Monday, February 23, 2009
MY BLOG IN TAIWAN http://www.wretch.cc/blog/lin440315
MY BLOG IN TAIWAN is at this URL: http://www.wretch.cc/blog/lin440315
A Study on a Carboniferous Human Femur Fossil
Last updated: Feb. 20, 2009
By Lin Liangtai
Abstract
Mr. Ed Conrad, the discoverer of the subject material, has claimed he has found thousands of “fossils” in the Mahanoy City and Shenandoah region of Pennsylvania, USA. Before this study, the author has studied over 20 different specimens of those “fossils” and found they are all animal fossils, including a petrified human calvarium, well preserved down to the microscopic level. The subject material was still partially embedded in an immense piece of slate in the Carboniferous rock layer when it was first photographed. The author found it was a fossil because it contained Haversian canals, which are found only in animals’ compact bones. It belonged to a mammal because it possessed plentiful remains of scarlet, round, anucleate and concave cells, which were red blood cells found only in mammals. It was a fossilized human femur bone because it displayed the following features: (1) It is nearly straight, round and quite slender, with maximum length estimated at 52 centimeters, and mid-shaft diameter of 3.3 centimeters; (2) It bears resemblance to a right femur of a Peking Man and to an educational model of human femur, and the average diameter of its shaft is smaller than 7% of its maximum length ; (3) It possesses plentiful round, anucleate and concave red blood cell remains as large as eight micrometers in diameter. Only human femur bones match the above three features. The author has searched various fossil records and data banks, but found no other mammals possessed a bone that displayed the above three features or the first two features in the case of an extinct mammal. So, it was a femur of a Carboniferous mammal with a human calvarium.
Introduction
The author found on the internet a photograph showing an object claimed to be a Carboniferous human femur fossil embedded in slate near Mahanoy City, Pennsylvania. As the discoverer of the object did not present detailed evidences for his claim, the author contacted the discoverer and asked for a specimen of the object in order to examine it in details. The discoverer sent one half of the object to the author by post for study (Fig.1-2-2). Before this study, the discoverer has claimed to have discovered thousands of Carboniferous animal --some human--fossils in the same area in the past 28 years (note 1). The author has studied over 20 different specimens of those objects and found they are all animal fossils, including a petrified human calvarium (Article 1), all preserved down to the microscopic level (Fig. 0-1, Fig. 0-2).
Material and Methods
(A) Material found in situ
The object (Fig.1-1-1)was discovered in situ by Mr. Ed Conrad, who had lived in Shenandoah, Pennsylvania, USA for over 30 years. He discovered the subject material over 20 years ago in the suburb of Mahanoy City ( Note 3, Fig. 5-1-3), a few kilometers from Shenandoah, where he lived. When he first discovered the “femur fossil”, it was still partially embedded in a rock, which he claimed had been dumped there by a coal mining company during surface-mining operations. He took three pictures of the object before removing it from the surrounding rock. A veteran Pennsylvania policeman, who is a polygraph expert, conducted a polygraph examination on its discoverer and issued an examination report (Fig. 4-4-5).The report proves the discoverer showed “no deception” when asked if he found the majority of the questioned objects in the Mahanoy City/Shenandoah region (note 4).
Mr. Ed Conrad advised the author in writing that the object was 17.5 inches long while still embedded in rock.To demonstrate its length, he put a measuring tape and a 16-inch educational model of human femur beside the object before he took the three pictures of the object. According to the geological map published by the Pennsylvania state government, the area around Shenandoah and Mahanoy City is situated on the rock layer of the Carboniferous age. The Pennsylvania state government’s geological unit also confirmed in writing to the author that fossils discovered in those areas are all 307 (+/- 5) million years old. Figures 1-1-1 to 1-1-4 show the object was partially embedded in the rock. This point was supported by visual examination of the object’s surfaces, as the object’s under-ground surface had turned into black coal while its above-ground surface did not turn into black coal (Figure 1-3-2).
(B) Material received for study:
The specimen received by the author measures 22 centimeter long and 3.3 centimeter in diameter at the mid-shaft (Fig. 5-2-3, Fig. 2-3-5). The author had the specimen that he received from the discoverer cut at the mid-shaft for the specimen’s transverse section by Mr. Liang at the Department of Geology, National Taiwan University. The transverse section was further cut into two equal parts and ground into two thin sections (Fig. 2-4-1), which were then covered with glass slides for viewing under light microscopes. The two thin sections are never stained with chemicals to change their original colors. Later, the specimen was cut again transversely at mid-shaft and another sample was obtained for viewing with Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM). The SEM sample was ground and coated with a thin layer of wax as required for SEM viewing. For orientation purpose, the SEM sample was marked by the author with a felt pen and a diamond-tipped pen. The SEM sample and the two thin sections were variously viewed with a stereomicroscope, a digital microscope, a transmitted-light microscope, and SEM (Hitachi S3400). Images were captured with a camera (Canon EOS 350D), SEM (Hitachi S3400), or a digital microscope itself. Finally, the specimen was sent to Alberta Research Council (in Canada) for three-dimensional scanning with their Computed-Tomography imaging system. All figures mentioned in this article are displayed and explained in an on-line album at: http://www.wretch.cc/album/album.php?id=lin440315&book=21
Result
Major findings in the study of the material include:
1. Fig. 1-1-4 shows the object was discovered exactly as in the picture, still partially embedded in the rock. The object articulated to the “rock”, which might be other remains of the same limb.
2. Fig. 1-1-5 , Fig. 4-1-1, Fig. 4-1-2 show Haversian canals, which are found only in a compact bone’s osteons. Fig. 3-1-3 shows remains of soft blood vessels, an osteocyte and a Haversian canal.
3. Plentiful scarlet red blood cell remains were found on the transverse sections of the specimen (Fig. 4-2-3, Fig. 4-2-4, Fig. 4-2-5). The red blood cell remains are round, concave and anucleate, some as large as eight micrometers in diameter
(Fig. 4-2-1, Fig. 4-4-2).
4. The subject material is nearly straight, round and quite slender (Fig. 1-1-1, Fig.1-3-2), measuring 3. 3 centimeters in diameter at mid-shaft (where the specimen was cut for making thin sections, Fig. 2-2-4, Fig.2-3-5). Its colorful surface is covered with remains of soft tissues (Fig. 1-4-2, Fig. 3-3-5, Fig. 3-4-2), such as tendons ( Fig.5-2-4, Fig. 3-1-4,). SEM Fig. 3-1-4 shows the transverse side of the tendon with fascicles containing bundles of collagen fibrils. On the coal-black surface there are three knob-like protrusions (Fig. 5-2-2). They are found to contain remains of tendons (Figures 7-1-1 to 7-1-5). Such tendon remains are also found on a femur bone of a Java Man (Fig. 2-2-5).
5. The top side of the specimen (the superior surface at the uncut end, Fig. 2-2-2) contains plentiful remains of chondrocytes of a hyaline cartilage (Fig. 3-3-1, Fig. 3-3-2) near its center and edges. Those cell remains point to a growth plate (Fig. 3-2-1, Fig.3-1-5) that was still active before the bone died. The subject material also bears resemblance to a right femur of a Peking Man ( Fig 2-3-1). The previous figure also shows the Peking Man’s right femur has no femur head at the proximal end. In fact, dead femurs of juvenile animals are often found broken at the growth plates, as those growth plates were less rigid and not completely ossified before adulthood. After death, the subject femur was damaged possibly in intertrochanteric fracture type III (Fig.2-3-3) .
6. A femur’s lesser trochanter was found at the uncut end of the specimen
(Fig. 4-4-3, Fig. 2-2-2, Fig. 5-4-2). The femur neck was found fractured at the base, which is evidenced by many remains of osteons and Haversian canals (Fig. 6-4-2 , Fig. 6-4-3, Fig. 6-4-4, Fig. 6-4-5 ). Based upon findings mentioned above, the author identified the subject material as part of a right femur with colorful posterior surface( Fig. 1-1-1) and black anterior surface(Fig. 1-3-2). The anterior surface is smooth while the posterior surface is covered with a thin layer of soft tissue remains of various colors ( Fig. 3-3-5, Fig. 3-4-2).
7. The maximum length of the femur before death should have been 52 centimeters approximately according to the following calculation:
Maximum length of the femur = the sum of (A) and (B)
(A): the length of the material found in situ;
(B): the length of the missing femur head and neck at its proximal end.
A: 44 centimeters ( 17.5 inches, as measured by its discoverer)
B: 8 centimeters, as measured from an educational model of human femur, starting from the top of the femur head to the base of the femur neck.
Hence, the maximum length of the femur should have been 44+8=52 centimeters.
Discussion (Questions and Answers)
1. Could it be a rock, a plant, a collection of microbes, pollens, invertebrate animals in origin?
No. Micrographs of the object show numerous rings of six to eight microns in diameter ( like erythrocytes). Minerals at that size are called silts, which are all flaky (in 3-dimension) and angular (in 2-dimension), not rounded like red blood cells. The cells of plants are usually rectangular in shape and much larger in size (about 20 to 30 microns across). Microbes are smaller in size (about one to five microns in length). Pollens are much larger, over 80 microns across. Invertebrate animals don’t have Haversian canals, which are found only in compact bones.
2. Could someone bury it there recently?
No. The environment surrounding the object is shown on the object’s under-ground surface as well as on its above-ground surface. Its above-ground surface is not black or coalified, while its underground surface is all black and coalified (Fig. 1-1-1 , Fig. 1-2-3, Fig. 1-3-2 ). The coalification shows its age and agrees with the environment of the coal region. It was unlikely to artificially bury the object so flawlessly. The author expanded Fig. 1-1-4 by 500% and still saw continuity from the object to the surrounding rock.
3. Could it have come from a younger layer of rocks?
No. It was not a tiny object or a singular case. As mentioned above, thousands of fossils had been found in the region and the author had microscopically examined over 20 of them, which are all found to have been animal fossils –some human. Mahanoy City and Shenandoah are in the anthracite region of Pennsylvania
(Note 3, Fig.5-1-3). The discoverer has repeatedly claimed that his fossils were dumped there by coal-mining companies during strip-mining operations. So, his fossils could not have been moved into multi-layers of coal-bearing strata by rivers after coal was formed there.
That region’s surface rocks/soil have been repeatedly excavated away by surface coal-mining since 1900. When the discoverer found his first fossil there in 1981, the region’s surface rocks/soil of the 19th century had been removed almost completely. Moreover, the Pennsylvania state government’s geological unit has confirmed in writing to the author that fossils found near Mahanoy City are all 307 (+/- 5) million years old. The discoverer has found thousands of small broken fossils that lay miles apart, all well preserved down to the microscopic level. This fact precludes the possibility that some animals fell from a hole long ago into the present-day region. So, the subject fossil could not have moved vertically or horizontally from a younger rock layer.
4. Could it be a non-human bone?
Unlikely. The author has searched various sources and fossil records (note 6), but
could not find a non-human mammal that possessed such a bone. This
Carboniferous fossil bone possessed the following features:
A. It resembles an educational model of a human femur bone (Fig. 1-1-1) and a right femur of a Peking Man (Fig. 2-3-1)
B. It is nearly straight, round and quite slender (Fig. 2-3-2), with maximum length estimated at 52 centimeters (7th point, Result Section) and mid-shaft diameter of 3.3 centimeters (Fig. 2-3-5).
C. It possessed round, anucleate and concave red blood cells of eight micrometers in diameter (Fig. 4-2-1, Fig. 4-4-2).
D. The average diameter of the shaft is 3.5 centimeters (Fig. 3-3-3), which is 6.73% of the maximum length (52 cm) of the femur.
The combination of above four features is not found in any non-human mammals, extinct or extant.
Concerning feature D, any non-human femur that is longer than 52 centimeters is invariably much thicker than 6.73% of the femur’s maximum length. For example, an elephant has a femur longer than 52 cm, but its femur shaft is much thicker than 3.5 cm in diameter. That’s because non-human femurs that are over 52 cm long belong invariably to animal bodies that are much more massive than human bodies are. Such heavy animals, extinct or extant, need much thicker femurs to support their much heavier bodies. The average diameters of their femur shafts are always over 7% of their femurs’ maximum lengths, never as slender as human femurs are.
5. Doesn’t the object look like the fossil of a tree branch, as there are three knob-like
protrusions on its anterior surface (Fig. 1-3-2) ?
The object was not a tree branch, although it may look like one to some people.
Fossils usually don’t have soft-tissue remains, but this one is unusual. Its surface
has a lot of soft-tissue remains (Fig. 1-4-2), including numerous remains of tendons
(Fig. 3-3-4, Fig. 3-3-5, Fig. 3-1-4, ). The three knob-like protrusions (Fig. 5-2-2)
actually contain remains of tendons (Figures 7-1-1 to 7-1-5) on their top sides. Tree
branches don’t have tendons or blood vessels.
6. Could it be contaminated with red blood cells?
No. Such red blood cell remains were also found in over 20 other specimens that were discovered by Mr. Conrad and microscopically examined by the author. The thin sections were cut by a professional with over 10 years’ experience in cutting and grinding for thin sections in the geology department of National Taiwan University. The professional technician produced over five thin sections every working day.
7. Why were there so many red blood cells on a single horizontal plane in thin sections of a compact bone?
They might be squeezed out of the blood vessel remains remaining in Haversian
canals when the bone’s transverse sides were ground into thin sections.
In normal health, the red blood cells are all contained in blood vessels.This bone shows no sign of serious injuries (See X-ray and other images in Fig. 2-3-2, Fig.1-2-3, Fig. 1-3-2 ).
8. Why the red blood cell remains are still red after 300 million years?
Normally they don’t remain red for a long time. However, if they were preserved
before or soon after death of the body, they could remain red for a long time. One
example of such cases is the red blood cell remains in the femur bone of a T. Rex
dinosaur, whose red blood cell remains were still scarlet in micrographs taken by
Dr. Mary H. Schweitzer.
9. Why some red blood cell remains are white while others are brightly red?
This bone shows different preservation results in different areas which may be only 100 microns apart from each other.
10. Do you consider the subject material an artifact?
Yes, considering the marvelous result of its preservation and the unknown method
that preserved the subject material.
11. Couldn’t it be a femur of a new species of Carboniferous mammals?
Yes, it could be a femur in a new species of a Carboniferous mammal with a human calvarium (note 1, note 2, Fig. 0). For a petrified Carboniferous human calvarium has been positively identified by Dr. Wilton Krogman, the author of
“The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine”.
Conclusion
Mr. Ed Conrad, the discoverer of the subject material, has claimed he has found thousands of “fossils” in the Mahanoy City and Shenandoah region of Pennsylvania, USA. Before this study, the author has studied over 20 different specimens of those “fossils” and found they are all animal fossils, including a petrified human calvarium, well preserved down to the microscopic level. The subject material was still partially embedded in an immense piece of slate in the Carboniferous rock layer when it was first photographed. The author found it was a fossil because it contained Haversian canals, which are found only in animals’ compact bones. It belonged to a mammal because it possessed plentiful remains of scarlet, round, anucleate and concave cells, which were red blood cells found only in mammals. It was a fossilized human femur bone because it displayed the following features: (1) It is nearly straight, round and quite slender, with maximum length estimated at 52 centimeters, and mid-shaft diameter of 3.3 centimeters; (2) It bears resemblance to a right femur of a Peking Man and to an educational model of human femur, and the average diameter of its shaft is smaller than 7% of its maximum length ; (3) It possesses plentiful round, anucleate and concave red blood cell remains as large as eight micrometers in diameter. Only human femur bones match the above three features. The author has searched various fossil records and data banks, but found no other mammals possessed a bone that displayed the above three features or the first two features in the case of an extinct mammal. So, it was a femur of a Carboniferous mammal with a human calvarium.
Note 1: Other “human fossils”found by Mr.Ed Conrad in Carboniferous stratra:
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/FINGERSx.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/OldestHumanSkull.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/z11calv.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/skullb.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/TestResults.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/Skullx.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/SkullBoulderSide.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/FirstDiscovery.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/newtibia.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/HumanJaw3.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/GallBladder2.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/GallBladdery.jpg
Other discoveries:
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/OldestTool.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/MoreFossils.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/InSlate3.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/InSlate2.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/InSlate11.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/Scorpion.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/PetrifiedPP.jpg
Note 2: The following article proved the existence of a Carboniferous human calvarium fossil: http://groups.google.com.tw/group/first-human-neurons/web/article-updated-feb-20
Note 3: Mr. Ed Conrad advised the author in writing that he discovered all of his
fossils within 20 miles of Mahanoy City/Shenandoah , and that the vast majority of his fossils were discovered within two miles of Mahanoy City/Shenandoah, both of which belong to Schuylkill County of Pennsylvania. According to the geologic map published by Pennsylvania Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey (Fig. 5-1-3),
the youngest stratum within 20 miles of Mahanoy City/Shenandoah is the Permian stratum, while the youngest stratum within two miles of Mahanoy City/Shenandoah is the Pennsylvanian stratum, which is 290-330 million years old in the state of Pennsylvania.
Note 4: The test was conducted at Mr. Conrad’s residence. Before the test, the policeman saw many of the “rock-like” objects which Mr. Conrad claimed were fossils. As the policeman did not accept them as fossils, he used the term “ artifacts” in the polygraph test. However, the two men knew perfectly well that the term meant the rock-like objects they saw before the test.
Note 5: The discoverer advised the author that he found the subject material nearly broken in half when he first found it in situ, and that it naturally broke into two halves of almost the same length when he dug it out. So, he did not cut it into two halves, but the specimen had already been cut at mid-shaft when the author received it from Mr. Conrad (Fig. 1-3-2) .
Note 6: The data bank and the books that the author consulted include:
a. http://www.genomesize.com/cellsize/mammals.htm
b. Mammalian Osteology, by B. Miles Gilbert (1990, Missouri Archaeological Society)
c. Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Life, 2001, Dorling Kindersley Limited, London
d. Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Life, 2003, Dorling Kindersley Limited, London
e. Eyewitness Handbook: Mammals, 2002, by Juliet Clutton-Brock, Dorling Kindersley Limited, London
f. Field Guide to Skulls and Bones of Mammals of the Northeastern U.S., by Richard Wolniewicz, 2004, published by Richard Wolniewicz
g. A photographic atlas for physical anthropology, by Paul F. Whitehead, William K. Sacco, Susan B. Hochgraf
Last updated: Feb. 20, 2009
By Lin Liangtai
Abstract
Mr. Ed Conrad, the discoverer of the subject material, has claimed he has found thousands of “fossils” in the Mahanoy City and Shenandoah region of Pennsylvania, USA. Before this study, the author has studied over 20 different specimens of those “fossils” and found they are all animal fossils, including a petrified human calvarium, well preserved down to the microscopic level. The subject material was still partially embedded in an immense piece of slate in the Carboniferous rock layer when it was first photographed. The author found it was a fossil because it contained Haversian canals, which are found only in animals’ compact bones. It belonged to a mammal because it possessed plentiful remains of scarlet, round, anucleate and concave cells, which were red blood cells found only in mammals. It was a fossilized human femur bone because it displayed the following features: (1) It is nearly straight, round and quite slender, with maximum length estimated at 52 centimeters, and mid-shaft diameter of 3.3 centimeters; (2) It bears resemblance to a right femur of a Peking Man and to an educational model of human femur, and the average diameter of its shaft is smaller than 7% of its maximum length ; (3) It possesses plentiful round, anucleate and concave red blood cell remains as large as eight micrometers in diameter. Only human femur bones match the above three features. The author has searched various fossil records and data banks, but found no other mammals possessed a bone that displayed the above three features or the first two features in the case of an extinct mammal. So, it was a femur of a Carboniferous mammal with a human calvarium.
Introduction
The author found on the internet a photograph showing an object claimed to be a Carboniferous human femur fossil embedded in slate near Mahanoy City, Pennsylvania. As the discoverer of the object did not present detailed evidences for his claim, the author contacted the discoverer and asked for a specimen of the object in order to examine it in details. The discoverer sent one half of the object to the author by post for study (Fig.1-2-2). Before this study, the discoverer has claimed to have discovered thousands of Carboniferous animal --some human--fossils in the same area in the past 28 years (note 1). The author has studied over 20 different specimens of those objects and found they are all animal fossils, including a petrified human calvarium (Article 1), all preserved down to the microscopic level (Fig. 0-1, Fig. 0-2).
Material and Methods
(A) Material found in situ
The object (Fig.1-1-1)was discovered in situ by Mr. Ed Conrad, who had lived in Shenandoah, Pennsylvania, USA for over 30 years. He discovered the subject material over 20 years ago in the suburb of Mahanoy City ( Note 3, Fig. 5-1-3), a few kilometers from Shenandoah, where he lived. When he first discovered the “femur fossil”, it was still partially embedded in a rock, which he claimed had been dumped there by a coal mining company during surface-mining operations. He took three pictures of the object before removing it from the surrounding rock. A veteran Pennsylvania policeman, who is a polygraph expert, conducted a polygraph examination on its discoverer and issued an examination report (Fig. 4-4-5).The report proves the discoverer showed “no deception” when asked if he found the majority of the questioned objects in the Mahanoy City/Shenandoah region (note 4).
Mr. Ed Conrad advised the author in writing that the object was 17.5 inches long while still embedded in rock.To demonstrate its length, he put a measuring tape and a 16-inch educational model of human femur beside the object before he took the three pictures of the object. According to the geological map published by the Pennsylvania state government, the area around Shenandoah and Mahanoy City is situated on the rock layer of the Carboniferous age. The Pennsylvania state government’s geological unit also confirmed in writing to the author that fossils discovered in those areas are all 307 (+/- 5) million years old. Figures 1-1-1 to 1-1-4 show the object was partially embedded in the rock. This point was supported by visual examination of the object’s surfaces, as the object’s under-ground surface had turned into black coal while its above-ground surface did not turn into black coal (Figure 1-3-2).
(B) Material received for study:
The specimen received by the author measures 22 centimeter long and 3.3 centimeter in diameter at the mid-shaft (Fig. 5-2-3, Fig. 2-3-5). The author had the specimen that he received from the discoverer cut at the mid-shaft for the specimen’s transverse section by Mr. Liang at the Department of Geology, National Taiwan University. The transverse section was further cut into two equal parts and ground into two thin sections (Fig. 2-4-1), which were then covered with glass slides for viewing under light microscopes. The two thin sections are never stained with chemicals to change their original colors. Later, the specimen was cut again transversely at mid-shaft and another sample was obtained for viewing with Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM). The SEM sample was ground and coated with a thin layer of wax as required for SEM viewing. For orientation purpose, the SEM sample was marked by the author with a felt pen and a diamond-tipped pen. The SEM sample and the two thin sections were variously viewed with a stereomicroscope, a digital microscope, a transmitted-light microscope, and SEM (Hitachi S3400). Images were captured with a camera (Canon EOS 350D), SEM (Hitachi S3400), or a digital microscope itself. Finally, the specimen was sent to Alberta Research Council (in Canada) for three-dimensional scanning with their Computed-Tomography imaging system. All figures mentioned in this article are displayed and explained in an on-line album at: http://www.wretch.cc/album/album.php?id=lin440315&book=21
Result
Major findings in the study of the material include:
1. Fig. 1-1-4 shows the object was discovered exactly as in the picture, still partially embedded in the rock. The object articulated to the “rock”, which might be other remains of the same limb.
2. Fig. 1-1-5 , Fig. 4-1-1, Fig. 4-1-2 show Haversian canals, which are found only in a compact bone’s osteons. Fig. 3-1-3 shows remains of soft blood vessels, an osteocyte and a Haversian canal.
3. Plentiful scarlet red blood cell remains were found on the transverse sections of the specimen (Fig. 4-2-3, Fig. 4-2-4, Fig. 4-2-5). The red blood cell remains are round, concave and anucleate, some as large as eight micrometers in diameter
(Fig. 4-2-1, Fig. 4-4-2).
