[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Ray Stanford, Time Travel, and Dinosaur Footprints (Part 1 of 2) (LONG)
Hello "SueSharPei" and list,
Since "Sue"'s two long, associated letters have been sent to the
dinosaur list, then I feel it reasonable to respond in-kind (i.e., on-list,
no wish to put anyone down).
If you, "Sue Shar Pei", really believe that my self-found Early
Cretaceous dinosaur, pterosaur, and other tracks are not real or
significant, WHY DON'T YOU ATTACK THE TRACKS, instead of me.
In the first case, you use the prejudicial description of me as
"collector", when those who know me best realize that I am merely curating
and documenting my many finds until such time as I can decide which natural
history museum should be their final repository. Furthermore, I never,
EVER, sell or give away anything (neither tracks, parts of tracks, nor
coprolites), despite repeated offers by several actual collectors to pay me
substantial sums for individual tracks.
As to your selected quote of Dr. Robert Bakker (his comparing what's in
my living room to a time machine), alright, someone that doesn't care for
his personality may dismiss that as hyperbole, but Bakker had a good look,
and he is a VERY OBSERVANT PERSON, too. He spent over six hours with us.
Those who visit my living room will certainly understand the appropriateness
of the comparison.
Why didn't you quote Dr. David Weishampel, a distinguished Johns Hopkins
scientist and a fine dinosaurologist indisputably un-inclined to hyperbole,
concerning my track finds? In that same article in THE SUN, June 4, 1998,
to which you make reference, the Baltimore reporter quotes him, "My jaw
dropped. After picking it up, I started looking at the things with a more
critical eye. I was astounded...We've got a couple of different kinds of
herbivores [based on distinct track types --RS] that we didn't know about
before. And, we may have a baby [Nodosaurian] ankylosaur...All these are
brand new and based on Ray's collection."
Dr. Robert Weems of the U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, had
good comments on my finds for Roylance (the reporter), too. He said of what
I've found, "There is nothing remotely comparable to it for the Cretaceous
anywhere in eastern North America".
Do you imply that these fine gentlemen are deceived -- that I have
somehow fooled them? Then why not come out and say so, that would be more
to the issue here if you could back up any such assertion. As a matter of
fact, I have taken Weishampel and Weems to one of my find sites. Pollen
samples collected in find-associated clays and sandstone during that trip
have been studied at USGS, and confirm the Early Cretaceous age of the
material. Five Ph.D.s from the Maryland Geological Survey had been TOTAL
SKEPTICS (as they soon admitted) until they visited my living room at Dr.
Peter Kranz's request. I had promised to take them to some of my find
sites, but after studying the tracks their spokesman said, "You don't need
to take us. We could take you to where you found these! We'd rather just
go to lunch."
Have you, like they, made any visits to study the ichnites I have found?
NO! Are you even experientially qualified to evaluate them, as are they?
I think there may be reason to doubt that you even have any interest in
doing so, and that your agenda -- however well motivated to your mind-set
and purposes -- could have an entirely different purpose than that your
missives seem to profess.
By the way, the Association for the Understanding of Man, which employed
me for many years as a research psychic, NEVER, EVER collected any money to
build the "Time Machine" to which you refer. I often cautioned persons that
the "Accelerator" was possibly an unconsciously contrivance of my mind.
That's the very reason why I have repeatedly told the newer organization in
Phoenix, Arizona, that promotes those psychic readings (against my advice,
incidentally), that they should not be soliciting funds to build, "The
possible bull-shit of my youthful unconscious". (I was 22 years of age when
that stuff 'came through' and I'm now 60.) Yet they continue to seek funds
for that purpose and have distributed printed literature which is even
misleading in relation to what the "readings" said on it.
But, let me bring this matter back to my Early Cretaceous dinosaur track
finds. While I have been disillusioned about the whole
'psychic-metaphysical' field and its followers, I in all sincerity think
that my track-finding ability is primarily due to my being an
extra-ordinarily careful observer of patterns (such as in stream bottoms)
AND maybe due also to some psychic ability (while realizing that the
phenomenon it as yet scientifically un-defined) -- whatever that is. I
inherited it from my maternal grandmother it seems. ;-) (but, seriously)
No apologies, no deep regrets.
My policy has always been to invite any and all respected dinosaur
researchers to examine what I have found (some with a bit of help from my
wife). More than one scientist is moving toward co-authorship of papers
with me. Sure, I'm just an amateur, but I'd be glad to demonstrate my
FINDING ability in competition with the best of dinosaurologists. It
doesn't take a Ph.D. At risk of sounding religious, my ability may be a
God-given gift, and so long as it serves to broaden our knowledge of the
Early Cretaceous fauna of Maryland, neither your 'revelation', hell, nor
high water (Well, maybe high water!) shall prevail against my contribution
to that worthy goal.
So "Sue", if you have something of SUBSTANCE that would serve to
disprove the reality of what I've found and its scientific significance,
then by all means PUBLISH IT ON THIS LIST! There are those who care.
Tracks are tangible, palpable, convenient to investigation and their
taphonomy may be deduced by study. If you have anything to say pertinent to
the REAL issue, say it. If not, this list is hardly the place for an
attack so intense as to make others than just myself wonder what your real
motivation could be. I know you haven't done any science on my Maryland
dinosaur track finds, or you would have asked to EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE in
preference to attacking its discoverer. You haven't done any science on me,
either, or you'd have at least interviewed me before making your allegedly
factual report. It is not even fair journalism.
My heart-felt thanks to Betty Cunninghan, Allan Edels, and Ron Buckley,
for their appropriate input into this during the time it has taken me to
"Sue"'s letters and respond.
Listers, please pardon this intrusion into personal matters. If you
have appropriate questions to which you sincerely seek answers about the
things which the two fore-mentioned letters have brought up, please post
them TO ME
PERSONALLY, and not to the list. I can't guarantee I can find time to
answer all inquiries as thoroughly as I'd do in person, but will try to show