Artifact Found Next to Dinosaur Bones

I'm not really buying into the alien theory but this is interesting nonetheless. I surmise it is entirely possible that there may have been more than one very advanced human race on this planet and they may have become almost extinct long ago by some calamity. Very few would have survived and not been able to pass on the technological knowledge, therefore the human race started over. There are quite a few of these artifacts that have turned up over the years. There is this gizmo, model aircraft in Egypt and the Antikythera mechanism just to name a few. Who knows, perhaps Plato was a long distant relative of a survivor that passed down the stories from generation to generation which is why he wrote about the city of Atlantis.

The item was found near "mastodon" bones; NOT "dinosaur" bones. Huge difference.
Dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago, Mastodon went extinct only about 10,000 years ago.
Also, according to the story the artifact and the bones were apparently found in a sandy river bed near each other. That does not mean they were contemporary with each other; things from various ages get churned up and mixed around in river bottoms all the time.
Interesting artifact though. The bones are just dramatization introduced by the "History" Channel show producers; lots of rather bogus history on the History Channel.

Archaeologists refer to such artifacts as OOPs artifacts or out of place, lots of them have turned up over the years and most are discounted by mainstream archaeologists, most are explained like this , your walking and site seeing and drop a quarter at a historic site and an archaeologist finds it, doesn’t mean it was an actual part of the historical record, but’s such artifacts are usually shallow and not buried at the same depth as the historical ones, but there have been some such as the Egyptian statues that have been found at mound builder sites not close to the surface but deep in the mound where the artifacts are 2/3000 years old, or the old coins from Rome or Greece found at old Indian sites at the same depth as the other artifacts

Most archaeologists discredit such because it doesn’t fit their narrative

They made it the whole way through space from a distant planet only to wreck upon landing? The crew of the mother ship was probably shaking their heads when they saw the fireball.

Marco polo describes what sounded like dinosaurs in his book.

Lots of the settled science is not settled.

To me it looks like a backhoe tooth. and that could very likely even explain it's depth. The fact that it is aluminum is the odd part.

It's really too bad that with so much interesting true history, TV producers think it necessary to produce all this BS that they try to pass-off as history; kind of like Fake News, I guess there is a huge market for this stuff.

I saw a documentary once, JUST once that talked of homo sapien bones found right along with dinosaur bones. I watched it and was very intrigued, however this was before the internet, so couldn't look it up.

What I find odd is that I have never seen or heard of it other than that one time. Sure makes a fella wonder

What about the obviously hominid track alongside dinosaur tracks in an exposed river bed. In stone?

Don’t hold out for a repeat. Mike Traps2 when the anthropological peer review was done with the bone head that bobbled that one, he probably wound up making donuts at dunken.

Ive always wondered which dinosaur tasted the best?

The Deliciosouris maybe, someone ask Beav.

I think there was a small population of dinosaurs, that lived concurrent with humans, that gave rise to the dragon mythology that appears in almost all cultures.

I think there were several species of non homosapien, hominid species, that lived concurrent with humans too, that gave rise to the mythology of beings like elves, brownies, gnomes, fairies, goblins and similar beings in almost all cultures as well.

Keith

Great book on the history of human development. The title is Sapiens, by Yuval Noah Harari. He is Israeli. He has a You Tube as well. Very interesting book.

Kinda like an arrowhead stuck in a Mastodon Bone!

I had a class in college a long time ago called "Dinosaurs". Some things I learned:

• You can tell how old something is by how many layers of sediment are on top of them - but most of the time you can't tell one layer from the next.
• So, you can tell how old something is by how deep it is - except that usually doesn't work so, when it gives an answer an archeologist doesn't like they use a "correction factor" for that site. Each site gets it's own correction factor to make the answers come out the same as every other site. Then everything at that depth is however old they want it to be.
• You can tell how old something is by testing how much radioactive carbon is left in the thing - because radioactive materials decay at a known rate. But that requires us to know how much radioactive carbon was in the atmosphere tens of thousands of years ago before we knew what radioactive carbon was.
• We assume that the amount of radioactive carbon has always been the same. But we have been testing it for almost 100 years now and it's decreasing.
• We can use other radioactive elements to do the same age test. Iridium is one that's used a lot. Iridium, (and several others) is water soluble and moves around with ground water.
• Archeologist PhD's don't seem to think any of this is B.S.

