As is usual with this sort of story they conveniently omit most details that would allow anyone to intelligently come to a conclusion. The very fact that the site demeans “conventional scientists” makes the whole thing suspect, but consider these facts.
Nano structures can and do form spontaneously in nature all the time. Organic structures in living organisms are the most obvious example but inorganic nanostructure such as buckyballs form every time you have a Bar-B-Que and they obviously require no advanced technology.
If as claimed, these are manmade high tech nanostructure like those created with todays advanced techniques where are the tools that built them?? In order to even conceive of such things the builders would have had to have some knowledge of the very small microscopic world that can only be visualized with electron microscopes. Where are the multiple layers of technology that would have had to exist to create such instruments?? Why and how would you build something you cant even see? The answer is you can’t and you wouldn’t. how convenient for these “adventurous scientists” that all the instruments required to build and use nanotechnology have completely disappeared without a trace but the nanotech itself is still present to be examined.
As usual even with very little to go on the whole story falls apart when you shed even the smallest ray of light on the claims. As we always say around here, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and they have none.
A lot of red flags. The author does not source a single statement, not one. Right there, there is a good reason to dismiss the article.
“Out Of Place Artifact” is I think a term that pseudos picked up from archaeological critiques, but didn’t understand. Most of these objects have been removed from their context—an object that has been moved from its archaeological context (the stratum, etc.) in an uncontrolled manner has no use as evidence, except under exceptional circumstances. Most Ooparts are useless, not because they don’t fit with established knowledge, but because they are out of context—just something that some person said they found in, like, this one place.
Also notice that the reported context varies—initially it is given as near the banks of the rivers, then later (when dating becomes necessary and the possibility of industrial debris is raised) the context is given as a geological stratus [sic] 10-40ft deep. When I googled it, other pseudo pages said they were found on the banks of the river(s) and dated by “tests” (not likely). Also the Epoch Times author upgraded the activity from “prospecting” to “geological research”, which are not necessarily the same thing. So there’s some shiftiness there.
And the argument that something must be intelligently designed because it looks intelligently designed is a familiar one. Ancient alien proponents use the same logic as Creationists.
Basically the reporting here is not sufficient to warrant attention. The proponents need to do some basic work first.
The link said that bronze sculptures and remnants of Mt Rushmore would survive, so if there was an advanced civilization around hundreds of thousands of years ago, that could have made nano-strucures, why haven’t we found anything else from that time (e.g., a bronze bust of the great Neanderthal Scientist, Og Ogglestein)?
No, Aliens have not been involved, but it is still interesting to know how these things have formed.
What process could have made them, were they part of lifeforms, rotten away long ago, or products of “geological” origin?
No one has come up with the obvious explanation that these nano-components are the remnants of some future constructed time machine that crashed in Russia when travelling some 300,000 years in our past.