| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Geology Forum » PSEUDOSCIENISTS, MEET AN HONEST SCIENTIST -- Man as...
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| ... |
 Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 2:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<
HONEST SCIENTIST IN ED CONRAD'S CORNER
<
< http://www.edconrad.com
Quote:
======================================
SUBMITTED BY LIN LIANGTAI OF TAIPEI, TAIWAN
<
An updated evaluation of a "Carboniferous human
calvarium fossil”
<
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/OldestHumanSkull.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/Calvarium5.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/Calvarium10.jpg
<
==================================<
Last update: May 4, 2008 (sixth edition)
<
(To view any photos or videos contained within, click on
http://groups.google.com.tw/group/mummy-dinosaur-carved-by-men/web/men-who-cut-mummy-dinosaurs
<
SUMMARY
<
The author has examined through microscopes more than 30 thin sections
cut From “rocks” that Mr. Ed Conrad discovered and sent to the author.
Without exception, they are all found to be fossils, including the
subject “calvarium fossil”. The object is a Carboniferous human
calvarium fossil for the following reasons:
<
(1) its computed-tomography images bear close resemlance to those of
calvarium;
<
(2) it contains fossilized osteocytes, Haversian canals, osteons, red
blood cells and various blood vessels in the specimens and thin
sections ;
<
(3) it contains remains of neurons and neuroglial cells that exist
only in the central nervous system;
<
(4) No other animal has an organ or body part that matches its
inner/outer shape and size;
<
(5) Its inner cavity has a capacity of at least 1,025 cc.;
Quote:
(6) It was found between coal veins near Mahanoy (City), Pennsylvania,
where geological structure has been dated to be around 300 million
years old.
<
Some of the fossil’s blood vessels have turned into coal, suggesting
it once existed in a coal region. In addition to the subject fossil,
there are at least two other pieces of evidence
for human existence in the Carboniferous age.
<
INTRODUCTION
<
A “calvarium fossil” (Fig. 1, Video 1, Video 2, Video 3, Video 4),
discovered between anthracite veins (Fig. 2-6, Fig. 2-7, Fig. 2-8,
Fig. 2-9) and owned by Mr. Ed Conrad of Shenandoah, Pennsylvania,
U.S.A., has been considered for over 25 years to be just a rock, while
its owner keeps maintaining that it is a Carboniferous human calvarium
fossil. This article attempts to evaluate the object by answering the
following questions n this article’s Discussion section:
<
1. Is it a fossil?
<
2. Is it a calvarium fossil?
<
3. Is it a human calvarium fossil?
<
4 Is it a Carboniferous human calvarium fossil?
<
5. Are there other evidences for human existence in the Carboniferous
age?
<
6.Was there high-technology civilization in the Carboniferous age?
<
7. Further discussion/Attempts to disprove myself
<
7-1 Couldn’t it be a rock?
<
-- 7-2 Couldn’t it be something other than a calvarium fossil?
<
-- 7-3 Couldn’t it be a non-human calvarium fossil?
<
-- 7-4 Couldn’t it be later than the Carboniferous age?
=====================================<
A calvarium is a skull without the lower jaw/the facial parts, whereas
cranium refers to skull bones that enclose the brain (Ref. 1). A
calvarium could contain degraded brain remains.
<
MATERIAL AND METHODS
<
Material A-1:
<
On the author’s request, the owner of the “fossil” cut a small
specimen from the object, took pictures of the spot where the specimen
was cut
<
(Fig. 2-2), and sent the specimen to the author by post.
<
The specimen arrived in the following conditions:
<
1. A chunk of “fossil” about 1.5 cm long, 1 cm wide, and 0.5 cm
thick.
<
2. Three small fragments that crumbled out of the above chunk when
the author took up the chunk to look at it for the first time. The
three fragments measure about 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.2 cm each.
<
3. Dozens of small grains, each measuring less than 0.2 cm in any
dimension.
<
Above three kinds of specimens were taken to the geology department of
National Taiwan University. They were made into three thin sections
(Thin Section 1, 2 and 3 respectively) in the following methods, which
involved no artificial staining of colors:
1. Thin section 1 (Fig. 4): Specimen 1 was cut for transverse and
longitudinal sections, which were then ground and mounted onto a glass
slide, namely thin section 1. One third of Specimen 1 was left from
the process of making the thin section (Fig. 5, Specimen 1 remnant).
