• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Giant Stone Balls of Costa Rica (and Elsewhere)

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
54,631
From a UFO website, and includes dodgy grammar and spelling....
Who Made the Giant Stone Spheres?
By UFO Area
Copyright © 2000 - 2007 UFO Area

March 9, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are the mysterious giant stone spheres of unknown age representations of planets and moons of the solar system?
If the stone balls had been left at the original place, would they form a gigantic planetarium?

Some scientists suggest that the ancient spheres are natural formations, others believe these round-shaped stones are man-made and a third group propose that the stone spheres were made by extraterrestrials, the inhabitants of Atlantis or perhaps an advanced lost civilization.

Although many theories have been put forward, nobody really knows when or how these ancient stone spheres were made, by whom, or for what purpose.
Most famous of the ancient stone balls are the Costa Rican spheres, but unique round stone balls have also been found in Mexico, Aruba, Haiti. Not so long ago, similar artifacts were also discovered in Bosnia.

In 1945, Matthew Williams Stirling, an American antropologist and archaeologist who spent most of his career at the Smithsonian Institution, discovered a large number of stone spheres in Mexico. They were almost perfectly spherical. Later in the vicinity of Palamer Sur, Costa Rica, Stirling found more stone spheres.
The stone balls measured the size of an adult in diameter and were made of granite. They were not scattered around the area, but seemed to be placed deliberately in a specific formation. At first Stirling suspected the stones were made by an unknown civilization. However, when he and his colleagues discovered later a large number of similar spheres, some measuring up to two meters in diameter in other parts of Mexico, the scientists concluded the stones were of geological origin. In the scientific report, it stated that the round stones were formed by high temperature nucleation of glassy material around glass shards within an ashfall tuff, as a result of tertiary volcanism.

This is a never-ending problem in the scientific community. Whenever an anomalous artifact is unearthed that do not fit the traditional picture, it is very often explained as a work of nature.
Can "nature" produce so many such perfectly round-shaped spheres? Hardly.

In Costa Rica, archaeologists have identified and catalogued hundreds of the balls. If you visit the country, you can view them in museums. Some of them have been placed as decorations around more important official buildings, hospitals and in parks. The majority of the stones were moved across the country and only six stone balls are known to remain in their original positions.

To determine the origin of the Costa Rican spheres is difficult. They are perfectly round-shaped, polished, very large, weigh many tons, and composed of solid hard rock.

Searching for clues to their origin and dating is difficult. No one knows exactly how old the balls are, because Costa Rica had no recorded history before the arrival of Columbus in 1502.
Researchers have tried to obtain information on the spheres from the local inhabitants. However, the spheres were previously unknown to them and they could offer no explanation of who made them, how old they were and for what purpose they were constructed.


Some experts suggest that the stones are actually man-made.
If this is correct, then the ancient people must have been technologically very advanced and skilled mathematicians. The spheres are so perfectly round that not even modern equipment could have produced something with such precise tolerances. How could such massive stones be moved a long distance without modern transportation? Were they rolled downhill? For hundreds of miles around there was no querry from where they could have come. Where they really rolled through the jungle to the tops of the mountains? It would certainly take a decade to complete such a demanding task.

Some researchers like Professor Ivar Zapp and anthropologist George Erikson became interested in the Costa Rica stone spheres.
Professor Zapp was convinced that the spheres could not be attributed to the Chorotega Indians, as academics maintained. The Chorotega did not have adequate tools or capability to construct perfect spheres of this magnitude. Zapp's and Erikson's investigation led them to believe that these spheres are 12,000-year-old artefacts constructed by a technically advanced sea-going culture. The spheres were in their opinion used as navigational markers. According to the scientists, this ancient culture can be traced all the way back to Atlantis.

American archaeologist Samuel K Lothrop, who studied the spheres, theorized that the stones were placed in 'astronomically-significant' alignments.
Examination of the formations revealed that three, four or five of the large stone balls were arranged in a straight line, serving as a base for triangles and other geometrical figures. It was obvious that the whole arrangement obeyed mathematical laws.
Was the purpose of the formations to represent constellations or stellar maps?

The Books of Prophecy of the Chorotegan priests may hold a clue to the origin of the mysterious stone spheres…

The legend tells of how early human civilizations were looked after by beings from outer space. According to the legend, one day in the future modern man will also reach the stars. The Books of Prophecy say that those who descended from the heavens were the "jaguar-men". In fact, we do encounter depictions of jaguars all across America.

Archaeologist Semir Osmanagic discovered the Bosnian stone balls.
He believes that the creators of the spheres in Mexico, Costa Rica and Bosnia used the same technology and the similarities are striking.

This shows there is a connection between the American stone balls and the ones found in Bosnia.

Only a small number of spheres have been found in Bosnia and there is a possibility that many more might be discovered in the near future.

