Possible human bones/artifacts in coal, and the implications

I stumbled upon this

www.edconrad.com...

and thought it might be interesting to discuss it here, especially in conjunction with various other claimed human artifacts found in coal/very old rock etc. (please post any of these you know of, I've seen them round and will find some soon. google "ooparts" for some)

before getting any flak, I would like to point out I am an atheist, with a scientific background, and I'm a strong believer in the POTENTIAL for evolution to create all the varied lifeforms on earth (*), including humans, so this is not a creationist propaganda attempt (by me at least). HOWEVER:

I do not understand why people seem to think accepting evolution rules out the possibility of interference occurring AS WELL. Ie just because most species on earth evolved does not mean that the glowing mice with human brains or pesticide resistant grain were not made by scientists in a lab, or that the intelligent worker species was not made by aliens messing with monkey DNA ...etc

I also am most definitely NOT a YEC, I see no reason to doubt official estimates for the earths age.

Thoughts I've had on these sorts of artifacts:

- fraud. Of course this is always an option, and may be the most likely, but I'm more interested in investigating others options in this thread, although definitely post any proofs/evidence of fraud for any examples given if you have them, though please not: 'its impossible therefore its a fraud' type "proofs"

- humanoid aliens: we were, allegedly, "created in their image" if you believe sitchin, bible, etc. What were they doing here millions of years ago? (relevant indian myths please, eg Ramayana)

- (stranded?)time travellers

- alternative evolution? eg humanoid dinosaurs, or perhaps some sort of reverse primate evolution whereby monkeys and modern evolved from earlier humanoids which somehow evolved way earlier than thought? (just brainstorming)

-obligatory "gods effing with us" (lol)

- coal is not as old as thought?

- ????your thoughts here


(*)I did some genetic programming in uni and it is amazing the "solutions" to problems that can occur simply through genetic selection, so I have no problem accepting that a complex organism like a human could evolve from single celled life etc. Nor do I have a problem accepting that somewhere in the universe, by random chance, single celled life could occur spontanteously, and start the whole thing off. And if it could happen once, then by all probabilities it has happened many times, given how big the universe is. This does not however, prove, that it had to have happened here though...(think panspermia)

Nice thread.

Also to show that there are many other options between the stereotype creationism vs. evolution.

Including options we dont even know about yet.

Nevertheless expect the usual crowd that "has all the answers" to show up here and act as if no further questions need be asked.

Nevertheless: Keep asking.

My personal stance is that the human being is not a coincidence, but I wont go any further than that.

reply to post by diablomonic


Mike Cremo's Forbidden Archelogy is a good start for anomalist archelogical discoveries

reply to post by Skyfloating


I dont have any answers ..just more questions,,,,

I would love to see some, any, even a single example of a true "OOPArt."

Ive looked pretty thoroughly through the claimed ones and found them either explainable, missing, mischaracterized or fakes.

Good luck doing better than me.

Harte

Originally posted by Harte
I would love to see some, any, even a single example of a true "OOPArt."

Ive looked pretty thoroughly through the claimed ones and found them either explainable, missing, mischaracterized or fakes.

Good luck doing better than me.

Harte

Alright. What about the pillar in Dendera?

A short answer will suffice.

This one is a good example of why its so hard to make heads or tales of some of these claims: people wont address the real issues, so I'm left to determine likelyhood and validity on my own

what I mean by this is:

Ed conrad claims to have found fosilised homonid bone in 280+ MYO coal. He claims he has seen and shows images of haversian canals in said fossils. He claims renowned bone expert Wilton M. Krogman has examined some and determined them to be bone/human


apparently he sent off a "tibia" fossil to be analysed, a slice was apparently cut off and prepared for microscopic analysis, and determined not to contain haversian canals. The "prepared" sample was returned to him so he could check it himself, and he could also not find the canals. HOWEVER he later prepared his own sample and claims he DID find them (showing pictures), and further claimed that the prepared sample was therefore a fake to make him give up(and it nearly worked apparently).

the interesting thing is, my brief look on google for "debunks" or the other side of the issue, finds many references to the sliver not having canals in it "proving him wrong", with no mention to the claim by him it was a fake, and subsequent "real"sample showing canals? Other weird claims by "debunkers" include "even YEC X doesnt agree with him" (so he must be REALLY crazy...), well DUH! Conrad is claiming humans are OLDER than thought, not younger, of course a YEC wouldnt agree with him.