4. The subject material is nearly straight, round and quite slender (Fig. 1-1-1, Fig.1-3-2), measuring 3. 3 centimeters in diameter at mid-shaft (where the specimen was cut for making thin sections, Fig. 2-2-4, Fig.2-3-5). Its colorful surface is covered with remains of soft tissues (Fig. 1-4-2, Fig. 3-3-5, Fig. 3-4-2), such as tendons ( Fig.5-2-4, Fig. 3-1-4,). SEM Fig. 3-1-4 shows the transverse side of the tendon with fascicles containing bundles of collagen fibrils. On the coal-black surface there are three knob-like protrusions (Fig. 5-2-2). They are found to contain remains of tendons (Figures 7-1-1 to 7-1-5). Such tendon remains are also found on a femur bone of a Java Man (Fig. 2-2-5).
5. The top side of the specimen (the superior surface at the uncut end, Fig. 2-2-2) contains plentiful remains of chondrocytes of a hyaline cartilage (Fig. 3-3-1, Fig. 3-3-2) near its center and edges. Those cell remains point to a growth plate (Fig. 3-2-1, Fig.3-1-5) that was still active before the bone died. The subject material also bears resemblance to a right femur of a Peking Man ( Fig 2-3-1). The previous figure also shows the Peking Man’s right femur has no femur head at the proximal end. In fact, dead femurs of juvenile animals are often found broken at the growth plates, as those growth plates were less rigid and not completely ossified before adulthood. After death, the subject femur was damaged possibly in intertrochanteric fracture type III (Fig.2-3-3) .
6. A femur’s lesser trochanter was found at the uncut end of the specimen
(Fig. 4-4-3, Fig. 2-2-2, Fig. 5-4-2). The femur neck was found fractured at the base, which is evidenced by many remains of osteons and Haversian canals (Fig. 6-4-2 , Fig. 6-4-3, Fig. 6-4-4, Fig. 6-4-5 ). Based upon findings mentioned above, the author identified the subject material as part of a right femur with colorful posterior surface( Fig. 1-1-1) and black anterior surface(Fig. 1-3-2). The anterior surface is smooth while the posterior surface is covered with a thin layer of soft tissue remains of various colors ( Fig. 3-3-5, Fig. 3-4-2).
7. The maximum length of the femur before death should have been 52 centimeters approximately according to the following calculation:
Maximum length of the femur = the sum of (A) and (B)
(A): the length of the material found in situ;
(B): the length of the missing femur head and neck at its proximal end.
A: 44 centimeters ( 17.5 inches, as measured by its discoverer)
B: 8 centimeters, as measured from an educational model of human femur, starting from the top of the femur head to the base of the femur neck.
Hence, the maximum length of the femur should have been 44+8=52 centimeters.
Discussion (Questions and Answers)
1. Could it be a rock, a plant, a collection of microbes, pollens, invertebrate animals in origin?
No. Micrographs of the object show numerous rings of six to eight microns in diameter ( like erythrocytes). Minerals at that size are called silts, which are all flaky (in 3-dimension) and angular (in 2-dimension), not rounded like red blood cells. The cells of plants are usually rectangular in shape and much larger in size (about 20 to 30 microns across). Microbes are smaller in size (about one to five microns in length). Pollens are much larger, over 80 microns across. Invertebrate animals don’t have Haversian canals, which are found only in compact bones.
2. Could someone bury it there recently?
No. The environment surrounding the object is shown on the object’s under-ground surface as well as on its above-ground surface. Its above-ground surface is not black or coalified, while its underground surface is all black and coalified (Fig. 1-1-1 , Fig. 1-2-3, Fig. 1-3-2 ). The coalification shows its age and agrees with the environment of the coal region. It was unlikely to artificially bury the object so flawlessly. The author expanded Fig. 1-1-4 by 500% and still saw continuity from the object to the surrounding rock.
3. Could it have come from a younger layer of rocks?
No. It was not a tiny object or a singular case. As mentioned above, thousands of fossils had been found in the region and the author had microscopically examined over 20 of them, which are all found to have been animal fossils –some human. Mahanoy City and Shenandoah are in the anthracite region of Pennsylvania
(Note 3, Fig.5-1-3). The discoverer has repeatedly claimed that his fossils were dumped there by coal-mining companies during strip-mining operations. So, his fossils could not have been moved into multi-layers of coal-bearing strata by rivers after coal was formed there.
That region’s surface rocks/soil have been repeatedly excavated away by surface coal-mining since 1900. When the discoverer found his first fossil there in 1981, the region’s surface rocks/soil of the 19th century had been removed almost completely. Moreover, the Pennsylvania state government’s geological unit has confirmed in writing to the author that fossils found near Mahanoy City are all 307 (+/- 5) million years old. The discoverer has found thousands of small broken fossils that lay miles apart, all well preserved down to the microscopic level. This fact precludes the possibility that some animals fell from a hole long ago into the present-day region. So, the subject fossil could not have moved vertically or horizontally from a younger rock layer.
4. Could it be a non-human bone?
Unlikely. The author has searched various sources and fossil records (note 6), but
could not find a non-human mammal that possessed such a bone. This
Carboniferous fossil bone possessed the following features:
A. It resembles an educational model of a human femur bone (Fig. 1-1-1) and a right femur of a Peking Man (Fig. 2-3-1)
B. It is nearly straight, round and quite slender (Fig. 2-3-2), with maximum length estimated at 52 centimeters (7th point, Result Section) and mid-shaft diameter of 3.3 centimeters (Fig. 2-3-5).
C. It possessed round, anucleate and concave red blood cells of eight micrometers in diameter (Fig. 4-2-1, Fig. 4-4-2).
D. The average diameter of the shaft is 3.5 centimeters (Fig. 3-3-3), which is 6.73% of the maximum length (52 cm) of the femur.
The combination of above four features is not found in any non-human mammals, extinct or extant.
Concerning feature D, any non-human femur that is longer than 52 centimeters is invariably much thicker than 6.73% of the femur’s maximum length. For example, an elephant has a femur longer than 52 cm, but its femur shaft is much thicker than 3.5 cm in diameter. That’s because non-human femurs that are over 52 cm long belong invariably to animal bodies that are much more massive than human bodies are. Such heavy animals, extinct or extant, need much thicker femurs to support their much heavier bodies. The average diameters of their femur shafts are always over 7% of their femurs’ maximum lengths, never as slender as human femurs are.
5. Doesn’t the object look like the fossil of a tree branch, as there are three knob-like
protrusions on its anterior surface (Fig. 1-3-2) ?
The object was not a tree branch, although it may look like one to some people.
Fossils usually don’t have soft-tissue remains, but this one is unusual. Its surface
has a lot of soft-tissue remains (Fig. 1-4-2), including numerous remains of tendons
(Fig. 3-3-4, Fig. 3-3-5, Fig. 3-1-4, ). The three knob-like protrusions (Fig. 5-2-2)
actually contain remains of tendons (Figures 7-1-1 to 7-1-5) on their top sides. Tree
branches don’t have tendons or blood vessels.
6. Could it be contaminated with red blood cells?
No. Such red blood cell remains were also found in over 20 other specimens that were discovered by Mr. Conrad and microscopically examined by the author. The thin sections were cut by a professional with over 10 years’ experience in cutting and grinding for thin sections in the geology department of National Taiwan University. The professional technician produced over five thin sections every working day.
7. Why were there so many red blood cells on a single horizontal plane in thin sections of a compact bone?
They might be squeezed out of the blood vessel remains remaining in Haversian
canals when the bone’s transverse sides were ground into thin sections.
In normal health, the red blood cells are all contained in blood vessels.This bone shows no sign of serious injuries (See X-ray and other images in Fig. 2-3-2, Fig.1-2-3, Fig. 1-3-2 ).
8. Why the red blood cell remains are still red after 300 million years?
Normally they don’t remain red for a long time. However, if they were preserved
before or soon after death of the body, they could remain red for a long time. One
example of such cases is the red blood cell remains in the femur bone of a T. Rex
dinosaur, whose red blood cell remains were still scarlet in micrographs taken by
Dr. Mary H. Schweitzer.
9. Why some red blood cell remains are white while others are brightly red?
This bone shows different preservation results in different areas which may be only 100 microns apart from each other.
10. Do you consider the subject material an artifact?
Yes, considering the marvelous result of its preservation and the unknown method
that preserved the subject material.
11. Couldn’t it be a femur of a new species of Carboniferous mammals?
Yes, it could be a femur in a new species of a Carboniferous mammal with a human calvarium (note 1, note 2, Fig. 0). For a petrified Carboniferous human calvarium has been positively identified by Dr. Wilton Krogman, the author of
“The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine”.
Conclusion
Mr. Ed Conrad, the discoverer of the subject material, has claimed he has found thousands of “fossils” in the Mahanoy City and Shenandoah region of Pennsylvania, USA. Before this study, the author has studied over 20 different specimens of those “fossils” and found they are all animal fossils, including a petrified human calvarium, well preserved down to the microscopic level. The subject material was still partially embedded in an immense piece of slate in the Carboniferous rock layer when it was first photographed. The author found it was a fossil because it contained Haversian canals, which are found only in animals’ compact bones. It belonged to a mammal because it possessed plentiful remains of scarlet, round, anucleate and concave cells, which were red blood cells found only in mammals. It was a fossilized human femur bone because it displayed the following features: (1) It is nearly straight, round and quite slender, with maximum length estimated at 52 centimeters, and mid-shaft diameter of 3.3 centimeters; (2) It bears resemblance to a right femur of a Peking Man and to an educational model of human femur, and the average diameter of its shaft is smaller than 7% of its maximum length ; (3) It possesses plentiful round, anucleate and concave red blood cell remains as large as eight micrometers in diameter. Only human femur bones match the above three features. The author has searched various fossil records and data banks, but found no other mammals possessed a bone that displayed the above three features or the first two features in the case of an extinct mammal. So, it was a femur of a Carboniferous mammal with a human calvarium.
Note 1: Other “human fossils”found by Mr.Ed Conrad in Carboniferous stratra:
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/FINGERSx.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/OldestHumanSkull.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/z11calv.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/skullb.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/TestResults.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/Skullx.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/SkullBoulderSide.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/FirstDiscovery.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/newtibia.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/HumanJaw3.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/GallBladder2.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/GallBladdery.jpg
Other discoveries:
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/OldestTool.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/MoreFossils.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/InSlate3.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/InSlate2.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/InSlate11.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/Scorpion.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/PetrifiedPP.jpg
Note 2: The following article proved the existence of a Carboniferous human calvarium fossil: http://groups.google.com.tw/group/first-human-neurons/web/article-updated-feb-20
Note 3: Mr. Ed Conrad advised the author in writing that he discovered all of his
fossils within 20 miles of Mahanoy City/Shenandoah , and that the vast majority of his fossils were discovered within two miles of Mahanoy City/Shenandoah, both of which belong to Schuylkill County of Pennsylvania. According to the geologic map published by Pennsylvania Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey (Fig. 5-1-3),
the youngest stratum within 20 miles of Mahanoy City/Shenandoah is the Permian stratum, while the youngest stratum within two miles of Mahanoy City/Shenandoah is the Pennsylvanian stratum, which is 290-330 million years old in the state of Pennsylvania.
Note 4: The test was conducted at Mr. Conrad’s residence. Before the test, the policeman saw many of the “rock-like” objects which Mr. Conrad claimed were fossils. As the policeman did not accept them as fossils, he used the term “ artifacts” in the polygraph test. However, the two men knew perfectly well that the term meant the rock-like objects they saw before the test.
Note 5: The discoverer advised the author that he found the subject material nearly broken in half when he first found it in situ, and that it naturally broke into two halves of almost the same length when he dug it out. So, he did not cut it into two halves, but the specimen had already been cut at mid-shaft when the author received it from Mr. Conrad (Fig. 1-3-2) .
