Saturday, May 1, 2010

Pickering's taxa 6: Dilophosaurus breedorum

"Liassaurus" involves somewhat difficult decisions in regard to Sarcosaurus and the relationships of both taxa, so here's Dilophosaurus "breedorum" first.

Dilophosaurus Welles, 1970
D. wetherilli (Welles, 1954) Welles, 1970
= Megalosaurus wetherilli Welles, 1954
= Dilophosaurus "breedorum" Welles, 1995 vide Welles and Pickering, 1995
Hettangian, Early Jurassic
Silty Facies Member of Kayenta Formation, Arizona, US

Referred- (UCMP 77270; intended holotype of Dilophosaurus "breedorum") (~6.4 m; ~340 kg; robust adult) incomplete skull (619 mm), mandible (635 mm), anterior dentary, atlantal centrum (17 mm) plus axis (88 mm), incomplete third cervical vertebra (77 mm), fourth cervical vertebra (80 mm), fifth cervical vertebra (90 mm), sixth cervical vertebra (104 mm), seventh cervical vertebra (100 mm), eighth cervical vertebra, ninth cervical vertebra (82 mm), tenth cervical vertebra (92 mm), atlantal rib (295 mm), axial rib, seven cervical ribs, incomplete second dorsal vertebra (75 mm), partial third dorsal vertebra (86 mm), partial fourth dorsal vertebra (87 mm), fragmentary fifth dorsal vertebra, fragmentary sixth dorsal vertebra, partial seventh dorsal vertebra, partial eighth dorsal vertebra, partial ninth dorsal vertebra, partial tenth dorsal vertebra (97 mm), eleventh dorsal vertebra (92 mm), incomplete thirteenth dorsal vertebra (83 mm), second dorsal rib (370 mm), fifth dorsal rib (450 mm), sixth dorsal rib, seventh dorsal rib, tenth dorsal rib (280 mm), eleventh dorsal rib (280 mm), twelfth dorsal rib fragment, gastralial fragments, partial sacrum (78, 86, ?, ?, ? mm), sixth or seventh caudal centrum (87 mm), few caudal vertebrae, scapulocoracoid, radius (180 mm), incomplete ulna (215 mm), partial ilium fused to proximal pubis, distal pubis, fragmentary ischia, femur (590 mm), tibia (558 mm), proximal fibula, incomplete metatarsal I (~106 mm), metatarsal II (248 mm), pedal ungual II (70 mm), metatarsal III (300 mm), pedal ungual III (68 mm), metatarsal V (125 mm) (Welles, 1970)

