Inconvenient Witnesses…, pt 3

What’s amazing is that such evidences of an alternative history, contrary to that pushed by the mainstream, comes not only in the form of written records and oral traditions, but also, incredibly, in the form of anachronistic anomalies.

Often referred to as “out of place artifacts (OOPARTs),” these finds remarkably challenge the status quo, calling into question all that we are told about the knowledge and condition of the ancients and the world they lived in. As author David Larsen puts it:

“An anomaly by definition is something that should not be: it is inconsistent with all that is known or believed to be true. But how is it possible that archaeological “anomalies” exist at all? Are not the artifacts unearthed by archaeologists and/or geologists the very jigsaw puzzle pieces that are utilized to create the picture of the jigsaw puzzle? How can the pieces of the puzzle not fit the picture? They are the very pieces that should be used to create the picture. If the pieces of the puzzle do not fit our perception, it must be our perception, or preconceptions, that are in error, and not the artifacts themselves.” 1

While OOPARTs generally falls into several groups, those which are most pertinent here are those which, through their existence, boldly confront the mainstream model of who we are and how we ascended to our current position of power. Consider these examples carefully, and know that these are but a few instances of such things.

In 1928, in a coal mine near the town of Heavener, Oklahoma, there was discovered a series of odd concrete blocks laying in a cavern. According to an account by Atlas Mathis, a worker from the mine, the blocks were twelve-inch cubes and polished so smooth that they could be used as mirrors. They eventually discovered a solid wall of these cubes within a coal bed, estimated at an age of at least 286 million years old. Oddly enough, shortly after the block wall was discovered, the company officers pulled the men from the mine and forbade them to speak of what they had seen. The mine was shortly closed thereafter. 2 This account was reminiscent of another from 1868, in Ohio, where one James Parsons claimed to have found a large, smooth wall with hieroglyphic-like markings on it in a coal mine. 3

In 1912, Frank Kenwood broke open a large piece of coal only to discover an iron pot in its center. 4 Discoveries such as these, whereby artifacts of one form or another are discovered within coal speak volumes to the age of the earth. As coal, we are told by secular researchers, was formed hundreds of millions of years ago, how then are apparently human-derived artifacts found within their seams, with humans only being of recent advent? Let us remember that coal is formed from a buildup of vast beds of organic material (i.e. dead vegetation or other life) that have been converted through massive amounts of pressure into its current carbonized state. 

Do keep that in mind, as we shall come back to that in time.

In an article published by Scientific American, it was reported that in 1852, an explosion threw large pieces of rock from Dorchester, Massachusetts, and that within one of the rocks was discovered a “bell-shaped vessel”, described as:

“…zinc in color, or a composition metal, in which there is a considerable portion of silver. On the side, there are six figures or a flower, or bouquet, beautifully inlaid with pure silver, and around the lower part of the vessel a vine, or wreath, also inlaid with silver.” 5

As the article went, it stated that there was absolutely no question that the “bell” came from deep within a rock that was subsequently dated to six-hundred million years in age. Interestingly, the author of the Scientific American article attributed the relic to “Tubal-Cain,” an artificer noted in Genesis, insinuating that it could only have been an antediluvian (from a time prior to Noah’s flood) relic. 6

In June of 1936, near London, Texas, Mr. and Mrs. Max Hahn found an odd rock with a wooden dowel jutting from the side. This rock was originally attributed to the Ordovician period, making it hundreds of millions of years old, originating from a time that researchers say predated the advent of trees. To make matters even more interesting, sometime around 1946 or 1947 the rock was broken open, and the odd dowel was discovered to be the handle of a rectangular-headed hammer! The hammerhead was tested at Battelle Labs in Columbus, Ohio, and discovered to be 96.6% iron, but also containing approximately 2.6% chlorine. Metallurgists concluded that such an alloy of iron and chlorine could not be created in today’s atmosphere. 7 

During the 1880s, at Big Hill, Kentucky, a layer of carboniferous sandstone, some 300 million years in age according to the secular record, was broken open to reveal a series of tracks, including those of bear, very large horses and two “tracks of human beings, good sized, toes well spread, and very distinctly marked.” The tracks were subsequently examined by professor J. F. Brown of Berea College, Kentucky. 8 Similarly, in 1938, Dr. Wilbur Burroughs, head of the geology department of Berea College, revealed that he had discovered ten humanoid footprints within carboniferous sandstone found on a farm in the northern part of Rockcastle County. The prints were said to be approximately 9½ inches long and six inches across the toes, with a stride length of 18 inches. Photomicrographs and infrared photography revealed no signs of carving or artificial marking in or around the prints, but a microscopic count of sand grains concluded that the material within the prints had been impacted during the time of its formation; proof the prints were not faked. The rock in which the prints were found were estimated to have been some 250 million years old. 9

