Sounds logical;however, phone cameras are difficult to use in seconds (clumsy) . . . you have to select the camera option, turn it without your fingers over the lense and then the resolution and light characteristics are poor at night and in poor light . .
It was stationary in the sky . until it sunk under the horizon . Venus ? it was pretty red and I thought it was a plane at first because of the light fluctuation .
It was stationary in the sky . until it sunk under the horizon . Venus ? it was pretty red and I thought it was a plane at first because of the light fluctuation .
a Fuji fine pix s . It was clearer on my computer then the download . I thought it was a plane at first because the flashing lights or a star . Only could zoom in more on video mode rather then camera . Should use the tripod next time . Ill check again tonite
ATC personnel observed the event . . . I don't consider them eyewitnesses . . .
Photographic documentation
Imagery of the Phoenix Lights falls into two categories: images of the triangular formation seen prior to 22:00 MST in Prescott and Dewey, and images of the 22:00 MST Phoenix event. Almost all known images are of the second event. All known images were produced using a variety of commercially available camcorders and cameras. There are no known images taken by equipment designed for scientific analysis, nor are there any known images taken using high powered optics or night vision equipment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Lights[edit]
The U.S. Air Force explained the second event as slow-falling, long-burning LUU-2B/B illumination flares dropped by a flight of four A-10 Warthog aircraft on a training exercise at the Barry Goldwater Range at Luke Air Force Base. According to this explanation, the flares would have been visible in Phoenix and appeared to hover due to rising heat from the burning flares creating a "balloon" effect on their parachutes, which slowed the descent.[21] The lights then appeared to wink out as they fell behind the Sierra Estrella, a mountain range to the southwest of Phoenix.
A Maryland Air National Guard pilot, Lt. Col. Ed Jones, responding to a March 2007 media query, confirmed that he had flown one of the aircraft in the formation that dropped flares on the night in question.[21]
That does look similar, but unless your camera has a 1,000,000x zoom and works in the RF spectrum, I don't think that's it. Betelgeuse would show up as bright point of light, not a blob.
Could it have been a high cloud, illuminated by the last rays of the sun?
Just checked, that Betelgeuse photo is 125 millarcsecs across ( or 0.00003472222 degrees), given a typical camera starts at 50 degrees FOV, then you'd actually need a 1,440,000x zoom on your camera.
That does look similar, but unless your camera has a 1,000,000x zoom and works in the RF spectrum, I don't think that's it. Betelgeuse would show up as bright point of light, not a blob.
Could it have been a high cloud, illuminated by the last rays of the sun?
Ill see if I can get a better shot tonight . Sure looked like that and the location in the sky was right . are you sure ? [video]https://www.youtube.com/v/dtWeH4-Ugy4[/video]
Ill see if I can get a better shot tonight . Sure looked like that and the location in the sky was right . are you sure ? [video]https://www.youtube.com/v/dtWeH4-Ugy4[/video]
Of what? Lights in the sky? If we can identify explanations for strange things we see in the sky then there is no good reason to believe they are aliens. If, however, we find a case where a technological object is shown to be moving through the sky in such a manner that demonstrates technology that we are not capable of now or in the foreseeable future, then that might warrant the suggestion of an alien presence. You gave the impression that such footage/evidence exists. I'm asking which cases demonstrate this. The Phoenix lights certainly do not.
Again as I'm new here i hope that this isn't out of place. I saw this Pyramid on History channel once and caught a few of course "Its alien" you tube video's about it.
I for one do not think it has any connection to some alien force, but interesting none the less. What do any of you make of it?
I apologize if this has been covered already.
from source: http://projectavalon.net/lang/en/klaus_dona_2_interview_transcript_en.html
I find a major problem with the fact that he doesn't give details on many of the 'artifacts' he is using to ground his theory. He give vague, at the best locations of where some were found. He doesn't say this "stone which is now in the museum of blank country' or anything that would allow folks to verify their provenance .
I completely agree. I really wish that they would allow others to research these things, and the place they were found. Instead all we get is "Hey look what I found, and its really strange isn't it". I would really like to see the research done on these things, if they are legitimate finds.
