Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

140 Million Years Old Iron Hammer

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Found in a formation famous for its dinosaurs, supposed to be 140 million years old (lower cretaceous). Max Han was fishing with his family near London, TX when he found a rock with wood protruding from it. When the rock was cracked open, this octagonally shaped iron hammer was exposed. The wood handle is partially coalifed with quartz and calcite crystalline inclusions. Tests performed at Battelle Laboratory document the hammer's unusual metallurgy, 96% iron, 2.6% chlorine and .74% sulfur (no carbon). Density test indicate casting of exceptional quality. A unique coating of FeO, which does not readily form under present atmospheric conditions, appears to inhibit rusting.

The enclosing rock contains Lower Cretaceous fossils. It is a concretionary sandstone nodule from the nearby cliff which is made up of concretionary sandstone nodules.

140,000,000 years old hummer

Isn't this enough?
check this out:
www.s8int.com...

And:www.abovetopsecret.com...

Someone must returning to the past.
A time machine?

[edit on 28-1-2007 by Dragonlike]

[edit on 28-1-2007 by Dragonlike]




posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Very interesting, did they do any radio carbon dating on the wood handle?



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dragonlike
Someone must returning to the past.
A time machine?

[edit on 28-1-2007 by Dragonlike]

[edit on 28-1-2007 by Dragonlike]


Well if someone is going back to the past then why would they leave evidence behind? Also why would they use such crude equipment?

I have often thought that mankind is way older thain science would like for us to believe. We are such an advanced species on this planet with nothing else like ourselves that it leads me to conclude that we have been here for far longer thain first anticipated.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Wait... this is a duplicate thread and you are linking back to the original thread????? Umm Duplicate threads are not allowed on ATS.

This is a known Hoax. The owner of the handle is a creationist who has resisted any scientific study of the artifact but enough has been done to prove it is not what he claims.

Here is some detailed information on what they actually found: London Hammer Hoax

Again, duplicate thread. This one should be closed.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Terapin
Wait... this is a duplicate thread and you are linking back to the original thread????? Umm Duplicate threads are not allowed on ATS.

This is a known Hoax. The owner of the handle is a creationist who has resisted any scientific study of the artifact but enough has been done to prove it is not what he claims.

Here is some detailed information on what they actually found: London Hammer Hoax

Again, duplicate thread. This one should be closed.


Thanks Terapin for clearing that hoax up! I hate to be duped, that's why I ask questions.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by mel1962
Very interesting, did they do any radio carbon dating on the wood handle?


Carbon dating has limits of about 50,000 years. This is still way before what we consider to be mankinds introduction to Iron working. However, if a definate date can be found from the carbon dating, it would show that it wasn't as old as it is being portrayed as.

Of course I say "what we consider" because I believe that mankind could have had some civilization in it's history that could have developed Iron, then simply didn't make it.

The possability of it actually being an iron hammer from 150 million years ago is also awesome. Maybe it was a tool used by the early civilizations of reptilians that first evolved on Earth.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Wait... this is a duplicate thread and you are linking back to the original thread????? Umm Duplicate threads are not allowed on ATS.


one moment, i am continuing the discussion this is permitted as long as i provide a link of the previous subject. Check out what Simon Gray has post on the board forum


2) Old existing thread: If the existing thread is more than 3 months old, reference the thread or threads in your first post by linking to them, then as above, indicate your new twist on the older discussion topic.
by Simon Gray
link:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 28-1-2007 by Dragonlike]

[edit on 28-1-2007 by Dragonlike]



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Due to the age of the initial thread on this topic the mods have decided to let this one stay open.

The hammer has been demonstrated to be of more modern origins. It is just another example of creationists doing anything they can to attempt to deny the truth. There is no 140 million year old hammer and the link I provided above should remove any doubt.

The handle of the hammer was not in fact fossilized as they initialy claimed, but was made of wood. The "rock" it was imbedded in was actually a more modern accretion of sediments and it turns out that the hammer was probably left by an early prospector in our recent past.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   
over here in the coastal parts of SC, theres a dense clay we call 'gumbo'
theres also a hardened form of gumbo mixed with tiny & ancient seashells
that we call 'coquina'
now if one were a dastardly rascal, one could put some OOPA,
out-of-place-artifact,
into a dense plastic like glob of gumbo, then made to replicate coquina by placing the item into kiln, having the dried out 'rock' become hard & appear ancient,
then breaking it open to reveal some common present day object inside the 'fossil' rock.

i imagine that the opportunities were there at that location too,
where we are to infer that the encased item was originally burried deep in the hillside but erosion delivered up the ancient artifact to be ?found?



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 11:46 AM
link   
THe problem with this, and pretty much all other supposed OOPS is that there is no control over their discovery; no accurate recording of where precisely in any rock layer it was found, no photographs of it in situ, no useable documentation of any kind, and no scientific studies done on the material. All that we ever really have in the end with these sorts of things is someone with a story.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Well if someone is going back to the past then why would they leave evidence behind? Also why would they use such crude equipment?

Perhaps they were in a rush. Use your imagination why they wold abondon things:

-Dinos were after them
-primitives were after them
-they didn't want to disturb time

who knows?

[edit on 28-1-2007 by Dragonlike]



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dragonlike
Use your imagination why they wold abondon things:


Exactly ... it is all imagination. There is no 140 million year old hammer as it is just an invented story. From that point on you can make up all kinds of stories. ET, time travelers, perhaps it is Thors Hammer and shoots lightning bolts. It doesn't really matter. If you read the link I provided you can clearly see the evidence that it is a HOAX and nothing more.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Terapin,
to my theory i have to add this:
www.abovetopsecret.com...'



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 01:26 PM
link   
But wouldn't a creationist trying to prove humans existed 140 million years...but I thought according to creationism humans began like a few thousand years ago...



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Usually, when this hammer comes up in support of creationism, it is to say 'look, a hammer, in a layer that supposedly is 140 million years old and contains dinosaurs. That shows that it wasn't 140 million years ago and that man and dinosaurs co-existed and that scientific dating techniques are useless/flawed".



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   
i've never heard of any creationists letting real science test OOPA
which not only makes it sound incredibly sketchy, but incredibly asinine



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 04:02 PM
link   
How do you know it's 140 Million years old?



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dragonlike

140,000,000 years old hummer


They had four wheel drive trucks back 140 million years, no way. Wonder if it was driven by Gangsta's.

Sorry Dragonlike couldnt resist. Great photo if real but seems to have been debunked previously.

[edit on 28/1/07 by mojo4sale]



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Draginlike,

There is a significant difference between a claim of a 140million year old hammer and a 2200 year old lens. The hammer claim has long been proven false.

That there was a lens a bit over two thousand years ago does not surprise me at all. Glass has long been around. The earliest man made glass objects are thought to date back around 3500BC. That's over 5000 years ago. Glass is basically melted sand and not that hard to make. Give me a flat piece of borosilicate glass, a ceramic tile, some plaster, and I can make you a high quality telescope with no tools other than some fine sand for polishing. All of these materials have been around for a very long time and it is not high technology.

The Hammer was not indeed as old as claimed and the owner resisted every attempt to authenticate it. If you read the link I posted you will see that. If you wish to stick to your Theory about the hammers age, then back up your claim with some data that refutes the evidence pointed to in the link I provided earlier. If you can't offer any data then there is little point to sticking to your theory when the authenticity of the claims of the hammers owner have been proven to be false.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Sorry... that one's a hoax.

It's a real hammer, left in a cave and a concretion formed around it. This happens in caves and doesn't take very long.





new topics




 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join