Re: Skull in Boulder images

Paul Z. Myers (myers@astro.ocis.temple.edu)
Thu, 14 Nov 1996 10:03:19 -0500

In article <56f140$s76@news.ptd.net>, edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad) wrote:

>"Mark C. Chu-Carroll" <mcc@watson.ibm.com> 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?
>
>Marc:
>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.

followups redirected. Please do NOT reply to this post in this
newsgroup -- go to talk.origins.

-- 

Paul Z. Myers                 myers@astro.ocis.temple.edu

Dept. of Biology              myers@netaxs.com     

Temple University             http://fishnet.bio.temple.edu/

Philadelphia, PA 19122        (215) 204-8848