I actually did watch a video about that map, and a few others. Thanks for the reply. I'm really interested in topics like this. The ancient cities and civilizations fascinate me, I can sit for hours on end watching vids, and reading articles about them. The first time i saw that map, and before they said what it was supposed to be. I instantly thought of south America, and noticed the coast of Africa to the right. I never could understand how they thought it was Antarctica.
seems angels, prophets, legends, super humans, mythologies, etc. are found in most cultures . . . so they are either figments of people's imagination or have some basis in fact or a combo of the two . . . I personally have no problem believing ETs could exist and could be one potential explanation for the above . . .
I believe in life outside this solar system, probably even intelligent life. I have no problem entertaining the idea that people in the past might have misinterpreting what they were seeing or they we are misinterpreting what they left behind. I don't mind the idea that Earth may have been visited in the past, I just need to have real proof and not someones interpretation of something. What really bothers me about these theories though, is when it starts to take away from human achievement. Saying Aliens built or help build ancient monuments to me takes away from what humans have been able to accomplish in the past.
I believe in life outside this solar system, probably even intelligent life. I have no problem entertaining the idea that people in the past might have misinterpreting what they were seeing or they we are misinterpreting what they left behind. I don't mind the idea that Earth may have been visited in the past, I just need to have real proof and not someones interpretation of something. What really bothers me about these theories though, is when it starts to take away from human achievement. Saying Aliens built or help build ancient monuments to me takes away from what humans have been able to accomplish in the past.
The thing that started my quest for information began when I was a child in the 1950's . . . I was shown and placed my hands on a geologic hammer embedded in limestone rock . . . the metal head was still easily recognized as a modern looking well tooled metal head and the handle appeared to be fossilized wood . . . it was not wood and I could not scratch the handle with my fingers or with another rock . . . even at a young age I knew this artifact could not be explained by any historical, biblical or scientific explanation and to this day the memory is as clear as the day I saw it . . .
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."
Finally, in the late 1990's Baugh supporter David Lines reported on a web site (Lines, 1997, 1999) that carbon 14 dating had "recently" been done on a specimen from the inside of the handle, and that the results "showed inconclusive dates ranging from the present to 700 years ago." No information was given by Lines about when or where the dating was done, nor was any formal report referenced. The date range also seems a little curious, since most C14 labs report a date with a plus-or-minus margin of error, rather than a wide range. Perhaps a number of tests were done with different results, but Lines does not clarify this. Evidently preferring a date in the thousands of years, Lines asserted that the dating results provided "graphic evidence that the handle has been contaminated by current organic substances." However, C14 labs have ways of minimizing modern carbon contamination, and it would not likely produce ages orders of magnitude in error.
At any rate, if the reported date range is even roughly indicative of the hammer's age, it is more supportive of the mainstream view of the hammer than Baugh's. After all, Baugh considers the hammer to be a "pre-Flood" relic-- presumably at least a few thousand years old. Baugh reportedly dismissed the results as only evidence that C14 is untrustworthy. However, even many creationists consider C14 dating reasonably accurate to several thousand years or more.
Another potentially useful exercise would be to analyze the composition of the concretion, comparing its lithology and fossil content (both macro and micro) with the nearby creek strata. A shell and other shell fragments are readily visible in the nodule, and Mackay (1985) stated that the fossils in the nodule "are similar to those in the surrounding area." Likewise, Helfinstine and Roth (1994) suggest the lithology of the nodule is the same as the nearby rocks. However, to my knowledge no one has positively identified the clam species, or confirmed whether they are fossil or modern forms, or made a detailed comparison of the lithology or other aspects of concretion with that of nearby rocks. From the brief examinations I made of the object in 1986 and 2006, my impression was that the large clam shell was probably a recent species.
One problem for hammer advocates is that careful analysis of the nodule's composition could conclusively refute Baugh's claim that it is an out- of-place artifact, but could not confirm it. That is, if the nodule contained only geologically recent material, there would be no reason to consider the hammer any older. However, as noted by Cole, if the nodule contained or was composed of ancient material, the hammer itself could still be of recent origin, since it could have been left in a place where a solution of ancient sediment collected and hardened around it. Such limy concretions can sometimes form in decades or less, and have been found around modern objects such as World War II artifacts (McKusick and Shinn, 1980). It's even possible that the nodule might contain a mixture of ancient and modern sediments or organic remains, as might occur in muddy muddles and pits in a mining operation.
