My conclusions are very different from Ed's. I claim that there is no evidence at all that any of his specimens are fossilized bone. None of the diagnostic anatomical features of human bone are present in any of the specimens Ed Conrad has shown. Ed claims to have 80000 specimens. He reasonably argues that they have been shattered and distorted in the process of petrification, but even so it should be possible to find a nearly complete bone that had broken into many pieces, and reconstruct it, especially since he claims this remarkable fossil bed contains even fossilized soft tissues.
Teeth are the hardest, densest part of the body, and among the most likely to be fossilized.
They are also complex in shape, unlikely to be mistaken for other geological features, and very useful in identifying the species. None of the histological features of bone are present in any of the specimens that have been examined. There are no Haversian systems visible in this specimen, despite Ed's fervent wishes. Most of his specimens are fragmentary and lack detail, so they require some kind of microstructural confirmation that they are indeed bone. Ed Conrad has presented no compelling anatomical or histological evidence that any of his specimens are fossilized bone of any kind.