Acknowledgments: I want to thank those who have been helpful in gathering data on this case, especially John Marwitt, Ronnie Hastings, Jim Foley, Jim Moore, and Jim Kirkland.
Although many of you may have been following the Malachite Man thread with interest, for those who may not have, allow me to summarize it.
For months David Willis has argued that a set of green bones referred to as "Malachite Man" was found in situ in Cretaceous sandstone in a copper mine somewhere in Utah. David made the following assertions about Malachite Man, some of which he repeated numerous times.
1. The bones were found 50 feet deep.
2. The bones were encased in extremely hard sandstone.
3. Some of the bones were heavily mineralized.
4. There was no evidence of intrusive burial.
5. The rock encasing the bones is considered 150
million years old by mainstream geologists.
6. The bones were in the same formation as
nearby Dinosaur National Monument.
7. The bones were found only a couple years ago
(1995 or 1996, depending on the email message)
8. Malachite Man is different from the "Moab Man"
and "similar" finds of years past.
In case anyone wishes to challenge whether these assertions were made, they are documented at the end of this post with excerpts from relevant messages.
In was evident from several of David's statements that the source of David's information about this find was Don Patton. Patton is also named as the person to whom questions should be directed about the material at the web site
www.bible.ca/tracks-malachite.htm
which displays seven photos of "Malachite Man." One photo showed the site shown from a distance, in which no bones are visible. Two of the photos showed a femur and a jaw detached from the site, whose origin and context is unverifiable. The femur appears unusually bright green. The remaining four photos show duller-green human bones still in matrix at the site. These of course are the most important in terms of indicating original site context and postures. Curiously, unlike normal scientific practice, none of these photos include captions indicating the date of the discovery, mine name and location, or anything else, except the label "Malachite Man." However, David often referred us to these photos while discussing Malachite Man and his assertions about the bones and the matrix. At least some of the assertions were directly attributed to Don Patton.
Although I hate to spoil the plot, in order to pique everyone's interest let me announce from the start that a careful review of the evidence indicates that none of the 8 assertions enumerated above is true. Not only are they lacking in empirical support, but they are contradicted by the available evidence (which I will get to momentarily).
While David was making the above claims, I and others asked for verification of them in the form of detailed documentation, which is only reasonable. We explained that before the find could be confirmed as a non-intrusive burial we would need to see results of comparisons between the bones and others in the formation--in terms of color, composition, type and degree of fossilization; as well as comparisons of the matrix contacting the bone with that farther from it. Others requested documentation regarding the geology and mapping of the site, dating of the bones, etc. However, nothing approaching this kind of documentation was ever provided.
In fact, in follow-up inquiries we could not even obtain answers to basic questions about the case, such as the name of person who discovered the bones, the name and precise location of the mine, the names of on-site workers, any reports or publications (whether scientific or popular) on the find. This seemed particularly odd, since David himself had chided us for not showing more interest in the find.
David repeatedly suggested we should be able to just look at the web site photos and confirm his statements about the bones and matrix. However, as has been pointed out before, such claims cannot be determined from photos alone. And regardless, the basic questions about the find must be answered in order for it to garner any scientific credibility. I'm sure David would demand no less from any "evolutionist" find.
David recently complained about me taking "5 months" to address a highly technical article about radio halos which I did not even present, and for which I have no obligation to address--any more than he is obligated to personally address the hundreds of papers on radiometric dating that contradict Gentry's YEC position. In contrast, David himself presented the Malachite Man case to the group as a challenge to "open minded evolutionists." Yet almost a year has gone by since he presented this find, without answers to the some of the simplest questions about it. Something doesn't add up.
Members who have written to Don Patton directly were no more successful in obtaining the answers. David did forward a message from Patton to the group about the find, but it addressed other issues, without answering the basic questions.
One of David's rationales for this situation was that the information might be used to "discredit Patton." This stands logic on its head. Answering the answers would only bolster the credibility of the find and make it more difficult for anyone to challenge--assuming the original claims and answers were sound and consistent. Of course, if they were not, this would be equally important to know. Personally, I don't understand why David presented the find to the group without first finding out these basic facts for himself.
