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 anonjedi2 on October 29th, 2014, 4:23 pm

Mystery solved: monster dinosaur had 8-foot arms, weighed 14,000 pounds

Image

That riddle has baffled scientists since 1965, when a Polish researcher unearthed a pair of gigantic dinosaur arms in the Gobi Desert. Some experts thought the arms belonged to a fearsome carnivorous dinosaur, while others argued for an oversized sloth-like creature.


I am not sure why the article didn't name the Polish researcher. After doing some digging, I have identified her as Zofia Kielan-Jaworowska, a Polish paleobiologist and author of Hunting for Dinosaurs. Read more about her here, including some interesting claims such as the fact that she and her team shipped over 20 tons of fossils from Mongolia back to Warsaw, in 1965 alone. http://www.strangescience.net/zofia.htm

Her wiki page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zofia_Kielan-Jaworowska

Now the mystery has been solved at last, and the truth is even weirder than anyone had envisioned. It's a beast called Deniocheirus that lived 70 million years ago and belonged to an ostrich-like family of dinosaurs. At 14,000 pounds, it was 10 times heavier than its next-biggest relatives. When it walked on its hind legs, as it usually did, it stood 16 feet high, taller than an elephant.


So, this massive dinosaur which they are obviously attempting to use as another weak link to bird-evolution theory stood 16 feet high, weighed 14,000 pounds and has never been discovered until now? Despite the fact that Time Magazine wrote about the 35-tons of fossils her team found back then? All other expeditions by paleontologists all over the world has never uncovered this massive beast until now? Is it realistic that this animal would usually walk on its hind legs, at 14,000 pounds? Also, I must ask ... we've gone from not knowing anything about this fossil to being able to not only identify it and its characteristics overnight but to also identify with certainty that it belonged to an ostrich-like family of dinosaurs? So, a few incomplete remains and pieces of an arm suddenly turns into an entire family?

Scientists report in this week's Nature that the long-armed dinosaur had lanky back legs like an ostrich's, a toothless bill, an enormous hump on its back and probably a fan of long feathers on the end of its tail. It ate both plants and fish, making it perhaps the biggest omnivorous dinosaur. It's like nothing seen before, and it raises a host of new questions, such as why it was so big and why it resorted to a diet normally reserved for smaller creatures.


Wait a second, I don't remember reading anything about these scientists finding fossils of the leg, back or much more than the arm? How can they possibly know that this alleged dinosaur had lanky back legs, a toothless bill and a hump on its back???? :puke:

Again, we can note the attempt to link this dinosaur to an ostrich while insinuating that it had a hump on its back and "probably" a fan of long feathers on the end of its tail. But do they provide skeletal evidence of the hump on its back or any sort of scientific evidence that this animal had feathers on the end of its tail? From what I can tell, the answer is no, and this just seems to be another example of scientists engaging in artistic theater and speculation. Again, the feathers are used to try to link dinosaurs to birds. In what real world scenario would a reptile ever have feathers? :rolleyes:

"For the last half-century, people have been going out to the Gobi Desert trying to find the rest of this animal," says Stephen Brusatte, a University of Edinburgh paleontologist who is not connected to the new study. "Thankfully, the reality of this thing turns out to be even crazier than what people were dreaming up."

"None of us suspected it looked like a duck-billed ostrich camel," says paleontologist Thomas Holtz of the University of Maryland, who wasn't a part of the research team either.


:rolleyes: Why is the article quoting paleontologists who aren't part of the research team? What are the names of the paleontologists who made this discovery? Why were they not interviewed for this story? Duck-billed ostrich camel? :o

The sleuthing to discover the dinosaur's true identity is itself worthy of a detective yarn. In 2006, scientists digging in the Gobi found a strange, partial skeleton, its hands and skull stripped by poachers. In 2009, they found a very similar fossil. It too was mutilated by poachers, but they'd left behind a telltale arm.

That arm told the researchers that the 2006 and 2009 dinosaurs were Deinocheirus mirificus, or "unusual horrible hand," the species known only from an enormous pair of arms dug up some 45 years earlier.

"I was totally stunned and thrilled," study co-author Yuoung-Nam Lee of the Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources says via email. "I had found what I had always been looking for in the Gobi."


