PAUL MYERS: Your foot's getting deeper in your mouth 
Author Message
 PAUL MYERS: Your foot's getting deeper in your mouth
<snip>

Quote:
> If you were hooked up to a polygraph repeating this story -- and a
> bell would ring every time you told a lie -- I'm sure we'd think we
> were inside the steeple hearing the Bells of St. Mary's.

1. Polygraphs don't ring when a lie is told. They require human analysis,
and are easily fooled.
2. Polygrpahs are not admissible in a court of law.


Thu, 03 Feb 2005 01:37:46 GMT
 PAUL MYERS: Your foot's getting deeper in your mouth

[big snip]

Quote:
> Paul Myers:
> If you were hooked up to a polygraph repeating this story -- and a
> bell would ring every time you told a lie -- I'm sure we'd think we
> were inside the steeple hearing the Bells of St. Mary's.

And you know he's lying because...?
Quote:
> Ed Conrad

> >  http://www.edconrad



Thu, 03 Feb 2005 02:05:25 GMT
 PAUL MYERS: Your foot's getting deeper in your mouth

Quote:





> >> Paul Myers, sorry to drag you away from the corny jokes you've
> >> been posting about your fellow pseudoscientists who attended
> >> the 18th annual Porkfest -- "You pork me, then I'll pork you." -- held
> >>  in New York City this past week.

> >> We -- not the pseudos but John Q. Public -- would like to know what
> >> your precise role was in the preparation of the fraudulent ground
> >> section of EC96-001 that Andrew Macrae posted on his web page in late
> >> summer 1996.

> >There was no fraudulent ground section. There was a ground section of
> >the rock you sent to Andrew, as you can and have confirmed by comparing
> >all the detail in the section to the cut end of your rock.

> >> Did you advise Andrew Macrae how to do it, how to make a rock or
> >> concretion (minus Haversian canals) bear a similiarity in physical
> >> appearance to the real thing, the very same specimen that world
> >> acclaimed bone expert Wilton Krogman had identified as a portion
> >> of a tibia that was discovered between anthracite veins?.

> >I am not a geologist, so I don't have a clue about how geologists cut
> >and prepare rocks.

> >You've still got EC96-001. Look at the cut end. It's a rock, and it
> >matches the section perfectly.

> >> Did YOU, Paul Myers, actually prepare the fraudulent ground section
> >> and hand-deliver it to Andrew Macrae at the University of Calgary, a
> >> plane trip of more than 2,000 miles?

> >I'm a biologist. I work with squishy things. Andrew is the expert on
> >rocks. You think *I* had to prepare a geological specimen? How silly.

> >I'm not sure how you propose this was done. You mailed EC9-001 to Andrew
> >in Calgary. He cut it up. He returned it directly to you. I didn't see
> >it until you brought it on your visit. I don't quite see the logic of
> >your accusation: how would I have gotten my hands on your rock? Why
> >would I personally have to fly it to Calgary?

> >> Did YOU, Paul Myers, advise Andrew Macrae to post those microscopic
> >> photos of the fraudulent ground section, then advise him to send the
> >> tampered slide to me (to complete the second part of your
> >> conspiratorial escapade)?

> >What? *You* sent the rock to Andrew to be processed. He did his
> >exemplary work on it before I came on the scene, with no need of any
> >prompting by me.

> >> Did YOU, Paul Myers, come up with the idea of politely contacting
> >> me just days after the hoax was perpetrated, inviting me to your
> >> laboratory at Temple Univesity to view that fraudulent ground section
> >> under your state-of-the-art microscopes.

> >There was no hoax, but yes, I invited you to come to the lab.

> >It's a bit of hyperbole to call them "state-of-the-art microscopes".
> >They were good, solid, working Nikon and Leica scopes with DIC and phase.