The early American style of the hammer, and the largely undistorted and poorly mineralized condition of the handle, further suggests a relatively recent date. Well-preserved wood from Mesozoic or Paleozoic formations would not be expected to have such an appearance, nor to my knowledge have any similar wood specimens been documented in the nearby formation. Lines asserts on Baugh's web site that the hammer is partially "petrified" but I saw no evidence of this when I examined it in person, and other creationists have agreed that the wood in the handle looks relatively fresh, not much different from modern hardwood hammers (Helfinstine and Roth, 1994). In view of these considerations, It seems highly unlikely that the hammer was ever a natural part of the nearby Cretaceous beds, and more likely that it was dropped or discarded by a local miner or craftsman within the last few hundred years. It's also possible that the nodule was brought or washed into the area from some distance away, or from a higher stratum.
Lacking any rigorous geologic evidence for their claims, hammer advocates have tried to make hay from the composition of the hammer head. Mackay (1985) and Lang (1983) reported that the hammer was studied at the renown Batelle Laboratories in Columbus, Ohio, where the head was found to consist of 96.6% iron, 2.6% chlorine, and 0.74% sulfur by weight. Baugh suggested this profile was impossible to duplicate with modern technology under present atmospheric conditions (Helfinstine and Roth, 1994). However, this claim would be difficult to substantiate. Even if the composition were truly unique, it would more likely indicate a lost or abandoned technology, not evidence against mainstream geology. According to Helfinstine and Roth (1994) a "tomographic x-ray" of the hammer, taken by Texas Utilities in 1992, showed no inclusions or irregularities in the head. Curiously, they and Baugh interpreted this as evidence of "advanced metallurgy" from a superior pre-Flood culture, rather than further evidence that it is a relatively modern hammer.
Mackay (1994) stated that "research continues into the unusually shiny transparent layer which surrounded the hammer when it was discovered and why it did not corrode for several months." However, such statements contradict other creationist comments (Helfinstine and Roth, 1994) that the hammer had a brown (and thus presumably not shiny) surface when first broken from the concretion, and only when scratched was a shiny subsurface revealed.
Lines (1996) noted that the file cut made in the hammer head in 1934 has remained "corrosion-free" in over 60 years, and some creationists have suggested this indicates some unique or mysterious attribute. However, as long a metal object is kept dry and clean, this would not be unexpected, and the bulk of the head already in a somewhat rusted condition would be expected to oxidize somewhat faster than the scratched mark.
In the Bible-Science Newsletter, Walter Lang (1983) stated that Batelle lab technicians "were convinced that the rock itself could not have been formed except where there was a great deal of water and pressure," and that the "partly coalified" condition of the handle indicated to the technicians that the wood was "under pressure with water and volcanic action." However, one has to wonder whether these statements come from the technicians or hammer advocates themselves, since 1. Limy concretions are generally thought by geologists to form in calm rather than violent conditions, 2. Very little of the hammer handle is carbonized, and such features can and normally do originate without any "volcanic" action, and 3. No formal report of the Batelle analysis was ever produced (Helfinstine and Roth, 1994). Moreover, all assertions about Batelle work on the hammer appear to be suspect in view of a leaflet inserted into the February 1985 issue of Creation Ex Nihilo, which stated that all hammer research discussed in their article was privately done, and "all references to inferences that research or reports on the Hammer were done or prepared by Batelle Laboratories are in error."(Mackay 1985)
Another weak attempt to counter "evolutionist" skepticism toward Baugh's hammer claims was a comment by Mackay that "If it had been dropped under present atmospheric conditions and had to lie waiting to be buried, it would have lasted no longer than five years, after being buried." However, the hammer need not "lie waiting" very long before being buried; it could have fallen into an area where it would be soon if not immediately subject to a sediment solution. Once buried, it would be largely protected from decay in either the mainstream scenario or his own.
During a June 2006 talk at his Creation Evidence Musuem, Baugh again left the impression that the hammer was found embedded in a Cretaceous formation--telling the audience that it was found "in Cretaceous strata"-- and again failing to clarify that the hammer and nudule combination was found loose rather than in situ. As recently as September 2008 Baugh supporter Ian Juby encouraged the same unfounded notions on his web site, implying that it was known to be from Cretaceous rock (Juby, 2008).
Perhaps the most bizarre claim about the hammer was Baugh's statement that "Both the wooden handle and metal shaft were completely encased in the sandstone, indicating that man was not around to make the artefact [sic] before the sandstone encased it."(Baugh, 1987). Besides contradicting other accounts that the hammer was partly exposed when found, Baugh fails to explain how the hammer could have been made in the first place if "man was not around...before the sandstone encased it."
