Re: BETTER than the SUPER BOWL (MacRae vs. Conrad)

Ed Conrad (
Wed, 08 Jan 1997 14:13:37 GMT

On Tue, 07 Jan 1997 10:21:08 -0600, wrote:

Ed Conrad had written:

>>By insisting they are NOT petrified bone, you are not only challenging
>>but also belittling the expertise and integrity of Jeremy Dahl, a bone
>>expert at Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center, who -- in writing
>>and bearing his signature -- stated that one of my specimens he had
>>examined IS petrified bone.
>I do not really care what Dahl *says*, I care about the
>data he looked at and his reasoning, which you have never provided
>in detail. I am not belittling Dahl anyway.

>Your letter from Dahl was far less than a glowing
>endorsement, and was simply quoting your identification in order to
>refer to your specimens, in the same way that I refer to your
>specimens as "Carboniferous human bones" all the time.

>I suppose if I forgot the quotes, you would be saying I endorsed
> your claims too.

>When contacted by another party, Dahl apparently did not
>support your claims. Other endorsements are either from people
>now deceased (i.e. unverifiable) or you have not specified them
>well enough for people to try to contact them and find out
>their opinion first hand.

>Endorsements are not what matters to the evaluation anyway. The
>issue is the data you have in your possession and which
>other people have observed on your WWW site and my evaluation site
>for themselves.

> Maybe if I could talk to Dahl first-hand, instead
>of second-hand, his statements could influence my opinion. Do you
>have his phone number or address handy? E-mail it to me if you do.

You have a short memory. Back on April 19, 1996, I posted the
following to and other petinent news groups:
Do I have AT LEAST one specimen of petrified bone discovered
between anthracite veins in the Carboniferous-dated strata of
THAT is the question.
Back in January 1984, I sent one specimen to Yerkes Regional
Primate Research Center located at Emory University in Atlanta, Ga.
The following is the complete text of that letter (return address

Dear Mr. Conrad:
Thank you for your letter of January 10 and the information I
requested concerning the fossilized bone fragment sent to us for
The information on location indicates that the bone fragment is not
from a nonhuman primate species: the only nonhuman primates ever found
in the United States became extinct about 20 million years agio, and
all of these primates were far too small to possess a bone that might
incorporate your fragment.
It is possible, however, that the bone fragment could be human in
nature, but its structure tends to rule this out.
Its cross-section and size are possibly those of a longbone (humerus,
radius, ulna, femur, tibia or fibula). but in none of these bones is
there such a rapid reduction in cross-sectional area as occurs in your
specimen (see figure).
In conclusion, I do not believe there is any evidence to suggest that
the fragment is primate material.
If you wish to pursue its identification, I suggest you send it to the
Department of Vertebrate Paleontology, American Museum of Natural
History, Central Park West and 79th Street, New York, NY 10024.
Good luck with additional enquiries.
Jeremy F. Dahl, Ph.D
Affiliate Scientist and Adjunct Professor of Anthropology

cc: Dr. F. A. King, Director

For your information, Andrew, Jeremy Dahl mentions that the specimen
he had examined is INDEED bone on three separate occasions
in his letter.
For him to deny that he said so would be an outright and outrageous

What I think may have happened is that Dahl might well have been
asked, ``when contacted by another party,'' if he felt the specimen
he examined was human, hominid or even primate material.

To that question, he rightly would have answered in the negative.
However, we are not asking THAT question. We are asking if he
determined that the rock-like specimen he had examined and tested
is bone.

To that, Jeremy Dahl had given a resounding YES (based on the fact
that he said so several different times in the letter).

Any subsequent denial by Dahl that he identified the specimen as bone
just doesn't hold water.

In any event, Andrew, Jeremy Dahl's mailing address is:
The Woodruff Medical Center
Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center
Emory University
Atlanta. Ga. 30322
(You'll have to get Directory Assistance to fish out the phone

>>> The following will be a permanent fixture
>>> at the tail end of all 14 parts of this series
>>> of responses to Andrew MacRae's tearjerker:

>I now expect some sort of public acknowledgement
>that you have erred. I know an apology is too much
> to ask for, but your usual tactic of slinking away and
>hoping people forget about your insults is not acceptable in
>this instance. The error is too obvious and the accusations
>too serious. Please defend your accusations or withdraw
>them, preferably before another month has expired.

You do not deserve an apology and definitely will not get
You are no better than the rest of the pathetic crew of pseudo
scientists I have had to deal with over these past 15-16 years,
the majority totally defiant of the advice about honest scientific
investigation offered so eloquently by good ol' Thomas Alva Edison:

>> ``The right to search for the truth
>> implies also a duty; one must not
>> conceal any part of what one has
>> recognized to be true."

My two specimens, which you had examined and tested in your
laboratory, are indeed petrified bone. Nothing you can EVER say
or do will turn them into rocks or concretions.


Meanwhile, I once again remind you of the editorial in The
Princetonian in February 1964, responding to the deplorable tactics
that had been employed by the academia in opposition to Velikovsky's
eye-opening masterpiece, ``Worlds in Collision":

>> ``What the Velikovsky affair made crystal clear . . .
>> is that the theories of science may be held not only
>> for the truth they embody, but because of the vested
>> interests they represent for those who hold them."

> Ed Conrad (
> Home page (actually Ted Holden's):
> and

> Disclaimer: I, Ed Conrad, am solely responsible for any statements
> that I make which for some strange reason always seem to ruffle
> a lot of scientific feathers.