Note 6: The data bank and the books that the author consulted include:
a. http://www.genomesize.com/cellsize/mammals.htm
b. Mammalian Osteology, by B. Miles Gilbert (1990, Missouri Archaeological Society)
c. Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Life, 2001, Dorling Kindersley Limited, London
d. Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Life, 2003, Dorling Kindersley Limited, London
e. Eyewitness Handbook: Mammals, 2002, by Juliet Clutton-Brock, Dorling Kindersley Limited, London
f. Field Guide to Skulls and Bones of Mammals of the Northeastern U.S., by Richard Wolniewicz, 2004, published by Richard Wolniewicz
g. A photographic atlas for physical anthropology, by Paul F. Whitehead, William K. Sacco, Susan B. Hochgraf
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Monday, June 02, 2008
An updated evaluation on a “Carboniferous human calvarium fossil”
An updated evaluation on a “Carboniferous human calvarium fossil”
Last update: June 1, 2008 (seventh edition)
Summary
The author has examined through microscopes more than 30 thin sections cut from “rocks” that Mr. Ed Conrad discovered and sent to the author. Without exception, they are all found to be fossils, including the subject “calvarium fossil”. The object is a Carboniferous human calvarium fossil for the following reasons:
(1) its computed-tomography images bear close resemlance to those of a calvarium; (2) it contains fossilized osteocytes, Haversian canals, osteons, red blood cells and various blood vessels in the specimens and thin sections ; (3) it contains remains of neurons and neuroglial cells that exist only in the central nervous system; (4) No other animal has an organ or body part that matches its inner/outer shape and size; (5) Its inner cavity has a capacity of at least 1,025 cc.; (6) It was found between coal veins near Mahanoy, Pennsylvania, where geological structure has been dated to be around 300 million years old. Some of the fossil’s blood vessels have turned into coal, suggesting it once existed in a coal region. In addition to the subject fossil, there are at least two other pieces of evidence for human existence in the Carboniferous age.
Introduction
A “calvarium fossil” (Fig. 1, Video 1, Video 2, Video 3, Video 4), discovered between anthracite veins (Fig. 2-6, Fig. 2-7, Fig. 2-8, Fig. 2-9) and owned by Mr. Ed Conrad of Shenandoah, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., has been considered for over 25 years to be just a rock, while its owner keeps maintaining that it is a Carboniferous human calvarium fossil. This article attempts to evaluate the object by answering the following questions in this article’s Discussion section:
1. Is it a fossil?
2. Is it a calvarium fossil?
3. Is it a human calvarium fossil?
4 Is it a Carboniferous human calvarium fossil?
5. Are there other evidences for human existence in the Carboniferous age?
6.Was there high-technology civilization in the Carboniferous age?
7. Further discussion/Attempts to disprove myself
7-1 Couldn’t it be a rock?
7-2 Couldn’t it be something other than a calvarium fossil?
7-3 Couldn’t it be a non-human calvarium fossil?
7-4 Couldn’t it be later than the Carboniferous age?
A calvarium is a skull without the lower jaw/the facial parts, whereas a cranium refers to skull bones that enclose the brain (Ref. 1). A calvarium could contain degraded brain remains.
Material and methods
Material A-1:
On the author’s request, the owner of the “fossil” cut a small specimen from the object, took pictures of the spot where the specimen was cut
(Fig. 2-2), and sent the specimen to the author by post.
The specimen arrived in the following conditions:
1. A chunk of “fossil” about 1.5 cm long, 1 cm wide, and 0.5 cm thick.
2. Three small fragments that crumbled out of the above chunk when the author took up the chunk to look at it for the first time. The three fragments measure about 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.2 cm each.
3. Dozens of small grains, each measuring less than 0.2 cm in any dimension.
Above three kinds of specimens were taken to the geology department of National Taiwan University. They were made into three thin sections (Thin Section 1, 2 and 3 respectively) in the following methods, which involved no artificial staining of colors:
1. Thin section 1 (Fig. 4): Specimen 1 was cut for transverse and longitudinal sections, which were then ground and mounted onto a glass slide, namely thin section 1. One third of Specimen 1 was left from
the process of making the thin section (Fig. 5, Specimen 1 remnant).
2. Thin section 2 (Fig. 6): Fragments of Specimen 2 were cut, ground and mounted onto a glass slide.
3. Thin section 3 (Fig. 7) : Small grains of Specimen 3 were placed in a mold, glued firmly together, ground to a thickness of about 0.03 mm, and then mounted onto a glass slide, namely thin section 3. This thin section was not covered with glass, but was coated with a thin layer of wax on its top side.
Specimens 1, 2, 3, and thin sections 1, 2, 3 were viewed through a stereo-microscope, a digital microscope (ref. 11), and a transmitted-light microscope. The remnant from specimen 1 and thin section 3 were also viewed with a scanning electron mircoscope (Hitachi model S-3400N). Besides the digital microscope, a camera (Canon model EOS 350D) was used to capture images from the stereo-microscope and the transmitted-light microscope.
Material A-2:
On March 17, 2008, Mr. Ed Conrad cut another specimen from the object (Fig. 2-10) and sent it to the author (Fig. 2-11, Fig. 2-12). This specimen measured roughly 5.5 cm X 4 cm X 3 cm. This specimen’s original location on the “calvarium fossil” is visible in Video 1. This specimen, named SK2 (Fig. 2) by Mr. Conrad, was taken to the geology department of National Taiwan University, where it was cut in three different directions. Three thin sections were then obtained and named here as SK2-1, SK2-2, SK2-3 (Fig. 3). The specimen and its three thin sections were viewed with various microscopes, such as stereomicroscope, transmitted-light microscope, digital microscope, and Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM). Their images were captured with the digital microscope, SEM, and Canon camera Model EOS 350D. The scanning electron microscope also analysed the chemical composition of a tiny spot on Specimen SK2 (Fig. 8, EDS report).
Material B: the “calvarium fossil”
On March 28, 2008, the author had the “calvarium fossil” scanned by the Computed Tomography system of Alberta Research Council in Canada. The resulting computed-tomography videos are listed in Result A.
The author had also asked the owner of the “fossil” to measure the object (Fig. 2-3) and got the following data:
Outer dimensions of the object: 22.8 cm (maximum length) by 17.8 cm (maximum width) by 13.3 cm (maximum height)
The owner advised the author that on the top side of the object, there seems to be a 6-mm-thick coating of foreign substance. To be on the safe side, the author subtracts twice that thickness—6mm x 2—from the above outer length , outer width, and subtracts 6 mm from its exterior maximum height. Hence, the following figures are obtained and used for calculating its cranial capacity:
Outer dimensions: 21.6 cm (Length) by 16.6 cm (Width) by 12.7 cm (Height)
Inner cavity dimensions: 15.9 cm (maximum length) by 10.8 cm (maximum width) by 11.4 cm (maximum depth/height), as measured by its owner.
Based on the above data, the author calculated the cranial capacity of the object as follows:
1. By Lee Pearson Formula, given by Williams et al (1995) and Manjunath (2002b) (ref. 2):
For males: 0.000337 x (L-11) x (W-11) x (H-11) + 406.01
This formula uses outer dimensions, and those dimensions are expressed in millimeters in this formula. So, the following calculation is done:
0.000337 x (216-11) x (166-11) x (127-11) + 406.01=1,648 cc
For females:
0.0004 x (L-11) x (W-11) x (H-11) + 206.60
Hence, the following calculation is done:
0.0004 x (216-11) x (166-11) x (127-11) + 206.60 =1,681 cc
Mean cranial capacity: (1648+1681) divided by 2 makes 1,665 cc.
As the gender of the “cranium” is unknown, only the mean figure is considered here for convenience.
2. By Spheroid Formula, given by Manjunath (2002b, ref. 3)
0.5238 x length x width x height(depth)= cranial capacity
Above length, width, and depth are measurements of the cranial cavity and expressed in centimeter.
Hence the calculation 0.5238x15.9x10.8x11.4=1,025 cc.
Results
A. Animated Computed Tomography images in all three planes (horizontal, coronal, and sagittal planes) of the whole object are contained mainly in the following videos: Video 1, Video 2, Video 3,
Video 4.
B. The EDS report (Fig. 8, Energy Disperse Spectrum report), done by the scanning electronic microscope, reveals that the scanned nerve cell consists of Carbon (60.07%, by atom count), Oxygen (38.05%, by atom count) and Si (1.59% by atom count).
C. SEM images of Specimen 1 remnant and thin section 3 reveal numerous remains of bone cells (osteocytes, Fig. 1-0), blood vessels, and red blood cells ( Fig. 9-1, Fig. 9-2, Fig. 9-3, Fig. 9-4, Fig. 9-5, Fig. 9-6, Fig. 9-7, Fig. 9-8).
D. Various images of the object also show (1) branching blood vessel remains (Fig. 1-0-0), Haversian canals and osteons (Fig. 1-1, Fig. 1-2, Fig. 1-3, Fig. 1-4, Fig. 1-5); (2) degraded remains of neurons, neuroglial cells and nerve fibers (Fig. 10-1, Fig. 10-2, Fig. 10-3, Fig. 10-4, Fig. 10-5, Fig. 10-6, Fig. 10-7, Fig. 10-8, Fig. 10-9); (3) blood vessel’s transverse section remains (Fig. 11-1, Fig. 11-2, Fig. 11-3, Fig. 11-4, Fig. 11-5); (4) various fossilized tissues (Fig. 12-1 to Fig. 12-6).
E. Specimen 1 is found to have at least three black areas. One such black area shows brilliant black vitreous luster under naked eyes and microscopes (Fig. 5). SEM and light microscopies reveal that the shiny black area contains carbonized blood vessels and erythrocytes (figures 9-4 to 9-8).
F. The estimated cranial capacity of the “calvarium” ranges from 1,025 cc to 1,665 cc as calculated in the preceding paragraph.
Discussion:
1. Is it a fossil?
Yes. Its computed-tomography images (Video 4) don’t look like any rock. No rocks or plants contain all at the same time the remains of neurons, neuroglial cells, bone cells, red blood cells, Haversian canals, osteons and blood vessels mentioned in Results C and D. They are found in randomly-chosen, freshly-cut thin sections, not from re-worked/contaminated tissues. Their colors are not artificially stained.
2. Is it a calvarium fossil?
Yes. Its computed-tomography images bear close resemblance to those of a calvarium on the organ level (Video 4). On the cell level, it contains remains of osteocytes, neurons, and glial cells as listed in Results C and D. Those remains point to a calvarium fossil that once contained brain tissue. No other animal organs or body parts have inner/outer sizes and shapes similar to this fossil’s shapes and sizes (Fig. 1).
3. Is it a human calvarium fossil?
Yes. Its cranial capacity of at least 1,025 cc is surpassed only by cetaceans, walrus, elephants, and/or dinosaurs (ref. 4). However, those four kinds of animal have no crania/organs that match the subject fossil in cranial shape and size. As each order of animal has a different shaped skull (ref. 5), the subject calvarium fossil can be identified as a human calvarium fossil by forensic experts on human skulls. One such expert is Mr. Wilton Krogman. He has physically examined the calvarium fossil. His broad smile in the photo (Fig. 1) says that he confirmed it was a human calvarium fossil.
The calvarium fossil matches humans’ cranial size, cranial capacity and cranial shape in the following ways:
3-1 Cranial size (outer dimensions):
Neanderthal: 24.1cm (length) x 14.6 cm (width) x 17.8 cm (height) (ref. 6)
Subject fossil: 21.6 cm (length) x 16.6 cm (width) x 12.7 cm (height)
3-2 Cranial capacity:
Neanderthal: 1,750 cc (ref. 7)
Modern Human: 1,350-1,400 cc (ref. 8)
Java man: 940 cc (Homo Erectus, Trinil 2, Pithecanthropus I, ref. 9)
Subject fossil: at least 1,025 cc (by Spheroid Formula)
By the Lee Pearson Formula, the subject fossil has a
cranial capacity of 1,665 cc. The vast difference
between 1,665 cc and 1,025 cc may be due to the
following factors:
A. The Lee Pearson Formula uses the skull cap’s outer dimensions, while the Spheroid Formula uses its inner dimensions. In this case, the calvarium’s inner width is only 60% of its outer width, because the fossil retains brain remains in its inner cavity (See the bottom view of the fossil in Fig. 1). As a result, the Lee Pearson Formula produces the result of 1,665 c.c. while the Spheroid Formula produces the result of only 1,025 c.c;
B. The calvarium was broken in the facial part;
3-3 Cranial shape:
Human: well-rounded cranium (ref. 10)
Java man: flat, very thick cranium (Homo Erectus, Trinil 2, Pithecanthropus I) (Fig. 2-1 & ref. 9)
Subject fossil: More rounded than the above Java man (Fig. 1 vs. Fig. 2-1)
The above analysis shows the subject fossil matches human skull caps
in cranial size, cranial capacity, and cranial shape.
