A Fortean Discomforture

The science or study of primitive societies and the nature of man.

Moderators: Minimalist, MichelleH

Re: A Fortean Discomforture

Postby Tiompan » Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:33 am

uniface wrote:
"Looks like" is no refutiation. Especially in light of the glaring sparkplug-anomalies cited.


It's a a concretion not a geode is which is salient ,mentioned in the link posted after your initial post .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 849
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: A Fortean Discomforture

Postby uniface » Fri Feb 12, 2016 8:07 am

Concretion or geode, it's solid rock. Does mud do that in less than 100 years ?

And we still haven't disposed of the electromagnetic field aspect, ruling out "spark plug."
uniface
 

Re: A Fortean Discomforture

Postby Tiompan » Fri Feb 12, 2016 8:29 am

uniface wrote:Concretion or geode, it's solid rock. Does mud do that in less than 100 years ?

And we still haven't disposed of the electromagnetic field aspect, ruling out "spark plug."


It wasn't a solid rock .

You refused to tell me the specific source of your fantasy about vitrification .
Why should I provide anything for you ?

What the hell .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus_%28medicine%29
http://tinyurl.com/jq3vucs
Tiompan
 
Posts: 849
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: A Fortean Discomforture

Postby uniface » Sun Feb 21, 2016 10:24 am

One Last Time: Wikipedia is organized fraud.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for academic research.

http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?ke ... page346376

In State v. Flores, an unpublished decision by the Texas Court of Appeals for the 14th District dated October 23, 2008, the court refused the appellant’s request to take judicial notice of a Wikipedia entry describing the “John Reid interrogation technique.” The court reasoned in footnote 3 that Wikipedia entries are inherently unreliable because they can be written and edited anonymously by anyone

http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/20 ... nreliable/

Question: How do I get students to realize that Wikipedia should not be used as a credible source (especially as they enter college), even though some of the information is factually accurate?
Answer: Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales is quite clear about the uses of Wikipedia. Asked, "Do you think students and researchers should cite Wikipedia? during an interview with Business Week in 2005, he replied, "No, I don't think people should cite it, and I don't think people should cite Britannica, either... People shouldn't be citing encyclopedias in the first place.

http://teachinghistory.org/digital-clas ... rian/23863

One way it's done: Leave the data but spin it with smear adjectives:
http://www.darkmatter101.org/site/wp-co ... a_iraq.JPG

Another way: Lie by omission
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/USS_Liberty_Incident

Another way: Just make it up:
The September 11 attacks (also referred as 9/11) were a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Islamic terrorist group Al-Qaeda on the United States ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks
The Twin Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed on September 11, 2001, as a result of being struck by two jet airliners hijacked by 10 terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_ ... ade_Center

Another way: Relegate it to the Memory Hole
Henry Makow wrote:There is no Wikipedia entry for The Devil and the Jews (Yale University Press, 1943) or its author Rabbi Joshua Trachtenberg (1904-1959.) There are no reviews on the Internet. Why?
uniface
 

Re: A Fortean Discomforture

Postby Tiompan » Tue Feb 23, 2016 12:30 pm

More non wiki nfo on Coso .
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coso.html
Tiompan
 
Posts: 849
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: A Fortean Discomforture

Postby uniface » Tue Feb 23, 2016 5:12 pm

The next day in the gift shop's workroom, Mikesell ruined a nearly new diamond saw blade while cutting what he thought was a geode. Inside the nodule that was cut, Mikesell did not find a cavity as so many geodes have, but a perfectly circular section of very hard, white material that appeared to be porcelain. In the center of the porcelain cylinder, was a 2-millimeter shaft of bright metal. The metal shaft responded to a magnet.


1) Porcelain will not ruin a diamond-edged rock saw blade.

2) Steel will not ruin a diamond-edged rock saw blade.

The outer layer of the specimen was encrusted with fossil shells and their fragments.


3) Are sea shells ordinarily found on mountain tops ?

4) If these were recent (as alleged), how did they get there ?

5) About how long does it take for these to fossilize ?

Virginia Maxey speculated that "one possibility is that it is barely 100 years old - something that lay in a mud bed, then got baked and hardened by the sun in a matter of a few years."


