An Ancient Canal - Matamoros, Mexico circa 3,450 YBP

An Ancient Canal - Matamoros, Mexico


This is an ancient (silted over, filled in) canal leading from the center of Matamoros , Mexico out to the Gulf. The original ocean breakwaters are worn away and nearly disintegrated, and the canal proper inland has been nearly obliterated by sand and debris wash that looks like tsunami debris. In any case, the sand and tide and tidal incursion as tsunami debris has covered the first 11 miles of this system. The first five miles from the current ocean shore has been almost completely obliterated by high dune like structures of what appears to be tsunami debris.

From the ocean, and what was once a large harbor area, the canal continues about 26  miles inland to the now downtown areas of Matamoros, making it look for all appearances as if it were of modern origins. However it is in fact a much filled in, degraded and old system.

At the ocean side shore, the debris field is estimated to be 12’ to 18’ in height, for more than a mile inland, with continuing debris wash and upheaval for an additional 5.5 miles inland. Some erosion and other disturbance patterns are visible for another seven miles inland. The most important features for dating this anomaly is the tsunami debris field and the ocean inlet (harbor area) as defined by the still viewable breakwater jetties. Though degraded  and eroded, they still show the harbor entry area.

Photo courtesy of NASA. Coordinates: 25°38'48.27"N, 97°14'35.82"W.     Set 'Historical Imagery' to 11/18/2008

This canal, about 20 miles south of the Rio Grande, in a straight line from Matamoros, which faces the Mexico-US border, is about 26 miles long to the ocean exit. It has a split (circular) feature at its head (enclosing the old city center), suggesting freshwater delivery to the city’s inhabitants, agricultural irrigation, aquatic farming, small craft commercial use, and probably a defense-security mechanism. It averages about 46' in width (nearly 60’ at the harbor, 55’ twelve miles inland, and about 35’ near the metropolitan area) between two high berm banks, and expected to be about 6' to 9' deep. If the canal's total length is 26 miles, at an average width of 40' and a depth of 9', original construction would have removed about 210,000 cubic yards of material per mile, or about 6.6 million cubic yards. At a cost of $10 per cubic yard, (in today’s dollars) it would cost about $66 MILLION in today's dollars to complete the entire project.

This canal system, like the North Key Largo canal system was in use when the Ocean Level was within 1 foot of its current level. Otherwise, the ocean opening would not be as wide nor at the location it is now. That means this canal is also more likely rather than less likely to have been  a victim of the Axis Tilt Event, (the same global catastrophe that caused the Santorini explosion in the Mediterranean, and probably the breach of Gibraltar Strait and many other events.)

It certainly is NOT 7,000 years old, because the secondary tidal shelf from 7,000 years ago is about 1,500 feet offshore. So this system was built when the tidal level was within 1 to 1.5 feet of its current level, or something not earlier than 5,500 years ago. I don’t think it is of post Columbian age, as the erosion level is too significant to be within the last 150 to 200 years.

Photo courtesy of NASA.

This south breakwater wall appears to be significantly eroded. Made of large boulders, the breakwater wall is degraded to the point of being split into two sections near shore, and the original breakwater, harbor and canal have completely disappeared for about a mile under sand and other buildup, which appears to be a tsunami debris field. During our recent or modern history there has not been a tsunami large enough on the gulf coast to leave tsunami debris field 1.5 miles inside the shoreline that is several meters deep, which is exactly what is represented here.

Photo courtesy of Google Photos

Distance between the two breakwater walls is roughly 800 feet, suggesting it was probably servicing a harbor opening rather than just the small 40’ wide canal that runs inland in a straight line for 26 miles.

It is not known whether the north breakwater wall was originally longer than its current degraded length.

From a design engineering standpoint, it may have been longer due to the fact that it angles south by southeast more steeply than the southern breakwater wall angles toward the northeast, suggesting the prevailing winds and tidal-storm surge were predominately from the south-southeast  when it was built. The longer southern breakwater wall would clearly protect the canal-channel entrance. It is an open question as to why the northern wall angles so steeply south, and whether it was originally much longer. My opinion is that it was in fact longer, but was eroded and degraded from the tsunami that probably arrived from the Northeast.

Moving inland from the Atlantic shore and the potential harbor opening, the tsunami force was so great that it all but obliterated the canal, eroding all but vestiges of its former structure for eight to nine miles inland.