Conclusions
As with all extraordinary claims, the burden of proof is on those making the claims, not on those questioning them. Despite some creationist assertions that the hammer is a dramatic pre-Flood relic, no clear evidence linking the hammer to any ancient formation has been presented. Moreover, the hammer's artistic style and the condition of the handle suggest a historically recent age. It may well have been dropped by a local worker within the last few hundred years, after which dissolved sediment hardened into a concretion around it. Unless Baugh or others can provide rigorous evidence that the hammer was once naturally situated in a pre-Quaternary stratum, it remains merely a curiosity, not a reliable out-of-place artifact.
The thing that started my quest for information began when I was a child in the 1950's . . . I was shown and placed my hands on a geologic hammer embedded in limestone rock . . . the metal head was still easily recognized as a modern looking well tooled metal head and the handle appeared to be fossilized wood . . . it was not wood and I could not scratch the handle with my fingers or with another rock . . . even at a young age I knew this artifact could not be explained by any historical, biblical or scientific explanation and to this day the memory is as clear as the day I saw it . . .
Sure it is . . . but I have seen pictures of very similar or identical items since . . . one explanation is in a very dynamic dolomite deposit calcification can occur in rock formations in a matter of generations basically flowing over an abandoned tool such as a hammer . . . while this may be true . . . this process cannot fossilize a wooden handle . . . there are also several items recovered from coal deposits which simply cannot be there . . . I have personally talked to very reliable people who have collected such items in West Virginia for example . . . The example below looked very similar . . .
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."
Finally, in the late 1990's Baugh supporter David Lines reported on a web site (Lines, 1997, 1999) that carbon 14 dating had "recently" been done on a specimen from the inside of the handle, and that the results "showed inconclusive dates ranging from the present to 700 years ago." No information was given by Lines about when or where the dating was done, nor was any formal report referenced. The date range also seems a little curious, since most C14 labs report a date with a plus-or-minus margin of error, rather than a wide range. Perhaps a number of tests were done with different results, but Lines does not clarify this. Evidently preferring a date in the thousands of years, Lines asserted that the dating results provided "graphic evidence that the handle has been contaminated by current organic substances." However, C14 labs have ways of minimizing modern carbon contamination, and it would not likely produce ages orders of magnitude in error.
At any rate, if the reported date range is even roughly indicative of the hammer's age, it is more supportive of the mainstream view of the hammer than Baugh's. After all, Baugh considers the hammer to be a "pre-Flood" relic-- presumably at least a few thousand years old. Baugh reportedly dismissed the results as only evidence that C14 is untrustworthy. However, even many creationists consider C14 dating reasonably accurate to several thousand years or more.
Another potentially useful exercise would be to analyze the composition of the concretion, comparing its lithology and fossil content (both macro and micro) with the nearby creek strata. A shell and other shell fragments are readily visible in the nodule, and Mackay (1985) stated that the fossils in the nodule "are similar to those in the surrounding area." Likewise, Helfinstine and Roth (1994) suggest the lithology of the nodule is the same as the nearby rocks. However, to my knowledge no one has positively identified the clam species, or confirmed whether they are fossil or modern forms, or made a detailed comparison of the lithology or other aspects of concretion with that of nearby rocks. From the brief examinations I made of the object in 1986 and 2006, my impression was that the large clam shell was probably a recent species.
One problem for hammer advocates is that careful analysis of the nodule's composition could conclusively refute Baugh's claim that it is an out- of-place artifact, but could not confirm it. That is, if the nodule contained only geologically recent material, there would be no reason to consider the hammer any older. However, as noted by Cole, if the nodule contained or was composed of ancient material, the hammer itself could still be of recent origin, since it could have been left in a place where a solution of ancient sediment collected and hardened around it. Such limy concretions can sometimes form in decades or less, and have been found around modern objects such as World War II artifacts (McKusick and Shinn, 1980). It's even possible that the nodule might contain a mixture of ancient and modern sediments or organic remains, as might occur in muddy muddles and pits in a mining operation.