The large, polished, ancient stones show us how little we know of our history and the questions remain: Who made them? Why and how?

http://www.ufoarea.com/aas_giantspheres.html
 
Thanks for the article Rynner

Interesting article, it shows how you can mix made up stuff with reality to make the unreal almost sound reasonable.

Samuel K Lothrop is an archaeologist

Semir Osmanagic is anything but an archaeologist

The Books of Prophecy of the Chorotegan priests?

Ivar Zapp a frequent traveller in the fringe world who claims to be a professor, a check shows no papers that I could find. No mention of him at the University of Costa Rica website.

George Erikson is a writer on fringe subjects and Atlantis, he writes about anthropology but tends towards the mythical, magical and mysterious

The following refers to some of the issues brought up above.

Errors and Misinformation

Several authors have now contributed to widespread misinformation about the stone balls of Costa Rica, leading to unfounded speculation about their nature and origin.

The Size of the Balls

In an article in Atlantis Rising Online, George Erikson makes exaggerated claims for the size of the stone balls, writing that they are "weighing up to 30 tons and measuring up to three meters in diameter" According to Samuel Lothrop, author of the most extensive study of the balls, "A 6-foot ball is estimated at about 7.5 tons, a 4-foot ball at 3 tons and a 3-foot specimen at 1.3 tons" (1963:22). Lothrop estimated the maximum weight for ball was around 16 tons. The largest known ball measures 2.15 m in diameter, which is substantially smaller than three meters.

The Roundness of the Balls

Erikson also states that these objects "were perfect spheres to within 2 millimeters from any measurement of both their diameter and circumference." This claim is false. No one has ever measured a ball with a sufficient degree of precision to make it. Neither Ivar Zapp nor George Erikson has proposed a methodology by which such measurements could be made. Lothrop (1963:17) wrote: "To measure the rotundity we used two methods, neither completely satisfactory. When the large balls were deeply buried in the ground, it might take several days to trench around them. Hence, we exposed the upper half only and then measured two or three more diameters with tape and plumb bob. This revealed that the poorer specimens, usually with diameters ranging between 2 and 3 feet (0.6-0.9 meters), varied in diameters as much as one or 2 inches (2.5-5.1 centimeters)." It should be clear that this method assumed that the portion under ground was spherical. Lothrop also measured balls that were more completely exposed by taking up to five circumferences with a tape measure, from which he then calculated their diameters. He writes, "Evidently, the larger balls were the product of the finest craftsmanship, and they were so nearly perfect that the tape and plumb-bob measurements of diameters did not reveal imperfections. Therefore, we measured circumferences horizontally and, if possible, at a 45-degree upward slant toward the four cardinal points. We did not usually ascertain the vertical circumference as the large balls were too heavy to move. This procedure was not as easy as it sounds because several people had to hold the tape and all measurements had to be checked. As the variation in diameters was too small to be detected by eye even with a plumb bob, the diameters have been computed mathematically". The source of claims for precise measurements may stem from misinterpretations of Lothrop's tables, in which he presents the calculated diameters in meters to four decimal places. However, these are mathematically calculated estimates, not direct measurements. They have not been rounded to reflect the actual precision with which the actual measurements were taken. It should be obvious that differences "too small to be detected by eye" cannot be translated into claims about precision "to within 2 millimeters". In fact, the surfaces of the balls are not perfectly smooth, creating irregularities that plainly exceed 2 millimeters in height. As noted above, some balls are known to vary over 5 cm (50 mm) in diameter. In the photograph of the largest ball on this web site, it is clear that the surface has been badly damaged. It is therefore impossible to know how precisely formed this ball might have been.

The Makers of the Balls

George Erikson states that "archaeologists attributed the spheres to the Chorotega Indians". No archaeologist familiar with the evidence has ever made this claim. The Chorotega were an Oto-Manguean speaking group that occupied an area of Guanacaste, near the Gulf of Nicoya in northwestern Costa Rica. The peoples who lived in the area where the balls are found were Chibchan speakers. The balls have been found in association with architectural remains, such as stone walls and pavements made of river cobbles, and both whole and broken pottery vessels that are consistent with finds at other sites associated with the Aguas Buenas and Chiriquí cultures. These are believed to represent native peoples ancestral to historical Chibchan-speaking group of southern Costa Rica.

The Dating of the Balls

George Erikson and others have implied that the balls may date as early as 12,000 years ago. There is no evidence to support this claim. Since the balls cannot be dated directly by methods such as radiocarbon dating, which can be applied directly only to organic materials, the best way to date them is by stratigraphic context and associated artifacts. Lothrop excavated one stone ball that was located in a soil layer separated from an underlying, sherd-bearing deposit that contained pottery typical of the Aguas Buenas culture (200 BC - AD 600). In the soil immediately beneath this ball he found the broken head of a painted human figurine of the Buenos Aires Polychrome type, dated to AD 1000-1500 (examples have reportely been found associated with iron tools). This suggests the ball was made sometime between AD 600 and 1500.

