1
   

ET cell study: origins & results

 
 
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2011 03:43 am
As I am tired, anyone is allowed to re-write my posts and publish them without distortion. I am not for fame. I am just a wretch unafraid to be put on the cross.The following are brief history and results of my studies on fossils:

Over 35 years ago I was a college student majoring in foreign languages and literature. I came to read “God's books” before graduation. I tried to live as “God” teaches. Then I became interested in ancient civilizations and tried to find, without final success, the lost continents of the Atlantis and Mu. Then I studied Jurassic dinosaur bones and published this article: "Dinosaurs had mammalian red blood cells."
Edit [Moderator]: Link removed

Then I studied human fossils of 300 million years ago and published these two articles:
1. "A human skull cap of 300 million years ago” Edit [Moderator]: Link removed
2."A human leg bone fossil of 300 million years ago"
Edit [Moderator]: Link removed

Then I studied NASA's microscopic images of Mars and published many posts in my websites. Then I studied meteorites and published this article:"A meteorite contains blood vessel remains."
Edit [Moderator]: Link removed

Finally, I study online micrographs only of meteorites rather than physical meteorites and published many posts in my websites at Edit [Moderator]: Link removed Up to this day, no one else publishes similar findings regarding animal fossil cells in meteorites. It's important to note differences between ET and Earthly animal fossil cells. The former can be found "in context" (within organs, tissues) but ET cells are often found out of context (not within organs, tissues).
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,415 • Replies: 4
No top replies

 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2011 04:53 am
@bewildered,
bewildered wrote:
Up to this day, no one else publishes similar findings regarding animal fossil cells in meteorites.

It's probably a vast conspiracy to hide the truth, but somehow you haven't been pulled into the conspiracy. Let me check our records, maybe you got dropped from the list along the way.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2011 04:56 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
It's probably a vast conspiracy to hide the truth, but somehow you haven't been pulled into the conspiracy.


Uh-oh . . . Bewildered, you will soon be visited by two large, humorless men in bad, off-the-rack suits, wearing sunglasses . . . at night. Go along quietly with them, it will be best for all concerned.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2011 05:09 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Quote:
It's probably a vast conspiracy to hide the truth, but somehow you haven't been pulled into the conspiracy.


Uh-oh . . . Bewildered, you will soon be visited by two large, humorless men in bad, off-the-rack suits, wearing sunglasses . . . at night. Go along quietly with them, it will be best for all concerned.

Are you saying I need a new suit? Smile
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2011 05:58 am
@rosborne979,
A quick look into web data and deep web data from SChweitzer et al shows me that the world is divided into these two camps. SChweitzer, who found the "soft tissue" in a Hell Creek T Rex, has presented evidence that the blood cells they found were nucleated, like birds. ALL THE REST of any web data, seems to link onto this guys clandestine (unpublished work on methodology). The creationists have tried to jump all over Schweitzer and have used this soft tissue experience as some kind of "proof of a young earth". ALso , by claiming to show that the rbc's are anucleate (without a nucleus) that they would most closely resemble mammalian rbc's. SO , is bewildered to be believed ? I say that he should present his data and methods for publication via some means.(not a web site chat site) And let the pebbles fall.
Schweitzers data is quite detailed as far as methodology and Bewildered only posts a brief outline of methods.

I see that, on top of bewildereds posts, his stuff has been pretty much glommed by all the Creationist networks who are claiming that Dinosaurs were mammals and that they didnt live as long ago as science claims.

I am sitting here with my pistachio breakfast wanting more detail and someone to carilfy the obvious discrepency as to who's data is correct. I see that the Creationists have spent a lot of time covering the web with insults onto SChweitzer's interpretations and theyve misrepresented it in these long ipsi dixit web sites that go around quoting each other ad nauseum in order to try to give an impression that theres a lot of controversy out there.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » ET cell study: origins & results
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/27/2021 at 08:03:57