Hammer found in Cretaceous rock (75 to 100 million years old), page 1


Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times
Topic started on 14-10-2004 @ 07:26 AM by radiant_obsidian

In June of 1934, members of the Hahn family discovered a rock, sitting loose on a
rock ledge beside a waterfall outside London, Texas. The site primarily consists
of Cretaceous rock (75 to 100 million years old). Noticing that this weathered rock
had wood protruding from it, they cracked it open, exposing the hammer head. To
verify that the hammer was made of metal, they cut into one of the beveled sides
with a file. The bright metal in the nick is still there, with no detectable corrosion.
The unusual metallurgy is 96% iron, 2.6% chlorine and 0.74% sulfur (no carbon).
Density tests indicate casting exceptional quality.

The density of the iron in a central, cross-sectional plane shows the interior metal
to be very pure, with no bubbles. Modern industry cannot consistently produce iron
castings with this quality, as evidenced by test results that show bubbles and
density variations that have caused pump and valve bodies to break. The handle
eye is partially coalifed with quartz and calcite crystalline inclusions, oval shaped,
and roughly 1" x 1/2".


How is it that a hammer, made from a metal purer than any metal smelting techniques used in modern industry could be found in a peice of cretaceous rock from 75-100million years old????
My belief is that our race is much older than we know or can scientifically prove, this is not the first time that humans have dominated the planet.

Think about this, if man was around over 500,000 years ago, why wouldnt we know about it?

A- The people in power dont want to radically alter our human history, it suits them as it is?

B- Half a million years is a long time for a cataclysm or great flood, or even meteor shower to happen. read the bible and find out about some of the cataclsms that have befallen men in the past and compare these with sumerians, and other ancient races historical data. Whats to say our history doesnt go back even further, its just we have yet to find evidence of this.

I personally think that evolution may play a key. we did not simply eveolve from monkeys and chimps to our current state overnight, what if there has been more than 1 species of humanoid homonid like us??? This is not only likely, but highly probable as nature would need species similar to humans, to be able to evolve into humans. And where have all these other species gone? What happened to all the other species whilst we evolved and took over the planet?
I believe its possible that we as a race may have hunted the lesser or weaker evolutionary links as food, just as native tribes in rainforests still eat chimps, monkeys and primates as a food source.
If you have any views or ideas as to where we came from or how old our race of humans may be, then please reply to this topic, or if you have any more information regarding the 'Hammer in rock' find. The article link is below.


reply posted on 14-10-2004 @ 08:03 AM by radiant_obsidian
U like having hard, concrete proof my friend. I didnt say any of the article was fact, I mereley wanted to get folks atention, so tell me this, in an age where were almost looking at ww3 starting, what makes u think our technology or advancements would be found by acrcheologists way off in the future?

Im saying this because of the nature of what I originally said? Take a look at the amount of nukes we have around the world, easily enough to destroy the planet, or any evidence we were ever hear. Whats to say some of our larger meteor strikes such as the chixiclub would not have this same effect in the past?? Or the great flood as described in the bible and sumerian texts.



You have to read such things VERY carefully...even if this WAS actually in the older rock,

This is a very condascending way to talk to people, I did read the article carefully and that is why I have stated my point of view, I have never claimed the article as a fact, just point of view, maybe u should listen to your own advice my friend as I also never stated that any ancient cicilisation has technology beyond ours....just that our ancient friends may have had their own ways of making tools which differ from our more modern smelting techniques. It was the ancients after all who passed on their knowledge of metals to us and us who stood on their shoulders to advance that knowledge.

Also, if u dont believe in advanced ancient civilisations, then how do you explain the Mayans who had a knowledge of our own solar system and astronomy beyond our own untill the turn of this century, they knew about planets we hadnt even found, and yet they knew this without the aid of any real scientific instruments or telescopes? And they arent the only ones, the egyptians, Messopotamians, Mayans, Incas, Aztecs and Native American Indian tribes had this same understanding of astrology and the planets......so why has it taken us so long to catch up with them if their civilisation ended hundereds and thousands of years ago? Where did these ancient races come from or how did they derive their vast knowledge.

