MY SIDE OF THE STORY (A Visit to Temple for ``testing")
Paul Myers
In article <4tcds3$p...@news.ptd.net>, edco...@prolog.net (Ed Conrad) wrote:
> MY RESPONSE to Paul Myers of Temple University:
>
>
> Paul, you very importantly pointed out -- and I give you credit for
> doing so -- that, while Haversian systems could not be seen in the
> thin section of my specimen, they likewise COULD NOT BE SEEN
> in the scrapings of bone that I had removed from the human pelvis
> that I had taken along.
>
> Your exact words:
>
> > `` Scrapings from human bone or from Ed's
> > specimen looked essentially identical. This is not to
> > imply that Ed's specimen was bone, however; no
> > Haversian structure was visible . . . "
>
> You also made another statement which is rather interesting:
>
> > ``No comparable image of (Haversian systems in) Ed's
> > specimen could be acquired. The structures were very
> > granular, with an irregular, variable density. There were
> > clear spots scattered throughout the specimen that might
> > have the approximate dimensions of the central canals
> > in bone, but none of the surrounding structure was consistent
> > with bone. . . "
>
> What you failed to point out, however, is that -- same as with the
> microscopic view of the thin section of my specimen -- none of the
> surrounding structure of the Haversian systems could be seen in the
> scrapings removed from the pelvis as well.
My point, however, is that they were similar because they were improperly
prepared mineral specimens. I told you when we met that if we prepared
similar "scrapings" from the wall of my lab that we would see the same
features, which are nothing more than artifacts of fractured stone and
the poor optical properties of large, irregular surfaces.
>
> In both cases, miniscule pin-like holes were visible throughout both
> specimens.
>
> In contrast, using the same microscope and at the same magnification,
> the Haversian systems were clearly visible in a tiny piece of bone on
> a slide YOU had made available for comparsion.
>
> When I arrived at your lab, Paul, you removed this particular slide
> from a boxful of slides -- numbering close to a hundred. The slides
> were neatly stacked in a case that you explained was used for
> classroom study of biology at the university.
>
> Obviously, all of the slides in the case had been prepared in the
> manufacturer's laboratory under the most ideal conditions.
Of course! Just as EC96-001 was prepared in a laboratory under ideal
conditions.
>
> In any event, I agreed to use the slide you made available for
> microscopic comparison with the ground section of my specimen
> prepared by Andrew MacRae.
>
> In your slide -- the classroom slide -- the Haversian systems were
> crystal clear, including just about all of the surrounding structure.
>
> At the very same magnification and under the same lighting conditions,
> all I was seeing in my specimen was a collection of helter-skelter
> ``pinholes."
>
> I then examined the scrapings from the pelvis and -- very, very
> strangely -- I saw almost the exact same view I had seen in my
> specimen: the ``pinholes."
>
> Only during the drive home did the friend who accompanied me casually
> remark that you had informed him -- while I was using the men's room
> -- that the visibility of the Haversian systems could differ not only
> in different specimens of bone but also in the specific locality of a
> particular bone.
>
> Since your statement aroused my curiosity, I returned home and opened
> the World Book Encyclopedia to learn something very interesting about
> the Haversian canals. It stated: ``Haversian canals are tiny channels
> within COMPACT BONE tissue, the hard, outer layers of bone . . . A
> canal and its bone tissue are called an osteon or Haversian system.
> Osteons are the basic structure that make up compact bone."
>
> It further explained that there also is CANCELLOUS BONE which is
> located farther from the hard, outer layers of bone -- yet no mention
> was made of the Haversian systems existing in cancellous, or spongy,
> bone. (If they do exist, it must be somewhat difficult to see them).
>
> Now let's get back to the ``classroom" slide that you, Paul, had made
> available for the purpose of comparison.
>
> I thought it very, very strange that, when I finally informed you by
> E-mail that I'd be paying a visit to Temple the next day, you promplty
> responded by transmitting this messagel:
>
> ``I just thought I'd let you know that I have obtained
> a nice thin section of human bone. I've checked it out
> with my equipment and it is very easy to image Haversian
> canals with several of my objectives . . . so there should be
> no problem seeing them, if present, in your specimen.
