<
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.
<
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...
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
<
===========================================
===========================================
<
Now back to our pathetic story of deceit, deception, collusion
and conspiracy as clearly evident by members of the
Pseudoscientific Establishment.
<
1. The horror story began in June 1981 when I discovered
a large object that resembled a skull between coal veins
in NE Pennsylvania. I sent Penn State University a photo
and its "expert" agreed it resembled a skull but stated that,.
since it was found in Carboniferous strata. it HAD TO BE
a concretion.
<
He pointed out that the formation of anthracite dates back
a minimum of 280 million years and all scientific textbooks
claim no large animals existed back then.
<
2. I then sent a color photo of the same specimen to Alan
Mann, anthropologist at the University of Pennsylvanian.
He was intrigued and asked me to bring it to Philadelphia
so he could thoroughly examine it.
<
Mann was about an hour late for our appointment and,
upon entering the room, slapped his hands together and
exclaimed: ":Well, where is it?."
<
When told it was in the corner of the large room, he saw it
from a distance, hurried over, got down on one knee and
exclaimed: "My God, I don't believe it!."
<
For about five minutes of so, Mann examined the specimen,
then announced that it was a concretion -- not the skull
of an animal that ever lived.
<
3. I later sent the same color photo to the Smithsonian and
received a reply from Raymond Rye III, museum specialist in its
Department of Paleobiology, expressing an interest in having its
experts examine it. He wrote back, saying they agreed to do so.
I drove to Washington, D.C., with the specimen -- and a witness
(Clayton Lennon) -- and Rye had a physical anthropologist,
a paleontologist and a geologist assembled for my arrival.
<
All three spent a few minutes examining the specimen and
unanimously agreed it was a concretion, certainly not a petrified
skull.
<
Neither the original expert at Penn State nor Mann at U of P
nor these three knuckleheads at the Smithsonian informed me
that there is a positive test to determine if a rock-like object
is petrified bone. That is, by examining its cell structure
microscopically. (I had to learn this on my own some months
later).
<
4. After pressing Penn State to investigate the matter -- using
the influence of state Sen. James Rhoades -- I was invited
to the campus and met with Roger Cuffey, paleontologist.
<
When I arrived, his laboratory was set up with many microscopes
and he explained that under each one was a ground section
showing the cell structure (Haversian canals) of what he said
was dinosaur bone.
<
Then, nervous as a cat, Cuffey handed me a letter stating that
my visit to his laboratory confirmed that none of my specimens
were petrified bone and that I should throw in the towel. This letter
was handed to me BEFORE I even had an opportunity to peer
thru his microscopes.
<
It was a ploy: Dinosaurs possessed reptilian Haversian canals,
quite different (larger) than the cell structure of mammalian bone.
<
5. Later, I phoned Richard Eckhardt, an anthropologist at
Penn State, and he invited me to come up and let him have
a look at some of my specimens. But he said it would have
to be after he returned from Europe, since the semester was
near its end and he was going to England for the summer.
In September, after classes began, I phoned him again but
now he adamantly expressed NO interest in seeing my specimens.
But I got a bit pushy and reminded him what he promised
and he rather reluctantly allowed me to pay a visit.
I did and, as we sat in his office while he examined some
of my specimens, he called them all concretions -- but asked
if he could take photos of them which I allowed him to do. And
when I was leaving, he mentioned that I had said I have more
larger specimens in the trunk of my car and he expressed
a desire to see -- and photograph -- them as well, which he did.
6. I had contacted the Paleontological Research Institution
in New York State and dealt with a John Chiment. He expressed
a desire to examine one of my specimens and I mailed it to him.
<
Upon its return after several weeks, Chiment informed me in
multi-page handwritten letter that it was not bone but, instead, a
concretion. He also strongly urged me to give up.
<
7. I wrote to Noel Boaz, an anthropologist/paleontologist at New
York University, and sent him photos of some of my specimens.
He appeared very much interested in seeing them and we set
up a day for his visit to my home in Shenandoah, Pa. But the day
before he was to arrive, I phoned him to make sure he was coming
but he surprised me and said he could not make it because he
was busy.
<
8. Now having been self-educated in the identification of Haversian
canals of mammals, I wrote to Luis Alvarez at the University
of California-Berkeley, then received a letter stating that I should
send a few specimens and the university would use its expertise
to determine if they are petrified bone.
<
Well, three specimens were sent by certified mail, but when the green
card came back it was unsigned. I had the local postmaster send the
card back for a signature confirming their arrival but this time it
was returned with someone's initials -- not LA for Louis Alvarez.
<
I then had the Post Office sent the green card back again and this
time it had writing aside of it, pointing to the pintails and stating
that the initials belonged to the chairman of the paleontology
department.
<
After failing to hear a word for more than a month, I wrote a polite
letter requesting the specimens be returned. I, in turn,
received a letter saying they NEVER ARRIVED.
<
At that point, I had a Postal inspector visit the Berkeley (Ca,)
main Post Office and he uncovered physical evidence that the
specimens had been delivered -- and signed for -- by someone
at the university.
