Strange Rock Carving

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by amari
Suggestion: Go to the location of the Strange Rock Carving and take a

magnetic resonance reading and take a top of the line metal detector

and sweep the area. I will U2U ^Y^

...and if you dig anything up, it immediately stops becoming proof of anything.

Everybody has a little Indy Jones in them...but even he was a looter. If you raid a site, you are a looter. Again, I say resist the temptation, and get the pros involved. Archaeologists are fully aware that in the practice of their science, the database gets destroyed. That is why it is such a meticulous process. I repeat as well, that if a paradigm is to be changed, the process involves a rigorous set of rules and standards. Looting a site immediately disqualifies it from any relevance...and I think you're hoping for more out of this. Thanks again for starting this very interesting thread...and I assume that the 'branches' do not bear any resemblance to the topography, right?

Loot is not in my vocabulary you read into something that is not what I am suggesting. The metal detector is to be used to to see if any lines run outward forming a pattern from the Strange Rock Carving. Again check for magnetic resonance being emitted from this Strange Rock Carving. Bringing in experts in the field of archaeology is a good idea such as the Smithsonian. ^Y^


[edit on 31-3-2010 by amari]

I don't suggest the Smithsonian! Such conspiracy abound!!

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by skeptic_al

He did provide sizes.

But adding an object of known size, would add to the validity of the
claim. It could be 1" and he says it's 21". Even a unused cigarette
would do.

here's a picture of the carving with a quarter laid on it for scale:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/09660176032b.jpg[/atsimg]

Does that help?

Quite odd. The 2 pics that I have seen one is ornately covered with beautiful blue almost in prsitine condition, the other shows the imperfections or rather the "high side carvings" crumbling. Notice the 2nd pic high side carvings are detoriating exactly where the trickle of what water is seen.

If that carving truly were made of stone, the circle, the tree limbs (if thats what they are), would still wear in atleast in some uniform manner and not crumble.

Ever seen a large rock in stone with running water over it, over thousands of years or even a few years, it just gets smoother and smoother, this being in a creekbed, and being "carved" would exhibit the same. The carving high sides are literally unfortunately being disolved, very similar in a manner to concrete or mortar on a block wal over timel.

I surely don't think JB Weld (jbw would probably outlast man kind in running water if it is not rolling down the river) is the material like another poster 6 pages back said, but that surely was not carved from the same rock base. To be blunt it looks like mortar.

Very sweet thread. I look forward to some type of outcome.

Originally posted by TheBloodRed
I don't suggest the Smithsonian! Such conspiracy abound!!

Why because of the Egyptian artifacts cover up in the AZ? What is your reasoning not to use the Smithsonian other then conspiracies? ^Y^

[edit on 31-3-2010 by amari]

reply to post by Stockburn


There isn't any mortar on it, but there is a deposit of silt, which is thicker in some areas of the stone, and nearly completely absent in others.

The rock was never smoothed or polished to begin with, I don't think. At least it doesn't have any squared off faces. The mechanism that usually causes river rocks to be smoothed is the tumbling as the water rolls them down stream, banging them against other rocks. This rock appears not to have tumbled much. It appears to be pretty well seated right where it's at.

reply to post by nenothtu


I am going to carve something like this in the forest on a rock ledge just so people will know I actually existed long after I am gone .

reply to post by nenothtu



If I hadn't spent years in the hospitality business, I'd still be calling
morels "dry land fish". Which I still do, depending on the company.

reply to post by Stockburn


Surely, you jest ! No, it doesn't look like mortar, it is indeed cut into the rock. Go back and look at the pics., I doubt that there is ever a time when this rock is completely 'covered' with water, from looking at the surrounding landscape. Although, I could be wrong.

I personally know of a fossil embedded in the surface of a rock here in my locale, in a creek-bed. It is serpentine in appearance, and IT HAS LEGS. So, that tells me that it has been there for thousands of years, in the creek-bed. It is in a boulder that probably weighs in at 45-50 tons.

So, we can't always assume that water will destroy this type of stuff in short periods of time .

Originally posted by amari

Originally posted by TheBloodRed
I don't suggest the Smithsonian! Such conspiracy abound!!

Why because of the Egyptian artifacts cover up in the AZ? What is your reasoning not to use the Smithsonian other then conspiracies? ^Y^

[edit on 31-3-2010 by amari]

Better than Zahi Hawass I suppose. It would be nice to get some kind of see through imaging to see if it is a cap stone of some kind or not.

(Zahi Hawass has been complained at for concealing findings over time to make it look like there were more than there really were. He is the Egypt SUPREME OVERLORD GOD of Antiquities.)

reply to post by nenothtu
CREVICE!!!

AWSOME... my jaw dropped I gotta go back to give a thorough look through as I made quite an ... of myself ( habit ) by not doing so before but AWSOME I will need some time to post the info gathered on the Shawnee Most likely I will have that up tomorrow but I will drop a quick note for those who had assumed this was a recent carving dated to the 60s ( as was also my assumption ).The degree of water erosion on the carving is significant and is consistent with occasional heavy flooding. The newest pics provide obvious evidence of a continuously flowing stream however the environment suggests that this stream dried within the last 100 years ( decay patina of surrounding rock.) So far I’m thinking pre 1900 at least.

