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.

 

Possible human bones/artifacts in coal, and the implications

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Howdy Harte

You seemed to have answered the question about the Pillar of Mehaurali while he was asking for the never before discussed 8 foot long "electric light bulbs" from the time of reign of Ptolemy XII. Yeah know the guys whose daughter took on the Romans....

oh and Egyptians wrote about it as sun barge for the god Ra'.




posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Watch this documentary

Mysterious Origins Of Man

"This unique documentary questions commonly-held beliefs about man's evolution. In the video, a group of modern-day scientists presents new evidence about the origins of man they say most members of the academic community have ignored. Among their findings: human artifacts and bones discovered in rock strata millions of years older than the theory of evolution can account for."

tvshack.net...



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by 23Eulogy23
Watch this documentary

Mysterious Origins Of Man

"This unique documentary questions commonly-held beliefs about man's evolution. In the video, a group of modern-day scientists presents new evidence about the origins of man they say most members of the academic community have ignored. Among their findings: human artifacts and bones discovered in rock strata millions of years older than the theory of evolution can account for."

tvshack.net...

Watched it when it came out decades ago, on TV.

Laughed my ass off, until it finally sickened me enough to get angry.

Entire piece of crapola has been completely refuted in a great many places.

Harte



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

I just assumed you meant that one in India that won't rust.

Or is that city also named Dendera?



yes, yes, we mean the same non-rusting pillar.

I see you conclude that there is nothing unusual at all about it?

Somehow Im not surprised



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by 23Eulogy23
Watch this documentary

Mysterious Origins Of Man

"This unique documentary questions commonly-held beliefs about man's evolution. In the video, a group of modern-day scientists presents new evidence about the origins of man they say most members of the academic community have ignored. Among their findings: human artifacts and bones discovered in rock strata millions of years older than the theory of evolution can account for."

tvshack.net...

Watched it when it came out decades ago, on TV.

Laughed my ass off, until it finally sickened me enough to get angry.

Entire piece of crapola has been completely refuted in a great many places.

Harte


WTF are you talking about, I thought it was a very imformative peice of work. Because you say that you watched it and refute it does not mean others do, Its considered groundbreaking. Of course some people will refute it, because it goes against their own rediculous beliefs. Carbon dating doesnt lie buddy

[edit on 11-4-2008 by 23Eulogy23]



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   
I watched a few minutes of it and remembered I'd seen it decades ago.

Man Cremo looks young in that propaganda.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
Howdy Harte

You seemed to have answered the question about the Pillar of Mehaurali while he was asking for the never before discussed 8 foot long "electric light bulbs" from the time of reign of Ptolemy XII. Yeah know the guys whose daughter took on the Romans....

oh and Egyptians wrote about it as sun barge for the god Ra'.



Well, if anyone is really interested, Larry Orcutt explains these "lightbulbs" quite well right HERE

Note the quote from John Anthony West at page bottom. Even West knows these are not anomalous in the least.

Any of you "believers" that don't know who West is, you need to look more deeply into the pseudoscience you obviously hold so dear.

Harte



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Howdy Skyfloating



yes, yes, we mean the same non-rusting pillar. I see you conclude that there is nothing unusual at all about it? Somehow Im not surprised


What scientific evidence do you have to make the pillar anything but a nice piece of Indian metal work?

From the link below:

In _Chariots of the Gods?_ von Daniken tells us: "In the courtyard of a temple in New Delhi there exists ... a column made of welded iron parts that has been exposed to weathering for more than 4,000 years without showing a trace of rust. In addition it is unaffected by sulphur or phosphorus. Here we have an unknown alloy from antiquity staring us in the face." What is amazing here is not the special properties of the iron pillar, but how von Daniken could make four errors in only three sentences.

First of all, the Iron Pillar of Mehaurali is not actually in Delhi but nearby. Secondly, it is not four thousand, but approximately fifteen hundred years old. Thirdly, it is not made of welded ... parts"; it is actually a single piece of iron. And fourthly, it is not an "unknown alloy", but rather pure iron.

Von Daniken did, however get one thing right. The iron column is virtually rustproof. According to A.L.Basham, in _The Wonder That Was India_, it was purposely made that way, to serve as a lasting shrine to a king (probably Chandra Gupta II) who died near the beginning of the fifth century. What prevents the pillar rusting, he says, is in fact the great purity of the metal. The process of rusting (or oxidation) requires a catalyst. One was not present in this case, since the iron is almost chemically pure. And although the ancient Indian metallurgists were indeed far advanced for their time, a good European iron founder of about one hundred years ago could have produced the same result. The job need not, therefore, be attributed to an outer-space technology.

Von Daniken finally admitted this, incidentally, in his interview for _Playboy_ magazine. He said, "... when I wrote _Chariots of the Gods?_ the information I had concerning this iron column was as I presented it. Since then, I have found that investigations were made and they came to quite different results, so we can forget about this iron thing."

tafkac.org...


[edit on 11/4/08 by Hanslune]

[edit on 11/4/08 by Hanslune]



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Harte

I just assumed you meant that one in India that won't rust.

