ANDREW GETS AN EARFUL
Ed Conrad (firstname.lastname@example.org)
26 Nov 1996 14:32:39 GMT
email@example.com (Andrew MacRae) wrote
>In article <firstname.lastname@example.org> email@example.com (Ed Conrad)
>| Jukka Korpela wrote to sci.anthropology and many other news groups,
>|seriously challenging the reputation of the human skull in the boulder
>|as ``The Most Important Fossil."
> Looks like you have reverted to the same series of claims you made
>months ago. What, no mention of the thin section results of Cuffey or
To put it quite simply, that's because Roger Cuffey and Kurt Wise --
in their direct dealings with me -- were phonier than a $3 bill.
Do I make myself perfectly clear?
>No mention of the fact that Dart, when contacted, said he did not
>support your interpretation?
This is an absolute, total lie. The great Raymond Dart, M.D., had
examined some of my specimens and wrote a glowing letter on my behalf
(which I had posted some time ago)).
This most admirable of scientists -- a courageous, honest and humble
scientist who could have taught a lot of you a few good lessons --
went to his Just Reward never having reneged on his very educated
opinion that I indeed had discovered petrified bone in Pennsylania's
>No indication whether the "expert" at
>Teledyne had any familiarity with rocks?
What are you doing, Andrew, questioning the opinion and judgment and
integrity of the world's largest and most prestigious independent
>No indication whether the
>dentist had ever tried X-raying rocks?
Hey, Andrew, what did you eat this morning because you're certainly
feeling your oats.
The dentist is question is a veteran with more than 30 years
experience X-raying teeth, so he knows a helluva lot more than you
about pulp cavities, etc.
He simply took an X-ray of at least two of my specimens that
resembled, in contour, human teeth -- one of them removed from below
the petrified premolar still hanging magnificently for all to see at
and examined the negative.
On his letterhead and above his signature, the veteran dentist stated:
>> ``The results of the dental radiographic
>> examination of several of your artifacts
>> appear to resemble -- and apppear very
>> similiar to -- certain radiographs
>> of human teeth and bones."
>No indication whether an infra-red scan had been compared to rocks?
Certainly not, Andrew! And why should infra-red scans be performed on
common, everyday rocks?
>And, of course, there is the lack of
>Haversian canals in the specimen you sent me, and there is no indication
>that the roughly circular structures in the unidentified specimen you
>illustrate on Ted's page are tubular.
Boy, Andrew, you certainly are hard of seeing. You've already read, at
least a dozen times, my unflinching response to your picture-pretty
Haversian systems in your non-petrified bone.
The Haversian canals are visible in the tibia-like specimen you had in
your possession for the longest time -- same as is revealed in the
ground section of one of my specimens appearing on Ted's home page at
We can't expect to see more than Haversian canals, Andrew -- certainly
not the entire majestic Haversian systems -- because, for the umpteeth
time, my specimens are PETRIFIED BONE. Your's are not! The
petrification process results in the disappearance of the structure
surrounding the Haversian canals. But the Haversian canals remain, and
that's what the folks are seeing in all their Carboniferous glory at
What ELSE could these circles -- about the same size and contour as
the circles shown in your non-petrified bone -- be?
>The SEM image shows mica and quartz grains, as expected. No tubes.
Andrew, here you are throwing a curve. The SEM image of the interior
surface features of the tibia-like specimen you had examined -- the
one that Wilton Krogman, author of ``The Human Skeleton in Forensic
Medicine" called a tibia -- reveals surface features dramatically
similiar to those of non-petrified bone.
Indeed, there may well be mica and quartz grains. Your own cranium
eventually would develop mica and quartz grains if it had reason to
But for you to ask about not seeing ``tubes" in SEM photos is
something I do not understand. You apparently want to see ``tubes" --
like there are supposed to be tubes -- and, on this, you are
completely wrong. SEM photos of inerior surface features of bone do
not -- and never would -- show ``tubes."
Too bad I have to rush off to work.
I'd have answered the rest of your ridiculous questions as well.
But, before I go, I'd like to comment on your final closing paragraph:
>It is being generous to only say you have no physical evidence.
>In reality, you have plenty of falsifying evidence.
No, Andrew, I possess plenty of physical evidence. You are the one who
is presenting falsifying evidence.
You DAMN WELL KNOW I have petrified bone but you're in such a
precarious situation that you CANNOT possibly admit it. You,
therefore, are guilty of hiding a scientific fact.
As Thomas A. Edison once said, and as I've posted a few times already:
>>> ``The right to search for truth implies also
>>> a duty; one must not conceal any part
>>> of what one has recognized to be true."