Take a bite out of this!! PETRIFIED TOOTH
Ed Conrad
The following is a photo of the specimen found between anthracite
veins that resulted in the first snow job I got from the Smithsonian.
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith1/first.jpg
Three of their experts insisted it was a concretion based on a cursory
examination (no testing) -- but not one of these low-life informed me
a microscopic examination of the cell structure is the ONLY way to
tell whether it's petrified bone.
Surprise!
This is what was later found inside the jaw area -- a petrified
premolar tooth (photo shows its size compared with a dime).
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-014S.JPG
An infrared scan later revealed its origin is either teeth or bone,
testing done at American Medical Laboratories.
> Ed Conrad
> http://www.edconrad.com
PS: Hey, pseudos, how about character assassin-ing the so-called
"experts" at the Smithsonian, who must be embarrassing you no end.
You must be tired of assassinating me by now and it ain't doing you
one bit of good.
gen2rev
>
> The following is a photo of the specimen found between anthracite
> veins that resulted in the first snow job I got from the Smithsonian.
>
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith1/first.jpg
>
> Three of their experts insisted it was a concretion based on a cursory
> examination (no testing) -- but not one of these low-life informed me
> a microscopic examination of the cell structure is the ONLY way to
> tell whether it's petrified bone.
Gee, how do paleontologists in the field know that to remove, if a
microscopic examination is the ONLY way to tell?
> Surprise!
> This is what was later found inside the jaw area -- a petrified
> premolar tooth (photo shows its size compared with a dime).
>
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-014S.JPG
>
> An infrared scan later revealed its origin is either teeth or bone,
> testing done at American Medical Laboratories.
Gosh, according to your own web page, at
http://www.edconrad.com/oldascoal/page3.html they wrote "The scan shows
absorbances at approximately 9.8 and 12.8 mircometers; appearing similar
to some phosphates". Nothing about teeth or bone.
> > Ed Conrad
> > http://www.edconrad.com
>
> PS: Hey, pseudos, how about character assassin-ing the so-called
> "experts" at the Smithsonian, who must be embarrassing you no end.
How have they done that?
> You must be tired of assassinating me by now and it ain't doing you
> one bit of good.
Any claims I've made about your character are completely justified. That
whole Hooton misrepresentation comes to mind...
Ed Conrad
<gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote:
>Ed Conrad wrote:
>>
>> The following is a photo of the specimen found between anthracite
>> veins that resulted in the first snow job I got from the Smithsonian.
>>
>> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith1/first.jpg
>>
>> Three of their experts insisted it was a concretion based on a cursory
>> examination (no testing) -- but not one of these low-life informed me
>> a microscopic examination of the cell structure is the ONLY way to
>> tell whether it's petrified bone.
>
>Gee, how do paleontologists in the field know that to remove, if a
>microscopic examination is the ONLY way to tell?
>
>
>> Surprise!
>> This is what was later found inside the jaw area -- a petrified
>> premolar tooth (photo shows its size compared with a dime).
>>
>> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-014S.JPG
>>
>> An infrared scan later revealed its origin is either teeth or bone,
>> testing done at American Medical Laboratories.
>
>Gosh, according to your own web page, at
>http://www.edconrad.com/oldascoal/page3.html they wrote "The scan shows
>absorbances at approximately 9.8 and 12.8 mircometers; appearing similar
>to some phosphates". Nothing about teeth or bone.
>
Yep! That's exactly what the scan says.
But, Know-It-All, the scan has to be interpreted, and it was
(and does appear on the web page):
==================================================
"The scan identifies your material as compatible with either teeth
or bone in origin. It does not date the material, neither does it tell
species of origin (i.e., human or otherwise)."
==================================================
gen2rev
>
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 01:37:11 +0000 (UTC), gen2rev
> <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote:
>
> >Ed Conrad wrote:
> >>
> >> The following is a photo of the specimen found between anthracite
> >> veins that resulted in the first snow job I got from the Smithsonian.
> >>
> >> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith1/first.jpg
> >>
> >> Three of their experts insisted it was a concretion based on a cursory
> >> examination (no testing) -- but not one of these low-life informed me
> >> a microscopic examination of the cell structure is the ONLY way to
> >> tell whether it's petrified bone.
> >
> >Gee, how do paleontologists in the field know that to remove, if a
> >microscopic examination is the ONLY way to tell?
No answer to this?
> >> Surprise!
> >> This is what was later found inside the jaw area -- a petrified
> >> premolar tooth (photo shows its size compared with a dime).
> >>
> >> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-014S.JPG
> >>
> >> An infrared scan later revealed its origin is either teeth or bone,
> >> testing done at American Medical Laboratories.
> >
> >Gosh, according to your own web page, at
> >http://www.edconrad.com/oldascoal/page3.html they wrote "The scan shows
> >absorbances at approximately 9.8 and 12.8 mircometers; appearing similar
> >to some phosphates". Nothing about teeth or bone.
> >
> Yep! That's exactly what the scan says.
> But, Know-It-All, the scan has to be interpreted, and it was
> (and does appear on the web page):
>
> ==================================================
>
> "The scan identifies your material as compatible with either teeth
> or bone in origin. It does not date the material, neither does it tell
> species of origin (i.e., human or otherwise)."
>
> ==================================================
Okay, that's on the next page: http://edconrad.com/oldascoal/page4.html
far away from any from any mention of American Medical Laboratories, and
in a GIF file at that. Hence my confusion. But you said that it's origin
*is* either tooth or bone, and American Medical Laboratories made no
such claim, and the wording of your statement would seem to indicate
that they did. And your anonymous surgeon/medical doctor whom you refer
to states that it's *compatible* with tooth or bone, not that it *is*
tooth or bone. Phosphates are not uncommon you know. Just who is this
anonymus doctor anyways? Would he mind being questioned?
[snip the rest]