The London Hammer, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times

Topic started on 5-10-2011 @ 10:31 AM by Hanslune

Recently the London hammer was put up as 'evidence' for lost civilizations

The London Hammer

The person making this claim had obviously never researched the object in question which is well known to those in the creationist/evolution camps.

An analysis of the hammer is here

Looking at the hammer

reply posted on 5-10-2011 @ 10:37 AM by NewsWorthy

This has been proven fake by how long it takes for that type of rock to form. The guy who found it won't let anybody do scientific tests on it so to me that screams fake. It's even a exact typa hammer used by workers in like the early 1800's or so I have read. But thanks for the reminder

reply posted on 5-10-2011 @ 11:00 AM by Misterlondon

This has been proven fake by how long it takes for that type of rock to form. The guy who found it won't let anybody do scientific tests on it so to me that screams fake. It's even a exact typa hammer used by workers in like the early 1800's or so I have read. But thanks for the reminder

im aware this has caused on going arguments for some time now, and in my opinion you would have to be very optimistic to think this was a real oopart.. especially because of the nature of the story and also the guy wont allow independent testing (why not?)

but at the same time i wasnt aware this has been PROVEN fake..

do you have any links from an unbiased source?

reply posted on 5-10-2011 @ 01:53 PM by Kandinsky

reply to post by Misterlondon

You could read some of the dozen or so references at the foot of the article

3 are links and 5 are available online...

reply posted on 5-10-2011 @ 02:00 PM by Hanslune

reply to post by Kandinsky

Well maybe its his hammer?

reply posted on 21-10-2011 @ 07:19 PM by Lostmymarbles

I read a story on this a while back where they did do a test on the composition of the iron and the level of oxygen it had as well as other gases and what they found was that the levels showed that there was no way that the hammer was made in our time, or anytime in the past few hundred years. And instead the results showed that the hammer would have had to be made well before the great floods when the atmospheric conditions would have been similar.

On top of that the hammer is such a high quality that we in our modern times would just be able to make it that quality. So if we can barely make this quality with our modern equipment then its hard to see how anyone in the 1800-1900s could have made it.

Gonna such for the article that showed the testing of it.

In case anyone is wondering the atmospheric testing that they did with the iron is almost similar to the way they test ice cores. Gases in the atmosphere change in % over time depending on earth's climate, etc, which is how they are able to determine if it was pre or post flood era.

reply posted on 22-10-2011 @ 03:05 AM by ladyteeny

Originally posted by Lostmymarbles
I read a story on this a while back where they did do a test on the composition of the iron and the level of oxygen it had as well as other gases and what they found was that the levels showed that there was no way that the hammer was made in our time, or anytime in the past few hundred years. And instead the results showed that the hammer would have had to be made well before the great floods when the atmospheric conditions would have been similar.

On top of that the hammer is such a high quality that we in our modern times would just be able to make it that quality. So if we can barely make this quality with our modern equipment then its hard to see how anyone in the 1800-1900s could have made it.

Gonna such for the article that showed the testing of it.

In case anyone is wondering the atmospheric testing that they did with the iron is almost similar to the way they test ice cores. Gases in the atmosphere change in % over time depending on earth's climate, etc, which is how they are able to determine if it was pre or post flood era.

even if you don't find it, i've seen that video as well, and can confirm everything you've said.

maybe the owner doesn't want it 'tested', would you if you found what was potentially evidence of civilisation, and a high one at that, dating back 65 million odd years (65 mills off the top of my head, .. or the geologists accepted dating of rock of that era)? as i recall even the wood of the hammer is fossilized. proven fake? doubt it.

edit on 22-10-2011 by ladyteeny because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 22-10-2011 @ 03:27 AM by foxhoundone

reply to post by Hanslune

I saw this comment on the replies section Hanslune, Know anything about this book, Tried a quick search but no comeback.

"Have a look at Michael Cremo’s ‘Forbidden Archaelogy’ – it’s 1000 pages full of strange stuff."

Any information would be appreciated.

reply posted on 23-10-2011 @ 11:50 PM by Lostmymarbles

reply to post by ladyteeny

I couldn't find it but still looking. Got so many bookmarks on stuff like this, it could take a year to find lol.

As for whether or not I'd let it get tested, I would if only I was present the entire time. Something like this has a tendency to disappear or get "lost" whenever they do tests. Which is probably why he didn't want it done either.

Also I think that around the same time he found the hammer, there was the discovery of the fossilized footprints which showed human prints next to dino prints. When those were discovered, religious fanatics went to the site and started destroying the footprints with hammers. The reason they gave for destroying them was because they thought the footprints shouldn't have existed and was contrast to their religious upbringing which taught them humans came to life 10000 years ago.

If I found that hammer and then read something like that, I would be very protective of my find as well, lol. And I do believe it was proven that the wood attached to the hammer was indeed fossilized, which cannot be faked in how it was attached to the hammer.

I've read parts of Forbidden Archeology and my mind was blown away. So much has been hidden from us that the history books need to be completely rewritten.

reply posted on 24-10-2011 @ 12:18 AM by stumason

reply to post by Lostmymarbles

None of that means anything.. Without the video you purport exists, it is just you saying "I heard once...", like "I heard once that a man spoke to sheep and it answered back in fluent English"... Doesn't mean it happened.

Besides, Oxygen content in manufactured Iron or steel has nothing to do with the atmospheric content at the time of manufacture. Most steel made these days is done by injecting high amounts of oxygen into molten iron to remove impurities.

The fact he doesn't want it testing (the owner) is telling. Much can be learned from a good test, even down to were in the world it was made and the process used.

reply posted on 24-10-2011 @ 09:56 AM by Harte

And no, the handle is not "fossilized."

