Re: `CRAPPY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN'!
Michael D. Painter (email@example.com)
19 Nov 1996 19:04:26 GMT
I believe all of the following "references" offered by Mr Ed were shown to
be false. There was a considerable amount of information provided to show
that his statements were misleading at best.
Ask Ed for the addresses of the individuals named and contact them
Ed Conrad <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in article
> 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."
> > email@example.com (Ed Conrad) writes:
> > The WORLD'S MOST IMPORTANT FOSSIL, unquestionably, is
> > a petrified human skull embedded in a boulder which was discovered
> > between anthracite veins in Carboniferous strata near Shenandoah, Pa.
> > I suppose no-one is fool enough to take this kind of crap
> > seriously . . .
> I suppose you're right, Jukka. After all, ``The Book" says it can't
> be, so it certainly can't be.
> Funny, though, that two individuals highly respected in their fields
> -- Wilton M. Krogman, author of ``The Human Skeleton in Forensic
> Medicine," and Raymond M. Dart, M.D., discoverer of the significance
> of the Taung Skull and one of the world's most famous and respected
> human anatomists -- felt my specimens not only COULD be petrified
> bones, but are.
> I suppose another believer would have to be Jeremy Dahl, the bone
> expert at Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center -- the most
> prestigious laboratory of its kind in the world -- who stated in
> writing above his signature that one of the specimens he had examined
> microscopically indeed is petrified bone.
> Ditto for the expert at Teledyne Isotopes, the world's largest
> independent research laboratory, who also said a specimen is petrified
> And how about the veteran dentist who took an Xray of one of the
> tooth-like specimens and confirmed, in writing, that it ``reads'' like
> a tooth?
> Or the physician-surgeon who interpreted the infra-red scan taken of a
> different ``tooth" and stated in writing that the subtance was ``bone
> or tooth" in origin?.
No one (except maybe Mr Ed) knows exactly what was done here. Many requests
for information about what he means were ignored
> And how about the comparison of the cell structure of the ``petrified
> bone" with non-petrified bone, revealing almost similiar-size
> Haversian canals.
Comparison done by Mr Ed. No one else agrees.
> Or the SEM (scanning electron photographs) comparing the surface
> features of the interior of the ``tibia-like" object, which
> dramaticlaly resembles the surface features of bone.
> I suppose you'r right, Jukka. There's just not enough physical
> ``Crappy days are here again!"