Since we could not get these answers from the DW/Patton team, some of us decided to do some "digging" on our own. Even though the information provided was sketchy, I immediately I noticed a striking similarity between this case and the well discredited "Moab Man" from years past. Both were said to involve:
- Green human bones (relatively rare)
- Major portions of two skeletons.
- A copper mine in Utah
- Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone.
This started me wondering: could the finds be from the same mine and even the same burial plot? If so, it would seem that the Moab Man and Malachite Man bones might have other features in common as well. Then an even more interesting thought occurred to me: could the "Malachite Man" bones shown on the web site actually be the same Moab Man bones found over 25 years ago? --despite DW's insistence that the finds were different? At first this seemed far fetched, but then something interesting developed. Before I describe that, it will be useful to summarize the history of the Moab Man find.
The "Moab Man" or "Moab skeletons" as they came to be known, consisted of the major portions of two greenish-colored skeletons found in Big Indian Copper mine near Moab, Utah in 1971. The discoverer was a local rockhound named Lin Ottinger, who stumbled on the bones while leading a field trip of mineral collectors in the mine. A bulldozer there had recently removed about 15 feet of overburden, revealing the bones and damaging some of them. Within days the find was investigated by John Marwitt, who was then the Field Director of the Utah Statewide Archaeological Survey. Marwitt led the remainder of the excavation, and described the bones as resting in loose, poorly consolidated blowsand and sandy matrix, not consolidated rock or hard sandstone. Marwitt indicated that all the bones were completely unfossilized, and in postures reminiscent of known Indian burials. The bones were stained a bluish-green color from contact with copper bearing sediments. Marwitt concluded that the bones were unquestionably intrusive burials, and were probably only hundreds of years old.
Marwitt conveyed his observations to a local reporter from the Times Independent newspaper in Utah, who also came to review the find. Unfortunately, as Marwitt later lamented, apparently the reporter was more interested in a "story" than the truth, and ended up presenting the find as a geologic "mystery" and ignoring much of what he described about it.
Subsequently Clifford Burdick (1973) discussed the Moab bones as likely out-of-order fossils in a CRSQ article, perhaps basing his article mainly on the newspaper account. The find was again sensationalized as a "mysterious" find in Desert Magazine (Barnes, 1975), and a shorter but similarly hyped account in a 1978 book entitled Weird America by Jim Brandon, both of which misrepresented several aspects of Marwitt's observations and conclusions.
During the mid-1980's Paluxy "man track" enthusiast Carl Baugh resurrected the Moab skeletons as alleged out-of-order fossils. Mr. Baugh purchased some of the bones from Lin Ottinger (reportedly he paid $10,000 for most of one skeleton), and for a while displayed the bones in his little museum in Glen Rose, Texas. However, before long mainstream Paluxy workers James Farlow and Ron Hastings began looking into the Moab Man case, and obtained much pertinent information from Dr. Marwitt (by this time Marwitt had left Utah and taken a position as Assistant Professor of Anthropology at the University of Akron in Ohio).
In the late 1980's some of the bones were dated by a UCLA lab, yielding an age of 210 +/- 70 years (Berger and Protsch, 1989). Shortly thereafter Arthur Strahler (1989) published his book Science and Earth History, a chapter of which recounted the Moab Man saga. Subsequently the case seemed to be largely abandoned by creationists.
Corroboration of Strahler's account is found in a draft of a book chapter by researchers Eckert and Eckert (c. 1979), excerpts of which are included near the end of this message. The condition of the bones also corresponds to the observations of Ron Hastings and I when we inspected them and chatted with Lin Ottinger at his rock shop in Utah in 1988, as well as the observations of Hastings, Kirk Person, and others who inspected the bones Baugh had in his museum around the same time. All the information was also confirmed during my recent communications with Dr. Marwitt (more on that below).
Among the literature and correspondence in my Moab Man file was a copy of the 1975 Desert Magazine article, which features several photographs of the Moab Man find. As I pored over these photos, something seemed eerily familiar. I decided to access Patton's web site and compare them to the "Malachite Man" photos there.
