[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Burke Museum...John Rensberger

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 13:36:56 -0800 (PST) Rocky Barney
<barneysstone@yahoo.com> writes:

> Before everyone goes on a "witch hunt"
> at the Burke Museum,

It's not a witch hunt.  It is an attempt to get at the truth after 17
years of foot-dragging on the part of University of Washington's  Office
of Scholarly Integrity.  Other professionals, who were not associated
with the Burke, gossiped about the problem for years, but only Dr. Ward
officially complained).

> we should all ask
> ourselves, "What good can come from
> this"?  Discrediting Mr. Rensberger
> does no good for anyone,

Dr. Rensberger discredited himself.

> and
> could hurt the paleontological profession
> in general.

Then so be it.

> The collection of 45,000 fossils
> is very admirable on its own.

45,000 fossils, many of which have had their contextual information
purposely falsified, have no scientific value.  There is nothing
"admirable" about housing a collection of fossil junk.

> I realize
> some of the scientific value of the
> material may be lost,but probably
> could be remedied by simply going
> back to some of the students thay
> may have been on the digs and
> getting them to retrace their way
> back to the dig sites.

That is what is currently being done (in part).

> (If it is the
> real reason for the current uproar).
> Anyway...as I have been a commercial
> collector, I am probably somewhat
> biased.

Are you saying that you are "biased" in favor of the mislabeling of up to
45,000 museum fossils?  In what way does your commercial collector status
give you insight into this disaster?