Johanson has no "in situ" photos of Lucy
J McCoy
popular books, as that's what's convincing to the general populace.
You will not find them because they do not exists.
Photography and film were developed as a means to capture nature.
They are both essential in science and in proving the truth. It is
therefore a shame that although there's a picture of Johanson holding
a bone fragment near a bush while such a photo doesn't exist of
"insitu". Clearly they had a photographer out there. There should
have been some guy with a movie camera too. Which is interesting
because for a couple of hundred dollars I had a sound super 8 camera
that I purchased while doing janitorial work in high school.
Johanson could have bought one himself. And when he or anyone else
found something, they could have gottent the camera out and filmed it
as is, and then continued. But they did not. So what was the purpose
of having a camera out on the field when you are going to take photos
of some significant items in situ?
Also, is there any film of Johanson sneaking out to the modern
cemetary to steal a femur? That should have been used, with plenty of
close-ups. I fail to see why they didn't use the camera for that
thrilling portion of their adventure.
They also could have taken film of the authorities in Ethiopia when
they got angry that he had taken the femur. The authorities asked him
to answer some questions about whether he tried to smuggle some bones
out of the country and ask him why he broke contractual agreement not
to engage in profiteering with the Lucy bones in question. Or as to
why he did other bad things. I just don't understand why there is no
film of this?
Well, I guess we don't need film of the authorities getting mad. But
we do need it for insitu scenes. I mean, they had a camera out there,
but they didn't use it.
J McCoy
Mike Dunford
news:3f355ee.03042...@posting.google.com:
> You'd expect to find "in situ" photos of his Lucy specimen in
> his popular books, as that's what's convincing to the general
> populace. You will not find them because they do not exists.
Actually, I suspect that the reason one does not typically find any
pictures of fossils in popular books is because the pictures, when
taken, are extrordinarily unremarkable. Fossils tend to be very hard
to spot in the field -- it can take years of practice to get good at
finding them. Even when found, photographing them in place can be
challenging, since there is often very, very little contrast between
the fossil and the matrix (surrounding rock). Finally, there is often
not much to take a picture of anyway, since the bulk of the fossil is
usually not visible at all -- it's in the rock.
Except in rare circumstances, any picture taken of any vertebrate
fossil while it is still in place is not going to be worth putting in
a popular book. Most people are just going to see a patch of rock,
possibly with something that is faintly visable circled in white. In
fact, the picture might even look unconvincing to the general public,
since it won't show anything that looks like the "final" product.
[rest of rant snipped]
--Mike Dunford
--
Humans are not proud of their ancestors, and rarely invite them
round to dinner.
--Douglas Adams
Andres Soolo
> You'd expect to find "in situ" photos of his Lucy specimen in his
> popular books, as that's what's convincing to the general populace.
Why are creationists obsessed with "evolutionists" eternally trying to
convince them?
> [...]
> cemetary to steal a femur? That should have been used, with plenty of
> close-ups. I fail to see why they didn't use the camera for that
> thrilling portion of their adventure.
We can pretty safely assume that some members of the expeditions had
gone to butcher's at some time in their lives. Why don't you require
photos of *that*? Remember that butcher's shops have plenty of fresh
bones around, with meat on them. Your imagination can certainly figure
out a way to steal one of them and do something insidious with it.
> [...]
> They also could have taken film of the authorities in Ethiopia when
> they got angry that he had taken the femur. The authorities asked him
> [...]
How would it be related to scientific expedition?
By the way, officials past the level of elementary school don't "get
angry". They "are disturbed" or "express their deep concern" and they
might sue you, but they don't "get angry".
--
Andres Soolo <so...@math.ut.ee>
management, n.:
The art of getting other people to do all the work.
Dana Tweedy
"J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.03042...@posting.google.com...
> You'd expect to find "in situ" photos of his Lucy specimen in his
> popular books, as that's what's convincing to the general populace.
> You will not find them because they do not exists.
How do you know? have you read Johanson's peer reviewed article? That's
generally where any supporting documentation, including photos are
presented. Also, do you really think the "Lucy" specimen was found the way
it was laid out in the photos in the book?
Snip the rest of McCoy's irresponsible charges
oh, BTW, why don't you pay your gambling losses?
DJT
Von Smith
> You'd expect to find "in situ" photos of his Lucy specimen in his
> popular books, as that's what's convincing to the general populace.
> You will not find them because they do not exists.
<snip>
>
> Also, is there any film of Johanson sneaking out to the modern
> cemetary to steal a femur?
> That should have been used, with plenty of
> close-ups. I fail to see why they didn't use the camera for that
> thrilling portion of their adventure.
Gee, you're right. Maybe it didn't really happen, after all. That's
part of your argument I don't understand: You refuse to believe
Johanson's account of how he found Lucy without in situ photos,
implying that he just it up (not just *might* have made it up; you
come right out and accuse him of fraud), but you take at face value
purely verbal evidence from exactly the same person about his going
("sneaking" is arguable) out to a burial mound (not a "modern
cemetary") without any photos to back it up? How do you know Johanson
isn't lying about that, too?