By now many of you may be a step ahead of me. Not only did the photos at both the web site and in the magazine confirm that the burial site was the same, but upon closer inspection, it was clear that the bones shown in both sets of photos (at least all those shown in matrix) were in fact the very same bones. The bones are laid out in the exact same positions and orientations as in the magazine photos. In fact, they can be matched bone for bone--with only slight differences in camera angle. Further, the man pictured in both sets of photos was none other than Lin Ottinger, the discover of Moab Man. In both photos Ottinger is shown leaning over the bones in a similar manner, with the same wisk brush, sporting the same hairdo, and wearing the same plaid shirt.
I only had black and white photocopies of the Desert Magazine photos to work with, but they are clear enough to demonstrate the above statements. (I am attempting to obtain copies of the original photos, in case anyone cares to question this). A comparison of two photos in particular seem to say a thousand words: a photo from the web site and one from the magazine that each show Ottinger and the bones together, which are provided below for your convenience. As Marwitt and others also pointed out, one can see that Ottinger was working with a hand trowel and brush--which would not be very useful if the matrix were hard sandstone.
Left: Color photo from "Malachite Man" web page. Right: black & white photo from Desert Magazine. Both show the original Moab Man find of 1971 and Lin Ottinger, the discoverer.
The ramifications of this are staggering, regarding the major discrepancies between what David and Patton led us to believe about the pictured bones, and what was reported by the only scientist who studied and excavated the pictured bones on site. Perhaps a chart will best summarize the stark differences.
Willis/Patton claims Evidence reported by Marwitt ------------------------ ---------------------------- Bones 50 feet deep Bones approx. 15 feet deep Bones in extremely hard Bones in soft, sandy matrix. sandstone. Some bones heavily mineralized All bones unmineralized (not fossilized at all). No evidence of intrusion Clearly intrusive Bones found c. 1995 Bones found in 1971 Different from Moab Man Same bones shown in web photos of "Malachite Man" and 25+ year old Moab Man article. The bones are in situ in The mine contains Dakota Fm. Dakota Formation. but the bones are intrusive (unrelated to age of formation) Dakota Fm is considered The Dakota Fm is regarded as approx. 150 million years old by 90-115 million years old (late mainstream geologists (late Aptian-Cenomanian), straddling the Early Cretaceous and Late Cretaceous. In central Utah, the Dakota Fm. is dated at approx. 92-95 my (Kirkland, 1998) Bones are in the same Dinosaur National Monument formation as Dinosaur is nearby, but DNM is in the National Monument Morrison Fm, which is Jurassic. No info on comparison to Composition and appearance of the other bones in formation bones was unlike others in nearby formations.
(2-27-97) "The skeletons are fully articulated"
(4-16-97) "You will see that the human bones are disarticulated."
As to what the implications of all this are for DW and his information source, I don't think I have to say much more.
However, there are still a few loose ends to the story that should be tied up. None do anything to salvage their credibility on the case, but they should be discussed to complete the picture.
While researching this case I located Dr. Marwitt, who is now retired. Dr. Marwitt indicated that some similar human bones were found at the mine about 8 years ago, very near the location of the original Moab skeletons. Apparently they were part of the same burial plot. Marwitt further explained that these bones were investigated by a female archaeologist from the Utah BLM (whom I am in the process of contacting now). He indicated that the bones in this second find were reported to be consistent with those of the original "Moab skeletons", namely that they exhibited greenish stains but were entirely unfossilized, and embedded in poorly compacted, sandy matrix, which was much softer than the hard sandstone of the Dakota formation which surrounded the burial void.
Although the date of this second find seems to be reasonably consistent with DW's comment about a similar 1990 find, unfortunately it does nothing to resolve the serious discrepancies listed above. We are still left with web site photos attributed to a recent Malachite Man find that were actually taken of the original Moab Man find over 25 years ago. We're still left with numerous assertions by DW/Patton that utterly contradict the evidence reported by the scientist who studied and excavated the bones shown in matrix at the web site, or the observations of another scientist who studied the 1990 find, who indicated that the properties of the second set of bones were (not surprisingly) very much like the first.