<
2. Thin section 2 (Fig. 6): Fragments of Specimen 2 were cut, ground
and ounted onto a glass slide.
<
3. Thin section 3 (Fig. 7) : Small grains of Specimen 3 were placed in
a mold, glued firmly together, ground to a thickness of about 0.03 mm,
and then mounted onto a glass slide, namely thin section 3. This thin
ection was not covered with glass, but was coated with a thin layer of
wax n its top side.
<
Specimens 1, 2, 3, and thin sections 1, 2, 3 were viewed through a
stereo -microscope, a digital microscope (ref. 11), and a transmitted-
ligh microscope. The remnant from specimen 1 and thin section 3 were
also iewed with a scanning electron mircoscope (Hitachi model
S-3400N). The scanning electronic microscope also analysed the
remnant’s chemical
composition in a tiny spot (Fig. 8, EDS report). Besides the digital
microscope, a camera (Canon model EOS 350D) was used to capture images
from the stereo-microscope and the transmitted-light microscope.
<
MATERIAL A-2:
<
On March 17, 2008, Mr. Ed Conrad cut another specimen from the object
(Fig. 2-10) and sent it to the author (Fig. 2-11, Fig. 2-12). This
specimen measured roughly 5.5 cm X 4 cm X 3 cm. This specimen’s
original location n the “calvarium fossil” is visible in Video 1.
<
This specimen, named K2 (Fig. 2) by Mr. Conrad, was taken to the
geology department of National Taiwan University, where it was cut in
three different directions. Three thin sections were then obtained and
named here as SK2-1, SK2-2, SK2-3 (Fig. 3). The specimen and its three
thin sections were viewed with various microscopes, such as
stereomicroscope,
transmitted-light microscope, digital microscope, and Scanning
Electron Microscope (SEM). Their images were captured with the digital
microscope, SEM, and Canon camera Model EOS 350D.
<
Material B: the “calvarium fossil”
<
On March 28, 2008, the author had the “calvarium fossil” scanned by
the Computed Tomography system of Alberta Research Council in Canada.
The resulting computed-tomography videos are listed in Result A.
<
The author had also asked the owner of the “fossil” to measure the
object (Fig. 2-3) and got the following data:
<
Outer dimensions of the object: 22.8 cm (maximum length) by 17.8 cm
maximum width) by 13.3 cm (maximum height)
<
The owner advised the author that on the top side of the object,
there seems to be a 6-mm-thick coating of foreign substance. To be on
the safe side, the author subtracts twice
that thickness6mm x 2from the above outer length , outer width, and
subtracts 6 mm from its exterior maximum height. Hence, the following
figures are obtained and used for calculating its cranial capacity:
<
Outer dimensions: 21.6 cm (Length) by 16.6 cm (Width) by 12.7 cm
(Height) Inner cavity dimensions: 15.9 cm (maximum length) by 10.8 cm
(maximum width) by 11.4 cm (maximum depth/height), as measured by its
owner.
<
Based on the above data, the author calculated the cranial capacity of
the object as follows:
<
1. By Lee Pearson Formula, given by Williams et al (1995) and
Manjunath (2002b) (ref. 2):
<
For males: 0.000337 x (L-11) x (W-11) x (H-11) + 406.01
<
This formula uses outer dimensions, and those dimensions are expressed
in millimeters in this formula. So, the following calculation is done:
<
0.000337 x (216-11) x (166-11) x (127-11) + 406.01=1,648 cc
<
For females:
<
0.0004 x (L-11) x (W-11) x (H-11) + 206.60
<
Hence, the following calculation is done:
< 0.0004 x (216-11) x (166-11) x (127-11) + 206.60 =1,681 cc
<
Mean cranial capacity: (1648+1681) divided by 2 makes 1,665 cc.
<
As the gender of the “cranium” is unknown, only the mean figure
is considered here for convenience.
<
2. By Spheroid Formula, given by Manjunath (2002b, ref. 3)
<
0.5238 x length x width x height(depth)= cranial capacity
<
Above length, width, and depth are measurements of the cranial cavity
and expressed in centimeter.