>
> My first reaction was WHY you would even send me such a message since
> I assumed human bone was human bone. Additionally, you obviously knew
> I'd be bringing human cadaver bone with me for microscopic comparison
> with the thin section that Andrew MacRae had prepared.
>
> It's obvious now why you selected that particular slide. No matter
> what we would see in the MacRae thin section, there would be no
> comparison. Your ``classroom" slide was that majestic, revealing
> not only the Haversian canals but the structure surrounding the canals
> (part of each Haversian system).
There were a couple of reasons I selected that particular slide. The
major one was that that collection was for a histology class: most of
the slides were of various other epithelia, tissues, etc. There were
actually two bones slides. The one you saw, as I explained to you there,
was a section from the middle of a long bone, i.e., it was dense bone.
The other slide was of fetal bone, which is not calcified and has none
of the structure you would see in mature bone. I did not think it was at
all relevant to the matter at hand, and neither was a section of human testis
or whatever. I also told you and Joe that there are different kinds of
bone, dense and cancellous, and that the structure in pelvis was much more
complex. You seem to be implying that I was trying to hide something from
you; I assure you that I was up-front about everything, and gave you full
access. My apologies that I do not run a bone lab (my field is embryology
and neuroscience) so the samples I can obtain are limited!
Now, one thing that you are NOT mentioning is that EC96-001 is a slice
from the middle of a long, rod-shaped specimen that has a superficial
similarity to a femur or humerus. I do not think that you have been trying
to argue that this specimen is a pelvis. Anyway, that portion of a femur
or similar bone is precisely the area where my section came from, and is the
best region of the anatomy to image Haversian canals.
>
> Meanwhile, about the only thing interesting in my thin section AND
> THE SCRAPINGS FROM THE HUMAN PELVIS were those ``pinholes"
> of light.
>
And as pointed out previously, you have seen those same pinholes in scrapings
from the gravel in your driveway. Those pinholes have nothing to do with
the histological structure of the specimen, and everything to do with the
crude means of preparation.
> Paul, I'm glad that you at least were man enough to admit:
>
> > ``There were clear spots scattered throughout the specimen
> > that might have the approximate dimensions of the central canals
> > in bone, but none of the surrounding structure was consistent
> > with bone. . . "
>
> It comes as no surprise to me that ``none of the surrounding structure
> (of my specimen) was consistent with bone" because, based on research
> conducted on petrified bone, it has been established that the process
> of petrification removes telltale evidence of the previous existence
> of lamellae, lacunae, canaliculi, etc. -- the structure surrounding
> the Haversian canals.
To my mind, my observations were definitive: EC96-001 is NOT bone. My
comment about the dimensions was not to imply that _maybe_ it is bone,
but to explain how somebody who is unfamiliar with histology might
be fooled into thinking it is bone. Histologists do not categorize any
specimen with a bunch of holes in it as bone; those "lamellae, lacunae,
canaliculi, etc." are the hallmarks of bone structure. You are focusing
on one feature and ignoring the rest of the context. If I showed you a
bowling ball and told you it was skull because it was round and the right
size, you would rightly tell me I'm nuts because that ball doesn't have
any of the other numerous features of a skull. We're in the same situation
here. You've shown us a rock and said it's long like a bone and it's got
tiny holes like a bone, and we're telling you that all of the other features
of the specimen scream that it is not a bone.
>
> However, it is a scientific fact that the petrification process cannot
> remove or displace the Haversian canals because, being ``tunnels''
> originally used as a delivery system for oxygen and food to living
> bone, there was nothing there to replace.
>
> Meanwhile, it is important to point out that NONE of the surrounding
> structure consistent with bone was visible in the scrapings removed
> from the human pelvis under the 140X magnification.
>
> The obvious answer is that the slide you had taken from the case of
> slides for classroom study was prepared from an excellent piece of
> COMPACT BONE.
