in those classes, I always thought the dating methods they used were a big joke; that they couldn't be relied on, even within the range of error they provided. There was also some rumblings from the archeology professors that date ranges (following testing) were often discouraged and suppressed when they didn't fit with the conventional thinking in the field; that the "proper" dating of an artifact could be the difference between funding or not.

I used to joke with my geologist/geophysicist friend about how little his field could actually tell us about the history and timeline of the universe. He took great offence to the idea that some "layman" like myself could come to such a conclusion. And it's true, all I could rely on was my idea of common sense with these dating methods (albeit I did have some understanding of how they worked).

This story, and the ridiculous dating they came up with for it, comes as some great vindication for me and my idea of common sense. I'll be forwarding it to him after this.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: jwlaffer
I worked in the construction field as a foreman dealing with multiple excavators daily (before university), and I can tell you, that image screams excavator tooth.


Get yourself a magnet, find an excavator, and see if it sticks to the bucket teeth. I bet that it will, because bucket teeth are made of steel. I've never seen bucket teeth made of aluminum.

Please explain how that aluminum object would attach to a bucket, and please explain what function the two original, perpendicular-to-and-intersecting- each-other holes in the middle of the object would serve on a bucket tooth, other than to weaken it and get crammed full of rocks and dirt?
edit on 10/22/2016 by MaximRecoil because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Atsbhct

Excavator bucket teeth are made from hardened steel, not aluminium.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: MaximRecoil

So it seems to be a cast and/or machined piece of Duralumin, found 33 feet down alongside mastodon bones, with a 1mm+ thick layer of aluminum oxide, and in 43 years, no one has identified it, even though, based on its size,

Corrosion will form much faster if electrical current is present.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join