The Balls are "Out of Context"

Since their discovery in 1940, the vast majority of these balls have been removed from their archaeological contexts to serve as lawn ornaments across Costa Rica. Many of the balls studied by Lothrop appeared to have rolled off of nearby mounds. Several had been covered by layers of fine silt, apparently from flood deposits and natural erosion. Naturally, they are "out of context" in the sense of having few good archaeological associations.

Scholars Have Ignored Them

It is not unusual for authors who write about the stone balls to claim that these objects have received inadequate attention from serious scholars. While this is undoubtedly true, it is not true that these objects have been ignored. It is also not true that scholarship regarding them has been somehow hidden from the general public. The first scholarly study of the balls was undertaken by Doris Stone immediately upon their discovery by workers for the United Fruit Company. Results of her investigation were published in 1943 in American Antiquity, the leading academic journal for archaeology in the United States. Samuel Lothrop, an archaeologist on the staff of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography at Harvard University, undertook major fieldwork concerning the balls in 1948. The final report on his study was published but the Museum in 1963. It contains maps of sites where the balls were found, detailed descriptions of pottery and metal objects found with and near them, and many photographs, measurements, and drawings of the balls, their alignments, and their stratigraphic contexts. Additional research on the balls by archaeologist Matthew Stirling was reported in the pages of National Geographic in 1969. In the late 1970s, archaeological survey on Isla del Caño (published in 1986) revealed balls in offshore contexts. Sites with balls were investigated and reported in the 1980s by Robert Drolet in the course of surveys and excavations in the Térraba Valley. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Claude Baudez and his students from the University of Paris returned to the locations of Lothrop's earlier fieldwork in the Diquís delta to undertake a more careful analysis of the pottery of the area, producing more refined dates for the contexts of the balls. This research was published in Spanish in 1993, with an English summary appearing in 1996. Also in the early 1990s, the author undertook fieldwork around Golfito, documenting the existence of the easternmost examples of these balls. At this time, Enrico Dal Lago, a student at the University of Kansas, defended a Master's thesis on the subject of the balls. The most careful study of the balls, however, has been fieldwork undertaken from 1990-1995 by archaeologist Ifigenia Quintanilla under the auspices of the National Museum of Costa Rica. She was able to excavate several balls in situ, documenting the process of their manufacture and their cultural associations. Quintanilla's research has been the most complete field study of these objects since Lothrop. While still mostly unpublished, the information she collected is currently the subject of her graduate research at the University of Barcelona. Even with current research pending, the list of references on this Web site makes it clear that the stone balls have received a great deal of serious, scholarly attention.

http://web.ku.edu/~hoopes/balls/errors.htm
 
There's also the grooved spheres, of unknown age, reported from South Africa.
 
Howdy OTR

Yes there are small spheres from South Africa ONE of which had grooves. Here is in detail, a rather long discussion of said spheres in relationship which their being mentioned in the book Forbidden Archaeology and The Mysterious Origins of Man

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/spheres.html

The Mysterious Origins of Man:
The South African Grooved Sphere Controversy
Copyright © 1996 by Paul Heinrich
[
An Interim Report
In the NBC program The Mysterious Origins of Man the following claims were made by Charlton Heston
In Klerksdorp, South Africa, hundreds of metallic spheres were found by miners in Precambrian strata said to be a fantastic 2.8 billion years old. The controversy centers around fine grooves encircling some of the spheres. Lab technicians were at a loss to explain how they could have been formed by any known, natural process.
In the above comments, The Mysterious Origins of Man is vague in two matters. First, as noted in Forbidden Archeology, the mystery spheres actually come from wonderstone quarries closer to Ottosdal, West Transvaal, South Africa than Klerksdorp. Saying that these spheres come from in Klerksdorp is confusing as it implies incorrectly that these nodules come from local gold mines. This lead to incorrect speculation on the basis of this bad data that they were pyrite concretions from the gold-bearing quartzite conglomerates. Finally, this video fails to name who the lab technicians that examined these spheres were. As a result, it is impossible to make any assessment of their expertise and credibility.
The Mysterious Origins of Man states that the curator of the Klerksdorp Museum, Rolfe Marx noted that these spheres looked man-made although they came from a period in the history of the Earth when no intelligent life existed. According to The Mysterious Origins of Man, Rolfe Max stated:

They are nothing like I have seen before.
Fortunately in Forbidden Archeology by Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson, some additional information is given. First, it states:
Over the past several decades, South African miners have found hundreds of metallic spheres, at least one of which has three parallel grooves running around its equator. The spheres are of two types--"one of solid bluish metal with white flecks, and another which is a hollow ball filled with a white spongy center" (Jimison 1982).
It is important to note at this time, that (Jimison 1982) is:
Jimison, S. (1982) Scientists baffled by space spheres. Weekly World News, July 27.

