Originally posted by bsbray11
Lying there on the surface, you can't tell if it was ploughed up from a farmer's field last year, or whether someone who collected arrowheads
found it elsewhere and lost it in that field, or whether someone was off knapping out flints for a rock show/commercial demonstration and lost it, or
whether it was dropped 1500 years ago or 4000 years ago.
A concern that the objects found imbedded within stone are being lied about by those who made the discoveries, etc., seems logical, though it seems
unjustified, but I don't quite see where you're going with objects that are found laying around on surfaces rather than imbedded in
them (ie, this thread's subject), especially when embedded into solid rock, which of course takes long periods of time to form.
Actually, the point I was making that got lost was about the glacial morraine finds... but it holds with other things as well: without seeing the
object in place and digging it out and taking down the evidence of other things in the area, it's very premature to say that they're "30,000 years
old" or a "million years old."
If you go
here, you'll find part of an 1852 issue of Scientific
American that carries the following article, titled "Relic of By-Gone Age":
A few days ago a powerful blast was made in the rock at Meeting House Hill, in Dorchester, a few rods south of Rev. Mr. Hall’s meeting house.
The blast threw out an immense mass of rock, some of the pieces
weighing several tons and scattered small fragments in all directions. Among them was picked up a metallic vessel in two parts rent assunder by the
It'd be quite some work for someone to somehow place a metal vessel into solid rock 15 feet below the surface without the workers noticing anything
odd the next morning, or whenever.
Okay... how do you KNOW the vessel was in 15 feet of rock?
* It was (according to the report) found in the debris.
* They were blasting out a hillside (not a pit.)
* There's no mention if they combed the hillside for artifacts and small caves first.
This is what I mean by "out of context." The vessel could have, for instance, been Pictish/Celtic and placed for sacred reasons in a small crevice
in the rock as an offering and not uncovered till a blast flung it clear (although, honestly, it'd be more likely to simply dent the thing than to
chop it in two.) The vessel could have been (as with a recent discovery of a necklace of unusual workmanship) a gift from Rome to a local chieftan by
one of the Caesars and placed as an offering to a local deity (as was done with the necklace I cited.)
If the bowl exists (did you check to see if it's still in a museum and what other work was done on it) then it's a piece of history that was
displaced by an explosion... and all other information about it is lost. But to say that it was in 15 feet of rock because it appeared after an
explosion -- there's no evidence to say that it was.
Another article can be found based on an 1820 issue of The American Journal of Science and Arts. A
reveals info on the publication, including this article:
I looked this up to see what other sources cited it... and in fact, I don't see ANY report of this (outside this journal and UFO pages) that document
And I did search in French, on French language sites.
Can you find a museum where the artifacts/coins/table, etc, are stored? In that age, they would have been put in the town hall or sold to a wealthy
collector -- the coins in particular would have been valuable. Or can you find documents in French that mention this find?
A list of a number of similar occurences can be found here, for example.
You might want to investigate the claims on that website a bit more thoroughly... for instance, it claims "evolutionists speculate that humans have
lived here for one to three million yearsand then, suddenly, stopped evolving 100,000 years ago" -- a rather direct contradiction to what scientists
really believe (that would be when several species of hominids were alive -- but before there was any evidence of our group, homo sapiens.)
It also claims "Using historical, archaeological, and astronomical data, dates for early mankind extend to about 2250 B.C" -- ignoring things like
the Sumerian king lists which go back further as well as the Egyptian king lists (Menes, first Pharoah, dates to 2960 BC, for instance, and Djoser to
2630 BC... etc.)
Guadolupe woman? She was also mentioned on the site, which failed to note that she was part of a burial site and the mineralization was common... and
that she's post-Columbian in age (dated from artifact types found with her and other things.) You could check with the British Museum on this one if
you like. Bone mineralization isn't uncommon in high limestone areas (as i recall):
...etc, etc, etc. Including the Glen Rose tracks (I've seen them... we live near there and to call them human is REALLY a stretch. (the real ones.
There's a number of fakes, including the Paluxy Man Tracks (the sculptor confessed the hoax after scientists pointed out all the stupid mistakes
he'd made in carving the so-called track.))
There are, indeed, out of place artifacts and stuff that archaeologists and paleontologists can't explain. But in investigating "odd objects" you
need to play Sherlock Holmes and not just accept what one person says. Check to see what both sides are saying and check to see where the object is
-- and what it looks like from other angles (like the 'wooden airplane" in the museum in Cairo which looks like a wooden bird toy from most
Find out what cultures were in the area and what other clues there are about the object.
History and archaeology are fascinating fields for armchair detectives to work on ... but you have to first know what the experts really say and what
the other side really says. And know what makes for good evidence in this kind of detecting.
The "I found it in 800 feet of water" isn't good evidence at all.
[edit on 2-1-2006 by Byrd]