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

Paul Myers (
Fri, 01 Nov 1996 19:51:15 -0500

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.

Paul Myers Department of Biology Temple University Philadelphia, PA 19122