Hammer found in Cretaceous layer

You know, all you need is very pure iron to keep it from rusting quickly. However, under the right conditions ALL iron will oxidize.Additionally, the hammer IS rusted - it's brownish red isn't it? Rather than a gray shiny metallic. As for the portion that was filed, who's to say it's not being kept filed or in a clean environment? Iron requires a catalyst to begin the oxidation process, I believe, and by keeping the air around the hammer clean and dry, it's not going to dry.As far as I can see, it's entirely possibly the iron from the hammer itself could have been leached from the hammer, combined with moisture in the area, and formed the concretion itself. It reminds me of ferricretes I've seen in the field.ferricrete (Glossary of Geology, 1980): (a) A term suggested by Lamplugh (1902) for a conglomerate consisting of surficialh sand and gravel cemented into a hard mass by iron oxide derived from the oxidation of perculating solutions of iron salts. (b) A ferruginous duricrust.

If the sample was analyzed, it was either tested on the brownish surface or within the filed, fresh surface. If it was actually the surface, then it's possible the Cl came from the surrounding bedrock.Salts are ubiquitous in limestone and rain can dissolve and mobilize the salt.Additionally, in the density photo HERE, does anyone know how was it analyzed? It looks like an x-ray. I also see a thin white line - is this representing density or something else?It's very annoying and completely unprofessional to post analysis results without stating what the analytical procedure was.

lol Yeah, I did notice that density is said to be 10% greater at the surface, except that the author also states the white areas are the most dense. HUH???Maybe the author meant to say the surface is 10% of the density of the interior.The white line definitely looks fishy. I am just in awe at the utter stupidity presented at that site.

Is it Hovind or Baugh that has this 'London Artifact?'Anyway, I agree. The hammer itself had a role in forming the concretion.

Hey, I once found a rock that looked exactly like a Yukon Gold Potato!I'm thinking now I should have offered it to Baugh or Hovind... for a price that is. Would that have been highly unethical of me.? This message has been edited by roxrkool, 01-07-2005 12:03 AM

Don't forget the Calaveras Skull.From Talk.Origins: Anyone who has ever worked at an underground mine will corroborate the bolded. Miners are insatiable tricksters.More info: The Calaveras SkullThis message has been edited by roxrkool, 01-09-2005 00:00 AM

quote:

---

1. .....And you know by mine experience?

---

Actually, yes. I have worked at an underground mine, several surface mines, and toured many more. Miners are all the same - crazy - though by far, undergound miners are much better jokesters. The darkness, eeriness, and just plain creepiness of working thousands of feet below the surface, surrounded by solid rock makes perfect fodder.

quote:

---

2. I see nothing produced by skeptics as to how the tricks were allegedly done, that is to produce items embeded in actual coal deposits artificially. Can you show how the tricksters allegedly did it?

---

Well, I'm not sure I would call the iron cup a trick. It looks more like it was accidental - similar to the hammer. A cup falls in an ore (or waste) dump, gets buried, etc. I'd actually have to see it before I could make a guess. I'd like to see how the coal looks, IS it real coal rather than coalified wood, does it have bedding features, and whether all the broken parts are consistently the same. The 'cup' looks pretty stout, like it could withstand a bit of pressure.Also, that cup is not the sort of cup one would drink from. To me, it looks like a cup used in some sort of smelting or assaying process. Since it's a coal mine, likely smelting. I've seen these types of cups before, but can't remember what they are called or how they're used. However, it looks like it was used to pour molten metal.This message has been edited by roxrkool, 01-09-2005 15:02 AM

A bit more digging found this: There was also a large fire and explosion five years earlier in 1905.I believe it's quite likely the cup was buried and baked in one of the explosions. Explosions result is a lot of pressure, too, so it's not too hard to imagine the cup being formed in such a way.

Buz, what do you think about the fire and explosion that happened two years before the cup was discovered? Is this a plausible enough explanation?

This is the second time I've attempted to answer your question, Buz, and the second time you appear to have ignored the reply.If you're busy, then I apologize for my impatience, but it would be nice to hear your thoughts.

No, not really. It was just a general reply to Buz. I suppose I could have linked to Buz's last post, however...

Why wouldn't it? Explosions in coal mines result in extreme heat production, collapse, and pressure. How is that not a viable explanation for the 'cup' being encased in coal?

Hi Lit,Nope, unfortunately it's just a rock. It's a well-rounded quartzite cobble.Yours sounds interesting. Maybe you can post a photo (probably start another thread, however)? Obsidian is a volcanic glass, usually black, but also white, brown, red - what color is your rock?

A bit on obsidian: obsidiansnowflake obsidian"Obsidian is hot stuff"