Yes! As I told you! Why are you treating this as evidence of some kind
of bizarre deception?
>
> Meanwhile, I regret that I did not randomly examine ANY of the other
> slides in your case. I'm sure I would've found that FEW of the other
> slides would've presented such a magnificent view of the Haversian
> systems.
No, you would have found nice views of intestinal villi, lung alveoli,
pyramidal neurons, etc. You are welcome to stop by again and take a look,
if you'd like.
>
> I would also venture to say that some of the slides in your case will
> reveal a similiar view -- a collection of helter-skelter ``pinpoints''
> -- as seen in the scrapings removed from the human pelvis and in the
> thin section of my specimen prepared by Andrew MacRae.
>
> That's because those ``pinholes" of light are, in fact, the Haverisan
> canals.
No. Again, if you'd like, I could check around the department and probably
find some sections of cancellous bone. The structure would look more
sponge-like than the bone section you saw, and also much more so than
EC96-001.
>
> > To see what I mean, see the photos that Ted Holden
> > has just posted on his Home Page:
> > http://access.digex.com/~medved/conrad/conmain.htm
>
> I also would like to point out that, while examining the slide that
> you had made available from the case, there was no indication
> whatsoever that it indeed was human bone; what particular bone it was
> taken from, nor any information as to the approximate location of the
> area of the bone from where the fragment was removed .
Most of the material in that box was human; where it was not, the slide
was marked with the source. The slide did not indicate where the
sample was taken, because a) the companies that makes these things just
take a single long bone, slice it up thoroughly, and make thousands
of these slides, and b) any histologist could tell at a glance that this
was a piece of compact bone from a large, long bone.
>
> I also regret I did not obtain the name and address of the company
> which had prepared the box of slides -- definitely an oversight on my
> part. Its name did not appear on the slide itself nor did I notice it
> on the box.
The box was assembled from slides from different sources. You must have
noticed that the legends on the box were all handwritten.
>
> This information is pertinent because I could then acquire more
> information about the box of slides and especially about No. 27 -- if
> my memory is correct -- which is what you had used for the
> comparisons.
>
> I'd like to establish contact with the preparer of that particular
> slide to learn why the Haversian systems are so clearly visible yet,
> while using the same magnification and the same microscope, they are
> not visible in the scaping removed from the HUMAN pelvis.
Those were OLD slides, and I'm not sure I'll be able to track down where
that particular slide came from. However, it is representative. If you'd
like a similar slide of your own, check out some of the biological supply
houses (like Carolina Biological, <http://www.carosci.com/>). They can
answer any of your specific questions about preparation, and will cheerfully
sell you as many slides as you can afford.
>
> In other words, if two pieces of human bone are being examined
> microscopically, why should the Haversian systems be so clearly
> visible in one and not visible whatsoever in the other (unless, as I
> learned in the World Book Encyclopaedia, it has to be compact bone
> and have come from a specific location).
I explicitly explained this to you & Joe at our meeting. I also explained
that the orientation of the section was important. I also told you that
the bone section was from dense bone, from a long bone, and that it was
comparable to the location of the section from EC96-001. All of this was
in the context of explaining why your scrapings from pelvis did not look
anything like a good section of bone.
>
> I am NOT asking for an answer to the discrepancy between the classroom
> slide and the thin section that Andrew MacRae had prepared -- only in
> the discrepancy between two specimens of human bone.
>
> Nevertheless, a distinct possibility exists that , if the question
> about the difference in visibility of the two different specimens of
> human bone is answered, it should answer the question about the thin
> section that Andrew MacRae had prepared.
>
No, it would only help if EC96-001 had come from a cranium or pelvis
or other region where the structure is not so clear.
> I would like to state, further, that my friend politely asked if we
> could keep the ``classroom" slide that you had been using -- since
> you had a whole caseful. But you declined.
If it had been mine, there would have been no problem. As I explained,
though, this box was for a histology class. We have about 50 of these
boxes, which are scrupulously maintained to be as identical as possible,
because no professor likes dealing with students who can legitimately claim
that they missed 10 points on the final exam because their specimen box
was not as good as their neighbor's specimen box.
