But somehow the malachite bones date to 1450 yrs ago
I will grant to you that the date is a problem in my mind. However Patton has told me that because of the known infiltration from another location which did cause the mineralization of the bones, making them turn green and become partially malachite... then we should not be surprised that there is a younger c14 date. I believe if someone would attempt AMS dating of tooth pulp (they did find teeth), and if there was a young date for that then I would agree that the bones must have been recently intrusively buried. If the date is 4500 years or older, possibly up to 25,000 to 40000 then that would be consistent with humans who became buried by the flood. However I would expect that you would just blow that off and say that it was just some human who lived alongside Neanderthals. I guess in your mind that means heads you win tails I lose, eh?
BTW, Patton's video shows the still photos that were supplied by the Bureau of Land Management so that is all the evidence there is. But Patton does not say that all of the material surrounding the bones is rock hard. Some of it is what he would call partially consolidated sandstone. You can see the tooth marks of the back hoe in the side of the wall but it is certainly not just sand or else it would not be perpendicular nor would there be tooth marks visible remaining in the wall after twenty years. And you can see from the position of the body that the top part of it is gone but there is no way that a backhoe or bulldozer tore the body apart. If you are fair-minded you would see that as strong evidence they were killed and buried by a flood which deposited all the sediments. A mining accident or purposeful burial in no way fits with the fact that the bodies were disarticulated. People don't chop up their family members before they bury them nor do mine collapses cause bodies to be torn apart.