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.
anonjedi2
Member
Posts: 860
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by anonjedi2 »

Why do people love dinosaurs so much anyways? Look at this ridiculous wedding photo:

Image

http://io9.com/greatest-wedding-photo-i ... -510358157
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by lux »

I think they're popular only because they're pushed by the media/Hollywood. Like many other things that the public thinks are great but really aren't.
anonjedi2
Member
Posts: 860
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by anonjedi2 »

Boy, the push to link dinosaurs to birds is really ramping up! Have a look at this nonsense.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/29/world/asi ... le_sidebar
Vext Lynchpin
Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 9:11 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by Vext Lynchpin »

This "new" dinosaur (how can a supposedly ancient species be called "new"?) fossil (faux-sil) also comes from China, which brings me back to a post by lux on the first page of this thread:
lux wrote:One Chinese paleo researcher went on record as saying that 80% of the fossils on display in Chinese museums are fake! If their museum professionals can't or won't distinguish between real and fake fossils, I wonder what that statistic is for the western world.

And, about Chinese fossils in general, one major fossil dealer warns ...
Perhaps no other source for fake fossils has posed such a problem as exists today with fossils from China. We must preface this section to say the fake Chinese fossil market is becoming increasingly sophisticated and changing so rapidly that any fossil now originating in China should be approached with caution.
Yet most of the "fossil evidence" for the dino-bird connection comes from China.
Maat
Member
Posts: 1425
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by Maat »

Couldn't help thinking when I saw this that if it were presented as a "news" story on TV, people would believe it :rolleyes:
Dinosaur+Skipping.gif
Dinosaur+Skipping.gif (431.72 KiB) Viewed 28409 times
Dcopymope
Banned
Posts: 670
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:59 am
Contact:

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by Dcopymope »

anonjedi2 wrote:Boy, the push to link dinosaurs to birds is really ramping up! Have a look at this nonsense.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/29/world/asi ... le_sidebar
Origins - Formed to Fly with Dr. David Menton (dinosaur - bird evolution refuted):


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkVJaqqsQ4E
Evolutionists have long argued that birds evolved by chance from reptiles. However, in this lecture, you will see that no two classes of vertebrates differ more dramatically than do reptiles and birds. Unlike the dinosaurs, from which birds are said to have evolved, birds are truly "formed to fly." With the aid of a scanning electron microscope, Dr. Menton examines the feathers of birds and compares them to reptile scales. Contrary to the claims of evolutionists, feathers are profoundly different from scales in every respect. It is biological nonsense to claim that one evolved from the other by chance.
Banazir
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 4:08 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by Banazir »

Even dinosaur droppings are making the news these days. If it looks like poop and smells like poop then it must be...

"Saskatchewan T-Rex petrified poop to Smithsonian"
https://web.archive.org/web/20130615185 ... ian/114584
anonjedi2
Member
Posts: 860
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by anonjedi2 »

New Carnivorous Dinosaur from Madagascar Raises More Questions Than It Answers

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 214043.htm

I'm not sure how I missed this story as it contains a local element. The Curator of Dinosaurs at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science happens to be the person who discovered this fossil (I live in Colorado). Coincidentally, I visited this museum last month and had several chuckles as I walked through the NASA and Dinosaur sections, thanks to my new cluesforum inspired skepticism. Those two sections are constants in the museum, whereas other exhibits come and go. Gotta keep the propaganda steady for the kids, I guess. As I made my way to the silly dinosaur exhibit, I decided to ask one of the attendants a few questions. My first question was: "So, these are obviously not real dinosaur bones, what are they made of?"

She looked at me in shock and insisted that they were indeed real dinosaur bones. She then took out her laser pointer and traced the areas of "real bones" versus the plaster or "fill in" ones. Once I was able to see what was represented as a real bone versus filler, it became painfully obvious that these bones could be the bones of any animal at anytime, anywhere on earth. The femur of a giraffe or elephant, or the rib of a large whale could easily be reconstructed with a bunch of plaster to form any sort of creature you want. Silly when you think about it.