See, its all straw men and logical fallacies, no real rebuttal to his somewhat documented claim that the Smithsonian attempted to deceive him/his congressman, nor real counter-analysis of the data. So even though I find it VERY difficult to believe him, his evidence still apparently stands, yet the average person hearing his name would Google him, see the straw man arguments "debunked" and leave it at that. Unfortunately I've seen this tactic used on many things I DO believe or suspect are true (some relating to 9/11, eg the popular mechanics "debunking") so seeing it here raises my suspicions.

I highly recommend reading his entire site and then googling him to see what comes up, to see what I mean.
Basically: EC claims hard to believe but somewhat documented claim X
"Debunkers" claim xY is wrong therefore EC is wrong, where xY is similar but not the same as X
And I'm left wondering ?????


On another note:
~120 MYO 3d map (not sure how they figure that, just cos the fossil in it is 120 myo, doesnt meanit wasnt already fossilised...)

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...-D%20Map

could be related (or just more rubbish). Alien survey?

reply to post by Skyfloating

I'm no metallurgist, but the pillar, which is by no means ancient BTW, contains a natural combination of alloys that occur in the ore from which the iron comes that prevent it from rusting much. This comes from reading a report on metallurgical tests conducted on it and on the ore from the area that it was mined from.

But it is actually oxidizing, just at a much slower rate than normal.

Short enough? I'm sorry - no reference right now, but it is out there somewhere.

Harte

Originally posted by diablomonic

On another note:
~120 MYO 3d map (not sure how they figure that, just cos the fossil in it is 120 myo, doesnt meanit wasnt already fossilised...)

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...-D%20Map

could be related (or just more rubbish). Alien survey?

Well, don't get me wrong, but if you can't make up your own mind just by a bit of logical thinking and by looking at the pictures in that link, you really are P T Barnum's best ever customer


As Harte has already said, the problem with ooparts is either they are clearly fakes or misidentifications or else there is no evidence that they ever even existed. I;d love to see a verifiable oopart. Although personally I favour the time travel or ancient alien visitor theory to any suggestion modern humans have been on this planet for million of years

btw one of the best sites for ooparts is : s8int.com... just make sure you switch off your gullibility circuits before reading! I think I can disprove, or provide alternative explanations for, most of what is written there although maybe not all!

Originally posted by Essan

Well, don't get me wrong, but if you can't make up your own mind just by a bit of logical thinking and by looking at the pictures in that link, you really are P T Barnum's best ever customer

well actually, those pictures dont show us much at all to be honest (how the hell should I know what a 100myo alien 3d map SHOULD look?hehehe ). hence all you can go on are claims, which is unfortunately all you often have to go on

hence why I started this thread: I was hoping knowledgeable people here could provide links to more info on these and similar topics, to prove them false (oh I assume they probably are just like you but I would like some evidence to back that up) or back them up.

As Harte has already said, the problem with ooparts is either they are clearly fakes or misidentifications or else there is no evidence that they ever even existed.

hmmm as if its all been....covered up

I;d love to see a verifiable oopart. Although personally I favour the time travel or ancient alien visitor theory to any suggestion modern humans have been on this planet for million of years

agreed, the fossil record for human development seems like something even I dont think could possibly be faked . And we are Obviously related to other primates, so anything I believe somehow has to fit into that. Alien tinkering on the other hand: that I could accept (with some evidence)

btw one of the best sites for ooparts is : s8int.com... just make sure you switch off your gullibility circuits before reading! I think I can disprove, or provide alternative explanations for, most of what is written there although maybe not all!

I'll try...

by the way, could you give me an example of ANYTHING that couldnt be given an alternative explanation, however unlikely? (and most likely is by _____ insert religious/other special interest group here).....

I read the website, very interesting. Strong evidence for and the only thing i've seen against it so far are peoples observations, "looks fake" isn't fake. Although I do disagree with him that Darwin was a fraud. Darwin determined a hypothesis with the information that was known at the time. Now on the other hand, we are turning down evidence left and right, we hold on tightly to an idea which has so many holes in it.

