Putting data BEFORE theory?

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 04:51:10 +0000 (UTC), (Rick
Russell) wrote:

In article ,
nordskoven wrote:

Conrad's photos and test results represent data, raw data. And no
theory? Where's the future in that? How can Conrad expect to get cushy
grants and theory groupies with no theory? This data can only
undermine the Scientific Industrial Machine Politicos. S.I.M.P.S. must
unite as one in ignoring fossil legbones in shale. Stick with the
cover story having maximum deniability: Pennsylvania Man was only a
weather balloon.


I'm not sure they are data. We have only Ed Conrad's word that he
found these rocks where he claimed to find them, and Mr. Conrad
appears to be the only one who can identify human body parts in the
amorphous chunks of black slate. Looking at his photos, I don't see
any hint of the body parts that he claims to see.

Good data collection techniques are a key part of the scientific
process, and Mr. Conrad appears to fall far short of the mark.

I suspect that Mr. Conrad knows this, and perpetrates this fraud
despite the fact that some scientists have made an assessment of his
petrified body parts in good faith, and found them to be
uncompelling. He even holds up their letters with pride, claiming that
his discoveries gain credibility in the face of the "conspiracy of the
pseudoscientific establishment".

Rick R.

Hey, Rick, FYI, the ONLY fraud around here is within your
Scientific Establishment, bulging at the seams with deceit,
deception, collusion and conspiracy.

http://www.edconrad.com/oldascoal/images/quotesnew.gif

http://edconrad.com/canals/hooton.gif

==========================================

VESTED INTERESTS: WHY THE PSEUDOS CAN'T SEE

==========================================

Petrified Bones, Teeth and Even Soft Organs
(Some Human) Discoverd in Carboniferous Strata

=====================================

THE QUICKIE VERSION:

Two examples of petrified human remains,...
A human finger and toe:

http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Au29/MVC-016S.JPG

=====================================

THE LONGER VERSION:

HUMAN SKULL FOUND BETWEEN COAL VEINS

http://www.edconrad.com/images/z11calv.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/images/krogwskull.jpg

Wilton Krogman, one of the world's foremost experts
on human anatomy, holds what he had identified as
a petrified human calvarium, a skull with the eye
sockets broken off, that was discovered between
Pennsylvania's anthracite veins. He is shown at his
desk at the Cooper Clinic in Lancaster, Pa., where
moments later he beckoned a colleague -- a medical
doctor -- to examine "the oldest human skull ever
found."

A CATscan was performed on this specimen with
favorable results.

http://www.edconrad.com/images/catcalv.jpg

Meanwhile, Haversian canals were identified in the
cell structue, the tell-tale sign of bone. And dried
blood was found on the specimen during testing at
American Medical Laboratories in Chantilly, Va.

This is the official report from AML which had
erformed Calculus Analysis by Crystallography.
The final report, dated April 21, 2000, was issued
by Dr. Nathan Sherman, director of laboratories.

"The specimen consists of 1 irregularly
shaped, brown calculus weighing less
than 0.0010 grams and measuring 1X1X0.5
mm. No nidus is observed. The calculi
indicates a composition of dried blood
intermingled with a few small crystals
resembling calcium oxalate dihydrate."

http://www.edconrad.com/images/z12calv.jpg

http://www.edconrad.com/images/z13cav.jpg

=============================================

OTHER PETRIFIED BONES, TEETH AND
SOFT ORGANS FOUND BETWEEN COAL VEINS

Here's a petrified human femur still embedded in slate.
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/z8femur.jpg

Here's a petrified human finger, with fingernail:
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/FINGER/MVC-008S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/FINGER/MVC-011S.JPG

Here's a petrified human toe (with toe nail), found only
10-15 feet from the petrified finger.
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Au29/MVC-017S.JPG

Here's the specimen that Krogman identified as a tibia.
It contains Haversian canals, proof of bone, and dried
blood was found on it during American Medical Laboratory
testing. This is the specimen that was fraudulently
tested by Andrew MacRae (who produced microscopic photos
of the cell structure of a rock on the false pretense
that he was showing the cell structure of this specimen).
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/newtibia.jpg

Here are two photos of the internal surface of bone
and the petrified tibia under 2,000X magnification.
The first shows what the internal surface of cadaver
bone looks like, the second offers a view of the internal
surace of the specimen that Krogman had identified as
a portion of a petrified tibia.
http://www.edconrad.com/oldascoal/more.htm

This is the boulder containing the complete human skull.
Testing has confirmed the presence of Haversian canals
and American Medical Laboratories discovered it contains
dried blood.
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/skullb.jpg

Here's a petrified human mandible (frontal).
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Newpix5/MVC-002S.JPG

Here's a portion of a human mandible (side).
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Bones/MVC-006S.JPG

