The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Historical insights & thoughts about the world we live in - and the social conditioning exerted upon us by past and current propaganda.

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Postby ICfreely on October 6th, 2015, 10:45 pm

Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis


We may finally have an answer to what killed dinosaurs
Oct 2nd 2015 4:25PM

The debate over what killed the dinosaurs, while thankfully giving rise to many Hollywood blockbusters, has often seemed intractable.

Scientists just couldn't agree on whether it was volcanoes or an asteroid impact that killed nearly three-quarters of the world's plant and animal life—but maybe both theories are right.

Researchers from UC Berkeley believe they worked in tandem to kill the dinosaurs; that the asteroid or comet impact intensified already happening—and maybe even ignited new—volcanic eruptions worldwide.

Writing in the journal Science, geologists determined the Deccan Traps lava flows in India doubled the amount of lava they produced within 50,000 years of the impact in Mexico—the one many attribute to ushering in the mass extinction event.

It's possible the Mexican impact could have resulted in something akin to a magnitude 11 earthquake. Even a magnitude 9 earthquake would have likely been felt across the globe.

According to the researchers, such an impact would have been so severe that it would have redirected volcanic flows along with changing their chemical content.

This would have likely produced a noxious and dusty aura around the Earth—inhibiting the recovery of ecosystems for around half a million years—until the volcanoes simmered down.

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/10/02/we-may-finally-have-an-answer-to-what-killed-dinosaurs/21244258/?cps=gravity_4816_8585120228999181486


Assumption Tally:
1 believe
1 many attribute
1 could have
2 maybes
4 would haves

Final Score: 9 (on a scale of 11 inverted pentagrams).

Screw the establishment. They’ve turned a blind eye to dinomorbidism so what do they know? I’ll never stop chasing my beloved MOBUS Theory!
Last edited by ICfreely on October 7th, 2015, 5:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 554
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Postby Selene on October 6th, 2015, 11:04 pm

ICfreely, this is actually a good way of phrasing paleontological and geological subjects.

The uncertainties in the sciences that study the history of this great planet are so enormous and biased at certain times in the geological history that "the perfect, definitive answer" cannot be given.

And that is just exactly one of the main arguments against the Global Warmongerers. They don't understand geological/climatological uncertainties but do understand propaganda, a fixed story, dramatisation and absolutism.

That Daily Disney Mail cum suis cling to fixed stories doesn't discredit the serious and often underpaid scientists working in this field.

Just like clowns like Kaku, Hawking or DeGrasse Tyson do discredit serious underfunded physicists.

Just how do you fake a rich fossil Lagerstätte with dinosaurs and other fossils (real, right? fossilisation does exist, or not?)? What is the "September Clue" against dinosaur species having existed and died out?

Deccan Traps are familiar terrain. Already since undergraduate uni I think this theory makes the most sense. There is no 1 answer in these sciences. That's a reality you have to (learn to) live with...
Selene
Member
 
Posts: 195
Joined: January 19th, 2015, 8:59 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Postby ICfreely on October 6th, 2015, 11:22 pm

Selene, blind faith & willful ignorance is the root of all evil. The road to hell is paved with the best intentions of the most 'educated' people. Maybe someday you'll get what I'm talking about.
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 554
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Postby Selene on October 6th, 2015, 11:27 pm

ICfreely wrote:Selene, blind faith & willful ignorance is the root of all evil. The road to hell is paved with the best intentions of the most 'educated' people. Maybe someday you'll get what I'm talking about.

The supposition that I'm blind does find no ground when reading what I write and thus think, ICfreely. In the same metaphore; it couldn't be that you started overcompensating and squinting? ;)

I have my eyes wide open and will report any faked fossil I come across.
Selene
Member
 
Posts: 195
Joined: January 19th, 2015, 8:59 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Postby ICfreely on October 6th, 2015, 11:41 pm

Then again, maybe you won't. :(
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 554
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Postby anonjedi2 on October 7th, 2015, 1:03 am

Selene,

Can you post a photo of what you believe to be a real dinosaur fossil (as large as possible, please)?