Another strike against it.

If the hammer were as old as claimed, there would be no wood with it.

Harte

reply posted on 24-10-2011 @ 06:38 PM by Lostmymarbles

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Lostmymarbles

Besides, Oxygen content in manufactured Iron or steel has nothing to do with the atmospheric content at the time of manufacture. Most steel made these days is done by injecting high amounts of oxygen into molten iron to remove impurities.

Actually oxygen content and other gases do have a lot to do with atmospheric content and do help determine age.

minerals.cr.usgs.gov...

There are many other sites that help explain the process. Read part 3 of the link, under environment.

Also I am still looking for the site that I had previously mentioned, never said I wasn't gonna post it, I just need to find it first.

edit on 24-10-2011 by Lostmymarbles because: afterthought

reply posted on 24-10-2011 @ 06:55 PM by stumason

reply to post by Lostmymarbles

Your link is on about studying raw minerals in the earth, not testing man made materials, so quite pointless.

Massive amounts of oxygen are added to molten pig iron to remove the impurities in order to create steel, so citing the high oxygen content as a reason why it couldn't be manufactured today is erroneous.

reply posted on 24-10-2011 @ 09:35 PM by Lostmymarbles

reply to post by stumason

The idea and principle is just about the same.

Here are some other sites to help you get a better idea on how they would be able to test the metal.

science.howstuffworks.com... hange-info.htm

www.spacedaily.com...

minerals.cr.usgs.gov...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.talkorigins.org...

archaeology.about.com...

archaeology.about.com...

www.foxnews.com... -dig-mile-long-ice-core-antarcticas-ice/

By analyzing gases trapped in ancient bubbles in the ice formed tens of thousands of years ago, the timeline of Earth’s atmosphere will start to unfold. That timeline may include information on the Earth’s future.

Read more: www.foxnews.com...

earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

Hope these help you get a better understanding of what I was talking about.

edit on 24-10-2011 by Lostmymarbles because: added more sites

reply posted on 24-10-2011 @ 10:48 PM by Lostmymarbles

Here are a few of the links I mentioned in which they had done tests to the hammer.

Some of the articles say that the wood is partially fossilized and that parts of it were turning into coal.

www.londonhammer.com...

www.ancient-hebrew.org...

www.creationevidence.org... ew&id=26

www.myspace.com...

reply posted on 25-10-2011 @ 07:24 AM by Harte

Originally posted by Lostmymarbles
Here are a few of the links I mentioned in which they had done tests to the hammer.

Some of the articles say that the wood is partially fossilized and that parts of it were turning into coal.

www.londonhammer.com...

www.ancient-hebrew.org...

www.creationevidence.org... ew&id=26

[url=http://www.myspace.com/sexylabyrinth/blog/526103633]

From your first link:

The early American style of the hammer, and the largely undistorted and poorly mineralized condition of the handle, further suggests a relatively recent date. Well-preserved wood from Mesozoic or Paleozoic formations would not be expected to have such an appearance, nor to my knowledge have any similar wood specimens been documented in the nearby formation. Lines asserts on Baugh's web site that the hammer is partially "petrified" but I saw no evidence of this when I examined it in person, and other creationists have agreed that the wood in the handle looks relatively fresh, not much different from modern hardwood hammers (Helfinstine and Roth, 1994). In view of these considerations, It seems highly unlikely that the hammer was ever a natural part of the nearby Cretaceous beds, and more likely that it was dropped or discarded by a local miner or craftsman within the last few hundred years. It's also possible that the nodule was brought or washed into the area from some distance away, or from a higher stratum.

Harte

reply posted on 25-10-2011 @ 09:29 AM by Lostmymarbles

reply to post by Harte

Got to show both sides of the arguments and let ya'll decide for yourself which one you wish to believe in.

If I didn't then I would be no better then the media that constantly lies to us

edit on 25-10-2011 by Lostmymarbles because: afterthought

reply posted on 25-10-2011 @ 12:53 PM by KJV1611

reply to post by Misterlondon

im aware this has caused on going arguments for some time now, and in my opinion you would have to be very optimistic to think this was a real oopart.. especially because of the nature of the story and also the guy wont allow independent testing (why not?)

Well...think about it. If you found something that could possible prove all known science, evolution and history wrong....would you just willy nilly give it over to "scientists" who make there money disproving this kind of find? Look at the countless stories of the Smithsonian covering up artifacts and misleading history.

If I had something like the hammer, you can rest assured I wouldn't simply give it to TPTB either! Screw them.

reply posted on 25-10-2011 @ 12:59 PM by KJV1611

reply to post by NewsWorthy

This has been proven fake by how long it takes for that type of rock to form. The guy who found it won't let anybody do scientific tests on it so to me that screams fake. It's even a exact typa hammer used by workers in like the early 1800's or so I have read. But thanks for the reminder

Would not the time it takes these rocks to form (which is nothing more than a guess, scientists don't know) prove the age of the hammer? And once again, read my post above to explain why he doesn't want "people" to do tests on it. I wouldn't want people to mess with it either.

And just because it looks like a modern day hammer in the 1800's doesn't mean its fake. If something works, why change it? The hammer has never really changed it basic design since its conception, whenever that was. Your arguments are pretty weak.

reply posted on 26-10-2011 @ 04:43 PM by Hanslune

Tools or anything left in a cave where stalactites form will soon be covered by such 'rock'. This has been noted in a number of cases.

The stories about the Smithsonian are just that, stories to explain away a lack of evidence by blaming others. Many scientists are religious you know...

Pages: ^^TOP^^