Mr. Ed Conrad's fossil wood has been proven to be man-made
Lin Liangtai
The wood has been identified by a coal petrographer and a paleobotanist
in Kentucky to be cordaite stem.
The thin sections of the fossil wood's cross section shows no pith or
pith cast. They also show the fossil has no radial structure of wood
(rays and tracheids) in its cross section. Instead, they show parallel
structure of wood (rays and tracheids) in its cross section.
Anyone who knows a bit about wood knows that the cross section of
natural tree stems
shows wood in its radial structure of rays and tracheids, while a
wooden handle's end show
parallel structure of the wood (rays, tracheids,vessels).
The related photos can be seen
at:http://tw.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/lin440315/album?.dir=bd1dscd&.src=ph&store=&prodid=&.done=http%3a//tw.photos.yahoo.com/ph//my_photos
http://tw.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/lin440315/my_photos
IMAG5969 was taken from the thin section's center while IMAG 5970 was
taken from the thin section's top side.
Lin Liangtai
VoiceOfReason
Lin Liangtai wrote:
> Mr. Ed Conrad's fossil wood has been proven to be man-made.
In other words his 'fossil' is a hoax.
Tell us something we don't already know.
<...>
Scooter the Mighty
What a bunch of crap! It doesn't even look like petrified wood.
ind...@yahoo.com
Lin Liangtai wrote:
> Mr. Ed Conrad's fossil wood has been proven to be man-made.
Lose the sock-puppet Ed.
Cleve
hbar...@troy.edu
HB
Desertphile
> Mr. Ed Conrad's fossil wood has been proven to be man-made.
Well that is hardly surprising, considering how Creationists will do
anything to deceive people. I'm just surprised the wood wasn't also
soaked in teriyaki sauce.
coaster
Out of morbid curiosity I decided to investigate these claims that Lin
Liangtai is just a sock puppet for Ed Conrad. What a waste of few
hours.
I found on the Yahoo Answers page for "lin440315", Lin Liangtai claims
to have ownership of an artifact with a link to an image on Ed Conrad's
home page. Additionally Lin's first post on Usenet was in T.O. came
only a month after Ed himself was banned. Finally to coordinate a
cross post to more than 15 groups within three hours of the original is
highly suggestive, as follows:
------------------
Thread title:
"Mr. Ed Conrad's fossil wood has been proven to be man-made"
Posted to: talk.origins Sat, Sep 23 2006 5:42 am
by Lin Liangtai
Posted to: sci.anthropology Sat, Sep 23 2006 9:02 am
Cross posted to: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,alt.obituaries
by Ed Conrad
Posted to: sci.geo.geology Sat, Sep 23 2006 9:11 am
Cross posted to:
sci.anthropology.paleo,sci.archaeology.mesoamerican,sci.astro
by Ed Conrad
Posted to: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh Sat, Sep 23 2006 9:32 am
Cross posted to:
alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.cecil-adams
by Ed Conrad
Posted to: alt.clearing.technology Sat, Sep 23 2006 10:23 am
Cross posted to:
school.studies.science,sci.space.history.science,news.groups
by Ed Conrad
------------------
You don't need more than gut instinct to tell that something's up. But
to dismiss these facts as mere coincidences would take matzah balls the
size of Yaweh's and I just don't think it's wise to emasculate God
whether you believe he exists or not.
Yah, Lin is probably Ed's sock puppet. If not then he's certainly in
leauge with Ed.
Richard Clayton
Actually, I could believe that Lin Liangtai is a real person. Even
SOLLOG apparently has a few followers. Usenet has shown me that there's
no idea so crazy that SOMEBODY won't buy into it.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"During wars laws are silent." -- Cicero
Robert Carnegie
> Out of morbid curiosity I decided to investigate these claims that Lin
> Liangtai is just a sock puppet for Ed Conrad. What a waste of few
> hours.
Lin Liangtai considers Ed Conrad's propositions worth discussing. One
infers...
You've wasted time only if you had planned to do something more
constructive instead, and if you have not prevented someone whose time
is more valuable than yours from repeating the exercise.
Mike Painter
> Mr. Ed Conrad's fossil wood has been proven to be man-made.
> The wood has been identified by a coal petrographer and a
> paleobotanist in Kentucky to be cordaite stem.
>
conspirators that are against him.