Here's a giant petrified tooth.
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/1tooth.jpg

Here's a petrified dinosaur foot still embedded in slate.
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Newpix3/z3dino.jpg

Here's a petrified fetus of some large animal.
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/MVC-013F.JPG

Here's another petrified fetus, still embedded in slate.
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Day/MVC-005S.JPG

Here are several views of portion of a giant prehistoric
scorpion identified as such by Krogman.
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Scorpion/MVC-001S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Scorpion/MVC-010S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Scorpion/MVC-020S.JPG

Here's a photo of the same portion of a petrified giant
scorpion -- found 22 years ago -- alongside one found just
weeks ago.
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/SCORPIONS/MVC-039S.JPG

Here are two views of a piece of wood that appears to have
been handcarved for use as a tool or a weapon.
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-003S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-005S.JPG

=============================================== ==

=================================================

[snip]



Putting the data BEFORE the theory?

Wow - what a concept.

A principle like this might even revolutionize science, or maybe it
will just root out the psuedo-science contaminants?

Think of what could be gained.

But is not party-line comrade, watch out for KGB ...


cheers,


-mg

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 15:51:23 +0000 (UTC), Mike Goodrich
wrote:


[snip]



Putting the data BEFORE the theory?

Wow - what a concept.

A principle like this might even revolutionize science, or maybe it
will just root out the psuedo-science contaminants?

Think of what could be gained.

But is not party-line comrade, watch out for KGB ...


cheers,

Try it sometime, Mike. You might learn something.

Mike Goodrich wrote:
[snip]

Putting the data BEFORE the theory?

Wow - what a concept.

A principle like this might even revolutionize science, or maybe it
will just root out the psuedo-science contaminants?

Think of what could be gained.

But is not party-line comrade, watch out for KGB ...

The KGB doesn't exist anymore, but there are still hypocrites--Goodrich,
for instance. That is, unless of course, he has some data for *his*
"theory."

In sci.astro Ed Conrad wrote:

Hey, Rick, FYI, the ONLY fraud around here is within your
Scientific Establishment, bulging at the seams with deceit,
deception, collusion and conspiracy.

I wouldn't exactly say "bulging at the seams" but some
is much too much.

And as for data before theory. *I* have a datapoint to share.

They were building a new freeway near here. And I go over to the
cut one weekend to poke around for interesting rocks that
they may have dug up. I had a portable UV lamp hoping to find
some nice florescent ones.

I'm poking around and over to one side the lamp picks up a
brilliant green florescence. I go to investigate. No, it
wasn't a human finger, but it WAS very interesting. There was
this HUGE maybe 5 ft in diamter GRANITE boulder that somehow
was freshly impacted or fell and split in two. Right in the center
of that rock was this pocket of CRUDE OIL about an inch in diameter
that was running down the cracked surface along with some other material
that was giving the bright green color under the lamp.

Jeeze, a Fortean event if ever I saw one. OK, I can dig an
oil pocket in say a huge piece of shale or the like, but
Granite? Someone's science of "igneous rocks" is just a tad
off, methinks.

bjacoby

--
Due to SPAM innundation above address is turned off!

Excuse me chaps - I wrote to Ed a couple of weeks ago, asking him to keep
his 'bones' postings off sci.astro, and to be fair, he's kept us clear since
then. So if you don't mind, please remove sci.astro from your replies

Toodle-pip

"OG" wrote in message
...
Excuse me chaps - I wrote to Ed a couple of weeks ago, asking him to keep
his 'bones' postings off sci.astro, and to be fair, he's kept us clear
since
then. So if you don't mind, please remove sci.astro from your replies

Toodle-pip

It would be a first. Ed is a troll and will post where ever he feels it
will do the most damage. Your lucky he was probably just not interested.

Lane

Mike Goodrich wrote in message ...
[snip]



Putting the data BEFORE the theory?

Wow - what a concept.

A principle like this might even revolutionize science, or maybe it
will just root out the psuedo-science contaminants?

Think of what could be gained.

But is not party-line comrade, watch out for KGB ...







Blah blah blah.

What's the scientific theory of creation, Mikey. Put up or shut up.
Fish or cut bait. **** or get off the damn toilet.







===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"

Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank

DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo/group/DebunkCreation

Mike Goodrich wrote in message ...
[snip]

Putting the data BEFORE the theory?

Wow - what a concept.

Indeed! What about that evidence for God, Mike? Were you able to
come up with that?

Oh, I know, I know, you'll duck it again. You might even try your
"what is evidence" misdirection and evasion; but we all know that what
promped my question in the first place was an assertion on your part,
so let me save you some trouble.

You give me what YOU think is your evidence, and I'll tell you - as an
expert on evidence - if it qualifies.

Now that's fair, isn't it?

snip