Forbidden Archeology cites as a credible source of reliabe information the Weekly World News, a tabloid known for its largely or completely fictional news stories. For those people who are unfamiliar with the Weekly World News a sampling of the headlines from the March 5, 1996 issue are:

Doctors Bring Cadavers Back to Life (p. 13.)
The Earth's only Low-Gravity Zone! Massive rocks float 40 feet above ground, say scientists -- datelined Chengdu, China. (p. 15.)

Russians Finally Land on Moon...26 years after Neal Armstrong stepped onto lunar surface (pp. 24-25). (This even has a picture of and quotes from Boris Yelsin.)

Dead Wife Orders Hubby Around - from beyond the grave! Her constant reminders show up on his TV screen! (p. 21).

My favorite such story appeared on the front page of the April 7, 1992 Weekly World News with the headline:
Satan Escapes from Hell, 13 Alaskan oil rig workers killed when the Devil roars out of control
This story describes how an oil well penetrated Hell and exploded as Satan roared up through the hole at a drillsite somewhere in Alaska. The front page shows a huge cloud with the likeness of Satan pouring out of a burning oil derrick. There is even expert commentary given on this event in a sidebar by a Dr. Dimitri Azzacov complete with his alleged picture (Brunvand 1993).
Jimison (1982) is a unreliable source of data for discussing the origins of the South African spheres described as used by Forbidden Archeology. Thus, his claims that there are two types of spheres, including one of solid blue metal with white flecks, are suspect and cannot be considered as valid evidence. As documented by Brunvand (1993) in the Scientists Discover Hell storyline published in the Weekly World News, a fictional news article in it might founded be on truth, but the truth is so changed as to be almost unrecognizable and useless as a source of data.

The remainder of the quote from Forbidden Archeology quotes a letter that provides some documentation. However, the letter contains a few factual errors as demonstrated by published information research concerning the pyrophyllite deposits of the Syferfontein Formation that outcrop near Ottosdal, Western Transvaal.

Forbidden Archeology states:

We wrote to Roelf Marx for further information about the spheres. He replied in a letter dated September 12, 1984: "There is nothing scientific published about the globes, but the facts are: They are found in pyrophyllite, which is mined near the little town of Ottosdal in the Western Transvaal. This pyrophyllite (Al2Si4O10(OH)2) is a quite soft secondary mineral with a count of only 3 on the Mohs' scale and was formed by sedimentation about 2.8 billion years ago.
The letter of Mr. Marx is correct in stating that pyrophyllite is mined near Ottosdal. It is mined for stone facing, tombstones, lubricant, absorbent, fillers, and the manufacture of electrical porcelains, enamels, and many other things (Coetzee 1976, Jager 1976).

The pyrophyllite occurs as thin beds within a very thick sequence of felsic volcanics. This sequence of volcanics consist of over three kilometers of massive quartz-feldspar porphyry with only local occurrences of brecciated textures, amygdaloidal or spherical textures, and flow banding. Their massive character is the clear result of metamorphism having altered the volcanic rocks (Crow and Condie 1987, Jackson 1992).

However, the claim that sedimentation formed the pryrophyllite is incorrect and significantly misrepresents the facts. Although either clays or volcanic ash accumulated 2.8 billion years ago along with numerous lava flows to create the Syferfontein Formation, metamorphism later altered the sediments to form pyrophyllite from either clays or volcanic ashes. The pyrophyllite is a mineral created by metamorphism at moderate temperature and burial depths of over several kilometers. Such metamorphism has significantly altered the original clays or volcanic ashes into greenschist grade metamorphics. As a result, the original sedimentary and igneous structures of these rocks have been, except locally, totally obliterated. Any primary concretions within both the sediments and volcanic rocks would also have been obliterated at this degree of metamorphism (Chopin and Schreyer 1983, Jackson 1992).

Jackson (1992, p. 175) states:

Volcanoclastic units now converted to massive pyrophyllite (wonderstone) are a significant component of the Syferfontein Fm. in the Ottosdal area (Fig. 2). These rocks are generally massive and very fine-grained, but are locally thin-bedded and have shallow-amplitude ripple-marks on bedding planes and surfaces (see Nel et al. 1937, plate IIIA). Net et al. believed that volcanic ash deposited subaqueously in quiet water conditions became devitrified and altered to clay (bentonite) which was then metamorphosed to pyrophyllite to form these deposits.
These age of these strata has been determined by van Niekerk and Burger (1969) at around 2.8 billion years.

Forbidden Archeology further claimed that the spheres have a fibrous structure with an inside shell around it that is so hard that it cannot be scratched by steel.