4. Is it a Carboniferous human calvarium fossil?
My judgment says yes. For over 27 years, its owner has attested many times that all his fossils were found between coal veins near Shenandoah/ Mahanoy, Pennsylvania (Fig. 2-6, Fig. 2-7, Fig. 2-8,
Fig. 2-9). That is in the anthracite region, the only one in the U.S. proper. It’s in a most-studied geological area of the Carboniferous age. That is to say animal fossils found there should have lived there in the Carboniferous age. The owner’s attestation is mirrored in Specimen 1 remnant. Under naked eyes and transmitted-light microscopes, the specimen looks black and shiny in some areas (Fig. 5). Under SEM and a digital microscope (ref. 11), the shiny black area of Specimen 1 revealed its blood vessels that have carbonized into coal (Fig. 9-5). The shiny black color is a sign of vitrain—a thin, bright, horizontal band in bituminous coal that usually breaks with a conchoidal fracture. The fossil’s black and shiny look suggests its origin in a coal region.
Its owner has two other fossils that are also coalified. One such fossil is a coalified adze handle (Fig. 14). Another is a fossilized small toe complete with skin tissue, finger nail, tendon,ligaments, and the middle phalanx (Fig. 15-1, Fig. 15-2, Fig. 15-3, Video 15-4, Fig. 15-5). The mummified toe fossil shows signs of carbonization on the toe tip’s bottom side (Fig. 16). Before Mr. Conrad found the subject calvarium fossil, he had discovered many “fossils” at the same place. Why would he discover the subject fossil anywhere else when many more of such “fossils”, are still exposed out there, outcropping from the big boulders in the region (Fig. 17-1, Fig. 17-2) ? Such outcropping fossils include another mummified skull fossil (Fig. 2-13).
Mr. Conrad’s fossils include unimaginable fossilized organs such as human liver, human finger, human long bone, mammalian limbs, etc. (Fig. 18-1, Fig. 15-1, Fig. 18-2, Fig. 18-3, Fig. 18-4, Fig. 18-5). This fossil brings up many questions to current theories about human origins. If we avoid them, we are only fooling ourselves. If we face them, they will bring us new horizons for human civilization.
5. Are there other evidences for human existence in the Carboniferous age?
Certainly. They are all shown in my albums ( here ).
Two other pieces of evidence for human existence in the Carboniferous age include: (1) A human cerebral hemisphere fossil (Video 5, Video 6) and (2) A human toe fossil (Fig. 15-1, Video 7, Video 8).
6. Was there high-tech civilization in the Carboniferous age?
Modern humans took no more than 8,000 years to develop from low-tech society to high-tech society. I have written about similar subjects in google’s ++talk. origins newsgroup.
7. Further Discussion/Attempts to disprove myself
7-1
Couldn’t it be a rock?
Its CT images (Video 9, Video 10) don’t resemble any rock.
Besides my pictures, there are pictures by Mr. Andrew MacRae, Mr. PZ Myer and Mr. Ed Conrad on the internet. Their pictures “also” show Haversian canals and osteons, which are distinguishing features of fossil bone micro-structures (Fig. 20-4, Fig. 20-5, Fig. 20-6).
Few rocks have a shape and size that fully matches human skull interior and exterior. To put it simply, there has never been a rock that resembles a human skull cap from the organ level ( showing cranial cavity), through the tissue level ( showing Haversian canals, osteons, branching blood vessels), down to the cell level (showing remains of bone cells, red blood cells, neuroglial cells and neurons). More than twenty of Mr. Conrad’s “rocks” (see here) contain remains of red blood cells. Making no exception, the subject fossil contains all the above-mentioned features in natural condition/position. Most of them are found where they should be. I have cut more than 30 thin sections from the “rocks” and taken more than one thousand microscopic pictures of the twenty fossils the owner has sent me. Most of the jagged minerals found in the fossils are found trapped in degraded organic tissues such as blood vessels. These degraded blood vessels could not have gone into rocks/minerals, begun the fossilization process there and still remained jointed in natural posture. The minerals were not found in a continuous formation, but the organic tissues/organs were found in a continuous formation, retaining their original outer shapes (of small toe, calvarium, handle, liver, etc.) and cell structures. Plant fossils are characterized by regular radial wood structures (year rings, rays, tracheids, etc.) in their transverse sections. Animal fossils are very complex in transverse section. The subject fossil shows complexity and its cell remains are too large to be fungi or bacteria. There is simply not a rock that contains numerous look-alikes of neurons, neuroglial cells, osteocytes, osteons, Haversian canals, red blood cells, blood vessels, and match the human skull caps in size and shape, all at the same time.
7-2
Couldn’t it be something other than a calvarium fossil?
Large calvarium is a very different organ from all other animal organs. Video 4 contains images resembling a calvarium’s temporal line and cranial sutures.
The subject fossil has a deep, wide inner cavity that roughly matches the fossil’s outer shape and size. Its large size and distinct shape cannot be found in any organs or body parts other than skulls. It contains degraded remains of neurons and neuroglial cells, which are not found in any organ except in brains/spinal cords. Those degraded neurons and glias could only have come from a calvarium, because the subject fossil does not look like a vertebra at all. It is unlikely for many bone cells, neurons, neuroglial cells, and blood vessels to leave a skull, get into another skull, and get preserved there in continuous formation.
7-3
Couldn’t it be a non-human calvarium?
All crania have different, distinctive shapes among different orders of animal (ref. 5). The author has compared the fossil with various animal skulls and found only human skulls matched the fossil. The No. 1 distinction of human skulls lies in their large cranial capacity. No other animal has a skull that remotely matches human skulls in cranial capacity, cranial shape and cranial size.
7-4
Couldn’t it be later than the Carboniferous age?
I cannot believe that Mr. Conrad found his fossils in a foreign country or even in another state, as hundreds of such fossils have been found there and many fossils were still outcropping there. Such outcropping “fossils” include a “mummified skull fossil” that is still embedded in a boulder weighing over 250 kilograms (Fig. 2-13). Why would he lie about their place of origin when he cared most about hundreds of “rocks’” being recognized as fossils? When his rocks have been demonstrated to be fossils, that means he was right all along, including the fossils’ place of origin.
Even if it were not from the Carboniferous age, it would still be the oldest human skull cap in the world, as its original blood vessels have carbonized into shiny bituminous coal/anthracite (Fig. 5). Bituminous coal found east of the Rocky Mountain in the U.S.A. is at least ten million years old. No other human skull cap has ever been found to be so old in the whole world.
Conclusion:
The author has examined through microscopes more than 30 thin sections cut from “rocks” that Mr. Ed Conrad discovered and sent to the author. Without exception, they are all found to be fossils, including the subject “calvarium fossil”. The object is a Carboniferous human calvarium fossil for the following reasons:
(1) its computed-tomography images bear close resemlance to those of a calvarium; (2) it contains fossilized osteocytes, Haversian canals, osteons, red blood cells and various blood vessels in the specimens and thin sections ; (3) it contains remains of neurons and neuroglial cells that exist only in the central nervous system; (4) No other animal has an organ or body part that matches its inner/outer shape and size; (5) Its inner cavity has a capacity of at least 1,025 cc.; (6) It was found between coal veins near Mahanoy, Pennsylvania, where geological structure has been dated to be around 300 million years old. Some of the fossil’s blood vessels have turned into coal, suggesting it once existed in a coal region. In addition to the subject fossil, there are at least two other pieces of evidence for human existence in the Carboniferous age.
+
References:
Ref. 1: Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull
Ref. 2: “Estimation of Cranial Volume in Dissecting Room Cadavers” by K.Y. Manjunath, J. Anat. Soc. India 51(2) pp.168-172 (2002)
Ref. 3: Same as ref. 2.
Ref. 4: Brain Facts and Figures in an article at URL:
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html
Ref. 5: On-line article at URL: http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bex/31.pdf
(Page 4 of a teaching plan for grade three of primary schools)
Ref. 6: On-line material at URL: http://www.boneclones.com/BH-019.htm
Ref. 7: Neanderthal physical traits in a Wikipedia article at URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal (See anatomy section)
Ref. 8: Same as ref. 4.
Ref. 9: On-line article at URL: www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/java.html
Ref. 10: Same as ref. 9.
Ref. 11: Digital microscope—Dino-Lite AM-313T5 made by AnMo Electronics Corp. http://www.anmo.com.tw/
Last update: June 1, 2008 (seventh edition)
Summary
The author has examined through microscopes more than 30 thin sections cut from “rocks” that Mr. Ed Conrad discovered and sent to the author. Without exception, they are all found to be fossils, including the subject “calvarium fossil”. The object is a Carboniferous human calvarium fossil for the following reasons:
(1) its computed-tomography images bear close resemlance to those of a calvarium; (2) it contains fossilized osteocytes, Haversian canals, osteons, red blood cells and various blood vessels in the specimens and thin sections ; (3) it contains remains of neurons and neuroglial cells that exist only in the central nervous system; (4) No other animal has an organ or body part that matches its inner/outer shape and size; (5) Its inner cavity has a capacity of at least 1,025 cc.; (6) It was found between coal veins near Mahanoy, Pennsylvania, where geological structure has been dated to be around 300 million years old. Some of the fossil’s blood vessels have turned into coal, suggesting it once existed in a coal region. In addition to the subject fossil, there are at least two other pieces of evidence for human existence in the Carboniferous age.
Introduction
A “calvarium fossil” (Fig. 1, Video 1, Video 2, Video 3, Video 4), discovered between anthracite veins (Fig. 2-6, Fig. 2-7, Fig. 2-8, Fig. 2-9) and owned by Mr. Ed Conrad of Shenandoah, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., has been considered for over 25 years to be just a rock, while its owner keeps maintaining that it is a Carboniferous human calvarium fossil. This article attempts to evaluate the object by answering the following questions in this article’s Discussion section:
1. Is it a fossil?
2. Is it a calvarium fossil?
3. Is it a human calvarium fossil?
4 Is it a Carboniferous human calvarium fossil?
5. Are there other evidences for human existence in the Carboniferous age?
6.Was there high-technology civilization in the Carboniferous age?
7. Further discussion/Attempts to disprove myself
7-1 Couldn’t it be a rock?
7-2 Couldn’t it be something other than a calvarium fossil?
7-3 Couldn’t it be a non-human calvarium fossil?
7-4 Couldn’t it be later than the Carboniferous age?
A calvarium is a skull without the lower jaw/the facial parts, whereas a cranium refers to skull bones that enclose the brain (Ref. 1). A calvarium could contain degraded brain remains.
Material and methods
Material A-1:
On the author’s request, the owner of the “fossil” cut a small specimen from the object, took pictures of the spot where the specimen was cut
(Fig. 2-2), and sent the specimen to the author by post.
The specimen arrived in the following conditions:
1. A chunk of “fossil” about 1.5 cm long, 1 cm wide, and 0.5 cm thick.
2. Three small fragments that crumbled out of the above chunk when the author took up the chunk to look at it for the first time. The three fragments measure about 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.2 cm each.
3. Dozens of small grains, each measuring less than 0.2 cm in any dimension.
Above three kinds of specimens were taken to the geology department of National Taiwan University. They were made into three thin sections (Thin Section 1, 2 and 3 respectively) in the following methods, which involved no artificial staining of colors:
1. Thin section 1 (Fig. 4): Specimen 1 was cut for transverse and longitudinal sections, which were then ground and mounted onto a glass slide, namely thin section 1. One third of Specimen 1 was left from
the process of making the thin section (Fig. 5, Specimen 1 remnant).
2. Thin section 2 (Fig. 6): Fragments of Specimen 2 were cut, ground and mounted onto a glass slide.
3. Thin section 3 (Fig. 7) : Small grains of Specimen 3 were placed in a mold, glued firmly together, ground to a thickness of about 0.03 mm, and then mounted onto a glass slide, namely thin section 3. This thin section was not covered with glass, but was coated with a thin layer of wax on its top side.
