Talk:Coso artifact

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Paranormal Portal This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] Not an OOPART

The Coso artifact is clearly not an OOPART. In fact it is a Champion spark plug from the 1920's. It was probably, but not certainly, used to power an engine associated with mining operations. Since it has been identified, and isn't (wasn't) "out of place", the OOPART category should be removed, and I will remove it. I will also remove the "Coso artifact" from the OOPART page. SunSw0rd 18:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be listed as such in that it is commonly described as one by people who don't know any better and we can veriffy that description. In fact, all OOPARTS are almost certainly not really OOPARTS, but we still list them. JoshuaZ 18:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that an OOPART is only one as long as it is "out of place", yes? Once it has been identified as being a valid artifact from that era, then it should no longer be an OOPART. Thus the Antikythera mechanism is not on the list either. SunSw0rd 14:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Mayve we should make the category about OOPARTS and claimed OOPARTS then? As I see it, the Coso object has been so often called an OOPART that it should be in the same category as the others. JoshuaZ 14:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with JoshuaZ. I found this article as I was looking for more information on this artifact, having originally read about it as an OOPArt. If it had not been listed on the OOPArt page I might not have found it. --Guyzero 07:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Without being too much of a sceptic, surely if 'its a champion spark plug from the 1920's ' and is therefore clearly not an OOPART then it should be removed from the OOPART list. After all, finding something somewhere from the present era in an unusual circumstance hardly fits the OOPART criteria.Thesnuffla 09:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's claimed to be an OOPArt, even if it is clearly not one. This artifact has an article only because of this claim, so it should be put in the category "OOPArt" which should contain claimed OOPArts and ex-claimed OOPArts which are now clearly explained. Kromsson 19:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Censored Criticisms of Dating Coso Artifacts Restored

I restored the criticisms of the dating of the Coso artifacts because they are supported by verifiable and published arguments provided in Stromberg and Heinrich (2000, 2004). I added articles and a peer-reviewed book, which discusses how nodules containing iron or steel artifacts can form in a period of a few years to decades, to this section such that it now reads:

“Originally it was believed that the artifact must be very old, perhaps 500,000 years old, as claimed by Virginia Maxey, one of the people who discovered it. As discussed by Stromberg and Heinrich (2000, 2004), the details of either the dating technique or evidence on which this estimate were made was neither revealed nor published. Rather, this date was based solely on the opinion of an anonymous "geologist" as repeated second hand by one of the people, who discovered this artifact. Neither the identity, credentials, nor expertise of this "geologist", from which this opinion came is known. It is not even known if he or she was a real geologist or not. Now, it is largely accepted that the material surrounding the sparkplug may have accreted in a matter of years or decades as demonstrated by examples of very similar iron or steel artifact-bearing nodules, which are dicussed and illustrated by Cronyn (1990).”

Paul H.