>
> May I add that I really wanted to spend much more time in your lab but
> failed to do so for a very good reason. My friend began bugging me to
> leave, claiming he hadn't eaten all day and was so hungry that he had
> a headache.
And I have offered you the opportunity to stop by again. I don't think
I pressured you in any way, and you had plenty of time to look and tinker.
If you want to look again, let me know, and I'll try to find some cancellous
bone and will also have a stack of histology boxes for you to browse through.
I still won't let you keep any, though :-)
>
> And I will frankly admit that he told me spending any more time at
> your microscopes was rather senseless because he seemed convinced that
> my specimen wasn't even in the same ballpark with yours.
>
> When I reminded him that the scrapings from the human pelvis
> ALSO failed to show any indication of Haversian systems, he could
> offer no reasonable explanation -- and, at the time, neither could I.
Now that's not what I remember. We did have a very reasonable explanation:
scrapings are a lousy way to prepare a specimen for microscopy. Do we have
to do this all over again? This time we'll compare scrapings from cancellous
bone, from compact bone, from your specimen, from gravel, from the bricks in
the wall, whatever, and they'll all look the same -- irregular, grainy blobs
with scattered bright specks. This will NOT constitute proof that your
specimen is bone, only that the technique is faulty.
You could accumulate a nice collection of microscopic images of fractured
rock, but they would be no more persuasive than your nice collection of
odd-shaped concretions.
>
> When what transpired in your laboratory is placed in proper
> perspective, Paul, I can assure you that your declaration that I
> finally have reached a DEAD END is sheer nonsense.
>
> I need not remind you that, on different occasions over these past 15
> years, various members of your scientific community, including the
> biggest names at the most prestigious institutions and universities,
> also felt sure the ballgame was over after trying to pull the wool
> over my eyes -- and that I had no alternative but to throw in the
> towel.
>
> They were confident that their involvement in deceipt, deception,
> collusion and conspiracy had staved off what unquestionably ranks as
> the most serious threat to Darwin's erroneous theory of evolution.
"deceit, deception, collusion, and conspiracy"? Is THAT what I was up
to? Wow. With that kind of glowing recommendation on my record, maybe I'll
even get a job offer from the prestigious University of Ediacara!
>
> No wonder such effort has been made to stop me in my tracks, either
> by hook or by crook. Those strange-looking ``rocks" I keep finding in
> Carboniferous strata in Pennsylvania's anthracite region CANNOT
> POSSIBLY be confirmed as petrified bone by the scientific community
> because, if they were, it would shake the very foundation of
> established science.
>
> ``Dead ends" haven't bothered me in the past except to
> discourage me temporarily. Fortunately, I always manage to bounce
> back and eventually find that another door opens which enables me to
> make even further progress, an inch at a time.
>
> Your declaration that I have reached a dead end -- and, moreso, your
> suggestion that I be man enough to admit it -- is totally out of line.
>
> My specimens ARE petrified bone and some ARE human! You know it!
> Andrew MacRae knows it! And many, many others high up in the
> scientific establishment know it as well.
The specimen does not have characteristic bone microstructure. Their
gross morphology doesn't really resemble bone (being cylindrical and
of almost the right size is not a close anatomical correspondence). There
is really no reason for me to believe these are bone at all, let alone
human. No, the one I saw is not human bone, or bone at all.
When I was a kid, I once found a neat little rock that looked exactly like
Fred Flintstone in profile. At the time, I was very impressed with the
coincidence, that accidental cracking, chipping, and weathering could
generate something so recognizable. Obviously, I was deluded (even at that
age, I was determined to be a scientist someday, so I must have already
been brainwashed). What I had stumbled upon was a fossil from the
Hanna-Barbera formation, a strata from the Cartooniferous. May I suggest that
all you paleontologists and geologists drop whatever else you are doing
and rush off to the banks of the Green River in Washington State and
begin digging right away! Fortune and glory await the scientist who can
confirm my discovery, as I'm sure there is a matching Wilma, Barney, and
Betty out there somewhere.
