`CRAPPY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN'!

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Gerrit Hanenburg: "Re: An alternative to ST and AAT"
• Previous message: Comite de Defense du Musee de l'Homme: "[!] Support the Musee de l'Homme (Paris) !"
• Next in thread: Judson McClendon: "Re: `CRAPPY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN'!"

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."

> edconrad@prolog.net (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
bone.

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
evidence.

``Crappy days are here again!"

• Next message: Gerrit Hanenburg: "Re: An alternative to ST and AAT"
• Previous message: Comite de Defense du Musee de l'Homme: "[!] Support the Musee de l'Homme (Paris) !"
• Next in thread: Judson McClendon: "Re: `CRAPPY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN'!"