> >> Didn't YOU, Paul Myers, offer sympathy that it was established
> >> conclusively that fraudulent photos plastered on Andrew MacRae's
> >> web page proved the specimen WASN'T petrified bone but suggest an
> >> examination of the same ground section under your state-of-the-art
> >> microscopes, so I would have no question about Andrew Macrae's
> >> intregrity?

> >This getting a bit overwrought and twisted. Yes, it was established that
> >your 'bones' are just rocks by Andrew's work. You continued with your
> >ludicrous claims, though. I offered you the chance to see the specimens
> >with your own eyes with a decent microscope, in the foolish hope that it
> >would actually shut you up.

> >> Isn't it true, Paul Myers, that you KNEW the ground section was not
> >> prepared from EC96-001 -- the portion of the petrified tibia found
> >> between anthracite veins -- when you invited me down to Philadelphia?.

> >No. I took it for granted that it was. A fact that we confirmed when we
> >looked at it: the section was a perfect match to the cut end.

> >You keep going around and around on this, and I really don't understand
> >it. It's not as if some switcheroo were pulled, and then the phony
> >section were hidden away -- you've got them both, section and sample,
> >and can do whatever tests you want to see if the section comes from the
> >original rock.

> >Try this, again. Take EC96-001 in your left hand. It's a cylindrical
> >rock, with a smooth shiny end where Andrew cut the section. Take the
> >section in your right hand. It's a nice oval slice sandwiched between
> >two pieces of glass. Hold the section up to the rock. It matches
> >perfectly. The outline is the same. Little imperfections line up. The
> >interior is the same, right down to discolorations, the central cavity,
> >and textures. It's not just that I did not fake it, it's that no one CAN
> >fake that.

> >It's sad. I picture you doing that in your home, just as you did in the
> >lab...and you've got that same blank look of dumb incomprehension on
> >your face. Reality is right there in your hands, and you just can't wrap
> >your brain around it.

> >> You knew, didn't you, Paul Myers, that no Haversian canals would ever
> >> be seen in EC96-001 because you, Paul Myers, knew the ground section
> >> was prepared from a rock or a concretion? You knew, didn't you, Paul
> >> Myers, what we were examining under your microscopes at Temple was
> >> NOT a ground section of EC96-001.

> >Incorrect. Once I saw it, I knew for sure, as should you, that the
> >section was taken from that rock.

> >> By the way, Paul Myers, just whom did you speak to at Calgary
> >> University during the many phone calls you admit having made during
> >> the peculiarly long period of time that Andrew Macrae had EC96-001
> >>  in his possession.

> >> And whom did you meet with at Calgary University when you flew there
> >> on other business?

> >None of your business, I'm afraid. They were physiologists.

> >> This is a portion of your posting of Aug. 1, 2002 :

> >> "However, at that time I was collaborating with several people at
> >> Calgary who had developed some calcium imaging software -- they were
> >> helping me with some ratiometeric imaging problems. I even visited
> >> Calgary one weekend, Unfortunately, it was a very busy working weekend
> >> so that I didn't even have an opportunity to say hello to Andrew.

> >> "It had nothing to do with your wacky rocks."

> >> I'd say you've put your foot in your mouth again, Paul Myers.

> >> You stated that you had "visited Calgary one weekend. Unfortunately,
> >> it was a very busy weekend so that I didn't even have the opportunity
> >> to say hello to Andrew."

> >> I doubt how busy it must've been at Calgary University on a summer
> >> weekend, Paul Myers. I doubt if there are a handful of professors or
> >> instructors on campus at the majority of colleges and universities
> >> anywhere in North America on ANY summer weekend, let alone during
> >> a weekend at any other time during the year.

> >Well, you're incorrect on a couple of things. I had been busy
> >collaborating with some Calgary biologists *that year*, but I didn't
> >visit during the summer. It was the winter. I assure you, it is possible
> >to distinguish the two in Calgary.

> >You are also quite mistaken about where scientists spend their time on
> >weekends. Not that that would matter...I was in Calgary to learn calcium
> >imaging. I had one weekend to learn their cell culture technique, do a
> >bunch of fura-2 injections, record a lot of data, and see how they
> >processed and analyzed it. That *is* a busy weekend.

