|
|
Re: WHY ED CAN'T TAKE NO FOR AN ANSWER
hsaller@epix.net
Thu, 21 Nov 96 09:22:58 -05
In Article<571gvv$h17@news.ptd.net>, <edconrad@prolog.net> write:
> Path: news1.epix.net!news4.epix.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-pen-14.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-hub.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.ptd.net!newsmaster
> From: edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad)
> Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,sci.archaeology,alt.archaeology
> Subject: WHY ED CAN'T TAKE NO FOR AN ANSWER
> Date: 21 Nov 1996 12:12:47 GMT
> Organization: ProLog - PenTeleData, Inc.
> Lines: 93
> Message-ID: <571gvv$h17@news.ptd.net>
> References: <56fao1$6ta@news.ptd.net> <56i3qs$nk8@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca> <56proj$78@news.ptd.net> <56q4jl$dpk@gcsin3.geccs.gecm.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: cs1-01.mah.ptd.net
> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
> Xref: news1.epix.net sci.anthropology:28615 sci.anthropology.paleo:14827 sci.archaeology:55992 alt.archaeology:9100
>
>
> >>> "Richard P. Hanson" <richard.hanson@*REMOVE*.gecm.com>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>> Oh look - another post from Ed 'the world's greatest living
> >>> anthropologist' Conrad with no real content again. Oh goody.
>
> >>> Ed - doesn't the fact that *NO* anthropologists and *NO*
> >>> paleontologists agree with you maybe suggest that you are
> >>> more likely to be talking crap . . . ?
> >
> The only crap that I post around here, Richard, is the levity in which
> I engage from time to time to give us all an escape hatch from this
> most serious controversy.
>
> A joke posted here and there is like an apple a day.
>
> When it's time to be serious, I am dead serious.
>
> Like now!
>
> I knew from very start -- Feb. 29, 1996 -- when Ted Holden emailed
> me that he was ready to push the button and post information about
> my discoveries on his web page that the shit most certainly
> would hit the fan.
>
> And that especially applied with the material I had written on the
> link page, accusing the scientific community of deceipt, dishonestly,
> collusion and conspiracy in this business of an honest answer to
> legitimate questions about man's origin and antiquity.
>
> As you are well aware, I was proven right about the hostile reaction I
> received. I was lambasted from all sides.
>
> But I didn't put my tail between my legs and run. Instead, I have
> stood my ground -- on my own two feet -- and defended my position
> loud and clear.
>
> Ted's original web page now packs a lot more muscle than wen it first
> hit the screen. Only a moron -- or a ``scientist" frightened like a
> bunny rabbit of the importance to protect his vested interests --
> could possibly deny that I DO have ``something."
>
> And that ``something" is a vast array of specimens of petrified bones
> and/or soft organs from creatures of a size that almost every
> scientific textbook maintains could not possibly have existed during
> the time that coal was being formed.
>
> Never did I dream, when I discovered my first few specimens, that some
> would be human -- but indeed they are!
>
> As for my most vocal critics -- Andrew MacRae and Paul Myers -- these
> two turkeys together couldn't have carried Wilton M. Krogman's note
> pad in the identification of petrified human bones that, to the
> untrained eye, look like rocks or concretions.
>
> Krogman's incredible expertise explains why ``The Human Skeleton in
> Forensic Medicine" can be found on just about every pathologist's
> bookshelf throughout the world.
>
> Meanwhile -- in response to the criticism being heaped on me by the
> scientific establishment -- MacRae, Myers, the plethora of
> anthropolgoists and the gaggle of paleontologists DO NOT KNOW
> what type of animal life truly existed on earth during the time of the
> coal formations.
>
> Just because their ``scholarly" science books say something CAN'T
> BE doesn't mean it wasn't. The problem is, the people who wrote those
> books were paddling up ``The Creek of the Unknown" and, unfortunately,
> without a paddle.
>
> In any event, Richard, my response to you is this:
>
> I cannot and will not take NO for an answer. I will continue to do my
> thing. I will be serious when I want to be serious and I will horse
> around when I feel like horsing around.
>
> If I was into this for fame or fortune, quite obviously I'd be using
> much more discretion while pecking away at the keyboard
> of this most marvelous machine.
>
> The rather amazing thing, Richard, is that I really don't
> care if I am proven right (which I am) in pursuit of this most
> noble cause.
>
> I'd be content to have a few words written on my tombstone:
>
> > ED CONRAD
> (Despised by Science)
> > ``He didn't succeed but
> > he damn well tried."
>
>
Ed, I was through Shenandoah the other day on my way to a wedding, used to
live in Pottsville, still get up that way occasionally. Are these things still
in the ground? Is the site available to be looked at? While I am not an
archaeologist, paleontologist, anthropologist, etc. I am just as interested in
that stuff as anyone. I realize there is probably some reticence on your part
in showing these sites to scientists due to the fear they might destroy them
to preserve the status quo, but am still interested in seeing such. Health is
not perfect, bad leg, so if there is physical difficulty the trip might not be
feasible. Maybe we could meet at the coal museum for a little day trip, or is
that in Ashland, my memory isn't quite as perfect as it used to be. ;-)
*** "I Can't Get No Satisfaction, but I try, and I try, and I try, and I try"
|