Thanks,

anonjedi2
anonjedi2
Member
 
Posts: 687
Joined: December 31st, 2012, 6:50 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Postby Selene on October 7th, 2015, 1:40 am

anonjedi2 wrote:Selene,

Can you post a photo of what you believe to be a real dinosaur fossil (as large as possible, please)?

Thanks,

anonjedi2


Anonjedi, "belief" finds no place in an intelligent reasonable rational (non-religious) [see topic title] debate.

I've been very open about my fields of expertise and dinosaurs is not one of them. The only thing I can do is just like you; go to ScienceDirect or any other way to get paleontological publications about dinosaurs.

I do not know people in the field, I do not defend anyone or have any agenda, so my position in this "search for the real dinosaur fossil" is even with yours.

Consider however that for the thesis "Dinosaurs are Hoax" all dinosaur fossils must be fake(d).

That requires that those paleontologists publishing those papers are either:
1 - completely stupid that they do not recognise handmade "fossils" from 66+ Ma old dinosaurs, ask no questions, raise no fingers and just keep pretending to uncover fake pasts
2 - all evil, lying, well-paid puppets, in on a monstruous conspiracy to propagandise the giant lizards that never existed. Imaginary beasts brought to you by y'er typical geologist, with his hammer and sample bag, strawling through the fields.

How reasonable does seem either of them?

In an area (and I can't stress that enough) different from NASA-controlled fantasies and IPCC-political lies (sorry for the pleonasm)...

You're free to check out these fossil sites. All fake? Why?? How? :wacko:
Selene
Member
 
Posts: 195
Joined: January 19th, 2015, 8:59 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Postby ICfreely on October 7th, 2015, 1:59 am

So let me get this straight Selene, are you saying, "All 'real' dinosaur remains are fossilized and many fossils are real therefore many (if not most) dinosaur fossils must be 'real.'? What about all the fossils that were found before the term 'dinosauria' was coined? Just because the idea of 'terrible lizards' was invented out of thin air doesn't make real fossils fake, does it?
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 554
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Postby Selene on October 7th, 2015, 2:12 am

ICfreely wrote:So let me get this straight Selene,

Please.
are you saying, "All 'real' dinosaur remains are fossilized


No of course not. The fossil record is by definition fragmented and time-biased.

and many fossils are real therefore many (if not most) dinosaur fossils must be 'real.'?


2 positions:
A - Dinosaurs were real, existed, died out, some were fossilised
B - Dinosaurs are fake(d), never existed, all 'so-called' remains are faked

right?

99% of all dinosaur fossils could be fake and still A is not disputed, right? In a reasonable atmosphere you'd have a statistical disadvantageous problem to defend but rationally does not prove A false.

For B to be true, all and everything needs to be faked. Now that's a different matter. How to explain fakery on a scale outsizing NASA, 9/11 and MSM combined? How does the logistics work of faking formations in Mongolian deserts.

Re: below;

Invented out of thin air? The biodiversity of present and past is heavily disputed? No, nowhere outside of this topic the idea is discussed. To some here that strengthens their conviction they are on the right track. Others have other views, mine is clear I hope.

What about all the fossils that were found before the term 'dinosauria' was coined? Just because the idea of 'terrible lizards' was invented out of thin air doesn't make real fossils fake, does it?
Selene
Member
 
Posts: 195
Joined: January 19th, 2015, 8:59 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Postby ICfreely on October 7th, 2015, 2:45 am

As clear as a white Russian I'm afraid. Just out of curiosity, do you support my MOBUS Theory? If so, why? If not, do you have a better theory? What's your take, specifically, on the Brontosaur, Ultrasaur and Seismosaur? Did they exist? If they were faked, why? What was our beloved planet's G-force (weak & strong)/atmospheric pressure at the time they existed? When/how did they 'come about/emerge'? When/how/why did they go extinct? Inquiries abound!
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 554
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Postby anonjedi2 on October 7th, 2015, 4:55 am

