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.

 

New Ancient Aliens Episode On The "Wedge Of Aiud"...UFO Artifact?

page: 2
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2020 @ 03:34 PM
link   
whatever the odd object is...………. I am of the mind that it is a modern era piece of some machinery, how did the metal 'tooth' come to be in proximity with ice-age era mastodon/mammoth bones ???

was the site location once a depression in the modern age topography and flood waters deposited the bones and soil, along side of the modern 'tooth' made of dense/heavy, aluminum (which had little chance of being moved by natural erosion processes) ??


strangeness can be explained instead of being raised up to mystical happenings




posted on Jan, 26 2020 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: St Udio

whatever the odd object is...………. I am of the mind that it is a modern era piece of some machinery, how did the metal 'tooth' come to be in proximity with ice-age era mastodon/mammoth bones ???
Is it really that hard to figure out?

If they were digging near the mastadons using an excavator, and one of the teeth broke off during the dig, the broken tooth would be right there next to the mastadons, would it not?

You're making it way too complicated, talking about flood waters.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: KKLOCO
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yes, it does look like that. However, there is no way they make those out of aluminum. It isn’t strong enough to excavate with.

Yes, they do when there is a possibility of sparking.

Harte



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
If they were digging near the mastadons using an excavator, and one of the teeth broke off during the dig, the broken tooth would be right there next to the mastadons, would it not?
You're making it way too complicated, talking about flood waters.


 


Are you suggesting the investigative crew/cast are such morons... that they did not mull that possibility around already?

no, an OOP object would go thru vigorous investigation to establish that it was buried there, until unearthed by chance

the cast/crew/documentors reputations hang in the balance, be credible or be GONE

that's my side of the coin



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny
O.K. We have now had all the usual knee-jerk responses from debunkers. Let's analyse the issue more carefully.

There is actually not all that much resemblance to an excavator bucket tooth, despite the claims of those wanting to debunk this OOPART before anyone notices their errors. First fact they ignore:
it was NOT found at an older construction site. Debunkers therefore have to explain how it got there, as no machines were used at that place at any earlier time.
Second fact they ignore:
it was found UNDER 30 feet of sand that had not been previously excavated. (If it had been, presumably, at least the bones would have been found). That depth makes it a genuine OOPART. If the depth had been, say, a foot or two, it could more easily be explained as having been dropped in the past by some construction worker working elsewhere. But 30 FEET? Sorry. No.
Third fact they ignore:
Do they really want us to believe that construction workers in 1974 could not recognise an excavator bucket tooth?! It is highly likely that they had their own excavators to compare it with when they found it and the idea that such workers would fail to identify it but, instead, be very puzzled with what they had found is quite ludicrous.
Fourth fact they ignore:
Excavator buckets are made from several different materials, but all these materials are types of either steel or iron. The type of material is chosen based on the loading and manufacturing method for that part. The notion that excavator bucket teeth can be made of 89% aluminium and 6% copper (both metals not known for their harness and strength) with not a trace of iron (!) is risible, and only desperate debunkers would suggest this fantasy. Let us not take their bogus explanation seriously.

edit on 31-1-2020 by micpsi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2020 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: St Udio
Are you suggesting the investigative crew/cast are such morons... that they did not mull that possibility around already?
Actually they might already know it's an excavator tooth and make a show claiming it's an out of place artifact for all I know. The show is for entertainment and the OOP artifact explanation is more entertaining, even if they know it's wrong. So that wouldn't make them morons, quite the opposite. They know their audience is gullible and naive and may believe such nonsense as the excavator tooth not being an excavator tooth, so that's how they make a show that's entertaining.


the cast/crew/documentors reputations hang in the balance, be credible or be GONE

that's my side of the coin
I find that hilarious! Name one person on that show who says it's not an excavator tooth who you think has any credibility left. Their credibility is gone, if they ever had any.

a reply to: micpsi
Here are some links you and St Udio might want to read, or not, since you guys might prefer the pseudoscience claims over the truths explained in this 9-part series on the topic. These posts tear your arguments to shreds:

Debunking Wedge of Aiud and other random aluminum from the past. Part 1
Debunking Wedge of Aiud and other random aluminum from the past. Part 2
Debunking Wedge of Aiud and other random aluminum from the past. Part 3
Debunking Wedge of Aiud and other random aluminum from the past. Part 4
Debunking Wedge of Aiud and other random aluminum from the past. Part 5
Debunking Wedge of Aiud and other random aluminum from the past. Part 6
Debunking Wedge of Aiud and other random aluminum from the past. Part 7
Debunking Wedge of Aiud and other random aluminum from the past. Part 8
Debunking Wedge of Aiud and other random aluminum from the past. Part 9



new topics

top topics
 
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join