300.000 years old nano-technology

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: stosh64

Really? And who is the one making money with that?

Well, it looks like at least the person who authored OP's link was hoping for a payday;



I've always been fascinated with this story and other similar ones. Ive clearly got no idea of the validity of the story or the claims, but if it's not what it's claimed to be, I'd lean more towards misidentification rather than hoax,

originally posted by: Archivalist
Fraud or not, none of this changes the very real existence of the waffle rock.

There are theory's that the formation of waffle rock is merely down to crystalline structuring BUT it is less known that there were even more artificial appearing part's of the once huge structure that were destroyed and buried during the construction of the reservoir and that the piece that is on display was one of the more chaotic and less artificial looking parts, so really not a good representative portion of the entire structure.

We may never know the truth about waffle rock, was it a crystalline formation, was it ancient metalwork that rusted away and left it's impression in ancient stone.
It is an enigma and you know perhaps that is for the best as if we knew we would probably have very little to debate.

originally posted by: stosh64

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: stosh64

Really? And who is the one making money with that?

Do a little research into cough "Dr" cough Johannes Fiebag

ETA: This has been covered many times on ATS over the years.

If only Johannes could have reached Dr. Sebi in time. Dr. Sebi would have cured him and we would all have the answers right now.

originally posted by: Peeple
1991 somewhere in the Ural mountains geologists made an astonishing discovery

About 1/10.000th of an inch big they are called ice-age nano-technology.
The principal investigator Dr. Fiebag died in 1999 without reaching a satisfying conclusion. The location of the artifacts is since unknown.
There are only two possibilities
Alien technology or ancient advanced civilisation.
source

False dichotomy.
These are scraps washed up next to a riverbed.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Harte I sometimes agree and sometimes disagree.

On this matter you may be wrong, if not emphatically but for one simple reason and that being that you know no more about these than we do though I have to say that was actually originally my own first thought as there were a lot of cold war secret facility's in the Ural mountains and still are, certainly military sites though it would be a strange place to dump such waste so far from any road access and definitely not practical.

These are claimed to have come from below the ground in, according to the reports, an undisturbed layer though yes there is a river nearby so it is conceivable that they are later but only if the layer was disturbed which it was claimed to have not been.

Now while it is tempting to think another Coso Geode which we now know was most likely a champion Spark plug circa 1920's in this case I think there is a very good chance that is actually not the case.

I do not believe it is a wrong identification given that actual Russian experts have inspected the finds and/or therefore also erroneous dating and there are no known facility's any where near to this site or have every been even upriver according to the available information but given that neither of us have been there and that even if there were such a site the nature of the cold war and the secrecy of communist Russia means that even today's Russian citizen's would likely never know about it especially given the use of condemned prisoners as forced labor on many secret soviet era projects such as military sites though yes they could be the remains of a cold war device or installation and the isolated region may have been for several reason's as the US and her allies such as we Brits also made use of isolated regions for testing and installation purposes such as listening station's to detect nuclear blasts in the soviet union (project moghul was only one attempt there were ground based variant's as well) but I feel that this is not the case.

The truth Harte is that is a blanket denial and we simply do not have enough evidence EITHER way to say that it is the case, to prove undeniable out of place object or to prove simple industrial waste and so it remain's a fascinating and enigmatic discovery definitely worthy of further research.

And the fact remain's that they are real objects found in a very unlikely and unexplained location were there is no evidence of roads according to the reports on the find and that plays it in favor of a genuine oopart.

Though it is possible a site was reached by a crude and now overgrown track, that a cold war operation took place somewhere nearby or even underground and that this is waste but that dating argues against that.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Harte

Harte I sometimes agree and sometimes disagree.

On this matter you may be wrong, if not emphatically but for one simple reason and that being that you know no more about these than we do though I have to say that was actually originally my own first thought as there were a lot of cold war secret facility's in the Ural mountains and still are, certainly military sites though it would be a strange place to dump such waste so far from any road access and definitely not practical.

These are claimed to have come from below the ground in, according to the reports, an undisturbed layer though yes there is a river nearby so it is conceivable that they are later but only if the layer was disturbed which it was claimed to have not been.

There are multiple stories about where these were supposedly found. This indicates that the location has been changed to meet the requirements of the fringe authors that have made claims about them.

I guess you know you can assume that I've looked into this claim. The earliest description is next to a river. "Buried" in a gravel bed. Obviously, that description allows for a more mundane explanation and therefore had to be changed if a claimant wants to sound credible.

I think it's logical to stipulate that later versions were changed, and not earlier ones.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

They are real but as you point out the explanation as to there origin and what they really are may be more down to earth than some of the claim's made about them.

Sadly the point you make is all too clear and there is no arguing with it whatsoever, a find may be of unknown origin but by the time it has done it's round's of the internet it has snowballed into several different thing's often obscuring any truth that may be there to be had.