<
Hence the calculation 0.5238x15.9x10.8x11.4=1,025 cc.
<
REULTS
<
A. Animated Computed Tomography images in all three planes
(horizontal, coronal, and sagittal planes) of the whole object are
contained mainly in the following videos: Video 1, Video 2, Video 3,
<
Video 4.
<
B. The EDS report (Fig. 8, Energy Disperse Spectrum report), done by
the scanning electronic microscope, reveals that the object consists
of oxygen (46% by atom number), carbon (30%), silica (14%), and small
quantities of Fe, Na, Mg, and Al.
<
C. SEM images of Specimen 1 remnant and thin section 3 reveal numerous
remains of bone cells (osteocytes, Fig. 1-0), blood vessels, and red
blood cells ( Fig. 9-1, Fig. 9-2, Fig. 9-3, Fig. 9-4, Fig. 9-5, Fig.
9-6, Fig. 9-7, Fig. 9- .
<
D. Various images of the object also show (1) branching blood vessel
remains (Fig. 1-0-0), Haversian canals and osteons (Fig. 1-1, Fig.
1-2, Fig. 1-3, Fig. 1-4, Fig. 1-5); (2) degraded remains of neurons,
neuroglial cells and nerve fibers (Fig. 10-1, Fig. 10-2, Fig. 10-3,
Fig. 10-4, Fig. 10-5, Fig. 10-6, Fig. 10-7, Fig. 10-8, Fig. 10-9); (3)
blood vessel’s transverse section remains (Fig. 11-1, Fig. 11-2, Fig.
11-3, Fig. 11-4, Fig. 11-5); (4) various fossilized
tissues (Fig. 12-1 to Fig. 12-6).
<
E. Specimen 1 is found to have at least three black areas. One such
black area shows brilliant black vitreous luster under naked eyes and
microscopes (Fig. 5).SEM and light microscopies reveal that the shiny
black area contains arbonized blood vessels and erythrocytes (figures
9-4 to 9-.
<
F. The estimated cranial capacity of the “calvarium” ranges from 1,025
cc to 1,665 cc as calculated in the preceding paragraph.
<
DISCUSSION
<
1. Is it a fossil?
<
Yes. Its computed-tomography images (Video 4) don’t look like any
rock. No rocks or plants contain all at the same time the remains of
neurons, mly-chosen, freshly-cut thin sections, not from re-worked/
contaminated tissues. Their colors are not artificially stained.
<
2. Is it a calvarium fossil?
<
Yes. Its computed-tomography images bear close resemblance to those f
a calvarium on the organ level (Video 4). On the cell level, it
contains remains of osteocytes, neurons, and glial cells as listed in
Results C and D Those remains point to a calvarium fossil that once
contained brain tissue. No other animal organs or body parts have
inner/outer sizes and shapes similar to this fossil’s shapes and sizes
(Fig. 1).
<
3. Is it a human calvarium fossil?
<
Yes. Its cranial capacity of at least 1,025 cc is surpassed only by
cetaceans, walrus, elephants, and/or dinosaurs (ref. 4). However,
those four kinds of animal have no crania/organs that match the
subject fossil in cranial shape and size. As each order of animal has
a different shaped skull (ref. 5), the subject calvarium fossil can be
identified as a human calvarium fossil by forensic experts on human
skulls. One such expert is Mr. Wilton Krogman. He
had physically examined the calvarium fossil. His broad smile in the
photo (Fig. 1) says that he confirmed it was a human calvarium
fossil.
<
The calvarium fossil matches humans’ cranial size, cranial capacity
and cranial shape in the following ways:
<
3-1 Cranial size (outer dimensions):
< Neanderthal: 24.1cm (length) x 14.6 cm (width) x
17.8 cm (height) (ref. 6)
< Subject fossil: 21.6 cm (length) x 16.6 cm (width) x
12.7 cm (height)
Quote:
3-2 Cranial capacity:
<
< Neanderthal: 1,750 cc (ref. 7)
<
< Modern Human: 1,350-1,400 cc (ref.
