Re: MOST IMPORTANT FOSSIL (A human skull as old as coal!)
Michael D. Painter (email@example.com)
2 Nov 1996 03:30:25 GMT
Ian Tresman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in article
> Jukka Korpela <email@example.com> wrote:
> >If this kind of "news" had any truth in them,
> >and especially if they were unquestionable, we would certainly have
> >read about them in reputable scientific magazines - which would really
> >struggle for the right to publish such revolutionary reports before
> >their competitors.
> You're joking. "In 1906, more than two years after the Wrights had
> first flown, Scientific American carried an article ridiculing the
> 'alleged' flights... the magazine gave as its main reason for not
> believing the Wrights:
> 'If such sensational and tremendously important experiments are
> being conducted in a not very remote part of the country, on a subject
> which almost everyone feels the most profound interest, it is possible
> to believe that the enterprising American report, who, it is
> well-known, comes down the chimney when the door is locked in his face
> - even if he has to scale a fifteen-story skyscraper to do so - would
> not have ascertained all about them and published them broadcast long
> ago?" - Forbidden Science, Richard Milton, 1994.
> Ian Tresman, Society for Interdisciplinary Studies
That hardly applies here. Had Scientific American gone to the site, watched
the flight, and then published the above their might be a comparison.
Conrad has had his rocks investigated by a number of people, people HE
How many such incidents have occurred since 1906? That was a while back.