Common Ooparts

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   
There are several supposed OOPARTs that I keep running across on these forums and others.
The problem with these supposed OOPARTs would be that most of them are fake, or at least misrepresented.

I don't have the actual gusto to chase after each and every one, here are the one I most commonly see:

Coso Artifact


Originally found in 1961 in mid-February, the Coso artifact became a object of fascination.
While searching for geodes, it's discoverer Wallace Lane, Virginia Maxey, and Mike Mikesell found the lump of stone near the dry lake bed of Owens Lake.
They took the rock back to their business, LM & V Rockhounds Gem and Gift Shop, believing it to be a geode, and cut it in half for sale.

Instead of a geode, they found a piece of ceramic covering a metals haft.
Obviously, this was surprising and caused some controversy.

Further study however showed it to be a sparkplug, specifically a 1920s Champion spark plug.

An example of a more modern sparkplug encased in conglomerate:


As objects rust, they can build up a conglomerate shell. This can include things that are near the object. I've found nails in similar conditions, usually will happen in sandy areas. It forms a sandstone like compound, and can contain any number of objects. I've found them with glass, sticks, or attached to buildings in the case of partially exposed foundation nails.


Klerksdorp Spheres

The klerksdorp spheres, so called because they were initially found in Ottosdal Africa and some of them are shaped like spheres.

They were featured in Forbiden Archaeology... which cited a Weekly World News article for information.

"Over the past several decades, South African miners have found hundreds of metallic spheres, at least one of which has three parallel grooves running around its equator. The spheres are of two types--'one of solid bluish metal with white flecks, and another which is a hollow ball filled with a white spongy center' (Jimison 1982)."

Susan Jimison was one of Weekly World News' editors.

The spheres themselves range in shape and size, from discs to semi spheres. They are pyrophyllite, basically a type of metamorphic stone.

My personal favorite is this one:


Similar examples:
Moqui Marbles





And now for my favourite OOPART:


Baghdad Battery

Originally discovered in the thirties, in Khujut Rabu. They were studied by Wilhelm König, the director of the National Museum of Iraq in 1938, and he published a paper to the possibility of them being galvanic cells, possible use for electroplating.

There are some problems with that idea, though.
Chief among them: when they tried to make them work as batteries, they had to change the structure of the artifacts.

* the bitumen completely covers the copper cylinder, electrically insulating it, so no current can be drawn without modifying the design; * there are not any wires or conductors with them; * no widely accepted electrical equipment is associated with them. (Controversial stone reliefs depicting arc lights have been suggested, however the voltages obtained are orders of magnitude below what would be needed to produce arc lighting); * a bitumen seal, being thermoplastic, is excellent for forming a hermetic seal for long term storage. It would be extremely inconvenient however for a galvanic cell, which would require frequent topping up of the electrolyte (if they were intended for extended use).

en.wikipedia.org...

Basically, they were reworked to work as batteries, and much more strongly resemble storage vessels for sacred documents.

I'm going to take off now, seeing as how 'cause of work it took about five hours to put this together.




posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   
have you read "earths forbidden secrets"? it covers many of these in the book. If you havent read it i strongly recormend you do, its a great book.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   
The Coso Artifact is nothing but a Champions Sparkplug from 1920s.

Have a Read at - ncseweb.org...

The Klerksdorp Spheres are natural concretions occuring in nature.

For a good read, try the following links

www.hgms.org...

and this link which has got info on similar naturally occuring spherical formations

Rock City, Kansas

If the pseudo guys will claim the rocks of Rock City as if made by aliens or an advanced civilization, i will eat by shoes!!

The Bhaddad Battery is not a Battery but a storage for scrolls.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by RuneSpider
 


Hello RuneSpider,

I prefer the term "Anomart" (anomalous artefact) rather than "Ooopart" (out of place artefact). The term "Oopart" implies that the artefact has been found in an out of place or context within the presently understood historical paradigm when this may not in fact be the case.

This is my favourite Anomart - The Great Sphinx.



Geologists have recently dated the erosion on the body of the Sphinx structure as being almost 1 million years old.

Here's their paper:

mgu.bg...

Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


The paper you mention at the end of your post, about the age of the Sphinx to be around 1 million years ago takes as the reference age of the sphinx as what is provided by Madam Blavatsky, of the Ascended master Thingy fame or Theosophy, which is very well established as a pseudo-whatever organization/movement. The reference age thus used is not reliable then.

[edit on 10/3/09 by coredrill]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by coredrill
 

Hello Coredrill,


Core: The paper you mention at the end of your post, about the age of the Sphinx to be around 1 million years ago takes as the reference age of the sphinx as what is provided by Madam Blavatsky, of the Ascended master Thingy fame or Theosophy, which is very well established as a pseudo-whatever organization/movement. The reference age thus used is not reliable then.


SC: I tended to focus my attention on assessing the geological evidence presented within the paper and not the name of M. Blavatsky. If these controversial geological findings - for that is really what this paper presents - are correct, then we may be required to look at our history and origins through an entirely different lens.

Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
The authors of the paper have taken the accepted age of the Sphinx as 750,000 years from M. Blavatsky's works. It is mentioned in the first page of the paper

In the recent years one could observe the growth of interest in dating the construction of the Great Egyptian Sphinx (GES), which is determined, to a considerable extent, by new ideas about geological factors which could influence its safety. In view of another interpretation of the geological and naturegeographical data the historical-archaeological method for determining the GES age (about 5000 years old) can prove to be unfounded. The authors of the report have another point of view in considering the problem. We have taken the GES age such as it was indicated by theosophist Yelena Blavatskaya in one of her basic works (1937). She wrote: “Notice the indestructible witness of evolution of Human races, from Divine, and especially Androgynous race, the Egyptian Sphinx, that mystery of centuries”. According to Blavatskaya the time of GES erection should exceed 750000 years. Are there some geological indications which are evidence for such an old age of the Sphinx? Consider the brief prehistory of the problem.

mgu.bg...


If they had taken the proper accepted age of the Sphinx (accepted by general consensus of the Archaeologists), the whole picture will be different. Blavatsky was a fraud! Same as Daniken!

But, since everything has to be taken with an open mind, i would say, let them actually go there and measure the data they have provided - mind it, they were just quoting the data provided by other papers by other scientists/geologists!! Or, let some other geologists corroborate their findings/data.





[edit on 10/3/09 by coredrill]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by coredrill
 

Hello Coredrill,


The authors of the paper have taken the accepted age of the Sphinx as 750,000 years from M. Blavatsky's works. It is mentioned in the first page of the paper


SC: This team of geologists come to their own geological conclusions on the age of the Sphinx based on the extant geological evidence and nothing else. In mentioning M. Blavatsky, they are merely showing how the age she came up with using her own particular method apparently correlates with the scientific method used by this team of geologists. I do, however, agree with you that it would have been better for the authors of this paper not to have mentioned M. Blavatsky. However, this does not and should not detract from the scientific, geological basis of their argument.


If they had taken the proper accepted age of the Sphinx (accepted by general consensus of the Archaeologists), the whole picture will be different. Blavatsky was a fraud! Same as Daniken!


SC: Alas, I am not interested in Blavatsky or Daniken. My interest here lies only in the scientific aspect of this paper i.e. the hard, empirical, geological evidence this team of geologists present that suggests the Sphinx may be around 1 million years old.


Coredrill: But, since everything has to be taken with an open mind, i would say, let them actually go there ...


SC: One of the authors of the paper has already been there, to wit:


In order to study the geological situation and to specify the
role of possible factors for the destruction of GES, one of the
authors of this report has made a visual investigation of the
monument on the spot (in the Republic of Egypt).



Coredrill:...and measure the data they have provided - mind it, they were just quoting the data provided by other papers by other scientists/geologists!!


SC: They have their own data, gathered in their own field study. However, that other studies are mentioned isn't anything unusual. Citing previous studies by other geologists is normal practice in such studies.


Coredrill: Or, let some other geologists corroborate their findings/data.


SC: I would agree with this. Geologists can often disagree with each other as can most scientists. However, if these findings are indeed corroborated by other geologists, where would that leave Egyptology today and what does that mean for the history and origins of our species?

Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   
These have been discussed to death here and elsewhere on ATS. Please use the search function to join one of our very entertaining threads on these topics.





new topics
top topics
 
1

log in

join