Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site bcsaic.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!pamp
From: pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: archeopteryx: THE PILTDOWN CHICKEN
Message-ID: <336@bcsaic.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 16-Oct-85 17:57:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: bcsaic.336
Posted: Wed Oct 16 17:57:52 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 19-Oct-85 03:35:30 EDT
References: <420@imsvax.UUCP> <880@gitpyr.UUCP>
Reply-To: pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha)
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle
Lines: 41
Summary: 

In article <880@gitpyr.UUCP> tynor@gitpyr.UUCP (Steve Tynor) writes:
>In article <420@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes:
>>At least one writer on net.origins has asked about the state of the 
>>archeopteryx these days.  An article by a Mr. Wm. Rusher appeared in the
>...
>>But now a group of modern investigators, including the very eminent cosmologist
>>Sir Fred Hoyle, have denounced archeopteryx as a fraud, presumably committed
>>by the late Dr. Haberlein.  Studying the Haberlein specimen in the British
>>Museum of Natural History, they claim to have discovered microscopic evidences
>>of hanky-panky, and charge that the famous early bird is simply a reptilian fossil decorated with imprints of chicken feathers.  Harking back to the famous 
>
>As I remember, more than one archeopteryx specimen has been found.  Can anyone
>confirm this?  If true, any hanky-panky in the Haberlein specimen could be
>checked... (or would you claim that this too is a fake, as Duane Gish claims
>all fossil remains of early man are?)
>
I know of at least 2 complete - maybe three specimens (that is full
skeletons and feather impressions. 

I would also like to note that the claims have not been even slightly
accepted. The comments made about the specimens would be highly unlikely
given the unusual type of limestone they are found in. It is a very fine
grained micritic limestone. It has such an even surface that it makes
an excellant base for printing lithographic prints -- hence its common
name of lithostone. To do what Sir Hoyle(who has little experience in
micro-petrology) claims was done would be quite a feat indeed.
Furthermore the claims he has are concerned with only the feathers --
yet there are several skeletal features that are transitionary that
are not mentioned. Having looked at the casts of these specimens
at the British museum, I find his claims still quite  nebulous.
I'd like to see some electron microscope work (AND some
micro-petrographic studies done first) these would show up differences
that would be much more difinitive.

I'm not convinced that a cosmologist could tell the difference
between different limestone types that occur naturally - let alone
if cement had been used. 

		P.M.Pincha-Wagener

a feat