Comments- The incomplete skeleton UCMP 77270 was discovered in 1964 which was initially mentioned by Welles (1970) as a larger specimen of Dilophosaurus wetherilli. This was the first specimen of the genus to preserve a nearly complete cranial crest, the bases of which had been preserved but unnoticed in the holotype. Welles later (1984) believed UCMP 77270 to be a new related genus of theropod based on undescribed differences in skull proportions, vertebrae and especially the femur. Gauthier (1986) retained the specimen in D. wetherilli and stated Welles had remarked on its trochanteric shelf in 1984, yet as Charig and Milner (1990) noted, Gauthier was mistaken and Welles never described the femur of the specimen. Rowe and Gauthier (1990) also referred it to D. wetherilli and incorrectly stated it was of similar ontogenetic stage as the holotype. Paul (1988) was not certain whether it was the same species or not, but noted the differences might be due to the same kind of dimorphism that coelophysids show. Welles wrote a description of UCMP 77270 in which he names it Dilophosaurus breedorum, which was eventually released by Pickering in 1995. This paper has controversial status, as it describes the only one of Pickering's taxa to be accepted as valid by another paleontologist (Olshevsky, DML online 1999). Olshevsky noted that the publication had no evidence of following ICZN Articles 8.1.2 and 8.1.3, but considered D. "breedorum" valid on the condition that Pickering could supply copies in response to orders. While I have received a copy from Pickering, he has refused to send them to several other workers or to archive them in public libraries. Thus Olshevsky's condition has been only partially met, and whether he still considers the species to be valid is unknown. Other workers such as Ford ( consider "breedorum" a nomen nudum. Incidentally, Olshevsky used the date 1999 for the "breedorum" paper and stated 1995 "must be a manuscript date, since the description was not published then and has only appeared through Pickering's efforts this year (1999)." I personally do not doubt Pickering printed the "breedorum" paper in 1995, though its distribution at that time is questionable. I provisionally accept the 1995 date here, though I also consider the taxon a nomen nudum under Article 8.1. Note that contra Olshevsky, if the "breedorum" paper is accepted as valid under the ICZN, "Newtonsaurus" and "Walkersaurus" from the comparative section would also be valid. In any case, "breedorum" was definitely used in Pickering's 1995 bibliographic work "Jurassic Park: Unauthorized Jewish Fractals in Philopatry" as a nomen nudum. In that work, the name is a label for a photograph of UCMP 77270's skull. Gay (2005) believed it was a specimen of D. wetherilli, feeling there is a "lack of significant morphological differences" and considered "breedorum" invalid, noting "uncertain validity of this name resulting from publication practices." Gay refers to two femora of differing lengths (575, 605 mm) and two tibiae (560, 585 mm), believing more than one individual might be involved, but Welles states only the right hindlimb is preserved. Tykoski (2005) used the specimen as an example of D. wetherilli in his thesis and concluded it was an adult (unlike the types and TMM 43646) using an ontogenetic analysis. He states "at the behest of Kevin Padian (pers. comm., April, 2003) I refrain from giving a description of the crest morphology in the skull of UCMP 77270", perhaps indicating Padian or someone else is working on a new description of this specimen. Tykoski also states the quadratojugal, quadrate, sacral centra, distal pubis and metatarsals are not present in the specimen, which may mean they were lost after Welles' description. However, he notes a fibula is present, which is not mentioned by Welles. Tykoski further states the cervical ribs of UCMP 77270 are not fused to their vertebrae, contra Welles and Pickering. Irmis (2007) referred it to D. wetherilli and noted it had closed dorsal and proximal caudal neurocentral sutures, unlike the holotype. Madsen and Welles (2000), Yates (2005), Sampson and Witmer (2007), Smith et al. (2007) and Carrano and Sampson (2008) all assigned it to D. wetherilli without comment.

UCMP 77270, intended holotype of Dilophosaurus "breedorum"- A skull; B braincase in ventrolateral view; C atlas and axis; D fifth cervical in lateral top, anterior left, posterior right and ventral bottom views; E sixth cervical; F ninth cervical in lateral, anterior and posterior views; G tenth cervical in lateral, ventrolateral, anterior and posterior views; H ninth, tenth and eleventh dorsals; I scapulocoracoid (all after Welles and Pickering, 1995; A, H and I modified).

Welles and Pickering diagnosed Dilophosaurus "breedorum" compared to D. wetherilli using several characters. Assessing their validity is made difficult by UCMP 77270 being older than the types (based on neurocentral fusion if nothing else) and some of Welles' (1984) description being based on casted features of the type patterned after Allosaurus. "Two, very thin, markedly developed parasagettal crests composed of the nasals + lacrimals + prefrontals" is also true in D. wetherilli, except that the participation of the prefrontals (on the medial surface) is uncertain due to UCMP 37302's crests being crushed together. Welles and Pickering later list the prefrontal participation as a separate autapomorphy. The dental formula only differs in having two more maxillary teeth and one less dentary tooth, which is usual individual variation in theropods. Welles and Pickering claim a separate postfrontal ossification is present in "breedorum", but state "the sutures are not obvious, and it could be absent or fused with the postorbital." Also they note the area in D. wetherilli is badly crushed, so this has little value as an apomorphy. The authors describe a deep groove along the posteroventral edge of the postorbital, which sounds similar to the condition in most megalosauroids (though I'm not sure if theirs also extends on to the posterior process). The quadratojugal has a posterolateral sulcus above the quadrate condyles and below the paraquadrate foramen. Both of these features are apparently different from the wetherilli holotype, but their significance is uncertain. Finally, Welles and Pickering state the cervical ribs are fused to their vertebrae (contra Tykoski), but this varies ontogenetically in "Megapnosaurus" kayentakatae anyway so would not be unexpected in an old Dilophosaurus individual. Being a Welles paper, most elements also include comparisons to their counterparts in D. wetherilli and other taxa. Most of these differences seem minor, though several support an adult stage of development- more elongate premaxilla, quadratojugal fused to quadrate, atlantal centrum and axial intercentrum fused to axis, deeper cervical pleurocoels, scapulocoracoid fusion, iliopubic fusion, trochanteric shelf present. Tykoski (2005) also noted other adult characters lacking in the holotype- various braincase and intersacral fusions, ilium fused to the sacrum, proximal femoral articular surfaces well developed, medial femoral epicondyle well developed, and an oblique ridge on the proximomedial fibula. Additionally, sacral central fusion was present as noted by Welles and Pickering. According to Tykoski, the interdental plates are unfused and tall in UCMP 77270 and TMM 43646, but that they are fused in UCMP 37302 and 37303. These differences cannot be explained by ontogeny and are not subject to individual variation in other taxa as far as I know. While they and some of the differences noted by Welles might suggest multiple species of Kayenta Dilophosaurus, other theropods known from large numbers of specimens (e.g. Allosaurus, Tyrannosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx) also show a high amount of morphological variation. I follow my recommendations for those taxa and only recognize a single species of Dilophosaurus, with UCMP 77270 simply being an older individual of D. wetherilli.
References- Welles, 1970. Dilophosaurus (Reptilia: Saurischia), a new name for a dinosaur. Journal of Paleontology. 44, 989.