Bones were found in 1967 near Kibish, Ethiopia, which were dated to around 130,000 years ago, this later had to be pushed to 195,000 years ago. But anything more...sgnificant is denied, or claimed fraud or 'misclassified'.

www.eurekalert.org...

Here is a source that states that a stone hut was found at Olduvai Gorge region by Louis Leakey in the 1970s, this hut is a style that is still used in Africa to this day and could only be built by homo sapiens. This hut was dated to 1.7 million years old.

A more prominent discovery was found by the famous palaentologist Mary Leakey in 1977 in Tanzania's Laetoli region. She discovered footprints that have been dated to 3.7 million years old.

www.darwinismrefuted.com...

Discoveries are being made all the times that SHOULD be redefining our 'retro' view of our history, but instead are ignored, or even worse covered up. If they are ignoring evidence that suggests man is 3.7 million years old, I'm not surprised they tried to downplay 280 million year old humanoid fossils!!

How are we ever going to evolve if we purposefully block progression.

thanks. EMM

I wish there were more oopart sites NOT made by YEC's and their like. Thats kind of what this thread is about: there does not always have to be a choice between darwinism and creationism. Darwinistic evolution does not rule out interference from other sources (eg alien), and if a mistake is found in our current theoretical evolutionary fossil timeline, even a major one, that does not suddenly invalidate the whole idea... (where do people get that idea? thats like saying that by finding we made a mistake on our algebra test, algebra is no longer valid)

an oopart site with the apparently no nonsense approach of this atlantis site would be nice...

www.atlantisquest.com...

simple, hard to argue with information, no huge leaps of speculation passed of as fact (I have no problem with speculation, in fact I like it, it just shouldn't be presented as fact)

the s8int site is rubbish so far (just read the dna page). I will keep looking though...

I glanced at the site. That's all I needed to see/read.

Fraud: possible, but for the moment I discount that for two main reasons. Firstly, there was mention of teeth found in the jaw area, and secondly, I hesitate to cry foul when something is discovered. I'll be happy to dismiss it as a fraud should it be disproved somehow, but until then I am cautious about doing so.

Humanoid aliens: Well, I can't 'prove' it wasn't, any more than I can 'prove' there are no aliens visiting earth. I do tend to disbelieve that concept however, which is why I typically shy away from the UFO phenomena forums.

(stranded?) Time travelers: Here again, this is not a concept I subscribe to, although I have to admit the possibility does exist. I would say 'failed' time travelers rather than 'stranded'. Either term would be applicable in this circumstance, but failed would also imply that time travel is not going to be practical. Otherwise, wouldn't someone sometime have wanted to visit those wonderful years known as the 1970s? I never saw anyone come zipping by...

Alternative evolution: This is something I could easily see as credible. Evolution is true in certain cases, so it is completely possible that this creature was another primate, possibly quite similar to homo sapiens sapiens.

Obligatory "gods effing with us": LOL with ya on this one.

Coal is not as old as thought: Very possible. Coal is simply rock with a very high carbon content. There is evidence for oil (hydrocarbons) being produced by inner-earth natural processes, so why would it not be possible to produce coal (pure (+/-) carbon) the same way?

????your thoughts here: I would just like to say that I appreciate your attitude and diplomacy when breaching a subject that could easily slip into the creation vs. evolution debate. Your thoughts are very reasonable and lucid. Thank you, for the attitude, and for the info. I find the discovery intriguing; only the presentation seemed weak.

TheRedneck

I would recommend the books and website of William R. Corliss

Strange Artifacts: A source book on Ancient Man, Volume M-2, ISBN 0-9600712-6-1

Ancient Man: A Handbook of puzzling artifacts ISBN 0-915554-03-8

his website isn't as good but: www.science-frontiers.com...

You can find a lot of reported and alleged "ooparts" in his materials.

Physicist, world-renowned author and cataloger of anomalies, William
Corliss, among whose books are "Handbook of Unusual Natural
Phenomena" and "The Unexplained", will speak about his unending
search for those observations of nature that elude accepted
scientific paradigms. After over 25 years of library research and
the perusal of over 12,000 volumes of scientific publications, he
has identified about 3,000 significant anomalies; this is, phenomena
that are not yet satisfactorily explained by mainstream paradigms.
Following a brief review of how the collection was put together, he
will describe salient phenomena from six disciplines. typical of
these are: the Costa Rican stone spheres (Archeology); quantized
redshifts (Astronomy); pseudofish replication (Biology); giant ring
structures (Geology); marine phosphorescent displays (Geophysics);
and eidetic imagery (Psychology). Finally, he will have a few
comments on some unusual characteristics of anomalies that seem
to cut across all scientific disciplines.