Not really because it’s a well accepted fact that primitive man hunted both mammoth and mastodon as there are numerous artifacts showing they did just that

I think a better analogy would be finding a bullet in a mastodons bones

Better yet
Neanderthals CD collection of golden oldies

Here were lead to believe all along that cave persons hunted and killed mammoths and mastodons with knives and spears but no, there were extra terrestrials flying aircraft to herd and kill, much like our plains native americans hunting buffalo. Wonder if they were hired by the cavemen or if they sold the meat and hide to them. I guess the pilot zigged when he should have zagged.

Bryce

^^^^
Apparently the extra-terrestrials didn't have hunting ethics. No wonder the dinosaurs went extinct.
Wow, I realized I just created a new hypothesis I wonder how long it will take the antis to glom on to this theory; soo to be "fact"?

If this isn't "over your head" it should blow your mind. Evidence of life in igneous rocks; amazing.

https://www.mining.com/deep-mines-i...-sweden-considered--microbial-graveyards

I'm an old earth creationist. These guys (the researchers) are essentially economic geologists; in other words they could care less about evolution versus creation; they are objective.

nobody's truly objective...

^^^^^
In order to be successful in your particular field, such as economic geology, you must be objective. Of course everyone has biases, it is possible for some people to separate their bias mind from their objective mind.

Not sure what class you took a long time ago but for one thing archeologists don't dig/study dinosaur stuff?

Well in one sense that is certainly correct in that there are "living fossils" or species that have been here for millions and millions of years and flourish even today including crocs/gators, sharks/sturgeon, ferns, horsetail etc. very very ancient species.

Good and interesting post Finster. I especially like these conversations.

I guess it just depends on what one decides to determine as Truth? Pontius Pilate struggled with this question......

Is Truth when the Word of God and every day experiences become one and the same for average day individuals......, Or, is it when in academia and the world, preaching science tells us what to think based on "evidence?"

All the museums of the World and Natural Science study locations; as well as; Academia should provide every one of there "dinosaur" fossils for Carbon 14 dating. However, they will not!

Why is that.....? Because they tell us that it is impossible to date dinosaur bones via C14 because they are millions of years old. BS, put your money where your mouth is and prove it, but they will not. It is easier to just right us off as conspiracy cooks that think "people lived with dinosaurs" and we are science deniers. When in fact, they are the ones denying science. What a wicked web we weave, when we wish do deceive.

^^^^^^^
If you really wanted to test that assertion you could go to find yourself a dinosaur bone, or buy one off of Ebay, then send it to a laboratory and have it dated. This is actually not an expensive process. Don't tell them it's a dinosaur bone, and see what age they come up with.

Who is the "they will not" who you refer to? I think your assertion may not be entirely accurate.

C14 dating is only good back to about 50,000 years due to it's half life so dinosaur fossils are too old for c14 and are not bone anyways but rather mineralised impressions of bones etc:

The most widely known form of radiometric dating is carbon-14 dating. This is what archaeologists use to determine the age of human-made artifacts. But carbon-14 dating won't work on dinosaur bones. The half-life of carbon-14 is only 5,730 years, so carbon-14 dating is only effective on samples that are less than 50,000 years old. Dinosaur bones, on the other hand, are millions of years old -- some fossils are billions of years old. To determine the ages of these specimens, scientists need an isotope with a very long half-life. Some of the isotopes used for this purpose are uranium-238, uranium-235 and potassium-40, each of which has a half-life of more than a million years.

