It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Screw 300 million years old! Who built it?

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 03:57 PM
These always seem to end like this Raist: head bangingly frustrating.

You've made me want to find my crinoid just to let you know there are some reasonable people out there, even if all the way in New Zealand.

But no,let's fly against all reason because oh my I really want there to be ancient advanced civilisations and unicorns. You know,maybe those crinoids weren't biologic,but were actually advanced machines? (cue blocula).

posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 04:50 PM
It is rather odd how some people latch onto the unreasonable despite the strong evidence against. In this case we see a part of a crinoid. It is described by someone as a bolt.

The object does not have spiral threads, yet some people continue to suggest it does. You might ask yourself why only a part of the object has been exposed and not say the head of the bolt. You might ask yourself why the object has the same color as the rest of the rock. You might ask yourself why the discovery was in 1998 and is being reported now.

You also might ask yourself if there are fossils that look like that rock. The answer is yes. You might ask if crinoid fossils are abundant or rare. The answer is that they are often abundant in some formations.

Not only is the report a bit odd, but it makes a claim that should have been huge news 14 years ago. Why not? Because the simple answer is that it is a hoax.

posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 05:10 PM
reply to post by cerebralassassins

reply to post by Signals

reply to post by CALGARIAN

You can't carbon date non-living things.

I suspect this is a fake, or something dug up. In which case, without biomass, you cannot carbon date it.
edit on 12-8-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 05:37 PM
I cannot believe this thread is still going

It is obviously naturally occurring. A fossil. A very common one too. Unlike 300 million year old hardware.

Has any one explained how an iron (some form) screw persisted for over a quarter billion years without turning into dust?

posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 05:42 PM

Originally posted by soaringhawk
reply to post by cerebralassassins

I feel the whole idea of cosmic evolution and all the other steps of evolution are a lie, that ancient man was very intelligent and were in ways more advanced than we are today. There's also no proof for e.t life of any kind.

So i guess you fall under the category that out of 100 billion stars of the known universe, we, Planet Earth is the only star that has intelligent life.

For obvious reason's i simply don't agree. A prime example is that even today we are discovering new species in the depth of the oceans and that is right in back yard, consider whats going on across the universe that even with hypothetical propulsion we still wont be able to reach the edge of space, that is, if space does actually have start and finishing point. Kinda makes you wonder what's the purpose of space, who does it serve, what does it serve, who conceived space,

posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 06:01 PM

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by cerebralassassins

Actually that took all of 3 minutes to gather. A search of Google gave it up quick. From the start I have held that it was crinoid. I posted a photo then. A simple Google search would have given the same.

I only posted the large number of photos thie time because I cannot stand to see a fossil not being recognized for what it is. I was simply tired of people calling it a screw it is rock and a rock screw would not work and metal does not fossilize.

I am not trying to be snotty or short or anything like that, I just got home from work and is saddens me to see people saying this is made by people, aliens or what have you when it was a living creature.

I am just a guy that is really into fossils and I collected crinoids and other fossils 25 years ago and still collect them. As I said early on I am just into fossils and I take them seriously. Sorry if I came off as rude or whatever I was not trying for that.


Actually you did not come across in any hostile manner, you were in tune with the whole thread. Id say this thread was a win win situation for all.

posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 06:17 PM

Originally posted by Sablicious

Originally posted by cerebralassassins

They do not come in peace, they have no concept of peace as you and i have been taught.

Whether 'they' came in peace or otherwise (or ever at all) is moot now.

With the universe expanding as it is, they likely can no longer reach us anyway (it may, to some extent, explain why all the UFO conspiracy stuff is become less credible as time goes on). Our own galaxy will be the only one we will ever have 'contact' with in the future; the rest of space will be just a black void, in millennia to come. So, unless they're our next door neighbours (i.e., are in the Milky Way), we won't be able to make contact.

Quick off topic post

Indeed, the Voyager scouts are the ones that will provide the data. I have a feeling our Milky Way isn't that friendly as the term used to describe it. I feel that the human race will soon have a wake up call making scifi movies look like musical's.

Current location of the scout.- The video showing its paths is interesting.

posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 06:22 PM
300 000 million years old is a bit of a stretch, even for a dinosaur.

posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 06:26 PM

Between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 Much Time...
edit on 12-8-2012 by ResearchEverything777 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 08:21 PM
reply to post by cerebralassassins

Looks like a fossil to me. I forget the name, but the kind that is not the animal itself but the hole it left behind.

posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 08:37 PM

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Signals

B) seriously flawed dating techniques...what if carbon 14 dating is totally bogus?

You can't carbon date rock....the magic word is carbon as in the lack of....

You can carbon date the carbon on a rock though.

In the case of a meteorite, the carbon crust built up on it as it burns through the atmosphere is datable...besides, you don't need carbon to date rock, there's many other radiometric dating methods commonly used to date rocks.

This is how we get to estimate the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old (+/- 5% or so).

posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 08:51 PM

Originally posted by cerebralassassins

Screw 300 million years old! Who built it?

In the summer of 1998, Russian scientists who were investigating an area 300 km southwest of Moscow on the remains of a meteorite, discovered a piece of rock which enclosed an iron screw. Geologists estimate that the age of the rock is 300-320 million years.

I'm expecting the scientists to come out to dismiss this out of hand as a hoax or the result of poor dating techniques.

I have no trouble believing that we are clueless about the real history of our planet.

As for the ETs, there's more than one kind. Not all are hostile to humankind. After all, we are starseed.

S&F for an interesting OP.

posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 09:12 PM
reply to post by cerebralassassins

Interesting thread. Always enjoy reading about ancient tech.

As far as the Earth having a monopoly on the concept of 'peace' you have to be fu#king kidding?
For all we know we are the most greedy, blood thirsty planet in our galaxy.

You will probably believe a false flag alien invasion, and welcome with open arms the tyranny that follows. Good luck with that.

posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 09:16 PM
Thought it was Adam and Eve who made the 1st screw ??

posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 09:42 PM
reply to post by cerebralassassins

So someone was screwin 300 million years ago? lololol Takes two to tango!
Either that our someone is screwin around with the age!

posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 10:59 PM
This news is as old as the hills!

Screw it! (pun intended!)

posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 11:10 PM
reply to post by cerebralassassins

Was the ROCK what age they tested?

Or did they test the Screw?

I can't seem to find that information in the article...

posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 11:28 PM
A couple of things I have issue with in this thread.
First off, taking you're assuming that there was a pre-existing civilization on earth 300 millions of years ago. There is a problem that, its a single 'screw' that's not threaded into anything. In modern day times there is no use for that. Ok if you want to presume it was a discarded screw, how did it get into a meteorite, that'd say it would come from space (as there is no evidence of it being forced into the meteorite and the fact that the 'screw' has drilled/forced into it). Why is it not warped, entry into earth's atmosphere generates 3000F of heat. Where as Iron has a melting point of 2800F. You'd expect at least a bit of warping with the heat generated.
We have to also consider Occam's razor, the simplest solution is usually the most likely.
Whats more likely?
A previously undiscovered advanced civilization that existed 300 million years ago, that used screws. We discovered a single one of said screws that is unused and not with any other pre-existing technology. (A lot of un-provable assumptions)
Rather than
We mis-understood the dating. Or somebody recently put it there. (Has happened before)

Also, the article is so scant in details it seems like they're trying to make a big deal about little.
edit on 12-8-2012 by Xertious because: Added last line.

posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 11:49 PM

Originally posted by XeroOne
Perhaps the screw isn't embedded in anything. The 'rock' itself could have been a man-made object that became fossilised, and the screw was part of it.
Seriously flawed dating techniques is the most likely explanation, though. How many people have ever questioned the supposed infallibility of carbon dating?
edit on 11-8-2012 by XeroOne because: (no reason given)

Please show me where credible scientists or any scientist for that matter that say that the carbon dating method is "infallible".
Answer that one.

Also please show me how (with credible sources) the carbon dating technique is in your own words a "seriously flawed dating technique"


edit on 8/12/2012 by Alien Abduct because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 11:57 PM
You can't carbon date rocks. Maybe the problem is in the flawed dating used. to state as a FACT the rocks are 300 million years old. This is based on manmade THEORIES about how these rocks formed.

No way that # could be wrong. NO #ING WAY.

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in