Re: LUCY: ``Yes, we have no bananas!"

/\/\ (
21 Nov 1996 14:05:59 -0800

Reset to

In article <56proj$>, (Ed Conrad) wrote:
> (Andrew MacRae) wrote:
>(and Ed Conrad eventually will respond)
>>In article <56fao1$> (Ed Conrad)
>>|Michael Clark <> wrote:
>>|>On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Ed Conrad wrote:
>>|>> To my mind, the ONLY physical anthropologist who possessed scientific
>>|>> integrity in a search for honest answers to legitimate questions about

>>|>> man's origin and ancestry was the late Dr. Earnest A. Hooton, longtime

>>|>> professor of anthropology at Harvard University.


>>|>(T)ed? Do you know any LIVING anthropologists?


>>|Quite frankly, no!

>>|Oh, I do know of some who are still walking and talking because

>>|I see them on TV every once in a while, usually after an ``incredible

>>|discovery" like the time they claimed to have found Little Lucy's

>>|fossilized babushka.


>Says Ed:

>Finding a fossilized babushka is stated in jest, obviously. But it is

>no more ridiculous than pronouncements by segements of the scientific

>community of hairbrained ``discoveries" in recent years.


>For example, the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe.


>No proof, Andrew! N-O-N-E.


>In fact, recent new-found ifnormation about distant outer space -- via

>the Hubble Telescope, for example -- indicate that the universe could

>not possibly have been created this way.


>The Big Bang Theory is as ridiculous as the erroneous, preposterous

>theory that the gradiose, incredibly varied assortment of living

>things -- man, especially -- had evolved from a single-cell organism,

>despite the astronomically incredible odds against such an



>| But, unfortunately, as anyone who follows their rather mechanical

>|straight-from-the-book irrational establishment-protecting commentary

>|is well aware, they (members of the anthropological ``community'')

>|are actually brain dead zombies.


>> -- So, the answer is, yes, Ed knows some living archaeologists. No,

>>he can not name even one that supports his claims. He apparently

>>attributes this to professional bias, and considers them "brain dead

>>zombies" as a result.


>I state emphatically that every single anthropologist with whom I have

>deal over these past 15-16 years has been a fraud and a phony.


>They include Alan Mann at the University of Pennsylvania, Robert

>Eckhardt at Penn State University, some turkey from the Smithsonian

>Institution, Milford Wollford at . . .(I foget, he's lucky I even

>remember his brain-boggling name), David Pilbeam (a a real horse's

>ass), Stephen Jay Gould . . .and the bigwigs like Johanson, Leakey,

>Leakey's mother, etc.etc. etc., who did not even have the courtesy to

>respond to information and photographs I had sent them.


>Every single one of them either shot me down with nonsensical rhetoric

>or wanted nothing whatsoever to do with involvement in honest



>All they were doing, Andrew MacRae, was protecting the party line.


>> -- Thanks for clearing that up, Ed. I suppose the same attitude is

>>applied to every living geologist and paleontologist you know too?


>Oh, I could recite a litany of names of geologists and paleontologists

>with whom I have dealt and who, no different than the anthropologists,

>have refused to budge in their brainwashed thinking.


>I could sit for an HOUR writing their names -- but all I will say is

>that they almost all have been as concrete-skulled as Henry Barwood

>(one of the persistent howlers on


>Apparently, all they know is what they've read in books.

>And the books say it just can't be.


>> -- Does your bigotry have any bounds within the set of people who

>>disagree with your claims? Or is that its defining feature? In other

>>words, are there any people out there who disagree with your

>>interpretation, but whose opinions you respect?


>Yes, indeed!

>They were the late Wilton M. Krogman, author of ``The Human Skeleton

>in Forensic Medicine," and the late Raymond M. Dart, M.D., both of

>whom examined my specimens openmindly and stated -- to my face AND in

>writing -- that I definitely have discovered petrified bone in

>Pennsylvania's coal fields.


>Sadly, even their colleagues in the scientific community paid them no

>attention because the powerful force of vested interests -- and

>self-protection -- was so overwhelming.


>> -- Will you ever talk about scientific evidence again, Ed, or is this

>>pathetic rant the most you can muster these days? <Shrug> You just

>>ignore my postings anyway, so I do not really expect an answer (versus a

>>reply -- not all replies are answers), but I would like to be surprised.


