Rye Denies The Granules Are Bone
Examination of Cell Structure Was Ignored
On Oct. 11, 1982, Ed wrote to Rye, wondering why the
Smithsonian tested for mineral composition when it was supposed to
examine the cell structure of the granules that had been removed from
the rind of the boulder.
After all, Ed maintained, 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, according to Rye, this was not done. Or,
if it was, the Smithsonian wanted to hide that fact.
Ed insists the Smithsonian had supplied an answer to a
question -- about mineral composition -- that did not even apply in
this particular case.
In any event, in his response to Ed's follow-up letter, Rye
rather surprisingly agreed about the necessity of having the cell
structure examined.
However, he offered an extremely weak and sad explanation
why the Smithsonian had not done so (although 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 human cranium).
Ed: Ground Section Wasn't Needed
First of all, Ed notes that the Smithsonian certainly didn't
have to prepare a ground section to examine the cell structure since it
easily could've used the granules (as he had done).
The plain and simple fact is that Rye HAD REQUESTED the
granules for the specific purpose of examining the cell structure.
Meanwhile, if the preparation -- and examination -- of a
ground section was so important, Ed wondered why Rye had not even
mentioned it in his letter.
But even worse was Rye's explanation that, because of budget
restraints, the Smithsonian could not prepare a ground section at
taxpayers' expense.
Then -- same as now -- the Smithsonian's laboratories are
fully equipped to prepare ground sections at minimal expense and they
are made almost every day. The expense involved would have been
peanuts.
It was then that Ed had very serious questions about the
Smithsonian's integrity. He knew for sure that, coupled with earlier
events, it wanted nothing to do with the honest investigation of any of
his specimens and was playing him for a fool.
Ed 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.
Most importantly, the Smithsonian's experts knew that if a
human skull was discovered in Carboniferous strata, it means that man
inhabited the earth multi-multi-millions of years before Darwin's
evolutionists have put him here.
They also knew -- in one felt swoop -- it would decimate the
evolutionary theory of man's origin from some lowly animals of 60-65
million years ago, since Ed's discovery means man was around long, long
before.
Since established science has long maintained that coal was
formed more than 280 million years ago, the Smithsonian was well aware
that if it confirmed Ed's discovery, it would shake the very foundation
of its most close-vested theories.
And now Ed offers proof of the Smithsonian's lack of
integrity by presenting microscopic photos of granules removed from the
boulder, proving that he indeed had found a petrified human skull that
is, indeed, as old as coal -- if not older!
What the Smithsonian didn't want you to see
Granules that were removed from the specimen resembling
a human skull embedded in the boulder reveal Haversian canals, the
telltale indicator of bone. This photo was taken at 400X, using top
lighting and a dark field. It is important to note that, because of
height differential, portions of the photo are blurry.
The Haversian canals in granules from the boulder are
seen at approximately 800x magnification.
Photograph of 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. Artwork of compact bone shows details of the
Haversian systems. According to "Science in Archaeology," the Haversian
canals always exist and are always identifiable in bone, despite its
age or that it has been subjected to the process of petrification.
It is important to emphasize that, when Ed was getting the
royal runaround from the Smithsonian in the honest investigation of his
specimens, Ed brought the matter to the attention of Gus Yatron, his
congressman, in 1984.
Ed pulled no punches with Yatron, accusing the Smithsonian
of a lack of integrity concerning the honest investigation of his
specimens.
Yatron's office then diplomatically contacted the
Smithsonian on Ed's behalf and, in response, was promptly greeted with
an extremely sarcastic, hostile letter from the office of its top
administrator, Secretary Robert McCormick Adams.
Smithsonian's Official Response Lacks Credibility
Ed Accuses the Smithsonian of Lying
(Rest of letter snipped)
Respectfully,
(signed)
Ed Conrad
Ed Conrad is shown in January 1983 in front of a pit
being dug by a power shovel to reach -- and remove -- anthracite from
veins near the surface. It is between these coal seams that Ed insists
he has found petrified bones, teeth and even soft organs, some of them
human, proving man inhabited earth while coal was being formed.
More About the Infrared Scan: An Interpretation
As mentioned previously, Ed was quite frustrated in
attempting to obtain an interpretation of the results of the infrared
scan recommended by Wilton Krogman.
Not only had the Smithsonian failed to interpret the scan
for him several major universities also had ignored his request.
In fact, as time passed, Ed actually had forgotten about the
infrared scan.
Finally, in November 1989 -- eight full years since the test
was conducted -- Ed learned by reading a newspaper article that a
surgeon/medical doctor in Northeastern Pennsylvania possessed the
expertise in interpreting them.
Ed politely requested if he would interpet the infrared scan
(but not mentioning that it had been taken of granules from the
specimen that Wilton Krogman had identified as a premolar).
He agreed to do so and presented Ed with this brief but mind
boggling response:
Ed Conrad's discoveries have been the subject of
considerable controversy on various news groups since March 1996. Most
of the heat has been generated on talk.origins but Ed has also posted
regularly to sci.anthropology.
Click here for even
more photos and proof that Man Is As Old As Coal
|