The early American style of the hammer, and the largely undistorted and poorly mineralized condition of the handle, further suggests a relatively recent date. Well-preserved wood from Mesozoic or Paleozoic formations would not be expected to have such an appearance, nor to my knowledge have any similar wood specimens been documented in the nearby formation. Lines asserts on Baugh's web site that the hammer is partially "petrified" but I saw no evidence of this when I examined it in person, and other creationists have agreed that the wood in the handle looks relatively fresh, not much different from modern hardwood hammers (Helfinstine and Roth, 1994). In view of these considerations, It seems highly unlikely that the hammer was ever a natural part of the nearby Cretaceous beds, and more likely that it was dropped or discarded by a local miner or craftsman within the last few hundred years. It's also possible that the nodule was brought or washed into the area from some distance away, or from a higher stratum.
Lacking any rigorous geologic evidence for their claims, hammer advocates have tried to make hay from the composition of the hammer head. Mackay (1985) and Lang (1983) reported that the hammer was studied at the renown Batelle Laboratories in Columbus, Ohio, where the head was found to consist of 96.6% iron, 2.6% chlorine, and 0.74% sulfur by weight. Baugh suggested this profile was impossible to duplicate with modern technology under present atmospheric conditions (Helfinstine and Roth, 1994). However, this claim would be difficult to substantiate. Even if the composition were truly unique, it would more likely indicate a lost or abandoned technology, not evidence against mainstream geology. According to Helfinstine and Roth (1994) a "tomographic x-ray" of the hammer, taken by Texas Utilities in 1992, showed no inclusions or irregularities in the head. Curiously, they and Baugh interpreted this as evidence of "advanced metallurgy" from a superior pre-Flood culture, rather than further evidence that it is a relatively modern hammer.
Mackay (1994) stated that "research continues into the unusually shiny transparent layer which surrounded the hammer when it was discovered and why it did not corrode for several months." However, such statements contradict other creationist comments (Helfinstine and Roth, 1994) that the hammer had a brown (and thus presumably not shiny) surface when first broken from the concretion, and only when scratched was a shiny subsurface revealed.
Lines (1996) noted that the file cut made in the hammer head in 1934 has remained "corrosion-free" in over 60 years, and some creationists have suggested this indicates some unique or mysterious attribute. However, as long a metal object is kept dry and clean, this would not be unexpected, and the bulk of the head already in a somewhat rusted condition would be expected to oxidize somewhat faster than the scratched mark.
In the Bible-Science Newsletter, Walter Lang (1983) stated that Batelle lab technicians "were convinced that the rock itself could not have been formed except where there was a great deal of water and pressure," and that the "partly coalified" condition of the handle indicated to the technicians that the wood was "under pressure with water and volcanic action." However, one has to wonder whether these statements come from the technicians or hammer advocates themselves, since 1. Limy concretions are generally thought by geologists to form in calm rather than violent conditions, 2. Very little of the hammer handle is carbonized, and such features can and normally do originate without any "volcanic" action, and 3. No formal report of the Batelle analysis was ever produced (Helfinstine and Roth, 1994). Moreover, all assertions about Batelle work on the hammer appear to be suspect in view of a leaflet inserted into the February 1985 issue of Creation Ex Nihilo, which stated that all hammer research discussed in their article was privately done, and "all references to inferences that research or reports on the Hammer were done or prepared by Batelle Laboratories are in error."(Mackay 1985)
Another weak attempt to counter "evolutionist" skepticism toward Baugh's hammer claims was a comment by Mackay that "If it had been dropped under present atmospheric conditions and had to lie waiting to be buried, it would have lasted no longer than five years, after being buried." However, the hammer need not "lie waiting" very long before being buried; it could have fallen into an area where it would be soon if not immediately subject to a sediment solution. Once buried, it would be largely protected from decay in either the mainstream scenario or his own.
During a June 2006 talk at his Creation Evidence Musuem, Baugh again left the impression that the hammer was found embedded in a Cretaceous formation--telling the audience that it was found "in Cretaceous strata"-- and again failing to clarify that the hammer and nudule combination was found loose rather than in situ. As recently as September 2008 Baugh supporter Ian Juby encouraged the same unfounded notions on his web site, implying that it was known to be from Cretaceous rock (Juby, 2008).
Perhaps the most bizarre claim about the hammer was Baugh's statement that "Both the wooden handle and metal shaft were completely encased in the sandstone, indicating that man was not around to make the artefact [sic] before the sandstone encased it."(Baugh, 1987). Besides contradicting other accounts that the hammer was partly exposed when found, Baugh fails to explain how the hammer could have been made in the first place if "man was not around...before the sandstone encased it."