Photo courtesy of NASA

There are outlines of rectangular forms on the ground facing the banks of the canal 3 miles inland that suggests some form of buildings or structured land use prior to the devastation. All remnants of that use seem to have disappeared with the extreme nature of the destruction. About 12 miles inland is where the heavy wash and residue seems to diminish. There is no apparent effect further inland. A twelve mile incursion with a heavy shore side debris field depth measured in meters suggests a very strong and very high tsunami. In my estimation, the tidal height may have been measured in the low hundreds of feet.

Photo courtesy of NASA

This canal system appears to have been built, and or in use long before modern development. Most of it seems to represent a period in time when the tidal shoulder was at most about 1’ lower than it is today, which suggests this system was built before the Axis Tilt Event of 3,450 YBP, and then was abandoned following that event.

The building method was double berm, or removing material from the canal way depositing the residue on the closest bank. This is a method used up to and including modern times. It is typical when the cutting machine is a single long or goose-neck excavator that sits on a swivel platform, usually on the uncut bank in front of the canal. It is also used on floating platforms.

It would be very instructive to do  C-14 and other tests on the berm piles for exact date of build and use.

On a side note, it seems to me, if the Matamoros canal can be carbon dated to before 3,450 years ago, it might be well worth the effort to also carbon date the Brownsville canal on the US side of the border, as that canal, though much larger, has been dug into the same location around the US side of the Matamoros, Mexico border.

Photo courtesy of NASA

This canal system appears to have been built, and or in use long before modern development. Most of it seems to represent a period in time when the tidal shoulder was at most about 1’ lower than it is today, which suggests this system was built before the Axis Tilt Event of 3,450 YBP, and then was abandoned following that event.

The building method was double berm, or removing material from the canalway depositing the residue on the closest bank. This is a method used up to and including modern times. It is typical when the cutting machine is a single long or gooseneck excavator that sits on a swivel platform, usually on the uncut bank in front of the canal. It is also used on floating platforms.

It would be very instructive to do  C-14 and other tests on the berm piles for exact date of build and use.

On a side note, it seems to me, if the Matamoros canal can be carbon dated to before 3,450 years ago, it might be well worth the effort to also carbon date the Brownsville canal on the US side of the border, as that canal, though much larger, has been dug into the same location around the US side of the Matamoros, Mexico border.

Photo courtesy of NASA

Up close, the Brownsville Canal has many features that suggests it might very well be built on a much older degraded system. Particularly when assessing the oil industry tanks and storage area at the head of the canal. Most of the docks and quays are very regular and geometric, as if they had been built within the last 100 years of the oil industry’s use of the location as a refinery area and transport hub for moving petroleum out of the Texas oilfields.

Photo courtesy of NASA

Further back toward the ocean, many of the angled cuts that are usually quays, are very degraded and just have the appearance of being much older with uneven edges and heads. They are currently being used as a graveyard dismantling location for decommissioned Navy ships.

Even further back toward the ocean opening there are what appears to be cuts or quays that have completely silted over and filled in leaving faint outlines of their once useful presence. This area has almost an eerie resemblance to the the washed out areas of the smaller eastern Matamoros canal near the tsunami zone.

Photo courtesy of NASA

The Brownsville canal is about 1,550’ wide and services Aircraft Carriers so it is presumably over 40’ deep. One of the issues from an Engineering standpoint is why a large, wide canal servicing Navy Carriers, was built some 17+ miles inland simply to load (not off load) petroleum. Some time later, as an afterthought, decommissioned Navy ships appeared, using the system as a junk-salvage yard. This is a gigantic project to build, consisting of a canal 1,550’ wide by 40’ deep, which equals 62,000 cubic ft of material for every linear foot of canal. 1 Mile equals 317,440,000 cubic feet of material, which reduces to 35,271,000 cubic yards. At a conservative $8.00 per cubic yard, in today’s Corp of Engineer’s bid averages for work of this nature, a single mile costs $282 Million dollars, and the total 17 miles of this canal represents a cost of about $4.8 Billion (with a ‘B’) adjusted to today's dollars.

As that is such a gargantuan sum for any Corporation or group of Corporations, or Government entity to fund, particularly when the oil could be moved via pipeline to a harbor much closer to the ocean for lots less money, it should be quite simple to find where and when that budget was authorized, by who, either private industry, or the Corp of Engineers. Such documentation does not appear to exist.

