100 Million Years Old Giant Skull And Teeth Found Embedded In Coal

Wrote Bill O'Brien: "There was a time when Conrad regarded the integrity of the scientific establishment as beyond reproach. But after seven years of dealing with paleontologists and archaeologists, he said he has found them to be a devious and untrustworthy bunch whose actions in relation to him have been downright dishonest and deceitful." "Conrad believes his discovery has frightened members of the archeological/ paleontological establishment out of their wits. They dread the truth, he says, because they know their cozy little clique will be gone with the eons. No longer will they be able to sup at the trough of Darwinism, enjoying soft jobs with huge salaries."

www.pakalertpress.com...
www.edconrad.com...

When you go to edconrads web site click man is old as coal. It is a long read, lots of photo's and scintific test.

I have always belived that humans have around a lot longer than what science tells us. Even by Millions of years.
Your thoughts please

Ed Conrad has pretty much been thoroughly debunked on his claim of the skull and bone fragments by every major anthropological outlet in the nation.

Its because of his collection methods which cannot be verified, and other reasons but here is a site that pretty much takes apart his claims piece by piece.

www.geo.ucalgary.ca...

He also claims he has proof that there is life after death because he met a guy who spoke to God and believes him. Certainly not the most logical of people out there.

To be honest, I don't think anyone alive knows how old the world is. I know about carbon dating and all of that, and I don't believe that either.

My thoughts:

If there were good proof that mankind was much older than thought before, this theory might form a movement inside the science community. Science works that way.

But you have to have better proof than anything taught before. And that will be a problem. About as difficult as saying "the moon is made of cheese" - you could say that. But without a resonable proof, which is based not only on one piece of cheese you claim coming from the moon, but on several others, which must be found by different persons on different occasions, that claim will be worth nothing.

Science works with theories and sometimes even proofs. Prooving something is great. Usually, the timeline of our planet is a little sketchy, larger periods (hey, 100 years seem plenty? What about 10.000 years? And what if that was 2.000.000 years ago?) are simply unknown because not many findings of tha era besides some hints in geological formations.

But, there is a timeline. Many, many time-points on it are proven, not only by a single bone or a single trace, but by many of them.

Anything proven by just 1 thing is less worth than if there is an opposite side which is proven by thousands of things. Logic? Yes, logic.

Originally posted by Hopechest
Ed Conrad has pretty much been thoroughly debunked on his claim of the skull and bone fragments by every major anthropological outlet in the nation.

Its because of his collection methods which cannot be verified, and other reasons but here is a site that pretty much takes apart his claims piece by piece.

www.geo.ucalgary.ca...

He also claims he has proof that there is life after death because he met a guy who spoke to God and believes him. Certainly not the most logical of people out there.

There you go, "debunked" already

Hey nighthawk1954. Great thread but be prepared for it to get killed soon. You really think that even if Conrad's discovery were to be true, the establishment will allow that to be proven as genuine? You really think that this so called academics, PHD's, and so forth will risks their chairs, positions and years of research (which might be totally wrong) by accepting that humanity might be extremely older than first thought? Didn't you learn yet that science is the one and the most in need institution that needs to be REFORMED? As long as the policy is not to disrupt the paradigm, the official story is: Humans came from apes. Humans are 2-3 million of years old... Everything else is considered blasphemy. 500 years ago people who'd revolutionize human thinking were burned at the stake. Now instead of the stake they're being ridiculed, killed academically and professionally and kicked out of universities and colleges never to be let back to teach. Not much has changed anyway.

Originally posted by Telos


There you go, "debunked" already

Hey nighthawk1954. Great thread but be prepared for it to get killed soon. You really think that even if Conrad's discovery were to be true, the establishment will allow that to be proven as genuine? You really think that this so called academics, PHD's, and so forth will risks their chairs, positions and years of research (which might be totally wrong) by accepting that humanity might be extremely older than first thought? Didn't you learn yet that science is the one and the most in need institution that needs to be REFORMED? As long as the policy is not to disrupt the paradigm, the official story is: Humans came from apes. Humans are 2-3 million of years old... Everything else is considered blasphemy. 500 years ago people who'd revolutionize human thinking were burned at the stake. Now instead of the stake they're being ridiculed, killed academically and professionally and kicked out of universities and colleges never to be let back to teach. Not much has changed anyway.

In bold above you cant even get the basics right, HUMANS did not come or evolve from apes what is actually said is that HUMANS and Apes evolved from a COMMON ANCESTOR that's why human and ape DNA are almost but not quite the same.

I love finds like this. It keeps us on our toes, and keeps us from thinking we know it all. There's always a discovery that will change everything we thought we knew. Maybe not this one. Maybe not the next one. But sooner or later...

reply to post by Telos


Aaaaand you lose all bonus points for even trying the old "They won't let him because it's true!" argument, as soon as you say people think Humans come from Apes.

No high score for you.

reply to post by wmd_2008

In bold above you cant even get the basics right, HUMANS did not come or evolve from apes what is actually said is that HUMANS and Apes evolved from a COMMON ANCESTOR that's why human and ape DNA are almost but not quite the same.

reply to post by winofiend

Aaaaand you lose all bonus points for even trying the old "They won't let him because it's true!" argument, as soon as you say people think Humans come from Apes.

C'mon gents. Quit building a straw man, and give the guy a break. He sinned and used a cliche. That doesn't necessarily nullify the rest of his post. It was his opinion, and he's allowed that. You don't have to agree with it, but using a mistake to tear it down is really low.

I suppose Buzz Aldrin never went to the moon either, because he inadvertently said "back to Mars" in an interview?