--
Paul Myers Department of Biology
my...@netaxs.com Temple University
http://fishnet.bio.temple.edu/ Philadelphia, PA 19122
Ed Conrad
MY RESPONSE to Paul Myers of Temple University:
You correctly stated that I experienced ``major difficulties" seeing
the Haversian systems in the thin section that Andrew MacRae had
prepared from the specimen I had sent him.
>``My general impression is that he (Ed Conrad) is
>simply a stubborn, determined individual who will not
>give up in his pursuits," you concluded in your posting.
>``This is probably a very good quality in a journalist,
>but not quite so admirable in scientific inquiry,
>in which half the struggle is in admitting failure
>when you reach a dead end."
It is far from a dead end, however, when all of the cards --
concerning my visit -- are placed on the table.
Paul, you very importantly pointed out -- and I give you credit for
doing so -- that, while Haversian systems could not be seen in the
thin section of my specimen, they likewise COULD NOT BE SEEN
in the scrapings of bone that I had removed from the human pelvis
that I had taken along.
Your exact words:
> `` Scrapings from human bone or from Ed's
> specimen looked essentially identical. This is not to
> imply that Ed's specimen was bone, however; no
> Haversian structure was visible . . . "
You also made another statement which is rather interesting:
> ``No comparable image of (Haversian systems in) Ed's
> specimen could be acquired. The structures were very
> granular, with an irregular, variable density. There were
> clear spots scattered throughout the specimen that might
> have the approximate dimensions of the central canals
> in bone, but none of the surrounding structure was consistent
> with bone. . . "
What you failed to point out, however, is that -- same as with the
microscopic view of the thin section of my specimen -- none of the
surrounding structure of the Haversian systems could be seen in the
scrapings removed from the pelvis as well.
In both cases, miniscule pin-like holes were visible throughout both
specimens.
In contrast, using the same microscope and at the same magnification,
the Haversian systems were clearly visible in a tiny piece of bone on
a slide YOU had made available for comparsion.
When I arrived at your lab, Paul, you removed this particular slide
from a boxful of slides -- numbering close to a hundred. The slides
were neatly stacked in a case that you explained was used for
classroom study of biology at the university.
Obviously, all of the slides in the case had been prepared in the
manufacturer's laboratory under the most ideal conditions.
In any event, I agreed to use the slide you made available for
Meanwhile, about the only thing interesting in my thin section AND
THE SCRAPINGS FROM THE HUMAN PELVIS were those ``pinholes"
of light.
Paul, I'm glad that you at least were man enough to admit:
> ``There were clear spots scattered throughout the specimen
> that might have the approximate dimensions of the central canals
> in bone, but none of the surrounding structure was consistent
> with bone. . . "
It comes as no surprise to me that ``none of the surrounding structure
(of my specimen) was consistent with bone" because, based on research
conducted on petrified bone, it has been established that the process
of petrification removes telltale evidence of the previous existence
of lamellae, lacunae, canaliculi, etc. -- the structure surrounding
the Haversian canals.
However, it is a scientific fact that the petrification process cannot
remove or displace the Haversian canals because, being ``tunnels''
originally used as a delivery system for oxygen and food to living
bone, there was nothing there to replace.
Meanwhile, it is important to point out that NONE of the surrounding
structure consistent with bone was visible in the scrapings removed
from the human pelvis under the 140X magnification.
The obvious answer is that the slide you had taken from the case of
slides for classroom study was prepared from an excellent piece of
COMPACT BONE.
Meanwhile, I regret that I did not randomly examine ANY of the other
slides in your case. I'm sure I would've found that FEW of the other
slides would've presented such a magnificent view of the Haversian
systems.
I would also venture to say that some of the slides in your case will
reveal a similiar view -- a collection of helter-skelter ``pinpoints''
-- as seen in the scrapings removed from the human pelvis and in the
thin section of my specimen prepared by Andrew MacRae.
That's because those ``pinholes" of light are, in fact, the Haverisan
canals.
