Oldest Levis in the world found buried in Abandoned Mine!

[progressive hunter]

no telling what you will find if you go 300 feet into the earth,,





you can jump ahead towards the end if the crawling gets to boring,,,

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

If not a hoax this is badass!!!

 

[Likkmee]

New results have carbon dated them at 435,000 years old

 

[progressive hunter]

If not a hoax this is badass!!!

I just googled it and didnt find anything, but the video is only a month or so old so who knows,,,

something worth looking up in the future,,

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I guess the miner never made it back.
Or he hit the big one and said fuck it!!!
What do I need a bunch of holy Levis for?

 

[progressive hunter]

New results have carbon dated them at 435,000 years old

sorry CD doesnt go back that far and has to many flaws to be reliable,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

no telling what you will find if you go 300 feet into the earth,,





you can jump ahead towards the end if the crawling gets to boring,,,

this is a comment in the video comments section from the guys that found them,,,


"Lots of people commented that I should have kept some of the jeans for myself. I was a cattle rancher and the way we always did things is that when you gave your word you followed through that is what I have always done. Allan is a greedy selfish SOB that takes advantage of people and hoards everything he can get his hands on. Gabe and I didn't get so much as a thank you for the $500,000 worth of jeans we found. I don't know what he did with them. "


sounds like those jeans might not see the light of day for some more time,,,

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

This is interesting......
Damn things are in mint condition and worth 80K!!!!
And with a waist of 44 inches and an inseam of 46 he was one Big MOFO!!!!!

Oldest Pair of Jeans Known to Exist in the World Expected to Fetch $80,000 at Auction

The pants are believed to be up to 124 years old.

www.insideedition.com

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

New results have carbon dated them at 435,000 years old

sorry CD doesnt go back that far and has to many flaws to be reliable,,,

This is sarcasm right?

 

[progressive hunter]

This is interesting......
Damn things are in mint condition and worth 80K!!!!
And with a waist of 44 inches and an inseam of 46 he was one Big MOFO!!!!!

Oldest Pair of Jeans Known to Exist in the World Expected to Fetch $80,000 at Auction

The pants are believed to be up to 124 years old.

www.insideedition.com

I saw that but didnt see the size,,that is big and probably why they are in such good shape cause nobody wore them very much or not at all,,,

a 46" inseam would put the person at about 7' tall or more,,,they must be a promotional item and never worn or something like that

 

[progressive hunter]

New results have carbon dated them at 435,000 years old

sorry CD doesnt go back that far and has to many flaws to be reliable,,,

This is sarcasm right?

are you sure???
an evolutionist would try and pass that off as fact,,,they do it all the time,,

I am curious as to what they would CD as,,,

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

This is interesting......
Damn things are in mint condition and worth 80K!!!!
And with a waist of 44 inches and an inseam of 46 he was one Big MOFO!!!!!

Oldest Pair of Jeans Known to Exist in the World Expected to Fetch $80,000 at Auction

The pants are believed to be up to 124 years old.

www.insideedition.com

I saw that but didnt see the size,,that is big and probably why they are in such good shape cause nobody wore them very much or not at all,,,

a 46" inseam would put the person at about 7' tall or more,,,they must be a promotional item and never worn or something like that

Watch the vid.
The guy put him at,if I remember right,250 to 300 lbs and 6'5"
Not unheard of by any means.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

New results have carbon dated them at 435,000 years old

sorry CD doesnt go back that far and has to many flaws to be reliable,,,

This is sarcasm right?

are you sure???
an evolutionist would try and pass that off as fact,,,they do it all the time,,

I am curious as to what they would CD as,,,

Alright then.....
You said,and correct me if I'm wrong,that carbon dating didnt go back that far.
Maybe I misread your post.

 

[progressive hunter]

New results have carbon dated them at 435,000 years old

sorry CD doesnt go back that far and has to many flaws to be reliable,,,

This is sarcasm right?

are you sure???
an evolutionist would try and pass that off as fact,,,they do it all the time,,

I am curious as to what they would CD as,,,

Alright then.....
You said,and correct me if I'm wrong,that carbon dating didnt go back that far.
Maybe I misread your post.

30K yrs accurately is as far back from what I've read,,

thats not even getting into the flaws of it,,

they tested newly formed rocks from mt st helenas and got readings going back as far as 15K yrs,,
and if you test the same item twice you will get two different readings,,

once you look into it you find its really not reliable and that goes for all the different isotope tests,,,

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

New results have carbon dated them at 435,000 years old

sorry CD doesnt go back that far and has to many flaws to be reliable,,,

This is sarcasm right?

are you sure???
an evolutionist would try and pass that off as fact,,,they do it all the time,,

I am curious as to what they would CD as,,,

Alright then.....
You said,and correct me if I'm wrong,that carbon dating didnt go back that far.
Maybe I misread your post.