Or is that city also named Dendera?



yes, yes, we mean the same non-rusting pillar.

I see you conclude that there is nothing unusual at all about it?

Somehow Im not surprised


Hard to conclude anything else, when similar iron samples have the same properties, which properties had been noticed by the creators of that pillar and had been part of the reason for the use of iron from a specific region.

Not saying it's not unusual. I'm saying it's not "Out of Place" as in OOPArt.

Harte



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Even Von Daniken gave up on the pillar - and thats saying something!



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Thanks for that toad in coal article Hanslune,top stuff,i was not imagining it.

As for my earlier reference to a pterodactyl in the mine i seem to have found a link:


. When a tunnel was being built in France through limestone the same age as the Solnhofen Limestone, French "gentlemen geologists" took the opportunity to trumpet a story of their own. In the original report, the pterodactyl crumbled to dust, conveniently leaving no evidence.


from

www.talkorigins.org...

Hmm,so that one sounds pretty hoaxy after all-who would have thought it?
Oh well great idea anyway.I still enjoyed reading about it.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Howdy Silcone Synapse

Hard to know what to make of the toad story. Unless one is found again and documented properly it will remain a mystery.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
...

From Andrew MacRae, The University of Calgary, Dept. of Geology and Geophysics
There are several links in the text I quoted that do not appear above. Check the webpage to check those links and see more of what this guy is talking about.

Sandstone - not bone.

Simple as that.

No "Smithsonian Conspiracy" involved. Maybe a U of Calgary "conspiracy."

Harte


see this is what I mean. According to ed, the sample tested by andrew macrae is not actually a sample from his "bone", but one faked by the other group he sent the bone off to be tested by. he since figured this out, tested it himself and (apparently) saw canals... Yet you are unaware of this, and I am left wondering if the likely case that ed is fraud/mistaken is not slightly offset by the weird straw man stuff going on. Of course Andrew probably just got tired of being called a fraud and doesn't bother reading anything ed says anymore


please read here www.edconrad.com... and click the "EC96-001 testing" link at the bottom for ed's side of this story (and also the initial link with the part regarding the Smithsonian is interesting.)


cheers



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 01:20 AM
link   
Then all Ed needs to do is have the a sample tested at any independent lab(s) he wants in any country he wants.

But he never did. So basically we get to have him justify his own theory to us.

Reality doesn't work on people saying what they think is real and then verifying it.

Bad science, bad logic, bad reality.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


yes. At first glance this sounds logical, and to do anything else seems to smack of fraud... except... he already tried to get it done in public independant labs, and, according to him, they tried to con him. So he did it himself. Or found bone pictures and pretended they were the sample, I wouldnt know.

anyway, I'm the first to admit this all seems extremely unlikely, so dont think I'm taking this thread all that seriously
, I just want to dismiss it for the right reasons (or find out it's real).



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   
He's had ten years to get it tested and has done nothing. Also no one else has found similar items.

Most probably a big no go.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 

now THAT I'll agree with



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 08:16 PM
link   
I "spoke" with Ed many years back on one of the usenet forums, probably alt.archaeology or some such. He was a great student of Agnoiology. He was rather fixed in his opinions....



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by diablomonic

Originally posted by Harte
...

From Andrew MacRae, The University of Calgary, Dept. of Geology and Geophysics
There are several links in the text I quoted that do not appear above. Check the webpage to check those links and see more of what this guy is talking about.

Sandstone - not bone.

Simple as that.

No "Smithsonian Conspiracy" involved. Maybe a U of Calgary "conspiracy."

Harte


see this is what I mean. According to ed, the sample tested by andrew macrae is not actually a sample from his "bone", but one faked by the other group he sent the bone off to be tested by. he since figured this out, tested it himself and (apparently) saw canals... Yet you are unaware of this, and I am left wondering if the likely case that ed is fraud/mistaken is not slightly offset by the weird straw man stuff going on. Of course Andrew probably just got tired of being called a fraud and doesn't bother reading anything ed says anymore


please read here www.edconrad.com... and click the "EC96-001 testing" link at the bottom for ed's side of this story (and also the initial link with the part regarding the Smithsonian is interesting.)

cheers


My feeling is that a professional laboratory with a reputation to protect is a better source than a private individual that has a religion-based agenda to try to claim that scientists don't know what they are talking about.

You can believe Ed's private investigation if you prefer, but you should realize, and state, that you do so because of your faith, and not because a Creationist is more believable on the science of bone fragments than a laboratory that conducts such investigations several times a week on all kinds of samples.

After all, who stands to gain by lying here? Certainly not Science.

Harte



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 07:47 AM
link   
As to the comment earlier in this Thread that "coal is simply rock with a high carbon content," I would submit this demurral theory: coal was formed when cataclysmic winds piled up huge piles of forest and other organic debris and cataclysmic crustal rifts capable of conducting heat from deep in the earth remained patent for a while after the main cataclysm, so that smothered combustion of the pile of organic materials at the surface created the coal, which would thus not be "simply rock..."



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join