Also, the article states that the rock found with the hammer inside was weathered, which would seem to indicate the rock having been weathered over a long period of time as weathering does not happen over night. Also if the rocks appearance did differ from the surrounding rocks, then it would have been mentioned in the article. But it wasnt, so your just offering wild conjecture on that 1


reply posted on 14-10-2004 @ 08:30 AM by Gazrok
This is a very condascending way to talk to people, I did read the article carefully and that is why I have stated my point of view


I'm sorry you took it that way...much communication is lost over the internet, and my body language and expressions would have helped show that I was not trying to be condescending, just pointing out that the author of the article had a clear agenda, and stated the facts, but while dancing around them with artful language skill, to make inference. My apologies for the implied tone, it was not my intention...

Also, if u dont believe in advanced ancient civilisations,


Here, you are the one making assumptions. I DO believe in advanced ancient civilizations, yet I don't believe in the idea of them being more advanced than we are today, just more advanced than their neighbors, and perhaps others who came after them... The Egyptians are likewise an excellent example of this.

Also, the article states that the rock found with the hammer inside was weathered, which would seem to indicate the rock having been weathered over a long period of time as weathering does not happen over night.


It would near a waterfall...

Also if the rocks appearance did differ from the surrounding rocks, then it would have been mentioned in the article. But it wasnt, so your just offering wild conjecture on that 1


When making a persuasive essay, or article...it isn't what you say, but what you DON'T say that helps your point. The article stated it was a loose rock, especially if it was different, it would not be mentioned in the article, as it wouldn't support the author's point. While I admit that I conjectured some there...the article does claim it was a separate (loose) rock.

what makes u think our technology or advancements would be found by acrcheologists way off in the future?


Good question. Stories high stone and metal structures, miles and miles of concrete roadways, plastics that will last millions of years in the same state, dams, bridges, the Panama Canal, etc. etc. (Need I go on?) Even in an all out nuclear war, evidence of all of these would be found thousands of years into the future, so no, there'd be no doubt as to our level of advancement. Hence the crux of my argument... If they were more advanced, this would be EASY to see, not difficult.


reply posted on 14-10-2004 @ 09:07 AM by QuietSoul
Here's a picture of the hammer:



Click here for high res picture


Here's some more fact's that go along with the original author's story:

Max Hahn was fishing with his family near London, Texas in June of 1936 when he found a rock with wood protruding from it. When the rock was cracked open, this octagonally shaped iron hammer was exposed. The wood handle appears to be
partially coalified and has quartz and calcite crystalline inclusions. Tests performed at Battelle Laboratory document the hammer's unusual metallurgy: 96% iron, 2.6 % chlorine and 0.74 % sulfur (no carbon). Density tests indicate a casting of exceptional quality.


And goes on to note:

The enclosing rock contains Lower Cretaceous fossils. It is a concretionary sandstone nodule. The nearby cliff is made up of concretionary sandstone nodules which look exactly like the one encasing the hammer. If this nodule, with the hammer, did indeed come from the nearby cliff, evolutionary theory would have to be abandoned by the intellectually honest. This cliff is part of the Lower Cretaceous Edwards Plateau which evolutionists tell us was formed about 140 million years ago, when dinosaurs roamed the earth. Of course, the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs would destroy evolutionary theory.


Which explains what the rock was that the hammer was found in..

Here's where the hammer was found...
Here's the area where it was found...
And the cliff it supposivly came from..

This cliff is part of the Lower Cretaceous Edwards Plateau which evolutionists tell us was formed 140 million years ago, when dinosaurs roamed the earth. Of course, the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs would destroy evolutionary theory, so maybe the hammer was made by dinosaurs. Do you really think so?

And to debunk this entire notion, I'll direct you to THIS website.

The stone is real, and it looks impressive to someone unfamiliar with geological processes. How could a modern artifact be stuck in Ordovician rock? The answer is that the concretion itself is not Ordovician. Minerals in solution can harden around an intrusive object dropped in a crack or simply left on the ground if the source rock (in this case, reportedly Ordovician) is chemically soluble (Cole, 1985).