And of course less scrupulous people make money from those claim's one method being the infamous youtube which we pretty much mostly use as a source of video information even if we take that information with a rather large shovel full of salt most of the time, they do this usually through advertising revenue raised by making a video go as they say viral but this mean's there is a financial incentive to exaggerate the facts (and yes I am being charitable as it is often far worse than exaggeration).

A great example of going far beyond exaggeration was the infamous fake Apollo 20 videos.

This is an extreme example of exaggeration but I suppose we should expect that the same kind of sensationalism has indeed tainted any genuine research into possibly out of time and place objects that do not fit into mainstream academia's view of prehistory.

And as an example here are two videos, the first that infamous Apollo 20 and the second a video that is from someone that already believed the previous theory that the same object was indeed a possible crashed space craft but only had real Apollo images to go by, he, she or they took the opinion that the fake Apollo 20 video was a deliberate smokescreen but as examples and of course nothing to with this thread they are nevertheless highly interesting case studies as to the extreme's someone may go to too twist the truth in the interests of making a financial profit.

As they are not relevant to this thread here are the url's to the two first the absolute fake and second the believers own video on the subject and not masking there anger at the makers of the fake video, I am deliberately not embedding them as the site has plenty of threads dedicated to there specific subject matter which is not relevant to this thread and they are uploaded merely as a case study.

First the infamous fake, this was uploaded about 9 years ago so may not be the original upload of that scam.
youtu.be...

And second the believers video worth watching - especially for someone like me whom believes that there most certainly is something up there even if I am undecided on this particular object.
youtu.be...

So I find your argument without flaw and yes I also remember the claim it was found in a gravel layer but later claim's did seem to morph as I recall, without knowing the exact location even if we knew the history of the particular region it therefore remains a highly controversial subject.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Harte

They are real but as you point out the explanation as to there origin and what they really are may be more down to earth than some of the claim's made about them.

Sadly the point you make is all too clear and there is no arguing with it whatsoever, a find may be of unknown origin but by the time it has done it's round's of the internet it has snowballed into several different thing's often obscuring any truth that may be there to be had.

And of course less scrupulous people make money from those claim's one method being the infamous youtube which we pretty much mostly use as a source of video information even if we take that information with a rather large shovel full of salt most of the time, they do this usually through advertising revenue raised by making a video go as they say viral but this mean's there is a financial incentive to exaggerate the facts (and yes I am being charitable as it is often far worse than exaggeration).

A great example of going far beyond exaggeration was the infamous fake Apollo 20 videos.

This is an extreme example of exaggeration but I suppose we should expect that the same kind of sensationalism has indeed tainted any genuine research into possibly out of time and place objects that do not fit into mainstream academia's view of prehistory.

And as an example here are two videos, the first that infamous Apollo 20 and the second a video that is from someone that already believed the previous theory that the same object was indeed a possible crashed space craft but only had real Apollo images to go by, he, she or they took the opinion that the fake Apollo 20 video was a deliberate smokescreen but as examples and of course nothing to with this thread they are nevertheless highly interesting case studies as to the extreme's someone may go to too twist the truth in the interests of making a financial profit.

As they are not relevant to this thread here are the url's to the two first the absolute fake and second the believers own video on the subject and not masking there anger at the makers of the fake video, I am deliberately not embedding them as the site has plenty of threads dedicated to there specific subject matter which is not relevant to this thread and they are uploaded merely as a case study.

First the infamous fake, this was uploaded about 9 years ago so may not be the original upload of that scam.
youtu.be...

And second the believers video worth watching - especially for someone like me whom believes that there most certainly is something up there even if I am undecided on this particular object.
youtu.be...

So I find your argument without flaw and yes I also remember the claim it was found in a gravel layer but later claim's did seem to morph as I recall, without knowing the exact location even if we knew the history of the particular region it therefore remains a highly controversial subject.

Thank you Labtech for not raising my blood pressure.
LOL

Harte

a reply to: randomthoughts12

Almost every country (like mine) use the . for thousands and the , for decimals

like 12.000$ (12 thousand dollar)
or 12,0$ (12 dollar)

It also makes no sense to keep the trailing zeros. No one says or writes, I need 12,00€. It is 12€ then...

a reply to: Oleandra88

All I was saying was when I replied it had not been edited to the correct stat.

a reply to: randomthoughts12
All good

a reply to: Oleandra88
Lol yeah I was too busy to work to read into it and see if it was that just something that went over my head. The real scale did change my whole comment and would make my original outlook void.

originally posted by: Peeple
There are only two possibilities
Alien technology or ancient advanced civilisation.

I assume these aren't the whole machine. What are the parts supposed to be from? Are you saying flying saucers are put together with little screws and springs?