That includes the University of California at Berkeley who said his rocks
were rocks, several scientists who used to post here and (drum roll) The
United States Post Office. "They" stole some of his samples.
Congratulations and condolences from all of us here.
He's been in my kill-file for years but it's nice to know he still is out
there.
Robert Carnegie
No it isn't.
Mike Painter
You are right.
stew dean
Lin Liangtai wrote:
> Mr. Ed Conrad's fossil wood has been proven to be man-made.
It was shown that they where concretions, not man-made. Ed just
thought they looked like something else like a child sees bunny rabits
in the clouds. Compare the weird and wonderful shapes to real fossils
and they lack 99.9% of the detail - something only a person in denial
would not see.
Stew Dean
mc...@sunset.net
Actually it does look like petrified wood. And there is no proof of
hoax.
JM
Ye Old One
when s/he wrote:
Says the guy that believes every hoax going.
How about the cite on the Piltdown Man textbook McClueless?
--
Bob.
stew dean
> Bob.
No he's right bob - Ed's finds have been wildly identified as
pseudofossils or concretions -in this case pseudofossils of plants and
trees. These form weird and wonderful shapes that may 'look' like many
things.
see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concretion
Stew
Ye Old One
The "hoax" Stew, is in the claims made about the "fossils" not in what
they actually are.
The claim is that one is a hammer handle found in a coal seam and that
is used to intermate that man lived at the same time that coal was
being laid down.
--
Bob.
stew dean
Not so much a hoax as a complete lack of understanding on Ed's part
mixed in with a lot of delusional stuff.
> The claim is that one is a hammer handle found in a coal seam and that
> is used to intermate that man lived at the same time that coal was
> being laid down.
We all know this is a load of rubbish. it's not a hoax as Ed is
delusional but not deliberately telling lies.
Stew
Robert Carnegie
stew dean wrote:
> Lin Liangtai wrote:
> > Mr. Ed Conrad's fossil wood has been proven to be man-made.
>
> It was shown that they where concretions, not man-made.
If it wa a man-made object, wouldn't that prove "Man As Old As Coal"?
stew dean
No. On bit of evidence doesnt prove anything - it's the start of a
theory than needs independent varification.
Stew Dean
shipmodeler1
Pennsylvania, and he used to let us come down to the mining pits once
in a while to look for fossils. Lots of plant imprints, sections of
fern trees with the scales, etc. There were also lots and lots of
broken shards like the one in that picture, some long, some short, some
straight, some gnarly. It's just one of the straight shards, there's no
reason to think it's man-made. I'm surprised he doesn't have dozens of
them up there. He must have picked the one that happened to look the
most like a handle.
josephus
I have the picture saved on my disk. the problem is the stick looks
like a green splint break. it is flat one one side and tappered at on
end.the oveal all stick is slightly bent.
that kind of diescriptions could only vauguely match a milled
hamer.
josephus
Lin Liangtai
Who is independant enough to be accepted by all sides?
Lin Liangtai
stew dean
I consider myself to be independent enough. I've no vested interests
and am just interested in finding out what is real and likely to be
true. But then I'm also not in a position to provide research against
Ed, aside from stating the obvious about his finds uncovered after a
few minutes in google.
I'm just a normal guy with a slightly above average IQ - he got a fair
hearing from everyone but everyone found thought he was wrong. A sane
person would begin to suspect that either they havnt got conclusive
enough evidence or that they might simply be wrong in their
assumptions.
I gave Ed more than a fair chance to put his point across but he
failed.
Stew Dean
Mike Painter
Nobody is. There is a long list of people that Mr. Ed presented his
materials too and they all said it was a rock or rocks.
At that point they become part of the conspiracy against him. Cal Berkeley
and even the United States Post Office is part of it.
His "supporters" are dead people who responded to him in neutral terms and
who were not qualified to actually comment.
You either agree with him or you are wrong. Science does not work that way.
Lin Liangtai
Would there be any objection to Stew Dean's qualification?
Will the Smithsonian accept your conclusion/judgment?
How do you plan to proceed with the independant verification? Starting
with the authenticity of the fossil wood/photos?
Lin Liangtai
stew dean
By who? I'm indepedent remember. Qualifications arnt relevent.
> Will the Smithsonian accept your conclusion/judgment?
The smithsonian have nothing to do with me - they can make up their own
minds. If you're after some authority figure to deny/confirm the finds
you'll be waiting a very long time.