By corresponding by e-mail with rockhounds who have collected these spheres and geologists at the University of the Witwatersrand, Wits, South Africa and at the pyrophyllite mine in Ottosdal, West Transvaal it was determined that the mystery spheres consist of pyrite and goethite. These spheres consist of goethite within the near-surface, weathered pyrophyllite and consist of pyrite in the unweathered pyrophyllite. The pyrite spheres are metamorphic nodules that formed during the alteration of either clay or volcanic ash to pyrophyllite by metamorphism. The goethite spheres are pyrite nodules altered by weathering near the ground surface. These spheres are identical to the ones shown in The Mysterious Origins of Man, but they are much softer than claimed in Forbidden Archeology. Furthermore, there is a lack of any evidence for the existence of the solid blue metal spheres described in the World Weekly News. However, a tabloid newspaper infamous for its fictionalized news is unlikely to have presented such information correctly.

Nel et al. (1937,p. 19) briefly document the presence of pyrite nodules when they state:

Pyrite nodules or concretions have been found in quarried stone, hitherto (sic) their occurrence has been so scattered as to be no appreciable harm.
The harm that Nels et al. (1937) refers is harm caused to the economics of mining this deposit by increasing the amount of waste produced during mining by the presence of the nodules.

In a previous post, I had hypothesized that the spheres were metamorphic nodules composed of some manganese oxide. The hypothesis that they are metamorphic nodules has been verified. In part because it was based upon incorrect information given by Forbidden Archeology, the hypothesis that they consist of some manganese oxide has proved to be incorrect.

Forbidden Archeology further states:

In his letter to us, Marx said that A. Bisschoff, a professor of geology at the University of Potchefstroom, told him that the spheres were "limonite concretions." Limonite is a kind of iron ore. A concretion is a compact, rounded rock mass formed by localized cementation around a nucleus.
As defined by Jackson and Bates (1987), limonite is a field term for group of brown, amorphous, naturally occurring, hydrous, ferric oxides whose identities are unknown. Limonite can be composed of variable proportions of goethite, hematite, and various other iron hydroxides. By this definition, Dr. Bisschoff correctly identified the composition of one of two groups of nodules present in the Ottosdal pyrophyllite deposits. It is likely he was shown only the goethite and, thus, did not know that pyrite nodules were also present. However, the spheres are nodules, not concretions, because they are of metamorphic, not sedimentary origin. The presence of goethite nodules in the weathered pyrophyllite is consistent with the presence of pyrite nodules in the unweathered pyrophyllite because goethite is a common weathering product of pyrite as noted by Jackson and Bates (1987).

Forbidden Archeology objects to the identification of the spheres as limonite for two reasons. It claims that limonite concretions usually occur in groups that are stuck together like soap bubbles. Forbidden Archeology argues that the spheres which normally appear isolated and perfectly round, thus, cannot be limonite. Finally, this book argues that the spheres are too hard to be limonite.

The first objection is based upon false information. Contrary to the claims of this book, limonite can occur as isolated, rounded spheres. Furthermore, in case of these goethite nodules, their spherical shape is inherited from the pyrite nodules which have been converted to goethite as a result of weathering. Thus, the objection to some of the nodules being limonite, composed of goethite, on the basis of shape and isolated occurrence is a false objection that lacks any basis in fact.

The last objection that some of the nodules are not limonite on the basis of hardness is also a false objection. Given the other errors of fact in the letter of Mr. Marx, this might be just another error. Also, the goethite nodules can have other harder iron hydroxide minerals associated with them that can account for this observation. Technically speaking, they together would still be defined by Jackson and Bates (1987) as limonite. The identification of limonite by Dr. Bisschoff is substantiated by other knowledgeable rockhounds and geologists who have independently noted the presence of goethite nodules within the weathered pyrophyllite.

Forbidden Archeology notes:

Neither do they normally appear with parallel grooves encircling them.
Some of the goethite nodules do exhibit a parallel groove around them. However, not all of the nodules like the spheres shown on the The Mysterious Origins of Man have the grooves. Whether some of the pyrite nodules exhibit these grooves in not yet known.

Forbidden Archeology continues:

For the purposes of this study, it is the sphere with three parallel grooves around its equator that most concerns us.
It is interesting to note that there is one three-grooved sphere out of hundreds.


Even if it is conceded that the sphere itself is a limonite concretion, one still must account for the three parallel grooves.
There is no chain-of-evidence that clearly proves that this sphere with the three grooves had them when found in place. If artificial, the grooves could have been carved innocently just as folkart and later mistakenly thought to have been present when it was found. Since the spheres are metamorphic nodules from the pyrophyllite, then they could not have been carved before the sediment was buried and metamorphosed, because the nodule would not have existed at the time that the sediments were deposited. Thus, If these grooves are artificial, than they were created after the nodule was extracted from the pyrophyllite and they are considerably younger than the age assigned to them.

