Ed Conrad
2015-03-30 11:44:06 UTC
FOUL PLAY IN IDENTIFICATION OF PETRIFIED HUMAN SKULL
IT DEMOLISHES DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION,
PROVES OUR ANCESTORS WERE AS OLD AS COAL
==============
This is a 662-pound boulder that was brought to the surface from
between anthracite veins in Northeastern Pennsylvania in the mid-1930s
and which I had the good fortune to discover in 1982 .
I had been searching one particular coal-mining site for a year after
discovering many much-smaller but equally unusual "rocks" (which later
would be confirmed as petrified bones via state-of-the-art scientific testing).
This is how the boulder was positioned when it was found. (I must've
passed it a hundred times but never gave a second thought that it was
anything special).
Loading Image...
But one day, after becoming more acquainted with what human
skulls look like, I walked past the boulder and turned around, then
looked at it again. Suddenly I realized -- while examining it sideways
-- that the outline bore the distinct resemblance to a human skull.
This is a photo of the boulder after it was removed from the site and
the object embedded inside compared to the contour of a human cranium.
Loading Image...
I then sent the above photo to the Smithsonian for assistance in
determining scientifically if it indeed is a human skull. This was the response
I received from Raymond Rye II, a museum specialist in its Department
of Paleobiology.
Loading Image...
GRANULES SENT TO THE SMITHSONIAN
I followed up on Rye's request and removed some granules from
the rind of the skull-like object resembling a human skull protruding
from the boulder.
The granules were not removed from the surface for fear of contamination.
I chipped into the rind (outer layer) and removed them from the interior.
However, before mailing them, I examined them microscopically
and realized conclusively that they indeed contained Haversian canals.
This is because, at that point in time, I had learned -- on my
own -- that Haversian canals remain visible in bone microscopically
even if it had petrified. That knowledge had come from a book,
"Science in Archaeology," which stated emphatically:
Loading Image...
It showed what Haversian systems look like:
Loading Image...
Photograph of a cross-section of bone, showing Haversian systems.
Each Haversian system is seen as a nearly round area. The light
circular core of each system is the Haversian canal, through which
blood vessels pass.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RESPONSE FROM THE SMITHSONIAN
Loading Image...
EXAMINATION OF THE CELL STRUCTURE WAS IGNORED
Better Still, Smithsonian Engaged in a Monumental Cover-Up)
I then wrote to Rye, wondering why the Smithsonian tested for
MINERAL COMPOSITION when it was supposed to examine the
CELL STRUCTURE of the granules to determine if they contained
Haversian canals.
After all, Rye had stated in his letter: "We must do a microscopic
study of the outer rind to determine if it has the structure of bone."
But he stated this was not done.
(Only a imbecile would even think its experts had NOT viewed the
cell structure of the granules and HAD SEEN the Haversian canals, thus
confirming the material IS bone and that the object embedded in the
boulder IS INDEED A PETRIFIED HUMAN SKULL AS OLD AS COAL).
In any event, the Smithsonian had supplied an answer to a question
-- about mineral composition -- that did not even apply.
In his response to my follow-up letter asking why the cell structure
had not been examined, Rye rather surprisingly agreed about the
necessity of having this done.
However, he offered an extremely weak, pathetic excuse as to wh
the Smithsonian had not done so.
Another letter from Rye at the Smithsonian:
Loading Image...
GROUND SECTION WASN'T NECESSARY
The plain and simple fact is that the Smithsonian had requested
the granules for the specific purpose of examining the cell structure.
It frequently makes ground section in its labs and the cost would
be peanuts since it has the equipment. But, the fact is, it didn't
even have to prepare a ground section. It could've examined granules.
Rather pathetic was Rye's explanation that, because of budget
restraints -- "Reaganized staff and budget" -- the Smithsonian
could not prepare a ground section at taxpayers' expense.
That's when I had very serious questions about the Smithsonian's
integrity. I knew for sure that it wanted nothing whatsoever to do with
honest investigation and was playing me -- and, much worse, Truth --
for a fool.
I had a good idea back then -- and later would become 100 percent
certain (as you'll soon see) -- that the human-like skull embedded
in the boulder IS INDEED a human skull but the Smithsonian didn't
want it known, obviously because of the repercussions it would
cause to the belief in man's evolution.
Since Established Science has long maintained that coal was formed
in the Carbonifeorus Period -- a minimum of 280 million years ago
-- the Smithsonian was well aware that if it confirmed my discovery,
it would immediately dismiss the very foundation of the theory of
man's evolution.
