Monday, April 28, 2014

Ancient iron Hammer From London Texas




What we have is supposedly chlorine steel which our technology simply does not attempt.  It is possible that what we are seeing actually is iron quenched in sea water producing a useful surface.  What I am comfortable with is positioning this tool into the European Bronze Age from 3000BC through 1159BC.

The wood through modified was somewhere beyond biological attack that had to be in a mineral rich sink of some sort.  The iron would allow electron exchange and accretion of the limestone. Recall that limestone can self-assemble quickly with the right conditions.  At the same time, geological aging methods are profoundly untrustworthy unless you get extremely lucky.  There is a good reason that I can date the end of the Bronze Age proper to 1159 BC and place Troy in the preceding generation.  Yet almost all other dates are very fuzzy and have a typical error factor of at least a century and even then cannot be trusted.

This chlorine iron technology needs to be replicated and I am sure it must be linked to sea water or sea salt and may also need some additional chemistry as well.  Those look to be good hammer heads.

Out of Place in Time: Was This Hammer Made 100 Million Years Ago?

By Tara MacIsaacEpoch Times | April 3, 2014


Oopart (out of place artifact) is a term applied to dozens of prehistoric objects found in various places around the world that seem to show a level of technological advancement incongruous with the times in which they were made. Ooparts often frustrate conventional scientists, delight adventurous investigators open to alternative theories, and spark debate.


A hammer was found in London, Texas, in 1934 encased in stone that had formed around it. The rock surrounding the hammer is said to be more than 100 million years old, suggesting the hammer was made well before humans who could have made such an object are thought to have existed.


In June 1936 (or 1934 according to some accounts), Max Hahn and his wife Emma were on a walk when they noticed a rock with wood protruding from its core. They decided to take the oddity home and later cracked it open with a hammer and a chisel. Ironically, what they found within seemed to be an archaic hammer of sorts. A team of archaeologists checked it, and as it turns out, the rock encasing the hammer was dated back more than 400 million year; the hammer itself turned out to be more than 500 million years old. Additionally, a section of the handle has begun the transformation to coal. Creationists, of course, were all over this. The hammer’s head, made of more than 96% iron, is far more pure than anything nature could have achieved without an assist from modern technology.


Much mystery surrounds the so-called “London Hammer.”

Carl Baugh, who is in possession of the artifact, announced that it was tested by Battelle Laboratory in Columbus, Ohio, a lab that has tested moon rocks for NASA. The tests found the hammer to have unusual metallurgy—96.6 percent iron, 2.6 percent chlorine, 0.74 percent sulfur, and no carbon.

Carbon is usually what strengthens brittle iron, so it is strange that carbon is absent. Chlorine is not usually found in iron. The iron shows a high degree of craftsmanship without bubbles in the metal. Furthermore, it is said to be coated in an iron oxide that would not readily form under natural conditions and which prevents rust.

Glen J. Kuban, a vocal skeptic of Baugh’s hammer claims, wrote in a 1997 paper titled “The London Hammer: An Alleged Out-of-Place Artifact,” that the tests may have been conducted privately rather than at Battelle Laboratory. He cites a 1985 issue of the magazine Creation Ex Nihilo. Epoch Times contacted Battelle Laboratory to verify. A spokeswoman said she had not heard of the hammer in her 15 years at the lab, but she would check into it. 

Kuban said the stone may contain materials that are more than 100 million years old, but that doesn’t mean the rock formed around the hammer so long ago. Some limestone has formed around artifacts known to be from the 20th century, so rocks can sometimes form fairly quickly.

Baugh’s website says, however, that the fossils in the stone surrounding the hammer “retain fine detail, indicating that they were not reworked, but [are] part of the original formation.” This would suggest the fossils and the hammer are from the same time period, that the fossils did not just get mixed up in materials that formed rock around the hammer at a later date. 

Carbon dating performed in the late 1990s “showed inconclusive dates ranging from the present to 700 years ago,” Baugh supporter David Lines reported at the time. According to Kuban, Lines said the test had been contaminated by more recent organic substances. Such contamination is one of the reasons Baugh is said to have delayed having the artifact carbon dated (skeptics say he delayed because he feared being proved wrong). Dating is often called into question on both sides—by skeptics and proponents—for various reasons when it comes to ooparts.

The object was found by a hiker, and it seems it was not found embedded in the original layer of rock, which would have made a stronger case for an ancient origin. It was a chunk of rock found resting on a ledge, perhaps having tumbled there from within a larger formation.

As evidence of the hammer’s age, Baugh said part of the wooden handle had turned to coal. The photos of the hammer show a black part of the hammer that looks like it could be coal. 

The debate surrounding the hammer’s origin has become bound up with the creationism versus evolutionism debate. Baugh is a creationist. Kuban is a creationist-turned-skeptic (or a much more moderate creationist). Various creationist organizations take different stances on this artifact, and many evolutionists dismiss it as a creationist hoax. But the object remains a fascinating one apart from its role in this controversy.

This is one of many objects said to be out of place in time. Epoch Times continues to explore more such findings.


No comments:

Post a Comment