In order to claim the hammer as a reliable out-of-place artifact, one would need either

1. Convincing documentation that the hammer was once naturally embedded in an ancient rock formation, or

2. Independent scientific evidence indicating a problematic age for the hammer.

So far neither has been provided. The lack of evidence for the first condition has already been acknowledged in creationist accounts. Independent evidence for the hammer's age could be gleaned from a number of methods, including Carbon 14 dating on the wooden handle. If there was no appreciable amount of C14 in it (beyond expected residual contamination) it would imply the hammer was more than 50,000 years old, and if younger than that, C14 could help pinpoint its actual age.

However, for years Baugh refused to allow the hammer to be C14 dated. In an exchange of letters between creationist Walter Brown and Jim Lippard in Creation/Evolution, Brown (1989) suggested that the hammer handle has not been dated because Baugh had three "understandable" conditions for dating it: that it be done with mass spectrometry, that Baugh be present during the dating, and that someone else pay for it. However, Lippard countered that no one has objected to the first two conditions, and that Baugh had no right to expect the third, since he's the one making the claims, and thus the one obligated to back them up. Even so, even after others offered to pay for the dating, Baugh declined to have it done. As Day (1991) wrote in a follow up letter: "Far from being 'understandable,' Baugh's stipulations seem to be little short of evasive tactics...If four years have gone by and nothing has happened, I think it is safe to conclude that Baugh has no interest whatsoever in determining the truth about his marvelous hammer."


G'Day.

Also want to add one more comment..

GOOGLE is a wonderful start.

[edit on 10/14/2004 by QuietSoul]


reply posted on 14-10-2004 @ 11:06 AM by Nygdan
Originally posted by radiant_obsidian
In June of 1934, members of the Hahn family discovered a rock, sitting loose on a
rock ledge[...]this weathered rock
had wood protruding from it, they cracked it open, exposing the hammer head.


This is not evidence of anything. Some family finds a hammer in a lump of mud and thinks its a rock? I recall that there was a spark plug found in a lump of mud that everyone who didn't know what they were talking about thought was an ancient rock, but, surprise surprise, wasn't.

The unusual metallurgy is 96% iron, 2.6% chlorine and 0.74% sulfur (no carbon).
Density tests indicate casting exceptional quality.

According to who?


How is it that a hammer, made from a metal purer than any metal smelting techniques used in modern industry could be found in a peice of cretaceous rock from 75-100million years old????
It hasn't, so the answer to the question is sort of meaningless.

My belief is that our race is much older than we know or can scientifically prove, this is not the first time that humans have dominated the planet.

If it can't be demonstrated because of lack of evidence, and there is a conspiracy covering it up, how did you come to this conclusion? How did the conspiracy fail to trick you? Without any evidence, you are just making things up, and accepting them as real.

Think about this, if man was around over 500,000 years ago, why wouldnt we know about it?


Half a million years is a long time for a cataclysm or great flood, or even meteor shower to happen. read the bible

There is no evidence for a world wide flood. There are deposits of localized floods from longer ago than you are saying, so the evidence certainly could survive. But there isn't evidence of a world-wide one. So why pretend that there is?Whats to say our history doesnt go back even further, its just we have yet to find evidence of this.

I personally think that evolution may play a key. we did not simply eveolve from monkeys and chimps to our current state overnight, what if there has been more than 1 species of humanoid homonid like us???
Uhmmmm, in case you hadn't bothered to look at the research on this topic, there were humanoid running around the planet besides us. www.talkorigins.org...

This is not only likely, but highly probable as nature would need species similar to humans, to be able to evolve into humans. And where have all these other species gone? What happened to all the other species whilst we evolved and took over the planet?
Perhaps you should try looking at the evidence, which obviously you haven't, before jumping, er, I mean making, conclusions. See, thats how it usually works. You look at stuff first, then you describe it.

The article link is below.

It didn't show up. Apparently that doesn't matter, because you aren't even saying its correct.
what makes u think our technology or advancements would be found by acrcheologists way off in the future?

Since there is evidence of technology (stone tools, settlements, burials, etc) from 'way off in the past', why think that they wouldn't find anything? Even if every city was 'nuked', there'd still be piles of weird radioactive metals and radio-isotopes that only result from nuke explosions all over the planet (and thats of course ignoring all the places that simply -wouldn't- get nuked)
Take a look at the amount of nukes we have around the world, easily enough to destroy the planet, or any evidence we were ever hear.

Absolutely not. Enough to complete wreak civilization probably, certainly the west anyway, but not to erase all evidence of civilization.
Whats to say some of our larger meteor strikes such as the chixiclub would not have this same effect in the past??

Well, since we have evidence from before the chixilhub, not to mention evidence of the impact and its affects itself....
Or the great flood as described in the bible and sumerian texts.

So there's no evidence of a great flood, therefore it had to have happened? Because of some story that doesn't make sense? There isn't even enough water to flood the planet in the first place.
how do you explain the Mayans who had a knowledge of our own solar system and astronomy beyond our own untill the turn of this century, they knew about planets we hadnt even found

No, they didn't.
yet they knew this without the aid of any real scientific instruments or telescopes?

One can see the stars and planets without instruments. 'Seven easier when there aren't any cities dumping light into the sky.
the egyptians, Messopotamians, Mayans, Incas, Aztecs and Native American Indian tribes had this same understanding of astrology and the planets

And we have evidence of their technologies and cultures. Buildings, papers, glyphs, temples, burials, settlements, farms, everything. You had said that the technology of this ancient civ was too old to remain, yet everything else does. You think that they had metal smelting factories, ore processors, industrial mines, labs, and universities to figure it all out, but these things are gone and some coloured mud on pressed reeds is still around?
Where did these ancient races come from or how did they derive their vast knowledge.

Well, I'd be willing to be that they didn't just make up stuff and uncritically accept things other people told them. But they weren't more advanced in terms of science and technology anyways, so where are you getting that from?
Also if the rocks appearance did differ from the surrounding rocks, then it would have been mentioned in the article.

Why would it say that? You know the journalistic standards of the author?

kix
Oh my John Titor found his long lost hammer

Nice. Apparently he needed technology more primitive than that old IBM. Maybe the people in the future had gotten frustrated with it and need the hammer to smash it.


reply posted on 14-10-2004 @ 12:02 PM by Off_The_Street
Radiant Obsidian, I have some concerns with your story.

First off, if the rock were from a Cretaceous formation, it would be from between 144 and 65 mya, not 75 to 100 mya. This may sound kind of “nit-picking”, but how can you trust a geologist who des not even know when the Cretaceous era was to provide us with good information?

Second, the articles mentioned that the “unusual metallurgy is 96% iron, 2.6% chlorine and 0.74% sulfur” – that is unusual indeed, I do not see how (remember I’ve only had a couple of chemistry courses) you can alloy iron, chlorine, and sulfur. Although there are cast alloys with Sulfur, the percentage is almost never more that 0.11 percent, and that is only a small part of other elements, typically, Carbon (3.3%), Silicon (1/64%), Manganese (0.3%), Phosphorus (1.42%) and traces of Nickel, Magnesium, and Copper).

And as far as alloying a metal with a halogen, good luck; I would love to see the balanced equation with chlorine in it! As a matter of fact, the site where it is now (Genesis Park, see www.genesispark.org...) says: ”Many scientists have expressed skepticism since the artifact was not found in situ by a professional, but the composition (chlorine fabricated with metallic iron) remains a puzzling enigma.”

That’s the understatement of the year!

Carl Baugh, by the way, the creationist who bought the hammer, has refused to allow anyone to attempt to carbon –14 date the hammer handle, which would settle the matter for once and all.

Here is more information about the hammer:

members.aol.com...

I’m afraid it’s just another hoax.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



More Mysterious Nazca Lines From Space
  Posted 6 days ago with 124 member flags
The Aztec and Norse god of war are both missing one hand.
  Posted 17 days ago with 48 member flags
63,000-Year-Old Modern Human Skull Found in Laos
  Posted 18 days ago with 38 member flags
Multiple Human Species Were Likely The Norm
  Posted 11 days ago with 37 member flags
The Sumerian \'Flood-Storm\' weapon.
  Posted 6 days ago with 18 member flags