Re: WHO's misrepresenting who???
R. Gaenssmantel (firstname.lastname@example.org)
5 Nov 1996 16:13:26 GMT
Ed Conrad (email@example.com) wrote:
: Psycho Dave <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
: >Ed, you're forgetting one important thing about science in
: Oh, you mean how deceiptful and dishonest science can be
: when it has no recourse but to protect, at all cost, a vested
: Yes, I'm certainly aware of it.
Ed, if you don't trust anyone who's got anything to do with science, may I
suggest you conduct some scientific experiments on your finds yourself?
The chemical make-up would be interesting for example. You can then compare
that to what you would expect to find as a result of petrification on dead
organic material (e.g. ammonites etc.). Use several different methods of dating
and compare - there have been cases where people played practical jokes on
others who relied on the geological dating alone. Measure the volume of what
you think is a skull, how large whould the resulting 'human' have been - does
that make sense from an evolutionary point of view? What environment would he
have lived in? And what would he have lived off? What was the atmospheric
make-up at the time? Can you model the 'human' from the remains you found? Was
it upright walking?
There's an awful lot of other questions which would need to be answered if you
want to stand a chance of being taken seriously. Just claiming a big conspiracy
doesn't make findings credible, you will have to provide some supportive