Of course, the three-grooved sphere could be a sphere of a different origin than the metamorphic nodules found in the pyrophyllite. However, if this sphere is composed of a different material then the nodules present in the pyrophyllite, then there is no evidence linking this sphere to the nodules found within the pyrophyllite. Also, had the sphere been buried in the sediment about 2.8 billion years age, their subsequent metamorphism would have severely defaced the grooves exhibited by the sphere and have deformed the sphere itself. Thus, if the sphere is composed of something other than pyrite or goethite, there is no evidence connecting it to the pyrophyllite deposits. In that case, it would be impossible to assign any sort of age, significance, or origin to it without additional study of the three-grooved sphere itself.

Neither The Mysterious Origins of Man nor Forbidden Archeology present any evidence that the grooves are artificial. The Mysterious Origins of Man quotes only anonymous lab technicians as their evidence. Without some idea of their expertise and affiliation, it is impossible to judge the expertise, impartiality, and validity of their judgments. Forbidden Archeology presents no documented evidence at all that these grooves are artificial.

Forbidden Archeology concludes:

In the absence of a satisfactory natural explanation, the evidence is somewhat mysterious, leaving open the possibility that the South African grooved sphere--found in a mineral deposit 2.8 billion years old--was made by an intelligent being.
However, there is a complete lack of any evidence that either the nodules/spheres are artificial or that the grooves were cut prior to burial. As far as can be determined at this time, the spheres consist of pyrite nodules of metamorphic origin and goethite nodules formed by the weathering of the pyrite. Since the nodules are metamorphic in origin and, thus, formed by metamorphism while the enclosing strata were buried under kilometers of rock, the grooves, if artificial, had to have been cut after they had collected from the pyrophyllite during quarrying operations. As a result, the grooves are far less than 2.8 billions old. The nodules are clearly of natural origin and less than 2.8 billion years old.

There are natural processes that can account for single, possibly multiple, grooves. However, until actual specimens can be acquired for study, it is rather pointless to speculate on such a matter.

The study of these nodules is ongoing. At this time, I am trying to obtain via surface (snail) mail actual specimens of these and copies of private reports containing data about them. This unfortunately, will likely take some time, possibly months.


Hanslune note{I've not seen anything new on these sphere's in awhile}
 
Thanks, Hans. Even I, gullible "believer" that I am, never had any use for that "2.8 billion year old" claim.
 
Howdy OTR and Crunchy5

Sorry no GOOD photos that I've been able to find. I do remember seeing some many years ago. Showed that many of the spheres were mishapen and most probably natural.

It's an old tired non-mystery, it has lived long past its prime.

There are lots of real mysteries, like how and why Madascagar was populated, if the Polynesians reached N & S America, where the first villages and domestication of crops and animals occurred, etc.
 
groovy.jpg


is that you are talking about?
 
chockfullahate said:
groovy.jpg


is that you are talking about?

Yes, and thanks. I have to confess that those grooves don't look "natural" to me, especially if they go clear around the object.

But in any case it's a real s-t-r-e-t-c-h to extrapolate that into an ancient super-civilization!
 
As I remember these spheres were also supposed to be hollow inside and contain a blue fibrous substance. Which doesn´t sound natural if true.
 
Xanatico said:
As I remember these spheres were also supposed to be hollow inside and contain a blue fibrous substance. Which doesn´t sound natural if true.

I've not heard that before, but mightn't it make the spheres merely some type of naturally-occurring geode?
 
OldTimeRadio said:
Xanatico said:
As I remember these spheres were also supposed to be hollow inside and contain a blue fibrous substance. Which doesn´t sound natural if true.

I've not heard that before, but mightn't it make the spheres merely some type of naturally-occurring geode?
Ah, geode, le mot juste!

(Used to be a shop near here sold such things, but now seems to have disappeared.)
 
rynner said:
(Used to be a shop near here sold such things, but now seems to have disappeared.)

Probably an effect of time untangling as the repercussions and ramifications of the Montauk project spin out of control.
 
crunchy5 said:
Probably an effect of time untangling as the repercussions and ramifications of the Montauk project spin out of control.

Pray for Crunchy. He....knows....too....much.
 
Maybe the sphere's are the pertified remains of time transported present day lost socks and keys - I mean where do they go?
 
Hanslune said:
Maybe the sphere's are the pertified remains of time transported present day lost socks and keys - I mean where do they go?

Keys are transported into the future, where we invariably find them again just as soon as we no longer have any use for them.

After we disgustedly toss them away, the trash people gather them together, smelt them down into spheres, and transport the spheres to the distant past.

Those spheres are then unearthed in the course of iron mining and shipped to steel mills where they are crafted into, well, keys.

We're still working on socks.
 
I was in a geological institute yesterday, where they had a lot of rocks in glass montres. One of them was asbestos, which was a blue fibrous substance and indeed asbestos seem to be in the form of fibers naturally. So perhaps if you had a geode with asbestos it would look similar to what has been described as stone spheres with blue fibrous material inside.
 