Specimens 1, 2, 3, and thin sections 1, 2, 3 were viewed through a stereo-microscope, a digital microscope (ref. 11), and a transmitted-light microscope. The remnant from specimen 1 and thin section 3 were also viewed with a scanning electron mircoscope (Hitachi model S-3400N). Besides the digital microscope, a camera (Canon model EOS 350D) was used to capture images from the stereo-microscope and the transmitted-light microscope.
Material A-2:
On March 17, 2008, Mr. Ed Conrad cut another specimen from the object (Fig. 2-10) and sent it to the author (Fig. 2-11, Fig. 2-12). This specimen measured roughly 5.5 cm X 4 cm X 3 cm. This specimen’s original location on the “calvarium fossil” is visible in Video 1. This specimen, named SK2 (Fig. 2) by Mr. Conrad, was taken to the geology department of National Taiwan University, where it was cut in three different directions. Three thin sections were then obtained and named here as SK2-1, SK2-2, SK2-3 (Fig. 3). The specimen and its three thin sections were viewed with various microscopes, such as stereomicroscope, transmitted-light microscope, digital microscope, and Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM). Their images were captured with the digital microscope, SEM, and Canon camera Model EOS 350D. The scanning electron microscope also analysed the chemical composition of a tiny spot on Specimen SK2 (Fig. 8, EDS report).
Material B: the “calvarium fossil”
On March 28, 2008, the author had the “calvarium fossil” scanned by the Computed Tomography system of Alberta Research Council in Canada. The resulting computed-tomography videos are listed in Result A.
The author had also asked the owner of the “fossil” to measure the object (Fig. 2-3) and got the following data:
Outer dimensions of the object: 22.8 cm (maximum length) by 17.8 cm (maximum width) by 13.3 cm (maximum height)
The owner advised the author that on the top side of the object, there seems to be a 6-mm-thick coating of foreign substance. To be on the safe side, the author subtracts twice that thickness—6mm x 2—from the above outer length , outer width, and subtracts 6 mm from its exterior maximum height. Hence, the following figures are obtained and used for calculating its cranial capacity:
Outer dimensions: 21.6 cm (Length) by 16.6 cm (Width) by 12.7 cm (Height)
Inner cavity dimensions: 15.9 cm (maximum length) by 10.8 cm (maximum width) by 11.4 cm (maximum depth/height), as measured by its owner.
Based on the above data, the author calculated the cranial capacity of the object as follows:
1. By Lee Pearson Formula, given by Williams et al (1995) and Manjunath (2002b) (ref. 2):
For males: 0.000337 x (L-11) x (W-11) x (H-11) + 406.01
This formula uses outer dimensions, and those dimensions are expressed in millimeters in this formula. So, the following calculation is done:
0.000337 x (216-11) x (166-11) x (127-11) + 406.01=1,648 cc
For females:
0.0004 x (L-11) x (W-11) x (H-11) + 206.60
Hence, the following calculation is done:
0.0004 x (216-11) x (166-11) x (127-11) + 206.60 =1,681 cc
Mean cranial capacity: (1648+1681) divided by 2 makes 1,665 cc.
As the gender of the “cranium” is unknown, only the mean figure is considered here for convenience.
2. By Spheroid Formula, given by Manjunath (2002b, ref. 3)
0.5238 x length x width x height(depth)= cranial capacity
Above length, width, and depth are measurements of the cranial cavity and expressed in centimeter.
Hence the calculation 0.5238x15.9x10.8x11.4=1,025 cc.
Results
A. Animated Computed Tomography images in all three planes (horizontal, coronal, and sagittal planes) of the whole object are contained mainly in the following videos: Video 1, Video 2, Video 3,
Video 4.
B. The EDS report (Fig. 8, Energy Disperse Spectrum report), done by the scanning electronic microscope, reveals that the scanned nerve cell consists of Carbon (60.07%, by atom count), Oxygen (38.05%, by atom count) and Si (1.59% by atom count).
C. SEM images of Specimen 1 remnant and thin section 3 reveal numerous remains of bone cells (osteocytes, Fig. 1-0), blood vessels, and red blood cells ( Fig. 9-1, Fig. 9-2, Fig. 9-3, Fig. 9-4, Fig. 9-5, Fig. 9-6, Fig. 9-7, Fig. 9-8).
D. Various images of the object also show (1) branching blood vessel remains (Fig. 1-0-0), Haversian canals and osteons (Fig. 1-1, Fig. 1-2, Fig. 1-3, Fig. 1-4, Fig. 1-5); (2) degraded remains of neurons, neuroglial cells and nerve fibers (Fig. 10-1, Fig. 10-2, Fig. 10-3, Fig. 10-4, Fig. 10-5, Fig. 10-6, Fig. 10-7, Fig. 10-8, Fig. 10-9); (3) blood vessel’s transverse section remains (Fig. 11-1, Fig. 11-2, Fig. 11-3, Fig. 11-4, Fig. 11-5); (4) various fossilized tissues (Fig. 12-1 to Fig. 12-6).
E. Specimen 1 is found to have at least three black areas. One such black area shows brilliant black vitreous luster under naked eyes and microscopes (Fig. 5). SEM and light microscopies reveal that the shiny black area contains carbonized blood vessels and erythrocytes (figures 9-4 to 9-8).
F. The estimated cranial capacity of the “calvarium” ranges from 1,025 cc to 1,665 cc as calculated in the preceding paragraph.
Discussion:
1. Is it a fossil?
Yes. Its computed-tomography images (Video 4) don’t look like any rock. No rocks or plants contain all at the same time the remains of neurons, neuroglial cells, bone cells, red blood cells, Haversian canals, osteons and blood vessels mentioned in Results C and D. They are found in randomly-chosen, freshly-cut thin sections, not from re-worked/contaminated tissues. Their colors are not artificially stained.
2. Is it a calvarium fossil?
Yes. Its computed-tomography images bear close resemblance to those of a calvarium on the organ level (Video 4). On the cell level, it contains remains of osteocytes, neurons, and glial cells as listed in Results C and D. Those remains point to a calvarium fossil that once contained brain tissue. No other animal organs or body parts have inner/outer sizes and shapes similar to this fossil’s shapes and sizes (Fig. 1).
3. Is it a human calvarium fossil?
Yes. Its cranial capacity of at least 1,025 cc is surpassed only by cetaceans, walrus, elephants, and/or dinosaurs (ref. 4). However, those four kinds of animal have no crania/organs that match the subject fossil in cranial shape and size. As each order of animal has a different shaped skull (ref. 5), the subject calvarium fossil can be identified as a human calvarium fossil by forensic experts on human skulls. One such expert is Mr. Wilton Krogman. He has physically examined the calvarium fossil. His broad smile in the photo (Fig. 1) says that he confirmed it was a human calvarium fossil.
The calvarium fossil matches humans’ cranial size, cranial capacity and cranial shape in the following ways:
3-1 Cranial size (outer dimensions):
Neanderthal: 24.1cm (length) x 14.6 cm (width) x 17.8 cm (height) (ref. 6)
Subject fossil: 21.6 cm (length) x 16.6 cm (width) x 12.7 cm (height)
3-2 Cranial capacity:
Neanderthal: 1,750 cc (ref. 7)
Modern Human: 1,350-1,400 cc (ref. 8)
Java man: 940 cc (Homo Erectus, Trinil 2, Pithecanthropus I, ref. 9)
Subject fossil: at least 1,025 cc (by Spheroid Formula)
By the Lee Pearson Formula, the subject fossil has a
cranial capacity of 1,665 cc. The vast difference
between 1,665 cc and 1,025 cc may be due to the
following factors:
A. The Lee Pearson Formula uses the skull cap’s outer dimensions, while the Spheroid Formula uses its inner dimensions. In this case, the calvarium’s inner width is only 60% of its outer width, because the fossil retains brain remains in its inner cavity (See the bottom view of the fossil in Fig. 1). As a result, the Lee Pearson Formula produces the result of 1,665 c.c. while the Spheroid Formula produces the result of only 1,025 c.c;
B. The calvarium was broken in the facial part;
3-3 Cranial shape:
Human: well-rounded cranium (ref. 10)
Java man: flat, very thick cranium (Homo Erectus, Trinil 2, Pithecanthropus I) (Fig. 2-1 & ref. 9)
Subject fossil: More rounded than the above Java man (Fig. 1 vs. Fig. 2-1)
The above analysis shows the subject fossil matches human skull caps
in cranial size, cranial capacity, and cranial shape.
4. Is it a Carboniferous human calvarium fossil?
My judgment says yes. For over 27 years, its owner has attested many times that all his fossils were found between coal veins near Shenandoah/ Mahanoy, Pennsylvania (Fig. 2-6, Fig. 2-7, Fig. 2-8,
Fig. 2-9). That is in the anthracite region, the only one in the U.S. proper. It’s in a most-studied geological area of the Carboniferous age. That is to say animal fossils found there should have lived there in the Carboniferous age. The owner’s attestation is mirrored in Specimen 1 remnant. Under naked eyes and transmitted-light microscopes, the specimen looks black and shiny in some areas (Fig. 5). Under SEM and a digital microscope (ref. 11), the shiny black area of Specimen 1 revealed its blood vessels that have carbonized into coal (Fig. 9-5). The shiny black color is a sign of vitrain—a thin, bright, horizontal band in bituminous coal that usually breaks with a conchoidal fracture. The fossil’s black and shiny look suggests its origin in a coal region.
Its owner has two other fossils that are also coalified. One such fossil is a coalified adze handle (Fig. 14). Another is a fossilized small toe complete with skin tissue, finger nail, tendon,ligaments, and the middle phalanx (Fig. 15-1, Fig. 15-2, Fig. 15-3, Video 15-4, Fig. 15-5). The mummified toe fossil shows signs of carbonization on the toe tip’s bottom side (Fig. 16). Before Mr. Conrad found the subject calvarium fossil, he had discovered many “fossils” at the same place. Why would he discover the subject fossil anywhere else when many more of such “fossils”, are still exposed out there, outcropping from the big boulders in the region (Fig. 17-1, Fig. 17-2) ? Such outcropping fossils include another mummified skull fossil (Fig. 2-13).
Mr. Conrad’s fossils include unimaginable fossilized organs such as human liver, human finger, human long bone, mammalian limbs, etc. (Fig. 18-1, Fig. 15-1, Fig. 18-2, Fig. 18-3, Fig. 18-4, Fig. 18-5). This fossil brings up many questions to current theories about human origins. If we avoid them, we are only fooling ourselves. If we face them, they will bring us new horizons for human civilization.
5. Are there other evidences for human existence in the Carboniferous age?
Certainly. They are all shown in my albums ( here ).
Two other pieces of evidence for human existence in the Carboniferous age include: (1) A human cerebral hemisphere fossil (Video 5, Video 6) and (2) A human toe fossil (Fig. 15-1, Video 7, Video 8).
6. Was there high-tech civilization in the Carboniferous age?
Modern humans took no more than 8,000 years to develop from low-tech society to high-tech society. I have written about similar subjects in google’s ++talk. origins newsgroup.
7. Further Discussion/Attempts to disprove myself
7-1
Couldn’t it be a rock?
Its CT images (Video 9, Video 10) don’t resemble any rock.
Besides my pictures, there are pictures by Mr. Andrew MacRae, Mr. PZ Myer and Mr. Ed Conrad on the internet. Their pictures “also” show Haversian canals and osteons, which are distinguishing features of fossil bone micro-structures (Fig. 20-4, Fig. 20-5, Fig. 20-6).
Few rocks have a shape and size that fully matches human skull interior and exterior. To put it simply, there has never been a rock that resembles a human skull cap from the organ level ( showing cranial cavity), through the tissue level ( showing Haversian canals, osteons, branching blood vessels), down to the cell level (showing remains of bone cells, red blood cells, neuroglial cells and neurons). More than twenty of Mr. Conrad’s “rocks” (see here) contain remains of red blood cells. Making no exception, the subject fossil contains all the above-mentioned features in natural condition/position. Most of them are found where they should be. I have cut more than 30 thin sections from the “rocks” and taken more than one thousand microscopic pictures of the twenty fossils the owner has sent me. Most of the jagged minerals found in the fossils are found trapped in degraded organic tissues such as blood vessels. These degraded blood vessels could not have gone into rocks/minerals, begun the fossilization process there and still remained jointed in natural posture. The minerals were not found in a continuous formation, but the organic tissues/organs were found in a continuous formation, retaining their original outer shapes (of small toe, calvarium, handle, liver, etc.) and cell structures. Plant fossils are characterized by regular radial wood structures (year rings, rays, tracheids, etc.) in their transverse sections. Animal fossils are very complex in transverse section. The subject fossil shows complexity and its cell remains are too large to be fungi or bacteria. There is simply not a rock that contains numerous look-alikes of neurons, neuroglial cells, osteocytes, osteons, Haversian canals, red blood cells, blood vessels, and match the human skull caps in size and shape, all at the same time.