>
> They also could have taken film of the authorities in Ethiopia when
> they got angry that he had taken the femur. The authorities asked him
> to answer some questions about whether he tried to smuggle some bones
> out of the country and ask him why he broke contractual agreement not
> to engage in profiteering with the Lucy bones in question. Or as to
> why he did other bad things. I just don't understand why there is no
> film of this?
>
> Well, I guess we don't need film of the authorities getting mad. But
> we do need it for insitu scenes. I mean, they had a camera out there,
> but they didn't use it.
Again, why do we need one and not the other? After all, you are
perfectly willing to publicly accuse Johanson of fraud on the basis of
purely verbal evidence (which I'm sure you have presented as
accurately and responsibly as you always treat verbal evidence).
Von Smith
Fortuna nimis dat multis, satis nulli.
>
> J McCoy
Frank Reichenbacher
> popular books, as that's what's convincing to the general populace.
> You will not find them because they do not exists.
How do you know?
>
> Photography and film were developed as a means to capture nature.
> They are both essential in science and in proving the truth.
Sometimes useful, but not essential.
It is
> therefore a shame that although there's a picture of Johanson holding
> a bone fragment near a bush while such a photo doesn't exist of
> "insitu".
How do you know? Just because he didn't publish it in his book doesn't mean
it doesn't exist.
Clearly they had a photographer out there. There should
> have been some guy with a movie camera too. Which is interesting
> because for a couple of hundred dollars I had a sound super 8 camera
> that I purchased while doing janitorial work in high school.
You owe gen2rev $150, pay up.
> Johanson could have bought one himself. And when he or anyone else
> found something, they could have gottent the camera out and filmed it
> as is, and then continued. But they did not.
How do you know?
So what was the purpose
> of having a camera out on the field when you are going to take photos
> of some significant items in situ?
How do you know they didn't?
>
> Also, is there any film of Johanson sneaking out to the modern
> cemetary to steal a femur? That should have been used, with plenty of
> close-ups. I fail to see why they didn't use the camera for that
> thrilling portion of their adventure.
>
> They also could have taken film of the authorities in Ethiopia when
> they got angry that he had taken the femur. The authorities asked him
> to answer some questions about whether he tried to smuggle some bones
> out of the country and ask him why he broke contractual agreement not
> to engage in profiteering with the Lucy bones in question. Or as to
> why he did other bad things. I just don't understand why there is no
> film of this?
References please, otherwise I will conclude you are making this up.
>
> Well, I guess we don't need film of the authorities getting mad. But
> we do need it for insitu scenes. I mean, they had a camera out there,
> but they didn't use it.
How do you know?
Frank
>
> J McCoy
>
Steve
borderline sociopathic hostility of those who don't agree with your
ancient Middel-eastern messiah fable - evolutionist in this case but I
suspect there are others who arouse your ire.
First, Mike Dunford is correct. In mass market books on paleontology
or paleoanthropology, photographs do little to illustrate the data -
graphics are an easier means to depict the specimens. The same is
true in professional scientific journals on those subject. When
photographs of fossil specimens are presented they are accompanied by
detailed line drawings. All in the name of clarity - not some
sinister anti-religious conspiracy.
As for photographing fossil specimens "in situ" it is done all the
time and was done by Johanson in the Afar region. However, please
note that on-site photographs are employed to determine scale.
Detailed photography is done later in the laboratory as both a record
of the specimen and as a mobile resource for research and study.
I'm curious, with God's infinite power how come He did produce an
"in-situ" picture of Jesus' birth, of a moving picture of the
crucifixion? But, how silly of me...I forget that religious
fanaticism fears logical inquiry even more then diabolical
machinations the of the mythical Satan.
Steve the Sauropodman
so...@math.ut.ee (Andres Soolo) wrote in message news:<1ld4o-...@news.mirk.dyn.ee>...
Ron Okimoto
What I can't figure out is how McCoy knows that there are no photos.
Sometimes photos are taken to document the location relative to
geological layers in the sediment. It is usually easier than writing
a description in your notebook. No one publishes these photos they
are only for documentation and records. If I recall correctly they
got lucky with Lucy because she fell between two ash layers that could
be K argon dated. I'm sure that Johanson's critics made him do his
homework and justify his dating.
Ron Okimoto
David Sienkiewicz
For levels of ignorance and misdirection, it scores an "A."
Congratulations.
mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy) wrote in message news:<3f355ee.03042...@posting.google.com>...
> You'd expect to find "in situ" photos of his Lucy specimen in his
> popular books, as that's what's convincing to the general populace.
Really!
Juries are made up of members of the "general public" and they are
convinced of things nearly every day - without photos. Scott Peterson
will almost certainly be convicted of the murder of his wife and
unborn son without a single photo of the act or the bodies "insitu" at
the place where she was believed to have been killed (their home,
IIRC).
This sounds comically like the statements of Ted Holden, whose sole
standard of evidence seems to be "look at the pictures." Yours is a
bizarre twist on that. "Without pictures," you tell us, "there is no
evidence" or you will claim that what evidence exists is invalid.
I'm curious about this hatred you have for Johanson, by the way, John.
Seek treatment.
> You will not find them because they do not exists.
