Swiss Watch found in 400 year old tomb

reply to post by fixer1967

---

Not sure whtat yu're talking about except for the spark plug. It was a modern spark plug that was in a amount of conglomeration that forms as a metal items rusts. Go by a junk yard sometime and you'll see how metal sitting in the dirt for a few decades or so can clump and just about form sandstone.

reply to post by InThisTwilight

---

Nothing so glamorous as the Bible. It's actually from a book/ chick movie called "The Princess Bride". I'll spoil it for you, Vizzini dies, good wins over bad. I hate chick flicks, but this one was actually ok.

The story finally showed up at an Archaeology site, however the reporting of it shows skepticism. See above

Archaeology

I don't know why I thought the Bible. I haven't read it all the way through. My mind has been altered by medication these last two days

I laughed when I saw it is from "The Princess Bride". How completely different from the Bible

Thank you. And I can't wait to see what happens with this story (the ring-watch)

One thing I was thinking last night was how can somebody come from the future if it hasn't happened yet?

Sounds like something from Timeline by Michael Crichton.
Can't wait to hear more.


*P*E*A*C*E*

reply to post by RuneSpider

---

Out of Time-Place Artifacts is nothing new. Do a web search and you will find a lot of them. I am just waiting until they find a million year old cell phone or someting that has not even been invented yet. Reality is far straighter than science fiction ever thought of being.

Hey, somebody call John Titor and tell him they found his ring watch, lol.

It's the WingMakers.

They go back in time and leave evidence of their existence.

reply to post by fixer1967

---

Many, if not most out of place artifacts prove to me mislabeled, misrepresented, or misidentified. Some purposefully, some not.

The closest I know of a verified OOPA would b the axe that was found with the IcceMan, the process used to form it was something thought to have originate much later.

reply to post by RuneSpider

---

Yep, that axe caused a number of papers to be rewritten and powerpoint slides to be redone. However that is how science works, when new evidence comes in (especially something as unchallengable as Oetzi's axe) everything shifts to incorporate the new evidence.

This watch was made long before John Harrison's clock in 1715...

They should have borrowed one of these watches when they were having trouble with Longitude... The English should have just went to Switzerland to get a watch, never mind throwing all that money and offering such a huge reward for anyone who could build a clock that would work on a Ship. When the eventually did it was fairly large and heavy.


This is the First Clock to Work At Sea, built by John Harrison and Used to calculate Longitude - It was built in 1713, almost one hundred years after this ring-watch appears to have been made:



*Perhaps the elite have had access to a different history and different technology than we do. It is likely that this watch is just something that made it past the knowledge filters. I doubt it is time travelers.

[edit on 20-12-2008 by Dreemer]

I wont be impressed until they find a Tardis, a Delorian, or that brass and crystal contraption from The Time Machine.

2 things intrigue me.

a) Archeologists usually take their science seriously- and I am sure would be somewhat sure if a tomb had been opened or disturbed. Even if an earthquake and a mudslide had reburied it, they would know thru the strata of debris, 'new' material around the coffin contrasted against 'old' material still on the walls of the tomb, ect. There'd be *some* evidence left, broken stones, disturbed anything. Tomb robbers are just like any other robbers- they break in, make a mess, and leave. Kinda puzzling.

b) that picture itself. Anyone else think it's kind of strange how there's a 'magnification' of the hand holding the watch against the unmagnified dirt- and all I see is a distortion where mag levels change- no frame holding the lens. Now, it could be a special one for the camera... but it bugs the heck out of me.

reply to post by wylekat

---

Which is why Hanslune and others keep wanting to get another source for the story, so far we only have the one brief article about it, and only the one picture.

in 1608 they had swiss watches

probably ABOUT the same quality as today's

my great grandfather worked as a watch crafter in scottland

reply to post by ConservativeJack

---

"in 1608 they had swiss watches"

Hmmmm....Then why wasn't the first portable clock developed until 1712?

Why did England offer a huge Reward to Anyone who could build a portable clock when they could have just visited Switzerland and picked up a watch?

Did you even read my last post about John Harrison? *It is only a few posts above this one.

One last question - are you joking or being serious?

reply to post by Dreemer

---

Perhaps this will clarify things for you, at least in respect of when the Swiss began making watches. It's from the Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry FH, which can be considered a reliable source in respect of Swiss watchmaking history:



This extract comes from their site, which can be accessed here. While the English version above might not read perfectly I am sure Francophones will find the French version (on the site) to be quite adequate.