<
< Java man: 940 cc (Homo Erectus, Trinil 2, Pithecanthropus
I, ref. 9)
<
< Subject fossil: at least 1,025 cc (by Spheroid Formula)
<
By the Lee Pearson Formula, the subject fossil has a cranial capacity
of 1,665 cc. The vast difference between 1,665 cc and 1,025 cc may be
due to the following factors:
<
A. The Lee Pearson Formula uses the skull cap’s outer dimensions,
while the Spheroid Formula uses its inner dimensions. In this case,
the calvarium’s inner width is only 60% of its outer width, because
the fossil retains brain remains in its inner cavity (See the bottom
view of the fossil in Fig. 1).
As a result, the Lee Pearson Formula produces the result of 1,665
c.c. while the Spheroid Formula produces the result of only 1,025
c.c;
<
B. The calvarium was broken in the facial part;
<
3-3 Cranial shape:
<
< Human: well-rounded cranium (ref. 10)
<
< Java man: flat, very thick cranium (Homo Erectus, Trinil
2, Pithecanthropus
I) (Fig. 2-1 & ref. 9)
<
< Subject fossil: More rounded than the above Java man
(Fig. 1 vs. Fig. 2-1)
<
< The above analysis shows the subject fossil matches human skull
caps in cranial size, cranial capacity, and cranial shape.
<
4. Is it a Carboniferous human calvarium fossil?
<
My judgment says yes. For over 27 years, its owner has attested many
times that all his fossils were found between coal veins near
Shenandoah/ Mahanoy (City), Pennsylvania (Fig. 2-6, Fig. 2-7, Fig.
2-8,
<
Fig. 2-9). That is in the anthracite region, the only one in the U.S.
proper. It’s in a most-studied geological area of the Carboniferous
age. That is to say animal fossils found there should have lived there
in the Carboniferous age. The owner’s
attestation is mirrored in Specimen 1 remnant. Under naked eyes and
transmitted-light microscopes, the specimen looks black and shiny in
some areas (Fig. 5). Under SEM and a digital microscope (ref. 11), the
shiny black area of Specimen 1 revealed its blood vessels that have
carbonized into coal
(Fig. 9-5). The shiny black color is a sign of vitraina thin, bright,
horizontal band in bituminous coal that usually breaks with a
conchoidal fracture. The fossil’s black and shiny look suggests its
origin in a coal region.
<
Its owner has two other fossils that are also coalified. One such
fossil is a coalified adze handle (Fig. 14). Another is a fossilized
small toe complete with skin tissue, finger nail, tendon,ligaments,
and the middle phalanx (Fig. 15-1, Fig. 15-2, Fig. 15-3, Video 15-4,
Fig. 15-5). The mummified toe fossil shows signs of carbonization on
the toe tip’s bottom side (Fig. 16). Before Mr. Conrad found the
subject calvarium fossil, he had discovered many “fossils” at the same
place. Why would he discover the subject fossil anywhere else when
many more of such
“fossils”, are still exposed out there, outcropping from the big
boulders in the region (Fig. 17-1, Fig. 17-2) ? Such outcropping
fossils include another mummified skull fossil (Fig. 2-13).
<
Mr. Conrad’s fossils include unimaginable fossilized organs such as
human liver, human finger, human long bone, mammalian limbs, etc.
(Fig. 18-1, Fig. 15-1, Fig. 18-2, Fig. 18-3, Fig. 18-4, Fig. 18-5).
This fossil brings up many questions to current theories about human
origins. If we avoid them, we are only fooling ourselves. If we face
them, they will bring us new
horizons for human civilization.
<
5. Are there other evidences for human existence in the
Carboniferous age?
<
Certainly. They are all shown in my albums ( here ).
<
Two other pieces of evidence for human existence in the Carboniferous
age include: (1) A human cerebral hemisphere fossil (Video 5, Video
6) and (2) A human toe fossil (Fig. 15-1, Video 7, Video .
<
6. Was there high-tech civilization in the Carboniferous age?
<
Modern humans took no more than 8,000 years to develop from low-tech
society to high-tech society. I have written about similar subjects in
Gogle’s talk.origins newsgroup.
<
7. Further Discussion/Attempts to disprove myself
<
< 7-1
<
< Couldn’t it be a rock?
