Re: Yumpin' Yiminy! Conrad and Holden are taking over!
Ed Conrad (edconrad@prolog.net)
7 Dec 1996 14:35:34 GMT
Graham Shields <shieldsg@erdw.ethz.ch> wrote to sci.bio.paleontology:
>edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad) wrote:
>>
>>brucet@atl.mindspring.com (bruce thompson) wrote:
>>
>>> I've had my monitor in the shop for a month. I come back, and sbp is
>>>two-thirds EC and TH! All I want for Christmas is a moderated paleo
>>>group...
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>Bruce:
>>If you had any sense of decency, what you'd REALLY want for Christmas
>>is for your grandchildren and great-grandchildren to have a better
>>approximation of the truth of man's origin and far-remote ancestry, so
>>they eventually realize that they -- and all of us -- are something
>>very, very special.
>>
>Dear Ed,
>I am sure if you sat down to think for a moment you would realise that
>the vast majority of palaeontologists (>99.9%) do not look at newsgroups
>and people just use it to find out about a particular fossil they might have
>found. There is no need to rant and rave about what you think are human fossils
>because, statistically speaking, no-one is listening. You are just spoiling
> people's fun, if you like, in exchanging ideas and info. about fossils.
>We have heard your talk of human fossils, why can't you moderate what you
>say according to what you learn here. You appear to ignore everything
>that is said in this forum. You post and repost the same stuff with
>no change of any significance each time and never a compromise, even
>on what is obviously wrong.This is the sign of a stubborn mind
>and you are asking others to open their minds?????? After exchanging
>ideas in this forum for quite a while now I would say that science is
>far from being sick and it takes a lot of effort from many
>scientists to keep it from getting as dogmatic as you would like to
>think it is. BTW science is not Steven Jay Gould or Richard
>Dawkins, it is the copperation of thousands of more run of the mill
>scientists or coexist within the establishment, many of whom have
>just as wacky and way out ideas as you, but they are interested in
>pursuing the truth and are willing to abandon their notions in the
>face of contrary evidence.
>Graham
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Graham:
First of all, I don't THINK I have human fossils. I KNOW I have
human fossils.
Are you or the others out there MORE knowledgeable in the
identification of human skeletal remans (petrified or otherwise) than
the late, great Wilton M. Krogman.
HE -- not any of you -- wrote THE book, ``The Human Skeleton in
Forensic Medicine."
You've seen a photo of this great scientist holding one of my key
specimens. He had examined it very patiently and very carefully, then
admitted -- in astonishment -- that it is a human calvarium (a cranium
with the eye sockets broken off).
Secondly, it's wrong to state that no one is listening or paying
attention to this exchange of nasty dialogue. You'd be very, very
surprised to learn how many people ARE listening -- and in exotic
far-away places.
True, the vast majority of folks DON'T agree with me. But this is
quite understandable because I have tossed my hat in the lions' den
(and they're damn hungry).
True, most howlers have a scientific educational background. But this
doesn't mean a damn thing if what they were taught (about man's origin
and ancestry) was dinosaur manure, which indeed it is.
Thirdly -- then I'll shut up -- you have made the following statement:
``You post and repost the same stuff with
no change of any significance each time
and never a compromise, even on what is obviously
. wrong.This is the sign of a stubborn mind
and you are asking others to open their minds??????"
C'mon, Graham! You can do better than that. What now appears on
the home page about my stuff -- photos, etc. -- is much, much more
than you or anyone else out there ever envisioned when the bell
sounded late last March for the start of Round One.
Many more photos and much more information continually have been
added.
But forget everything else! The bottom line is whether my specimens
are petrified bone. Too many out seem to be hypnotized by Andrew
MacRae's erroneous decree that, based on his analyses of the cell
structure, they are not bone.
They seem to put little stock in my rebuttal that Andrew MacRae
has put himself on a hot seat by concealing facts and evidence.
He KNOWS the specimens he examined ARE petrified bone but
stubbornly has been denying it.
One of these days, I'm going to prove he and his cohort Paul Myers are
active participants in the conspiracy to keep a truth suppressed.
Even worse, I will prove that all of their denials of my specimens
being petrified bone are nothing but a pack of lies.
|