So, up until now, everytime this dinosaur has been found, with mostly only the arm(s) remaining? What are the odds?

In another extraordinary stroke of luck, a colleague told the scientists about a Deinocheirus skeleton in the European laboratory of a private fossil dealer. The researchers quickly realized that those bones were a perfect match to the skeleton they'd unearthed in 2009. The poached bones may have left Mongolia on a coal truck bound for China, says study co-author Philip Currie of the University of Alberta, passing through dealers in Japan and Europe before the scientists caught up with it.


Who is this colleague that told the scientists about the skeleton in the European laboratory of a private fossil dealer? What is the name of this private fossil dealer? Why can't we get any names of the people involved in all of this? The researchers "quickly realized that those bones were a perfect match to the skeleton they'd unearthed in 2009?" How quickly? Did they travel to the European laboratory of this unnamed private fossil dealer? Did these researchers have no idea that this fossil existed, but for the sheer luck of a colleague who just happened to mention it to them? The poached bones may have left Mongolia on a coal truck bound for China? How large was this coal truck and how were these fossils not noticed?

Scales in the fossil's belly show that it probably ate fish, while its broad bill would've been good for cropping soft plants. Deinocheirus is the biggest dinosaur that was clearly omnivorous, Brusatte says, making it something of a mystery, as omnivorous dinosaurs tend to be small. Nor do scientists understand why Deniocheirus is so enormous compared to the rest of its family.


Fish scales that have survived and remained intact for 70 million years, poachers and transport?

"I've been really lucky over the years to find many, many good specimens, but there's no question this is one of the high points," Currie says. "It's such an incredible thing to solve a mystery and find a dinosaur at the end of it that's so bizarre."


Yes, quite the luck all paleontologists seem to have when making their "discoveries" ... there seems to always be some sort of tall tale or lucky circumstance involved in these silly stories!

Full Article: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /17860261/

More:

They report the discovery of two nearly complete 70 million-year-old Deinocheirus skeletons, pieced together from fossils unearthed in Mongolia, along with a skull and hand that had been poached and sold on to private collectors.

With the new remains, the researchers built the first accurate reconstruction of the dinosaur. The creature stood tall on its back legs, but sported long, clawed forearms. Neural spines formed an impressive sail on its back and its long, toothless snout flared out to both sides. The duck-like bill may have helped Deinocheirus forage for food at the bottom of streams, while blunt, flattened bones under its claws prevented it from sinking on wet ground.


Pieced together, indeed. I can't think of any other science that is so full of assumption, speculation and "reconstruction".
Last edited by anonjedi2 on October 29th, 2014, 4:53 pm, edited 4 times in total.
anonjedi2
Member
 
Posts: 718
Joined: December 31st, 2012, 6:50 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Postby anonjedi2 on October 29th, 2014, 4:36 pm

More from the Wiki:

Image

The first known fossil remains are a single pair of massive forelimbs and the remains of some ribs and vertebrae...

The holotype specimen, ZPal MgD-I/6, was discovered on the desert surface in sandstone dating to the early Maastrichtian. It consists of a partial, disarticulated skeleton, most parts of which had already weathered away at the moment of discovery. Both forelimbs excluding the right claws, the complete shoulder girdle, centra of three dorsal vertebrae, five ribs, gastralia and two ceratobranchialia, supporting neck bones, could still be recovered.


So, the photo shows an obvious reconstruction, since the right claws, shoulder girdle etc. were not recovered. In other words, it sounds like the only thing they actually recovered were perhaps the shafts of what they reconstruct as massive arms. Couldn't these easily be the legs of another animal? They say with certainty that the radius and ulna were found but couldn't those bones just as easily be a tibia and fibula? :)

Also, what is with the shifty way they describe what was found? Both forelimbs excluding "the right claws, the complete shoulder girdle, central of three dorsal vertebrae, five ribs, gastralia and ceratobranchialia, supporting neck bones could still be recovered" ??? In other words, they've discovered partial arm bones, and nothing else, yes? Why do they feel the need to write everything that wasn't recovered? Rhetorical question with an obvious answer. :P

Additional fossils, including fragments of gastralia (belly ribs) belonging to the same specimen, were later found by teams re-examining the original fossil site. Some of these bones contained bite marks made by the contemporary tyrannosaurid species, Tarbosaurus bataar, and showed evidence consistent with scavenging. The possibility that the carcass was scavenged by tyrannosaurs may explain why the specimen was preserved in a scattered, disassociated state.[4]


Remains, fragments and possibilities may explain...