Surprisingly there is no record of a project of that magnitude in any archives I have researched. There are much much smaller budget authorizations to “dredge’ and clean out certain sections of the Brownsville canal, and to build, rebuild or repair causeways and breakwater walls, but nothing to Engineer, Design and Build this project from scratch. It isn’t that we are incapable of building it in the last 120 years, because we are, but there just is no record that we, in fact did. And money of that magnitude does not just disappear down some bureaucratic rat hole.

In conclusion, portions of the Brownsville canal looks for all intents and purposes, to have been originally built and used around the time the Matamoros canal was in use, sometime before 3,450 YBP.

Further information on the devastation of the 3,450 YBP event can be seen on my blog here under “Earth’s Axis Tilt” from Dec, 2014

Other work and papers are available on my Academia website here:

https://www.academia.edu/9818019/Earth_s_Axis_Tilt_Global_Catastrophe_Breach_of_Gibraltar_Strait_and_a_Global_Calendar_Change_-3_450_Years_Ago

John Jensen

May 2017

The ICA Stones Controversy

The Ica Stones Controversy

One of the most prolific set of images depicting concurrent man-dinosaur co-existence are the Ica stones collected by Dr. Xavier Kabrera and other explorers, and stored in the private museum of Dr. Kabrera, as well as the Ica museum, the Aeronautics museum in Lima, the Naval museum in Callao, and others. The total number of Ica Stones is between 11,000 and 15,000, and, according to Dr. Kabrera, taking into account all of the stones which have been distributed to private collectors, there are more than 50,000 stones. Dr. Kabrera estimates that in subsoil (buried or hidden) remains more than 200 - 300 thousand similar stones.
The engraved Ica stones are river boulders of andesite from 15-20 g to 500 kg in weight and from several centimeters to 1 meter and more in diameter (length) with pictograph inscribed on them by some means of engraving - grooves of 1-2 mm in depth, or executed in the technology of a low relief. The images are different enough and include:

People and extinct (dinosaur) figures

Polydactyl horses (meryhippuses), prehistoric elephants (mastodon or dinotheres), prehistoric camels (alticameluses), and other animals

Dinosaurs including triceratops, stegosauruses, brachiosaurs, pterosaurs, iguanodons, tyrannosaurs and pterodactyls, etc.

Semimen-semibirds, like kimnaras and sirens 

People astride polydactyl horses, prehistoric elephants, alticameluses, dinosaurs

Operations on ablation of extremities (limbs), transplantation of kidneys, hearts, trepanation of sculls and replanting of brain and so on

Geographical and star maps with images of known and unknown continents, the suns, stars, comets and "people" watching them

Erotic scenes of obvious homosexual activity, etc.

'People', or more correctly 'Hominid' images engraved on the Ica stones differ from modern humans with their depiction of an anatomically larger head. Their head size to torso relationship is 1:3 or 1:4, and for modern humans this ratio is 1:6 – 1:7) their heads show a slanting forehead. These 'hominids' appear to belong to a different branch of the Homo sapiens tree, something like a very large Neanderthal, or other Giant hominids. Kabrera had a similar point of view and considered that hominids on the Ica stones probably were not our grandparents.

One of the earliest mentions of the engraved stones is found in Juan de la Santa Cruz Pachakuti's report “The List of Documents of the Antiquity from Peru” (1613). In that report , Santa Cruz states that “...during governing of Pachakuti’s Inca Jupanka (1438-1471) in the region where Ica province is situated today, great number of stones with engravings had been revealed.” 

The reference to the Ica stones at the beginning of 17th century reduces to zero a probability they ALL are modern hoaxes. Of course, the document in question has to be verified, but it is unlikely that records of that antiquity will be lost in any short time frame, because several copies exist. The main record is probably held in the Spanish National Archives, and a copy in the National Archives of Peru.

However, that being said, and provenance being established, it is still likely that indigent farmers of this area, when confronted with tourist traffic that will pay for 'relics', find it reasonable and easy to create a cottage industry producing local similar fresh 'copies' to meet that tourist demand. With provenance being established for at least some of the Ica Stone, does not mean they all are authentic, any more than if does if some of the stones are copies, means they all are copies. The real conundrum is we don't know at this point which is which.

Understanding provenance on all stones being impossible to ascertain, does not in any way negate the provenance of various report from the 1500’s and later. It remains up to qualified specialists to find reasonable means to validate the authentic from the copies. In conclusion, some of the stones have been recorded in the mid to late 1500's and some of them are more than likely local forgeries. At the current time it is difficult to ascertain which is which, although dating methods should be available that can determine patina dating. I would suggest that a blanket acceptance on all stones would be as foolish as denial of authenticity of all stones. 

