|
|
Re: LUCY: ``Yes, we have no bananas!"/\/\ (raven@kaiwan.com)21 Nov 1996 14:05:59 -0800
Reset to talk.origins.
In article <56proj$78@news.ptd.net>, edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad) wrote:
>>|>> 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.
>
>
>
>
|