Welles, 1984. Dilophosaurus wetherilli (Dinosauria, Theropoda): Osteology and comparisons. Palaeontographica Abteilung A. 185, 85-180.

Gauthier, 1986. Saurischian Monophyly and the Origin of Birds. Memoires of the California Academy of Sciences. 8, 1-55.

Paul, 1988. Predatory Dinosaurs of the World. Simon and Schuster, New York. A New York Academy of Sciences Book. 464 pp.

Charig and Milner, 1990. The systematic position of Baryonyx walkeri, in the light of Gauthier's reclassification of the Theropoda. in Carpenter and Currie (eds.). Dinosaur Systematics: Approaches and Perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 127-140.

Rowe and Gauthier, 1990. Ceratosauria. In Weishampel, Dodson and Osmolska (eds.). The Dinosauria. University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford. 151-168.

Pickering, 1995. Jurassic Park: Unauthorized Jewish Fractals in Philopatry. A Fractal Scaling in Dinosaurology Project, 2nd revised printing. Capitola, California. 478 pp.

Welles and Pickering, 1995. An extract from: Archosauromorpha: Cladistics and osteologies. A Fractal Scaling in Dinosaurology Project. 70 pp.

Olshevsky, DML online 1999.

Madsen and Welles, 2000. Ceratosaurus (Dinosauria, Theropoda) a revised osteology. Miscellaneous Publication 00-2, Utah Geological Survey. 80 pp.

Gay, 2005. Sexual dimorphism in the Early Jurassic theropod Dilophosaurus and a comparison with other related forms. In Carpenter (ed.). The Carnivorous Dinosaurs. Indiana University Press. 277-283.

Tykoski, 2005. Anatomy, ontogeny and phylogeny of coelophysoid theropods. PhD Dissertation. University of Texas at Austin. 553 pp.

Yates, 2005. A new theropod dinosaur from the Early Jurassic of South Africa and its implications for the early evolution of theropods. Palaeontologia Africana. 41, 105-122.

Mason, 2006. The thrill of the frill: Wear and tear demands restoration of a Dilophosaurus wetherilli skull, UCMP 77270. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 26(3), 96A.

Irmis, 2007. Axial skeleton ontogeny in the Parasuchia (Archosauria: Pseudosuchia) and its implications for ontogenetic determination in archosaurs. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 27(2), 350-361.

Sampson and Witmer, 2007. Craniofacial anatomy of Majungasaurus crenatissimus (Theropoda: Abelisauridae) from the Late Cretaceous of Madagascar. in Sampson and Krause (eds.). Majungasaurus crenatissimus (Theropoda: Abelisauridae) from the Late Cretaceous of Madagascar. SVP Memoir 8. 32-102.

Smith, Makovicky, Hammer and Currie, 2007. Osteology of Cryolophosaurus ellioti (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from the Early Jurassic of Antarctica and implications for early theropod evolution. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 151, 377-421.

Carrano and Sampson, 2008. The phylogeny of Ceratosauria (Dinosauria: Theropoda). Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 6, 183-236.