It knew a Carboniferous human skull would decimate the evolutionary
theory that man's most remote ancestors were from some lowly life
forms from 60-65 million years ago, since this discovery means
that man -- in almost our present form -- was around eons earlier.
And now I offer further proof that the object embedded in the boulder
is indeed a human cranium.
PHOTOS OF HAVERSIAN CANALS IN JAW-LIKE AREA
Loading Image...
This photo was taken at 400X, using top lighting and a dark field. It's important
to note that, because of height differential, portions of the photo are blurry.
Loading Image...
The Haversian canals in granules from the boulder are seen at 800x magnification
========================
OBJECT IN THE BOULDER SEEN FROM A SIDE VIEW
http://www.edconrad.com/oldascoal/page3_files/body_data/rr072782.gif
=================================================
AND NOW THE BOMBSHELL
AMERICAN MEDICAL LABORATORIES CONFIRMS
SKULL-LIKE OBJECT CONTAINS DRIED BLOOD
Loading Image...
TEST RESULT OF GRANULES REMOVED FROM
SKULL-LIKE OBJECT EMBEDDED IN BOULDER
OFFICIAL REPORT
AMERICAN MEDICAL LABORATORIES
Chantilly, Va.
51945059/0 Received: 04/08/2000
75843 / Chantilly For Null
CALCULUS ANALYSIS BY CRYSTALLOGRAPHY
The specimen consists of a few small pieces of dried blood.
None of the constituents normally found in urinary calculi
are present.
*** FINAL REPORT ***
CP 978171-CS 84751
Nathan Sherman, M.D.
Director of Laboratories
Submitted by Physicians Clinical Laboratory
Hazleton National Bank Building
101 W. Broad St.
Hazleton, Pa. 18201
(Original report available to honest researchers.)
============
(Crystallography is the study of atomic and molecular structure.
Crystallographers want to know how the atoms in a material are
arranged in order to understand the relationship between atomic
structure and properties of these materials.)
============
MANY MORE FOSSILS FROM BETWEEN COAL VEINS
http://alt.fan.ed-conrad.narkive.com/ZyXb3x0Y/maybe-now-you-ll-believe-the-evolutionists-are-bullshit-artists
HEY, CONGRESS, HOW ABOUT A CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGTION?
http://www.spacebanter.com/showthread.php?p=1282455
IT DEMOLISHES DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION,
PROVES OUR ANCESTORS WERE AS OLD AS COAL
==============
This is a 662-pound boulder that was brought to the surface from
between anthracite veins in Northeastern Pennsylvania in the mid-1930s
and which I had the good fortune to discover in 1982 .
I had been searching one particular coal-mining site for a year after
discovering many much-smaller but equally unusual "rocks" (which later
would be confirmed as petrified bones via state-of-the-art scientific testing).
This is how the boulder was positioned when it was found. (I must've
passed it a hundred times but never gave a second thought that it was
anything special).
Loading Image...
But one day, after becoming more acquainted with what human
skulls look like, I walked past the boulder and turned around, then
looked at it again. Suddenly I realized -- while examining it sideways
-- that the outline bore the distinct resemblance to a human skull.
This is a photo of the boulder after it was removed from the site and
the object embedded inside compared to the contour of a human cranium.
Loading Image...
I then sent the above photo to the Smithsonian for assistance in
determining scientifically if it indeed is a human skull. This was the response
I received from Raymond Rye II, a museum specialist in its Department
of Paleobiology.
Loading Image...
GRANULES SENT TO THE SMITHSONIAN
I followed up on Rye's request and removed some granules from
the rind of the skull-like object resembling a human skull protruding
from the boulder.
The granules were not removed from the surface for fear of contamination.
I chipped into the rind (outer layer) and removed them from the interior.
However, before mailing them, I examined them microscopically
and realized conclusively that they indeed contained Haversian canals.
This is because, at that point in time, I had learned -- on my
own -- that Haversian canals remain visible in bone microscopically
even if it had petrified. That knowledge had come from a book,
"Science in Archaeology," which stated emphatically:
Loading Image...
It showed what Haversian systems look like:
Loading Image...
Photograph of a cross-section of bone, showing Haversian systems.
Each Haversian system is seen as a nearly round area. The light
circular core of each system is the Haversian canal, through which
blood vessels pass.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RESPONSE FROM THE SMITHSONIAN
Loading Image...