It is up to individual researches to do their own due diligence and research to determine which stones are authentically 'ancient' and which are modern.

An Ica stone depicting a man riding an Apatosaurus.

The depiction of the skin texture and patterning on various dinosaurs on Ica stones is “dead on” as confirmed by every paleontologist that the stones were shown to. Since the discovery of fossilized dinosaur skin in 1992, it has been suggested that the large circles (not the small ones of which there are many more), would have most likely been located on the animals in places where the skin did not move as much, such as the side instead of near joints such as hips. This is how the circular patterning is shown on the animals on these stones.

On the left stone a man is shown riding a Triceratops.

Note that the textured skin shown on the animal was not known by scientists until 1992. Not to mention the amazing fact that this stone shows a warrior riding a Triceratops!

The stone to the right depicts an image of a man riding a pterosaur for battle purposes. Note the clear skin texture that is evident on all dinosaurs on Ica stones, as well as the dagger in the warrior’s hand. It even seems to show membrane skin on the wings and not feathers or hair, indicating these indigenous natives must have seen living specimens to have such anatomical knowledge. 

I obtained several large photos of the ICA stones from the Wikimedia Commons website and they are displayed below without much comment. All ICA Stones photos are used with permission.

What the authentic stones do seem to suggest is that we have some chronology of the history of life muddled up a bit. The stone’s story seems to say in quite clear detail, that a form of humans, not necessarily modern man, or even Cro-Magnon, coexisted with very large animals, including what we call ‘dinosaurs’. 

The fact that Stegosaurus spine plates are visible on many of the drawings, and those plates were not discovered until 1992 suggests another avenue of authenticating that man and dinosaur coexisted at some time on this planet. Based on other depictions, glyph's, carvings and legends from around the world, these animals probably existed up through the recent Epoch.

First, there are the references from the Jesuit missionaries in 1535 and in 1562; the Spanish sent some of the stones back to Spain. 

Second, archaeologists found stones in Paracas, Tiahuanaco, and Ica tombs dating from 500 B.C. to 1,000 A.D. 

Third, laboratory tests indicate a degree of antiquity with patina covering the grooves of the stones. 

Fourth, microscopic analysis reveals that there is no evidence that rotary tools or saw blades were used to carve the stones that were tested. 

Fifth, there are twelve Moche vases in Peruvian museums dating from 70 A.D. to 900 A.D. with dinosaurs on them. 

Sixth, a Nazca textile depicts thirty-one dinosaur figures. The textile was found in a Nazca tomb. The textile had been authenticated and dated from 400 A.D. to 700 A.D. 

There are over thirty thousand figures engraved on more than three thousand stones discovered in Southern Peru in 1951 at Toro Muerto, far from the Ica Providence. Many of the stones are engraved like those in the Cabrera Museum in bas relief style.

The stones are believed to be done by the Wari who inhabited the region from 500 to 1,000 A.D. Some of the stones depict dinosaurs. 

An engraved stone with dinosaurs and other animals was excavated from a tomb near the Rio Grande Palpa. The stone had been found in a Nazca tomb and has been dated from 400 to 700 A.D. There were about thirty eyewitnesses to the discovery.

The conclusion is quite clear. Many of the stones from the Nazca-Ica area are from historically recent time. Many may be copies created simply to sell to the tourist trade. This should not be shocking to researchers, professionals, science, or academia, as it is a time worn practice in many other ‘archaeology’ sites around the world. Some of the copies may be very sophisticated reproductions, where an artificial ‘aging’ process is created (baked) onto the surface. Others are cruder, and easier to identify.

The various locations where the stones are found and the different patina layering suggests the stones, like the Pre-Inca and Inca cultures survived across quite different periods of time.

The stones themselves suggest a possibility of three periods of manufacture. One is current (within 40-60 years) consisting of fakes, forgeries and copies. 

The second is ‘recent’, based on light patina and oxidation; this could be anything from near current to a pre-Columbian era around 1,000 AD. 

The third is the authentically genuine old stones that show a very high degree of patina, aging, encrustations, and uniform weathering.

