This is Ed Conrad's response on talk.origins to my impressions of his visit.


You correctly stated that I experienced ``major difficulties" seeing
the Haversian systems in the thin section that Andrew MacRae had
prepared from the specimen I had sent him.


>``My general impression is that he (Ed Conrad) is
>simply a stubborn, determined individual who will not
>give up in his pursuits," you concluded in your posting.
>``This is probably a very good quality in a journalist,
>but not quite so admirable in scientific inquiry,
>in which half the struggle is in admitting failure
>when you reach a dead end."


It is far from a dead end, however, when all of the cards --
concerning my visit -- are placed on the table.


Paul, you very importantly pointed out -- and I give you credit for
doing so -- that, while Haversian systems could not be seen in the
thin section of my specimen, they likewise COULD NOT BE SEEN
in the scrapings of bone that I had removed from the human pelvis
that I had taken along.


Your exact words:


> `` Scrapings from human bone or from Ed's
> specimen looked essentially identical. This is not to
> imply that Ed's specimen was bone, however; no
> Haversian structure was visible . . . "


You also made another statement which is rather interesting:


> ``No comparable image of (Haversian systems in) Ed's
> specimen could be acquired. The structures were very
> granular, with an irregular, variable density. There were
> clear spots scattered throughout the specimen that might
> have the approximate dimensions of the central canals
> in bone, but none of the surrounding structure was consistent
> with bone. . . "


What you failed to point out, however, is that -- same as with the
microscopic view of the thin section of my specimen -- none of the
surrounding structure of the Haversian systems could be seen in the
scrapings removed from the pelvis as well.


In both cases, miniscule pin-like holes were visible throughout both
specimens.


In contrast, using the same microscope and at the same magnification,
the Haversian systems were clearly visible in a tiny piece of bone on
a slide YOU had made available for comparsion.


When I arrived at your lab, Paul, you removed this particular slide
from a boxful of slides -- numbering close to a hundred. The slides
were neatly stacked in a case that you explained was used for
classroom study of biology at the university.


Obviously, all of the slides in the case had been prepared in the
manufacturer's laboratory under the most ideal conditions.


In any event, I agreed to use the slide you made available for
microscopic comparison with the ground section of my specimen
prepared by Andrew MacRae.


In your slide -- the classroom slide -- the Haversian systems were
crystal clear, including just about all of the surrounding structure.


At the very same magnification and under the same lighting conditions,
all I was seeing in my specimen was a collection of helter-skelter
``pinholes."


I then examined the scrapings from the pelvis and -- very, very
strangely -- I saw almost the exact same view I had seen in my
specimen: the ``pinholes."


Only during the drive home did the friend who accompanied me casually
remark that you had informed him -- while I was using the men's room
-- that the visibility of the Haversian systems could differ not only
in different specimens of bone but also in the specific locality of a
particular bone.


Since your statement aroused my curiosity, I returned home and opened
the World Book Encyclopedia to learn something very interesting about
the Haversian canals. It stated: ``Haversian canals are tiny channels
within COMPACT BONE tissue, the hard, outer layers of bone . . . A
canal and its bone tissue are called an osteon or Haversian system.
Osteons are the basic structure that make up compact bone."


It further explained that there also is CANCELLOUS BONE which is
located farther from the hard, outer layers of bone -- yet no mention
was made of the Haversian systems existing in cancellous, or spongy,
bone. (If they do exist, it must be somewhat difficult to see them).


Now let's get back to the ``classroom" slide that you, Paul, had made
available for the purpose of comparison.


I thought it very, very strange that, when I finally informed you by
E-mail that I'd be paying a visit to Temple the next day, you promplty
responded by transmitting this messagel:


``I just thought I'd let you know that I have obtained
a nice thin section of human bone. I've checked it out
with my equipment and it is very easy to image Haversian
canals with several of my objectives . . . so there should be
no problem seeing them, if present, in your specimen.


My first reaction was WHY you would even send me such a message since
I assumed human bone was human bone. Additionally, you obviously knew
I'd be bringing human cadaver bone with me for microscopic comparison
with the thin section that Andrew MacRae had prepared.


It's obvious now why you selected that particular slide. No matter
what we would see in the MacRae thin section, there would be no
comparison. Your ``classroom" slide was that majestic, revealing
not only the Haversian canals but the structure surrounding the canals
(part of each Haversian system).


Meanwhile, about the only thing interesting in my thin section AND
THE SCRAPINGS FROM THE HUMAN PELVIS were those ``pinholes"
of light.