Could be Xanatico, a geologist/geology site might hold that type of information.
 
I think I might e-mail one of my geology teachers and see what he thinks.
 
Groovy

But there's still that matter of those evenly-spaced grooves.
 
Hmmm well in the one poor quality photo we have I can say that they looked like raised lines instead of groves.

Until someone takes the time to do a more detailed study they will remain natural. (the default in most areas unless otherwise is proved)

I suspect that the law of fringe-no-post is in effect. What is the law of fringe-no-post you ask? Many things get reported then silence ensues, this is usually caused by someone investigating it, finding it isn't anything terribly interesting/natural. Do they publich or publicize it? Nope. So the mystery remains. Where if it is investigaged by more orthodox people they may publish a report but often will not (who is interested in a natural item turning out to be natural?). These things tend to live on and on.

Does nature create straight lines? Yep. Could the sphere have been artifically marked, yep? Could the marking be part of a hoax, yep? Could it be an artifact from an unknown civilization? Possible but not probable.
 
Slightly off thread, perhaps....
TAKE A PIC AS THIEVES HAVE A BALL
17/03/2007

POLICE are urging homeowners to photograph stone garden ornaments following a spate of thefts - mostly giant balls from gateposts.

Detectives are probing 20 cases, mostly of stone balls weighing up to 16st and worth thousands, from mansions and historic houses in Warwickshire.

Gangs also snatched large stone acorns and griffins. Antiques experts fear they are sold abroad.

Det Chief Insp Adrian Pearson said photos help identify pricey items. He added: "It is unusual but it is on the increase."

Architectural salvage trade body Salvo runs a theft alert system to warn the public and dealers.

Boss Thornton Kay said: "Stones can't be identified unless you take a photo.

"You might not think a stone ball is portable but all you need is a truck and a few beefy blokes."
http://tinyurl.com/2agkx8 :D
 
maybe they're doing a low budget remake of raiders of the lost ark with midget actors?
 
Hanslune said:
Does nature create straight lines? Yep. Could the sphere have been artifically marked, yep? Could the marking be part of a hoax, yep? Could it be an artifact from an unknown civilization? Possible but not probable.

I think it's also possible that the spheres are natural and very ancient and that the lines are artificial - but added in more or less historic times.
 
If you want to see decent footage of the stone balls of Costa Rica then check out the first episode of Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World (which I was watching last night). I can't imagine they've changed much in 28 years.
 
Researchers investigate mysterious stone spheres in Costa Rica
http://www.physorg.com/print188485520.html
March 22nd, 2010 in Other Sciences / Archaeology & Fossils


John Hoopes, University of Kansas associate professor of anthropology and director of the Global Indigenous Nations Studies Program, recently returned from a trip to Costa Rica where he and colleagues evaluated ancient stone spheres for UNESCO, the United Nations cultural organization that might grant the spheres World Heritage Status. Credit: Courtesy of John Hoopes

The ancient stone spheres of Costa Rica were made world-famous by the opening sequence of "Raiders of the Lost Ark," when a mockup of one of the mysterious relics nearly crushed Indiana Jones.

So perhaps John Hoopes is the closest thing at the University of Kansas to the movie action hero.

Hoopes, associate professor of anthropology and director of the Global Indigenous Nations Studies Program, recently returned from a trip to Costa Rica where he and colleagues evaluated the stone balls for UNESCO, the United Nations cultural organization that might grant the spheres World Heritage Status.

His report will help determine if sites linked to the massive orbs will be designated for preservation and promotion because of their "outstanding value to humanity."

Hoopes, who researches ancient cultures of Central and South America, is one of the world's foremost experts on the Costa Rican spheres. He explained that although the stone spheres are very old, international interest in them is still growing.

"The earliest reports of the stones come from the late 19th century, but they weren't really reported scientifically until the 1930s — so they're a relatively recent discovery," Hoopes said. "They remained unknown until the United Fruit Company began clearing land for banana plantations in southern Costa Rica."

According to Hoopes, around 300 balls are known to exist, with the largest weighing 16 tons and measuring eight feet in diameter. Many of these are clustered in Costa Rica's Diquis Delta region. Some remain pristine in the original places of discovery, but many others have been relocated or damaged due to erosion, fires and vandalism.

The KU researcher said that scientists believe the stones were first created around 600 A.D., with most dating to after 1,000 A.D. but before the Spanish conquest.

"We date the spheres by pottery styles and radiocarbon dates associated with archeological deposits found with the stone spheres," Hoopes said. "One of the problems with this methodology is that it tells you the latest use of the sphere but it doesn't tell you when it was made. These objects can be used for centuries and are still sitting where they are after a thousand years. So it's very difficult to say exactly when they were made."