<
< Its CT images (Video 9, Video 10) don’t resemble any rock.
<
Besides my pictures, there are pictures by Mr. Andrew MacRae, Mr. PZ
Myers and Mr. Ed Conrad on the internet. Their pictures “also” show
Haversian canals and osteons, which are distinguishing features of
fossil bone micro-structures
(Fig. 20-4, Fig. 20-5, Fig. 20-6).
<
Few rocks have a shape and size that fully matches human skull
interior and exterior. To put it simply, there has never been a rock
that resembles a human skull cap from the organ level ( showing
cranial cavity), through the tissue level ( showing Haversian canals,
osteons, branching blood vessels), down to the cell
level (showing remains of bone cells, red blood cells, neuroglial
cells and neurons).
<
More than twenty of Mr. Conrad’s “rocks” (see here) contain remains of
red blood cells. Making no exception, the subject fossil contains all
the above-mentioned features in natural condition/position. Most of
them are found where they should be.
I have cut more than 30 thin sections from the “rocks” and taken more
than one thousand microscopic pictures of the twenty fossils the
owner has sent me.
<
Most of the jagged minerals found in the fossils are found trapped in
degraded organic tissues such as blood vessels. These degraded blood
vessels could not have gone into rocks/minerals, begun the
fossilization process there and still
remained jointed in natural posture. The minerals were not found in a
continuous formation, but the organic tissues/organs were found in a
continuous formation, retaining their original outer shapes (of small
toe, calvarium, handle, liver, etc.)
and cell structures.
<
Plant fossils are characterized by regular radial wood structures
(year rings, rays, tracheids, etc.) in their transverse sections.
Animal fossils are very complex in transverse section. The subject
fossil shows complexity and its cell remains are too large to be fungi
or bacteria. There is simply not a rock that contains
numerous look-alikes of neurons, neuroglial cells, osteocytes,
osteons, Haversian canals, red blood cells, blood vessels, and match
the human skull caps in size and shape, all at the same time.
<
7-2
<
Couldn’t it be something other than a calvarium fossil?
<
Large calvarium is a very different organ from all other animal
organs. Video 4 contains images resembling a calvarium’s temporal line
and cranial sutures.
<
The subject fossil has a deep, wide inner cavity that roughly
matches the fossil’s outer shape and size. Its large size and
distinct shape cannot be found in any organs or body parts other than
skulls. It contains degraded remains of neurons and neuroglial cells,
which are not found in any organ
except in brains/spinal cords.
<
Those degraded neurons and glias could only have come from a
calvarium, because the subject fossil does not look like a vertebra at
all. It is unlikely for many bone cells, neurons, neuroglial cells,
and blood vessels to leave a skull, get into another skull, and get
preserved there in continuous formation.
<
7-3
Couldn’t it be a non-human calvarium?
<
All crania have different, distinctive shapes among different orders
of animal
(ref. 5). The author has compared the fossil with various animal
skulls and found
only human skulls matched the fossil. The No. 1 distinction of human
skulls lies
in their large cranial capacity. No other animal has a skull that
remotely matches
human skulls in cranial capacity, cranial shape and cranial size.
<
7-4
<
Couldn’t it be later than the Carboniferous age?
<
I cannot believe that Mr. Conrad found his fossils in a foreign
country
or even in another state, as hundreds of such fossils have been found
there
and many fossils were still outcropping there. Such outcropping
“fossils”
include a “mummified skull fossil” that is still embedded in a
boulder
weighing over 250 kilograms (Fig. 2-13). Why would he lie about their
place
of origin when he cared most about hundreds of “rocks’” being
recognized
as fossils? When his rocks have been demonstrated to be fossils, that
means he was right all along, including the fossils’ place of origin.
<
Even if it were not from the Carboniferous age, it would still be the
oldest
human skull cap in the world, as its original blood vessels have
carbonized
into shiny bituminous coal/anthracite (Fig. 5). Bituminous coal found
east
of the Rocky Mountain in the U.S.A. is at least ten million years
old. No other
human skull cap has ever been found to be so old in the whole world.
<
CONCLUSION
<
The author has examined through microscopes more than 30 thin
sections
cut from “rocks” that Mr. Ed Conrad discovered and sent to the author.