7-2
Couldn’t it be something other than a calvarium fossil?
Large calvarium is a very different organ from all other animal organs. Video 4 contains images resembling a calvarium’s temporal line and cranial sutures.
The subject fossil has a deep, wide inner cavity that roughly matches the fossil’s outer shape and size. Its large size and distinct shape cannot be found in any organs or body parts other than skulls. It contains degraded remains of neurons and neuroglial cells, which are not found in any organ except in brains/spinal cords. Those degraded neurons and glias could only have come from a calvarium, because the subject fossil does not look like a vertebra at all. It is unlikely for many bone cells, neurons, neuroglial cells, and blood vessels to leave a skull, get into another skull, and get preserved there in continuous formation.
7-3
Couldn’t it be a non-human calvarium?
All crania have different, distinctive shapes among different orders of animal (ref. 5). The author has compared the fossil with various animal skulls and found only human skulls matched the fossil. The No. 1 distinction of human skulls lies in their large cranial capacity. No other animal has a skull that remotely matches human skulls in cranial capacity, cranial shape and cranial size.
7-4
Couldn’t it be later than the Carboniferous age?
I cannot believe that Mr. Conrad found his fossils in a foreign country or even in another state, as hundreds of such fossils have been found there and many fossils were still outcropping there. Such outcropping “fossils” include a “mummified skull fossil” that is still embedded in a boulder weighing over 250 kilograms (Fig. 2-13). Why would he lie about their place of origin when he cared most about hundreds of “rocks’” being recognized as fossils? When his rocks have been demonstrated to be fossils, that means he was right all along, including the fossils’ place of origin.
Even if it were not from the Carboniferous age, it would still be the oldest human skull cap in the world, as its original blood vessels have carbonized into shiny bituminous coal/anthracite (Fig. 5). Bituminous coal found east of the Rocky Mountain in the U.S.A. is at least ten million years old. No other human skull cap has ever been found to be so old in the whole world.
Conclusion:
The author has examined through microscopes more than 30 thin sections cut from “rocks” that Mr. Ed Conrad discovered and sent to the author. Without exception, they are all found to be fossils, including the subject “calvarium fossil”. The object is a Carboniferous human calvarium fossil for the following reasons:
(1) its computed-tomography images bear close resemlance to those of a calvarium; (2) it contains fossilized osteocytes, Haversian canals, osteons, red blood cells and various blood vessels in the specimens and thin sections ; (3) it contains remains of neurons and neuroglial cells that exist only in the central nervous system; (4) No other animal has an organ or body part that matches its inner/outer shape and size; (5) Its inner cavity has a capacity of at least 1,025 cc.; (6) It was found between coal veins near Mahanoy, Pennsylvania, where geological structure has been dated to be around 300 million years old. Some of the fossil’s blood vessels have turned into coal, suggesting it once existed in a coal region. In addition to the subject fossil, there are at least two other pieces of evidence for human existence in the Carboniferous age.
+
References:
Ref. 1: Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull
Ref. 2: “Estimation of Cranial Volume in Dissecting Room Cadavers” by K.Y. Manjunath, J. Anat. Soc. India 51(2) pp.168-172 (2002)
Ref. 3: Same as ref. 2.
Ref. 4: Brain Facts and Figures in an article at URL:
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html
Ref. 5: On-line article at URL: http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bex/31.pdf
(Page 4 of a teaching plan for grade three of primary schools)
Ref. 6: On-line material at URL: http://www.boneclones.com/BH-019.htm
Ref. 7: Neanderthal physical traits in a Wikipedia article at URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal (See anatomy section)
Ref. 8: Same as ref. 4.
Ref. 9: On-line article at URL: www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/java.html
Ref. 10: Same as ref. 9.
Ref. 11: Digital microscope—Dino-Lite AM-313T5 made by AnMo Electronics Corp. http://www.anmo.com.tw/
Saturday, May 03, 2008
MY NEW WEBSITES/BLOGS/VIDEOS/ALBUMS/POSTED MESSAGES
AS I COULD NOT MAKE LINKS WORK IN THIS WEBSITE, I SUGGEST THAT YOU VISIT THE FOLLOWING NEW WEBSITES OF MINE, WHERE YOU CAN FIND MY HOMEPAGES/BLOGS/VIDEOS/ALBUMS AND MESSAGES POSTED TO THE GOOGLE GROUPS.
http://groups.google.com.tw/group/mummy-dinosaur-carved-by-men
http://www.wretch.cc/mypage/lin440315
Sincerely yours,
Lin Liangtai
http://groups.google.com.tw/group/mummy-dinosaur-carved-by-men
http://www.wretch.cc/mypage/lin440315
Sincerely yours,
Lin Liangtai
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Dinosaurs had mammalian red blood cells
Dinosaurs had mammalian red blood cells
Abstract:
A Google search reveals little data on the morphology of dinosaurs’ red blood cells, fossilized or unfossilized. The author claims to have found the remains of the red blood cells of a Jurassic dinosaur. The author also claims Jurassic dinosaurs had red blood cells like those of modern mammals. The claim is based on his discovery that red blood cell-like micro-structures in the fossil are anucleate and concave. This discovery contradicts the theory that dinosaurs were cold-blooded.
Introduction
A dinosaur vertebra fossil (Figure 1) was cut by a technician of the geology department, National Taiwan University. A small piece and a thin section (Figure 2) were obtained.
The small piece was examined and photographed with a scanning electronic microscope (SEM). The thin section was examined with a digital microscope and a transmitted-light microscope. The images were captured with the digital microscope (Ref. 1A) and a camera (Canon model EOS 350D). The photographs are shown in an album at URL: http://www.wretch.cc/album/album.php?id=lin440315&book=12
The photographs show the dinosaur had micro-structures (Fig. SEM3, Fig. SEM4) that closely resemble the red blood cells of modern mammals. These micro-structures do not resemble any cells of non-mammals, such as reptiles, birds, fish and amphibians.
Material and Methods
The material:
In 2004, a retired employee of a museum in Yunnan Province, China (ref. 1) found a few pieces of fossils exposed in a badland near a mountain top (Figure 3). He informed the museum and the museum asked me to invest in excavating the site. To convince me, a team of dinosaur experts (ref. 2) took me to the site and showed me the exposed fossils. One dinosaur expert (ref.3) dug up one piece of the exposed fossil (Fig. 1) and gave it to me on the spot. Then I used my bare hands to dig deeper into the same spot and found another piece of fossil. I was convinced that the site contained articulated bones, not just scattered bones. So, I signed an agreement with the museum to jointly excavate the site. The excavation dug up many dinosaur bones, which are now kept in the Tsu Hsiung Museum in Yunnan Province. A dinosaur expert, Dr. Timothy Da-yi Huang (ref. 4) issued me an excavation report. A dinosaur expert, Mr. Yang Foodzing (Ref. 5), identified the fossil as the vertebra of a sauropod of 160 million years ago. He had collected dinosaur fossils for Lufeng Dinosaur Museum for over 20 years. In the summer of 2006, Mr. David J. Varricchio (ref. 6), assistant professor of paleontology at Montana State University, took his graduate student, Mr. Michael J. Knell (ref. 7), to the place 150 meters away from the spot where I found my fossil. They identified that place (claimed to contain another five dinosaurs) as early Jurassic and my site as late Jurassic.
The Methods
The vertebra fossil (Figure 1)was cut at the base of one of its processes. A small piece (3cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm) with weathered exterior was obtained and taken directly to the SEM without any biochemical treatment. An SEM technician heated the small piece at 50 degrees Centigrade for ten minutes in an oven and coated the fossil with a thin layer of two-nano ions. As the fossil had experienced 160 million years of weather, its micro-structures on the exterior surface are mostly broken, as seen in the high-magnification SEM micrographs (FIG. SEM1, SEM 2). Below the above-mentioned exterior, a thin section was cut, ground and mounted onto a glass slide. The author used a new type of reflected-light digital microscope (ref. 1A). It can send massive bright white light vertically down into the cavities of the micro-structures, thus reflecting what are at the bottoms of the cavities. It can also measure the images, but its measurements are accurate only when the measured objects are in the right focus. Objects not in the right focus can still show recognizable images, but measuring their sizes do not get accurate numbers.
This article does not focus on the exact size of the dinosaur’s red blood cell-like micro-structures, or the exact preservation conditions of the micro-structures, or the exact species/age of the dinosaur fossil. This article focuses only on (1) the existence or absence of nuclei in the cell-like micro-structures and (2) the shapes of the cell-like micro-structures in the dinosaur vertebra, because the combination of the above two points is a distinguishing characteristic for determining whether an animal is/was a mammal or not. The characteristics is that anucleate and concave cells are found only in mammals. Non-mammalian vertebrates simply have no cells that are both anucleate and concave ( ref. 8, “Cell Size Database” http://www.genomesize.com/cellsize/
and ref. 9, http://biae.clemson.edu/biolab/blood.html)
Mammals’ red blood cells often change from round shape to oblong, or oval or elliptical shapes when passing through capillaries. However, non-mammals (reptiles, birds, fish, amphibians) don’t have any anucleate and concave cells in their bodies. Their red blood cells are nucleate, elliptical and biconvex (ref. 9).
The only criteria the author used is whether the cell-like micro-structures are anucleate and concave.
Results:
On a single thin section, dozens of red blood cell-like micro-structures are found to be anucleate and concave
(Figures SEM 3, SEM 4, SEM 5, SEM 6, Fig. 5-1).
Some of them are over 13 microns in diameter
(Fig. SEM 8). As these red blood cell-like micro-structures exist at different heights on the same thick section, they appeared to be of different sizes in the reflected light of the digital microscopes. Those at the same heights have more or less the same size. Living mammals have red blood cells of 2 –13 microns in diameter (ref. 8). The dinosaur fossil had the same type of micro-structures as the mammals’ red blood cells. But some of this Jurassic dinosaur’s red blood cell-like micro-structures measure over 13 microns in diameter (Fig. SEM 8), much larger than any living animal, thus excluding the possibility of the specimen being contaminated. They are abundant and evident in the photos (Fig. 5, Fig. 5-1). In the album the SEM photos (Figures SEM 1, SEM 2, SEM 3, SEM 4, SEM 5, SEM 6) clearly reveal that there is no structure of nuclei in the micro-structures that resemble red blood cells. The micro-structures could not be the ressults of geological formation or human manipulation. The reasons are:
(1) The micrographs show quite a few blood vessel-like objects which are still soft, with brightly red, blue or white colors. Many of them still contain red blood cell-like micro-structures.
(2) Numerous are red blood cell-like micro-structures (Fig. 5) in a tiny spot of a thin section.
They are not only numerous but also concave and about the same size. No geological formation has made objects such as this red artery-like object
(Fig. 6) or this blue vein-like object (Fig. 7).
(3) No one made up any objects mentioned above. The brightly red or blue blood vessels mentioned in (2) retain their brightly red/blue colors at least two months after the thin section was cut from the vertebra. So, they could not be contaminated unknowingly, because such contaminated blood vessels would change their colors in a month after they left animal bodies.
Above all , the author’s results can be easily reproduced, as many dinosaur fossils were preserved in similar conditions as the author’s fossil was preserved.
These specimens were not artificially stained, but natural bright colors (blue, red, straw-yellowish, white/transparent) are vividly shown in some structures that resemble living arteries, veins, and red blood cells.
(Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Fig. 8, Fig. 9, Fig. 11).
None of the orgaincs in the pictures were reworked or moved there artificially.