  1. Stephan Pickering / Chofetz Chayim ben-AvrahamMay 21, 2010 at 10:03 PM

    The taxon remains valid, in a durable accessible copy made available to you. As in other cases, without justification and without access to the specimens (which I examined at UCMP and have photographs of courtesy of Sam who was with me), you are quite mistaken in dismissing D. breedorum.
    Kol tuv uv'racha, Mickey.
    Stephan Pickering / Chofetz Chayim ben-Avraham
    The Dinosaur Fractals Project

  2. Stephan Pickering / Chofetz Chayim ben-AvrahamMay 22, 2010 at 10:20 AM

    As I have pointed out previously -- and this constitutes an on-the-record refutation/correction of your value judgements -- NONE of my taxa are nomina nuda. All were printed by me in durable, numerously identifical, obtainable (from me)copies. You have a set, e.g. According to ICZN, I have met all of the criteria under 8.1.3. Your continued use of 'nomina nuda' to dismiss them is an egregious error. Just because, as a matter of legal judgement, I have chosen not to deposit the entire mss. in a university library does NOT negate their validity. Merosaurus newmani, Dilophosaurus breedorum, my revision of Altispinax, Ceratosaurus willisobrienorum, Allosaurus whitei, Tyrannosaurus stanwinstorum -- all are valid taxa, with diagnoses, hypodigms, and stratigraphic data. NONE are nomina nuda. We may disagree on interpretations of the comparative osteologies, but this does not give you the right, under ICZN guidelines, of advancing false criteria. In fact, that you are making available to other researchers PDFs of all of these, which I cannot afford to do since the 24 August 2008 death of my wife Faline (who worked with me when I was with Sam Welles), is in itself a further fulfillment of ICZN 8.1.3 criteria.
    I would appreciate your posting a CORRECTION here and at your phylogeny database.
    Tzeth'a Leshalom Veshuvh'a Leshalom, Mickey. Go in peace & return in peace.
    STEPHAN PICKERING / Chofetz Chayim ben-Avraham
    Jewish Dinosaurologist
    The Dinosaur Fractals Project

  3. Stephan, you know you can create PDFs using free software offered by the government, right?

  4. As I said to you in my last email, I might end up consodering Allosaurus "whitei", Tyrannosaurus "stanwinstonorm" and Ceratosaurus "willisobrienorum" to be valid names due to the higher distribution of your publication describing them, though at least the first two are junior synonyms of other names in my opinion. However, my next update may not be for quite a while, which is a time table you do not have the priviledge to set. I'll also note it was in bad form to CC your comment above in an email to four separate newsgroups and two professionals. I've given your taxa more airtime and discussion here and on the Database than anyone else on the web, which some people have suggested was a mistake. Don't make me regret my decision. The professional thing to do would be to consider your objections noted, and leave it at that.

  5. Stephan Pickering / Chofetz Chayim ben-AvrahamMay 22, 2010 at 9:32 PM

    Shalom & erev tov, Mickey:
    I don't care what others think, Mickey, including 'Anonymous' and his ceteris paribus Jew-baiting racialism (he is, in my opinion, a posturing Blavatsky-like charlatan) (incidentally: I do not have the equipment to scan my publications to create PDFs, contra his idiotic assumptions)...However, I do care what YOU think, primarily because, yes, you have given my past efforts thorough examinations (even when I disagree), which I deeply appreciate. OK: I consider my objections noted, and am leaving it at that. I still consider Allosaurus whitei a valid species, but am awaiting to see if Greg Paul goes further into the specimens in question which I included in my hypodigm (of which I have photographs).
    Tzeth'a Leshalom VeShuvh'a Leshalom / Go in peace & return in peace, Mickey.
    STEPHAN PICKERING / Chofetz Chayim ben-Avraham
    The Dinosaur Fractals Project

  6. Pickering's 'taxa' are all nomina nuda. Every paleontologist from here to Timbuktu knows it. Even George and Tracy agree that they are nomina nuda.

    Setting aside Pickering's verbal diarrhea, it is clear that his chosen mode of publication does meet ICZN criteria. I think it's best that we forget about Pickering's names. Everybody else has.

  7. What the hell is Jew-baiting or racist about pointing out that the government has free software you can use to make PDFs?

  8. "incidentally: I do not have the equipment to scan my publications to create PDFs, contra his idiotic assumptions"

    That's not an idiotic assumption. Scanners are often freely available at public or university libraries.

    The NLM offers the MyMorph software that could be used to convert scanned pages to PDF, and there are several other freewares that do the same thing.