EXAMINATION OF THE CELL STRUCTURE WAS IGNORED
Better Still, Smithsonian Engaged in a Monumental Cover-Up)
I then wrote to Rye, wondering why the Smithsonian tested for
MINERAL COMPOSITION when it was supposed to examine the
CELL STRUCTURE of the granules to determine if they contained
Haversian canals.
After all, Rye had stated in his letter: "We must do a microscopic
study of the outer rind to determine if it has the structure of bone."
But he stated this was not done.
(Only a imbecile would even think its experts had NOT viewed the
cell structure of the granules and HAD SEEN the Haversian canals, thus
confirming the material IS bone and that the object embedded in the
boulder IS INDEED A PETRIFIED HUMAN SKULL AS OLD AS COAL).
In any event, the Smithsonian had supplied an answer to a question
-- about mineral composition -- that did not even apply.
In his response to my follow-up letter asking why the cell structure
had not been examined, Rye rather surprisingly agreed about the
necessity of having this done.
However, he offered an extremely weak, pathetic excuse as to wh
the Smithsonian had not done so.
Another letter from Rye at the Smithsonian:
Loading Image...
GROUND SECTION WASN'T NECESSARY
The plain and simple fact is that the Smithsonian had requested
the granules for the specific purpose of examining the cell structure.
It frequently makes ground section in its labs and the cost would
be peanuts since it has the equipment. But, the fact is, it didn't
even have to prepare a ground section. It could've examined granules.
Rather pathetic was Rye's explanation that, because of budget
restraints -- "Reaganized staff and budget" -- the Smithsonian
could not prepare a ground section at taxpayers' expense.
That's when I had very serious questions about the Smithsonian's
integrity. I knew for sure that it wanted nothing whatsoever to do with
honest investigation and was playing me -- and, much worse, Truth --
for a fool.
I had a good idea back then -- and later would become 100 percent
certain (as you'll soon see) -- that the human-like skull embedded
in the boulder IS INDEED a human skull but the Smithsonian didn't
want it known, obviously because of the repercussions it would
cause to the belief in man's evolution.
Since Established Science has long maintained that coal was formed
in the Carbonifeorus Period -- a minimum of 280 million years ago
-- the Smithsonian was well aware that if it confirmed my discovery,
it would immediately dismiss the very foundation of the theory of
man's evolution.
It knew a Carboniferous human skull would decimate the evolutionary
theory that man's most remote ancestors were from some lowly life
forms from 60-65 million years ago, since this discovery means
that man -- in almost our present form -- was around eons earlier.
And now I offer further proof that the object embedded in the boulder
is indeed a human cranium.
PHOTOS OF HAVERSIAN CANALS IN JAW-LIKE AREA
Loading Image...
This photo was taken at 400X, using top lighting and a dark field. It's important
to note that, because of height differential, portions of the photo are blurry.
Loading Image...
The Haversian canals in granules from the boulder are seen at 800x magnification
========================
OBJECT IN THE BOULDER SEEN FROM A SIDE VIEW
http://www.edconrad.com/oldascoal/page3_files/body_data/rr072782.gif
=================================================
AND NOW THE BOMBSHELL
AMERICAN MEDICAL LABORATORIES CONFIRMS
SKULL-LIKE OBJECT CONTAINS DRIED BLOOD
Loading Image...
TEST RESULT OF GRANULES REMOVED FROM
SKULL-LIKE OBJECT EMBEDDED IN BOULDER
OFFICIAL REPORT
AMERICAN MEDICAL LABORATORIES
Chantilly, Va.
51945059/0 Received: 04/08/2000
75843 / Chantilly For Null
CALCULUS ANALYSIS BY CRYSTALLOGRAPHY
The specimen consists of a few small pieces of dried blood.
None of the constituents normally found in urinary calculi
are present.
*** FINAL REPORT ***
CP 978171-CS 84751
Nathan Sherman, M.D.
Director of Laboratories
Submitted by Physicians Clinical Laboratory
Hazleton National Bank Building
101 W. Broad St.
Hazleton, Pa. 18201
(Original report available to honest researchers.)
============
(Crystallography is the study of atomic and molecular structure.
Crystallographers want to know how the atoms in a material are
arranged in order to understand the relationship between atomic
structure and properties of these materials.)
============
MANY MORE FOSSILS FROM BETWEEN COAL VEINS
http://alt.fan.ed-conrad.narkive.com/ZyXb3x0Y/maybe-now-you-ll-believe-the-evolutionists-are-bullshit-artists
HEY, CONGRESS, HOW ABOUT A CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGTION?
http://www.spacebanter.com/showthread.php?p=1282455