Talk:Wedge of Aiud
|
This Pseudohistory related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
It might as well be fiction[edit]
hilblairious.blogspot.ca has done a pretty thorough job explaining how the Romanian "investigation" into this thing is totally unreliable. Apparently even the metallurgy tests were bungled since they show conflicting results. "No original reports of the alloy makeup are available, no mastodon bones are exhibited or associated with the artifact, no photos or scientific records of it's actual recovery are shown to exist. All tests could have been made up or done on scrap. The "non-standard alloy" wedge itself was found at or near the site of a metal foundry. The only "proof" is the item on a shelf in photographs." Leuders (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
New user added google image search link as inline text[edit]
It's appropriately snarky, but it rubs me wrong as far as wiki styling goes. Anyone want to weigh in? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- My wiki-fu is a bit rusty after being away, I patrolled that. Maybe we could turn it into a footnote? SolPyre (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think it's actually passable when used in this context. It says "here" and links out. Though, it should not be to bit.ly, but clearly go straight to Google. I'll fix. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Fixed. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Objectively it is very simple to prove this is a broken tooth of an excavator, identify and demonstrate the Make & Model from which it came. Likewise, demonstrate by replicating the Petina that the corrosion found can be created by artificial means. Lastly, show that the alloy of aluminum comes from ...foundary process. — Unsigned, by: Paul Stowe / talk / contribs
- On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button:
on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. --Goatspeed. Fossil evidence of my evolutionCircularR
asoningMy experiments 22:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button:
- Objectively it is very simple to prove this is a broken tooth of an excavator, identify and demonstrate the Make & Model from which it came. Likewise, demonstrate by replicating the Petina that the corrosion found can be created by artificial means. Lastly, show that the alloy of aluminum comes from ...foundary process. — Unsigned, by: Paul Stowe / talk / contribs
- Fixed. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think it's actually passable when used in this context. It says "here" and links out. Though, it should not be to bit.ly, but clearly go straight to Google. I'll fix. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
/r/AlternativeHistory is triggered[edit]
I first read about it in 1992 or '93 in a Romanian newspaper.
It was also tested and proved to be un-natural Aluminum in 2003 i believe and there were a series of articles about it in the local press.
As for the asshats at rational wiki they pull that shit straight out of their asses, as this was found in the Mures river riverbed, no where near any kind of coal mines.
Romanian experts estimate, based on laboratory analysis, it's age at somewhere between 400 and 80000 years old, but most definitely not part of a fucking excavator.
by "thoroughly debunked" you mean there's an article on the rationalwiki (one of the absolute most crappiest pseudo-intellectual sites out there).
While experts at both the Laussane laboratories and romanian historians have determined it cannot be any younger then 400 years.
rationalwiki, a bunch of progressive **&%&%&&$
Would not trust them to tell me what planet I live on.
I can't go dig up articles from local Romanian press from 15 years ago. I'm something like 5000 miles away from home at the moment.
But it's even in the history books in Romania. It's not considered by anyone to be anything else other then an "out-of-place" artifact.
We're not a country of monkeys or idiots. The fact that the History Museum in Cluj, staffed by the professors at the University has labeled it as such is far, far more relevant for me then an article in rational wiki which simply says "lol, looks like X, then it must be X"
The people at the History Museum have studied the bloody thing for the past 40 years. They've been to the spot it's been dug it, analyzed that, send it to Laussane to get tested on purity and after all that have decided that it is not something made by modern technology.
But "rationalwiki" knows best .... why exactly ? Because it provides a contrarian "skeptic" with an easy out of a dilemma which serious scholars have thought about for a few decades
"Oh, those idiot Romanians , what do they know about history. Ha, "professors". NO, we are the true intellectuals"
We should probably get more citations for this article. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 13:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Uh, the name of the subreddit is Alternative History. Of course they're going to reject any mundane explanations. Leuders (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Trigger warning[edit]
Here, I attempt a reply to the above quotes:
On the first quote[edit]
- Don't believe everything you read in the papers. Especially not initial reports.
- Oh, it's been tested?[citation needed] Even cranks point out that rumors of it being tested is based entirely on conjecture. If it ever actually was tested, it shouldn't be too hard for the truthers to just contact the Institute of Archaeology and Art History
in Cluj-Napoca and ask them for a verified copy of the original report, right? - More unverifiable details being insisted upon, this time about it actually having been found in the Mures river. Gosh, can't we be right about anything?
- The claim that Romanian experts have dated the age of the Wedge to "between 400 and 80,000 years old" is very obviously fake
newsstatistics. Sad! The lower date of it being atleast 400 years old was invented by cranks for pure woo reasons, squarely for the coolness of placing the artifact somewhere before aluminum was used in manufacturing. The upper limit of 80,000 years is also confusing at best. So it can't be older than 80,000 years? Never mind that cranks give completely different random ages to the Wedge. All of them claiming to be based on "expert reports" and "lab analysis" — none of them providing any proof. - Please explain how it is more likely that aliens drove by Earth and delivered the wedge to us, rather than the wedge just being an old excavator component? I mean, excavator bucket teeth do look exactly like the wedge.
On the second quote[edit]
- It's quite obvious that nobody with an understanding of academic dating procedure has come near the Wedge. The claim that historians have dated it is ridiculous, as historians don't actually deal with material culture, but date things in the context of written history. Archaeologists can't have dated it either, as it's not assigned to any of their eras. Add to this the fact that — had the Wedge actually been presented in peer-reviewed archaeology papers — the archaeology community would have commented on it (instead of a Google search revealing nothing but us, ufology- and clickbait sites commenting on the Wedge). Furthermore, archaeologists would likely be the first to point out that it's clearly a form-molded excavator component.
- Claims that Laussane laboratories have analyzed the Wedge seem dubious. Partially due to the fact that they're a doping lab, not a materials lab, nor do they deal with anything but doping and related biological testing, nor do they even operate any equipment useful in analyzing the Wedge, plus the fact that they publish everything they do that is of note. Finally, no lab would ever state as the conclusion of their analysis — with a shrug and media blackout — that a clearly molded metal device was made by technology more sophisticated than our modern technology (read: than human technology).
On the third quote[edit]
- We're wrong per definition just because we're not euphoric Alt-righters, enlightened by our own intelligence. Gotcha.
On the fourth quote[edit]
- Claiming that you can't dig up sources is not proof for any of the claims. If anything, you seem to be invoking the on the spot fallacy against yourself — nobody is demanding that you produce the evidence right this second. We're just demanding that you produce the evidence before your claims are taken seriously.
- The fact that it's in Romanian history books is an appeal to nationalist pseudohistory, nothing more. And we know that Romania — of all places — is hardly excepted from the plague of pseudohistorical crankery. Not more vulnerable than any other nation, per se. Just — not immune from it, clearly.
- I have no idea who suggested that Romania is "a country of monkeys". Monkeys have tails.
- More name dropping taking the place of actual sources. Even crank sources point out that the object is not put on display, so invoking a museum with claims that their experts labeled it as extraordinary is a joke. One thing all museums in the world share is that they do all they can to put their best stuff on display. There's money to be made and ideology to spread! Romania would become the focus of the world if an actual alien artifact was discovered there. What's the holdup?
- Speaking of saying "lol, looks like X, it must be X" — sounds quite a lot like the practice of looking at pixelated, vaguely sourced photos of junk and deciding that what they seem to depict are obviously genuine alien artifacts.
- If it's been studied for 40 years, that means research must have been published. Please direct me to this research — Google Scholar is having trouble locating it for me.
- Again with the namedropping of Laussane laboratories. So, contact them? Get the papers? Get a statement? Something?
- ...aaaaand the only reason we don't buy your crank crap that is apparently because we've got something against Romania (?) and because we're insufferable know-it-all skeptics who won't just accept the unsourced hype claim that an authentic alien paperweight is staring us right in the face.
Something, something, RationalWiki. Something, something, complete. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Great, now you can start on these guys. Maybe integrate all of your analysis into the article when you get a chance. There's a good fellow. Leuders (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- My question is what "era" is Romanian archeology in? As Bruce Trigger pointed out in his History of Archaeological Thought not everybody is on the same page with regards to the theories or even methodology. If Romania archeology is in the historical particularism era (sometimes called Boazian archeology) then we wouldn't expect to see much interpretation of the data but it was (and still is) a treasure trove of raw data. Howard Carter's The Tomb of Tutankhamun is a prime example of what to expect from Boazian archeology.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Mentioned[edit]
This article has been cited by The Occult Museum.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 03:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- Also linked in this Reddit thread.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 03:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)