Evidence of Time Travellers?

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/vie ... cient-tomb

TOMB RAIDERS BAFFLED BY SWISS WATCH FOUND IN ANCIENT TOMB

BAFFLING: The tiny watch found near the tomb's coffin (Europics)

Wednesday December 17,2008
By Emily Garnham for express.co.uk

ARCHAEOLOGISTS are stumped after finding a 100-year-old Swiss watch in an ancient tomb that was sealed more than 400 years ago.

The real-life tomb raiders were the first visitors to the Ming dynasty grave in Shangsi, southern China, since its occupant's funeral.

Inside they discovered a miniature watch encrusted in mud and rock in the shape of a ring marked 'Swiss', as reported by the Austrian Times.

Jiang Yanyu, former curator of the Guangxi Museum, said: "When we tried to remove the soil wrapped around the coffin, suddenly a piece of rock dropped off and hit the ground with metallic sound.

"We picked up the object, and found it was a ring. After removing the covering soil and examining it further, we were shocked to see it was a watch."

Watches weren't around in the Ming dynasty and Switzerland as a country didn't even exist then.

The time had been stopped at 10:06 am, and on the back had the word 'Swiss' engraved on it.

Now the puzzled time team have asked experts from Beijing for help.

"Watches weren't around in the Ming dynasty and Switzerland as a country didn't even exist then," said one archaeologist.

PostRe: Evidence of Time Travellers? by **Poncho** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 10:25 am

Future race of very, very small people.

PostRe: Evidence of Time Travellers? by **Kanbei** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 10:26 am

Poncho Ho Ho wrote:Future race of very, very small people.

It's obvious, in the future we will all be shrunk to compensate for overpopulation.

The real-life tomb raiders were the first visitors to the Ming dynasty grave in Shangsi, southern China, since its occupant's funeral.

Doesn't seem like they were.

Brerlaplands Santa Hat wrote:
mokeyjoe wrote:
The real-life tomb raiders were the first visitors to the Ming dynasty grave in Shangsi, southern China, since its occupant's funeral.

Doesn't seem like they were.

Was just about to say this
Its pretty obvious, someone got there before you, and dropped a strawberry floating ring. And these people went to college, you say??

It seems like a pretty lame excuse.

"Hey we're the first people to open the tomb in 400 ye... gooseberry fool".

"No, no - we are - it must have been time travellers or something. Yeah, time travellers that's it.".

How do they know watches weren't around? and how do they know they were the first ones to rob it? :roll:

PostRe: Evidence of Time Travellers? by **Moggy** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 10:42 am

If I ever get my hands on a time machine, I am going to go through history doing things like this. Whats the point of a time machine if you can't strawberry float with archaeologists minds?

Call me cynical, but I would suggest that by applying Occam's razor, you could start by assuming the tomb had been opened and resealed?

PostRe: Evidence of Time Travellers? by **Shadow** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 10:59 am

It's good to see that travelling through time and changing things in the past doesn't destroy the world though, I guess this also means the Hadron Collider isn't going to destroy us next spring.

PostRe: Evidence of Time Travellers? by **Carlos** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:03 am

Shadow wrote:It's good to see that travelling through time and changing things in the past doesn't destroy the world though, I guess this also means the Hadron Collider isn't going to destroy us next spring.

PostRe: Evidence of Time Travellers? by **FatDaz** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:05 am

Shadow wrote:It's good to see that travelling through time and changing things in the past doesn't destroy the world though, I guess this also means the Hadron Collider isn't going to destroy us next spring.

May not destroy our world, but in the future there may be no world! Any consequences would be unknown to us, only to the time travellers (assuming A - time travel is possible and B- they can return to the future once they are done)

Sometimes I wish I could time travel.

I was watching Back to the Future III the other day, y'know, the one set in the Wild West. Marty and the Doc were stuck there because they couldn't get the Delorean upto 88 miles per hour or something.

When it struck me, why not just set the mph for time travel to be triggered to be lower? Instead of pissing about trying to get the car to 88mph in ye olde times!

For a genius, that Doc Brown is awfully stupid.

Sam_Seed wrote:I was watching Back to the Future III the other day, y'know, the one set in the Wild West. Marty and the Doc were stuck there because they couldn't get the Delorean upto 88 miles per hour or something.

When it struck me, why not just set the mph for time travel to be triggered to be lower? Instead of pissing about trying to get the car to 88mph in ye olde times!

For a genius, that Doc Brown is awfully stupid.

You do realise you need to travel faster than the speed of light to time travel anyway so 88Mph is pretty low.

PostRe: Evidence of Time Travellers? by **FatDaz** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:13 am

bigcheez2k3 wrote:
Sam_Seed wrote:I was watching Back to the Future III the other day, y'know, the one set in the Wild West. Marty and the Doc were stuck there because they couldn't get the Delorean upto 88 miles per hour or something.

When it struck me, why not just set the mph for time travel to be triggered to be lower? Instead of pissing about trying to get the car to 88mph in ye olde times!

For a genius, that Doc Brown is awfully stupid.

You do realise you need to travel faster than the speed of light to time travel anyway so 88Mph is pretty low.

I always assumed 88mph had been carefully calculated and was vital to the whole time travel mechanics. Not that it was ever explained how the machine worked.

Sam_Seed wrote:I was watching Back to the Future III the other day, y'know, the one set in the Wild West. Marty and the Doc were stuck there because they couldn't get the Delorean upto 88 miles per hour or something.

When it struck me, why not just set the mph for time travel to be triggered to be lower? Instead of pissing about trying to get the car to 88mph in ye olde times!

For a genius, that Doc Brown is awfully stupid.

But then u woudnt get the cool biut with the trian and the bridg. [/Jordo]

(INTENTIONALLY OLD, TYPO-FILLED IN-JOKE FOR THE VERY OLD GR CREW...)

PostRe: Evidence of Time Travellers? by **HrC** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:15 am

How the Delorean got to 88mph in the first place is beyond me. It had a ****y Renault V6 that probably would have broken down at 50mph.

Also, it has to be that someone else got there first, either by travelling through time or going in then resealing it.

PostRe: Evidence of Time Travellers? by **abcd** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:16 am

Wouldn't it be crazy if they managed to read the serial number and realised that it hadn't even been made yet?

PostRe: Evidence of Time Travellers? by **FatDaz** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:17 am

HrC wrote:How the Delorean got to 88mph in the first place is beyond me. It had a ****y Renault V6 that probably would have broken down at 50mph.

Also, it has to be that someone else got there first, either by travelling through time or going in then resealing it.

Or one of the archeologists has a sense of humour :lol:

Evidence of Time Travellers?

Who is online

Affiliates