OOPArts

CuriousGranny · Post by **CuriousGranny** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:33 pm

I, personally, have not had the opportunity to prove or disprove any of the scientific data on any of these claims. I find these OOPArts fascinating, and am merely posting them as a curiousity. I think it emphasizes the fact that there is much about the world we do not nor will ever know. I am not endorsing belief in anything other than what you see with your own eyes or percieve with senses. They do appear on "fringe" archaeological/scientific/creationist sites...thus they are called 'alternative archaeology'. Some, I'm sure, are hoaxes, made up, misinterpreted, planted...others are real. The fact that they don't fit in with the Bible, or accepted paradigms of science is what makes them curiosities. Let me add, I don't subscribe to UFO's, paranormal, or ancient astronaut theories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OOPArt
http://www.ooparts.nl/
http://paranormal.about.com/library/wee ... 11402a.htm
http://www.rae.org/contents_tud.html

{I hope i did the URL's right, I'm brand new at this

}

stan · Post by **stan** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 8:13 pm

Okay, Curious...
I'll respond:
I didn't look at your links tonight because I have looked at the before.
I think all the claims such as those that are made on these sites have to be rigorously investigated.

In many cases it is impossible to verify the origin of certain objects because they were removed from their original locations.

Or because the so called corroborativde evidence such as eyewitness accounts are themselves questionable.

They are like claims of miracles based on doctored photos.

Sometimes they are just pranks.

These things demonstrate why the procedures of science, rigourous record keeping, peer review, etc. are som important.

Hope this helps.

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 8:29 pm

The Baghdad Battery was subjected to the Mythbuster treatment. It worked.

More to the point, they used it to do some electroplating.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_11.htm

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:10 am

Footprints in Mexico have been dated to 40,000 ya. At first the report was completely rebuked, but as excavation continues, more footprints are being unearthed - with the same anomalous date.

Hi C/G - I'm Beagle. Welcome.

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:13 am

Beagle wrote:Footprints in Mexico have been dated to 40,000 ya. At first the report was completely rebuked, but as excavation continues, more footprints are being unearthed - with the same anomalous date.

Hi C/G - I'm Beagle. Welcome.

I didn't know there were more footprints - do you have a link for that Beagle?

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:15 am

I'll find it. I read it several weeks ago. Back soon.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:18 am

Beagle, why would 40,000 ya be an anomalous date according to the mainstream chronology of human history? If human history really goes back many hudreds of thousands of years, then why couldn't they have migrated to the "New World" hundreds of thousands of years before 40,000 ya?

We are talking hundreds of thousands of years, and ancient Abraham lived just four thousand years ago, so you're expecting us to believe that nobody came over from the "Old World" for hundreds of thousands of years?

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:21 am

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1436677/posts

The British team revisited the site two years ago.

Lots of references. I Googled "ancient footprints Mexico" and didn't even need to refine my search.

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:26 am

I think this is talking about the original dating, if not the original dig at the site. I'm not at all sure this is a new set of footprints. The excavations they are talking about here are 2 years ago.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:29 am

I'll see what else I can drum up OAS. They just re-started investigating the site 2 years ago.

CuriousGranny · Post by **CuriousGranny** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:30 am

Thank you, Beagle, I'm glad to be here among you learned men lol.

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:36 am

Beagle wrote:I'll see what else I can drum up OAS. They just re-started investigating the site 2 years ago.

If I remember correctly they were talking 1.3 million years at one point. It should be on the news page somewhere but I did a quick search and couldn't find it.

Nice to meet you Granny!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:53 am

Very telling is that should just one of the hundreds of "out of place" artifacts be shown to be legitimately from a "Tertiary" dated rock, or before, then the Darwinites are smacked once again, so, Darwinites, are all of those hundreds of artifacts really all frauds?

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:55 am

Beagle wrote:I'll see what else I can drum up OAS. They just re-started investigating the site 2 years ago.

Actually I think there was a website dedicated to this, but no site reports or peer reviewed results that I could find, so I couldn't use it for my pre-clovis paper, evern though I REALLY wanted to....

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 11:04 am

Here we go....

http://www.mexicanfootprints.co.uk/