As one who has paged through a number of books with photographs over
the years, I can say that I have seen an number of photos of in situ
fossils and it's very difficult to make them out a great deal of the
time. Now maybe it's these old eyes, but I think it's telling that
you will find arrows and outlines superimposed on many of those photos
in textbooks so that the reader can more easily spot the fossil.
> Photography and film were developed as a means to capture nature.
They were?
> They are both essential in science and in proving the truth.
They are?
Then how did science get by in all the years before film was invented?
How did science get by in all of the years before it was routinely
used in the field (remember, John, early photographic equipment was
large, cumbersome and expensive).
My goodness, how did Newton and Galileo ever propose a single
scientific concept without photos?
By the way, John, science doesn't deal in "truth" or "proof."
> It is
> therefore a shame that although there's a picture of Johanson holding
> a bone fragment near a bush while such a photo doesn't exist of
> "insitu". Clearly they had a photographer out there. There should
> have been some guy with a movie camera too. Which is interesting
> because for a couple of hundred dollars I had a sound super 8 camera
> that I purchased while doing janitorial work in high school.
So you're a janitor?
Somehow I suspected as much.
> Johanson could have bought one himself. And when he or anyone else
> found something, they could have gottent the camera out and filmed it
> as is, and then continued. But they did not. So what was the purpose
> of having a camera out on the field when you are going to take photos
> of some significant items in situ?
I suspect that you have no idea what goes on in the field, John.
> Also, is there any film of Johanson sneaking out to the modern
> cemetary to steal a femur?
Are you SURE it wasn't a pelvis, John?
Pay gen2rev what you owe him.
> That should have been used, with plenty of
> close-ups. I fail to see why they didn't use the camera for that
> thrilling portion of their adventure.
John, there are no photographs of the crucifiction or of Jesus rising
from the grave.
Therefore, it didn't happen.
There ARE photographs of a couple of fairies dancing around a couple
of little girls. So that DID happen, eh?
> They also could have taken film of the authorities in Ethiopia when
> they got angry that he had taken the femur. The authorities asked him
> to answer some questions about whether he tried to smuggle some bones
> out of the country and ask him why he broke contractual agreement not
> to engage in profiteering with the Lucy bones in question. Or as to
> why he did other bad things. I just don't understand why there is no
> film of this?
I wonder how many cameras were in the Peterson household, John.
> Well, I guess we don't need film of the authorities getting mad. But
> we do need it for insitu scenes.
No, we don't.
> I mean, they had a camera out there,
> but they didn't use it.
Sometimes they did. So what?
Frank Reichenbacher
"Ron Okimoto" <roki...@mail.uark.edu> wrote in message
news:63afe69c.03043...@posting.google.com...
He doesn't know, how could he? He just knows from the previous three weeks
of pointless bantering that none of the rest of us have any of Johanson's
pubs (books or articles) so he can say anything he likes without fear of
meaningful contradiction.
Frank
gen2rev
Especially considering the controversy that surrounded Leakey's specimen
1470 at that time. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/1470.html as
well as Johanson's book.
>
> Ron Okimoto
Alan Morgan
Ron Okimoto <roki...@mail.uark.edu> wrote:
>Mike Dunford <mdun...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message news:<Xns936CD5E07F...@66.75.162.196>...
>> mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy) wrote in
>> news:3f355ee.03042...@posting.google.com:
>>
>> > You'd expect to find "in situ" photos of his Lucy specimen in
>> > his popular books, as that's what's convincing to the general
>> > populace. You will not find them because they do not exists.
>>
[snip]
>What I can't figure out is how McCoy knows that there are no photos.
He saw it on the internet. He can't actually provide a reference,
you understand, but "the internet" ought to be specific enough. In
fact, doing a quick search, I found plenty of pages that don't have
any pictures of Lucy in situ, proving the point.
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
J McCoy
Garbage. If I were out in the field I would film and video everything.
Even Wyatt and Fasold had video of their field expeditions.
J McCoy
>
> --Mike Dunford
J McCoy
> mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy) wrote in message news:<3f355ee.03042...@posting.google.com>...
> > You'd expect to find "in situ" photos of his Lucy specimen in his
> > popular books, as that's what's convincing to the general populace.
> > You will not find them because they do not exists.
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > Also, is there any film of Johanson sneaking out to the modern
> > cemetary to steal a femur?
> > That should have been used, with plenty of
> > close-ups. I fail to see why they didn't use the camera for that
> > thrilling portion of their adventure.
>
> Gee, you're right. Maybe it didn't really happen, after all.
Maybe you're right. Maybe Johanson never found Lucy's collections of
bones in situ. But we'll never know, and not having a photo of it
despite having a camera out there throws a big question mark over the
whole think. Doubt just comes prodding in.
That's
> part of your argument I don't understand: You refuse to believe
> Johanson's account of how he found Lucy without in situ photos,
> implying that he just it up (not just *might* have made it up; you
> come right out and accuse him of fraud),
Others before him had made things up. Johanson, in his book, talks
about the Piltdown Hoax to some length, and so he was familiar with
that scenario. He stole a femur to the consternation of Ethiopian
authorities and broke contract. According to Ethiopian authorities he
was attempting to smuggle out some bones and some bones are missing.
