Ancient machines in Russia

page: 2
26
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 17 2013 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by LUXUS
 


Yep Luxus why don't you spend a few minutes and look of the vast amount of debunking on this?




posted on May, 17 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

Originally posted by andy06shake
I imagine some people will claim that the first picture is nothing more than fossilised sea life.

I wonder why that is?


I cannot imagine how they could.......





posted on May, 17 2013 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by LUXUS
 


Yep Luxus why don't you spend a few minutes and look of the vast amount of debunking on this?


Try debunking the second pic in my OP



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by LUXUS

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by LUXUS
 


Yep Luxus why don't you spend a few minutes and look of the vast amount of debunking on this?


Try debunking the second pic in my OP


How about you prove its real?

Here is a hint...tell us what, 'Before it's news' is?
edit on 17/5/13 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   


At the present time, these more-than-mysterious objects are being investigated by the Russian Academy of Sciences in Syktyvka (capital city of the former Soviet Republic of Komi), Moscow, St. Petersburg, and also a scientific institute in Helsinki, Finland.
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Question is if they are fake who could make them, I mean nano-springs would require very high tec to produce them.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by LUXUS



At the present time, these more-than-mysterious objects are being investigated by the Russian Academy of Sciences in Syktyvka (capital city of the former Soviet Republic of Komi), Moscow, St. Petersburg, and also a scientific institute in Helsinki, Finland.
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Question is if they are fake who could make them, I mean nano-springs would require very high tec to produce them.



The actual question you should be asking first - is the report true?

No point arguing the details if there is no actual report, no site and no scientific information for the claim.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Link



The mysterious metal objects are first invented for the German "woo" book Wenn Gotter Spielen ("When God plays") by Arthur Neumann. In this book he claims that the metal objects were analysed by Dr Valerii Ouvarov at the Central Scientific Research Institute for Geology and Prospecting for Precious and Non-Ferrous Metals in Moscow.

In this book he claims that the metal objects were analysed by Dr Valerii Ouvarov at the Central Scientific Research Institute for Geology and Prospecting for Precious and Non-Ferrous Metals in Moscow. (Which doesn't exist, and additionally the UK and former USSR non ferrous metal boards were isolated and concerned with uranium supply chains for weapons, not dating archaeology!) .


Now you take the next step and show that the above is wrong and then present your scientific information that the original report and study was done as credited in the 'story'.
edit on 17/5/13 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
Link



The mysterious metal objects are first invented for the German "woo" book Wenn Gotter Spielen ("When God plays") by Arthur Neumann. In this book he claims that the metal objects were analysed by Dr Valerii Ouvarov at the Central Scientific Research Institute for Geology and Prospecting for Precious and Non-Ferrous Metals in Moscow.

In this book he claims that the metal objects were analysed by Dr Valerii Ouvarov at the Central Scientific Research Institute for Geology and Prospecting for Precious and Non-Ferrous Metals in Moscow. (Which doesn't exist, and additionally the UK and former USSR non ferrous metal boards were isolated and concerned with uranium supply chains for weapons, not dating archaeology!) .


Now you take the next step and show that the above is wrong and then present your scientific information that the original report and study was done as credited in the 'story'.
edit on 17/5/13 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)


stopped reading when i saw the word "woo"...
as the use of such terms reflect not only a severe bias
but a fundamental and disgustingly patronizing lack of respect for people, their intelligence, and the truth in general.

the image you posted [reality/dreams] applies to you too...
you do not perceive absolute reality, just a funhouse mirrors distortion of it,
predetermined by the arrangement of the mirrors, how clean they are,
and whether you have a smoke-machine running.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by TheMagus
 


You do realize that people make stuff up don't you?

Then my friend show evidence that the report and the items are real.....

edit on 17/5/13 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Regardless of the debunkers,OP You have a thread that obviously got people thinking for themselves.Please respond in the negative or affirmative to the idea I proposed,if it is your will.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by LUXUS
reply to post by the_philth
 


Have the academics debunked the spark plug in the geode yet?
Why don't you first tell us exactly why it is that you believe that's a geode?