Selene,

Why can't fossils be real and just belong to other animals? Is it not within the realm of possibility that carbon/radioactive/whatever dating is a fraud and certain paleontologists just dreamed up the dinosaur out of other very real fossils? Are you aware there are only about 50,000 paleontologists in the world?
anonjedi2
Member
 
Posts: 687
Joined: December 31st, 2012, 6:50 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Postby ICfreely on October 7th, 2015, 5:34 am

Is it not within the realm of possibility that carbon/radioactive/whatever dating is a fraud…


Shudder the thought, anonjedi2! How dare you, Sir? Radiometric dating is based on a solid foundation of... decaying assumptions:

The Assumptions of Radiometric Dating
To recapitulate what has been said regarding the major assumptions on which the radiometric methods are based, we find:

1. It is assumed that the earth began as a spinning blob of hot liquid that cooled to form the original rock surface. It is further assumed that, because of the immense span of time during which erosion and rebuilding are believed to have taken place, none of the original crustal materials are now available for study.

2. It is assumed that the crystals that are selected for radiometric age determination have been formed either by growing from hot liquid, that is, igneous rock, or by metamorphosis. Metamorphosis is a process in which crystallization occurs in sedimentary rock and is believed to take place by sustained high pressure and possible high temperatures but without melting the rock.

3. Once the crystal has formed, it is assumed that it is a closed system, that is, no "parent" or "daughter" elements enter or leave the crystal lattice; the only change that takes place is assumed to be decay of the unstable "parent" with time and consequent increase of the stable "daughter" element.

4. When discordant results are obtained from processes operating within the same crystal, it is assumed that there has been loss or addition of the "daughter" product. That is, selective loss of either lead 206 or argon 40 is claimed when the sample appears too young and selective addition or contamination when it appears too old.

5. Contamination of the crystal during its formation by extraneous "daughter" elements has to be taken into account, and it is assumed that the various isotope ratios of the contaminating element were the same at the time of crystal formation as they are today.

6. It is assumed that the decay "constant", determined over a two-or three-day period and mathematically related to the rate of decay expressed as half-life, has remained unchanged throughout the entire age of the mineral sample.

Relevant to the first assumption, it is worth recalling that while Holmes (1956) has estimated the age of the earth to be 4.5 billion years, no terrestrial rocks of this age have ever been reported, since it is assumed that all the original crustal material had been eroded then redeposited as sedimentary rock. The oldest rocks on earth have a reported age of 3.8 billion years. However, it was realized that the moon would have crusted over at about the same time as the earth; since there is no wind or water to cause erosion, it was believed moon rocks would provide a direct radiometric age for the earth. Sure enough, after retrieval of the moon rock samples in the Apollo program, Holmes' estimation was claimed to be exactly confirmed, and the age of the earth confidently stated in the popular press[19] and textbooks[20] to be 4.5 billion years (Eldredge 1982, 104; Taylor 1975). However, the official reports and scientific journals, in which actual results of the radiometric determinations were given, showed that the ages of the moon-rock samples varied between 2 and 28 billion years (Whitcombe and DeYoung 1978).[21] Quite evidently, the data for public consumption had been selected to confirm the theory.

The last assumption (6) is, strictly speaking, an extrapolation of data on a huge scale, far beyond what is considered good practice under any other circumstance. We are reminded that the atomic decay is assumed to be at a constant rate, so that the data collected over a few days and checked infrequently during this century has been applied to billions of years. Some are beginning to question this whole line of thinking, and Professor Dudley, writing in 1975, has been particularly outspoken: [b]"These equations resulted initially from studies done with crude instruments some 70 years ago. Bluntly they are incorrect, nonetheless appear in our latest textbooks to compound the errors of past generations. This in spite of more recent evidence" [/b](Dudley 1975, 2).[22 ] At the root of this complaint is the constancy of the decay constant.
http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/TaylorIMMk11.htm#TaylorIMMkT_RadiomMethods


9 assumed, 1 believed to have taken place, 1 believed to take place by B)
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 554
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Postby Ataraxia on October 10th, 2015, 8:45 am

Selene wrote:For B to be true, all and everything needs to be faked. Now that's a different matter. How to explain fakery on a scale outsizing NASA, 9/11 and MSM combined? How does the logistics work of faking formations in Mongolian deserts.


