OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE SIMPLY CANNOT BE DENIED
Ed Conrad (edconrad@prolog.net)
18 Dec 1996 09:41:19 GMT
Dan Ulln <dan.ullen@swipnet.se> wrote:
>Julia, welcome to our world. However, it's not one bit like the quarrels
>you see in this newsgroup. Please visit an ongoing excavation in your
>vicinty and you'll see that we're normal people, dedicated to our work,
>not a part of some great historical and archaeological conspiracy. Once
>again, welcome! (Oh, Ed, you're welcome too.)
>Dan Ulln
>Stockholm
>Sweden
Dan,
I agree wholeheartedly that you and many, many others around the world
are ``normal people, dedicated to our work, not a part of some great
historical and archaeological conspiracy."
My longstanding argument is NOT with you or them (except in
self-defense).
It is against the bigwigs of your profession who, for years, have been
treating you like first- and second-graders, forcing you to accept a
theory -- of man's inhuman origin -- that is totally absent of any
corroborating scientific evidence.
Yet, while sucking up every erroneous word of deceit and deception,
almost everyone out there is snarling at the presentation of an
overwhelming amount of evidence on Ted Holden's home page about
my discoveries of petrified bone, (etc.) between coal veins.
No one in the history of the world has ever discovered so many
compelling specimens to prove -- far in excess of reasonable doubt --
that creatures of substantial size had inhabited the earth while coal
was being formed (and, quite probably, even earlier).
Critics and hate-mongers insist they don't look like bone, etc. But
they're ignoring the fact that these specimens -- if they ARE bone
(etc.), which indeed they are -- cannot possibly be expected to look
exactly like non-petrified bones found on the skeleton hanging in your
doctor's office.
The bottom, BOTTOM line in this entire argument is whether the cell
structure of bone is visible under microscopic scrutiny (but only with
the knowledge that the petrification process leaves only the Haversian
canals as the proof, since the surrounding structure of the complete
Haversian systems had vanished with time).
My grevious fault with Andrew Macrae's Hollywoodesque home page
is that he has been playing games -- perhaps through ignorance, since
he is only a grad student -- with his weird and totally off-the-wall
explanation of the miniscule ``circles" -- the Haversian canals --
visible in my specimens.
All of his explanations in that regard are wrong (and I'm pretty sure
he knows it.).
Meanwhile, the fact that large land animals -- and even man, in almost
our present form -- existed during the Carboniferous, a minimum of 280
million years ago -- is neither flight of fantasy nor pipe dream.
It's high time some of the honest men and women out there finally
come to their senses and weighed the situation objectively, honestly
and courageously.
I am truly confident this eventually will happen because so much
scientific evidence simply cannot be denied.
|