Here's what a geode looks like:



Harte



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by SilverStar33
Regardless of the debunkers,OP You have a thread that obviously got people thinking for themselves.Please respond in the negative or affirmative to the idea I proposed,if it is your will.


Threads are always a good idea but I would suggest that you search for older threads on the same subject and don't just repeat the same information which has been presented scores of times before OR show the claim, show the rebutal then point out how the rebutal is wrong, etc.

Good luck



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by TheMagus
 


You do realize that people make stuff up don't you?

Then my friend show evidence that the report and the items are real.....

edit on 17/5/13 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)


don't misunderstand, while i enjoy luxus' threads, i'm well aware that "people make stuff up"
[academics, among them], and am inclined towards diatoms/sealife myself, in this case.
the spirals and nano-bits may have a natural explanation as well [waiting ...]

just pointing out that someone of your credibility,and reputation for scholarship
should refrain from using such "debating tactics"
as they have no place in any serious search for truth
scientific or otherwise.

indeed, the only debates where such tactics/tricks have any place are political and religious ones [including scientism]
known purveyors of error and BS...


edit on 17-5-2013 by TheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by LUXUS
 


Love this kind of thread and know about the Ural spirals (though the layer is dated older could be cold war production waste from a secret soviet project) but the other 400 million year old fossil is new to me, is does look like a fossilised sea cluster of either anemone, primitive corals or even shell's, the uniform shape is not machine like and the cog's if the machine theory speculates that is what they are not meshing as far as I can see but I am only looking at a photograph.
I am not trying to be a sceptic but have been an active participant on smiley girl's thread with some very enlightening people and they will probably tear this apart so am just stating what I can see.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Have a look at the extensive comment's and answer's.

The spirals though are not debunked but are dubious to say the least.

Ask yourself as you know the Russian's were creating some very advanced technology along different line's to the west and while a lot of this tech was lost to them with the sell off of state secret's at the end of the cold war some remained hidden, there were rumour's of vast underground facility's built under the Ural's during the cold war and even hidden cold war underground factory's now how do you suppose they meant to hide all that excavation from the satellite's or even the U2 well there may be some of the answer and the Russian's have there own dis information that like the US use of the real phenomena of UFO to hide there test flight's the Russian's also used some bizarre explanation's.

Stealth, we use composite radar deflective and absorbing material's as well as fly by wire systems to allow the necessary compromises made to aerodynamics to actually fly controllably.

The Russian's were and I believe still are working with some success on a system that uses Ionisation to disrupt the radar return from there jet fighters and can be used on existing air frame's, not as good as our method but it work's.

Toward the end of the soviet union they were testing a radar based weapon that used a multi spectral radar array to create an absorption profile of an aerial target then using a very powerful transmitter they would output the inverse complex conjugate of the absorbed wave lengths with a extremely high amplitude (I believe it took a nuclear reactor to provide sufficient power to make it viable) this in turn caused massive kinetic oscillation in the atomic structure of the object and literally melted and shook it apart in flight, of course this would work on satellite's as well but would require a focused radio beam and even more power to accommodate the greater range.

So what were we developing that we still do not know about.
edit on 17-5-2013 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Love that one Harte the Coso Geode as you know was a Champion spark plug circa 1920's, the dating was actually accurate but they dated the 500,000 year old crud that was baked on by the hot sun from the gully into which it had been tossed long ago and not the spark plug itself.
edit on 17-5-2013 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by LUXUS
reply to post by the_philth
 

Have the academics debunked the spark plug in the geode yet?
Few interesting pics

Ancient Spark plug?

Ancient bronze wheels, described by professor Rafael ?

Ancient electrical device in rock, think this one is fake myself but what do you think?
I don't know if academics would give these subjects the time of day --- but after about a minute of using the Google, I came across this:

1961 - The 'Coso Artefact' - (NOW BELIEVED TO BE A FAKE) (3) Link to other electrical discoveriesThe story goes that rock hunters collecting geodes in Olancher, California cut a stone in half to discover a form of mechanical device. Beneath the outer layer of hardened clay, pebbles, and fossil inclusion was a hexagonal layer of an unknown substance softer than agate or jasper. This layer surrounded a three-quarter-inch-wide cylinder made of solid porcelain or ceramic, and in the centre of the cylinder was a 2mm shaft of bright metal. This shaft was magnetic and showed no signs of oxidation. Circling the ceramic cylinder were rings of copper, and these also had not corroded. X-ray photography (right, top), showed that the metallic shaft was corroded at one end, but the other was affixed to a spring or helix of metal. (9). Research by Pierre Stromberg and Paul Heinrich of the Pacific Northwest Sceptics has shown that it can in fact be identified with a spark plug manufactured by Champion in the 1920s. (3) (Electricity in Prehistory)
As for the that ancient electrical device embedded in that rock, it looks like a friggin' Microphone made out of Rock to me --- meaning: that totally looks like the male-end of an XLR plug (microphones use XLR connectors) sticking out of a rock to me... check it out: here's a Mic showing the male-end of an XLR connector:

Here's the XLR connector that shows both the Male and Female plugs that connects the Mic to the mixing board:

Makes me want to plug that rock into a PA and go:
"Ch-Check!
Testing -- One---Two..."


Oh and, I'm not trying to debunk any this info nor am I trying to prove it to be legit either, because I sure as hell ain't no authority to determine otherwise... I'm just a grunt with an opinion!
edit on 5/17/2013 by the_philth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by LABTECH767
reply to post by Harte
 


Love that one Harte the Coso Geode as you know was a Champion spark plug circa 1920's, the dating was actually accurate but they dated the 500,000 year old crud that was baked on by the hot sun from the gully into which it had been tossed long ago and not the spark plug itself.
edit on 17-5-2013 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)


The Coso Geode is actually a "concretion" and not a geode. I don't know who would have "dated" it (certainly no geologist dated it), since the concretion is actually limestone and not something that's dated (except by geological means (the formation it appears in and only if it's found embedded in a formation.))

I think they "dated" the "crud" by saying "look! It's sitting there loose in the middle of these rocks in a stream bed and therefore is the same age as the rocks in the stream" (seriously... I have read reports that this was their methodology.) Anyone who's ever seen caves (like Cave With No Name here in Texas) knows that concretions like that can form in as little as 20 years. This is something that any respectable laboratory that does forensic material analysis would know from the get-go.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Nuke2013
 


You can't carbon test rock only any organic particle's in it and molten lava would be so hot that nearly all metals with the exception of some composite materials would melt very fast indeed, you date rock by dating the strata it is in or if it is isolated a Argon Krypton isotopic ratio dating of the surface will tell how long it has been exposed to the atmosphere but will probably only go about 10,000 years or so back with a very low accuracy compared to carbon 14 dating.
In some volcanic rock there are Isotopes that decay over time and the radiation they emit can leave decay ring's in the rock that can provide a very accurate long time period method of dating but once again the dating is limited to the isotopes detected and how far decayed they are.
edit on 17-5-2013 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Thanks for correcting me for the sake of accuracy, I used to believe that story but as you know it was debunked by thorough investigation, part of me wish's it had been all it claimed as that would have made the past an adventure as well as an obvious tragedy, yes concretion but it is still referred to as the Coco geode, web search as well as the Coso artefact and the 5 hundred thousand year old spark plug, near all the sites that still run the story are not including the information and the identical champion spark plug the investigator's were able to compare it with, see what I mean, though as we both know a Geode is formed by the crystallisation of water bourn mineral's in a cavity or space in the rock through which the water flow's slowly enough to allow crystallisation (like a kids experiment) and the story was that some rock prospectors were searching for geode's to stock a store as they sell well to collectors to add to there rock sample's.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by LABTECH767
reply to post by Harte
 


Love that one Harte the Coso Geode as you know was a Champion spark plug circa 1920's, the dating was actually accurate but they dated the 500,000 year old crud that was baked on by the hot sun from the gully into which it had been tossed long ago and not the spark plug itself.

Not even.

They never dated it. The "crud" was common concretion formed from the interaction of rust from the plug and sand and dirt. Such concretions are extremely common with rusting metals in the dirt.

Dates given for the "artifact" were based on how long it takes a geode to form, IIRC. And it's obviously not even a geode.

Harte
edit on 5/17/2013 by Harte because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
26
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join