There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
Talk:London Hammer
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
RW's #1 on my Googling of "London Hammer" even when I incognitoise it. Just sayin' Scream!! (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's number three on Duck Duck Go.
- First I've heard of the thing. Wouldn't it be easy to do a carbon 14 test on the wooden handle?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 13:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Supposedly a test has been made and it "showed inconclusive dates ranging from the present to 700 years ago." ([http://paleo.cc/paluxy/hammer.htm The London Hammer:
An Alleged Out-of-Place Artifact])--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- Would [1] and/or stalactites/stalagmites be a reasonable assumption for what happened here? Anna Livia (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Anna Livia As I recall from several debunking videos, it’s the petrifying well
thing. It’s an accretion of minerals from being soaked in water. This also goes for the hat mentioned in the article, as well as for a skeletal foot in a boot that’s also touted by creationists as “evidence” of rapid fossilisation. I seem to recall that Potholer54 once did a video on this, but I’m not absolutely sure. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Anna Livia As I recall from several debunking videos, it’s the petrifying well
- Would [1] and/or stalactites/stalagmites be a reasonable assumption for what happened here? Anna Livia (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)