Carbon dating shows it crash landed at the base of the canyon around 2,000 B.C.

How would they carbon date a crash?

Carbon dating, I thought, was a method to find out how old organic based material is.

How can you carbondate a crash where no corpses are recovered?

Originally posted by thematrix

Carbon dating shows it crash landed at the base of the canyon around 2,000 B.C.

How would they carbon date a crash?

Carbon dating, I thought, was a method to find out how old organic based material is.

How can you carbondate a crash where no corpses are recovered?

Very good point.. The only way, I can think of, would be if they found organic material of some sort in the craft, that they were sure had been put there at around the time of the crash.
Or maybe in the remains of a shrub/tree/anything that requires space and light, under the craft?

Originally posted by thematrix
How would they carbon date a crash?
Carbon dating, I thought, was a method to find out how old organic based material is.

Hi matrix
Say if the 'craft' crashed, and the material the craft was made of contaminated the soil at
the crash site. Just a thought
Sanc'.

Man these guys should have never left there planet . I mean realy the number of crashed alian craft exceds the number of planes we have.
Ovesly these guys dont have a transportation department .
Millions of miles of open space its amazing how manny hit this grane of sand.
One other thing why are we using jets in our wars when we have a Fleet of ufos that cant be shot down nearly as easly as our jets.

Another "If I remeber correctly about carbondating" is that its done by reading the radiation level of a carbon component and calculating the decay time it would need to get to that level of radiation.

How can this be done when:

The relic is made of an unknown metallic substance and emits low levels of radiation, according to leaks from highly placed sources. It was immediately removed from the site and is now in a secret location.

All carbondatable material close to the crash site would be contaminated by the radiation from the craft ...

Say if the 'craft' crashed, and the material the craft was made of contaminated the soil at
the crash site. Just a thought

If you don't know the original radiation level of the craft, nor the halflife of the material its made of(and since its an unknown metalic aloy, they can't know what its halflife is) you can't callculate how long its been sitting there.

Originally posted by Simcity4Rushour
One other thing why are we using jets in our wars when we have a Fleet of ufos that cant be shot down nearly as easly as our jets.

Because these UFO's are prone to unexpected or unexplainable crashes?

[edit on 5-7-2004 by thematrix]

How old is this article anyway? Tried to check the source given (ufo bbs) at the bottom of that cseti-site, but ufobbs.com doesn't seem to exist anymore. I could be wrong but I'm guessing this is a rather old story. Wouldn't give it much credit.

and that means that the craft could be millions of years old for all we know.
cool.

I dont think this is true, considering the fact that they've carbon dated the spaceship which will be made out of metal lol...
but still, I mean how long can you hide a huge UFO at the bottom of the grand canyon for?

This story, and site, sounds like a lot of bull. The carbon dating is the big giveaway. Carbon date an unknown metalic substance - give me a break!Interesting too how no one has noticed this craft in 4000 years given how good the condition was when it was located.

Originally posted by darkspace
and that means that the craft could be millions of years old for all we know.
cool.

Yeah, but, those are comments on the construct and validity of the article. Its full of errors and fake facts, using fancy names like carbon dating, but making grave errors about the posibility of doing that in this supposed situation.

Don't get me wrong in this thread. I'm not a fanatical debunker, the contrary even, I'm trying to find as much real info on something I KNOW to exist, as posible.
But I do prefer filtering out the half truths, hoaxes, fakes and total lies when I'm trying to collect information. And this article unfortunatly has lotsa problems in the very elements that support the story. Not to mention it just doesn't feel "right" to me.

Theres more to be found in the grand canyon then some crashed UFO's ya know. Like the alleged ruines of a seemingly Egyptian Temple complex, that is denied existence, but people are kept away from the area where it is supposed to be.

im no expert but i think you can easy date an object by checking the layer of ground it is in.

the layer of ground will tell you how old the carbon elements of the grond are. They cannot tell you how old a metalic item is that crashed into it at some point in time.

Originally posted by nukunuku
im no expert but i think you can easy date an object by checking the layer of ground it is in.

The thing crashed and lodged itself in the limestone layers at the base of the canyon.

If you go by layers, then it would be stuck something like between 5 and 10 million years ago ...

According to reports filed by the scientific team, the spacecraft was lodged in limestone rubble at the base of the canyon not far from an area called Comanche Point.

Geological aging in a place baren place like Grand Canyon is a method for aging in periods of 100 thousands and millions of years. Very different from a naturaly active location like a forest area or volcanic location.

Matrix,

Do you have any additional information on the Egyptian structures you mentioned?

I've got a major issue with the credibility of this thread/topic article in that, other than the name given for an "California based astronomer", Dr. Henry Leaumont, there are NO other names given!

Example:
"A team of experts called in to examine": A team of experts? Names? What is there area of expertise? Who called those supposed experts in to examine this supposed find? Again, names?

"The scientists, members of a highly secret joint military task force on UFOs": Ahhhhh, here we go, they are supposedly scientists....scientists from where, in what field, names? We are then clued into the fact that they are "members" of a wooooooo "highly secret joint military task force". *Rolls eyes* Names, team designation? Yeah right.....

The problem with this whole thing is that article and reports of this type and genre always have the known case of the "THEY said" syndrome and have no pictures, etc. to even back the so called facts and assertions up....

This supposed find, and article, is pure bonkers.



seekerof

It does sound very interesting, I'll have to have a good read of that! Cheers for the links.
It could mean all sorts of things I imagine - finding something out of place like that. Especially when it is supposed to be during a time when people supposedly didn't know about other parts of the world, let alone have the ability to travel those great distances.

Yeah and seeing how inaccessible the Grand Canyon can be, would be quite nasty for something big to be built there.

Not to give any credence to what is an incredible story... but too many of you are hung-up on the carbon dating aspect. AgentSmith had it right. The way they would estimate the age of the crash is by datiung materials found under it or otherwise buried by it. This is a legit methodology. NO as for the credibility of the story as a whole... well, that's an entirely different matter.

- GP