My second question was in regards to the two dinosaur skulls they have on display which she was quick to point out to me and say that they were real skulls. "Hmmm. I was under the impression that there have only been a couple of intact skulls found?" She stammered for a moment and then admitted that the 2 on display were not entirely intact and had been filled with some sort of material to fill in the missing parts.

My final question was whether or not they explain all of this to the children who take the tour. She didn't really have an answer for me and sort of ended the conversation at that point. Curious, indeed.

Below are the photos of the two skulls I took. What do you think? Distant relatives of an alligator and rhino? B)

Image

Image

Additionally, here is a photo of a T-Rex in the lobby. Obviously this is made entirely of metal, there are no fossils in this structure. But, is there any sort of sign anywhere that alerts children to this fact? Do the children know that this isn't made of real dinosaur bones when they walk into the museum? Of course not. ;)

Image

And finally, just for giggles. The moon playground for the kids, complete with mini Buzz Aldrin in the background. You can be an astronaught too! The indoctrination efforts would be amusing if they weren't so downright deceptive and evil.

Image
anonjedi2
Member
Posts: 860
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by anonjedi2 »

More Dinosaur news from yesterday in Utah:

Image


I strongly urge everyone to view all 6 photos in this article, they are a riot! :)
A herd of dinosaurs are trapped in rock outside Arches National Park, and state paleontologists need a helicopter to bring it back to the lab to see what’s really inside.
So, out of pure luck, they magically just find this "thing", and call it a dinosaur trap even though they haven't confirmed what's inside of it yet?
There's apparently a whole gang of fossilized Utahraptors high on a steep slope, just below a cliff. It's now protected by paleontologists with a jacket of plaster and burlap.
Protected indeed. Meaning nobody is allowed to see it, except for them. <_<

Here's a video of the paleontologists trying to move this 5 ton hunk of mass.
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=25546101

This just looks like absolute fraud to me. Thoughts?
anonjedi2
Member
Posts: 860
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by anonjedi2 »

DALLAS (AP) -- Paleontologists in North Texas say they've discovered the skull of a young dinosaur that was found near where an adult specimen was unearthed in 2006.

The Perot Museum of Nature and Science in Dallas says the skull was found last year in Alaska, north of the Arctic Circle, but its discovery wasn't announced until Thursday.

Paleontologists say the finding is significant because it reveals dinosaurs tens of millions of years ago were reproducing in a climate once considered too harsh for survival.

The discovery of the adult lead to the establishment of a new species called Pachyrhinosaurus perotorum (pahk-ee-rhine-oh-sore-us per-roe-torr-um), named in recognition of the family of H. Ross Perot for its financial support of the museum. Perot is the billionaire Texas businessman who ran unsuccessfully for president in 1992.
https://www.liveauctioneers.com/news/to ... -dinosaur/

So, they found the skull last year but didn't announce it until today? Why the secrecy? :rolleyes:
Dcopymope
Banned
Posts: 670
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:59 am
Contact:

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by Dcopymope »

anonjedi2 wrote:
DALLAS (AP) -- Paleontologists in North Texas say they've discovered the skull of a young dinosaur that was found near where an adult specimen was unearthed in 2006.

The Perot Museum of Nature and Science in Dallas says the skull was found last year in Alaska, north of the Arctic Circle, but its discovery wasn't announced until Thursday.

Paleontologists say the finding is significant because it reveals dinosaurs tens of millions of years ago were reproducing in a climate once considered too harsh for survival.