    Scanners are hardly expensive pieces of equipment, you can purchase a reasonably functional one for around $50. It's hard to imagine that you don't have access to a scanner through some other party (library, friends, etc).

    I'm actually curious what the active form of Mutanda Dinosaurologica looks like if it isn't already in electronic form. Perhaps some hideous grimoire with crayon scribbled pages taped to the back as Stephan reads new abstracts?

    It's easy to tell the difference between Stephan's work and that of professional researchers. You seldom see tangential rants about Jews in real paleontology papers. ;)

    Either way, I hope you continue posting Stephan. You are like a beautiful reverse Mel Gibson. Your comments always offer me something to chortle over as you insist you are carrying out science at the high table.

  9. while simultaneously crying that the entire world is biased against you for being Jewish rather than well realizing people might just not fucking be aware of your work because you refuse to play by the same rules that every other 'dinosaurologist' does and not because there's some massive anti-Semitic conspiracy against you and the legacy of Samuel Welles.

    You do your fucking research, you write the damn paper, you submit it to a journal for peer-review, it gets published, and then it's read by other researchers.

  10. Anonymous II here - We are surprised that no one has commented on Pickering's claim that he had dinner with Crichton. Pickering always claims that he is close friends with people after they're dead and can't deny the association.

    Speaking of that, all of the witnesses to his "publications" seem to be dead too, as are the names he has amateurishly tried to create on the cheap. Even if the names were valid in some universe, no one would use them.

    Where are all the professional paleontologist friends that Pickering made while being such a close friend with Welles?

  11. Shalom & erev tov:
    It is interesting that: 1) Anonymous I/II hide behind racialism, then act like puling children when corrected; 2) Tracy Ford's PaleoFile accepts ALL of my publications --Mickey received my remaining duplicates; the rest are listed with dates and paginations at PaleoFile; 3) all of my publications meet ICZN guidelines (which is why they are valid at PaleoFile); 4) Tim Weaselliams has NEVER published a solo scientific paper (serious ideas do not, it seems, occur to him), and has NEVER published on dinosaurs; he hides behind the M&M sandbox at DML, and behind fake mailing addresses. His latest effort is to hurl racist epithets at Tracy Ford, or to whimper that he is not addressed as 'Dr' (I would never dignify him with a titular appellation he never earned; there are strict guidelines against professional academic misconduct re: plagiarism).
    Ah, well, that is why scientific discussion at this forum was destroyed by TWeaselliams, QiLeong, Anonymous I/II...
    And: MUTANDA DINOSAUROLOGICA revisions are continuing.
    STEPHAN PICKERING / Chofetz Chayim ben-Avraham

  12. Come back when you have a published paper.


  13. Anonymous II here. What did Dr. Williams call aging-white-man Tracy Ford? Black, white, red, yellow? What Tracy Ford thinks about anything is of no consequence to the paleo community and his paleofiles are similarly unimportant. Mr. Pickering, you should know all about plagiarism since you practice it yourself.

    Your crude attempts at publishing will continue to be ignored.

  14. Ah, yes, Anonymous, who stamps his little feet in tantrums, witness 1 July...'Dr' Williams is a misnomer; he remains a deliberate, knowing, racist liar -- as you are. I tire of these endless wordgames you play. Your discussion of reality stops prudently before their parallelism becomes close enough to yield logical and probable conclusions...which, in your case, remains a cloud chamber.
    STEPHAN PICKERING / Chofetz Chayim ben-Avraham
    Published Jewish dinosaurologist
    The Dinosaur Fractals Project

  15. Come back when you have a published paper.

  16. I have published numerous papers of recognized dinosaur taxa. My advice for you:
    go to Tracy Ford's -- and peruse his vast website of taxa. Then, send to me your actual name, mailing address, and email address vs. hiding behind all of these petulant aliases (I know who you are).
    STEPHAN PICKERING / Chofetz Chayim ben-Avraham
    Published Jewish dinosaurologist
    The Dinosaur Fractals Project

  17. Apparently to Anony, I must be dead because I do have his publicatons (or a lot of them). And I take offense that my site Paleofile is 'What Tracy Ford thinks about anything is of no consequence to the paleo community and his paleofiles are similarly unimportant.'