Last, it is important to keep a level view of this material phenomenon. This is an ‘all’ or ‘none’ proposition for both sides of the Evolution vs Creation debate. Both sides have a very strong motive to prove one side or the other wrong, based on their particular world view and belief systems. The authentic stones do not prove anything about creationism. We are not able to determine their age, the method of carving, the method of producing bas relief images, or whether they are a library, or a written language. We do not have the first clue as to their purpose or meaning, other than they are found in many grave sites.

So it is less than genuine to speculate on their subjective relationship to any theology. On the other hand, fakes and forgeries do not in the least invalidate authentic stones. It is not necessary to invalidate the whole lot in order to disprove a ‘Gradualism’ or creationist view. What the authentic stones do seem to suggest is that we have some chronology of the history of life muddled up a bit. The stone’s story seems to say in quite clear detail, that a form of humans, not necessarily modern man, or even Cro-Magnon, coexisted with very large animals, including what we call ‘dinosaurs’, and in all probability, in the not too distant past.

The fact that Stegosaurus spine plates are visible on many of the drawings, and those plates were not discovered until 1992 suggests another avenue of authenticating that man and dinosaur coexisted at some time on this planet.

Based on other depictions, glyphs, carvings and legends from around the world, these animals probably existed up through the recent Epoch.

In conclusion, there are more than 30,000 Ica Stones from Peru. Many are copies and fakes, and many more are original artifacts from burial sites that date back 700 or more years. (Carbon dated results are based on grave remains (pottery, linens, etc. in the graves where one or more ICA stones were removed from). Experts surmise there are more than 200,000 + stones still unearthed. It appears the stones were some kind on intelligent “library” or some similar mechanism. It would seem to me a logical assumption that a surviving group from a devastating cataclysm might try to record their pre-cataclysm history while the memories were still fresh. The pictographs on the stones make the case that the original civilization was quite advanced.

ICA Stones Bibliography:

Cientifico Descubre Dinosaurios en Ica. Ojo-Lima, Domingo 03 de Octobre de 1993, p. 7.

Juan de Santa Cruz Pachacuti Llamquie: Relacion de antiquedades deste reyno del Piru. 1571.

Interviews with Dr. Javier Cabrera, his sister, Isabel Cabrera, and his daughter, Eugenia Cabrera.
Herman buse. Introduccion Al Peru. Lima, 1965

Santiago Agurto Calvo. “Las piedras magicas de Ocucaje”. El Comercio. Lima, 11 December, 1966.

Alejandro Pezzia Asserto. Ica y el Peru Precolombino. Volume I (Ica: 1968), p. 25ff.

Erich Von Daniken. According to the Evidence. (Souvenier Press: Great Britain, 1976), pp 284ff.

Ryan Drum. “The Cabrera Rocks,” Info Journal. No. 17 (May, 1976), p. 10.

Robert Charrous. L’Enigme des Andes Editions. (Robert Laffont: Paris, 1974), p. 72.

“The Amazing Ica Stones. The Peruvian Times. (August, 25, 1972).

Roy L. Moodie. “Injuries to the Head among the Pre-Columbian Peruvians”. Annals of Medical History. (Vol. 9), p 278

Alejandro Pezzia Asserto. Ica y el Peru Pre-Colombino, Vol. 1. (Ica: 1968)

John W. Verano. “Prehistoric Disease and Demography in the Andes.” In Disease and Demography in the Americas. Ed. J. Verano and D. Ubelaker, pp. 15-24, (Washington D.C. and London: Smithsonian Institution Press), 1992.

John W. Verano. “Physical Evidence of Human Sacrifice in Ancient Peru.” In Ritual Sacrifice in Ancient Peru.

Ed. Elizabeth P. Benson and Anita G. Gouv, (Austin: University of Texas Press), 2001, pp. 165-184.

John M. Jensen Jr.

JohnMJensenJr@gmail.com 

- AncientCanalBuilders.com

- EarthEpochs.com

- govst.academia.edu/JohnJensen

T-Rex and the Carbon 14 Dating Controversy

For openers, I would like to assure you that I am not in the least bit an advocate or supporter for any religious-creationists views, nor am I a supporter or advocate for long term gradualism-evolution. Neither seems to me, to fit the natural and observable facts of our known biological envelope.  John Jensen

T-Rex and the Carbon 14 Dating Controversy

Scientists tell us that Dinosaurs lived up until about 65 million years ago, when an asteroid about 6 miles across, slammed into the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico. The asteroid may have happened, but it certainly did not kill off all the dinosaurs. This paper will make the case that Dinosaurs survived well into the early Holocene based on 14c tests of non-fossilize dinosaur bones, (including T-Rex and similar sized dinosaurs) showing the results of more than 60 'blind' 14c tests in major worldwide laboratories which returned dates between 12,000 YBP and 42,000 YBP. We will discuss in detail the discovery of Dr. Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina State and her discovery of 'collagen and hemoglobin element' in a T-Rex hind limb.