Unfortunately, these elements don't exist in dinosaur fossils themselves. Each of them typically exists in igneous rock, or rock made from cooled magma. Fossils, however, form in sedimentary rock -- sediment quickly covers a dinosaur's body, and the sediment and the bones gradually turn into rock. But this sediment doesn't typically include the necessary isotopes in measurable amounts. Fossils can't form in the igneous rock that usually does contain the isotopes. The extreme temperatures of the magma would just destroy the bones.

So to determine the age of sedimentary rock layers, researchers first have to find neighboring layers of Earth that include igneous rock, such as volcanic ash. These layers are like bookends -- they give a beginning and an end to the period of time when the sedimentary rock formed. By using radiometric dating to determine the age of igneous brackets, researchers can accurately determine the age of the sedimentary layers between them.

Using the basic ideas of bracketing and radiometric dating, researchers have determined the age of rock layers all over the world. This information has also helped determine the age of the Earth itself. While the oldest known rocks on Earth are about 3.5 billion years old, researchers have found zircon crystals that are 4.3 billion years old [source: USGS]. Based on the analysis of these samples, scientists estimate that the Earth itself is about 4.5 billion years old. In addition, the oldest known moon rocks are 4.5 billion years old. Since the moon and the Earth probably formed at the same time, this supports the current idea of the Earth's age.

Hey Waggler! Thanks for your input; you and I have had this conversation before! While I respect your old earth creationist view; Perhaps you or I may be mistaken. Some light reading below.....Also, there have been a whole lot of Intelligent Design (ID) folks send dino bones into respected labs to carbon date; while not letting the lab know what the specimen was. All came back as not millions of years old;, but rather 10s of thousands years old. Either way, one of the methodologies is flawed. Either C14 dating is flawed and we should not use it anymore, or our other dating is flawed.

By the way, have you checked out what the scientists date the lava rock that just came out of Mount Kilaeau last year using the traditional volcanic rock age calculation that they use to determine the age of dino bones? Quite interesting!

http://www.sciencevsevolution.org/Holzschuh.htm

^^^^^
I just read the paper in the link above. Interesting, but I see some problems just at first glance.
Even if you could find some un-fossilized dinosaur tissue to analyze (which it sounds like they did), it would still be impossible to date it accurately by using C14 methods to date a sample that is older than about 50,000 years due to the half life of C14.

Now if you start with the premises that dinosaurs are not millions of years old, and you submit a sample of dinosaur tissue to C14 testing, then of course you will come up with a date that is relatively recent; like less than 50,000 years. It would be impossible for the process to spit out a date of something millions of years old.

The fact that the researchers in this case apparently accept that the C14 dating method works when it comes to spitting out dates that fit their theories, indicates that they at least approve of the methodology. It seems like they sort of pick and choose which answers to accept; like if it fits their narrative.

These guys I assume are young earth believers, however, they seem to have no problem excepting C14 dates of various things that show relatively recent ages, such as things that date within the 10's of thousands of years ranges. The problem with that is those ages are still much too old to fit into their young earth idea which call for an earth that is between 6000 and at the outside a maximum of 10,000 years old.

Here's a first hand example about picking and choosing your science. I have a friend who is a young earth guy, I set him up for a trap that would reveal his tendency to pick and choose .

I said to him; "Mark, I think O.J. is innocent of murdering his girlfriend and Goldman". He looked shocked that I would take such a position. He started to rant about how the DNA evidence proved that O.J. was the murderer, I let him get pretty deep into his defense of science.
I then said to him, "Mark, how come you are so quick to except and defend science in the O.J. issue, but so quick to debunk science when it comes to geology and its various dating methods"? He was a little embarrassed that I had either revealed his bias against black people or his inconsistent use of science; and in Mark's defense, I know it wasn't due to a racist bias.

BTW, I can't find anything else anywhere about the subject of this paper, where it was published, peer-reviewed, or other references.
The only things I find are more or less circular and do not reach outside of a small sphere of young earth adherents. This is more than a little concerning when it comes to the credibility of the "research".

