Robert Jameson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> ... I have not got time to read all the
> references you put up. Yet I am familiar with the
> countless debunking articles of just about every
> OOPArt that has ever seen the light of day.
>
> My position is this – yes it is likely there are
> many hoaxes and false claims. And for researchers
> such as myself it is impossible to know who are
> the hoaxers and who is telling the truth.

The possibility will surely only be further reduced if you don't actually have time to research the subject area that you're purportedly researching.

The Dorchester Pot: turns out to be part of a hookah.

The London Hammer:

Quote

The stone is real, and it looks impressive to someone unfamiliar with geological processes. How could a modern artefact be stuck in Ordovician rock? The answer is that the concretion itself is not Ordovician. Minerals in solution can harden around an intrusive object dropped in a crack or simply left on the ground if the source rock (in this case, reportedly Ordovician) is chemically soluble (Cole, 1985)

As EyeofHorus says:

It seems that the science behind the sensational claim clarifies the hammer encased in a limey concretion:

Quote

Kuban, Glen J. (14 July 2006). "The London Hammer: An Alleged Out-of-Place Artifact. An iron and wooden hammer, sometimes called the "London Artifact" or "London Hammer," found by local hikers in a creek bed near London, Texas in 1936, has been promoted by Carl Baugh and other strict creationists as an out-of-place artifact. They maintain that the hammer, which was partially embedded in a small, limy rock concretion, originated in a Cretaceous rock formation (or an Ordovician or Silurian one, depending on the account), thus contradicting the standard geologic timetable.

However, the hammer was not documented in situ, and has not been reliably associated with any specific host formation. Other relatively recent implements have been found encased in by similar nodules, and can form within centuries or even decades under proper conditions (Stromberg, 2004). The hammer in question was probably dropped or discarded by a local miner or craftsman within the last few hundred years, after which dissolved limy sediment hardened into a nodule around it. Although a brief rebuttal to Baugh's hammer claims was made by Cole (1985), Baugh and a few other creationists continue to promote it. This review provides further analysis of the hammer and creationist claims about it.

(Full links in my earlier post).

> However it seems to me there are far too many
> unexplained ancient buildings and artefacts to
> dismiss them all as hoaxes. And many of the claims
> for OOPArts that are millions of years old seem
> credible; (i.e. Table Mountain in California). So
> even if one of these claims is correct then
> history as we know it needs to be re-written.

The Table Mountain mortar and pestle:

Quote
http://www.badarchaeology.com/out-of-place-artefacts/very-ancient-artefacts/a-mortar-and-pestle-from-tuolomne/
The objects – if genuinely found inside the mine – were identical to those of recent date found outside it; this argues strongly in favour of their recent manufacture (‘recent’ in this context meaning in the past ten thousand years or so!). The use of a rock found higher up the mountain to maufacture these objects shows that it must have existed before the artefacts; if they were really buried beneath it, they must have been introduced by some means, such as tunnelling.

See also: The Coso Artifact, that turns out to be:

Quote

a 1920s-era Champion spark plug that likely powered a Ford Model T or Model A engine, modified to possibly serve mining operations in the Coso mountain range of California

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10-Feb-20 13:28 by Merrell.