6) They left out Swamp Gas. :lol:

Why not al-Queda ? Works for everything else . . . :roll:
uniface
 

Re: A Fortean Discomforture

Postby Tiompan » Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:36 am

Of course sea shells are found on mountain tops .
But that does not mean that they are necessarily associated with the artefact .

What you are quoting are the accounts of the finders and the anonymous geologist who never published the findings .
No evidence for any of it .

But the evidence we do have shows that the artefact was a 1920's spark contained within a concretion .
Despite the artefact having been in the possession of one the "discoverers " ,which he valued at $25,000 ( what is the real value of 1920's spark plug in a concretion $30 ?), it's whereabouts are currently unknown .
You believe the finders story , fine .
I have a bit of the true cross for sale if your'e interested .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 849
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: A Fortean Discomforture

Postby uniface » Wed Feb 24, 2016 8:33 am

You're a joke, T.

The report dashes your position, so question the publisher of it.

If the publisher's solid, question the integrity of the reporter . . .

Rinse and repeat as often as necessary until people tire of reasoning with you and pointing out the significance of what you keep ignoring until you are the last man standing. Then declare victory on that pretext.

No matter what, you can always tag a question onto the end of it as if this somehow invalidates everything preceding it. I.e., the O. J. Simpson Defense.
uniface
 

Re: A Fortean Discomforture

Postby Tiompan » Wed Feb 24, 2016 9:26 am

All the evidence points to the "artefact" being nothing more than a 1920's spark plug in a concretion , the hick(s) who were trying to sell it for $25,000 were maybe not as daft as those bought the BS .

How much would you have paid for it ?
What do you think it was if not the obvious ?
Still have a problem with sea shells on mountain tops ?
Tiompan
 
Posts: 849
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: A Fortean Discomforture

Postby uniface » Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:48 pm

When they are supposed to have gotten there by some natural process within the last 100 years, yes.

And so does anyone else with a functioning brain.
uniface
 

Re: A Fortean Discomforture

Postby Tiompan » Wed Feb 24, 2016 3:47 pm

Anyone with a functioning brain realises that they didn't get there in the past 100 years and there were no sea shells associated with the object .

Brad Steiger highlighted the artefact in “Mysteries of Time and Space” ,have a look at his other titles , http://alynepustanio.com/paranormalbooks.php . He taught creative writing .Contrast that with the those who have written about the artefact ,sceptically , qualified anthropologists , archaeologists and geologists .

The geologist who described the artefact as being encased in a geode and possibly ancient is anonymous ,(s)he has never come forward , and never wrote a report .
This contrasts with a named qualified geologist , Paul Heinrich ,who did write a report on it and pointed out that it wasn’t a geode .

The three shopkeepers /rock hunters , one of whom was later attempting to sell the artefact for $25,000 , claimed that it was an example of ante deluvian technology . The object is now missing . One of finders who was still alive c.1999 would not talk about the object .
This contrasts with Chad Windham, president of Spark Plug Collectors of America who said he was certain that it was a Champion spark plug from the 1920’s . And researchers comparing photographs conclude that it is identical to the 1920’s Champion spark plug .

Not one case of anyone with any expertise in disciplines related to the object , one of which should maybe be grifting , considers the object to be anything other than a spark plug in a concretion .Which contrasts with the those who believe it is ancient technology ,is there anyone who believes that , with any expertise in geology , spark plugs or grifting ?
Tiompan
 
Posts: 849
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: A Fortean Discomforture

Postby uniface » Wed Feb 24, 2016 6:22 pm

You're on your own, Bro. :lol:
uniface
 

Re: A Fortean Discomforture

Postby Tiompan » Thu Feb 25, 2016 2:01 am

Why no response to the points ?
You never explained your view of the evidence pointing to it being a spark plug , the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the spark plug , the finders , their story ,
the missing geologists and ultimately the missing spark plug etc .
You also never answered " What do you think it was if not the obvious ?"


An example of alien or ante deluvian technology for $25,000 is a snip .
I'm certainly not on my own when it comes to being sceptical about the object .
Nhow it never sold , even the believers wouldn't put their money where their mouth was .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 849
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Previous

Return to Anthropology and Primitive Societies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron