Re: LUCY: ``Yes, we have no bananas!"
Ed Conrad (edconrad@prolog.net)
18 Nov 1996 14:27:31 GMT
macrae@geo.ucalgary.ca (Andrew MacRae) wrote:
(and Ed Conrad eventually will respond)
>In article <56fao1$6ta@news.ptd.net> edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad)
>writes:
>|Michael Clark <mclark@skypoint.com> wrote:
>|>On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Ed Conrad wrote:
>|>> To my mind, the ONLY physical anthropologist who possessed scientific
>|>> integrity in a search for honest answers to legitimate questions about
>|>> man's origin and ancestry was the late Dr. Earnest A. Hooton, longtime
>|>> professor of anthropology at Harvard University.
>|>(T)ed? Do you know any LIVING anthropologists?
>|Quite frankly, no!
>|Oh, I do know of some who are still walking and talking because
>|I see them on TV every once in a while, usually after an ``incredible
>|discovery" like the time they claimed to have found Little Lucy's
>|fossilized babushka.
>|
Says Ed:
Finding a fossilized babushka is stated in jest, obviously. But it is
no more ridiculous than pronouncements by segements of the scientific
community of hairbrained ``discoveries" in recent years.
For example, the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe.
No proof, Andrew! N-O-N-E.
In fact, recent new-found ifnormation about distant outer space -- via
the Hubble Telescope, for example -- indicate that the universe could
not possibly have been created this way.
The Big Bang Theory is as ridiculous as the erroneous, preposterous
theory that the gradiose, incredibly varied assortment of living
things -- man, especially -- had evolved from a single-cell organism,
despite the astronomically incredible odds against such an
eventuality.
| But, unfortunately, as anyone who follows their rather mechanical
|straight-from-the-book irrational establishment-protecting commentary
|is well aware, they (members of the anthropological ``community'')
|are actually brain dead zombies.
> -- So, the answer is, yes, Ed knows some living archaeologists. No,
>he can not name even one that supports his claims. He apparently
>attributes this to professional bias, and considers them "brain dead
>zombies" as a result.
I state emphatically that every single anthropologist with whom I have
deal over these past 15-16 years has been a fraud and a phony.
They include Alan Mann at the University of Pennsylvania, Robert
Eckhardt at Penn State University, some turkey from the Smithsonian
Institution, Milford Wollford at . . .(I foget, he's lucky I even
remember his brain-boggling name), David Pilbeam (a a real horse's
ass), Stephen Jay Gould . . .and the bigwigs like Johanson, Leakey,
Leakey's mother, etc.etc. etc., who did not even have the courtesy to
respond to information and photographs I had sent them.
Every single one of them either shot me down with nonsensical rhetoric
or wanted nothing whatsoever to do with involvement in honest
investigation.
All they were doing, Andrew MacRae, was protecting the party line.
> -- Thanks for clearing that up, Ed. I suppose the same attitude is
>applied to every living geologist and paleontologist you know too?
Oh, I could recite a litany of names of geologists and paleontologists
with whom I have dealt and who, no different than the anthropologists,
have refused to budge in their brainwashed thinking.
I could sit for an HOUR writing their names -- but all I will say is
that they almost all have been as concrete-skulled as Henry Barwood
(one of the persistent howlers on talk.origins).
Apparently, all they know is what they've read in books.
And the books say it just can't be.
> -- Does your bigotry have any bounds within the set of people who
>disagree with your claims? Or is that its defining feature? In other
>words, are there any people out there who disagree with your
>interpretation, but whose opinions you respect?
Yes, indeed!
They were the late Wilton M. Krogman, author of ``The Human Skeleton
in Forensic Medicine," and the late Raymond M. Dart, M.D., both of
whom examined my specimens openmindly and stated -- to my face AND in
writing -- that I definitely have discovered petrified bone in
Pennsylvania's coal fields.
Sadly, even their colleagues in the scientific community paid them no
attention because the powerful force of vested interests -- and
self-protection -- was so overwhelming.
> -- Will you ever talk about scientific evidence again, Ed, or is this
>pathetic rant the most you can muster these days? <Shrug> You just
>ignore my postings anyway, so I do not really expect an answer (versus a
>reply -- not all replies are answers), but I would like to be surprised.
Andrew, my intriguing awesome array of petrified bones and petrified
soft organs found between anthracite veins is indeed scientific
evidence.
The problem, sadly, is that you and your colleagues continued to deny
it. You see only what you want to see -- and nothing more!
The human skull embedded in the boulder most dramatically resembles
the contour of a human skull -- and Ted Holden, right now, has in his
possession another photograph which will prove visually that the
colored material in the interior of the boulder IS a human skull,
emphaticaly proving man not only existed during the time of the coal
formations but was a great deal larger.
> -- Can we talk about your thin section data, or is that irrelevant to your
>claims now?
For the record, Andrew, I'll gladly talk about my thin section data
anytime.
And every time I talk about I'll bring up your ridiculous assumption
that the Haversian systems visible in non-petrified bone should be a
mirror image of what is visible while examining petrified bone.
Repeating: The petrification process causes the removal -- the
disappearance -- of the structure surrounding the Haversian canals.
But the canals, thank goodness, remain forever.
They do not vanish because, being canals (or tunnels or holes or
passageways), there was nothing there to be displaced during the
petrification process.
As for your home page, Andrew, there's no question that you're
displaying a variety of pretty pictures of what the cell structure of
non-petrified bone looks like.
The paramount question, however, is NOT what the cell structure of
non-petrified bone looks like. Instead, it is: What does the cell
structure of PETRIFIED BONE look like?
> -Andrew
> macrae@geo.ucalgary.ca
> home page: http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I've said it before. I'll say it again (this time dedicated to Andrew
MacRae:
>>> MAN AS OLD AS COAL
Physical evidence currently exists that proves man inhabited the earth
while coal was being formed, shaking the very foundations of who we
really are and how we really got here.
An assortment of human bones and soft organs, transformed to rocklike
hardness, has been discovered between anthracite veins in the
Carboniferous-dated coal fields of eastern Pennsylvania over the past
15 years.
Since one of the golden rules of geology is that coal was
formed during the Carboniferous a minimum of 280 million years ago it
means that man had existed multi-millions of years before the initial
emergence of the monkeylike, cat-size insectivore from whom the
evolutionists claim we eventually evolved.
However, the scientific establishment has wielded its powerful
disdainful influence -- deceipt, dishonesty, collusion and conspiracy
-- to prevent evidence of the most important discovery of the 20th
century to be documented as fact and, therefore, keep us from learning
a monumental truth about ourselves.
I assure you I know what I'm talking about because I discovered these
petrified human remains and have had a ringside seat to the scientific
establishment's despicable antics of suppressing an aresenal of
physical evidence.
The degree of dishonesty to which I have been subjected is almost
beyond belief. I had to have a postal inspector inspect files in a
post office in California to catch one university in a mammoth lie
regarding testing.
Even worse, the nation's most prestigious scientific institution
actually was caught tampering with physical evidence that had been
submitted for testing.
In the future, I hope to provide the full details of these and other
horror stories to which I have been subjected.
Only the late, great Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky, who also had been put
through the wringer by the vested interests of corrupt scientists,
could comprehend what I have experienced because he also
had been victimized by their shameful, disgraceful shenanigans.
It is rather ironic that my discoveries of of petrified carboniferous
bones may be the evidence that Velikovsky was correct
in his claim that mankind had been subjected to catastrophic
atmospheric-connected disturbances in the far-distant past.
This is because almost every specimen of petrified bone I have found
between coal veins is cleanly broken, indicating they all had been
subjected to an event almost beyond our comprehension.
My first discovery was made quite by accident while searching for leaf
fossils in shale (or slate) in June 1981.
At the time I had no idea of its significance but, fortunately, kept
returning to the same area to do more searching and discovered many
more specimens.
At the time I believed that anthropologists and paleontologists were
upright, and sought their opinion of my discoveries in good faith. But
in each and every case my specimens were called concretions --
certainly not petrified bone -- even though opinions were based
strictly on visual observation, without testing of any kind.
When I eventually realized I was getting the runaround and not an
honest, scientific appraisal, I began doing my homework and eventually
concluded that these anthropologists and paleontologists were
shrugging me off out of fear and to protect their vested interests.
When physical evidence surfaces that disproves the evolutionists'
theory about man's ancestry and origin, the scientific establishment's
"party line" must be protected at all cost.
The scientific community may have gotten away with such behavior in
the past. Fortunately, the World Wide Web has changed all that.
|