Jump to content

Time travel evidence needed.


Recommended Posts

It is a Swiss watch dated over 400 years ago. At that time in the 16th Century watches are not available.

The second statement is correct. The first isn't. There's nothing in the article that states that the watch was somehow "dated" from 400 years ago. The article states that the tomb was sealed 400 years ago and that they believe they were the first to open the tomb since then. The article doesn't offer any evidence as to why they believed that to be the case and it doesn't attribute the statements to anyone in particular - just the nebulous "they". The article let's you infer that they are telling you that the watch was burried for 400 years.


Here's another clue: they're on an archeological expidition with a film crew (not unusual) and two journalists (a bit unusual). We assume that Cher Thornhill wasn't one of the two journalists because she would have said she was one of the journalists. So if two journalists were there to witness this stupendous find...why is it that the only article to be found is Cher's or references to her article? Why did they let her scoop them from the UK when they were right there?


What else does Cher write about? Nessie, UFO's, Martians. She's a tabloid journalist.


This "find" occured almost a year ago. Not another word about it other than references to Cher's article. No scholarly articles in archeological journals and no Nobel Prize in archeology nomination for Jiang Yanyu "former curator of the Guangxi Museum" - and if this was true he would receive a Nobel for the find.


And last, not a single reference to the curator anywhere except as related to this article.


Take this one with a substantial number of grains of salt. ;)



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Add to this, the "green" color shown is similar to verdegris which is a common corrosion product(s) of copper. But the entire watch is shown green. The watch crystal is not copper, and if a valuable watch, the exposed metal parts are likely to be gold.


But there's no reason someone couldn't take a cheap watch and spray it with a verdegris mixture, or simply paint of the same color. But the fingers of the person holding the watch are also marked with the same color of powder. Too much corrosion for one little watch! :devil:



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well done, Darby.


And let me just throw-out there two things that you are indirectly referring to that are part of the scientific aspect of archaeological finds:






Chain Of Custody


Both must be solidly established before anyone is going to refer to what is in this picture as any sort of "evidence" of anything whatsoever.


I appreciate your sharing this (a couple times), servantx, but it might be better if we all took a much more scientific approach to such things as "evidence for time travel". :)





Link to comment
Share on other sites



The issue of provenance is important in archoelogy. Archeologists find artifacts that don't fit the chronology of their digs all the time. The first question that they ask themselves is how did the site become contaminated with artifacts from other eras?


The answer is that they know burial sites all over the world have been contaminated by grave robbers, explorers, treasure hunters, invaders and archeologists for the past 5000 years. These people have left artifacts that contaminate the original sites.






If you're really interested in this particular archeological find the first thing that you should do is get some information on the source.


Not Cher Thornhill but Jiang Yanyu "former curator of the Guangxi [Provincial] Museum." Is he a real person? Was he actually the curator of the museum? What are his academic credentials? Where was the dig? Where is the documentary that was being filmed? What journal was his paper published in concerning his dig? Is his paper available in English (or some other language that you can read, assuming that you don't read Chinese)? Where can you view the paper?



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
  • 1 month later...

It's highly unlikely there's anything in the ring I'm afraid, mate. ;)


All the other suggestions for validating the story were excellent and well put. In this instance however, there is one quite obvious and immediate clue that should raise suspicions on the accuaracy or indeed validity of the report - the source itself.


For those who don't know:


The Daily Fail = Rarely Accurate


Additional proof is given in the article itself - nobody bothered to find out that wrist watches didn't become common until AFTER WWI, somewhat less than 100 years ago. Then again, this is a paper that has spent an inordinate amount of time obsessing over the knees of female celebrities, so sloppiness like that should be expected. ;)



Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Create New...