> To see what I mean, see the photos that Ted Holden
> has just posted on his Home Page:
> http://access.digex.com/~medved/conrad/conmain.htm
I also would like to point out that, while examining the slide that
you had made available from the case, there was no indication
whatsoever that it indeed was human bone; what particular bone it was
taken from, nor any information as to the approximate location of the
area of the bone from where the fragment was removed .
I also regret I did not obtain the name and address of the company
which had prepared the box of slides -- definitely an oversight on my
part. Its name did not appear on the slide itself nor did I notice it
on the box.
This information is pertinent because I could then acquire more
information about the box of slides and especially about No. 27 -- if
my memory is correct -- which is what you had used for the
comparisons.
I'd like to establish contact with the preparer of that particular
slide to learn why the Haversian systems are so clearly visible yet,
while using the same magnification and the same microscope, they are
not visible in the scaping removed from the HUMAN pelvis.
In other words, if two pieces of human bone are being examined
microscopically, why should the Haversian systems be so clearly
visible in one and not visible whatsoever in the other (unless, as I
learned in the World Book Encyclopaedia, it has to be compact bone
and have come from a specific location).
I am NOT asking for an answer to the discrepancy between the classroom
slide and the thin section that Andrew MacRae had prepared -- only in
the discrepancy between two specimens of human bone.
Nevertheless, a distinct possibility exists that , if the question
about the difference in visibility of the two different specimens of
human bone is answered, it should answer the question about the thin
section that Andrew MacRae had prepared.
I would like to state, further, that my friend politely asked if we
could keep the ``classroom" slide that you had been using -- since
you had a whole caseful. But you declined.
May I add that I really wanted to spend much more time in your lab but
failed to do so for a very good reason. My friend began bugging me to
leave, claiming he hadn't eaten all day and was so hungry that he had
a headache.
And I will frankly admit that he told me spending any more time at
your microscopes was rather senseless because he seemed convinced that
my specimen wasn't even in the same ballpark with yours.
When I reminded him that the scrapings from the human pelvis
ALSO failed to show any indication of Haversian systems, he could
offer no reasonable explanation -- and, at the time, neither could I.
When what transpired in your laboratory is placed in proper
perspective, Paul, I can assure you that your declaration that I
finally have reached a DEAD END is sheer nonsense.
I need not remind you that, on different occasions over these past 15
years, various members of your scientific community, including the
biggest names at the most prestigious institutions and universities,
also felt sure the ballgame was over after trying to pull the wool
over my eyes -- and that I had no alternative but to throw in the
towel.
They were confident that their involvement in deceipt, deception,
collusion and conspiracy had staved off what unquestionably ranks as
the most serious threat to Darwin's erroneous theory of evolution.
No wonder such effort has been made to stop me in my tracks, either
henry l. barwood
edco...@prolog.net (Ed Conrad) wrote:
Conrad's explanation of why only he can see things in his specimens
deleted, along with sci.bio.paleontology.
>
>They were confident that their involvement in deceipt, deception,
>collusion and conspiracy had staved off what unquestionably ranks as
>the most serious threat to Darwin's erroneous theory of evolution.
Here is the crux of Conrad's science, that all scientists are engaged in
a plot against him. I believe any competent psychologist could have a
field day with this statement alone
>
>No wonder such effort has been made to stop me in my tracks, either
>by hook or by crook. Those strange-looking ``rocks" I keep finding in
>Carboniferous strata in Pennsylvania's anthracite region CANNOT
>POSSIBLY be confirmed as petrified bone by the scientific community
>because, if they were, it would shake the very foundation of
>established science.
Conrad has not presented a shred of plausible evidence to back up his
claims. Beyond bluster, there is nothing, nada, zilch! Because scientists
reognize him as insane and tend to ignore him, Conrad feels that this is
some conspiracy. Wrong! Most reputable scientists simply do not have time
to engage in wild goose chases. No amount of delusion is going to turn
siltstone concretions into bones. Each time reality intrudes on Conrad,
he attacks the very people who have tried to present evidence for/against
his assertions.