Photo was taken at the Museum of Natural Science, Milano, Italy by Stefano Bolognini, Nov, 2009.

Soft Tissue from a T-Rex Dinosaur?

The following is NOT all my own original material, though it substantially follows my personal research. Extracted from an article by Brad Harrub, PhD - and other printed publications, papers and materials.
It is not a secret that DNA cannot stand up to harsh environmental factors such as heat or intense pressure. 

Additionally, we know that the molecular structure of DNA begins to break down rapidly after an organism dies. Scott Woodward and his colleagues observed: “Nucleic acids have limited life expectancies under physiological conditions, and DNA is particularly susceptible to oxidative and hydrolytic damage” (Woodward, et al., 1994, p. 1229). This rapid degradation was one of the arguments the defense used to discount the blood evidence in O.J. Simpson’s famous double-murder trial.

It was also the picture painted in the famous movie Jurassic Park. Moviegoers learned that DNA could not sustain the test of time—but blood-sucking insects preserved in amber still possessed usable DNA. 

And from that people began to speculate: “Could we create a living dinosaur from DNA?” That question has been recast into the spotlight as researchers made an amazing announcement. The Washington Post reported: 

Soft tissue found within a dinosaur bone!? How could that be? “For more than a century, the study of dinosaurs has been limited to fossilized bones. Now, researchers have recovered 70-million-year-old soft tissue, including what may be blood vessels and cells, from a Tyrannosaurus Rex” (Schmid, 2005, emp. added). 

In a Science article titled “Tyrannosaurus Rex Soft Tissue Raises Tantalizing Prospects,” Erik Stokstad commented: “On page 1952, the team led by Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina State University in Raleigh describes dinosaur blood vessels— "still flexible and elastic after 65 million years—and apparently intact cells” (2005, 307:1852). In the opening abstract of their report, Schweitzer and her colleagues remarked:

“Soft tissues are preserved within hind limb elements of Tyrannosaurus Rex (Museum of the Rockies specimen 1125). Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels containing small round micro structures that can be expressed from the vessels into solution. 

Some regions of demineralized bone matrix are highly fibrous, and the matrix possesses elasticity and resilience. Three populations of micro structures have cell-like morphology. Thus, some dinosaur soft tissues may retain some of their original flexibility, elasticity, and resilience." (2005, 307:1952, parenthetical item in orig.).”

The authors go on to disclose that this Tyrannosaurus Rex specimen was discovered “at the base of the Hells Creek Formation, 8m above the Fox Hills Sandstone” (307:1952). They estimated the creature’s age at approximately 18-years-old. However, the fascinating part of this report was in the pictures. Schweitzer and her colleagues included over 20 microscopic images of the soft tissue that was recovered from the dinosaur bone.
Schweitzer and her colleagues carried out an experiment in which they applied a weak acid to demineralize the dinosaur bone. They observed: 

“After 7 days, several fragments of the lining tissue exhibited unusual characteristics not normally observed in fossil bone. Removal of the mineral phase left a flexible vascular tissue that demonstrated great elasticity and resilience upon manipulation. In some cases, repeated stretching was possible.” (307:1954).

In a personal communication, Schweitzer discussed the serendipitous way in which the material was discovered. The Washington Post account mentioned that the bone was broken when it was moved, which permitted access to the soft tissues. When asked if that was, indeed, true, Mary Schweitzer responded: “Yes and no. It was broken in the field—too heavy for the helicopter in one piece. But that only allowed access to the bone chunks they didn’t need to ‘rehabilitate’ the dino. The soft tissues were not immediately apparent or expected” (Harrub, 2005, emp. in orig.). By having more than one piece, Schweitzer and her colleagues were able to get a better view of the internal aspects of the bone.

