Re: `CRAPPY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN'!/\/\ (firstname.lastname@example.org)
24 Nov 1996 11:23:39 -0800
In article <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org (Ed Conrad) wrote:
>> 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
>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?.
>And how about the comparison of the cell structure of the ``petrified
>bone" with non-petrified bone, revealing almost similiar-size
>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!"