Paul, I'm glad that you at least were man enough to admit:


> ``There were clear spots scattered throughout the specimen
> that might have the approximate dimensions of the central canals
> in bone, but none of the surrounding structure was consistent
> with bone. . . "


It comes as no surprise to me that ``none of the surrounding structure
(of my specimen) was consistent with bone" because, based on research
conducted on petrified bone, it has been established that the process
of petrification removes telltale evidence of the previous existence
of lamellae, lacunae, canaliculi, etc. -- the structure surrounding
the Haversian canals.


However, it is a scientific fact that the petrification process cannot
remove or displace the Haversian canals because, being ``tunnels''
originally used as a delivery system for oxygen and food to living
bone, there was nothing there to replace.


Meanwhile, it is important to point out that NONE of the surrounding
structure consistent with bone was visible in the scrapings removed
from the human pelvis under the 140X magnification.


The obvious answer is that the slide you had taken from the case of
slides for classroom study was prepared from an excellent piece of
COMPACT BONE.


Meanwhile, I regret that I did not randomly examine ANY of the other
slides in your case. I'm sure I would've found that FEW of the other
slides would've presented such a magnificent view of the Haversian
systems.


I would also venture to say that some of the slides in your case will
reveal a similiar view -- a collection of helter-skelter ``pinpoints''
-- as seen in the scrapings removed from the human pelvis and in the
thin section of my specimen prepared by Andrew MacRae.


That's because those ``pinholes" of light are, in fact, the Haverisan
canals.


> To see what I mean, see the photos that Ted Holden
> has just posted on his Home Page:
> http://access.digex.com/~medved/conrad/conmain.htm


I also would like to point out that, while examining the slide that
you had made available from the case, there was no indication
whatsoever that it indeed was human bone; what particular bone it was
taken from, nor any information as to the approximate location of the
area of the bone from where the fragment was removed .


I also regret I did not obtain the name and address of the company
which had prepared the box of slides -- definitely an oversight on my
part. Its name did not appear on the slide itself nor did I notice it
on the box.


This information is pertinent because I could then acquire more
information about the box of slides and especially about No. 27 -- if
my memory is correct -- which is what you had used for the
comparisons.


I'd like to establish contact with the preparer of that particular
slide to learn why the Haversian systems are so clearly visible yet,
while using the same magnification and the same microscope, they are
not visible in the scaping removed from the HUMAN pelvis.


In other words, if two pieces of human bone are being examined
microscopically, why should the Haversian systems be so clearly
visible in one and not visible whatsoever in the other (unless, as I
learned in the World Book Encyclopaedia, it has to be compact bone
and have come from a specific location).


I am NOT asking for an answer to the discrepancy between the classroom
slide and the thin section that Andrew MacRae had prepared -- only in
the discrepancy between two specimens of human bone.


Nevertheless, a distinct possibility exists that , if the question
about the difference in visibility of the two different specimens of
human bone is answered, it should answer the question about the thin
section that Andrew MacRae had prepared.


I would like to state, further, that my friend politely asked if we
could keep the ``classroom" slide that you had been using -- since
you had a whole caseful. But you declined.


May I add that I really wanted to spend much more time in your lab but
failed to do so for a very good reason. My friend began bugging me to
leave, claiming he hadn't eaten all day and was so hungry that he had
a headache.


And I will frankly admit that he told me spending any more time at
your microscopes was rather senseless because he seemed convinced that
my specimen wasn't even in the same ballpark with yours.


When I reminded him that the scrapings from the human pelvis
ALSO failed to show any indication of Haversian systems, he could
offer no reasonable explanation -- and, at the time, neither could I.


When what transpired in your laboratory is placed in proper
perspective, Paul, I can assure you that your declaration that I
finally have reached a DEAD END is sheer nonsense.


I need not remind you that, on different occasions over these past 15
years, various members of your scientific community, including the
biggest names at the most prestigious institutions and universities,
also felt sure the ballgame was over after trying to pull the wool
over my eyes -- and that I had no alternative but to throw in the
towel.


They were confident that their involvement in deceipt, deception,
collusion and conspiracy had staved off what unquestionably ranks as
the most serious threat to Darwin's erroneous theory of evolution.


No wonder such effort has been made to stop me in my tracks, either
by hook or by crook. Those strange-looking ``rocks" I keep finding in
Carboniferous strata in Pennsylvania's anthracite region CANNOT
POSSIBLY be confirmed as petrified bone by the scientific community
because, if they were, it would shake the very foundation of
established science.


``Dead ends" haven't bothered me in the past except to
discourage me temporarily. Fortunately, I always manage to bounce
back and eventually find that another door opens which enables me to
make even further progress, an inch at a time.


Your declaration that I have reached a dead end -- and, moreso, your
suggestion that I be man enough to admit it -- is totally out of line.


My specimens ARE petrified bone and some ARE human! You know it!
Andrew MacRae knows it! And many, many others high up in the
scientific establishment know it as well.