Conclusions
As with all extraordinary claims, the burden of proof is on those making the claims, not on those questioning them. Despite some creationist assertions that the hammer is a dramatic pre-Flood relic, no clear evidence linking the hammer to any ancient formation has been presented. Moreover, the hammer's artistic style and the condition of the handle suggest a historically recent age. It may well have been dropped by a local worker within the last few hundred years, after which dissolved sediment hardened into a concretion around it. Unless Baugh or others can provide rigorous evidence that the hammer was once naturally situated in a pre-Quaternary stratum, it remains merely a curiosity, not a reliable out-of-place artifact.
No it was not . . . this was found by one of my classmates in East Tennessee in the 1950s . . . he brought it to school to show his friends . . . distinctly remember it . . . I had my hands on it for several minutes and was fascinated by it . . .
The thing that started my quest for information began when I was a child in the 1950's . . . I was shown and placed my hands on a geologic hammer embedded in limestone rock . . . the metal head was still easily recognized as a modern looking well tooled metal head and the handle appeared to be fossilized wood . . . it was not wood and I could not scratch the handle with my fingers or with another rock . . . even at a young age I knew this artifact could not be explained by any historical, biblical or scientific explanation and to this day the memory is as clear as the day I saw it . . .
My baloney detection kit is going off. Since you could not explain it at the time, does not mean it can't be explained now. You couldn't explain it so you concluded it must be alien in origin. It is an argument from ignorance.
A hammer with no provenance. That has not been examined by experts and tested is not evidence of anything. Look at famous fakes such as the Piltdown man and others.
My baloney detection kit is going off. Since you could not explain it at the time, does not mean it can't be explained now. You couldn't explain it so you concluded it must be alien in origin. It is an argument from ignorance.
A hammer with no provenance. That has not been examined by experts and tested is not evidence of anything. Look at famous fakes such as the Piltdown man and others.
How is "fake or concretion" not an explanation? All you need is an explanation that fits, you don't need to know which one fits.
See, with most mysterious things, we don't know how they ended up that way, however we have several reasonable explanations. But somehow the more wistful amongst us take the inability to know for sure as evidence that a new entity must be brought in to explain the phenomena.
"We don't know which of several possibile explanations is correct, so Aliens" - that's a fallacy.
An iron hammer with wooden handle was found embedded in rock in Cretaceous sediments (or Ordovician, by some accounts) near London, Texas. The enclosing rock contains Lower Cretaceous fossils.
The hammer is not petrified, it is encased in stone. This makes it a concretion instead of a true fossil. That means someone lost his hammer in a hole or empty space that filled up with sediment, then the sediment was cemented together, forming the concretion, whereupon the concretion came loose from the surrounding matrix and was ultimately found by Carl Baugh. Scientists are well aware that concretions can form in only a few years, and that they can include fossils from older sediments.
The claim that it was found in Cretaceous rocks is unsupported. In fact, different accounts place Baugh's hammer in different sediments, including Ordovician, and Devonian layers, as well as Cretaceous. In actuality, the hammer was found loose, not embedded in any rock strata. Baugh has repeatedly refused to have actual scientific dating methods applied to the hammer or the rock. As such, until he actually allows his hammer to be verifiably tested, he can not legitimately claim that it is "old." He has no justification at all for claiming it is Cretaceous just because some nearby rocks were Cretaceous anymore than me finding a warm bag of french fries in a sixty year old building proves french fries can stay fresh for sixty years.
The thing that started my quest for information began when I was a child in the 1950's . . . I was shown and placed my hands on a geologic hammer embedded in limestone rock . . . the metal head was still easily recognized as a modern looking well tooled metal head and the handle appeared to be fossilized wood . . . it was not wood and I could not scratch the handle with my fingers or with another rock . . . even at a young age I knew this artifact could not be explained by any historical, biblical or scientific explanation and to this day the memory is as clear as the day I saw it . . .
There's a nature conservancy property in Virginia that I visited when I was taking wetlands ecology in college. A creek emerges from a cavern in limestone. Limestone has precipitated out enough to make a waterfall. Tree branshes that fall in become encased in rock. You should have asked to cut the handle in half.
There are plenty of creeks in Tennessee with a really high calcium carbonate such that is precipitates out onto objects in the water. I don't see any indication that you or anyone else took any steps to see if the handle was "fossilized" or covered in concretion.