Originally posted by hiluxxulih
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I am going to carve something like this in the forest on a rock ledge just so people will know I actually existed long after I am gone .

Sign it, so that folks know who put it there, and some guy don't start scratching his head and putting it on ATS, looking for answers!

Originally posted by 23refugee
reply to post by nenothtu

 

If I hadn't spent years in the hospitality business, I'd still be calling
morels "dry land fish". Which I still do, depending on the company.

I didn't know what morels were until I was around 23, and found out I'd been eating them for years. Dad educated me in a lot of things, but proper english, with proper names widely recognized as such, wasn't one of them. That was one of the subjects I had to take on for myself.

Evidently it's an ongoing education!

Looking back through the last few posts, I have to say I feel horrible for laughing so hardily at the individual who posted pics of mammoths (recently taken by a time traveling camera fitted with a magical crystal) I am skeptical by nature but jeeesh, look at the evidence and research before you condemn, The rock is most likely Phyllite. It’s not that I am implying this is the most significant discovery of our age but it is a wonderful learning tool for those who are diggers at heart. I hated the years spent living in a backassward spit of a town ( wood county ) but I know for a fact that the state is an untapped resource due to topography. There is much to discover as there is so much that has been untouched. WV is rich in archeological evidence of pre Columbus settlement and examples of survival, oppression, hope, and resourcefulness.

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by Stockburn

 

Surely, you jest ! No, it doesn't look like mortar, it is indeed cut into the rock. Go back and look at the pics.,

That is exactly my my point. If it were cut/carved/chiseled/ground, the rock would not crumble. It would wear at some even rate. Assuming the rock is is solid, which it seems to be other than the "carving".




Now take a look at this rock etching, or petroglyph, it is 10,000 years old. I took this not just a few weeks ago. Sure its has cracks, but it is not crumbling. Maybe it has something to do with rock composition.




I just don't think the OP is a carving, it is a mortar job, where the occasional water has eroded the high sides of the morar.

Then again, what do I know. Not a darn thing about rock. Just looking I guess.

reply to post by Stockburn


I was going to say it has everything to do with the type of stone it is cut into, but you beat me to it. It would indeed have everything to do with rock composition.

reply to post by MsAmen


The man who found it is convinced it's 'over a hundred years old', but he won't hazard a guess as to how much over, whether a day or a millenium. He's around 60 years old, and intimately familiar with changes over time wrought On objects in this locale, through observations.

This one, I can't really say myself. I know that fresh fractures or cuts in rock are a different shade from the undisturbed areas, and gradually take on the same tone as the rest over time. How long that takes, for this kind or rock (which I'm not even sure what it is) I haven't got a clue. In this one, the surfaces of the cuts is practically indistinguishable from the uncut areas, but whether that would take 20 years or 200 years is beyond my ability to assess.

There also comes a point when the surfaces are so similar in hue that no further change occurs in the cut surface, regardless of how long it sits. When you get there, guesses become moot, and other testing has to take place. I have no Idea how one would determine the age of a cut surface vs an uncut one under those circumstances.

This rock isn't a sand stone, nor is it a slate or shale. It's some sort of fairly hard rock, with an pattern similar to granite, but fine-grained. It appears to have tiny quartz crystals interspersed with some other bluish mineral.

I believe you're right about the stream having gotten dryer in the last 100 years. There are springs near the top of the hill, which I presume use the same water supply, which have lighter flow than they did when I was a kid. I'm around 50, so let's say they've lightened over the course of at least the last 40 years, possibly longer.

White settlers have been in this area for around 200 years, and explorers for maybe 60 years before that. If it were a product of those sorts of people, that would be a reasonable time frame to work with. Shawnees and Delawares were in here for maybe 150 years or so before that, and before them was a tribe called the 'Conoy' that I don't know much about. I'm looking forward to seeing what you've discovered about the Shawnee.

reply to post by Stockburn
Phyllites’ reflective properties are caused by crystal formations within the rock. What is perceived as white at high noon will look to be blue or metallic in less light. Oxidization of the element iron will render colors of blue, black or red depending on location and concentration. The rock has not been determined to be Phyllite however theses properties are consistent with igneous rocks of the region.

Originally posted by Stockburn

That is exactly my my point. If it were cut/carved/chiseled/ground, the rock would not crumble. It would wear at some even rate. Assuming the rock is is solid, which it seems to be other than the "carving".

I just don't think the OP is a carving, it is a mortar job, where the occasional water has eroded the high sides of the morar.

Then again, what do I know. Not a darn thing about rock. Just looking I guess.

Your 'crumbling mortar' is decaying leaves. Give me a few minutes, and I'll crop those areas from the original resolution so you can see what I mean. They have collected in the low points (the incised areas) over the past couple of day as the rock dried off from the recent rains.

[edit on 2010/4/1 by nenothtu]

reply to post by Stockburn
Phillite elements are similar to Shist ( Ever climbed a rocky hill and felt your foot slip, looked down and realized what you thought was solid rock just shattered into tiny pieces like glass, thats Shist ) Philite however has a higher concetration of iron. The iron is sparsly distributed throughout the rock. In other words a hard knock in the right spot will knock a chunk off.

reply to post by nenothtu


Hey nenothtu, have you 'brushed' this thing to clean it up any, you know, with like a good mortar brush or something ?