SMITHSONIAN -- Its Crime Against Humanity
Ed Conrad
As some of you know, I have made incredibly strong accusations
about the Smithsonian Institution's total dishonesty in attempting
to protect the falsified, factless theory of the origin of man.
I have accused it of deceit, deception, collusion and conspiracy.
It concerns a boulder discovered between anthracite veins in
Pennsylvania's coal fields that contains a petrified human skull.
Here are two photographs:
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/skulla.jpg
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/skullb.jpg
The Smithsonian's Department of Paleobiology, in its National Museum
of Natural History, saw a photo when it was first found and stated
that the object embedded in the boulder "does resemble the outline
of a human skull."
It then added: "First, we must do a microscopic study of the outer
rind to determine if it has the structure of bone."
However, six weeks later, it informed me that "an x-ray analysis of
the material reveals it to be quartz, the most abundant mineral of the
earth's crust. So although the enigmatic object exposed in the boulder
may resemble a homind skull, its mineral composition is definitely not
that of bone."
However, x-ray analysis is NOT a test to determine the cellular
structure of bone and has nothing whatsoever to do with such
an investigation.
It was a glaring attempt by the Smithsonian Institution to conceal the
truth.
Such an insulting response would only have been done if the
Smithsonian had performed the proper testing for cellular structure
and realized, indeed, that it IS bone. -- confirming, beyond doubt,
that the object embedded in the boulder is that of a human being who
existed during the formation of anthracite.
That man was on earth when coal was being formed -- the boulder came
from between anthracite veins -- totally destoys the theory that man's
initial emergence on earth occurred multi-millions of years later.
Nowthen, Haversian canals -- the telltale sign of bone, petrified or
otherwise -- DO exist in the "enigmatic object" resembling a human
skull embedded in the boulder.
The cellular structure of bone was visible in "a microscopic study of
the outer rind" -- in the very same granules sent to the Smithsonian
back in 1982 -- and indeed proves that the object embedded in the
boulder is indeed a petrified human skull.
That the Smithsonian Insitution has employed such a sham -- outright
dishonesty -- to deny, and conceal, the phsyical evidence that human
beings existed during the coal formations -- that Man is As Old As
Coal -- is an affront to truth, a crime against humanity and an insult
to school children who are being taught an outright lie about man's
origin and ancestry.
I hereby challange the Smithsonian Institution to defend itself
against my accusations of its deceit, deception, collusion and
conspiracy -- its incredible dishonesty -- in a court of law, or in
front of a Congressional panel.
===================================
Meanwhile, here is another petrified human skull discovered
between anthracite veins, less than 100 yards -- and a year
later -- from where the boulder was found.
I might add that the Smithsonian Institution proved itself unworthy
of examining this petrifiied human skull because of its previous
deceitful unscientific behavior.
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/z11calv.jpg
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/MVC-005S.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/MVC-006S.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/MVC-007S.JPG
Here, too, is a petrified human femur, still embedded in slate,
shown in comparison to an unpetrified human femur.
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/z8femur.jpg
==============================================
Ed Conrad
> http://www.edconrad.com
Charlie Fields
> As some of you know, I have made incredibly strong accusations
> about the Smithsonian Institution's total dishonesty in attempting
> to protect the falsified, factless theory of the origin of man.
>
> I have accused it of deceit, deception, collusion and conspiracy.
>
> It concerns a boulder discovered between anthracite veins in
> Pennsylvania's coal fields that contains a petrified human skull.
>
> Here are two photographs:
>
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/skulla.jpg
>
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/skullb.jpg
>
> The Smithsonian's Department of Paleobiology, in its National Museum
> of Natural History, saw a photo when it was first found and stated
> that the object embedded in the boulder "does resemble the outline
> of a human skull."
>
> It then added: "First, we must do a microscopic study of the outer
> rind to determine if it has the structure of bone."
>
> However, six weeks later, it informed me that "an x-ray analysis of
> the material reveals it to be quartz, the most abundant mineral of the
> earth's crust. So although the enigmatic object exposed in the boulder
> may resemble a homind skull, its mineral composition is definitely not
> that of bone."
>
> However, x-ray analysis is NOT a test to determine the cellular
> structure of bone and has nothing whatsoever to do with such
> an investigation.
An x-ray analysis is most definitely a test for quartz. If they
determined that the "skull" is quartz, then that is automatically a
determination that it isn't bone.
Or maybe they did test directly to find out whether it was bone, found
out that it wasn't, and then decided to see more specifically what it
was. When they found it was quartz, they told you that without going
into all the details of the events leading up to that determination,
and assumed that you would deduce on your own that if it was quartz,
then it was necessarily not bone.
>
> It was a glaring attempt by the Smithsonian Institution to conceal the
> truth.
>
> Such an insulting response would only have been done if the
> Smithsonian had performed the proper testing for cellular structure
> and realized, indeed, that it IS bone.
Just to make sure I have this straight: the only occasion for them to
tell you that they had discovered it was quartz would be if they had
confirmed that it was bone and wanted to hide that fact. In other
words, if they had discovered it to be quartz, they would have said
that they had found it to be Silly Putty.
> -- confirming, beyond doubt,
> that the object embedded in the boulder is that of a human being who
> existed during the formation of anthracite.
>
> That man was on earth when coal was being formed -- the boulder came
> from between anthracite veins -- totally destoys the theory that man's
> initial emergence on earth occurred multi-millions of years later.
>
> Nowthen, Haversian canals -- the telltale sign of bone, petrified or
> otherwise -- DO exist in the "enigmatic object" resembling a human
> skull embedded in the boulder.
>
> The cellular structure of bone was visible in "a microscopic study of
> the outer rind" -- in the very same granules sent to the Smithsonian
> back in 1982 -- and indeed proves that the object embedded in the
> boulder is indeed a petrified human skull.
You are being remarkably unclear. First you say that they didn't
report to you after all what the result of a microscopic study of the
outer rind was, and instead gave you the result of an x-ray
examination. Now you are telling us what a microscopic study of the
outer rind found. Did you submit the same skull to the Smithsonian on
two occasions, 20 years apart, or what?
>
> That the Smithsonian Insitution has employed such a sham -- outright
> dishonesty -- to deny, and conceal, the phsyical evidence that human
> beings existed during the coal formations -- that Man is As Old As
> Coal -- is an affront to truth, a crime against humanity and an insult
> to school children who are being taught an outright lie about man's
> origin and ancestry.
>
> I hereby challange the Smithsonian Institution to defend itself
> against my accusations of its deceit, deception, collusion and
> conspiracy -- its incredible dishonesty -- in a court of law, or in
> front of a Congressional panel.
You get a case into court by suing someone or filing a complaint, not
by issuing public challenges to them on the Internet. What are they
supposed to do, call up a court somewhere and say, "Hello, could I
have a reservation for 10 people in non-smoking for August 5th to give
a little demonstration to prove myself to this fellow who has issued
us a challenge?" Congress likewise doesn't rent itself out for grudge
matches.