Perhaps I should interject that, just days after MacRae's fraudulent photos appeared on his web page, I received a cordial e-mail from Paul Myers of Temple University's Department of Biology.
Myers invited me to use his ultra-modern microscopes in his laboratory in Philadelphia so I could see for myself that there were NO Haversian canals in EC96-001 and that MacRae's testing was on the up and up.
Well, I used Myers' microscopes but my efforts were a strikeout.
But, considering the fraud that I had later discovered, it would've been a miracle if we would've found Haversian canals because, after all, they simply don't exist in rock.
And THIS was the simple explanation WHY they couldn't be seen in the thin section Andrew MacRae used for his microscopic photos and later sent me.
You see, it's impossible for Haversian canals to be present -- as they are -- in various areas of specimen EC96-001 and yet not be present in a thin section prepared from it.
Now then, I'm almost certain Andrew MacRae had been assisted by other members of the scientific establishment who offered advice and/or actually prepared the fraudulent thin section to make it appear it was the real thing.
Another Photo of MacRae's Phony Thin Section
This is another microscopic photo of the cell structure of Andrew MacRae's rock which he fraudulently attempted to pass off as having been cut from EC96-001.
Another Photo of the Genuine Specimen
This is another microscopic photo of the cellular structure of the REAL EC96-001, revealing the unmistakable presence of Haversian canals that confirm it is indeed petrified bone.
Therefore, over the past year, I didn't waver in insisting the specimen which Krogman and Patterson had identified as a portion of a petrified tibia WAS indeed petrified bone AND a portion of a petrified tibia -- and that MacRae was guilty of performing a sleight-of-hand in his testing.
To prepare myself for the presentation of this latest addition to my main web page, I have had microscopic photos taken of a thin section of EC96-001 at two different laboratories and, in both cases, their photos reveal the presence of circular arrangements, the Haversian canals.
It is the proof that Andrew MacRae -- and whoever else had participated in this mockery of science -- had tried to pull the wool over our eyes by posting photos of a thin section of a rock that had been carefully prepared to resemble the thin section of EC96-001.
Now then, in the wake of this scientific proof that Haversian canals exist in EC96-001 and that MacRae's testing was a colossal hoax, we all have to take with a grain of salt every negative word of denial that MacRae has written in reference to my specimens, either on his home page or when posting to talk.origins.
The integrity of Andrew MacRae --and his pseudoscientist colleagues -- once again has been very seriously challenged.