>``Dead ends" haven't bothered me in the past except to
>discourage me temporarily. Fortunately, I always manage to bounce
>back and eventually find that another door opens which enables me to
>make even further progress, an inch at a time.
Translation: After a period of severe depression and self-doubt, I bounce
back with a new delusion and go manic after attacking my "enemies".
Please! Get competent help!
>Your declaration that I have reached a dead end -- and, moreso, your
>suggestion that I be man enough to admit it -- is totally out of line.
We don't consider you a man. A man is capable of rational thought and
admitting a mistake. A man learns and grows. Only little boys keep on
with a delusion in the face of truth.
>My specimens ARE petrified bone and some ARE human! You know it!
>Andrew MacRae knows it! And many, many others high up in the
>scientific establishment know it as well.
But most importantly, Conrad KNOWS that his specimens are bone and no
evidence will convince him otherwise.
OK. Conrad's turn to be really, really irritating, insulting, obnoxious
and irrational.
Henry Barwood
(A part of the Global conspiracy of at least 2-3 people who are out to
suppress Conrad's miraculous revelations)
Saulius Muliolis
In message <4tcds3$p...@news.ptd.net> - edco...@prolog.net (Ed
Conrad)Sat, 27 Jul 1996 06:40:08 GMT writes:
>>
>When I reminded him that the scrapings from the human pelvis
>ALSO failed to show any indication of Haversian systems, he could
>offer no reasonable explanation -- and, at the time, neither could I.
>
prepare
a specimen for microscopic examination. The correct way is to cut
or grind thin sections. Almost anything else will create all
sorts of artifacts and destroy any stucture that is really there.
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- Robert A.
Heinlein.
The t.o. FAQ file is at http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/
Saulius Muliolis muli...@en.com
http://www.en.com/users/winderi/index.html
Andrew MacRae
In article <4tcds3$p...@news.ptd.net> edco...@prolog.net (Ed Conrad)
writes:
>
> MY RESPONSE to Paul Myers of Temple University:
..
> My specimens ARE petrified bone and some ARE human! You know it!
> Andrew MacRae knows it! And many, many others high up in the
> scientific establishment know it as well.
If anyone cares about my reply to Ed's latest comment, any replies
will be in talk.origins. This thread fails to be relevant to the majority
of other newsgroups listed. For details of what Ed is talking about,
everything, including links to "his side of the story" can be found at:
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/carbbones/carbbones.html
"What I know" is irrelevant. People can formulate your own
opinion on the basis of the evidence presented on Ed's page and mine.
Unfortunately, Ed's "side of the story" does not include a link back to
this page (as of July 27). Funny, that. Perhaps they have fixed it by
now, or perhaps they have no interest in communicating the "other side of
the story" to readers.
Followups are set to talk.origins, and I apologize for the
intrusion elsewhere.
--
-Andrew
mac...@geo.ucalgary.ca
home page: http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae
Scott H. Mullins
In article <myers-27079...@netnews.netaxs.com>,
Paul Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>In article <4tcds3$p...@news.ptd.net>, edco...@prolog.net (Ed Conrad) wrote:
>> They were confident that their involvement in deceipt, deception,
>> collusion and conspiracy had staved off what unquestionably ranks as
>> the most serious threat to Darwin's erroneous theory of evolution.
>
>"deceit, deception, collusion, and conspiracy"? Is THAT what I was up
>to? Wow. With that kind of glowing recommendation on my record, maybe I'll
>even get a job offer from the prestigious University of Ediacara!
Paul, with this kind of track record we would be _honored_ to have
you in the Department of Platypodiatry. Come on over! The beer is cold,
the women good-looking, and the platypae, well, the platypae are just
so darned funny. Really. They are hilarious little animals with an
impish sense of humor. The stories I could tell you.
Besides, we have the best conspiracies in the University. Ask me about
the "sans graal". After you're a "made member" of the department, of
course.
It makes the conspiracy against Ed Conrad look like an elementary
school milk-line disagreement over the giving of "backs."
Scott