It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


how did metal and advanced items end up in coal?

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 10:12 PM
most you know that people throughout history have found items such as coins metals and unusually advanced items within coal and untouched rocks and bed of rocks that are millions billions of years old? also i mean back then it impossible to imagine human or some type of civilization creating metal and such advanced items so do you think early humans or some other form advanced civilization create that? or just some weird primitive alien travellers? i mean damn if they found those pipes and stuff were the other stuff huh?!
but what about the thing were miners found this frog embedded in rock and was alive? this is weird so how did that stuff get there and why isnt other stuff found?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 10:18 PM
Got links?

Some of the stuff isn't as surprising as it sounds. Animals like frogs crawl into cracks to hybernate for the winter and it's not unexpected to find them inside things.

Some reports are simply hoaxes done so that the locals can have a good laugh at some loony with a theory. Some natural formations (you do find metal inside coal occasionally -- low grade iron ores and it's not uncommon) are misinterpeted.

So, anyway, there are frauds and hoaxes. Rather than making a general statement, can you point to some that you thought were real (or questionable)?

posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 10:29 PM
ya ill post some links tommorow or someone will post it for me.......

posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 10:31 PM
but the thing is......... the unusual thing is how could a frog survive millions of years without nutritient or water without dying? i mean a few months yes but if you know about how a basic life form works then probaly you will understand and eventully question

posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 11:48 PM
Yes, it is unusual for a frog or otherwise to 'survive for millions of years,' this is why you need to include some sort of substantiation or otherwise in your post. It makes it somewhat difficult to address an issue specifically, when no specific instance has been provided.

Please don't make statements such as "if you know about how a basic life form works then probaly you will understand and eventully question" to anyone here, but especially to Byrd. I think you'll find that Byrd understands orders of magnitude more than such a statement would give her credit for. She's only trying to help you.

As it has already been asked: got any links? This will make specific issues easier to address. There do exist an unfortunate number of frauds and hoaxes out there, but then again, there DO exist a wide variety of out of place artifacts, that in the opinion of many defy explanation.

So... let's talk specifics.

posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 04:34 AM
The question is, is the rock/coal *really* millions of years old? I mean if I take a piece of turf and flip it over, logically what's new should be old, but its not. Yeah I know, stupid example.

My point is, who says it have to be that old?

posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 07:30 AM
Still no links?

Side note, I didn't know Byrd was a girl, I always thought your avatar was a picture of you.

As said above Byrd has let the air out of my theories on more then one occasion.

posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 08:36 AM

Originally posted by bpletcj
Side note, I didn't know Byrd was a girl, I always thought your avatar was a picture of you.

As said above Byrd has let the air out of my theories on more then one occasion.

Hmmm... I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that Byrd is a woman.

Never thought about the avatar...

posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 08:48 AM
Byrd's Avatar is based of the character Blair Sandburg from a televisions show called The Sentinel
The Sentinel
The actor's name is Garett Maggart

posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 09:18 AM
I was joking about the Avatar, I really don't pay attention to the sex of the poster, its just the last couple of days I have noticed various posters have pointed out the fact that Byrd is female. Man or Woman I respect Byrd's post, as well as most of everyone else's post on ATS.

This is my second home (as sad as that is).

Long live WOS.

posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 10:48 AM
Advanced Items? What like?

Remember metal does form naturally, when under-pressure and with heat there so it is possible for coal to form around existing chunks of metal. Nothing really amazing about it, but people just attempt to make more of it than there is.

...and yes, Byrd is a woman [that gives me applauses.]

posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 01:20 AM
Someone correct me if I am wrong. I think the secret to coal is pressure not time. Not millions of years..but lots of pressure.

To take it further as I recall soft coal is found on the surface. I think it is called bituminous. (spelling). Deep coal under more pressure than on the surface is called anthracite.

Anyway ...dont they make charcoal artificially .by sometimes find little bits of wood sticking out of the charcoal.

Same with diamonds..dont they have the ability to make this artifically today under pressure. Diamonds being coal...
Also ..dont they have the ability to make lots of stones artifically today. Even some that dont occur naturally in nature??
My point is pressure ..not millions of years of time.
I wonder if this has occured to some of you making these posts.


posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 02:08 AM
I was also wondering if someone had a link to a website discussing artifacts found in coal. I've read one web site discussing old artifacts in very old rock, dirt/old earth but I believe that was deemed to be a hoax by some. I'm willing to keep an open mind if someone presents some evidence. I've read stories about old artifacts but that's all it is without a link to a web site to discuss this further. Unless someone has discovered something recently and wanted to discuss it here.

Some suggestions for creating a better discussion. Search for links/web sites that may have information about what you want to talk about (as long as it's not the same ATS topic already discussed) Post those links back here and give your opinions. I didn't start this thread so I'm not doing that here. For clues to something similiar you can search for the tag "ancient nuclear war" using this link.

I don't know if the two threads that show up discuss finding any artifacts in coal though. I'm just using the following as an example to help create a better discussion. In case you wanted to search those two threads I have posted them below.

posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 03:11 AM
Dunno if this has been posted yet, but it's similar to what the dude's talking about.

The 10 Most Puzzling Ancient Artifacts

Out-of-Place Metal Objects
Humans were not even around 65 million years ago, never mind people who could work metal. So then how does science explain semi-ovoid metallic tubes dug out of 65-million-year-old Cretaceous chalk in France? In 1885, a block of coal was broken open to find a metal cube obviously worked by intelligent hands. In 1912, employees at an electric plant broke apart a large chunk of coal out of which fell an iron pot! A nail was found embedded in a sandstone block from the Mesozoic Era. And there are many, many more such anomalies.

What are we to make of these finds? There are several possibilities:

* Intelligent humans date back much, much further than we realize.
* Other intelligent beings and civilizations existed on earth far beyond our recorded history.
* Our dating methods are completely inaccurate, and that stone, coal and fossils form much more rapidly than we now estimate.

In any case, these examples - and there are many more - should prompt any curious and open-minded scientist to reexamine and rethink the true history of life on earth.

There's a link (at the underlined text above) to this article, which apparently details more oddly-placed objects, but I just scrolled down it and didn't really read it. also provides this image of the object in question:

So there's something for him.

Interesting stuff, for sure.

[edit on 1-1-2006 by bsbray11]

posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 07:00 PM
You notice, none of these "advanced" items have images of them? Only drawings?

You notice that the pictures show pieces of metal that is twisted and bent, as though it was trapped under a great weight?

Now...what could that mean?

posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 09:02 PM
The other problem is that they didn't record the context -- and this is the problem with many of these old finds. A number (as I said before) were locals who were getting revenge on scholarly antique hunters, and some were outright frauds (the locals would produce these to sell to the antique hunters and tell these men that they had found the "artifacts" under unusual situations.)

The "flint scrapers" present an interesting problem, though... they're found among glacial detritus (in a morraine) but the question is: how did they get there?

I've done a tiny bit of archaeological field work, and stuff you find on the surface counts as 'out of place' artifacts that can't be dated. Take, for instance, an arrowhead, and let's say that you (as I did) were walking across a field in Texas and you find an Ensor point (usually dated to 2000 BC-500 AD) ) Lying there on the surface, you can't tell if it was ploughed up from a farmer's field last year, or whether someone who collected arrowheads found it elsewhere and lost it in that field, or whether someone was off knapping out flints for a rock show/commercial demonstration and lost it, or whether it was dropped 1500 years ago or 4000 years ago.

You need dirt. You need to see the stuff (pollen, sticks, bones) in dirt. You need the "context" for the artifact.

(the referenced site is fairly old, and a lot of the material about Folsom points, etc, doesn't represent what archaeologists and paleontologists think.)

Archaeology is like forensics -- like a Crime Scene Investigation. If you find a bullet with blood on the street, you have no idea if it's evidence in a murder or if someone was shooting at their Christmas dinner or something.

So these "mysterious artifacts" are the equivalent of people coming up with a bullet and saying "Hey! This is an OLD bullet! It was used by Bonnie And Clyde!"

There needs to be more evidence than just very old hearsay.

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 05:36 AM
If there were any hard facts to back up this theory, then one could venture another theory that the reason we burn all these fossil fuels is to conceal evidence of a prehistoric advanced civilization

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 06:17 AM
LOL LOL ....busting out laughing here.....Well done.


posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 06:24 AM
To my memory there has been a CUP and Hammer and a BOOT found in coal "dated" into the millions of years old.

The artifacts reside in the creationist collection in Desoto texas.

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 06:28 AM

Lying there on the surface, you can't tell if it was ploughed up from a farmer's field last year, or whether someone who collected arrowheads found it elsewhere and lost it in that field, or whether someone was off knapping out flints for a rock show/commercial demonstration and lost it, or whether it was dropped 1500 years ago or 4000 years ago.

A concern that the objects found imbedded within stone are being lied about by those who made the discoveries, etc., seems logical, though it seems unjustified, but I don't quite see where you're going with objects that are found laying around on surfaces rather than imbedded in them (ie, this thread's subject), especially when embedded into solid rock, which of course takes long periods of time to form.

