Scientists fear evidence that man is as old as coal Photo Right:Hard evidence for hard hearts? Solid rock proof for hard heads? Smithsonian squelching evidence again?
"Physical evidence currently exists that proves man inhabited the earth while coal was being formed, shaking the very foundations of who we really are and how we really got here. An assortment of human bones and soft organs, transformed to rock-like hardness, has been discovered between anthracite veins in Pennsylvania.
Since one of the golden rules of geology is that coal was formed during the Carboniferous -- a minimum of 280 million years ago -- it means that man has existed multi-millions of years before the ... insectivore from whom the evolutionists claim we eventually evolved.
However, the scientific establishment has wielded its powerful disdainful influence -- deceit, dishonesty, collusion and conspiracy -- to prevent evidence of the most important discovery of the 20th century to be documented as fact and, therefore, keep us from learning a monumental truth about ourselves." ...Ed Conrad
"Aside from the evidence of bones, evidence of human occupation of this area in Carboniferous times included one particularly strange item: a petrified handle of some sort of a tool.
This item was totally petrified and appeared almost to be made of coal; "coalified" might be a better term. Other than that, it appeared entirely similar to and entirely as well-made as any normal handle to an axe or sledge hammer of our own day and evinced a fairly high level of technology. The grain structure of a wooden handle was there.
It appears that the bones in all cases were there first, that the shale formed up around the bones, and that the bone was then gradually replaced with minerals being carried into the cavities they left by water.
The human femur bone we saw was very large; I would guess that its owner was eight or nine feet tall.(see "Giants" Page 6) Other than that it entirely resembled a normal femur bone from a man about my size which we had along with us for comparison in photos. ...
Vine (an author) has also claimed that the American Indian was here in America from the beginning, his most recent book, "Red Earth, White Lies", strongly challenging the standard Bering land bridge thesis. I should think that what I saw would shatter the Bering land bridge thesis for anybody with lingering doubts.
The experiences which Ed Conrad has had in trying to present these findings to scientists are entirely in line with what I would expect, given what experience has taught me about scientists in these fields. He has had several writeups in local and regional papers, including one in the Reding Eagle which indicates that all relevant tests have been done, and that all favor Conrad's claims.
Conrad has had several prominent scientists agree to the validity of his claims, and yet these had their own schedules and projects and none were willing to attempt to take any of these findings and do anything with them, and attempts to deal with the Smithsonian and with major universities has been much like beating his head against a tree and, as of the last four or five years, he had simply given up. That, of course, was in the age just prior to the age of the WWW page...
Conrad has previously assumed that his findings indicated man's presence on Earth in the accepted period of the Carboniferous age, i.e. almost 300 million years ago, and his writings in some of the documents noted here reflect that.
The evidence seems to suggest one of three possibilities:
1. humans/hominids were around in the Carboniferous period, conventionally dated to 300m (million) years ago. 2. The Carboniferous period is vastly more recent than conventionally dated. 3. The evidence is the result of an elaborate hoax. I rule possibility 3 out from my own direct observations; the femur bone embedded in shale along with other petrified bone embedded in shale boulders could not possibly be faked. Item 1 does not strike me as plausible for numerous reasons, not the least of which being that no complex species such as ours has ever lasted that long.
I thus see the second possibility as the only viable one, and would recommend the section of Velikovsky's "Earth in Upheaval" titled "Collapsing Schemes" as a starting point for anybody seeking further information.
It would appear that all of the dating schemes we are familiar with are simply FUBAR, standard army jargon meaning "Fouled Up Beyond Any Recognition". Either of possibilities 1 and 2 above should cause major grief for evolutionists; the one requires man to be here long before monkeys or apes were, the other indicates there hasn't been time for evolution."--Endquote
The Baalbek Monolithic Stones
This column was hewn as one solid piece and weighs 1200 tons. It's two cousins are in place in the base of the "Temple of Jupiter" and weigh in at over 1000 tons.(The "Temple of Jupiter" is pictured in the banner on the top right of this page and in the photo on the left.)
"The temple is one of the largest stone structures in the world. Some 26 feet above the structure's base are found three of the largest stones ever employed by man.
Each of these stones measures 10 feet thick, 13 feet high, and is over 60 feet long. Knowing the density of limestone permits weight estimates of over 1.2 million pounds. Some people with impressive engineering skills cut, dressed, and moved these immense stone blocks from a quarry 3/4 of a mile away.
A walk to this quarry introduces the observer to the Monolith, an even larger block of limestone: 13 feet, 5 inches; 15 feet, 6 inches; and 69 feet, 11 inches. The Monolith weighs in at over 2,000,000 pounds. In comparison, the largest stones used in the Great Pyramid tip the scales at only 400,000 pounds..."Science Frontiers Online Notice the man perched on the column and another standing at the base. Forget the ancient airplanes, the ancient helicopters the world maps--this alone should set the; standard, straightline, primitive man-to-advanced man, and then to civilization, "scientific" dogma on its ear.
There is no way that this stone can be explained by the science and history they teach us in school. No technology existing today could move this stone much less transport it from where it was quarried, nor lift it upon its 23 foot foundation.** (Actually, it appears moving such a monolith is on the edge but within current technology--Benjamin K., a Christian engineer informs us that Mammoet, and another company; Lampson Cranes-- & perhaps a few others have machines that could do the job.)
The pre-existing stone foundation upon which the Romans built their temple at the site is 1/2 mile long on one side. No one knows who built it.
There are no historical records although the local folks think it is a Pre-flood City originally built by Cain--after his banishment. Photo from See also Mysteries of the Bible.