The discovery of the adult lead to the establishment of a new species called Pachyrhinosaurus perotorum (pahk-ee-rhine-oh-sore-us per-roe-torr-um), named in recognition of the family of H. Ross Perot for its financial support of the museum. Perot is the billionaire Texas businessman who ran unsuccessfully for president in 1992.
http://www.myfoxaustin.com/story/226467 ... z2WnYco8iC

So, they found the skull last year but didn't announce it until today? Why the secrecy? :rolleyes:
Could it be possible that they might have some major hoax planned concerning this "discovery"?
Pug
Member
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 10:57 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by Pug »

Hey guys,

And Jurassic Park 4 is cranking up the publicity machine -

moviehole.net - https://web.archive.org/web/20130628090 ... ot-extinct

Under the direction, this time round, of Colin Trevorrow and production overseen by Spielberg.

Trevorrow has teased a few things indicating that his sequel will take place on Isla Nublar, the site of the original Steven Spielberg‘s film as well as a ‘new dinosaur’ that will make us ‘keep the lights on after you see this movie.’

movieweb - http://www.movieweb.com/news/jurassic-p ... ement-park

PLOT description:

"Jurassic Park IV, set in present day Isla Nublar, is now an actual theme park, as originally intended by John Hammond in the first film. It garners 10 million visitors per year and is completely safe - until it's not. The park itself is described as very Sea World-esque and includes an area called the Isla Nublar Lagoon. That means underwater dino's for the first time.

via: enchanted learning - http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjec ... irst.shtml

The first dinosaur to be described scientifically was Megalosaurus in 1824, by William Buckland. Buckland (1784-1856) was a British fossil hunter and clergyman who discovered some Megalosaurus fossils in 1819 and named the reptile in 1824. It was the first dinosaur ever described scientifically and first theropod dinosaur discovered (this is all in hindsight, because the dinosaurs had not yet been recognized as a separate taxonomic group - the word dinosaur hadn't even been invented yet).

So nobody had officially found a gigantic bone or fossil before this guy in 1824? No explorers documenting it in journals from their travels of far and wide? No Chinese or Japanese paintings, except mythical dragons of course.

if a hoax, do you think it didn't go according to the exact plan and went wayward somewhat?
anonjedi2
Member
Posts: 860
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by anonjedi2 »

This issue is looking more and more suspect as I read more about it. I have been keeping a close eye on Dinosaur related news and am amazed at how often dinosaur related material is released on a daily basis.

Just in the last 24 hours alone, I've found these stories posted:

Juvenile Dinosaur Found in Alaskan Arctic - http://www.livescience.com/37683-juveni ... rctic.html

My Beloved Brontosaurus - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/scien ... lving.html

Leonardo DiCaprio's 13 million dollar dinosaur skeleton (I wonder if he realizes he's been suckered)? :lol: https://web.archive.org/web/20130623201 ... 66241.html

Pan Macmillan makes dinosaur deal - http://au.artshub.com/au/news-article/n ... eal-195789

FL yellow jacket nest 'from the dinosaur ages' - http://www.nbc-2.com/story/22670206/exp ... ck8ZeuE4Wg

Jurassic Park 4 (Quoted above) has underwater dinosaurs - http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a ... ublar.html

Dinosaur takes a ride on the metro - http://tyneandwear.sky.com/noticeboard/ ... mmer-offer

This field of pseudo-science is very secretive. It seems nearly impossible to get answers to even the simplest of questions with any details given. For example - How do scientists know that fossils are 68 million years old? How do they know they are fossils of dinosaurs and not other animals?

Here's one explanation, perhaps some of our more technical members might like to comment on this?
Today's knowledge of fossil ages comes primarily from radiometric dating, also known as radioactive dating. Radiometric dating relies on the properties of isotopes. These are chemical elements, like carbon or uranium, that are identical except for one key feature -- the number of neutrons in their nucleus.

Usually, atoms have an equal number of protons and neutrons. If there are too many or too few neutrons, the atom is unstable, and it sheds particles until its nucleus reaches a stable state. Think of the nucleus as a pyramid of building blocks. If you try to add extra blocks to the sides pyramid, they may stay put for a while, but they'll eventually fall away. The same is true if you take a block away from one of the pyramid's sides, making the rest unstable. Eventually, some of the blocks can fall away, leaving a smaller, more stable structure.

