What's new

Ouija board

Would like to see a shootout between the Ouija board and a Long range metal detector... would be an interesting pootube video..:happy3:
 
Why do people have Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck on their dishes, their clothing, and their wall art? It doesn’t mean they were real.
They kinda look like the Goons on Popeye movie, they don't look like cartoon figures to me..
It looks like carvings of what they looked like..
Or they only had one cartoon, a Goon..
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20260131-065212_Google~2.webp
    Screenshot_20260131-065212_Google~2.webp
    64.7 KB · Views: 38
  • Screenshot_20260130-202145_Facebook.webp
    Screenshot_20260130-202145_Facebook.webp
    101.8 KB · Views: 59
  • Screenshot_20260130-191632_Google~2.webp
    Screenshot_20260130-191632_Google~2.webp
    45.5 KB · Views: 46
  • Screenshot_20260130-191731_Google~2.webp
    Screenshot_20260130-191731_Google~2.webp
    111.6 KB · Views: 48
This cube they tested is 34,000 yrs old.
That would make the Ouija board old.
Other statues are so interesting, doing things we can't explain.. But don't look..

No, it isn’t.

Michael Forest (aka ‘aliencarvings’) did not submit the cube itself for UGA for testing. He submitted a tiny sample of organic material (pictured in the poly-bag below) that he said was scraped from the cube. The dating cannot be said to represent the age of the cube nor the carvings on it, even if the sample was genuinely from the cube.

sample.webp


The organic material he submitted contained foraminifera fossils which are abundant in oceanic environments, brackish estuaries, intertidal salt marshes and occasionally freshwater deposits. Anything (including modern items) found in mud or sludge from these environments is likely to be contaminated with such residues.

Foraminifera are microscopic organisms with a shell commonly composed of calcium carbonate and the UGA carbon-dating results were from the carbonate in the sample he submitted. Here’s the actual report (referencing sample ID TA-0015):

report.webp
 
No, it isn’t.

Michael Forest (aka ‘aliencarvings’) did not submit the cube itself for UGA for testing. He submitted a tiny sample of organic material (pictured in the poly-bag below) that he said was scraped from the cube. The dating cannot be said to represent the age of the cube nor the carvings on it, even if the sample was genuinely from the cube.

View attachment 2242927

The organic material he submitted contained foraminifera fossils which are abundant in oceanic environments, brackish estuaries, intertidal salt marshes and occasionally freshwater deposits. Anything (including modern items) found in mud or sludge from these environments is likely to be contaminated with such residues.

Foraminifera are microscopic organisms with a shell commonly composed of calcium carbonate and the UGA carbon-dating results were from the carbonate in the sample he submitted. Here’s the actual report (referencing sample ID TA-0015):

View attachment 2242928
You still have 19,999 alien carvings to debunk..
 
You still have 19,999 alien carvings to debunk..

Post 'em up (with reference links) and I'll shoot 'em down. Claims made by people such as Michel Forest (and the resulting social media speculation and misrepresentation) do a great disservice to the field of research into the possibility of alien contact or alien presence on Earth at some time in its history.

I remain open to those possibilities, but only when the evidence is strong. So far, it isn't.
 
Post 'em up (with reference links) and I'll shoot 'em down. Claims made by people such as Michel Forest (and the resulting social media speculation and misrepresentation) do a great disservice to the field of research into the possibility of alien contact or alien presence on Earth at some time in its history.

I remain open to those possibilities, but only when the evidence is strong. So far, it isn't.
I don't live by claims, I believe what I see.
I have Google and YouTube here, I believe the excavation video's, of these artifacts. Five years of digging. They chop roots, dig tunnels, and dig multiple alien artifacts.
If it's fake, I guess Time team is fake.
 
Why do I feel, most commenters didn't watch the videos, didn't look at all the thousands of weird artifacts, can't debunk any of the multiple scientific tests performed so far, with meters, chemicals, x-rays.
Don't look, you'd have to believe your lying eyes!
Have you ever just considered that it could be possible that what you're watching is just a production that generates views that generates more income for the producer of such videos?

With today's AI technology is well advanced even from our younger years of watching ED the talking horse.
Watching these videos I shake my head and laugh at the staged events. Call me skeptical-but I'm an a realist.
 
Have you ever just considered that it could be possible that what you're watching is just a production that generates views that generates more income for the producer of such videos?

With today's AI technology is well advanced even from our younger years of watching ED the talking horse.
Watching these videos I shake my head and laugh at the staged events. Call me skeptical-but I'm an a realist.
I see mounds of evidence, you haven't changed my beliefs.
 
Pseudoarchaeology (sometimes called fringe or alternative archaeology) consists of attempts to study, interpret, or teach about the subject-matter of archaeology while rejecting, ignoring, or misunderstanding the accepted data-gathering and analytical methods of the discipline,” writes Mr. Wikipedia. He is also of the opinion that: “Especially in the past, but also in the present, pseudoarchaeology has been affected by racism, which can be suggested by attempts to attribute ancient sites and artefacts to ancient Egyptians, Hebrew Lost Tribes, Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, or even extraterrestrial intelligence rather than to indigenous peoples…as being "anti-reason and anti-science" with some being "hyper-nationalistic, racist and hateful..."
…According to archaeologist John Hoopes, writing for the magazine of the Society for American Archaeology, "Pseudoarchaeology actively promotes myths that are routinely used in the service of white supremacy, racialized nationalism, colonialism, and the dispossession and oppression of indigenous peoples."
 
I see mounds of evidence, you haven't changed my beliefs.
Ask yourself do you believe everything you view on the screen?
If you don't there must be hard evidence on why you don't.
 
Pseudoarchaeology (sometimes called fringe or alternative archaeology) consists of attempts to study, interpret, or teach about the subject-matter of archaeology while rejecting, ignoring, or misunderstanding the accepted data-gathering and analytical methods of the discipline,” writes Mr. Wikipedia. He is also of the opinion that: “Especially in the past, but also in the present, pseudoarchaeology has been affected by racism, which can be suggested by attempts to attribute ancient sites and artefacts to ancient Egyptians, Hebrew Lost Tribes, Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, or even extraterrestrial intelligence rather than to indigenous peoples…as being "anti-reason and anti-science" with some being "hyper-nationalistic, racist and hateful..."
…According to archaeologist John Hoopes, writing for the magazine of the Society for American Archaeology, "Pseudoarchaeology actively promotes myths that are routinely used in the service of white supremacy, racialized nationalism, colonialism, and the dispossession and oppression of indigenous peoples."
Can't change my opinion, go ahead, keep trying!
 
Ask yourself do you believe everything you view on the screen?
If you don't there must be hard evidence on why you don't.
I form my opinion on what I see, not everything I see.
 
Actually, you/he have to prove they are real, since you/he are the ones claiming they are real.
If you want to convince me their fake, buy the Ouija and ask it..
 
It's not proven fake, not real.
I have conclusive, irrefutable proof that it's fake, including detailed photographic analysis and electron micrograph scan results, in a notarized document signed by the leading expert in antiquities. Unfortunately, I can't show it to you or divulge the name of the scientist who signed it because of strict non-disclosure rules.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom