/\/\ (
24 Nov 1996 11:23:39 -0800

In article <56sdif$>, (Ed Conrad) wrote:
> 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."
>> (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?.


>And how about the comparison of the cell structure of the ``petrified

>bone" with non-petrified bone, revealing almost similiar-size

>Haversian canals.


>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!"