If you go here, you'll find part of an 1852 issue of Scientific American that carries the following article, titled "Relic of By-Gone Age":

A few days ago a powerful blast was made
in the rock at Meeting House Hill, in Dorches-
ter, a few rods south of Rev. Mr. Hall’s
meeting house. The blast threw out an im-
mense mass of rock, some of the pieces
weighing several tons and scattered small
fragments in all directions. Among them
was picked up a metallic vessel in two parts
rent assunder by the explosion. On putting
the two parts together it formed a bell-shaped
vessel, 4½ inches high, 6½ inches at the base
2½ inches at the top, and about an eight of an
inch in thickness. The body of this vessel
resembles zinc in color, or a composition me-
tal, in which there is a considerable portion of
silver. On the sides there are six figures of a
flower, or a bouquet, beautifully inlaid with pure
silver, and around the lower part of the vessel
a vine, or wreath, inlaid also with silver. The
chasing, carving, and inlaying are exquisitely
done by the art of some cunning workman.
This curious and unknown vessel was blown
out of the solid pudding stone, fifteen feet be-
low the surface. It is now in the possession
of Mr. John Kettell. Dr. J. V. C. Smith,
who has recently travelled in the East, and
examined hundreds of curious domestic uten-
sils, and has drawings of them, has never seen
anthing resembling this. He has taken a
drawing and accurate dimensions of it, to be
submitted to the scientific. There is no doubt
but that this curiousity was blown out of the
rock, as above stated; but will Professor
Agassiz, or some other scientific man please to
tell us how it came there? The matter is
worthy of investigation, as there is no decep-
tion in this case.
|The above is from the Boston Transcript
and the wonder to us is, how the Transcript
can suppose Prof. Agassiz qualified to tell how
it got there any more than John Doyle, the
blacksmith. This is not a question of zoolo-
gy, botany, or geology, but one relating to an
antique metal vessel perhaps made by [Tubal?]
Cain, the first inhabitant of Dorchester.

It'd be quite some work for someone to somehow place a metal vessel into solid rock 15 feet below the surface without the workers noticing anything odd the next morning, or whenever. Impossible, I would think. But it was either that, or I suppose the workers were lying and/or the whole thing was made up, short of accepting it as evidence of earlier civilization.

Another article can be found based on an 1820 issue of The American Journal of Science and Arts. A Google Search reveals info on the publication, including this article:

Extensive quarrying was done near the city of Aixen -Provence, France between 1786 and 1788, to provide the large quantities of limestone needed for the rebuilding of the Palace of Justice.

In the quarry from which the limestone was taken, the rock strata were separated from each other by layers of sand and clay, and by the time the workmen had removed 11 layers of rock they had found they had reached a depth of some 40 feet or 50 feet from the original level of the area.

Beneath the 11th layer of limestone they came to a bed of sand and began to remove it to get at the rock underneath. In the sand they found the stumps of stone pillars and fragments of half worked rock, the same stone and rock that they themselves had been excavating.

They dug further and found coins, the petrified wooden handles of hammers, and pieces of other petrified wooden tools. Finally they came to a large wooden board, seven or eight feet long and an inch thick. As was the case with the wooden tools, it had also been petrified into a form of agate and it had been broken into pieces.

When the pieces were reassembled, the workmen saw before them a quarryman's board of exactly the same kind they themselves used, worn in just the same way as their own boards were, with rounded, edges.

How a stonemason's yard equipped with the kind of tools used in France in the late 18th century, had come to be buried 50 feet deep under layer of sand and limestone 300 million years old is a mystery even more vexing today than at the time of the original discovery.

For we now know, thanks to advances in geological and anthropological dating, that such a thing is absolutely impossible. And yet it does seem to have happened.

(The American Journal of Science and Arts, 1:145-46, 1820)

Note that the wood was described as petrified, which means it wasn't exactly freshly-cut wood planted there the day before. So I guess the only logical conclusion is that all of the workers were lying and made it all up, or didn't have the sense to tell normal wood from rock wood. Right?

I'm sure you guys know that I could go on with many such reports, as you've probably seen many of them already. A list of a number of similar occurences can be found here, for example.

I can understand a desire for more information, but I can't imagine many ways that objects can be planted into so much solid rock, or petrified, except that they naturally came to such. Nor do I see any purpose, use, or evidence in calling all of these reports outright lies and frauds. Sure, there are bound to be people trying to make some quick cash, but again, I can't many ways in which objects can be placed within solid rock, or artificially petrified into rock, and have no reason to assume every report and article a lie. What problem would there be with admitting something to just be unexplained?

[edit on 2-1-2006 by bsbray11]

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in