The result is like a radioactive clock that ticks away as unstable isotopes decay into stable ones. You can't predict when a specific unstable atom, or parent, will decay into a stable atom, or daughter. But you can predict how long it will take a large group of atoms to decay. The element's half-life is the amount of time it takes for half the parent atoms in a sample to become daughters.

To read the time on this radioactive clock, scientists use a device called a mass spectrometer to measure the number of parent and daughter atoms. The ratio of parents to daughters can tell the researcher how old the specimen is. The more parent isotopes there are -- and the fewer daughter isotopes -- the younger the sample. The half-life of the isotope being measured determines how useful it is at dating very old samples. Once all the parents have become daughters, there's no more basis for comparison between the two isotopes. Scientists can't tell whether the clock ran down a few days or millions of years ago. This means that isotopes with a short half-life won't work to date dinosaur bones.

The short half-life is only part of the problem when dating dinosaur bones -- researchers also have to find enough of the parent and daughter atoms to measure. Read on to see what it takes to date a fossil and what volcanic ash has to do with it.
:unsure: Sounds a lot like Nuclear Theory. A lot of abstract theory but is there anything tangible we can sink our teeth into?

The article goes on to talk about the half life of certain elements found in sedimentary rock and claims that said elements can have a half life of a million years. And just how in the world do they calculate this?

I also found this FAQ with dinosaur expert Don Lessem, paleontologist Tim Rowe, and paleontologist Bill Hammer. I'll only post the answer to the first question but you can read the rest here: http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/arti ... es-fossils

Needless to say, the answers to these questions are vague, full of uncertainties and raise more questions than provide answers.
Q: How do scientists know if they've found a dinosaur bone?
A: You can tell what you find is a dinosaur if you recognize the shape of the bone or tooth from other finds. Dinosaur bones are often larger than other animal bones, but not always. Often fragments are too small or broken up to be sure. Meat-eaters had bones that were hollow, but thicker usually than those of birds or pterosaurs. (Don Lessem)

We can identify the bones as those of a dinosaur because of their size and certain characteristics. Bones of other animals from the Jurassic are smaller and they look different, particularly the skull and the pelvis. (Bill Hammer)
: :o

Of course, this is just the first question, I encourage you to read the rest!

1) What if the assumptions from the previous finds (shape of bone or tooth) are wrong to begin with? Are they not then comparing their current find to a find of perhaps a bear's claw or shark's tooth? Doesn't most of this "science" rely on a handful of previous assumptions as the basis for all of their claims?

2) They are often larger than other animal bones, but not always, so how does that help exactly? Isn't it more reasonable to assume that distant cousins of alligators, elephants, kimono dragons, sharks, whales, birds and other animals were just much larger X number of years ago? Why are they assuming these are alltogether different creatures?

3) Meat eaters had hollow bones? Wouldn't they be too frail and prone to fracturing/breaking/shattering for an animal as large as the alleged T-Rex?

4) Which "certain characteristics" exactly? Again it sounds like they are basing everything simply on the size of the bones and the building blocks of their theory which could certainly be wrong.

:puke:
I, Gestalta
Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:00 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by I, Gestalta »

Well, I've been meaning to look into radio-carbon dating, myself, but I've kept it on the back-burner for several months.

Nevertheless, here is a video I came across last year which briefly touches on the subject:

edit: Please do not be alarmed by the "UFOTV" logo, as this video is not an adventure into the land of Oz. I have not watched anything else which is affiliated with this "UFOTV", so I cannot speak to whether or not their operation is completely/partially controlled. The content of this specific video, however, deserves attention as per its relation to this thread, in my opinion.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Wr-lXLGCxQ

Much like the commonly-accepted notions of the rotation of the earth, the science behind radiometric dating is, at the very least, questionable.

