“This one plate, dated to be between 10,000 and 12,000 years old - older by far than the great pyramids of Egypt - was fantastic enough, but the
wonder was multiplied manyfold.”
My wonder is how they dated it. If the disks were stone, then it’s obvious that C-14 dating wasn’t used, and 10000 to 12000 years is too close for
most radionucleides. So, where does the author get the date information?
“In all, 716 such plates were found. And each held an incredible secret. The groove, upon further inspection, was not a groove at all, but a
continuous line of strange carved hieroglyphics - writing! The tiny, almost microscopic characters were in a language never encountered before. It
wasn't until 1962 that another Chinese scientist… Dr. Tsum Um Nui…”
That is not a Han name. It is made up by someone who doesn’t understand how Chinese names work.
“… the groove turned out to be an unknown hieroglyphic.”
And, of course, there are no pictures of this unknown hieroglyphic, or of the four-foot-tall weenies who were supposed to have written them, or any
discussion at all on the methodology that Dr. Dumalatcher used.
“The writing was so small he had to use a magnifying glass to see it clearly. But the stones were old….”
Think about it. If these little guys had the technology to fly a spaceship around and make exactly precise writings that are almost microscopic is
size – why wouldn’t they have inscribed them on glass or metal? Using stone to write on, especially if you’re a high-tech culture, makes no sense at
all.
“Eventually, he began to make progress. A word emerged. Then another. A phrase became understandable, then an entire sentence. He had broken the
code….”
But there’s no discussion whatsoever about the code, or how he broke it or if the language was diagrammatic or positional or any of those things.
Hmmmm.
“Dr. Tsum Um Nui's findings were eventually published, however….”
And how convenient! They “forgot” to tell us
where it was published.
“In either case, his translation and his theory were met with ridicule by the archaeology establishment.”
A-HA! If the “archaeology establishment” ridiculed it, that means it was actually published in an archaeology journal, right?
Well, which one? When? Which Issue?
“In 1968, the Dropa stones came to the attention of W. Saitsew, a Russian scientist who re-published the findings of Tsum Um Nui….”
And the name of the journals which he “re-published” them in? Hmmm! It seems that the author “forgot” to tell us that, too! And, by the way,
“Saitsew” is certainly not a Russian name.
“…and conducted tests on the disks that revealed some very peculiar properties. Physically, the granite stones contained high concentrations of
cobalt and other metals - a very hard stone indeed that would have made it difficult for the primitive people to carve the lettering, especially with
such minute characters. When testing a disk with an oscillograph, a surprising oscillation rhythm was recorded as if, the scientists said, they had
once been electrically charged or had functioned as electrical conductors.”
Rubbish “science”. Granite doesn’t have high concentration of cobalt or any other metals. If you go to
www.granite-sandstone.com... , you can see the makeup, as shown below.
Granite is primarily composed of feldspar, quartz along with various other minerals in varying percentage, which are stated as follows:
Nominal chemical composition of various oxides
Silica(SiO2) ---------------------- 70-77%
Alumina(Al2O3) ----------------- 11- 14%
Potassium Oxide(P2O5) -------- 3 – 5%
Soda(Na2O) ---------------------- 3 – 5%
Lime -------------------------------- 1%
Iron(Fe2O3) ----------------------- 1-2%
Iron(FeO) -------------------------- 1 – 3%
Magnesia(Mg0) ------------------ 0.5 – 1%
Titina ------------------------------- Less than 1%(.38%)
Water(H2O) ---------------------- 0.03%
Note that the iron, magnesia, alumina, etc, are NOT metals, but OXIDES.
And there is
no test to determine if something had once been electrically charged or used as an electrical conductor by measuring its
vibration. Vibration frequency is a function of makeup and size.
“Whatever their true nature, origin, or meaning, the Dropa stones present an intriguing puzzle for archaeologists and anthropologists.”
Actually the only “puzzle” is why someone would put together such a clumsy hoax.