3-Billion Year Old Manufactured Spheroids?

K

kazakhan

Registered Abuser
Registered Senior Member
3-Billion Year Old Manufactured Spheroids?
importD9.jpg


I'm not sure what to make of this, does anyone have any comments? Could it be a hoax, errors in dating etc?
 
The page is old I believe and is lacking information. I can't find any more information from google either :( Even if these were only a few hundred years old they'd still be just as strange.
 
Carbon dating (although they are vague about their method, and use the term 'radio-isotope dating'.) can only date things to about 50,000 years ago, and then only items that grew naturally, or included some natural ingredient, so the percentage of C14 in the sample can be gauged against it's half like.

A lump of metal alloy, which does 'not occur naturally' (and nickel/iron is a common alloy found in meteorites, so whether it is found 'naturally' is another topic for debate) on earth, is found on earth. Therefore any method which tries to fix a terrestrial date to an extraterrestrial object will obviously be in error.
 
Phlogistician, why are you raising the red herring of carbon dating, just to shoot it down? The article very clearly states 'radio-isotope dating'. Given the purported age we can safely assume this to be Ur-Pb, or K-Ar, both of which are perfectly effective at dating in the billion year ranges.
Also, the implication (though not the direct statement) is that it was the surrounding rock that was dated, not the spheroids. This would be standard practice. That immediately creates the 'out' that these spheroids have been placed deliberately or accidentally at a much later date.
I am puzzled by your claim about dating of terrestrial versus extra-terrestrial objects. Since all the planets, moons, asteroids and meteorites condesnsed out of the same solar nebula, formed from the same supernovae, the original age of radioactive elenents is the same. That's how we are able to discern so much about the early history of the solar system from a study of meteorites, and how we were able to date the moon rocks or the Martian meteorites.

And I amsurprised nobody has mentioned the similarity between the photograph of the object and the recent close ups of Iapetus: the equatorial ridge, and the large impact crater 'eye'. Spooky. ;)
 
I raised carbon dating (which is still radio isotope dating btw) because that is the method most people think of, and the one I thought of first, and knew it couldn't yield such results.

I hadn't thought of other isotope tests, as I whacked that post out quickly before I shot out to walk my dogs, but you correct me, and for that I'm grateful.

I'm afraid my level of response to the article was at the same level of the article, shoddy and hastily researched!
 
phlogistician said:
I'm afraid my level of response to the article was at the same level of the article, shoddy and hastily researched!
Click to expand...
One bad post out of 1087 can't be bad. ;)
 
They look like mini death-stars. :D

The ETI must have planted them there billions of years ago so that they could be activated billions of years in the future and help to enslave the human race. :D
 
They look like metamorphic pyrite nodules, perhaps converted to geothite by weathering.

It seems likely that someone attributed false claims of nickel-steel alloy to this alleged scientist of geology. Without a citation to a primary source, we can toss that assumption out.

We can also toss out the assumption that these "grooves" were created prior to the nodules being buried 2.8 to billion years ago. They surely would have been obliterated by metamorphic process by now.

Limonite, pyrite, and geothite nodules can devlop rings as part of the weathering process, but this story was also carried on an NBC program called The Mysterious Origins of Man, hosted by Charles Heston. These spheres were also discussed in the pseudoscience pulp titled Forbidden Archaeology.

In the latter, they cited articles in Weekly World News, a tabloid known to completely fabricate stories.

In each of the above sources, only a few of the alleged "hundreds" of spheres had rings carved in them. Only one had "three" rings. Its more likely that they were carved after finding them than anything else.

And as 2inquisitive pointed out, you can get a more detailed explanation at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/spheres.html
 
Last edited:
Pretty wierd. Is anyone sure their is no chance of these sediments having been contaminated at a later time?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top