24 Oct 2016 11:15:33
Is this 250,000? year old engineered aluminium artefact evidence of technologically advanced non-humans on Earth in the past or humans being technologically advanced hundreds of thousands of years ago?


goo.gl/lqq1ih

 
24 Oct 2016 17:12:54
Good one ed. There is growing evidence that someone with a level of intelligence was here before us. From the Hindu gods that battled in the sky with flying chariots to the half man half animal Egyptian gods making people in clay vats to the annunaki who supposedly made humans to mine for gold and we were forbidden to depict them in there true form. I find them all interesting and well worth a read.

{Ed001's Note - I have always believed that the Mayans were right about that, in that they believed humanity had gone through more than one age, each time destroying itself before recovering.}

 
24 Oct 2016 19:09:51
Much like Hindu beliefs of a cyclical world continually destroyed and recreated by the triumvirate of Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma.

{Ed001's Note - exactly, there are far too many related legends/myths for there not to be something in it.}

 
24 Oct 2016 22:14:19
So it was found 43 years ago, and suddenly it's news now? I'd like to know who verified the age at 250,000 years old. It seems questionable to say the least.

 
25 Oct 2016 01:02:29
I believe the article says a laboratory in Switzerland. The problem with carbon dating it is so skewed. If you believe the Indian myths, and by extension the Maya, and as postulated above there are too many coincidences for it to be accidental, then something happened in the past that makes carbon dating unreliable.

{Ed033's Note - In theory though, the article states that aluminium was made by humans 200 years ago and even if the the 250,000 year ago date is off by 200,000 years or more then there is still an anomaly here and we're back to the question of whether technologically advanced humans or non-humans were around thousands of years ago; and it's possibly both.

 
25 Oct 2016 14:18:52
'I believe the article says a laboratory in Switzerland'.

Thanks for that nugget KP, very helpful.

I asked who, as in the name of the lab and people involved.

Other sources are named, but not the lab.

C&P from the express below.

WHAT ELSE COULD IT BE?
While UFO hunters claim that the mystery chunk of metal was brought to Earth by aliens, some experts dispute this.

Local historian Mihai Wittenberger says that the object is actually a metal piece from a World War II German aircraft.

He believes that it is a piece of the landing gear from a Messerschnmitt ME 262.

However, this does not explain the age of the artefact, claim the investigators.

Nigel Watson, author of the UFO Investigations Manual, told MailOnline that the object could be wreckage from a satellite, which may explain why it was kept secret back in 1973.

The only source not named is the lab, which I find odd.

 
25 Oct 2016 15:37:20
Geordiesteve
the triumvirate of Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma idea really intrigues me.

is there not evidence of a huge nuclear explosion in india?
an ancient city or town that shows signs of this from ancient times.

adding this to your other post about Fomenko's new chronology of historical events makes you wonder if its a loop of destruction just waiting for us to trigger it again.

 
25 Oct 2016 15:35:30
I know it said Switzerland but so what. What lab did the test, and have they made their findings available for scrutiny? I get your point Ed033, even if it's a couple of thousand years old, it raises questions about who would have been capable of making it. Personally I think it's a machine part that has been inaccurately dated. Of course I'd like to be wrong.

 
25 Oct 2016 16:54:15
Laboratories are rarely publically named I believe.

 
25 Oct 2016 17:32:19
Fomenko? Total crackpot.

 
25 Oct 2016 17:32:32
On the contrary, peer validation is an essential part of their profession. All good researchers want to publish their findings so other researchers can determine if the hypothesis can been supported or negated.

 
25 Oct 2016 18:27:11
Read the article below about the Peruvian skulls. The laboratory involved in that wasn't named either if I recall correctly.

For peer validation the findings would be published in the appropriate professional magazine. Not in online articles.

 
25 Oct 2016 19:13:14
'For peer validation the findings would be published in the appropriate professional magazine. Not in online articles'.

That's precisely my point. Read my previous post again, but more carefully.

 
26 Oct 2016 10:17:48
I fail to see any point.

{Ed001's Note - nor me, he is clearly missing the point you are making. This is just a report on findings published in an appropriate publication.}

 
26 Oct 2016 10:48:44
What appropriate publication?

{Ed001's Note - I have no idea, but it is where all these 'stories' originate from. They don't send reports to newspapers to publish, for instance, newspapers read the publications and crib bits from them. Whoever wrote this has clearly done the same thing. It should be mentioned or linked on the page, but they very rarely do that now, as people seem to have forgotten basic common courtesy and want to steal other people's hard work.}

 
26 Oct 2016 11:55:47
That's right Ed001 you have no idea. None of us do.

The 'appropriate publication' you referred to was just a guess, as was KP's ridiculously naive claim that laboratories are rarely publicly named.

Until we have the name of the lab, and the name of the research team who conducted the carbon dating, and the published findings, this claim has no merit.

 
26 Oct 2016 13:32:47
Ridiculously naive? You do know that laboratories carrying out certain work are not named because for example they might carry out research that uses animals and would attract protests or more violent action from animal rights protesters. That's just one example. The same as certain clinics in America are not named for security reasons.

Unless you are actively in the academic community and receive such publications and other material you won't find out which lab tested what and that it was carried out by Dr John Smith.

I actually agreed with your general point regarding the artefact in question. The age is questionable. Although I do agree with the editor. If it is not a recently produced item incorrectly dated then it raises fundamental questions.

 
26 Oct 2016 15:57:16
Animal testing is not used in carbon dating, and the small percentage of clinics you refer to that have different security considerations are not relevant here. Labs that perform carbon dating are easily found, and some labs will even carbon date an item for a fee even for the general public. Not everything is shrouded in secrecy as you would like to make it seem. You don't need to be actively in the academic community to have access to such publications. They are usually subscription based, and easy to access.

If a so called 'John Smith' really did carbon date this aluminium at 250,00 years old, let's see the report, and what journal it is in and when was it published. I look forward to reading his credentials, his report, and most of all how he feels about his credibility being on the line if he really did make that claim.

I already acknowledged to Ed033 that even if it was just a couple of thousand years old it raises questions about who would have been capable of making it.

This type of claim must be subjected to rigorous scientific examination by credible scientists in controlled conditions in an attempt to replicate it's findings. I strongly suspect this will never happen. It makes for a good tabloid headline, nothing more.

{Ed001's Note - you could read all the credentials you like, but you wouldn't have a clue what they mean, or whether they were even relevant. For starters, it would be of far more relevance to know the equipment used in the testing, how the tests were conducted, all sorts of things have more relevance than the person conducting the test and their credentials. For starters, most of the actual testing would have been done by lab assistants under the supervision of someone, rather than by that person.

You do realise that 'credible scientists' are often bought and paid for by the companies funding their research so their findings are often nothing more than good tabloid headlines to get publicity for their corporate sponsors. That is why we had the lies peddled about margarine being good for us for so long, and numerous other lies peddled by the scientific community.}