> How do you plan to proceed with the independant verification? Starting
> with the authenticity of the fossil wood/photos?
I took all of Ed's evidence, got some different views, did very minimal
research and independently came up with the conclusion that they where
not fossils but psuedofossils. This covers and predicts all of Ed's
finds. The real truth is trees are as old as coal.
To my mind any independent person with access to the same knowledge
would come up wih the same conclusion idependently. Scientific truth
is not determined by authority.
Stew Dean
Lin Liangtai
What use is there if the independant verification fails to convince a
measurable part of experts/general public that the fossil had/had not a
human hand on it? Can anyone show me how to proceed with the
verification?
Lin Liangtai
stew dean
Well if you can't convince the independent folks here then you're not
going to convince anyone else. If Ed had a viable idea it would have
spread it's self, he also had more than his fair share of exposure to
experts and they varified that it wasnt a fossil.
That's about it really. The varification process has been and gone and
found that Ed doesnt have any fossils but has concretions.
Stew Dean
stew dean
Lin Liangtai wrote:
> What use is there if the independant verification fails to convince a
> measurable part of experts/general public that the fossil had/had not a
> human hand on it?
You must have missed it - the result was 'not man made' and not a
fossil.
> Can anyone show me how to proceed with the
> verification?
To late - only the archives can help you now.
Stew
Mike Painter
>
> Would there be any objection to Stew Dean's qualification?
Here's some info from 1996 http://homepage.mac.com/myers/misc/bone.html
Lin Liangtai
How about your asking disproof from Mr. Andrew McRae, Mr. Paul Z. Myer
and all the people who have criticized Mr. Conrad scientificlly? They
can try to prove me wrong by examining closely the pictures I posted.
You know, I am living in Taiwan. I have a teaching job. Do you want to
waste your money to make a phone call to my school? It takes me a lot
of time to fly to America and to meet Ed's critics individually.
Lin Liangtai
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>You know, I am living in Taiwan. I have a teaching job. Do you want to
>waste your money to make a phone call to my school? It takes me a lot
>of time to fly to America and to meet Ed's critics individually.
I hope you book a very long visit - he does after all have one hell of
a lot of critics.
--
Bob.
Klaus
You don't have to meet them. The internet is full of refutations of Ed's
delusions.
The whole thing started with Ed misunderstanding a mining term. Coal
miners use the term "bones" to refer to inclusions or concretions of
rock embedded in the soft coal seams. Ed thought that this meant that
the rocks were real fossils of large animals, deposited when the coal
was formed. He did not verify this and made a huge fool of himself.
Later, he compounded his foolishness by claiming that his siderite
concretions were preserved soft tissues, because most of them were
blobs, rather than bone shaped.
He also did eventially get possession of a couple of real fossils, such
as plant roots and fish spines, but deliberately misidentified them.
Every time his "fossils" had been examined, they were found either not
to be fossils at all, or grossly misidentified.
Then, one time when he was exceptionally insane, he posted a lab report
on a KIDNEY STONE and claimed it was from one of his alleged fossils.
I suggest that you be very skeptical of anything he says.
Klaus
Mike Painter
> Mike Painter wrote:
>> Lin Liangtai wrote:
>> >
>>> Would there be any objection to Stew Dean's qualification?
>>
>> Here's some info from 1996
>> http://homepage.mac.com/myers/misc/bone.html
>
> How about your asking disproof from Mr. Andrew McRae, Mr. Paul Z. Myer
> and all the people who have criticized Mr. Conrad scientificlly? They
> can try to prove me wrong by examining closely the pictures I posted.
They worked *directly* with samples provided by Mr. Ed for some time.
Samples of the actual rocks. Why should they comment on a picture you have?
>
> You know, I am living in Taiwan. I have a teaching job. Do you want
> to waste your money to make a phone call to my school? It takes me a
> lot of time to fly to America and to meet Ed's critics individually.
>
> Lin Liangtai
You've just admitted you don't have any real grasp of the scientific
process. People don't fly all over the world and talk with people.
They spend a lot of time getting an education. Mr. Ed didn't do that.
Then they do research. Mr. Ed didn't do that.
The first part of that research is to find out if it's been done and the
second part is to find a reason why it should not be done. Mr. Ed didn't do
that.
Then they do the work and publish. Mr. Ed didn't do that.
Others try to duplicate the work and they publish. Everybody who is a
scientist says he has rocks.