Re: Skull in Boulder images

Ed Conrad (
14 Nov 1996 11:51:28 GMT

"Mark C. Chu-Carroll" <> wrote:

>It's pretty damned pathetic when you can't even answer the most trivial
>of questions about your discoveries. You claim to have found a complete
>fossil skull embedded in a rock sample in which all of the material has
>been significantly compressed. And yet, you claim that it's still hollow.
>You've *got* to be able to explain that, or else your entire theory can be
>completely dismissed without further consideration.

>But instead of even making an attempt to intelligently defend your claims,
>you just ignore the question.

>So *who* was it who's afraid of the truth?

I've told you once, I've told you twice and I'll tell
you once again:
My answer to ``Who's afraid of the truth?"

Why, obviously, just about everyone in the scientific
establishment whose job it is to seek honest answers
to the time-honored question of man's initial emergence
on The Good Earth.

After all, anyone involved in this pursuit -- particularly, physical
anthropologists, with all their ``schooling'' -- is more than well
aware that not a shred of evidence links man to the cat-size,
monkey-like insectivore of 60-65 million years ago, from whom the
scientific establishment has unceasingly claimed we evolved.

Yet, primarily because of vested interests, these physical
anthropologists and others fail to speak out and challenge a theory
that has more holes than a gold prospector's pan.

To add insult to injury, anytime someone comes along with proof that
man may well have existed eons before Mr. Insectivore, these
``scientists" play Mr. Ostrich and hide their head in the sand.

They're doing it now with the human skull embedded in the boulder, an
incredible specimen that offers the evidence -- incredible as it may
be -- that man INDEED was around while coal was being formed.

As for your other question, Marc: How do I explain why the skull
protruding from the boulder is hollow (since there's a hollow sound
when it is tapped)...

I really can't give you a definitive answer. I can only guess that it
was embedded in mud that had slowly hardened and, in time, more
hardening took place.

Undoubtedly, there are other possible explanations. And based
on the boulder's size and shape, one would have to be that
the entire skeleton is inside, in a seated position, and the boulder
had been molded around the corpse, in some sort of burial ceremony.

Or, if that's too farfetched, perhaps the skull was removed and placed
in this precise position -- the skull visible -- and the boulder
shaped around it, the way we put photographs of loved ones in frames.

This theory cannot be dismissed out of hand because, even patholgists
would have to agree, the cause of death undoubtedly was due to a
fractured skull.