    That site lists almost every published Paleozoic and Mesozoic tetrapod and Cenozoic Archosauromorph. You won't find another site anywhere on the WWW that does that. :)


  18. Hi Tracy, Note, Anonymity can be tricky, I never dismissed any of your contributions which are accessible for anyone with library or interlibrary loan access.

    Tracy lists at least two of your "papers" as 'private publications'. At any rate, recognized by who? Apparently not by the scientific community as a whole.

    I found 1 reference on Google Scholar to "Dilophosaurus breedorum" and that was dismissive (Gay, 2005).

    Aside from that, among your theropod taxa, I could not find a single other one mentioned among the scientific articles and abstracts indexed on that site.

    Among my large collection of papers, I have none of Pickering's, nor can I recall any recent or even as far as two decades which cites or mentions Pickering in the acknowledgments.

    As for Pickering, Anon. II isn't me, which I think he's been clear about by naming himself as Anonymous II. If you really know who I am, then you'll know I in fact have both published papers and presented abstracts, records of which are openly indexed and can be found online (if you know my name, just searching Google should turn up my university page with a list). Further, I have 2 papers in press and several fasttracked for submission so that will only grow larger in the next few months (and year, and so on). :-)

    I find it somewhat a slap in the face that you demand the same level of credibility as researchers who have submitted their work for the scrutiny of others when you are not willing to do so yourself. In fact, it seems for the most part that your work doesn't hold up to good scrutiny given Mr. Mortimer's commentary on this blog and the DML. I've submitted papers for review and gotten accepted papers, but I've also gotten papers rejected, so I know both sides of the coin.

    so as I said before, come back when you have a published paper.

    It wouldn't be hard. Take a portion of your work, perhaps one describing a new taxon, since that's what seems to leak online predominantly, clean it (the description) up to fit the guidelines recommended by a journal, such as JVP or Journal of Paleontology or any of the numerous journals out there. You could even target one of the smaller European journals which you might have an easier time getting into. :)

    I'm not getting paid either for writing papers and I am still writing and submitting them, FYI.

  19. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie

    PalArch's Journal of Vertebrate Palaeontology

    Acta Palaeontologica Polonica

    Tons more links here-

    Pick a journal. Write a manuscript that meets the guidelines. Submit it.

  20. Anonymous II here (I am not the person who is Anonymous). If Stephan Pickering ever submits a paper to a mainstream journal, it would be enlightening to read the comments from reviewers. If the paper's author and the reviewers were "anonymous", would he still claim anti-Semitism?

  21. That is indeed a good point, I don't think I have ever submitted a paper in which the reviewers revealed their identities.

  22. Anonymous ll here. Hopefully Stephan Pickering will donate the Samuel Welles material back to Berkeley, from whence it came, if he doesn't intend to do anything scientific with it. He's had it, what, 20 years now to no positive effect.

  23. Er... the material IS at the UCMP. Gay, Tykoski, Yates, etc. all examined it, as I noted above. All Pickering has of any of the taxa he's written about are photographs. There are plenty of real reasons to disparage him, there's no need to make any up.

  24. Anonymous 11 here. He's making all these claims over photographs? If he worked so closely with Welles, why doesn't he go to Berkeley and take a look at the real fossils?

  25. *sigh* I said all he HAS ARE photographs, not all he had were photographs. Pickering stated above in the comments that he did examine Dilophosaurus "breedorum" at the UCMP, which I have no reason to doubt.

  26. Anonymous 11 here. Pickering makes a lot of claims, most after the people involved are dead and can't refute them. Why doesn't he give Welles' papers (which I was referring to above) to someone who will do something worthwhile with them? He could donate those back to Berkeley (Mark Goodwin) along with his "photographs". And again, if he was a peer to Welles, where are his peers now at Berkeley?

  27. Pickering thinks - a many Jews do, that the world owes them....not only Jews have suffered, many others have suffered and are still suffering....stop hiding behind that and grow up

  28. @ Anonymous, Jew-baiting has no place here. you are only feeding Pickering's mania.

  29. pickering is a joke and a phony......

  30. pickering is a wannbe. Where the dino's jews lolllllllllll. I think he has no life , no woman and no friends...just his ghosts...

  31. welles and pickering what a joke...lets see the papers that a dr. from berkley wrote with a nobody from santa cruz. A poser and a phony who claims he's jewish and talks to ghosts.. I for one would love to see these "PAPERS"...that pickaphony wrote with dr. welles...