30K yrs accurately is as far back from what I've read,,

thats not even getting into the flaws of it,,

they tested newly formed rocks from mt st helenas and got readings going back as far as 15K yrs,,
and if you test the same item twice you will get two different readings,,

once you look into it you find its really not reliable and that goes for all the different isotope tests,,,

Alright thats better.
Carbon dating is best used in long term dating.
While it isnt flawless it's the best we got at the moment.

 

[progressive hunter]

New results have carbon dated them at 435,000 years old

sorry CD doesnt go back that far and has to many flaws to be reliable,,,

This is sarcasm right?

are you sure???
an evolutionist would try and pass that off as fact,,,they do it all the time,,

I am curious as to what they would CD as,,,

Alright then.....
You said,and correct me if I'm wrong,that carbon dating didnt go back that far.
Maybe I misread your post.

30K yrs accurately is as far back from what I've read,,

thats not even getting into the flaws of it,,

they tested newly formed rocks from mt st helenas and got readings going back as far as 15K yrs,,
and if you test the same item twice you will get two different readings,,

once you look into it you find its really not reliable and that goes for all the different isotope tests,,,

Alright thats better.
Carbon dating is best used in long term dating.
While it isnt flawless it's the best we got at the moment.

long term is the worst use,,

when the best we got is flawed it means we got nothing,,,

they tested a mammoth they found frozen and one part of its body tested thousands of yrs different than another part,,,
with results like that its better to just make something up,,,

did you know the test was designed to confirm previously agreed on dates???
what thats called is making the ruler after you made the thing youre measuring,,ie bad science,,,

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

New results have carbon dated them at 435,000 years old

sorry CD doesnt go back that far and has to many flaws to be reliable,,,

This is sarcasm right?

are you sure???
an evolutionist would try and pass that off as fact,,,they do it all the time,,

I am curious as to what they would CD as,,,

Alright then.....
You said,and correct me if I'm wrong,that carbon dating didnt go back that far.
Maybe I misread your post.

30K yrs accurately is as far back from what I've read,,

thats not even getting into the flaws of it,,

they tested newly formed rocks from mt st helenas and got readings going back as far as 15K yrs,,
and if you test the same item twice you will get two different readings,,

once you look into it you find its really not reliable and that goes for all the different isotope tests,,,

Alright thats better.
Carbon dating is best used in long term dating.
While it isnt flawless it's the best we got at the moment.

long term is the worst use,,

when the best we got is flawed it means we got nothing,,,

they tested a mammoth they found frozen and one part of its body tested thousands of yrs different than another part,,,
with results like that its better to just make something up,,,

did you know the test was designed to confirm previously agreed on dates???
what thats called is making the ruler after you made the thing youre measuring,,ie bad science,,,

The reason long dates are better is the inherent inaccuracies.
5% off dont mean shit when we're talking about thousands of years.

 

[progressive hunter]

New results have carbon dated them at 435,000 years old

sorry CD doesnt go back that far and has to many flaws to be reliable,,,

This is sarcasm right?

are you sure???
an evolutionist would try and pass that off as fact,,,they do it all the time,,

I am curious as to what they would CD as,,,

Alright then.....
You said,and correct me if I'm wrong,that carbon dating didnt go back that far.
Maybe I misread your post.

30K yrs accurately is as far back from what I've read,,

thats not even getting into the flaws of it,,

they tested newly formed rocks from mt st helenas and got readings going back as far as 15K yrs,,
and if you test the same item twice you will get two different readings,,

once you look into it you find its really not reliable and that goes for all the different isotope tests,,,

Alright thats better.
Carbon dating is best used in long term dating.
While it isnt flawless it's the best we got at the moment.

long term is the worst use,,

when the best we got is flawed it means we got nothing,,,

they tested a mammoth they found frozen and one part of its body tested thousands of yrs different than another part,,,
with results like that its better to just make something up,,,

did you know the test was designed to confirm previously agreed on dates???
what thats called is making the ruler after you made the thing youre measuring,,ie bad science,,,

The reason long dates are better is the inherent inaccuracies.
5% off dont mean shit when we're talking about thousands of years.

the inaccuracies are as much as 50-75% in some occasions,,,

just look at the mt st helena tests

30 Years Later, the Lessons from Mount St. Helens

On May 18, 1980, a tremendous landslide on the northern side of Mount St. Helens in Washington state uncapped a violent volcanic eruption, completely altering the surrounding landscape. It is the most studied volcano in history and has reshaped thinking regarding catastrophic earth processes...

www.icr.org

 

[odanny]

I can't believe Levi's is going to let someone purchase those at auction, they should be the winning bidder, and they were made by white labor, too.