[Aracelis]

Well, it is not should you, rather could you. And although as a general statement my concern for your beliefs are as you describe, the particular statement you made about flying off the world does have my "care".

Andrew, no one reads these threads beyond the first page but us. Nothing is ever accomplished. No one's mind has been changed. None of this matters. Haven't you wondered why so few scientists bother to post on FR anymore? They've either been run off by rude remarks, or they've figured out that the lot of you are career members of a forensics team. Either way, loads of hard evidence has been presented, which is gleefully ignored.

As far as figuring out why with the help of inter-atomic forces you don't fly off the world, look in any basic chemistry book.

[PatrickHenry]

... no one reads these threads beyond the first page but us.

Oh dear, how disappointing. I thought we were having such a tremendous impact on the lurkers.

[AndrewC]

As far as figuring out why with the help of inter-atomic forces you don't fly off the world, look in any basic chemistry book.

You don't have the answer. I do not recall any chemistry book covering flying off the earth.

Here is a simple experiment with some setup.

1. Chemical forces on a baseball from the ground at 5 feet are negligible. (axiomatic, however, you may dispute that)
2. Chemical forces on a baseball by the atmosphere are negligible in relation to the experiment. (same note as above)
3. Experiment --- Take one baseball and release it 5 feet off of the ground. Does it fly off of the world or does it come crashing to earth?

Your concern for the stampeded scientists is admirable, but this thread is about one who has been punished for thought and not for ability (at least that is the information presented so far). Read your own post -- You have made a comment that is not true, a personal "attack", in the sense of a red herring. On top of that, the team aspect of your charge is evident in your address list. "Hard" evidence is "hard" evidence to you, not necessarily to anyone else. If the evidence were "hard" H. rudolfensis would not be suspect as a separate species.