>Andrew, my intriguing awesome array of petrified bones and petrified

>soft organs found between anthracite veins is indeed scientific



>The problem, sadly, is that you and your colleagues continued to deny

>it. You see only what you want to see -- and nothing more!


>The human skull embedded in the boulder most dramatically resembles

>the contour of a human skull -- and Ted Holden, right now, has in his

>possession another photograph which will prove visually that the

>colored material in the interior of the boulder IS a human skull,

>emphaticaly proving man not only existed during the time of the coal

>formations but was a great deal larger.


>> -- Can we talk about your thin section data, or is that irrelevant to your

>>claims now?


>For the record, Andrew, I'll gladly talk about my thin section data


>And every time I talk about I'll bring up your ridiculous assumption

>that the Haversian systems visible in non-petrified bone should be a

>mirror image of what is visible while examining petrified bone.


>Repeating: The petrification process causes the removal -- the

>disappearance -- of the structure surrounding the Haversian canals.

>But the canals, thank goodness, remain forever.


>They do not vanish because, being canals (or tunnels or holes or

>passageways), there was nothing there to be displaced during the

>petrification process.


>As for your home page, Andrew, there's no question that you're

>displaying a variety of pretty pictures of what the cell structure of

>non-petrified bone looks like.


>The paramount question, however, is NOT what the cell structure of

>non-petrified bone looks like. Instead, it is: What does the cell

>structure of PETRIFIED BONE look like?


>> -Andrew


>> home page:


> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


>I've said it before. I'll say it again (this time dedicated to Andrew





>Physical evidence currently exists that proves man inhabited the earth

>while coal was being formed, shaking the very foundations of who we

>really are and how we really got here.


>An assortment of human bones and soft organs, transformed to rocklike

>hardness, has been discovered between anthracite veins in the

>Carboniferous-dated coal fields of eastern Pennsylvania over the past

>15 years.


>Since one of the golden rules of geology is that coal was

>formed during the Carboniferous a minimum of 280 million years ago it

>means that man had existed multi-millions of years before the initial

>emergence of the monkeylike, cat-size insectivore from whom the

>evolutionists claim we eventually evolved.


>However, the scientific establishment has wielded its powerful

>disdainful influence -- deceipt, dishonesty, collusion and conspiracy

>-- to prevent evidence of the most important discovery of the 20th

>century to be documented as fact and, therefore, keep us from learning

>a monumental truth about ourselves.


>I assure you I know what I'm talking about because I discovered these

>petrified human remains and have had a ringside seat to the scientific

>establishment's despicable antics of suppressing an aresenal of

>physical evidence.


>The degree of dishonesty to which I have been subjected is almost

>beyond belief. I had to have a postal inspector inspect files in a

>post office in California to catch one university in a mammoth lie

>regarding testing.


>Even worse, the nation's most prestigious scientific institution

>actually was caught tampering with physical evidence that had been

>submitted for testing.


>In the future, I hope to provide the full details of these and other

>horror stories to which I have been subjected.


>Only the late, great Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky, who also had been put

>through the wringer by the vested interests of corrupt scientists,

>could comprehend what I have experienced because he also

>had been victimized by their shameful, disgraceful shenanigans.


>It is rather ironic that my discoveries of of petrified carboniferous

>bones may be the evidence that Velikovsky was correct

>in his claim that mankind had been subjected to catastrophic

>atmospheric-connected disturbances in the far-distant past.


>This is because almost every specimen of petrified bone I have found

>between coal veins is cleanly broken, indicating they all had been

>subjected to an event almost beyond our comprehension.


>My first discovery was made quite by accident while searching for leaf

>fossils in shale (or slate) in June 1981.


>At the time I had no idea of its significance but, fortunately, kept

>returning to the same area to do more searching and discovered many

>more specimens.


>At the time I believed that anthropologists and paleontologists were

>upright, and sought their opinion of my discoveries in good faith. But

>in each and every case my specimens were called concretions --

>certainly not petrified bone -- even though opinions were based

>strictly on visual observation, without testing of any kind.


>When I eventually realized I was getting the runaround and not an

>honest, scientific appraisal, I began doing my homework and eventually

>concluded that these anthropologists and paleontologists were

>shrugging me off out of fear and to protect their vested interests.


> When physical evidence surfaces that disproves the evolutionists'

>theory about man's ancestry and origin, the scientific establishment's

>"party line" must be protected at all cost.


>The scientific community may have gotten away with such behavior in

>the past. Fortunately, the World Wide Web has changed all that.