<
With this ammunition, I re-contacted UofC-Berkeley and demanded
the specimens be returned or else... And about a week later they were
returned. But all three appeared uncut (meaning a slice had not been
removed to examine the cell structure).
<
I took the specimens to a lapidary who told me it was simple to
tell if any of them had been cut by placing them under running
water (his kitchen sink). I did and, lo and behold, the side of one
had been sliced (undoubtedly for microscopic investigation for
the presence of Haversian canals which had to be present, otherwise
there would have been no coverup).
<
9. Andrew McRae, then a grad student at Calgary University in
Canada, agreed to examine one of my specimens. I sent him
the one which Wilton M. Krogman identified as a portion of a tibia.
<
Weeks and weeks went by without a response from McRae, but
then he announced that it was a concretion and posted his
results on his Cecil B. DeMille-like Web page. Then he sent
the ground section that he allegedly had used for his testing and
the remainder of the specimen back to me.
<
A few days after McRae's pronouncement, I had an e-mail from
Paul (PZ) Myers of Temple University, informing me that I could
bring the specimen to his laboratory in Philadelphia to prove, once
and for all, that the tibia-like specimen was not petrified bone but a
concretion.
<
I took the bait and visited him with the ground section. And, yes,
no Haversian canals could be seen.
<
But later, when I examined the complete specimen after my return
home, I realized the Haversian canals were clearly visible. That's
when I knew McRae and Myers had pulled a fast one, tampering with
evidence..
<
And I have accused both McRae and Myers of conspiring against truth
by manufacturing a ground section from a concretion and trying to pass
it off as having been sliced from my specimen.
<
When I pushed Myers on talk.origins and requested Temple University
check its telephone records to see if anyone had made phone calls to
Calgary University during the period that McRae had the specimen,
Myers ADMITTED he had made some calls.
<
Then, when pressed even more, Myers actually admitted in a posting
to talk.origins that HE HAD FLOWN TO CALGARY one weekend while
McRae was doing his fraudulent testing. But he explained that it was
not to confer with McRae but was done for other reasons (undoubtedly
instructing him how to try and con me).
<
10. A Kurt Wise at Harvard University wrote and requested I send him
a specimen for honest investigation, which I did. I sent him a beaut
that Krogman had identified as part of a spine.
<
Wise took a few weeks, then wrote back and stated that testing
revealed it to be a concretion. However, after a period of time
passed, he did not return the specimen.
<
Finally, I wrote and informed him the specimen was my property
and I'd like it back. This letter was ignored, so I wrote him again
and bluntly informed him it better be returned or else...A few days
later a package arrived from Wise but a large corner of it was ripped
and, when I opened it, there was no specimen inside.
<
Wise made it seem as though the package had gotten ripped
during handling and the specimen fell out. But the specimen
I sent him could not possibly have fallen out because it was
too large for the hole..
<
Another Smoking Gun was the postage. There were TWO
meter postage stickers on it, which just does not happen in
legitimate mailing. Besides, the total price to send the package
didn't add up to what the specimen cost to send, no matter
which way it was mailed and no matter the weight of the
package..
<
11. I had learned Allan Walker at Johns Hopkins University
was an expert on prehistoric teeth so called him and asked
if he would examine what Krogman had identified as a premolar
tooth that was found in the jaw-like area of the first specimen I
discovered.
<
I drove to Baltimore (again with Lennon) but Walker didn't invite
me into the building. Instead he came out and, while I was
double-parked on the street outside Johns Hopkins Hospital, he
informed me that the tooth-like object was a concretion.
<
But I didn't stand for his bullshit and let him have it verbally.
And then -- surprisingly -- he nervously remarked: "But you should
have more teeth than just one."
<
12. Back we go to the Smithsonian. One year after paying my
visit with the first specimen during which I was conned, I discovered
the human skull embedded in the boulder.
<
I sent Rye a photo and he replied that it does resemble
a human skull but "a microscopic study" of its cell structure
would have to be performed "to determine if it has the structure
of bone" (Haversian canals).
<
Weeks later, I received a letter from Rye in which he wrote:
<
"An X-ray analysis of the material reveals it to be quartz, the
most abundant material of the earth's crust. So although the
enigmatic object exposed in the boulder may resemble a
hominid skull, its mineral composition is definitely not that
of bone."
<
Great curve ball, Raymond! The only problem, X-ray analysis
is not the test that should've been done. You see, X-ray
analysis is NOT "a microscopic study" to determine if
Haversian systems exist in the specimen. The Smithsonian
dodged the bullet with deceit, deception, collusion and
conspiracy.
<
I might add there are more and more horror stories to
go along with my fight against the Scientific Establishment
which wants nothing more but to protect the factless, facetious
Theory of man's Evolution.
<
But I'll save some of them for another day.
<
=====================================
<
> U.S. TALK RADIO
> (Turn up the volume if you're hard of hearing)