Without exception, they are all found to be fossils, including the
subject
“calvarium fossil”. The object is a Carboniferous human calvarium
fossil
for the following reasons:
<
(1) its computed-tomography images bear close resemlance to those of
a calvarium; (2) it contains fossilized osteocytes, Haversian canals,
osteons,
red blood cells and various blood vessels in the specimens and thin
sections ;
(3) it contains remains of neurons and neuroglial cells that exist
only in the
central nervous system; (4) No other animal has an organ or body part
that
matches its inner/outer shape and size; (5) Its inner cavity has a
capacity
of at least 1,025 cc.; (6) It was found between coal veins near
Mahanoy, (City).
Pennsylvania, where geological structure has been dated to be around
300
million years old. Some of the fossil’s blood vessels have turned into
coal,
suggesting it once existed in a coal region. In addition to the
subject fossil,
there are at least two other pieces of evidence for human existence in
the Carboniferous age.
+
REFERENCESr
<
Ref. 1: Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull
<
Ref. 2: “Estimation of Cranial Volume in Dissecting Room Cadavers”
by K.Y. Manjunath, J. Anat. Soc. India 51(2) pp.168-172 (2002)
<
Ref. 3: Same as ref. 2.
<
Ref. 4: Brain Facts and Figures in an article at URL:
<
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html
<
Ref. 5: On-line article at URL: http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bex/31..pdf
<
< (Page 4 of a teaching plan for grade three of primary
schools)
<
Ref. 6: On-line material at URL: http://www.boneclones.com/BH-019.htm
<
Ref. 7: Neanderthal physical traits in a Wikipedia article at URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal (See anatomy section)
<
Ref. 8: Same as ref. 4.
<
Ref. 9: On-line article at URL: www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/java.html
<
Ref. 10: Same as ref. 9.
<
Ref. 11: Digital microscopeDino-Lite AM-313T5 made by AnMo
Electronics Corp. http://www.anmo.com.tw/
<
========<
Quote: 100 LARGEST NEWSPAPERS IN U.S.
Rank Circulation
1. USA Today (Arlington, Va.) 2,154,539
2. Wall Street Journal (NY N.Y.) 2,091,062
3. Times (New York, N.Y.) 1,118,565
4. Times (Los Angeles) 914,584
5. Post (Washington, DC) 732,872
6. Daily News (New York, N.Y.) 729,124
7. Tribune (Chicago) 680,879
8. Post (New York, N.Y.) 652,426
9. Newsday (Long Island, N.Y.) 580,069
10. Chronicle (Houston) 553,018
11. Chronicle (San Francisco) 512,640
12. Morning News (Dallas) 510,133
13. Sun-Times (Chicago) 481,798
14 Globe (Boston) 450,538
15. Arizona Republic (Phoenix) 432,284
16. Star-Ledger (Newark, N.J.) 408,672
17. Star Tribune (Minneapolis) 380,354
18. Inquirer (Philadelphia) 376,493
19. Journal-Constitution (Atlanta) 371,853
20. Plain Dealer (Cleveland) 365,288
21. Free Press (Detroit) 352,714
22. Oregonian (Portland) 342,789
23. Times (St. Petersburg, Fla.) 334,742
24. Union-Tribune (San Diego) 328,531
25. Herald (Miami) 315,850
26. Register Orange County CA 302,864
27. Sun (Baltimore) 301,186
28. Bee (Sacramento, Calif.) 289,905
29. Post (Denver) 288,937
30. Rocky Mtn. News Denver 288,889
31. Post-Dispatch (St. Louis) 285,869