Whether primarily wrong or partially right, I find that the most productive manner of approaching any accepted method of the modern scientific community is to relate its approach to that of the catholic church during the dark ages. In doing so, we can recognize that there is a huge historical precedent for the proliferation of mass confusion via perceived authority, proprietary language and general acceptance of non-testable hypotheses; and, so doing, we can feel even more intellectually comfortable in challenging our own "common-sense" indoctrination(s) without feeling like idiots. (raise your hand if you have once felt stupid for even humoring the idea that the earth may not be moving, or that 9/11 was basically the sequel to The Long Kiss Goodnight!!!!!!!!).

If this thread is going to reach any degree of scientific respectability, I truly think that the "gateway drug" will be a complete understanding of the history, accuracy and practicality of radiometric dating. No matter how much circumstantial evidence we might collect, if we do not demonstrate that we understand the "science" (scientism, more like) behind the ideology, most people will regard the "dinosaur hoax" position as "conspiratorial" and/or "heretical", if not ignoring it outright after reading a few posts.
arc300
Member
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:13 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by arc300 »

I, Gestalta wrote:Well, I've been meaning to look into radio-carbon dating, myself, but I've kept it on the back-burner for several months.

Nevertheless, here is a video I came across last year which briefly touches on the subject:

edit: Please do not be alarmed by the "UFOTV" logo, as this video is not an adventure into the land of Oz. I have not watched anything else which is affiliated with this "UFOTV", so I cannot speak to whether or not their operation is completely/partially controlled. The content of this specific video, however, deserves attention as per its relation to this thread, in my opinion.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Wr-lXLGCxQ

Much like the commonly-accepted notions of the rotation of the earth, the science behind radiometric dating is, at the very least, questionable.

Whether primarily wrong or partially right, I find that the most productive manner of approaching any accepted method of the modern scientific community is to relate its approach to that of the catholic church during the dark ages. In doing so, we can recognize that there is a huge historical precedent for the proliferation of mass confusion via perceived authority, proprietary language and general acceptance of non-testable hypotheses; and, so doing, we can feel even more intellectually comfortable in challenging our own "common-sense" indoctrination(s) without feeling like idiots. (raise your hand if you have once felt stupid for even humoring the idea that the earth may not be moving, or that 9/11 was basically the sequel to The Long Kiss Goodnight!!!!!!!!).

If this thread is going to reach any degree of scientific respectability, I truly think that the "gateway drug" will be a complete understanding of the history, accuracy and practicality of radiometric dating. No matter how much circumstantial evidence we might collect, if we do not demonstrate that we understand the "science" (scientism, more like) behind the ideology, most people will regard the "dinosaur hoax" position as "conspiratorial" and/or "heretical", if not ignoring it outright after reading a few posts.
The full title of Richard Milton's book is The Facts of Life (-) Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. As mentioned, the author is non-religious and non-creationist. It is a very well-written, easy to read book, and I recommend anybody read it. I had an uneasy feeling about Darwinism back in the mid 90's after reading (High Priest) Richard Dawkins' book about evolution,The Blind Watchmaker. About 6 months after reading that book, I stumbled upon The Facts of Life, read it, and didn't feel so alone anymore. Off the top of my head, I can tell you that I learned 4 things from this book:

1. Darwinism, evolution, and its attendant 'sciences' like carbon dating etc. is NOT established fact.
2. To disbelieve in the above does NOT necessarily make you a religious nutcase, or ANY type of nutcase.
3. As Milton mentions in the video, if you reject Darwinism, there is NO onus on you to provide a better theory. It's OK to simply NOT KNOW whence life came. I don't know how life as we know it originated, I have absolutely no idea, yet I can still dress myself, tie my own shoes and get myself off to work each day. This demand that you provide a 'better' theory to explain something you don't believe in will be familiar to most readers of this forum.
4. Life is much more interesting and beautiful than the keepers of the musty charnel houses we call museums would have you believe.
Post Reply