Talk:Coso artifact

Censored Criticisms of Dating Coso Artifacts Restored
I edited the last paragraph to note that the artifact has been rediscovered and inspected. I've also added a citation. Please note that this is my very first edit in wikipedia, ever. So if this requires any correction, please let me know. Thanks very much.

Pierre Stromberg

Since you are writing about yourself, this may be a case of Conflict of interest. Dimadick (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

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)

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.

POV edit by User:Dougweller
User:Dougweller should stop imposing his own POV on this article. Suggesting that extra-terrestrials left the object is not pseudo-scientific. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you don't think ETs, Atlantis, Creation 'science' and time-travellers are covered by the term pseudo-science, you clearly define it differently than the way it is normally used in Wikipedia articles. You are the one trying to change the text, not me. I'm just keeping it in line with the way the term is used on Wikipedia. Doug Weller (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Belief in ETs is not in principle pseudoscience (see Astrobiology). And before 1999, when the artifact was established to be a spark plug, speulation that the iron object was deposited by an ET was not pseudoscience. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but belief that they have visited the earth when every law of physical science shows the overwhelming engineering obstacles to such a voyage in terms of energy requirements and the centuries such voyages would require, and the total lack of proof that ET's have ever been here, clearly is. HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Coso Artifact as argument for Young Earth
In the article on the Coso artifact, it was stated:

Certain young-earth creationists have hailed the artifact as evidence for a young earth, arguing that if a modern item such as a spark plug can become encased in stone then the entire idea of rocks taking millions of years to form can be shown to be false.

It is true that Young Earth creationists make the argument from either hats, leaves, and forth encrusted with either rust, travertine, or concretions and objects found in beachrock that the "idea of rocks taking millions of years to form can be shown to be false." However, I have yet to find any specific author, who uses the Coso Artifact to make this specific argument. Instead, Young Earth creationists, i.e. Creation Outreach, J. R. Jochmans, Carl Baugh, and Dr. Donald Chittick, either have used or still use the Coso Artifact "as evidence that ancient civilizations were extremely advanced and in some ways, more advanced than contemporary civilization" as discussed in The Coso Artifact in the Talk.Origins Archive and in the NCSE paper.

Since no verifiable case of the Coso Artifact being used to argue for rocks not taking a million years to form has so far been found, I have deleted the paragraph concerning this use of the Coso Artifact from the article.Paul H. (talk) 04:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