Their are plenty of other coal finds....including a gold chain, that fell out of a piece of coal as it was struck with a hammer to size it for burning....the links make separate depressions in the lump....
The Smithsoin has been accused beore of similar falsehoods and activity.
Like dynomiting tombs in the Grand Canyon in the 1930s that contained mummies of large beings.
I wouldnt trust the establishment as far as i can throw it.
The lies we are told are inumerable....we live primarily for bull# we are told by the elites.

reply to post by nighthawk1954


Mainstream archaeology and the estimated time of modern man is a lie and some governments will try and cover it up for whatever reasons. For anyone more interested in examples, check this out:

It's like most things that challenge official and accepted versions of this strange life.

First, there is a discovery or report.
The world looks on, rubbing its chin wondering whether it could be true.
Then comes some self proclaimed desk'pert and applies the term 'debunked' and we all go, 'Ah-ha!'

Did it begin with a slime pool, that became a rat, that evolved into a monkey, that fell from a tree that later dropped an apple on his head?

Were there giants that roamed a antediluvian world that were later found as skeletons and then discarded by the Smithsonian?

Beats me. I wasn't there but... sure is interesting reading.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

In bold above you cant even get the basics right, HUMANS did not come or evolve from apes what is actually said is that HUMANS and Apes evolved from a COMMON ANCESTOR that's why human and ape DNA are almost but not quite the same.

Thanks for insulting me (for the part in bold). It's the new modus operandi now in ATS. When we don't get something we start insulting others even though by doing that we plainly show how ignorant and dumb we are in not understanding squat. Anyway allow me to explain that it was just an example. I could have said Earth is flat, or Moon is made of cheese. Meaning it was just a figure of speech, something to illustrate my comment and make my point more understandable. I can tell you had hard time to get that so next time feel free to ask. I can offer an explanation for free.

reply to post by Klassified


Thanks Klassified. Apparently for some people things have to be spelled in order for them to understand. Gee this is one of those moments when I feel that humanity is being dumbed down.

Well, I wasn't there all those years ago...

We are forced to ask ourselves a hard question. Do you completely accept what you are being told or do you leave the door open for possibility? If you are not in one form of research, discovery or exploration, you are left to accept what you are told as fact. Even scientist that are working in one particular field are not always in contact or "brain storming" with other scientific disciplines...

Here is an interesting thought...

The general theory is that an asteroid strike killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Many paleontologists believe and support that idea. However, not all of them do. I saw an interview with a paleontologist that works out in the American west and he made a very valid point. We can, with little doubt, identify the earth and stone strata of that asteroid strike. We know what layer of earth represents that time. He said "If the asteroid impact killed the dinosaurs out all at once, this layer of strata should be full of dinosaur bones...it isn't."

So is he a loon or is he making a valid point?

We were told for years about the rise of civilization and the progression from hunter gatherer to agriculture, to villages to cities to religion to temples and megalithic building...but guess what? We have recently discovered it did not happen that way at all. As one archaeologist put it "Gobekli-Tepe has upset the cart of conventional understanding on the rise of civilization"

What I DO like about science is the willingness to adapt..thewillingness to step back and recalculate based on new discoveries. New, "valid" discoveries WILL change things. It has happened before and it will happen again. It just takes time.

I don't believe in the "giant skeletons" because I cannot think of a single reason why such discovery would need to be suppressed...not reason at all. This would imply that the "establishment" was trying to hide something like the stories from the Bible are true... and I don't think everyone out there is that petty.

reply to post by Jeremiah65

So is he a loon or is he making a valid point?

His claim would seem to be based on the idea that fossils would form from all dead animals. In fact, fossil formation is the exception rather than the rule. The fact that dinosaur fossils virtually disappear above the impact layer is much stronger evidence that the impact did indeed lead to a great extinction.

reply to post by Klassified


Except for the small part where the whole claim is demonstrably untrue. What's the motivation behind these false 'discoveries'? Nobody capable of critical thinking is going to be buying it, so why do these hucksters continue with their absurd claims? Surely it must be religiously motivated.

I'm not knocking anybody's choice of faith, but the evangelical types out there are the only ones gullible enough to buy into it.

We see this time and time again in creationist circles, people fabricating these claims in a transparent attempt to suggest that a) giant half-angel half-people once walked the earth, and b) evolution is false.

reply to post by Phage


I definitely agree with you that fossilization is the exception not the rule. I should have elaborated a little more on this gentleman's personal opinion about the extinction. He mentioned other evidence that has been put on the table. Gigantic lava flows in Africa or India (I honestly forget which place) and other fossil evidence on several different species of dinosaur that suggests some type of disease or debilitating contagion. His theory was that no single event brought about the extinction of the dinosaurs but rather a "perfect storm" of unusual or unlikely events.

Which begs us to question that if a 7 mile asteroid were to hit earth now, would it really be a total extinction or would it lead to other things that all merged together to wipe out life? Imediate blast damage...fallout damage..."nuclear winter"...then famine, disease...etc...etc. Perhaps we would all still die off eventually, but not in one gigantic cataclysmic event...

Just speculating for no apparent reason...

Rather than reading this then wondering how humans could have been around 100 million years ago, why not suppose the dating is wrong? Why not suppose all these evolutionary scientists are just wrong in their dating methods and this coal bed is really only thousands of years old, not millions.

reply to post by TC Mike


Or, alternately, why not suppose that these alleged 'finds' are just brazen fabrications and outright lies designed to push a creationist agenda for which no legitimate evidence exists?