He also dug at a site that was reserved for another doctor. So his
group is rather shady.
but you take at face value
> purely verbal evidence from exactly the same person about his going
> ("sneaking" is arguable)
All I have to do is say that they were attempting not to get "caught".
Using their own word "caught" I think that stops the "arguable" ness
that you are talking about.
out to a burial mound (not a "modern
> cemetary") without any photos to back it up? How do you know Johanson
> isn't lying about that, too?
True. They should have had "insitu" photos of them stealing in the
act.
>
> >
> > They also could have taken film of the authorities in Ethiopia when
> > they got angry that he had taken the femur. The authorities asked him
> > to answer some questions about whether he tried to smuggle some bones
> > out of the country and ask him why he broke contractual agreement not
> > to engage in profiteering with the Lucy bones in question. Or as to
> > why he did other bad things. I just don't understand why there is no
> > film of this?
> >
> > Well, I guess we don't need film of the authorities getting mad. But
> > we do need it for insitu scenes. I mean, they had a camera out there,
> > but they didn't use it.
>
> Again, why do we need one and not the other? After all, you are
> perfectly willing to publicly accuse Johanson of fraud on the basis of
> purely verbal evidence (which I'm sure you have presented as
> accurately and responsibly as you always treat verbal evidence).
I publicly accuse him of having a camera out on the scene without
"insitu" photos of Lucy.
By the way, Johanson says that his specimen is "unique" and no one
will ever find another one. Of course nobody will ever find another
one as it was put together with a bunch of bones that don't belong
together. And other evolutionists realize this too, and are covering
for Johanson, saying that there are many species of Lucy. This means
that if an identical skull is found with the real monkey bones insitu,
that will never prove Johanson wrong, as that would be considered just
another species. And Johanson is right, nobody will ever find another
one.
J McCoy
Dana Tweedy
Good for you. Who would pay for the film and video? I'm sure there are
many people who would love to send you somewhere far, far away. Why don't
you start raising the money right now? Then you can pay gen2rev the money
you owe him.
>
> Even Wyatt and Fasold had video of their field expeditions.
Just goes to show that a fraud can fool you with a slickly produced video.
Heck, I imagine you can be fooled by the Weekly World News.
DJT
boikat
Other than "It's a shame they didn't have pictures", is there some point to
this particular whine? Besides, if they did have pictures (and I don't know
that they do not), would that have any impact on your views?
Boikat
Dana Tweedy
> drea...@hotmail.com (Von Smith) wrote in message
news:<8d74ec45.03043...@posting.google.com>...
> > mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy) wrote in message
news:<3f355ee.03042...@posting.google.com>...
> > > You'd expect to find "in situ" photos of his Lucy specimen in his
> > > popular books, as that's what's convincing to the general populace.
> > > You will not find them because they do not exists.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >
> > > Also, is there any film of Johanson sneaking out to the modern
> > > cemetary to steal a femur?
> > > That should have been used, with plenty of
> > > close-ups. I fail to see why they didn't use the camera for that
> > > thrilling portion of their adventure.
> >
> > Gee, you're right. Maybe it didn't really happen, after all.
>
> Maybe you're right. Maybe Johanson never found Lucy's collections of
> bones in situ.
However the evidence produced by Johanson to support his find has never been
successfuly challenged.
> But we'll never know, and not having a photo of it
> despite having a camera out there throws a big question mark over the
> whole think. Doubt just comes prodding in.
However "doubt" has never shown any reason to suspect the find is not
genuine. No one in the scientific community has been able to dispute
Johanson's finds, and that's not for lack of trying.
"Lucy" was found as a set of fragments over a period of three weeks, not
an articulated skeleton all at once. They make up a 40% complete skeleton,
once they are all put together. More to the point, Lucy was not the only
specimen of A. afarensis found. There are over 300 individuals of
A.afarensis currently known.
>
>
> That's
> > part of your argument I don't understand: You refuse to believe
> > Johanson's account of how he found Lucy without in situ photos,
> > implying that he just it up (not just *might* have made it up; you
> > come right out and accuse him of fraud),
>
> Others before him had made things up. Johanson, in his book, talks
> about the Piltdown Hoax to some length, and so he was familiar with
> that scenario.
Creationists talk about the Piltdown hoax all the time too. Scientists are
aware of Piltdown, and the need to be extra careful with documentation. No
one has shown any evidence that Johanson's finds in the Afar region were
faked.
> He stole a femur to the consternation of Ethiopian
> authorities and broke contract.
That's as may be, but it's no evidence that he falsified his data.
> According to Ethiopian authorities he
> was attempting to smuggle out some bones and some bones are missing.
> He also dug at a site that was reserved for another doctor. So his
> group is rather shady.
The Ethiopian authorities claims (assuming for the moment that they are
true) don't change the authenticity of Johanson's finds. Instead of dealing
in ad hominem, why not address the fossils themselves?
>
>
> but you take at face value
> > purely verbal evidence from exactly the same person about his going
> > ("sneaking" is arguable)
>
> All I have to do is say that they were attempting not to get "caught".
> Using their own word "caught" I think that stops the "arguable" ness
> that you are talking about.
I don't see how. In his discription, he wasn't being particularly
deceptive, and he didn't go off alone. He and another member of the
expedition went to the grave site, in the daylight, and took a bone for
comparison purposes. Most likely they returned it, afterwards. The didn't
want to be "caught" because they didn't want to upset the local people.
>
>
> out to a burial mound (not a "modern
> > cemetary") without any photos to back it up? How do you know Johanson
> > isn't lying about that, too?
>
> True. They should have had "insitu" photos of them stealing in the
> act.
Why? What purpose would that serve?
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > They also could have taken film of the authorities in Ethiopia when
> > > they got angry that he had taken the femur. The authorities asked him
> > > to answer some questions about whether he tried to smuggle some bones
> > > out of the country and ask him why he broke contractual agreement not
> > > to engage in profiteering with the Lucy bones in question. Or as to
> > > why he did other bad things. I just don't understand why there is no
> > > film of this?
> > >
> > > Well, I guess we don't need film of the authorities getting mad. But
> > > we do need it for insitu scenes. I mean, they had a camera out there,
> > > but they didn't use it.
> >
> > Again, why do we need one and not the other? After all, you are
> > perfectly willing to publicly accuse Johanson of fraud on the basis of
> > purely verbal evidence (which I'm sure you have presented as
> > accurately and responsibly as you always treat verbal evidence).
>
> I publicly accuse him of having a camera out on the scene without
> "insitu" photos of Lucy.
How do you know there are no pictures?
>
> By the way, Johanson says that his specimen is "unique" and no one
> will ever find another one.
Where did Johanson say that? Johanson's team found an entire "family" of
A. afarensis fossil a year after "Lucy".
> Of course nobody will ever find another
> one as it was put together with a bunch of bones that don't belong
> together.
Then why are there over 300 other individuals of the same species found?
The bones belong to the same specimen, as no duplicate body parts were found
in the same location. No double left arms, no double right femurs, All of
"Lucy's" bones found belonged to the same individual.
> And other evolutionists realize this too, and are covering
> for Johanson, saying that there are many species of Lucy.
There are several other species of the genus Australopithecus, showing clear
differences in skull size and shape. However over 300 individuals of the
species A. afarensis have been found.
> This means
> that if an identical skull is found with the real monkey bones insitu,
> that will never prove Johanson wrong, as that would be considered just
> another species.
Other skulls of A. afarensis have been found, some with post cranial bones,
that match the post cranial bones of "Lucy".
> And Johanson is right, nobody will ever find another
> one.
Others have already been found. Your claims about Johanson are false, and
irresponsible.
DJT
Mike Dunford
I notice that you (again) avoided replying to any of the details on
my post. You also don't appear to have read it very well. I did not
say that Johanson did not take any pictures. I don't know if he did
or he didn't. I was pointing out why you would not expect to find
such pictures in a popular account. Depending on the circumstances,
you might not even expect to find them in a technical paper.
> If I were out in the field I would film and video everything.
To my knowledge, you never have been in the field, although you have
threatened to go several times. Under the circumstances, I hope you
will forgive me if I disregard what you would do _if_ you ever
actually managed to get out in the field as uninformed nonsense.
Both still and video cameras have a place in fieldwork, of course,
but like every other field tool get used only when they might be able
to do something useful. Generally speaking, taking both pictures and
video of everything is an incredible waste of time, effort, and grant
money -- all three of which are extremely limited.
> Even Wyatt and Fasold had video of their field expeditions.
Which just goes to show the limited value of video for fieldwork.
--Mike Dunford
--
If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to
consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the
family anatidae on our hands.
--Douglas Adams
Michael G.
[...]
John had better get busy accusing the folks who discovered the other
300 specimens of fraud.
John Bode
> popular books, as that's what's convincing to the general populace.
Johanson's primary motivation for the dig at Hadar was not to convince
the general populace of anything. His primary purpose was to collect
specimens that would hopefully shed light on human origins. He was
not expecting a find like AL 288-1 (the specimen called Lucy); no
paleontologist in their right mind expects to find anything that
spectacular. AL 129-1 (the knee joint*) would look like any other
rock in a photo. It's usually a fragment here, a tooth there. Not
much for compelling photography. Therefore, having a full time
photographer on site would generally be a waste of precious funds.
At any rate, his primary audience was composed of other
paleontologists, who tend to value detailed descriptions and drawings
over photos, because photos don't always tell the whole story.
IIRC, Polaroids were taken of each locality when something was found
to help them locate the site again. These pictures were never meant
for publication (although I think one example does appear in the
book).
> You will not find them because they do not exists.
>
And you know this for a fact because...
Snipping the rest because, frankly, this has become tiresome. You
simply do not have the credibility for anyone to take your claims
seriously. How about *you* lead an expedition, *you* pay for the
cameras and photographers to cover every activity 24/7. Show everyone
how it's done, McCoy, since you're such a frickin' expert on how to
announce finds, conduct digs, and document findings.
----
* Which is *NOT* Lucy's knee joint, and never was represented by
Johanson or anyone else as such. No he didn't. Get over it.
Thomas McDonald
<snip>
> I publicly accuse him of having a camera out on the scene without
> "insitu" photos of Lucy.
McWelcher,
Care to make it interesting?
Tom McDonald
Patrick James
(in message <3f355ee.03043...@posting.google.com>):
> By the way, Johanson says that his specimen is "unique" and no one
> will ever find another one. Of course nobody will ever find another
> one as it was put together with a bunch of bones that don't belong
> together. And other evolutionists realize this too, and are covering
> for Johanson, saying that there are many species of Lucy. This means
> that if an identical skull is found with the real monkey bones insitu,
> that will never prove Johanson wrong, as that would be considered just
> another species. And Johanson is right, nobody will ever find another
> one.
He was wrong. Several hundred of them have been found. See further:
<http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/australopithecusafarensis.htm>
<http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-
modules/top_longfor/timeline/afarensis/afarensis-a.html>
<http://www.geocities.com/palaeoanthropology/Aafarensis.html>
<http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/afarensis.htm>
However, he was perfectly right in that Lucy remains the single best
specimen.
So, nameless, you wouldn't happen to have some pix of that Egyptian chariot
wheel, now would you?
--
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
J McCoy
I already said that I would pay him.
As for the film and video, you don't need to hav that much film and
video to document anything. Heck, even on Wyatt's first trips he had
8mm film. When I was in high school I payed around $5.00 form 3
minutes of Super 8 film. You don't have to have the film on all the
time although that would be idea. What you do when you find something
is stop the work and film everything in situ. And take photos in
situ. This is a requirement.
>
> >
> > Even Wyatt and Fasold had video of their field expeditions.
>
> Just goes to show that a fraud can fool you with a slickly produced video.
> Heck, I imagine you can be fooled by the Weekly World News.
Wyatt's videos are far from being slick. They aren't slick at all.
And, I wouldn't stick up for Wyatt if he were a fraud. No matter who
this person is, a frauds a fraud and stay away from frauds. I did my
own independent investigation regarding Wyatt. And if I were not sure
regarding EVERY accusation that was against him I wouldn't defend him
in the least. I would shun him.
Let me give you just one example how Wyatt looks like a fraud on the
surface of things, but when you do some intense investigation it turns
out to be false.
Critics of Wyatt have accused him of asking for $10.000 in exchange
for allowing a television crew the right to film his excavation
project. OK. It first glance this seems legitimate because this claim
is being made by a creationist. You skeptics pick up on this and link
to these websites that make these claims. You taunt and claim that if
a creationist is making claims against Wyatt they must be true. You
call me a fraud for sticking up for Wyatt. The fact is, if such a
claim were true I would have trouble defending Wyatt. As, why would I
be so stupid to do so? Is there any way out of this?
The truth be known is that is not the case at all and I can prove it.
I have in my possession an audio tape that was made by Wyatt of the
phone call with the company lawyer. First of all, the lawyer kept
asking Wyatt to accept the $10,000 and told Wyatt that he could use it
for a lot of great things. And then Wyatt said that the company could
video irregardless of the money. In other words, free. But at the
lawyers urgings a contract was finally made up and signed. Written by
that attorney. The company said that Wyatt had not fulfilled the deal
and even claimed that he asked for the $10,000.
But guess what? You've never taken the time to write the Wyatts, and
surprise, surprise, surprise, nobody else has either. So you're
getting ONE side of the story.
So when I hear you guys talking about "scientist" say this and
"scientists" say that, to justify your position, I can only laugh
because your methodology of latching onto criticism directed at Wyatt
is laughable and unscientific. I have in my possession the audio
tape, and you do not. You do not even know the name of the audio tape
because you are self-righteous and conceited.
The fact is, you're not interested in whether Wyatt is right or not.
You're just looking for the information to prove him wrong. And that's
not scientific. Even Jim Lippard, hasn't heard the audio tape.
J McCoy
>
> DJT
J McCoy
Zip...
In response to your major point DJT, Lucy is the only specimen that is
mostly complete. Claims that there are numerous Australopithecus'es
fall flat when you realize that a skull is all there is needed to make
such a claim.
Johanson is right, his specimen is unique. Unless somebody else comes
up with another forgery you can be another one will not be found. Uh,
oh, I bet you another hoax is now in the works. Look for National
Geographic magazine in the next few months or year or so when another
fraud is revealed.
J M
>
>
>
> DJT
Patrick James
(in message <3f355ee.03050...@posting.google.com>):
> "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message
> news:<b8pgqa$cjdjk$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>...
>
> Zip...
>
> In response to your major point DJT, Lucy is the only specimen that is
> mostly complete.
40% complete is not mostly complete.
> Claims that there are numerous Australopithecus'es
> fall flat when you realize that a skull is all there is needed to make
> such a claim.
<insert sfx of moving goalposts here>
300 different specimens... all frauds, right? Okay. Whatever you say,
nameless.
>
> Johanson is right, his specimen is unique. Unless somebody else comes
> up with another forgery you can be another one will not be found. Uh,
> oh, I bet you another hoax is now in the works. Look for National
> Geographic magazine in the next few months or year or so when another
> fraud is revealed.
So, when are you going to pay the money you owe?
Dirk Murcray
> You'd expect to find "in situ" photos of his Lucy specimen in his
> popular books, as that's what's convincing to the general populace.
> You will not find them because they do not exists.>
<snip rantings>
Besides the fact(as others have explained)that photos of
partially-exposed fossils enveloped in rock matrix are uniformative,
there would seldom be any point in demonstrating in situ provenenience
for fossil specimens. As the saying goes in business regarding
"location, location, location", in paleontology it is likewise
context, context, context. The difference of course, is the scale of
the context. Genenerally in paleontology the only context that
matters is geologic stratum, which is usually a very big context. For
the purpose of establishing the geologic age of a particular fossil
(which is of course the main cause of creationist anxt) there is no
reason to document context beyond geologic formation. Determining the
geologic formation often requires little more than consulting a
geologic map.
Paleontology is not archaeology.
Dirk Murcray
> "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message news:<b8pgqa$cjdjk$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>...
>
> Zip...
>
> In response to your major point DJT, Lucy is the only specimen that is
> mostly complete. Claims that there are numerous Australopithecus'es
> fall flat when you realize that a skull is all there is needed to make
> such a claim.
So you are saying that there are nearly 300 Australopithecine skulls
and few other elements? Are you also saying that skulls are
unreliable taxonomic indicators? As a professional faunal analyst, I
beg to differ.
>
> Johanson is right, his specimen is unique. Unless somebody else comes
> up with another forgery you can be another one will not be found. Uh,
> oh, I bet you another hoax is now in the works. Look for National
> Geographic magazine in the next few months or year or so when another
> fraud is revealed.
I have examined casts of the Lucy fossils and I have met Dr. Johanson.
There is no evidence of fraud in either.
>
> J M
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > DJT
AC
Of course there's no fraud. I don't know why we're even playing this game
with Mr. McCoy. If we want to find a liar, we can look no farther than him.
I challenge Mr. McCoy to come up with direct evidence of an actual fraud on
the part of Johanson. Stealing bones, no matter how unsavory, is not the
crime of fraud, so come up with goods, and not in your usual fashion of
"I've got this book" or "I read it on the Internet". Proper and verifiable
references are required. This vague backyard slander that Mr. McCoy has
dragged everyone into is ridiculuous, and I for one think that we've let him
play this game for far too long.
--
A. Clausen
Dana Tweedy
"J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.03043...@posting.google.com...
> "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message
news:<b8pf5a$cc60p$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>...
> > >
> > > Garbage. If I were out in the field I would film and video
everything.
> >
> > Good for you. Who would pay for the film and video? I'm sure there
are
> > many people who would love to send you somewhere far, far away. Why
don't
> > you start raising the money right now? Then you can pay gen2rev the
money
> > you owe him.
>
> I already said that I would pay him.
So do so.
>
> As for the film and video, you don't need to hav that much film and
> video to document anything. Heck, even on Wyatt's first trips he had
> 8mm film. When I was in high school I payed around $5.00 form 3
> minutes of Super 8 film. You don't have to have the film on all the
> time although that would be idea. What you do when you find something
> is stop the work and film everything in situ. And take photos in
> situ. This is a requirement.
There is no indication that Johanson and his team did not photograph the
site. However in Johanson's book he specifically states that every fossil
was numbered and all pertinent information was entered into a master map of
the area. That is the requirement for paleoentologists. You seem to think
that AL 288 was found laying out just as you see it in the photos. All the
fossils of the specimen known as "Lucy" were found over a three week period,
by members of Johanson's team. Some of the bones were found by sifting
gravel, In situ photos would only reveal a mound of gravel.
> > >
> > > Even Wyatt and Fasold had video of their field expeditions.
> >
> > Just goes to show that a fraud can fool you with a slickly produced
video.
> > Heck, I imagine you can be fooled by the Weekly World News.
>
> Wyatt's videos are far from being slick. They aren't slick at all.
So, you admit you were fooled by a poorly presented fraud.
> And, I wouldn't stick up for Wyatt if he were a fraud.
Sure you would. He's telling you what you want to hear, what you
desparately want to believe. You also support Hovind, Gish, Morris and the
other Creationist frauds.
> No matter who
> this person is, a frauds a fraud and stay away from frauds.
Yet you blindly follow Creationists. Why is that?
> I did my
> own independent investigation regarding Wyatt. And if I were not sure
> regarding EVERY accusation that was against him I wouldn't defend him
> in the least. I would shun him.
What kind of "independent" investigation did you do? Blindly accepting
anything he says is not an "independent investigation".
>
> Let me give you just one example how Wyatt looks like a fraud on the
> surface of things, but when you do some intense investigation it turns
> out to be false.
>
> Critics of Wyatt have accused him of asking for $10.000 in exchange
> for allowing a television crew the right to film his excavation
> project. OK. It first glance this seems legitimate because this claim
> is being made by a creationist. You skeptics pick up on this and link
> to these websites that make these claims. You taunt and claim that if
> a creationist is making claims against Wyatt they must be true. You
> call me a fraud for sticking up for Wyatt. The fact is, if such a
> claim were true I would have trouble defending Wyatt. As, why would I
> be so stupid to do so? Is there any way out of this?
>
> The truth be known is that is not the case at all and I can prove it.
> I have in my possession an audio tape that was made by Wyatt of the
> phone call with the company lawyer.
How do you know the tape is genuine?
> First of all, the lawyer kept
> asking Wyatt to accept the $10,000 and told Wyatt that he could use it
> for a lot of great things. And then Wyatt said that the company could
> video irregardless of the money. In other words, free. But at the
> lawyers urgings a contract was finally made up and signed. Written by
> that attorney. The company said that Wyatt had not fulfilled the deal
> and even claimed that he asked for the $10,000.
Did Wyatt take the money?
>
> But guess what? You've never taken the time to write the Wyatts, and
> surprise, surprise, surprise, nobody else has either. So you're
> getting ONE side of the story.
How do you know the Wyatts were telling the truth?
>
> So when I hear you guys talking about "scientist" say this and
> "scientists" say that, to justify your position, I can only laugh
> because your methodology of latching onto criticism directed at Wyatt
> is laughable and unscientific. I have in my possession the audio
> tape, and you do not. You do not even know the name of the audio tape
> because you are self-righteous and conceited.
We have your claim to have an audio tape, and a claim the tape is what you
say it is. Considering your penchant for lying, and for making up things,
plus your penchant for accepting things blindly if they agree with you, how
am I to know that you: 1. have such a tape. 2. know the tape is genuine.
3. know the tape isn't heavily edited or 4. can show such a tape even
exists.
>
> The fact is, you're not interested in whether Wyatt is right or not.
All the evidence I've seen so far indicates that Wyatt is not only wrong,
but a pious fraud.
> You're just looking for the information to prove him wrong.
I haven't seen any evidence that would support his claims. I have seen a
lot that shows he's a fraud.
> And that's
> not scientific. Even Jim Lippard, hasn't heard the audio tape.
So? A tape can be easily faked, and we only have your word that the tape
even exists. Do you know how much your word is worth? Less than nothing.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message
news:<b8pgqa$cjdjk$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>...
>
> Zip...
>
> In response to your major point DJT, Lucy is the only specimen that is
> mostly complete.
It's 40% complete, an amazing amount of completeness for a hominid find.
> Claims that there are numerous Australopithecus'es
> fall flat when you realize that a skull is all there is needed to make
> such a claim.
Not just Australopithecus, but A. afarensis. Since a skull is part of an
individual, and each individual has only one skull, I don't see what you
have to complain about. Also, a significant amount of post cranial material
of theses other specimens has been found. The skulls themselves have unique
hominid features, which is diagnostic of the species.
http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/australopithecusafarensis.htm
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/afar.html
http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/afarensis.htm
>
> Johanson is right, his specimen is unique. Unless somebody else comes
> up with another forgery you can be another one will not be found.
You have no evidence that Johanson's find was a forgery. "Lucy" while
unusually complete, is not unique. Over 300 other members of her species
have been found. What Johanson said was what makes Lucy unique is her age
and completeness. She is not a unique member of her species.
>Uh,
> oh, I bet you another hoax is now in the works. Look for National
> Geographic magazine in the next few months or year or so when another
> fraud is revealed.
You are resorting to your old "evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong".
DJT
KelvynT
>You'd expect to find "in situ" photos of his Lucy specimen in his
>popular books, as that's what's convincing to the general populace.
>You will not find them because they do not exists.
>
>Photography and film were developed as a means to capture nature.
>They are both essential in science and in proving the truth. It is
>therefore a shame that although there's a picture of Johanson holding
>a bone fragment near a bush while such a photo doesn't exist of
>"insitu". Clearly they had a photographer out there. There should
>have been some guy with a movie camera too. Which is interesting
>because for a couple of hundred dollars I had a sound super 8 camera
>that I purchased while doing janitorial work in high school.
>Johanson could have bought one himself. And when he or anyone else
>found something, they could have gottent the camera out and filmed it
>as is, and then continued. But they did not. So what was the purpose
>of having a camera out on the field when you are going to take photos
>of some significant items in situ?
>
>Also, is there any film of Johanson sneaking out to the modern
>cemetary to steal a femur? That should have been used, with plenty of
>close-ups. I fail to see why they didn't use the camera for that
>thrilling portion of their adventure.
>
>They also could have taken film of the authorities in Ethiopia when
>they got angry that he had taken the femur. The authorities asked him
>to answer some questions about whether he tried to smuggle some bones
>out of the country and ask him why he broke contractual agreement not
>to engage in profiteering with the Lucy bones in question. Or as to
>why he did other bad things. I just don't understand why there is no
>film of this?
>
>Well, I guess we don't need film of the authorities getting mad. But
>we do need it for insitu scenes. I mean, they had a camera out there,
>but they didn't use it.
>
>J McCoy
Have you asked Johanson if he has any photos?
Kelvyn
Jim Lippard
Mr. McCoy, I have a book recommendation for you:
Russell R. Standish and Colin D. Standish, _Holy Relics or Revelation:
Recent Astounding Archaeological Claims Evaluated_, 1999, Hartland
Publications. 1-800-774-3566.
The authors, like Ron Wyatt, are Seventh Day Adventists.