Proposal for Kook of the Month: Re: WHO/WHAT is Ed Conrad?

Claudio De Diana (sniper@tep.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de)
19 Dec 1996 18:49:43 GMT

Dear Everybody,
having read the FAQ of this group at the location
hereafter indicated:
http://www.wetware.com/mlegare/kotm/auk-faq.html
--------begin quote FAQ
3. Can you give me a few examples?
[...]
The people who post demented "scientific" theories and seem invulnerable
to criticism are moderate net.kooks.
The sort of person who constantly raves about the conspiracy against
her or him is an extreme net.kook, especially if he or she automatically
assumes that anyone who questions her or his world-view is an agent
of the conspirators.
--------end quote FAQ
I propose the following user, i.e. edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad)
as Kook of the month, it seems to me that he is not a previously winner:
(http://www.wetware.com/mlegare/kotm/winnersk95.html & 96.html)
and that there is at least another proposal for him as Kook of the Month
psoting the article about the Great Wall of China.

Please do notice that this brief post of
him has, in my opinion, all what it is need for his nomination:
(1) He presents - briefly - his theory.
(2) He speaks against the scientific establishment and
the "torrent of deceipt, dishonesty, corruption, etc.."
perpetrated against him.
More posts of him are currently available in all (and more)
the newsgroup cited in the header but I strongly suggests
to read this post because:
(a) it is short
(b) he describes himself

Best Regards,
Claudio De Diana

***********BEGIN OF ED CONRAD POST*************************
edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad) wrote:
>
>EJ <ej@vortex.is> wrote:
>
>>Greetings from Iceland
>
>> My name is Eir€kur J€nsson (EJ), I'm from Iceland. I am very new at
>>this newsgroup but I would like to know a few things
>> Who/What is Ed Conrad? I mean I'm new at this newsgroup thing (just
>>few days sins I came on the net, I'm figuring this out as I go along)
>>But I thought anthropology was something relaited to,,,, well how should
>>I put this.... ANTHROPOLOGY??????
>> I don't understand!
>>Would someone (not Ed Conrad) please contact me (not on the newsgroup)
>>and help my understand this Newsgroup buisness. My adress is
>>ej@vortex.is
>>
>>ps. This is my first message on the Internet :)
>>
>> Eir€kur J€nsson
>
>Eirikur:
>
>I'm Ed Conrad and I figured I'd sneak right in -- and fast! -- to let
>you know Who/What I am before your email gets jammed by an
>excess of incoming cow manure.
>
>Quite simply, I have discovered petrified human remains in
>Carboniferous strata between coal veins. This means man undoubtedly
>existed in almost our present form multi-multi-millions of years
>before the earliest date presented by the evolutionary theory of our
>emergence from a prehuman ancestor.
>
>Some of my evidence can be seen by calling up
>http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/conmain.htm
>which, of course, not only proves that man had existed back then
>but that other large land animals had existed as well.
>
>This is contrary to what all of the science books ever printed have
>had to say about life during the Carboniferous (a minimum opf 280
>million years ago).
>
>On the other hand, you must understand -- because it's as factual a
>fact as you'll ever run into -- that not one single shred of
>conclusive evidence is available to back up the scientific
>establishment's contention that man's most remote ancestor was a
>cat-size, monkey-like primate -- called an insectivore -- whose
>presence on earth reportedly (?) can be traced no farther back than
>60-65 million years ago.
>
>My evidence indicates that man existed on earth in our present form
>during a period of time that the lowly insectivore wasn't even yet a
>gleam in some prehistoric amoeba's eye.
>
>I'd like to note that the petrified human skeletal remains and
>petrified soft organs which I've discovered between coal veins seem to
>indicate that man was at least seven-eight feet tall, based on the
>size of many of the various human remains.
>
>The adverse hostile reaction to these coal-age petrified human fossils
>is due to the fact that they seriously threaten the very founation of
>the scientific establishment's totally erroneous theory of man's
>origin and ancestry.
>
>If we didn't evolve from a lowly inhuman primate, then WHERE did we
>come from? THAT is the question!
>
>Meanwhile, Eirukir, I'd like to mention that man who lived during the
>time period of the coal formations apparently was at least seven feet
>tall, since just about all of my human fossils seem to be larger that
>that of a large adult.
>
>I have been defending my position for some 15-16 years against a
>torrent of deceipt, dishonesty, corruption and collusion perpetrated
>by the highest-placed individuals and institutions in the scientific
>establishment.
>
>Prior to the arrival of the Internet, the scientific establishment
>always had the final say -- that I am dead wrong -- because of its
>awesome power and incredible influence.
>
>Fortunately, however, this computer age and its Instant Messages to
>Everywhere has heralded a return of the Free Press.
>
>And I've always believed that in a Free Press -- same as the message
>of Christmas -- it is much better to give than to receive.
>
>And this, I suppose, explains why my name is plastered all over this
>news group.
>
>
>
>
****************** END OF THE ED CONRAD POST ****************************