2 years, 6 months ago
Does the Smithsonian have petrified wood samples from a Iran taken by Cornuke?
Quote
Smithsonian' tested some beams and confirmed they were petrified wood containing fossilised sea animals
End Quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searches_for_Noah%27s_Ark
Provide the Smithsonian statement on the fossiled sea animals
Smithsonian' tested some beams and confirmed they were petrified wood containing fossilised sea animals
End Quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searches_for_Noah%27s_Ark
Provide the Smithsonian statement on the fossiled sea animals
Separate topics with commas, or by pressing return. Use the delete or backspace key to edit or remove existing topics.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$1 Answer
Quote the whole sentence!
"One member of the team claimed that 'a Houston lab used by the Smithsonian' tested some beams and confirmed they were petrified wood containing fossilised sea animals,16 but the name of the laboratory was not given."
Even the claims by the hoaxsters did not say that the Smithsonian itself had anything to do with them.
"One member of the team claimed that 'a Houston lab used by the Smithsonian' tested some beams and confirmed they were petrified wood containing fossilised sea animals,16 but the name of the laboratory was not given."
Even the claims by the hoaxsters did not say that the Smithsonian itself had anything to do with them.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Read your own source! Read the whole sentence from which you cut and pasted the middle to make it look like the Smithsonian had done something. That's what annoys me most about your question. I don't see how you could have made that mistake without it being deliberate.
And about proving it a hoax, if I told you the Smithsonian had found the ruins of an ancient Greek temple in my backyard how would you prove it was a hoax? Nothing on the Smithsonian site will tell you. They have never heard of me. You have to have some evidence that there was not a hoax, and you don't. Not to mention the pure absurdity of the whole petrified ark story.
Because your misleading quote annoyed me. Not to mention the junk science question. As usual.
How is it unhelpful to point out that you, presumably not intentionally, made it seem as if the quote claimed that the very reputable Smithsonian had obtained and tested the samples when in reality the hoaxters only "claimed" to have submitted the samples to a lab "used by the Smithsonian"?
You seem to be doing your best to spread misinformation and bad science. It undoes the very purpose of Mahalo. It's a shame.
Your not annoyed at me, your annoyed at Bob Cornuke because you don't consider his work scholarly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searches_for_Noah%27s_Ark
Read Bob Cornuke claim, "Houston lab used by the Smithsonian' tested some beams and confirmed they were petrified wood containing fossilised sea animals"
We must assume Smithsonian performed the test, unless the Smithsonian specified stated "they did not".
I did, by implication. There is no reason to suppose the Smithsonian has any such items. But the helpfullness is that persons reading my answer will be better informed. Not you, of course.
Your answer did not help me.
The Smithsonian claimed to have tested material it considered to be beams of petrified wood. What I want is the research and results of that study.
Why did you answer this question?
This is surely deliberate dishonesty.
Here is the full sentence once again cut and pasted from your source:
--
One member of the team claimed that 'a Houston lab used by the Smithsonian' tested some beams and confirmed they were petrified wood containing fossilised sea animals,15 but the name of the laboratory was not given.
--
Notice that it is not the Smithsonian itself but an unamed lab supposedly used by the Smithsonian. By cutting and pasting (you can even see the second quote mark which is out of context) the middle of the sentence:
--
Quote
Smithsonian' tested some beams and confirmed they were petrified wood containing fossilised sea animals
End Quote
--
you deliberately give the impression that the Smithsonian tested the pieces when the sentence merely identifies a claim that a lab (unnamed and thus unconfirmable) did so.
Don't you understand yet? There was no study. It is a hoax you are reading about. The Smithsonian had nothing to do with it! There is no study to report on, no results, the story is just lies.
Did your rebuttal make a difference.
You didn't answer the question about evidence the ark.
I'm still not convinced with your answer.
You show me links that prove that it was hoax .