> >> But I'm certain there was at least one person on campus that summer
> >> weekend when you paid your visit, namely Andrew Macrae, and I'm sure
> >> that you and he had spent many conspiratorial hours together.

> >Unfortunately, no. It wasn't the summer (and if it had been, it would
> >have been even less likely, I would think -- judging by the other
> >geologists I know, they spend their summers in the field), and I had a
> >full schedule of professional business to tend to.

> >--
> >pz

> Paul Myers:
> If you were hooked up to a polygraph repeating this story -- and a
> bell would ring every time you told a lie -- I'm sure we'd think we
> were inside the steeple hearing the Bells of St. Mary's.

    Lack of substantive reply noted.

    Incidentally, reading this right on the heels of your recent post in the
"CHALLENGE TO PSEUDOSCIENTISTS ALL" thread, wherein you make veiled threats
about suing Mr. Sienkiewicz for character assassination and libel, is richly
ironic.
--

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." -- Aldous Huxley
"Yes they do.  Better living through denial, don't you know?" -- Shane T.
Graves



Thu, 03 Feb 2005 03:13:46 GMT
 PAUL MYERS: Your foot's getting deeper in your mouth

< snip >

Quote:
> >Unfortunately, no. It wasn't the summer (and if it had been, it would
> >have been even less likely, I would think -- judging by the other
> >geologists I know, they spend their summers in the field), and I had a
> >full schedule of professional business to tend to.

> >--
> >pz

> Paul Myers:
> If you were hooked up to a polygraph repeating this story -- and a
> bell would ring every time you told a lie -- I'm sure we'd think we
> were inside the steeple hearing the Bells of St. Mary's.

And just why are you sure of this, Ed?

I find it quite amusing that you would ask me if you could sue for
being called a liar and then turn around and all but say that Paul is
a liar.

That's being a bit hypocritical, isn't it, Ed?

Quote:
> Ed Conrad

> >  http://www.edconrad



Thu, 03 Feb 2005 08:40:55 GMT
 PAUL MYERS: Your foot's getting deeper in your mouth

Quote:

> <snip>

> > If you were hooked up to a polygraph repeating this story -- and a
> > bell would ring every time you told a lie -- I'm sure we'd think we
> > were inside the steeple hearing the Bells of St. Mary's.

> 1. Polygraphs don't ring when a lie is told. They require human analysis,
> and are easily fooled.

Absolutely correct; but Ed just needed some means to spew rhetoric.  

Quote:
> 2. Polygrpahs are not admissible in a court of law.

Also true.


Thu, 03 Feb 2005 08:42:24 GMT
 PAUL MYERS: Your foot's getting deeper in your mouth

Quote:

> On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 18:52:20 +0000 (UTC), "feynman"

> >Hey Ed - I finally have to bust in. I see your rants scattered through a
> >couple of newsgroups that interest me and have to wonder why you don't find
> >something else to do with your damned time. You bore me to tears and you
> >haven't a clue as to how science works.

> >SNIP

> indeed, I do, feynman! Very dishonestly, with no respect whatsoever
> for the truth.
> (...in physical anthropology and paleontology when it comes to
> an honest search for answers to man's origin and ancestry)

Sayeth the liar...

[Snip the rest]



Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:41:34 GMT
 PAUL MYERS: Your foot's getting deeper in your mouth

Quote:

> On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 19:13:46 +0000 (UTC), Richard Clayton


[snip]

Quote:
> >    Incidentally, reading this right on the heels of your recent post in the
> >"CHALLENGE TO PSEUDOSCIENTISTS ALL" thread, wherein you make veiled threats
> >about suing Mr. Sienkiewicz for character assassination and libel, is richly
> >ironic.

> Richard:
> I think you've read that wrong. I never said Mr. Sienkiewicz. I said
> I'm thinking of suing an "old fart." I'm sure Mr. Sienkiewicz isn't an
> "old fart," even though his postings often smell that way.

