Bob Casanova (
Sat, 07 Dec 1996 20:42:08 GMT

On 7 Dec 1996 15:36:11 GMT, in sci.anthropology.paleo, (Ed Conrad) wrote:

>julia <> wrote to alt.archaeology:
>>Greetings and Salutations!
>> My name is Julia and I love history. I am 15, and plan to do a PhD
>>in History at the Australian National University, might as well learn a
>>little now!! Just thought I'd introduce myself...
>>Smile everyone
>>Julia :)

Now Ed's attempting to subvert minors. Why am I not surprised.

>Goodness gracious, Julia, what a pretty smile!
>Welcome aboard!
>My name is Ed Conrad and I, too, have a fascination for history --
>really, really OLD history.
>The difference between me and most of the people you'll hear from --
>via postings to the pertinent scientific news groups -- is that I deal
>in facts and evidence.

"Evidence" only Ed accepts. That's called a "delusion", Julia.

>The vast majority of others have long dabbled in fantasy and fiction.
>I contend -- and have the proof -- that man existed on earth while
>coal was being formed.

Ed has no such proof, as experts who examined Ed's "evidence" have
pointed out. He has odd-shaped rocks and coal, no more.

That's a long, long time ago (at least 280
>million years ago, if science's geological dating is correct).
>My opponents cling to an erroneous theory that man evolved fromsmall
>small inhuman monkey-like primate -- called an insectivore -- that
>lived some 65 million years ago.
>And I say, IF man existed in almost his present form
>multi-multi-millions of years before the initial emergence of the
>insectivore, then common sense dictates that man certainly has no such

This would be a true statement, if it didn't start with a false
premise. Which it does.

>It means my opponents have to come up with another explanation for
>man's existence eons upon eons earlier.

Not until there is evidence for such, which there isn't.

Obviously, one possibility is
>that we were created -- but they want no part of that.
>Therefore, without the type of answer they know they require to
>enhance their Godless position and shoot me down, they've gone
>bananas in their criticism of my discoveries.

Ed's "discoveries" are garbage. Watch out for charlatans, Julia. One
indicator is the "Everyone's trying to bury my discoveries, which only
I am competent to judge." syndrome.

>They can get pretty nasty, too. I've been called a moron, a loon, an
>imbicile -- and much, much worse.

Like liar, delusional. charlatan. Maybe not all true (Ed may actually
*believe* his garbage), but mostly correct descriptions of Ed's posts.

>They're demanding evidence -- a bushel basketful-- even though they
>themselves are fully aware that their adamant stance concerning man's
>evolution from the insectivore lacks a single shred of undisputed

How about rephrasing that as "...evidence undisputed by Ed Conrad and
other scientifically-ignorant creationists and similar charlatans, but
accepted by competent professionals."; that would seem a more correct
picture of the actual situation.

>I tell them that and they get angrier and angrier, but not one of them
>has put their cards (their evidence) on the table.

Plenty of evidence, but Ed doesn't have the education to understand
it. That's why you need a good education, Julia, so the charlatans
can't fool you.

>They can't do it because it simply doesn't exist.

Read this as "I don't understand it, so it doesn't exist.".

>The saddest part of this story, Julia, is that the scientific
>community -- eager to protect its erroneous theory -- has resorted to
>deceipt, dishonesty, collusion and conspiracy in an effort to deny my
>discoveries and my evidence.
>Sadly, some of them actually have tampered with the results of the

Here is Ed's conspiracy theory in full bloom, Julia. He can't accept
that his "evidence" is garbage, so someone must have tampered with it.

>For example, my discoveries of human bone (and soft organs!)
>between the coal seams in Northeastern Pennsylvania are petrified,
>which means they have been transformed to a rock-like appearance.
>Yet the Haversian canals, a telltale indicator of the cell structure
>of bone, still exist and can be seen under the microscope. But my
>opponents, the vast majority who have never examined *petrified* bone
>in their life, insist that it must precisely resemble the cell
>structure of bone that has not petrified.

No, they don't. They do, however, say that it does *not* resemble
petrified bone, and that Ed is mistaken. Of course, this is
unthinkable, so Ed imagines a conspiracy.

The balance of Ed's post is more of the same, so I'll only encourage
you to get a good education, and examine the evidence knowledgeably.
Good luck in your chosen field, and,once more, beware of the
charlatans, particularly those who feel persecuted by the scientific

>I keep telling them that only the Haversian canals remain from the
>complete Haversian systems because of the petrification process which
>has removed the visibility of the surrounding structure so it can no
>longer be seen -- but they don't want to hear it.
>Their unflinching denial -- this total lack of openmindedness -- is
>caused by the brainwashing job that has been so successfully
>accomplished over a period of many, many years.
>Those poor souls didn't DARE question what they were being taught
>because to have done so would've been considered a sacrilege. Then,
>after graduating and landing a nice job and eventually gaining access
>to substantial ancillary income, they soon realized that you don't
>dare make waves by asking questions in response to ridiculous answers.
>Quite simply, it is called protecting your vested interests.
>Oh, by the way, Julia, the static these individuals are giving me only
>matches the static that I have been tossing back. You'll find most of
>it by calling up but some can also be found in the
>``sci"-related groups like and sci.anthropology.
>I put up with none of their gibberish, gobbledygook or nonsense.
>In conclusion, I'd like to emphasize that you'll NEVER find me
>thumping the Bible on your computer screen. I AM NOT a creationist, in
>the strictest sense of the word, and you'd be shocked to learn that
>even the creationist organizations worldwide are deathly afraid of me,
>along with the evolutionists.
>Now isn't THATsurprising? But it's true!
>I've been placed in a situation where, because of stringent opposition
>from BOTH sides, I'm not supposed to have a ghost of a chance at
>making any headway.
>Yet such monumental obstacles haven't seemed to phase me and
>certainly aren't stopping me. I just continue chugging along, eager to
>contribute something substantial to my fellow man.
>Finally, Julia -- over there in Australia -- I'd like to leave you
>with a very brief synopsis of what's been going on over here.
>I'll lete my late, dear friend tell you -- in his inimitable style --
>the way he once told me:
>> ``They know they have a skeleton
>> in their closet and they don't want
>> to open the door."
>> Clayton Lennon
>> (1900-1996)
> Cordially,
> Ed Conrad
> Shenandoah, Pa.
> (
>P.S. -- The truth can be found at
>The fabrication (especially the sad, deplorable orchestrated effort
>to deny that my specimens are indeed petrified bone) can be found at

(Note followups, if any)

Bob C.

"No one's life, liberty or property is safe while
the legislature is in session." - Mark Twain