In short, the Swiss were well into the art of watchmaking in the latter half of the 16th century. However, they were not really suitable as shipboard chronometers, where extreme accuracy and reliability under all conditions of heat, cold and humidity were vital to get an precise fix on longitude. As you say, this had long been a problem and John Harrison was the first to create a chronometer that was able to meet the exacting standards required. His first one was "H1", built between 1730 and 1735. (Not 1712, 1713 or 1715 as you have variously stated -- those dates refer to earlier, wooden clocks that Harrison made and not his marine chronometer.)

For a reliable reference about this clock and some preserved, wooden ones made by Harrison I'd suggest the National Maritime Museum's page on the subject, which gives information about his earlier wooden clocks (which were not built as sea-going chronometers) and also has a picture of his actual "H1" chronometer. The image link you have posted is not of Harrison's actual "H1", but appears to be the one that was made by the Sinclair Harding firm, which began work on it in 1999 and finished it after almost 5 years. It is about 3/4 of the size of the H1 and is not even a replica; rather, it was made "in homage" to John Harrison and showcases some of his brilliant innovations. For full details and the image of this clock, go here.

Edit to add: the reward you mention (the "Longitude Prize", created under an Act of Parliament and administered by the Longitude Board) was not simply for a "portable clock". It had to be a clock that was sufficiently accurate under all the conditions that could exist on ships at sea, which was why the challenge was so difficult. I understand that you are aware of this, but some readers might not be and would wonder at it.

Regards,

Mike

[edit on 21/12/08 by JustMike]

reply to post by JustMike

---

"In short, the Swiss were well into the art of watchmaking in the latter half of the 16th century. " *Historically Incorrect Statement

Then why wasn't the problem of determining Longitude on ships not resolved until 1713 - the working and useable portable clock not being built until the 1730s?

You clearly do not realize that there weren't any 'portable' clocks until 1713, when John Harrison invented and built his first prototypes.

They could have just borrowed a Swiss clock if that was the case

Please read my previous posts. but hey, if YOU are right about this, then History as we know it is wrong.

John Harrison and the Longitude problem

Here is the Wikipedia Version of this part of History

Marine Chronometer - not invented until 1730's

*There was no clock/watch or time piece in existence that could work accurately at sea or that was portable until the development of the Marine Chronometer.

Here is information in the Longitude Prize to anyone who build one (why didn't the Swiss just claim it the first day it was announced? - Exactly...)
Longitude prize

*all of our history only makes the discovery of this watch in china more interesting. See my previous posts to see why.

But that doesn't matter if most of the people can't even remember what history is taught and known to us all. Their ignorance knows no bounds.

Seriously - I can't believe I've had to refute this argument three times already. This time I brought links. Clearly I can no longer rely on anyone having any intelligence or being willing to exert any sort of intellectual rigour, and thus am relegated to providing links to common knowledge - which apparently is no longer Common...

Also; it appears Google and Wikipedia are far too hard to use, even when you already have the key words and dates it is just too difficult.

[edit on 21-12-2008 by Dreemer]

It doesnt look like a watch but like a replica of a watch. Someone who did not have the technology to make a watch but saw someone wearing a watch and tried to copy it.

I wonder how many more OOPARTs have to be found for archaeologists to wake up.

reply to post by Skyfloating

---

Okay then Skyfloating.

Who were they Copying? Who had watches when portable clocks weren't even invented until over one hundred years later? - think about what you are saying man!

Please Read my last post. I put a lot of effort into it. This really is an OOPART.

History has clearly not been honest with us. It seems the 'elite' have had access to far superior technology than the rest of us and possibly even a 'different history'.

Whoever they were copying - if that is the case - had technology over one hundred years in advance of the people at the time it was worn and/or copied - Think about that skyfloating... the implications are amazing.

So,even if it is just a replica, it is still 400 years old and should not exist- according to the history WE (the useless eaters) are taught.

A replica is just as significant as if it was an actual watch. That is how amazing this discovery is. It is so out of place.

*Any replica of a watch couldn't/shouldn't possibly exist prior to 1730 - or possibly later...unless history has been manipulated and is not accurately describing the past. I believe this is the case, and it is substantiated by many artifacts.

[edit on 21-12-2008 by Dreemer]

reply to post by Dreemer

---

I dont disagree with you. Ive been talking about "history" as taught in school being a complete fabrication since years on ATS.

This is a good find. And its not the only one.

The theory that a small part of the population (the elite) has always had technology is a good one.

Another theory is about ETs or time-travelers having the tech.

And another one is about "linear-time" not really existing and past and future intersecting (modern physics)

And another one is about ancients remote viewing the future.

Whatever the case may be: What we learned in school is BS.