It doesn't matter who you were thinking of suing, the irony still drips
from the post. By the way, just who *did* you have in mind?
Quote:
> ..
> Ed Conrad
> >  http://www.edconrad.com


> >"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." -- Aldous Huxley
> >"Yes they do.  Better living through denial, don't you know?" -- Shane T.
> >Graves



Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:55:11 GMT
 PAUL MYERS: Your foot's getting deeper in your mouth

Quote:
> On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 19:13:46 +0000 (UTC), Richard Clayton



< snip >

Quote:
> >> Paul Myers:
> >> If you were hooked up to a polygraph repeating this story -- and a
> >> bell would ring every time you told a lie -- I'm sure we'd think we
> >> were inside the steeple hearing the Bells of St. Mary's.

> >    Lack of substantive reply noted.

> >    Incidentally, reading this right on the heels of your recent post in
the
> >"CHALLENGE TO PSEUDOSCIENTISTS ALL" thread, wherein you make veiled
threats
> >about suing Mr. Sienkiewicz for character assassination and libel, is
richly
> >ironic.

> Richard:
> I think you've read that wrong. I never said Mr. Sienkiewicz. I said
> I'm thinking of suing an "old fart." I'm sure Mr. Sienkiewicz isn't an
> "old fart," even though his postings often smell that way.

Prove it, Ed.

Debate me.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
> ..
> Ed Conrad
> >  http://www.edconrad.com


> >"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." -- Aldous Huxley
> >"Yes they do.  Better living through denial, don't you know?" -- Shane T.
> >Graves



Thu, 03 Feb 2005 12:42:22 GMT
 PAUL MYERS: Your foot's getting deeper in your mouth

Quote:

>I understand that there are long and convoluted histories to all this.
>I do not claim to have insight into the details of it all. There is
>however something to be gained by taking an outsiders opinion as
>perhaps a more holistic one than the fractured views of those who have
>been in this miasma for years.

>With the possible exception of Ed (I briefly visited his home page), I
>would think that you are all people who have interests and opinions
>which go further than the sort of "discussion" you are having. Even
>Ed's page serves a tabloid like purpose, to remind us of how tenuous
>'reality' and 'science' are and how difficult it is to stop us being
>misrepresented to a largely scientifically illiterate population.

>It seems to me that by letting Ed lure you into debate on his terms
>you are simply letting him win. It does not matter that you agree of
>disagree with him. The act of responding and thus validating takes you
>further away from what I presumably believe your interest to be.

>You do no become an biologist or a geologist or an anthropologist
>etc... simply as an excuse to trade insults with loons.

>Please do not interpret this as meaning that all you should engage in
>are deep and thoughtful discussions. There is room, and necessity for
>frivolity, but the thought of you all devoting 'years' to these
>debates seems a frightening waste of time.

>I would be interested in a summary of this disagreement... I am sure
>it would make this all more interesting...

>Cheers

The summary:

Pseudoscience ..........  000 000 000 --  0
Ed Conrad .................   012 041 02x--  10



Sun, 06 Feb 2005 10:57:14 GMT
 
 [ 13 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. A Reply to PAUL MYERS of Temple University

2. PAUL MYERS -- Pseudoscientific SCUMBAG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

3. 12-FOOT-TALL PETRIFIED MAN DISCOVERED DEEP INSIDE PENNSYLVANIA COAL MINE

4. getting feet wet (anthropology/archaeology)

5. Let's give Peter Alaca some soap for his mouth

6. NEWS THE MAJOR MEDIA WON'T TOUCH WITH A 14-FOOT POLE

7. Evolutuion in DEEP Trouble But Don't Blame the Hubble

8. Pope John Paul II's Last Words

9. Google recognises priority of Jean Paul Turcaud's claim to Telfer discovery

10. DIRECT PHONE TO JEAN-PAUL TURCAUD 'S OFFICE


 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software