Isn’t it possible that paleontologists enter into their field much the same way that climatologists study the climate? The basic principle behind modern environmental science is that humans cause climate change, thus all conclusions and models show that humans must cause climate change and there can be no other cause. Everything that is found solidifies that bias, i.e. the sun has no effect and does not even have a place (or forcing) in their models. In the same way, isn’t it possible that paleontologists begin with the belief that dinosaurs existed, and thus the bones they find subsequently prove that dinosaurs existed? Either or not you believe in these things, you’d maybe agree that this is a very unscientific and prejudiced way to approach a science.

Isn't it possible too that many of the grunt-level paleontologists are not going out of their way to purposely fake anything, they simply do their work and thus find what they expect to find. In climatalogy, only the tiniest minority of scientists at the very highest levels get to do the actual faking of temperature records and faking of studies and such, as Michael Mann is famously known to have done. All the other thousands of environmental scientists simply follow in line and repeat what they are taught.

Many people out there would argue all the sciences are suffering from these pre-conceived biases and beliefs. So how can we as regular people be certain paleontology is not prejudiced in the same ways? Sadly, we're just supposed to trust them and their appeals to authority on all these subjects, as even asking the questions leads to ostracism. Even though in kindergarten we're taught that there's no such thing as a stupid question, but they want us to believe the opposite. They actually want us to believe that we're stupid for asking the question.
Ataraxia
Member
 
Posts: 48
Joined: April 17th, 2015, 2:15 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Postby ProperGander on October 10th, 2015, 2:56 pm

Image

Saw this in person recently with the wife and kids. That artifice is more believable in photo than in real life. The thing is not even put together right. There are no hip joints, for example. Standing there looking at this massive model, I couldn't help but think that it would be a physical impossibility for such a creature to exist on land. This thing would not be able to move. I had watched a documentary about Da Vinci recently, the criticism of this genius was that his physical models of devices could not be scaled up to human usable size. Its easy to overlook the surrounding air and the thing we call gravity. The gaseous medium of our atmosphere do not scale when the model is scaled up. So, for example, a small model helicopter might fly just fine, but scale that design up to human size and it fails.
ProperGander
Member
 
Posts: 152
Joined: April 14th, 2015, 2:16 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Postby arc300 on October 11th, 2015, 9:57 am

ProperGander wrote:Image

Saw this in person recently with the wife and kids. That artifice is more believable in photo than in real life. The thing is not even put together right. There are no hip joints, for example. Standing there looking at this massive model, I couldn't help but think that it would be a physical impossibility for such a creature to exist on land. This thing would not be able to move. I had watched a documentary about Da Vinci recently, the criticism of this genius was that his physical models of devices could not be scaled up to human usable size. Its easy to overlook the surrounding air and the thing we call gravity. The gaseous medium of our atmosphere do not scale when the model is scaled up. So, for example, a small model helicopter might fly just fine, but scale that design up to human size and it fails.


I agree. The photo you provided shows the typical portrayal of a dinosaur. Massive neck and massive tail cantilevered off the central core. The weight of these massive appendages is not being supported by the skeletal structure in the same way that a much more vertically oriented giraffe's neck is. This would suggest that it is being supported by musculature; surely, an extremely tiring way to live your prehistoric life. Imagine a human spending his or her life walking around with their (much less massive) arms stretched out to the sides. It is do-able, but not for long.

It would be much more rational to assume that dinosaurs (assuming they were real) spent the vast majority of their lives dragging their weighty tails through the mud like this:
Image


If this assumption is correct, then shouldn't the vast majority of "dinosaur tracks" look more like this:

Image

or this:
Image

rather than this:

Image
arc300
Member
 
Posts: 167
Joined: April 27th, 2012, 11:13 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General World Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests