No about it, it's B-O-N-E -- Yerkes Letters
Ed Conrad
Petrified bone, Bone, BONE!
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/YERKES1.TIF
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/YERKES2.TIF
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/YERKES3.TIF
So what if the specimen of petrified bone, found between
anthracite veins and tested by Dr. Jeremey Dahl, isn't human!
So what if it's not the bone of a primate!
The objective was to see if Dr. Jeremy Dahl, then a bone expert
at Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center in Atlanta,
would identify the specimen as petrified bone.
Indeed he did!
Now, if comparative human anatomy is employed
in relation to some of the other specimens of petrified bone
found between anthracite veins (as displayed in these
news groups and on my web page), the tune obviously would be
a lot different.
I might add that it doesn't surprise me that Dr. Dahl
would claim this particular specimen is neither human nor a primate,
stating "the only non-human primates ever found in the United States
became extinct about 20 millilon years ago, and all of the primates
were far too small to possess a bone that might incorporate your
fragment."
After all, wasn't Dr. Dahl simply adhering to the Scientific
Establishment's School of Thought?
It was ONLY the School of Thought until the discovery of petrified
bones, teeth and even soft organs -- some, without question, human --
between anthracite veins where Established Science has long
proclaimed they could never be.
Ed Conrad
> http://www.edconrad.com
gen2rev
>
> Petrified bone, Bone, BONE!
>
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/YERKES1.TIF
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/YERKES2.TIF
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/YERKES3.TIF
Why do you have these as .tif files? Not everyone can easily read this
file type.
> So what if the specimen of petrified bone, found between
> anthracite veins and tested by Dr. Jeremey Dahl, isn't human!
>
> So what if it's not the bone of a primate!
>
> The objective was to see if Dr. Jeremy Dahl, then a bone expert
> at Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center in Atlanta,
> would identify the specimen as petrified bone.
>
> Indeed he did!
And what tests did he perform to determine this? As far as I can tell,
he called it 'bone', because you did.
> Now, if comparative human anatomy is employed
> in relation to some of the other specimens of petrified bone
> found between anthracite veins (as displayed in these
> news groups and on my web page), the tune obviously would be
> a lot different.
Why is that? Can you tell us what features of your specimens lead you to
believe that they they belonged to humans?
> I might add that it doesn't surprise me that Dr. Dahl
> would claim this particular specimen is neither human nor a primate,
> stating "the only non-human primates ever found in the United States
> became extinct about 20 millilon years ago, and all of the primates
> were far too small to possess a bone that might incorporate your
> fragment."
>
> After all, wasn't Dr. Dahl simply adhering to the Scientific
> Establishment's School of Thought?
No, it was the fact that the specimen you sent him didn't have any
features that would lead him to believe that it belonged to any *known*
primate, extinct or otherwise. Did you expect him to proclaim that you'd
found a new species based on a 3.9 by 1.6 cm fragment? It wasn't enough
of a specimen to do that.
> It was ONLY the School of Thought until the discovery of petrified
> bones, teeth and even soft organs -- some, without question, human --
You have yet to convince anyone but yourself... and possibly Sheldon.
David Sienkiewicz
news:3d32b1aa...@news.shenhgts.net...
>
> Petrified bone, Bone, BONE!
>
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/YERKES1.TIF
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/YERKES2.TIF
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/YERKES3.TIF
>
> So what if the specimen of petrified bone, found between
> anthracite veins and tested by Dr. Jeremey Dahl, isn't human!
>
> So what if it's not the bone of a primate!
>
> The objective was to see if Dr. Jeremy Dahl, then a bone expert
> at Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center in Atlanta,
> would identify the specimen as petrified bone.
Dahl has repeatedly falsified your claims about him - from his statements to
his status as an "expert."
> Indeed he did!
We've been over this, Ed.
You claimed it was bone, he went along with that for a while.
You even lied to him about where the specimen came from.
So why should anyone believe you now?
> Now, if comparative human anatomy is employed
> in relation to some of the other specimens of petrified bone
> found between anthracite veins (as displayed in these
> news groups and on my web page), the tune obviously would be
> a lot different.
The tune is that it's not bone, Ed.
> I might add that it doesn't surprise me that Dr. Dahl
> would claim this particular specimen is neither human nor a primate,
> stating "the only non-human primates ever found in the United States
> became extinct about 20 millilon years ago, and all of the primates
> were far too small to possess a bone that might incorporate your
> fragment."
>
> After all, wasn't Dr. Dahl simply adhering to the Scientific
> Establishment's School of Thought?
Why shouldn't he?
Can you prove otherwise?
You won't even debate it.
> It was ONLY the School of Thought until the discovery of petrified
> bones, teeth and even soft organs -- some, without question, human --
> between anthracite veins where Established Science has long
> proclaimed they could never be.
And they aren't, Ed.
You're lying.
Repeating a lie doesn't make it true, Ed.
> Ed Conrad
> > http://www.edconrad.com
>
David Sienkiewicz
> Ed Conrad wrote:
> >
< snip >
> > It was ONLY the School of Thought until the discovery of petrified
> > bones, teeth and even soft organs -- some, without question, human --
>
> You have yet to convince anyone but yourself... and possibly Sheldon.
sheldon isn't any more convinced than anyone else.
He looks for reasons to argue with selected "evolutionists" or ways to
get out of claims in other threads.
He's like John McCoy in that way - and I wonder if John ever did make
his way to Pennsylvania, as he said he would, and examine Ed's
specimens.
John R. Rybock
Conrad) wrote:
>
>
>Petrified bone, Bone, BONE!
>
>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/YERKES1.TIF
>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/YERKES2.TIF
>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/YERKES3.TIF
>
>So what if the specimen of petrified bone, found between
>anthracite veins and tested by Dr. Jeremey Dahl, isn't human!
>
>So what if it's not the bone of a primate!
>
>The objective was to see if Dr. Jeremy Dahl, then a bone expert
>at Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center in Atlanta,
>would identify the specimen as petrified bone.
>
>Indeed he did!
>
>Now, if comparative human anatomy is employed
>in relation to some of the other specimens of petrified bone
>found between anthracite veins (as displayed in these
>news groups and on my web page), the tune obviously would be
>a lot different.
>
Don't you really need to get them all examined as fossils? Finding one
fossil, and then assuming all other bone-like items found in the area
must also be bone seems rather dubious. What percentage of artifacts
have you had tested? How many of those have that have positively been
identified as a fossil have been examined for humonoid traits?