The shiny hole seen in some photos would seem to be where material was removed for just that purpose. It’s claimed to be very close to a standard (and fairly hard/durable) aluminum alloy, something in the 2000 series. Which, if properly heat-treated, would be quite durable for excavating or moving soft materials like sand or soil.
Here’s one. Here’s another. Here’s a third.
It seems each manufacturer of this type of equipment reinvents the attachment method for themselves (perhaps to corner the market on consumable spares) - so it’s not surprising we can’t find one exactly the same without knowing the brand (assuming the brand even still exists for the item in question - I mean - Romania is close to the Ukraine and Russia - it could be from a bit of soviet era machinery whose manufacturer never existed on the internet,
Such things are apparently commercially available per Astro’s response above.
David Icke said they were, he seems a creditable source …
If you mean this:
There are several problems using this as a cite that such things are available. One, the description is “Excavator bucket teeth, made of aluminum steel”. Now, what is it? Aluminum or steel? As far as I know, there is no such thing as “Aluminum Steel”. There is “aluminum-killed steel”, which is steel where very small amounts of aluminum has been added (~ 0.02%) as part of the refining operation. Nearly all low-alloy steel made today is aluminum-killed, so is is most commonly just called “steel”.
Second, the website referenced is an international trading company, not any actual parts supplier or equipment manufacturer. That website is essentially offering to source a manufacturer for parts made from steel, aluminum, brass, etc…; it is not indicating such an item is commercially available.
As I said, aluminum is just too soft to stand up to ground engaging operations. Even the strongest hardened aluminum alloy is way softer than the mildest steels and the steels used for ground engaging tools are some of the hardest steels made (and they wear amazingly quickly).
That’s exactly what it looks like.
Googling up grapples brought up this awesome song and video combo.
GBM Electro-hydraulic clamshell grab hydraulic grapple clamshell grab bucket European Standard
I wonder who the singer is?
We should believe it was made from aluminium [or whatever] a lot more easily than being 250,000 years because its a more parsimonious explanation.
Previous posts have given lots of plausible explanations why, even though there is no exact match, it could be explained as an excavator tooth of some sort. The only question is whether aluminium was suitable, and we could have reasonable concerns with accuracy of the original analysis or its reportage.
On the other hand, to accept that it is 250,000 years old requires accepting a vast swag of other things being true - aliens visiting Earth, aliens existing, mechanical digging going on 250 kya, and so on. None of these are attested by any sort of evidence.
The most parsimonious explanation may not end up being true [the metal could have been misidentified, for example], but as a working hypothesis it is entirely within
the range of plausible possibilities.
There are no more grounds for preferring alien origin to my alternate, equally unsupported argument that it is actually a petrified turd shat out in a distinctive shape by a previously unknown form of giant metal ore-eating giraffe. Gosh, what a find!
The reason to question the claim of its composition as well as its age is to point out that both claims are from a questionable source and neither are substantiated by any evidence. For example, if Icke would have posted the results of the analysis, that would support the claim of its composition. I suspect that it would also conform to a commercially available aluminum alloy, probably one that originated in the 1950s to 1960s.
Knowing the specific alloy would also probably lead to the application, since if we knew which alloy it was, it would be much easier to identify the industries that use that alloy in their manufacturing. My point in questioning the material is not to suggest there is equal doubt to its composition as its age, but to infer that there could be a reasonable explanation for not divulging the specifics of the analysis.
Does the corroded appearance of this item give any clues as to its composition? For example, I’d expect that if it was made of iron, that the rust might look reddish.
I found a 250,000 year old synchromesh transmission half buried in the crawl space under a house. It was clearly made from hardened steel so it had to be of alien origin to be that old. The age was an estimate, I would have sent it to a Swiss lab but we don’t have any of those around here. But just looking at it you could tell it was really old.
Fair enough. There are still possible explanations how this could be a bucket tooth though - for example, it could be one that was cast by an amateur attempting to repair something they don’t understand, using only what was available to them.
I knew a guy who returned a rental van having repaired the passenger side window using a piece of ordinary plate glass - because he accidentally broke it and would have been liable for the cost of proper repair. There might be people arguing on a message board right now about how plate glass is never used in vehicle windows, because of its unsuitability.
Far-fetched perhaps - and maybe it is part of a WWII aircraft, or something else altogether. Pretty much any terrestrial explanation we can cook up is more likely than aliens.
I once worked for a tabloid (not national distribution). We just made things up to fill the pages. Made up experts at made-up universities, made up law enforcement officers at not-very-clearly identified jurisdictions. Faked photos in the back yard. People thought we had lots of stringers in India, nothing is too strange for India.
Heck, it’s more likely that David Icke made this himself as a hoax than it is that it was aliens.
No, David Icke had a source for his “new story”. Of course his source was The Daily Mail, which is about as trustworthy as he is.
OK, so Icke made a big funny lump of aluminum, hid it in a farmer’s field, the farmer dug it up and called a reporter for the Mail, the Mail ran the story, and then Icke featured it in his blog. Farfetched? Yes. But it’s still not nearly as farfetched as the alien hypothesis.
I’m reminded of one of Asimov’s Black Widowers stories. The guest du jour is a paranormal debunker, who says that there’s only one case which ever stumped him. He proceeds to describe the case, and every time one of the Widowers comes up with a potential explanation, he says that that occurred to him, but points out some fact which makes that explanation impossible. Finally Henry comes up with the one explanation which accounts for all of it:
The guest was lying. Yes, it feels like a cheat, but quite often, that really is the correct explanation for paranormal phenomena. Which is of course the point that the guest was trying to make, because despite being a very simple explanation, it’s frequently overlooked.