32. Mercury News San Jose CA 271,997
33. Star (Kansas City, Mo.) 267,273
34. Sentinel (Orlando, Fla.) 257,222
35. Times-Picayune N Orleans 253,610
36. Dispatch (Columbus, Ohio) 252,564
37. Star (Indianapolis) 249,891
38. Journal Sentinel Milwaukee 244,288
39. Post-Gazette Pittsburgh Pa 242,546
40. Herald (Boston) 241,457
41. Sun-Sentinel (Ft L'dale, Fla ) 233,634
42. Times (Seattle) 231,505
43. News (Detroit) 227,392
44. Observer (Charlotte, N.C.) 226,849
45. Tribune (Tampa, Fla.) 224,220
46. Express-News S Antonio Tx 222,536
47. Investor's Business Daily LA 215,788
48. Star-Telegram Ft Worth, TX) 215,452
49. Courier-Journal L'ville Ky 213,176
50. News (Buffalo, N.Y.) 207,989
51. Daily Oklahoman Okla City 207,538
52. Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk, Va.) 201,141
53. World-Herald Omaha Neb. 192,075
54. Pioneer Press(St Pau, Minn 190,392
55. Times-Dispatch Richmond 188,540
56. Courant (Hartford, Conn.) 185,570
57. Press-Enterprise R'side CA 183,974
58. Democrat-Gazette (L'l Rock 183,343
59. American-Statesman Austin 183,312
60. Contra Costa Times (Calif.) 182,541
61. Enquirer (Cincinnati) 182,176
62. Record (Bergen County, N.J.) 179,270
63. Daily News (Los Angeles) 178,360
64. Democrat (Rochester, N.Y.) 173,900
65. Tennessean (Nashville) 172,149
66. Post (W. Palm Beach, Fla.) 168,147
67. Times-Union(Jacksonville Fla 167,851
68. Journal (Providence, R.I.) 167,609
69. Asbury Park Press (N.J.) 167,284
70. News & Observer Raleigh NC 163,769
71. Review-Journal (Las Vegas) 160,391
72. Bee (Fresno, Calif.) 158,651
73. Commercial Appeal Memphis 157,820
74. Register (Des Moines, Iowa) 150,851
75. Post-Intelligencer (Seattle) 150,851
76. Daily Herald (Chicago) 150,364
77. News (Birmingham, Ala.) 148,938
78. Daily News (Philadelphia) 143,631
79. Journal News Westchester NY) 142,873
80. Advertiser (Honolulu) 142,025
81. Blade (Toledo, Ohio) 139,520
82. World (Tulsa, Okla.) 139,383
83. Press (Grand Rapids, Mich.) 138,620
84. Tribune (Salt Lake City) 134,985
85. Beacon Journal (Akron, Ohio 128,511
86. News Tribune Tacoma Wash .128,511
87. Daily News (Dayton, Ohio) 126,642
88. La Opinion Los Angeles Calif 124,692
89. Post-Standard Syracuse, N.Y. 120,701
90. Tribune-Review (Greensburg Pa) 119,646
91. News Journal (Wilmington, Del. ) 116,398
92. News-Sentinel (Knoxville, Tenn.) 114,593
93. State (Columbia, S.C.) 114,442
94. Morning Call (Allentown, Pa.) 111,594
95. Journal (Albuquerque) 109,693
96. Herald-Leader (Lexington, Ky.) 106,941
97. Herald-Tribune (Sarasota, Fla.) 105,636
98. News-Journal (Daytona Fla.) 104,654
99. Telegram (Worcester MA) 102,592
100. Times (Washington, DC) 102,255
<
Quote: WORLD'S LARGEST NEWSPAPERS
Rank Country Circulation
1. Yomiuri Shimbun (Japan) 14,532,694
2. Asahi Shimbun (Japan) 12,601,375
3. Sichuan Ribao (China) 8,000,000
4. Mainichi Shimbun (Japan) 5,845,857
5. Bild (Germany) 5,674,400
6. Chunichi Shimbun (Japan) 4,323,144
7. Sun (England) 3,718,354
8. Renmin Ribao (China) 3,000,000
9. Sankei Shimbun (Japan) 2,890,835
10. Nihon Keizai Shimbun Japan 2,705,877
11. Gongren Ribao (China) 2,500,000
12. Daily Mail (England) 2,387,867
13. Daily Mirror (England) 2,339,001
14. Chosun Ilbo (South Korea) 2,225,000