Around 1817, a slab of limestone containing a pair of human footprints was quarried from its position on the west bank of the Mississippi River and moved to the village of New Harmony, Indiana. Of these prints it was said “Every appearance will warrant the conclusion that these impressions were made at a time when the rock was soft enough to receive them by pressure, and that the marks of the feet are natural and genuine.” The limestone that contained the prints however was said to have hardened some 270 million years ago. 10

In another such example, near the mouth of the Little Cheyenne River, South Dakota, beds of magnesium limestone dated to over 100 million years in age, there were found within three prints of moccasined feet. In one of the prints the impression of the heel was deeper than that made by the ball of the foot, suggesting that whoever made them was running from something. All three were preserved with such clarity that the instep and faint toe marks could be seen. 11 Likewise, in 1927, Alfred E. Knapp discovered, in Triassic limestone from Fisher Canyon, Nevada, the imprint of a leather shoe. The rock was dated to between 180 and 225 million years in age by secular geologists. Subsequent micrographs of the print determined that the leather had been hand stitched with a finer thread than was typically utilized in 1927. 12 

Lest it be left to linger on into confusion, I am certain that those human artifacts found in strata identified as being hundreds of millions of years in age are not reflective of the truth, but rather a graphic illustration of how our dating methods are flawed. These are not the remnants of some deeply-ancient race of man, but rather clear evidence from a recent age, misidentified by those who support notions of deep-time as originating well prior to our actual advent.

Such discoveries are not limited to small artifacts and foot prints alone, as there have been several cases of much larger items appearing from within the rocks. For example, in Naples, Italy, in 1503, during a huge storm, a “section of mountain split open revealing the remains of a ship enclosed with the rocks of the mountain. The remains of the ship were observed by many people and it was noted that the vessel was much larger than the medieval ships sailing the seas at the time.” 13 Likewise, in Bern, Switzerland, it was reported in 1460 that miners discovered the remains of a wooden vessel, complete with an iron anchor, some one hundred feet deep within the sediment of the Earth. 14

Now, it should be noted that most of these examples, in fact most OOPARTs in general, have been lost to time, relegated to the realm of falsifications and anecdotal evidence, with few knowing of their discovery, fewer yet believing in the veracity of their existence, and even still fewer understanding the implications. Make of it what you will, but the story in case after case involves how locals make a discovery of an amazing artifact, it is subsequently examined by a range of local authorities, reported in the regional newspapers and sometimes recorded by local historians, only to ultimately lead to the greater authorities being summoned, either curators of a grand museum or a team of state-funded archaeologists, whereby they take the artifact for further testing and study. In case after case, this, for all intents and purposes, marks the end of that discovery’s existence. It is never acknowledged by the authorities who took the artifact, never at least beyond some offhanded jab about it being a hoax or forgery, and the item in question is never returned (assuming it is even admitted as having been collected by the authorities) and never submitted to outside institutions for further examination. 

Time after time, case after case, whatever glimpse of truth that these items could have offered is lost. Is it possible that there has been a direct effort to alter the true record of our origins and past? Skeptics may note that many of the cases cited here come from old, perhaps outdated, sources, that no new instances of valid OOPARTs are being discovered because we as a society have simply become too sophisticated to believe such frauds. One could argue however that we no longer find OOPART because those in authority have become much more sophisticated in their efforts to acquire and conceal such finds… 

– This was an excerpt fromRemnants of Eden: Evolution, Deep-Time, & the Antediluvian World.” Get your copy here today. God bless! –


  1.   Larsen, David, “Dinosaurs on the Ark,” Teach Services, Inc., pg 269
  2.   Ibid, p 271
  3.   Ibid
  4.   Ibid
  5.   “Relics of a Bygone Age.” Scientific American. June 5, 1952
  6.   Ibid
  7.   Ibid
  8.   “The American Antiquarian”, 7:39, January 1885
  9.   Steiger, Brad, “Mysteries of Time and Space,” Schiffer Pub., 1997, Ltd, pp 6-7
  10. “The American Journal of Science and Arts,” 1:5, pp 223-231, 1822
  11. Corliss, William R.,”Ancient Man: A Handbook of Puzzling Artifacts,” Sourcebook Project, 1977, pg 649,
  12. Steiger, Brad, “Mysteries of Time and Space,” Schiffer Pub., 1997, Ltd, pg 18
  13. Berlitz, Charles,”Doomsday 1999 A. D.”, Doubleday & Company Inc., New York, 1981, pg 192-193
  14. Ibid, pg 193

Subscribe to the blog here at WordPress, like us on Facebook, or follow me on Twitter at @FOUNDRY_4

FOUNDRY4 is a proud member of the International Association for Creation

The IAC Logo















One thought on “Inconvenient Witnesses…, pt 3

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s