Even if DW and Patton were to now suggest their assertions match some other find we have not seen yet (at this point I doubt anyone would have the patience for that), they'd still be obligated to produce the detailed documentation for that. And they'd still have resolve the serious discrepancies noted above. They should also explain why they never mentioned any of publications or information sources available on the known finds at the mine. The bottom line is that we don't have one shred of evidence to support their assertions as listed at the start of this essay, and much evidence that contradicts them.
At some point we have to consider the implications of all this in terms of credibility and integrity. Even before this, David's favorite source had less than a stellar track record. Patton has had a long string of claims and promotions that are considered dubious, false, or downright embarrassing even by most creationists. Examples include the "Burdick track" (a carving, and not even a good one), other "man track" claims, another example was a supposed Cretaceous "human tooth"--which turned out to be a fish tooth (Hastings, 1995), the Creteceous "hammer" and "finger" not documented in-situ, a supposed Japanese "plesiosaur"--actually a decayed basking shark (Kuban 1998), a pterosaur walking behind a human at the Taylor site (promoted in a video tape by Baugh and Patton), and others.
Now we have two recent cases that raise even more serious questions about approach and methodology: "Malachite Man" and a contrived, malicious rumor about me destroying a track. (which has still not been removed from the web site). These seem difficult to interpret in terms of innocent mistakes, at least for Patton. I hope David's role was only one of a pawn in these errors rather than an accomplice. However, I am disappointed that when I emailed David several days ago to ask if he could please explain the discrepancies before I sent this message to the group, I received no explanation. I doubt if I am the only one troubled by the pattern that has developed in Patton's work and claims, and the continual support David has given them. I wish David no ill will, but I'd suggest he has hitched himself to the wrong wagon.
It seems ironic that in one of his messages about Malachite Man, David wrote, "The photos were either hoaxed, or there is some unseen evidence...."(DW 4-10-97)
Glen J. Kuban
Berger, R. and R. Protsch, 1989. UCLA Radiocarbon Dates XI. Radiology. Vol.31, No. 1. pp. 55-67.
Burdick, Clifford, 1973. Discovery of Human Skeletons in Cretaceous Formation. Creation Research Society Quarterly. Vol. 10, pp. 109-110.
Kirkland, Jim, 1998. Email communication. Kirland has done extensive work in the Dakota formation of Utah. See for example: Eaton, J.G., Kirkland, J.I., and others, Nonmarine extinction across the Cenomanian-Turonian boundary, southwest Utah, with a comparison to the Cretaceous-Tertiart extinction event. Geologic Society of America Bulletin, Vo. 109. No. 5. pp. 560-567. Eckert, A. W. and N. D. Eckert. (c. 1979). Introductory chapter to The Encyclopedia of Unexplained Phenomena (draft).
Hastings, R. J. 1995. "A Tale of Two Teeth." Creation/Evolution. Issue 36, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Kuban, G. 1989. Sea-monster or Shark? Reports of the National Center for Science Education. Vol. 17, No. 3. pp. 16-28.
Strahler, A. 1989. Science and Earth History. Prometheus Books. pp. 470-471.
"The burials are completely modern type and were obviously
intrusive into the deposits in which they were found, but
evidently the [Times Independent] reporter in question
was looking for a story, not the truth."
- Letter from Marwitt to Dick Wilson, 10-19-71
"...Burdick's account of the human skeletons found near
Moab is not strictly true. The burials had apparently been
placed in the rock crevice (a common practice historically
and prehistorically) and fell to the bottom. Blasting and
bulldozing later removed the overburden and exposed the
burials. I took some pains to point to all concerned,
including the "Creation Research Society," that in no sense
could the human remains be seen as contemporary with the
sandstone deposit. The burials were surrounded with and
covered with loose blowsand; they were not in a rock matrix
as implied by Burdick. The bones themselves were not
fossilized and there had been no replacement of the bone
calcium by mineralization. They were soft, friable, and
partly decayed--in short, of rather recent vintage, probably
Paiute or Ute."