Expected or not, the end result has opened a chasm of questions. Scientists are questioning how this soft protein material can be so fresh when it was discovered in “70 million year old bones.” Maybe the question they should be asking is: “Are we sure these bones are so old, given that they contain such fresh proteins and elastic soft tissue?” In the conclusion of their report, Schweitzer and her colleagues noted:

“However, we demonstrate the retention of pliable soft-tissue blood vessels with contents that are capable of being liberated from the bone matrix, while still retaining their flexibility, resilience, original hollow nature, and three-dimensionality.... This T. Rex also contains flexible and fibrillar bone matrices that retain elasticity” (307:1955).

This scientific evidence does not hold up under typical dinosaur age timelines.

In the description of one of the images included in the report the authors observed: “Round red microstructures within the vessels are clearly visible” (307:1953). The report in Science News further proclaimed: “The researchers squeezed round, microscopic structures out of the presumed T. rex blood vessels. Those small spheres, which ranged from dark red to deep brown, may be red blood cells, says Schweitzer.” (Perkins, 2005, 167:195). When asked if the contents of the blood vessels were indeed blood cells, Schweitzer gave a carefully guarded answer. She stated: 

“I don’t know what any of it is until I do tests. I have been in paleontology enough to know that just because something looks like something we recognize does not mean that it is” (Harrub, 2005, emp. in orig.) –‘a wise response, given the negative response from the scientific community to her 1997 discovery in which she mentioned blood cells from dinosaur tissue. In that article she described the moment in the laboratory in which it became apparent:

“The lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center. Then a colleague took one look at them and shouted, ‘You’ve got red blood cells. You’ve got red blood cells.” (Schweitzer and Staedter, 1997, p. 55). 

The colleague that “took one look” was University of Montana professor, “Dinosaur Jack” Horner, one of America’s best-known paleontologists, who discovered his first dinosaur fossil when he was eight years old. So in the past it was red blood cells. But now we have soft tissue—including blood vessels! 

Iron-clad "Dinosaur-era" tissue from "70-million year old" Mosasaur: 

In this peer-reviewed report by researchers including from Lund University in Sweden and Southern Methodist University in Dallas, scientists confirm another biological tissue discovery using sophisticated techniques to rule out modern contamination, bio-film, etc., concluding that original biological collagen exists in a small bone from an extinct marine reptile called a Mosasaur. Yet according to a report in Science Magazine as it relates to the discoveries of dinosaur tissue, scientists calculate the maximum survival time of collagen not in millions but in thousands of years.

More Soft Dinosaur Tissue, Now from an "80 Million" Year Old Hadrosaur:

According to Nat'l Geographic, there's yet another discovery of soft tissue in a dinosaur, this time, a Hadrosaur, with soft blood vessels, connective tissue, and blood cell protein amino acid chains partially sequenced at Harvard University. This allegedly 80-million year-old non-fossilized duck-billed dinosaur tissue was discovered by a team led by researchers at North Carolina State University. Harvard, et al., wanted to get some soft dinosaur tissue so they put together a team and just went out and found some. 

Consider all the potential soft tissue, and perhaps even DNA, lost to humanity because of secular universities ignoring outside claims of a false evolutionary timescale (65 million year old extinction of dinosaurs) which has so biased paleontologists that they would never even look for non-decomposed original biological tissue inside of dinosaur bones.

For decades these kinds of announcements have been mostly just ignored because of the old-earth evolutionary assumptions. But now that original dinosaur tissue has been repeatedly confirmed, the existence of biological material and even living bacteria in allegedly million-year-old specimens should be acknowledged and re-assessed. 

As listed by Dr. Walt Brown…

• Allegedly 17 million year old magnolia leaf contains DNA (Scientific American 1993)
• Allegedly 18 million year old salamander muscle and vessels filled with blood (Proc. Roy. Soc. 2009)
• Allegedly 40 million year old bee fossil contains LIVING bacteria (Science 1995)
• Allegedly 120 million year old insect fossil contains DNA (Nature 1993)
• Allegedly 200 million year old fish fossil contains DNA (Science. News 1992)
• Allegedly 400 million year old fish amino acids (Journal of Applied Genetics 2003).
• Allegedly 600 million year old rock contains LIVING bacillus (Nature 2000).

Biological Material from a "150-Million" Year Old Archaeopteryx:

One would think that these "dinosaur-era" finds would be trumpeted as the scientific discovery of our age. But as late as 2012, so many evolutionists whom we talk to at RSF: 

1. Have never even heard of these developments
2. Initially deny them (soft-tissue deniers) 
3. Assume that it must be creationists who found the sample, repeating the debunked claims that these are not dinosaur tissue but bacterial biofilm contamination.
4. Now the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reports the discovery of various types of original biological material in archaeopteryx feathers and bones that allegedly has survived for 150 million years. 

