Artifact from Atlantis?

page: 19
72
<< 16  17  18    20  21 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Did the owner ever take it to the lab to have it tested?




posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlienCarnage
Did the owner ever take it to the lab to have it tested?


One of the reasons this thread was created because tests resulted in contradictory results...similar to this thread where people post with certainty that it comes from ___________ (fill in the blank with one of the dozens of propositions).

So it remains a genuine mystery.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   
I'm no expert, but to me it looks like a fancy old lamp/oil lantern. Even the symbol on the open end looks like a flame. Oil would rest in the bottom part, a wic of some sort extended to the top, where it is open for air to burn. How hold? Dunno...



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
is it really islamic? doesnt look like it imho. looks asia influenced.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   
this thread reminded me of this >>

www.badarchaeology.net...

from what i remember reading it is now "lost"



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 05:23 AM
link   
Certainly asian, Certainly islamic, Certainly mayan...

Its a bit dissapointing that numerous experts cant even agree on the basics of this object.

[edit on 31-10-2009 by Skyfloating]



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


It definitely isn't upside down! The top is a shallow dish held up by those petal looking things which surrounds a deeper cavity. I'm guessing the larger cavity would have fire in it heating up oils in the top shallow dish. Something for the temple or some kind of ceremony.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


I haven't gone through all nineteen pages of this thread, so sorry if this has already been asked. What were the results, out of curiosity.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


The results were that every expert made another statement (see a few posts up).

Therefore: Mystery Unsolved (cue in spooky soundtrack)



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Unknownsoul
 


I was actually considering it might be something carried. The bottom looks like it would be heavier than the top, if made of metal which it does appear to be and the mid section of the artifact contains what looks like handles, only they look more like you would slide something into them to carry it. I don't agree with the rest of your post though.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAttackPeople
The final word from my guys:

"There is no doubt at all that this is upside down. There is also no doubt that the motifs are Chinese and derived from archaic bronzes of the Zhang (1500 - 1028 BC) and the Zhou (1028 - 221 BC) dynasties. Suggestions of Mayan and Greek origin are nonsense, as is the story that this was found under the sea. The patination has not been created by seawater but by a factory in China sometime during the 20th century. It is hard to date these modern pieces but I would guesstimate at the 1970s. Obviously I cannot see the top but it would originally have had some kind of pricket to hold the handle; presumably now missing. Still, it is a fun decorative object and I value it as such. $100."


Was this not the definitive answer, or is it too ordinary an explanation?



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


I dont think that indirectly calling the object-owner a liar is a "definitive answer".



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
I strongly disagree that this thing is upside down. The top shallow dish is no where near level enough to stand properly, plus with it being made of metal it would be off balance in my opinion. Plus, all the motifs, such as the flame and monster/dragon/face thing would all be upside down.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Hi potery fans.

WOW ! ! One year latter and 19 pages ? I can't read all off that.

If asked before, or not, WHAT IF:
that thing was only a decoration for a film or theatrical/stage play,
made by some-one not very knowledgeable in asian/islamic/aztec/
inca signs ? B-)

Blue skies.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by C-JEAN
 


There is enough confusion as to what it is without going into what-if-realms.



[edit on 1-11-2009 by Skyfloating]



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
But “what if it came from Atlantis” is ok?

Nothing about it suggests Atlantis. It looks more like a 19th or 20th century reproduction that is incomplete. The cute hearsay provenance isn’t worth the paper it isn’t written on. It doesn’t appear to have spent much, if any, time in the water. All that being said, no real determination can be made from simply pictures, but the story & any ties to Atlantis is highly unlikely.

You have it set in your mind it is from Atlantis and you will not listen to anyone till they tell you it is. Doesn’t it tell you something that nothing has come of this thread over a year later?

Deny Ignorance, Don’t Embrace It.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   
It seems like the mundane explanation supplied by IAttackPeople's appraiser is the most logical. As much as I think many of us would like to believe that this represents a piece from some unknown culture, if we all took a step back and attempted a little objectivity, I think we'd see that this really is most likely nothing more then a modern reproduction. Occam's Razor seems apt here.

It also doesnt help the case for this object having any authenticity when there is so little information about where it was found and subsequently kept. I appreciate Skyfloating's position here, but the anonymity of the owner and the almost complete lack of solid info he has supplied casts this whole thing in serious doubt.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
Nothing about it suggests Atlantis.


Except that it was found at the bottom of the Atlantic and nobody can say where it is from.




You have it set in your mind it is from Atlantis and you will not listen to anyone till they tell you it is.


Ive been listening. And if the experts were to display at least a little bit of consensus...just a little bit...I´d listen more carefully.



Doesn’t it tell you something that nothing has come of this thread over a year later?


Yes, it confirms the original label "Unexplained".



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   
i suppose anything is possible....



In June, 1851, ‘Scientific American’ reprinted a report that had first appeared in the Boston Transcript about a metallic vase that had been discovered by miners. The vase was found in two parts among rubble that had been dynamited out of solid sedimentary rock in Dorchester, Mass. The strange thing though, is that it came from about 15 feet below the surface and was deeply embedded inside the rock. This indicates it had been there for an extremely long time. The bell-shaped vase measures 4-1/2 inches high and 6-1/2 inches at its base and consists of a zinc and silver alloy while the sides are decorated with designs of flowers and bouquet arrangements, all inlaid with pure silver. The rock out of which the vase came from came is estimated at about 100,000 years old. How did this vase come to be solidly embedded within 15 feet of solid sedimentary rock?


www.unexplained-mysteries.com...



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901
i suppose anything is possible....


In June, 1851, ‘Scientific American’ reprinted a report that had first appeared in the Boston Transcript about a metallic vase that had been discovered by miners. The vase was found in two parts among rubble that had been dynamited out of solid sedimentary rock in Dorchester, Mass.


You might want to consult the following site about that:
www.badarchaeology.net...


It is difficult to understand why anyone might take this report seriously. Firstly, it was found among rubble, with no proof that it was ever inside the rock. So why was that assumption made? Secondly, it is clearly a candlestick of obviously Victorian style. Why would anyone in 1852 believe that it was more than a few years old? These are questions that cannot now be answered, but they clearly demonstrate the credulity of those who discovered and reported it.



[edit on 2-11-2009 by JohnnyCanuck]





top topics
 
72
<< 16  17  18    20  21 >>

log in

join