15. Dong-A Ilbo (South Korea) 2,150,000
16. Hokkaido Shimbun (Japan) 1,962,666
17. Eleftherotypia (Greece) 1,858,316
18. Xin Min Wan Bao (China) 1,750,000
19. Wall Street Journal (U.S.) 1,740,450
20. Yangcheng Wanbao China 1,730,000
21. Kerala Kaumudi (India) 1,720,000
22. Wen Hui Bao Daily (China 1,700,000
23. USA Today (United States) 1,653,428
24. Joong-Ang Ilbo (S. Korea) 1,550,000
25. Economic Daily (China) 1,500,000
26. Rodong Sinmun (N. Korea) 1,500,000
27. Kyung-Hyang Daily News 1,478,537
28. Sports Nippon (Japan) 1,452,699
29. Shizuoka Shimbun (Japan)) 1,442,310
30. Sankei Sports (Japan) 1,367,734
31. Deutche Allgemeine Germ 1,313,400
32. United Daily News (Taiwan ) 1,300,000
33. China Times (Taiwan) 1,270,000
34. O Estado de Sao Paulo Brazil) 1,230,160
35. Jang Daily (Pakistan) 1,200,000
36. Jang Lahore (Pakistan) 1,200,000
37. Akhbar El Yom/Al Akhbar (Egypt) 1,159,339
38. Hankook Ilbo (South Korea) 1,156,000
39. Hochi Shimbun (Japan) 1,119,031
40. Daily Express (England) 1,118,981
41. Los Angeles Times (U.S.) 1,067,540
42. New York Times (U>S) 1,066,540
43. Tokyo Shimbun (Japan 1,062,080
44. Daily Telegraph (England) 1,047,861
45. Nishinippon Shimbun Japan 1,041,104
46. Jiefang Ribao (China) 1,000,000
47. Nanfang Ribao (China) 1,000,000
48. Nongmin Ribao (China) 1,000,000
49. Zhongguo Qingnian Ribao (China) 1,000,000
50. Nikkan Sports (Japan) 984,058
51. Al Akhbar (Egypt) 980,000
52. Guangming Ribao (China) 950,000
53. Al Ahram (Egypt) 900,000
54. Al Goumhouriya (Egypt) 900,000
55. Seoul Shinmun (S. Korea) 900,000
56. Xin Hua Ribao (China) 900,000
57. Verdens Gang (Norway) 870,267
58. Corriere della Sera (Italy) 868,266
59. Kyoto Shimbun (Japan) 839,499
60. Chugoku Shimbun (Japan) 820,000
61 Kobe Shimbun Japan 820,000
62. Times of India (India) 813,000
63. Kobe Shimbun (Japan) 810,353
64. Beijing Wanbao (China) 800,000
65. Hubei Ribao (China) 800,000
66. Jiefangjun Ribao (China) 800,000
67. Trybuna Slaska (Poland) 800,000
68. La Gazzetta dello Sport Italy 798,243
69. Ouest-France (France) 790,133
70. Holos Ukrainy (Ukraine) 768,000
71. The Times (England) 766,999
72. ABC (Spain) 765,668
73. Washington Post (U.SSS>) 759,122
74. La Repubblica (Italy) 754,930
75. De Telegraf (Netherlands) 751,400
76. Gazeta Wyborcza (Poland) 750,000
77. Zero Hora (Brazil) 727,188
78. Diario dos Campos (Brazil) 725,000
79. New York Daily News (U.S.) 723,143
80. Sabah (Turkey) 722,950
81. Jornal da Tarde (Brazil) 709,793
82. Beijing Ribao (China) 700,000
83. Chongqing Ribao (China) 700,000
84. Clarin (Argentina) 700,000
85. Thai Rath (Thailand 700,000
86. Zhejiang Ribao (China) 700,000
87. Diario Insular (Portugal) 684,143
88. Granma Internacional (Cuba) 675,000
89. Chicago Tribune (U.S>) 673,508
90. Daily Record (Scotland) 671,267
91. China Daily News (Taiwan) 670,000
92. The Daily Star (England) 650,406
93. Guangxi Ribao (China) 650,000
94. Malayala Manorama (India) 630,068
95. La Nacion (Argentina) 630,000
96. Hurriyet (Turkey) 615,579
97. Herald Sun (Australia) 600,000
98. Hurriyet (Pakistan) 600,000
99. Liaoning Ribao (China) 600,000
100. Oriental Daily News (Hong Kong) 600,000
< |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat May 17, 2008 2:11 am
|
|