So, I guess that's it for carbon dating and all that, eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.43 (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The artifact wasn't carbon dated, it was only labelled half a million years old out of pure speculation and most likely professional incompetence. That is why it isn't cited by any YEC, because there is no science to refute.124.149.42.90 (talk) 10:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Leave the speculation in?
The report seem to have much more meat than the speculation on extra terrestrials and time travellers, yet the "Origin" section is being lead by the supernatural explanations. I was thinking of reversing the paragraphs, because I think reports should come before the ill-sourced supernatural speculations. Maybe the paragraph and list on supernatural causes shouldn't even be there anymore as the report with other agreements of the spark plug type being strong enough? &mdash; Northgrove 02:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Coso Object is NOT a 1920s Champion Spark Plug
Not being the "trusting" type I looked up images of early Champion spark plugs to see exactly how archaic they appear. They don't look anywhere near as primitive as the Coso object. Here are a 1916 and a 1920 Champion plug which do not look that different from a modern spark plugs. http://sepautoaccessories.blogspot.com/2010_12_01_archive.html Psychicattorney (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Psychicattorney (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No one has said it is a 1916 spark plug. But this is irrelevant, as our own research is what we call WP:Original research and Wikipedia has no place where we can actually discuss the subject of an article, we can only discuss the article. You need to bring a reliable source discussing the Coso artifact and showing evidence that it isn't a 1920s spark plug, and note that "Stromberg asked Windham if he could identify the particular make of the spark plug. Windham replied he was certain that it was a 1920s-era Champion spark plug. Later, Windham sent 2 identical spark plugs for comparison. Ten days after Windham's telephone call, Bill Bond, founder of the SPCA and curator of a private museum of spark plugs containing more than 2000 specimens, called Stromberg. Bond said he thought he knew the identity of the Coso Artifact: "A 1920s Champion spark plug." Spark plug collectors Mike Healy and Jeff Bartheld (Vice President of the SPCA) also concurred with Bond's and Windham's assessment about the spark plug." Can you find a similar source saying they are wrong? Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a huge joke. Should't you have to provide "SOME" evidence that the object "IS" a spark plug? I have provided era advertisements showing a 1916 and a 1920 Champion Spark plug. Only an idiot would say there is any similarity between those "Champion Spark Plugs" and the Coso Object. The idea that Windham's "supposed" statement of "fact" is somehow superior to illustrations of contemporary Champion spark plugs is absurd. Psychicattorney (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is that Champion made a number of different spark plugs of diffeernt shapes and sizes for different vehicles, i.e. cars versus tractors, and different models of cars at that time. A single comparison with just a limited few of the numerous different types, sizes, and shapes of spark plugs is meaningless as there are many more types of 1920s-era Champion spark plugs, with which he / she failed compare the Coso Artifact. In fact, the authors of the paper about the Coso Artifact were sent by Chad Windham, President of the Spark Plug Collectors of America, a 1920s-era Champion spark plug of that is identical to the Coso Artifact. If Psychicattorney had performed a comprehensive comparison of all the different types, sizes, and shapes of Champion sparkplug with the Coso Artifact, he would have found that 1920s-era Champion spark plugs identical to the Coso Artifact do exist and his complaints are readily refuted and scientifically bankrupt. Paul H. (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I also forgot to mention that Psychicattorney's comparison of the above image is fatally flawed because he or she mistakenly believes that disc-like brass terminal, which is shown in upper part of drawing of the spark plug in the advertisement, is an integral part of the spark plug. It is only screwed onto the top of the plug and, when attached, it obscures most of the threads of the brass top hat. The primary reason that the Coso Artifact does not look like the advertisement is that its lacks the brass terminal, which is shown in the advertisement. As a result, the threads of the brass hat, which are obscured in the advertisement by the brass terminal, are exposed. Paul H. (talk) 03:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, because of the publishing constraints of the National Center for Science Education paper, pictures or graphics of any type could not be used to illustrate the article. An illustrated version of the article is either The Coso Artifact Mystery from the Depths of Time on the Talk.Origin web site or The Coso Artifact: Mystery from the Depths of Time on the Hall of Ma'at web site. Paul H. (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Dating of Coso Artifact with Fossils
In Revision as of 06:47, 12 January 2012, 184.8.250.14 wrote;

“This conflicts, however, with reports that the dating was done on the basis of fossils found in the rock around the object.”

I removed this statement because it is unsourced, undocumented, and implausible. What is needed is a reliable, published source (WP:IRS) for this claim that provides the (1.) the name(s) and expertise of the person(s), who dated the Coso artifact; (2) the specific types of the fossils used in dating the Coso artifact; (3) descriptions and illustrations of these alleged fossils; and (4) how they were used to date the artifact. Without this information, the validity of the claim that is was dated by fossils lacks any credibility. In addition, the current lack of any recognized nonmarine Pleistocene index fossils, small enough to be cemented to a concretion, within the Owens Lake region makes it highly implausible that fossils could have been used to date the Coso Artifact. Finally, when the Coso Artifact was allegedly dated circa 1961, there was a lack of any scientifically accepted dating technique that could have been used to date an isolated artifact, like the Coso Artifact, lying on the ground surface according to Walker (2005).

Reference Cited,

Walker, M., 2005, Quaternary Dating Methods. Wiley, New york. ISBN: 978-0-470-86926-0 Paul H. (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Images
Are there really no images of said object available for commons use? Considering that the entire basis of this object is one of it supposedly looking like something else, not having an available image of it seems to be a clear oversight with the article. 00aa0 (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not an oversight, there's already a request for an image at the top of this page. But I'll check with one of the people involved. Doug Weller  talk 11:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * At Doug's request, I uploaded a picture to wikimedia commons that can be used in the article and have provided the proper permissions, I think, so you folks can do this. I'm very new with editing and participating in wikipedia so please let me know if I've done something wrong. Pierre Stromberg  talk 21:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks good to me. Added to the article. Thanks for the photograph. Opencooper (talk) 06:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I meant to do this but forgot. Doug Weller  talk 08:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Possible plagiarism
Much of this article is stated verbatim in the movie “Alien Artifacts: The Lost World” which discusses this and other artifacts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:D69F:C500:DD36:BD9A:5DCA:3C4C (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Did they credit us? Quite a bit of this article has been copied elsewhere, so that's no surprise.  Doug Weller  talk 15:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)