ALIEN TECH
- Thread starter Dr.Pecker
- Start date
Rrog
Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
carbon dating technology is only good back to 60,000 years ago, then the carbon is so depleted it can't be detected anymore. all it can possibly prove is that it's older than 60,000 years, well within the range of modern humans
https://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/carbon-dating.htm
https://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/carbon-dating.htm
Puff_Dragon
Well-Known Member
FYI - modern artifacts trapped in concretions are well known to geologists. They played a big part in the 'creationist' movement in the 1980's (and later this type of 'evidence' was used by other new age types).
For example, the hammer artifact (shown earlier in this thread) is known as the 'London hammer' (also look up the 'petrifying well'). It's a normal process which looks 'amazing' to the untrained eye. This lack of knowledge is what the pedlars of this stuff rely on (as well as the 'marks' belief in some dogma that the scammer can tantalise / manipulate).
For example, the hammer artifact (shown earlier in this thread) is known as the 'London hammer' (also look up the 'petrifying well'). It's a normal process which looks 'amazing' to the untrained eye. This lack of knowledge is what the pedlars of this stuff rely on (as well as the 'marks' belief in some dogma that the scammer can tantalise / manipulate).
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
While I understand there is no evidence of aliens, I believe that has to do more with our technological myopia than their absence.
We've been sailing the oceans for 2000 years.
We've been using machines to multiply our efforts for 300 years.
We've had powered flight for 115 years, about the same length of time we've had radio.
We've been using machines to multiple our ability to calculate for 70 years.
I contend that we can't even begin to understand the technological capabilities of an advanced civilisation that has done these same things, say, a million years ago.
We just aren't looking in the right way, in the right place, with the right technologies or some combination of the above.
As I've said before in this thread, I don't think they want us to be aware of them yet. We are still far too stupid and violent.
We've been sailing the oceans for 2000 years.
We've been using machines to multiply our efforts for 300 years.
We've had powered flight for 115 years, about the same length of time we've had radio.
We've been using machines to multiple our ability to calculate for 70 years.
I contend that we can't even begin to understand the technological capabilities of an advanced civilisation that has done these same things, say, a million years ago.
We just aren't looking in the right way, in the right place, with the right technologies or some combination of the above.
As I've said before in this thread, I don't think they want us to be aware of them yet. We are still far too stupid and violent.
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
i'm not so sure that they're worried about us, if they're aware of us, we're a historical docudrama to them, a sociological phenomenon to study, not any kind of threat.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
We're just advanced enough to make a mess wherever we go. A hornet's nest is still annoying.
I would guess they would observe us to document yet another society going through the process of social and technological maturation. I'm sure there are an infinite number of ways to do it, just as there are an infinite number of ways to fail trying.
Frankly, I'm not too optimistic about our chances at this point. We've got a lot of growing up to do, not to mention a lot of cleaning up our nest to take care of. Both have obvious and permanent benefits, yet we humans generally seem stubbornly immune to considering them in our headlong rush for profits NOW, damn the future and our children!
I'd study us- and I'd have the orbit benders ready to aim some asteroids at Earth to wipe out the annoying pests if we get out of hand and start fucking with the neighborhood.
Puff_Dragon
Well-Known Member
perhaps Earth just grows the best god damn weed in the known universe! 
A few hits and these aliens become unable to follow any logical flight patterns, zig zagging around in the sky (with their full beams on). Then miscalculating warp jumps and ending up in the outer reaches of the universe. Only to then be rescued showing signs of acute memory loss (plus ravenous appetite). With scant memory of their original mission, a new research party is sent to Earth to investigate (rinse and repeat).
A few hits and these aliens become unable to follow any logical flight patterns, zig zagging around in the sky (with their full beams on). Then miscalculating warp jumps and ending up in the outer reaches of the universe. Only to then be rescued showing signs of acute memory loss (plus ravenous appetite). With scant memory of their original mission, a new research party is sent to Earth to investigate (rinse and repeat).
Beachwalker
Well-Known Member
Again I know little about the London hammer beyond the link I posted, all I know is that multiple carbon datings have set that date, you'd have to take it up with them.
Convenient science that carbon dating! If we like the result we gladly accept it. If we don't we call it bunk!? ..very interesting approach to science.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
It could happen...perhaps Earth just grows the best god damn weed in the known universe!