The biases some on this thread refer to are part of the scientific process because humans are part of the scientific process. It's accurate to say there have been countless worthy attempts to minimize operator bias by using various methodologies. Scientific "fact;" that which is "observable" and "repeatable," is flawed from the literal start because the "Big Bang" was neither observed or repeated.
So the premise is nice, but it's not fact, based on its own definition.
And here we are in the 20-21st centuries with so much measured against what isn't even a fact (based on definition) as thee major backdrop.
Hm. Interesting.

As a multiple grad level scientist myself, I don't discount science - which has become a post-modern religion with high priests who have a lot of alphabet on their name badges,
but I hold some of it loosely because it has a tendency to change about every generation or so. With each generation "sure" of what they "know" as being true..... because, well, each generation asserts that "they" are the sharpest tools in the toolbox to ever come along. Until the next generation says the same thing. And then the next and so on.

Great debate now exists about C-dating.

All I know FOR SURE, is no dude or dudette is; gonna make a monkey outta me
But I do enjoy me some good science and I suppose that will always be the case because I marvel at discovery.

Blessings y'all!
Mark

^^^^^^^
Agree; the cool thing about science is that the deeper it digs the more questions it raises. It seems to me that there is much less conflict now between the scientific community, and the faith community, than there was in the 70's or early 80's regarding the origin of life.

However, it is unfortunate that there are some people at both ends of the spectrum (young earthers and godless evolutionists) who both try to use/abuse science in order to support their ideas.

My background is in economic geology, more specifically, exploration geology. This field of science could care less about the origin of life debate as it relates to the age of the earth, etc..
Economic geology is interested in results that put profits into the bank. This leads this type of science in an objective direction, this gives me a relatively high level of confidence in this type of science; if it doesn't lead to results it is thrown to the side.

It really irks me when I see young earth professionals (book wrters, home school curriculum producers) continually trying to paint the scientific community in a bad light in order to put profits in their pockets: it's just plain wrong.

I have installed quite a few of those alien objects in my day. Around here they are usually called an excavator bucket tooth. Its amazing what some people will believe.

Sailors thought manatee were mermaids that’s a long time at sea to be seeing that.

Interesting video concerning dating. The researchers (Paleochronology Group) are urging the museums of the world to subject their specimens to C14 dating. Their argument is that if dino bones are in fact 65 millions years old or older, then there should not be any Carbon left in them; however, they are finding it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvWdWbLcJvQ

^^^^^^
There are two different types of carbon; carbon 12, and carbon 14. Carbon 14 is unstable and has a relatively short half life, hence that is why C14 is used for dating organic, carbon based items.

I get what you are saying though if you mean that C14 is still present in dinosaur bones. However, in anything that breaks down with measurable half-lives in this case C14, there will always be some remaining C14 present. The problem is that beyond a certain number of half-lives it becomes impossible to use the method to measure lapsed time.

There will always be C12 and C14 in artifacts like this.

Why can't I find any references to quotes I hear in videos like the one posted above?
The video posted above even has the comments turned off; no chance for debate or questions as to sources.
I really do want to hear both sides.

Geeez Waggler it's obvious a great Civilzation once voted Democratic and chose to quit Hunting and live on stimulus checks
As far as the OP looks like it came off the grab chain of my gleaner combine 1963 model

^^^^^
Isn't it interesting how anyone with a video camera, a good voice, and either a Youtube account or cable channel can make something seem so plausible....to the gullible, or to the intellectually lazy.

Hey Waggler, Great feedback as always. Thanks!

Below is a link to a site that the researchers have put up to justify their position. I don't necessarily agree with everything they put out there, but I do think they bring up some interesting points. When we also consider that the current accepted method of dating dinosaur bones has some issues and relies on some pretty big assumptions, I think the conversation is worth having.

http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

For years, we have been told that there is no way that DNA could possibly exist in Dino bones due to their age; and that concepts such as Jurassic Park were a fantasy due to the age of the fossils.
Given the soft tissue situation recently discovered, I will go out on a limb and bet that some scientist somewhere in the world will claim that they have found some DNA from a dino soon. May not be within my lifetime, but would not surprise me if it happens in our children's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TihDbUxnuqk