Speculation and pseudoscience have plagued general understanding of the stone spheres. For instance, publications have claimed that the balls are associated with the "lost" continent of Atlantis. Others have asserted that the balls are navigational aids or relics related to Stonehenge or the massive heads on Easter Island.

"Myths are really based on a lot of very rampant speculation about imaginary ancient civilizations or visits from extraterrestrials," Hoopes said.

In reality, archaeological excavations in the 1940s found the stone balls to be linked with pottery and materials typical of pre-Columbian cultures of southern Costa Rica.

"We really don't know why they were made," Hoopes said. "The people who made them didn't leave any written records. We're left to archeological data to try to reconstruct the context. The culture of the people who made them became extinct shortly after the Spanish conquest. So, there are no myths or legends or other stories that are told by the indigenous people of Costa Rica about why they made these spheres."

Hoopes has a created a popular Web page to knock down some of the misconceptions about the spheres. He said the stones' creation, while vague, certainly had nothing to do with lost cities or space ships.

"We think the main technique that was used was pecking and grinding and hammering with stones," said Hoopes. "There are some spheres that have been found that still have the marks of the blows on them from hammer stones. We think that that's how they were formed, by hammering on big rocks and sculpting them into a spherical shape."

Provided by University of Kansas
 
Researchers investigate mysterious stone spheres in Costa Rica
http://www.physorg.com/print188485520.html
March 22nd, 2010 in Other Sciences / Archaeology & Fossils


John Hoopes, University of Kansas associate professor of anthropology and director of the Global Indigenous Nations Studies Program, recently returned from a trip to Costa Rica where he and colleagues evaluated ancient stone spheres for UNESCO, the United Nations cultural organization that might grant the spheres World Heritage Status. Credit: Courtesy of John Hoopes

The ancient stone spheres of Costa Rica were made world-famous by the opening sequence of "Raiders of the Lost Ark," when a mockup of one of the mysterious relics nearly crushed Indiana Jones.

So perhaps John Hoopes is the closest thing at the University of Kansas to the movie action hero.

Hoopes, associate professor of anthropology and director of the Global Indigenous Nations Studies Program, recently returned from a trip to Costa Rica where he and colleagues evaluated the stone balls for UNESCO, the United Nations cultural organization that might grant the spheres World Heritage Status.

His report will help determine if sites linked to the massive orbs will be designated for preservation and promotion because of their "outstanding value to humanity."

Hoopes, who researches ancient cultures of Central and South America, is one of the world's foremost experts on the Costa Rican spheres. He explained that although the stone spheres are very old, international interest in them is still growing.

"The earliest reports of the stones come from the late 19th century, but they weren't really reported scientifically until the 1930s — so they're a relatively recent discovery," Hoopes said. "They remained unknown until the United Fruit Company began clearing land for banana plantations in southern Costa Rica."

According to Hoopes, around 300 balls are known to exist, with the largest weighing 16 tons and measuring eight feet in diameter. Many of these are clustered in Costa Rica's Diquis Delta region. Some remain pristine in the original places of discovery, but many others have been relocated or damaged due to erosion, fires and vandalism.

The KU researcher said that scientists believe the stones were first created around 600 A.D., with most dating to after 1,000 A.D. but before the Spanish conquest.

"We date the spheres by pottery styles and radiocarbon dates associated with archeological deposits found with the stone spheres," Hoopes said. "One of the problems with this methodology is that it tells you the latest use of the sphere but it doesn't tell you when it was made. These objects can be used for centuries and are still sitting where they are after a thousand years. So it's very difficult to say exactly when they were made."

Speculation and pseudoscience have plagued general understanding of the stone spheres. For instance, publications have claimed that the balls are associated with the "lost" continent of Atlantis. Others have asserted that the balls are navigational aids or relics related to Stonehenge or the massive heads on Easter Island.

"Myths are really based on a lot of very rampant speculation about imaginary ancient civilizations or visits from extraterrestrials," Hoopes said.

In reality, archaeological excavations in the 1940s found the stone balls to be linked with pottery and materials typical of pre-Columbian cultures of southern Costa Rica.

"We really don't know why they were made," Hoopes said. "The people who made them didn't leave any written records. We're left to archeological data to try to reconstruct the context. The culture of the people who made them became extinct shortly after the Spanish conquest. So, there are no myths or legends or other stories that are told by the indigenous people of Costa Rica about why they made these spheres."

Hoopes has a created a popular Web page to knock down some of the misconceptions about the spheres. He said the stones' creation, while vague, certainly had nothing to do with lost cities or space ships.

"We think the main technique that was used was pecking and grinding and hammering with stones," said Hoopes. "There are some spheres that have been found that still have the marks of the blows on them from hammer stones. We think that that's how they were formed, by hammering on big rocks and sculpting them into a spherical shape."

Provided by University of Kansas
 
Back
Top