A few hits and these aliens become unable to follow any logical flight patterns, zig zagging around in the sky (with their full beams on). Then miscalculating warp jumps and ending up in the outer reaches of the universe. Only to then be rescued showing signs of acute memory loss (plus ravenous appetite). With scant memory of their original mission, a new research party is sent to Earth to investigate (rinse and repeat).
Cue Heavy Metal the movie lol
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
the science is the same whether you or i like it or not, it's never been able to date objects millions of years old, the half life of carbon 14 is around 5760 years, once it gets past the 60 thousand year mark, there's too little of it to be detected anymore. and that's in any object that contains carbon. they can't date any material that never contained carbon. if they can't detect any carbon 14 in your hammer, all it means is thats its older than 60,000 years. if they're saying anything over 60 thousand, they're lying, they can't know that
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
What carbon dating can and can't do is well known to science. You might try learning some.
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
Nyborg is people!
Beachwalker
Well-Known Member
Tell me more mr. Science!
(.. and thank you for making my statement even more glaringly evident.)
Puff_Dragon
Well-Known Member
Imo, this is not a rational reply. The fact you state "I know little about the London hammer beyond the link I posted .." indicates a strong leaning to confirmation bias. You simply look for things that support your beliefs (without doing any decent background checks on its validity/authenticity). Rather then follow a more rational, scientific approach to fact checking.
A very simply google search came up with the fact that the owner of the hammer (one Carl Baugh)
'said' that it was tested by Battelle Laboratory in Columbus, Ohio (a lab that has tested moon rocks for NASA). 'According' to Baugh, the tests found the hammer to have unusual metallurgy—96.6 percent iron, 2.6 percent chlorine, 0.74 percent sulfur, and no carbon
However
..Glen J. Kuban (taking one example), a vocal skeptic of Baugh’s hammer claims, wrote in a 1997 paper titled “The London Hammer: An Alleged Out-of-Place Artifact,” that the tests were conducted PRIVATELY rather than at Battelle Laboratory (nothing *cough* dodgy there, right *cough, ahem*). He cites a 1985 issue of the magazine 'Creation Ex Nihilo'. Epoch Times contacted Battelle Laboratory to verify. A spokeswoman said she had not heard of the hammer in her 15 years at the lab.So Beachwalker, with that in mind, have you ever bothered checking that these people (who claim 'real' scientific studies have been conducted) are not just bold face lying to you? ..by simply using pseudo-science and relying on the fact that some people don't fully check their facts (and have pre-existing dogma which invokes confirmation bias that can be exploited).
Beachwalker
Well-Known Member
I care so little about the London Hammer that I didn't even read the entire first sentence of your reply, I could care less what you believe or feel (maybe you should call somebody?)Imo, this is not a rational reply. The fact you state "I know little about the London hammer beyond the link I posted .." indicates a strong leaning to confirmation bias. You simply look for things that support your beliefs (without doing any decent background checks on its validity/authenticity). Rather then follow a more rational, scientific approach to fact checking.
A very simply google search came up with the fact that the owner of the hammer (one Carl Baugh)
'said' that it was tested by Battelle Laboratory in Columbus, Ohio (a lab that has tested moon rocks for NASA). 'According' to Baugh, the tests found the hammer to have unusual metallurgy—96.6 percent iron, 2.6 percent chlorine, 0.74 percent sulfur, and no carbon
However
So Beachwalker, with that in mind, have you ever bothered checking that these people (who claim 'real' scientific studies have been conducted) are not just bold face lying to you? ..by simply using pseudo-science and relying on the fact that some people don't fully check their facts (and have pre-existing dogma which invokes confirmation bias that can be exploited).
I'm assuming you realized that for everyone you cite, someone could cite opposition, but in this case the laboratory reports speak for themself, that is if common carbon dating technology is to be believed?
I don't have opinion either way regarding the London Hammer, which I've said now three times or so, tho you seem to want to ascribe an opinion to me.
I simply offered it as a point of discussion, your argument is with the multiple Laboratory groups that have done the carbon dating.
You seem to know all about it so why don't you post the reports from the testing Laboratories ?
Why don't you talk about the molecular structure of the Hammers iron, how it's never been seen even up to our current age?
I'm sure you've got a great explanation, or somebody else you can find to quote for that too, or is that too specific?
Last edited:
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
we don't know the hammers molecular structure, because the lab the owner of the hammer said he took it to has never seen the hammer or heard of the guy.....so we can't discuss it, we have no real facts, just lies from the guy that owns it