- Letter from Marwitt to Dr. Duane E. Jeffery,
Department of Zoology, Brigham Young University, 11-27-73.
A prevailing opinion among the writers of books dealing with unexplained phenomena is "Why are the scientists hiding things from the people? Why don't they investigate things with an open mind? "Why do they refuse to cooperate whenever something occurs that doesn't fit into all their highly-revered theories..."
As a matter of fact, the lament and its indictment of the scientific community is rarely justified. Scientists do investigate phenomena, usually very thoroughly. When they reach their conclusions, they do not hide them from the people...
Unfortunately, in far too many cases, those who are crying their laments loudest are those least interested in accepting the truth. They accuse the scientists of ignoring the evidence but then, when the answers are provided, it is the lamenters who ignore the scientists and what they have to say. A representative case in point turned up in the process of research for this book.
The authors had encountered tantalizing tidbits of information suggesting that human bones had been found in matrix semi-rock, in situ, in southeastern Utah. These bones were alleged to be in Mesozoic Era rocks of the Cretaceous Period and over 100 million years old. That is far older than the oldest human remains, by many millions of years and, if valid, would revolutionize existing theories about man's appearance on earth. The discovery had occurred about 35 miles southeast of Moab, Utah in a remote desert valley.
(The authors then recount the history of the find, including the accounts by the Times Independent, Burdick, and Barnes, and how they then decided to contact the scientist who actually worked on site with the bones)....
"...we set about trying to locate the anthropologist who figured so prominently in the case, John P. Marwitt...we wrote to him, explaining the nature of our book and its research in general and how it specifically concerned John Marwitt.
"Enclosed here you will find a copy of a one-page description of the occurrence and subsequent happenings. Would you please look it over an tell me whether or not the reporting is accurate. Unfortunately the reporter seems to have been unduly harsh in his commentary and it strikes us that there must be more than meets the eye here...."
The authors relate how only four days after mailing their letter they received a response from Marwitt, answering each of their questions in detail, as follows...
"In reply to your letter of July 27 regarding the Moab skeletons, I am enclosing copies of some of my correspondence in an effort to disabuse you of the notion that this find was the 'momentous anthropological discovery' claimed by Brandon. What we have here is a manufactured mystery which has survived to the present only because a few journalists are more interested in peddling sensation than in telling the truth...I hope that you will set the record straight. To this end, even though the enclosed correspondence answers most of your questions, I will reply in detail below. [Marwitt wrote even more than is recorded here; I will gladly send anyone a copy of the actually chapter draft upon request].
Q: Were the bones first located by Lin Ottinger and later excavated
by you actually Homo sapiens?
A: Yes, the bones were H. sapiens, as claimed.
Q: What was the rock or semi-rock material in which these bones
were discovered.
A: The bones were surrounded with and covered by loose blowsand
and rotted sandstone spalls, not consolidated or semiconsolidated
rock....
Q: Were the bones actually found in situ.
A: The bones were not found in situ insofar as being a part of
or included in the sandstone formation...
"I again emphasize that the bones were not associated with or included in any rock formation, but with loose blowsand and sandstone spalls representing the fill of a crevice of some kind."
Q: When the bones were packed up and taken to the University of
Utah, what did the subsequent examination there show?
A: Examination at the University confirmed my field interpretation
to the effect that the bones were H. sapiens, that they were not
fossilized, and were essentially recent."
Q: If in actuality the bones are an anomaly in anthropology, how
has this affected the scientific community and what are the
conclusions drawn?
A: There is no scientific anomaly at all, and those members of
the 'scientific community' who (sic) I have informed of the
Moab finds have reacted with amusement and mild disgust to
the antics of those irresponsible journalists who manufactured
and perpetuated the hoax.
"I am very happy that unlike Brandon and others who have written about the Moab finds, you took the trouble to contact me before publication. I trust that your forthcoming book will give the reading public the true story and thereby dispose of the supposed mystery. Should you have further questions, feel free to contact me at your convenience..."