The New Scientist report, "Soft tissue remnants discovered in Archaeopteryx,” put it: 

‘It boasts more than just...impressions of long-gone feathers. One of the world's most famous fossils...Archaeopteryx – also contains remnants of the feathers' soft tissue. ... "It's amazing that that chemistry is preserved after 150 million years."

Paleontologists had long thought that only impressions remained. [But] "There is soft-tissue chemistry preserved in places that people didn't expect it," says geochemist Roy Wogelius. [RSF: Not enough biological material was discovered to call it tissue but only remnants of tissue.] 

Carbon-14 found everywhere it’s not supposed to be 
(even in "dinosaur era" fossils):

C-14 decays in only thousands of years and therefore cannot last for millions. Thus evolutionists did not expect to find C-14 EVERYWHERE it shouldn't be if the earth were old (Answers, 2011). Carbon-14 is found in coal, oil, limestone, fossil wood, graphite, natural gas, marble, dinosaur fossils, and even in supposedly billion-year-old diamonds! A secondary assumption by old-earth scientists proposed that the C-14 in diamonds (coal, etc.) must have come from C-13 and neutron capture. Calculations can falsify this claim as Dr. Jonathan Sarfati argues, for scarce crustal radioactivity could explain less than one 10,000th of the C-14 in diamonds, and similarly, there would have to be thousands of times more uranium, thorium, etc. throughout the earth's crust everywhere that these globally dispersed materials are found.)

That Mosasaur (above), shown by researchers to have original biological material and not contamination, also contained five percent modern carbon. Radiocarbon also exists even in supposedly million-year-old two-mile deep natural gas wells (CRSQ Fall 2007): "Once again, fossil gas is not carbon-14 dead. Thus, the age of the gases is on the order of thousands, not millions of years.” See more at RSF's List of Not So Old Things and in Round Four of our debate with AronRa. C-14 in specimens supposedly millions or a billion years old is so ubiquitous that it is longer an anomaly. And while Gradualists had hoped they could attribute it to contamination, Dr. John Baumgardner, of Los Alamos National Labs has documented in Dec, 2010 Creation Matters that C-14 exists even in the hardest naturally-occurring, contamination-resistant substance on earth, within diamonds.

Summary of supporting evidence for accuracy and reliability for the significant presence of C-14 in dinosaur bones and therefore young RC ages.


Short Summary: The most obvious scientific justification for accepting the RC ages for dinosaurs in the thousands of years is the concordance of RC ages between bone collagen and bone bio-apatite. If the date for a particular specimen is questionable or controversial RC dating labs recommend that the C-14 testing be repeated on several fractions using AMS and/or on larger samples using both AMS and conventional C-14 methods. We have made such repetitive tests and we obtain dates in the 22,000-33,000 range for dinosaur bones each time a different dinosaur bone or portion of the bone was tested for C-14. For example: Triceratops collagen was 30,080 ± 200 using AMS and 33,830 +2910/-1960 using the conventional method with a large sample (See Table 1).

Further Chart of C-14 test of additional non fossilized dinosaur bones.

Conclusion to RC (C-14) Dating Dinosaur Bones

It is a really simple question, Dr. Schweitzer. "Why not AMS RC (14c) test the so-called T-Rex hind limb? It is a straight forward 'falsification' step in the process. Why will Academia not test ANY dinosaur bones that show 'elastic collagen and hemoglobin elements"? It IS being done in other parts of the world, and now with more than 360 results in Eurasia, and more than 65 results here in North America, we are reaching the threshold where Science and Academia begin to lose their credibility. 

The answer has nothing to do with the long held animosity between Science and Religion, but has everything to do with the actual truth. Which is, "Dinosaur have lived on this planet for a very long time, and NOT all, although some MAY have, gone extinct 65 million years ago. In fact, some may have lived well into the mid to late Holocene. 

John M. Jensen Jr.

JohnMJensenJr@gmail.com 

- AncientCanalBuilders.com

- EarthEpochs.com

- Academia.edu/JohnJensen

Photos:  All Photos are included under the ‘fair use’ act for non-profit, educational, or training purposes. Most are included from Government or other Public Domain sources. Private or copyright photos are attributed where possible. This online eBook is an education-research publication.