Conclusions:
The author’s results can be easily reproduced by professionals and amateurs alike, because there are many dinosaur fossils that are preserved in the same way as the author’s dinosaur bone was preserved.
The micro-structures ( labeled in the micrographs) of the dinosaur fossil closely resemble those of mammalian red blood cells commonly seen in biology textbooks, and differ categorically from all cells of non-mammals. They were mammalian because they are anucleate and concave, while non-mammalian vertebrates simply do not have such cells in their bodies. There is no exception to the above rule for distinguishing mammals from non-mammals in vertebrates. There is no reason to make an exception for dinosaurs. (That’s the least we can do for their extinction.) There are other methods for classifying mammals and non-mammals. But the author’s method is reasonable and meaningful when a person considers the different roles played by red blood cells, middle ear bones and jaw joints in the vertebrates. Think of that—a gigantic mammal in the Jurassic Period.
References:
1. The museum: Tsu Hsiung Museum, Yunnan Province, China Tel:86-878-3127463
1A. The digital microscope is Dino Lite AM313T5, made by Anmo Co. (www.anmo.com.tw)
2. The experts: Dr. Timothy Dayi Huang
CEO of DinoDragon International Research Foundation
e-mail: timd_huang@yahoo.com
Mr. Yang Foodzing, research technician of Lufeng Dinosaur Museum
Tel: 86-878-4122718 86-878-4130652
3. Mr. Yang of Ref. 2
4. Dr. Huang of Ref. 2
5. Mr. Yang of Ref. 2
6. Dr. Varricchio: Department of Earth Sciences
Montana State University
P.O. Box 173480 Bozeman
Montana 59717-3480
e-mail: djv@montana.edu
7. Mr. Michael J. Knell: M.S. Paleontology
e-mail: knell007@hotmail.com
Research Project: Early Jurassic Prosauropod Taphonomy and Regional Stratigraphy of the Lufeng
Basin, Yunnan Province, China
8. See “Cell Size Database” at
http://www.genomesize.com/cellsize/
http://www.genomesize.com/cellsize/mammals.htm
9. Dr. Robert V. Blystone at http://biae.clemson.edu/biolab/blood.html
10. Dr. Stephen Britland B.Sc. Ph.D. ILT-M
Reader in Cell Biology
School of Pharmacy
University of Bradford
Bradford BD7 1DP, UK.
S.T.Britland@Bradford.ac.uk
Tel. 0044 (0)1274 234695
Fax. 0044 (0)1274 234660
11. Specialist consulted;
Fabian Blank, Ph.D.
Abt. Histologie
Institut für Anatomie
Universität Bern
Baltzerstrasse 2
CH-3000 Bern 9
Tel: ++41'31'631'48'79
Fax: ++41'31'631'38'07
E-Mail: blank@ana.unibe.ch
Abstract:
A Google search reveals little data on the morphology of dinosaurs’ red blood cells, fossilized or unfossilized. The author claims to have found the remains of the red blood cells of a Jurassic dinosaur. The author also claims Jurassic dinosaurs had red blood cells like those of modern mammals. The claim is based on his discovery that red blood cell-like micro-structures in the fossil are anucleate and concave. This discovery contradicts the theory that dinosaurs were cold-blooded.
Introduction
A dinosaur vertebra fossil (Figure 1) was cut by a technician of the geology department, National Taiwan University. A small piece and a thin section (Figure 2) were obtained.
The small piece was examined and photographed with a scanning electronic microscope (SEM). The thin section was examined with a digital microscope and a transmitted-light microscope. The images were captured with the digital microscope (Ref. 1A) and a camera (Canon model EOS 350D). The photographs are shown in an album at URL: http://www.wretch.cc/album/album.php?id=lin440315&book=12
The photographs show the dinosaur had micro-structures (Fig. SEM3, Fig. SEM4) that closely resemble the red blood cells of modern mammals. These micro-structures do not resemble any cells of non-mammals, such as reptiles, birds, fish and amphibians.
Material and Methods
The material:
In 2004, a retired employee of a museum in Yunnan Province, China (ref. 1) found a few pieces of fossils exposed in a badland near a mountain top (Figure 3). He informed the museum and the museum asked me to invest in excavating the site. To convince me, a team of dinosaur experts (ref. 2) took me to the site and showed me the exposed fossils. One dinosaur expert (ref.3) dug up one piece of the exposed fossil (Fig. 1) and gave it to me on the spot. Then I used my bare hands to dig deeper into the same spot and found another piece of fossil. I was convinced that the site contained articulated bones, not just scattered bones. So, I signed an agreement with the museum to jointly excavate the site. The excavation dug up many dinosaur bones, which are now kept in the Tsu Hsiung Museum in Yunnan Province. A dinosaur expert, Dr. Timothy Da-yi Huang (ref. 4) issued me an excavation report. A dinosaur expert, Mr. Yang Foodzing (Ref. 5), identified the fossil as the vertebra of a sauropod of 160 million years ago. He had collected dinosaur fossils for Lufeng Dinosaur Museum for over 20 years. In the summer of 2006, Mr. David J. Varricchio (ref. 6), assistant professor of paleontology at Montana State University, took his graduate student, Mr. Michael J. Knell (ref. 7), to the place 150 meters away from the spot where I found my fossil. They identified that place (claimed to contain another five dinosaurs) as early Jurassic and my site as late Jurassic.
The Methods
The vertebra fossil (Figure 1)was cut at the base of one of its processes. A small piece (3cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm) with weathered exterior was obtained and taken directly to the SEM without any biochemical treatment. An SEM technician heated the small piece at 50 degrees Centigrade for ten minutes in an oven and coated the fossil with a thin layer of two-nano ions. As the fossil had experienced 160 million years of weather, its micro-structures on the exterior surface are mostly broken, as seen in the high-magnification SEM micrographs (FIG. SEM1, SEM 2). Below the above-mentioned exterior, a thin section was cut, ground and mounted onto a glass slide. The author used a new type of reflected-light digital microscope (ref. 1A). It can send massive bright white light vertically down into the cavities of the micro-structures, thus reflecting what are at the bottoms of the cavities. It can also measure the images, but its measurements are accurate only when the measured objects are in the right focus. Objects not in the right focus can still show recognizable images, but measuring their sizes do not get accurate numbers.
This article does not focus on the exact size of the dinosaur’s red blood cell-like micro-structures, or the exact preservation conditions of the micro-structures, or the exact species/age of the dinosaur fossil. This article focuses only on (1) the existence or absence of nuclei in the cell-like micro-structures and (2) the shapes of the cell-like micro-structures in the dinosaur vertebra, because the combination of the above two points is a distinguishing characteristic for determining whether an animal is/was a mammal or not. The characteristics is that anucleate and concave cells are found only in mammals. Non-mammalian vertebrates simply have no cells that are both anucleate and concave ( ref. 8, “Cell Size Database” http://www.genomesize.com/cellsize/
and ref. 9, http://biae.clemson.edu/biolab/blood.html)
Mammals’ red blood cells often change from round shape to oblong, or oval or elliptical shapes when passing through capillaries. However, non-mammals (reptiles, birds, fish, amphibians) don’t have any anucleate and concave cells in their bodies. Their red blood cells are nucleate, elliptical and biconvex (ref. 9).
The only criteria the author used is whether the cell-like micro-structures are anucleate and concave.
Results:
On a single thin section, dozens of red blood cell-like micro-structures are found to be anucleate and concave
(Figures SEM 3, SEM 4, SEM 5, SEM 6, Fig. 5-1).
Some of them are over 13 microns in diameter
(Fig. SEM 8). As these red blood cell-like micro-structures exist at different heights on the same thick section, they appeared to be of different sizes in the reflected light of the digital microscopes. Those at the same heights have more or less the same size. Living mammals have red blood cells of 2 –13 microns in diameter (ref. 8). The dinosaur fossil had the same type of micro-structures as the mammals’ red blood cells. But some of this Jurassic dinosaur’s red blood cell-like micro-structures measure over 13 microns in diameter (Fig. SEM 8), much larger than any living animal, thus excluding the possibility of the specimen being contaminated. They are abundant and evident in the photos (Fig. 5, Fig. 5-1). In the album the SEM photos (Figures SEM 1, SEM 2, SEM 3, SEM 4, SEM 5, SEM 6) clearly reveal that there is no structure of nuclei in the micro-structures that resemble red blood cells. The micro-structures could not be the ressults of geological formation or human manipulation. The reasons are:
(1) The micrographs show quite a few blood vessel-like objects which are still soft, with brightly red, blue or white colors. Many of them still contain red blood cell-like micro-structures.
(2) Numerous are red blood cell-like micro-structures (Fig. 5) in a tiny spot of a thin section.
They are not only numerous but also concave and about the same size. No geological formation has made objects such as this red artery-like object
(Fig. 6) or this blue vein-like object (Fig. 7).
(3) No one made up any objects mentioned above. The brightly red or blue blood vessels mentioned in (2) retain their brightly red/blue colors at least two months after the thin section was cut from the vertebra. So, they could not be contaminated unknowingly, because such contaminated blood vessels would change their colors in a month after they left animal bodies.
Above all , the author’s results can be easily reproduced, as many dinosaur fossils were preserved in similar conditions as the author’s fossil was preserved.
These specimens were not artificially stained, but natural bright colors (blue, red, straw-yellowish, white/transparent) are vividly shown in some structures that resemble living arteries, veins, and red blood cells.
(Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Fig. 8, Fig. 9, Fig. 11).
None of the orgaincs in the pictures were reworked or moved there artificially.
Conclusions:
The author’s results can be easily reproduced by professionals and amateurs alike, because there are many dinosaur fossils that are preserved in the same way as the author’s dinosaur bone was preserved.
The micro-structures ( labeled in the micrographs) of the dinosaur fossil closely resemble those of mammalian red blood cells commonly seen in biology textbooks, and differ categorically from all cells of non-mammals. They were mammalian because they are anucleate and concave, while non-mammalian vertebrates simply do not have such cells in their bodies. There is no exception to the above rule for distinguishing mammals from non-mammals in vertebrates. There is no reason to make an exception for dinosaurs. (That’s the least we can do for their extinction.) There are other methods for classifying mammals and non-mammals. But the author’s method is reasonable and meaningful when a person considers the different roles played by red blood cells, middle ear bones and jaw joints in the vertebrates. Think of that—a gigantic mammal in the Jurassic Period.
References:
1. The museum: Tsu Hsiung Museum, Yunnan Province, China Tel:86-878-3127463
1A. The digital microscope is Dino Lite AM313T5, made by Anmo Co. (www.anmo.com.tw)
2. The experts: Dr. Timothy Dayi Huang
CEO of DinoDragon International Research Foundation
e-mail: timd_huang@yahoo.com
Mr. Yang Foodzing, research technician of Lufeng Dinosaur Museum
Tel: 86-878-4122718 86-878-4130652
3. Mr. Yang of Ref. 2
4. Dr. Huang of Ref. 2
5. Mr. Yang of Ref. 2
6. Dr. Varricchio: Department of Earth Sciences
Montana State University
P.O. Box 173480 Bozeman
Montana 59717-3480
e-mail: djv@montana.edu
7. Mr. Michael J. Knell: M.S. Paleontology
e-mail: knell007@hotmail.com
Research Project: Early Jurassic Prosauropod Taphonomy and Regional Stratigraphy of the Lufeng
Basin, Yunnan Province, China
8. See “Cell Size Database” at
http://www.genomesize.com/cellsize/
http://www.genomesize.com/cellsize/mammals.htm
9. Dr. Robert V. Blystone at http://biae.clemson.edu/biolab/blood.html
10. Dr. Stephen Britland B.Sc. Ph.D. ILT-M
Reader in Cell Biology
School of Pharmacy
University of Bradford
Bradford BD7 1DP, UK.
S.T.Britland@Bradford.ac.uk
Tel. 0044 (0)1274 234695
Fax. 0044 (0)1274 234660
11. Specialist consulted;
Fabian Blank, Ph.D.
Abt. Histologie
Institut für Anatomie
Universität Bern
Baltzerstrasse 2
CH-3000 Bern 9
Tel: ++41'31'631'48'79
Fax: ++41'31'631'38'07
E-Mail: blank@ana.unibe.ch
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)