Sincerely,
John P. Marwitt
Associate Professor of Anthropology
As authors of THE ENCLYCLOPEDIA OF UNEXPLAINED PHENOMENA, we must add that we feel Dr. Marwitt's irritation at irresponsible journalism is wholly justified.
Comment by GK: I do not know if this book was ever published and am trying to determine that now. The person named "Brandon" is the author of the 1978 book WEIRD AMERICA, where Eckert and Eckert first ran across the Moab skeleton claims.
I would like to point out the dramatic difference between the way DW and Patton approached this find, and the approach of mainstream workers and investigators. From the former we got unsunstantiated claims, sketchy and inconsistent information, and evasion of follow-up questions. From the latter we receive specific and detailed data and descriptions, references, and prompt and informative responses to follow up questions.
"... the bones are encased in extremely hard (Patton says "your hammer rings when you hit the rock") sandstone... FIFTY FEET DOWN... (DW 4-10-97)
"...the bones themselves are encased in steel-hard sandstone..." (DW, 1-17-98)
Comment: Even the sensationalized Desert Magazine account indicated that the matrix was form but not like hard rock. Also, how could Patton's statements apply to the web site photos of bones in matrix, as David seemed to imply, when Patton was not even at the original dig? Marwitt indicated that the only people present during the excavation were himself, Ottinger, some reporters, and some tourists from Ohio.
"The photo I have show extremely heavy mineralization. In fact the caption says 'Bones are Replaced with Malachite and Turquoise.' And the photo shows an apparently SOLID piece of bright green Malachite in the shape of a human femur." (1-10-98)
Comment: A photo of a green bone does not allow one to know its composition, or distinguish a green stain from a solid composition of Malachite. All known bones studied by other workers at the site are described as unfossilized and only stained green. Perceptively, Jim Foley asked on 2-10-98, "Could there be a green patina of malachite with bone underneath it?"
"The fact that the bones are encased in extremely hard... sandstone...FIFTY FEET DOWN pretty much rules out burial." (4-10-97)
(Apparently with sarcasm:) "Yeah there must have been a fissure or cave opening...but all evidence of it was obliterated!...I could as justifiably assert that all the dinosaur bones at Dino National Monument were also intrusions..."
Comment: Not really. The evidence there is very different. Despite David's sarcasm, the bull dozers at the mine did remove the material above the bones (approx. 15 feet worth, not 50 feet), so any sign of an opening there would have been obliterated. The loose, unconsolidated nature of the matrix around the bones and their unfossilized state clearly supports an intrusive burial. In contrast, the bones at Dino Nat. Monument are in rock, and have not been bulldozed.
"But the Dakota formation surrounding Malachite Man is the exact same formation that surrounds the many dinosaurs at Dinosaur National Part [sic] not far away." (DW, 1-9-98)
Comment: The Bones at Dinosaur National Monument are actually Morrison Formation, which is Jurassic. Even if the formation were the same, it would be irrelevant in view of the intrusive nature of the copper mine bones.
"Subject: Re: Malachite musings" "..The latest of these finds were being unearthed in late 1995" (DW 4-10-97)
Comment: It is clear here that DW identified Malachite Man as a recent find, within the last couple years, aside from the fact that we have another discrepancy (the 3/97 post implies 1996, the 4/97 post implies the latest "Malachite Man" dig was in 1995) After these posts David often referred us to the web site photos of Malachite Man, and which are labeled "Malachite Man"--even though all the on-site bone photos there appear to be from the Moab Man find of over 25 years ago.
David also stated on 4-10-97 that the "strange color" of the bones "helps to confirm their authenticity." Quite the opposite. Marwitt stated that he knew of no bones in the Dakota formation that even resembled the bones in question, in either appearance or degree of mineralization. Moreover, no human or large mammal bones are documented from the Dakota or any other Mesozoic formation.
Final footnote: In case anyone wonders about the copyright situation on the photos displayed here, since both are over 25 years old, any copyright good for 17 years at the time--has expired.