Re: MOST IMPORTANT FOSSIL (A human skull as old as coal!)

/\/\ (
5 Nov 1996 12:04:49 -0800

In article <>, (Paul Myers) wrote:
>In article <>, (Ian
>Tresman) wrote:
>> Jukka Korpela <> 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.
>Ah, but the Conrad stuff is in a different league altogether. Conrad
>has been parading his "bones" about for 10 or 15 years, and just
>about everyone who has seen them will tell you that they are junk.
>The reason the Conrad specimens are not famous is not because the
>media or the scientific establishment has ignored them; it's because
>they are nothing more than delusions founded on the perpetrator's
>appalling ignorance of geology, biology, and basic anatomy.

That many years?!? What a wasted life......

Steve "Chris" Price
Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"