Re Ed Conrad, who is no question about it a Creationist, young Earth or oitherwise:

Conclusions
As already discussed Ed Conrad and Ted Holden's claims about their fossil finds in the Carboniferous rocks near Shenandoah, Pennsylvania, hinge on three key points:
1) The specimens consist of fossil bone
2) The fossil bone is not from an expected Carboniferous animal, it is HUMAN bone
3)The specimens occur in situ in Carboniferous bedrock

The specimens examined here completely fail to substantiate #1, let alone #2, and only Ed and Ted can substantiate #3 (so far, they have not to any reasonable degree of scientific rigor for specimens also meeting #1 and #2). Both the examined specimens are cemented, fine-grained sandstones, possibly concretions or other non-bone structures. There is no trace of bone microstructure. The information presented on Ted's WWW site fails to improve the situation. In the absence of the demonstration of unambiguous bone microstructure with magnified, microscopic images of some sort, their claims will remain completely unsubstantiated. While it is possible that Ed and Ted have found genuine fossil bone in Carboniferous strata (and such a discovery would be consistent with conventional paleontology ), a demonstration to that effect would still leave documentation of #2 and #3 incomplete as currently (20/05/96) presented.

As currently presented, Ed and Ted's claims are, bluntly, without scientific substance. Furthermore, it appears that both Ed and Ted sent me specimens they considered fossil bone, but even simple observation under low power (10x) revealed otherwise. A surface cut with a rock saw and wetted to improve visibility with a hand lens is all that is needed to make it more obvious. The identification of these specimens as variably-cemented sandstone was obvious without any sophisticated equipment or tests. Further tests only made the identification more definitive and easier to document.

From Andrew MacRae, The University of Calgary, Dept. of Geology and Geophysics

Source: HERE

There are several links in the text I quoted that do not appear above. Check the webpage to check those links and see more of what this guy is talking about.

Sandstone - not bone.

Simple as that.

No "Smithsonian Conspiracy" involved. Maybe a U of Calgary "conspiracy."

Harte

reply to post by Hanslune


I´d like to add: Excellent recommendation!

The book is sincere and extraordinary.

Originally posted by diablomonic
an oopart site with the apparently no nonsense approach of this atlantis site would be nice...

www.atlantisquest.com...

simple, hard to argue with information, no huge leaps of speculation passed of as fact (I have no problem with speculation, in fact I like it, it just shouldn't be presented as fact)

From the above site (the second, summary, page):

The vimana flew toward Atlantis (Atala, in the account)

Atala is a section of the Hindu underworld. I don't believe it is a target in the war talked about in the Mahabharata.

I read no further because I believe this is an aggregious error. If so, then the source is not worth the time.

Would somebody besides me check?

The Mahabharata is published in full at Sacred-Texts.com

Harte

Just stumbled across this thread and i have never heard of human remains being found in coal but I have read of two amazing incidents,which i cannot validate but i found interesting:
(Unfortunately the OP link wont work on my browser for some reason,so forgive me if this is a bit off topic.)

1:
An incident where someone shoveled a big chunk of coal onto the fire,which cracked open and out popped an ancient toad,which lived for a few seconds.

2:
A group of miners(in france i think)broke into a seam and found a hollow sounding cavity.They broke it open and out popped a squealing pterodactyl type creature which again only lasted for a few seconds,then died.This is or was supposedly put in a french museum so the book said,I seem to remember.

The book was called "Mysteries of the unexplained"And i think it was a readers digest encylopedia type book.

More on this

There are more than 210 cases of frogs or toads found inside stones, lumps of coal, or within the trunks of large trees – from Europe, the United States, Canada, Africa, New Zealand and the West Indies.



Toads in Coal

Note Buckland's experiment

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Alright. What about the pillar in Dendera?

A short answer will suffice.

I'm sorry, Skyfloating,

I just noticed you said Dendera.

What pillar did you mean?

I just assumed you meant that one in India that won't rust.

Or is that city also named Dendera?

Harte