So, the tyrannosaurs scavenged the carcass and yet they still claim to have found fish and "more than 1400 gastroliths" inside its ribs? :wacko:

Wiki goes on to give more info such as the fact that this dinosaur is estimated to have been as large as 10 meters and 20,000 pounds. I have to ask again, why was such a massive creature never found (or pieced together) until now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinocheirus
anonjedi2
Member
 
Posts: 718
Joined: December 31st, 2012, 6:50 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Postby anonjedi2 on November 14th, 2014, 4:29 am

Alleged Dinosaur Footprint, 150 million years old. :rolleyes:

Image

Emu footprint:

Image

Turkey footprint:

Image

Dinosaur Fossil?

Image

Chicken Skeleton

Image

Dinosaur or Duck?

Image

Image
anonjedi2
Member
 
Posts: 718
Joined: December 31st, 2012, 6:50 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Postby simonshack on November 14th, 2014, 1:01 pm

anonjedi2 wrote:Dinosaur or Duck?


Daffysaurus
Image

"Corythosaurus /ˌkɒrɨθɵˈsɔrəs/ is a genus of hadrosaurid "duck-billed" dinosaur from the Upper Cretaceous Period, about 77-75.7 million years ago. It lived in what is now North America."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corythosaurus
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6549
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Postby lux on November 15th, 2014, 5:19 am

So, here's a video and article about a recent important dinosaur find in Castle River area of Canada:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJsURTKtn2w

Accompanying article.

OK, so this dinosaur fossil-bearing boulder weighing over a ton was found in the Castle River by “some fishermen.” Unfortunately the fisherman are not shown or interviewed. Too bad. I would have liked to see their proud, smiling faces as they told us how they discovered the fossil. I guess we'll just have to take the scientists word for it that that's the way it was discovered.

Image

The rock, we're told, was “dislodged by 2013 floods.” But, dislodged from where?

Image

I don't quite get what they mean by that. Dislodged from the riverbed? From the surrounding terrain?

Well, anyway -- the dark gray markings on top of the rock are the actual fossil as we see later in the video.

Image
If you look at the left end of the rock it looks like someone placed another rock down right on top of the fossil portion of the “specimen” and nobody seems to notice or care that the priceless fossil which is incredibly rare and many millions of years old underneath might get scratched and damaged by that jagged rock rolling around on top of it as they maneuver the boulder around for pickup. But, they're scientists so I guess they must know what they're doing.

Looking at the boulder here it doesn't really look like a river rock to me. River rocks are mostly smooth and this rock is pretty jagged. In fact it looks like it was taken from a different place entirely. It's also funny how it ended up right smack in the middle of the river too. It looks as if it was just plopped down there in the middle of the river right before filming. Like by a [cough] helicopter or something.

But, wait a second – did I say it didn't look like a river rock? Later on when the scientist is showing us the fossil details it does look like a river rock. It's all smooth now and the jaggedness we saw earlier is gone. I wonder how that happened?

Image

The details of the fossil sure are sharp and clear and it's lucky that they're right at the surface of the boulder so they're easy to see. In fact they're so sharp and clear they look as if they were painted right onto the rock but, of course, we know that couldn't be. :D

Image
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Postby anonjedi2 on November 16th, 2014, 4:05 am

Haha! Nice, lux. I agree, it doesn't look like a river rock and the idea that this 2,500 pound rock would get "dislodged" and show up right in the middle of the river is laughable, at best. I also think this "scientist" has a few nervous ticks at the end of the video that give the game away. :)
anonjedi2
Member
 
Posts: 718
Joined: December 31st, 2012, 6:50 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Postby lux on November 16th, 2014, 12:06 pm

anonjedi2 wrote: I also think this "scientist" has a few nervous ticks at the end of the video that give the game away. :)

Yes, I agree. His body language is very telling. He doesn't look straight ahead at the camera when he speaks but only gives a sideways glance with furrowed brow as he fiddles nervously with the hand he just used to point out the features of the "fossil." He's lying and he knows it, IMO.

Image

He also stutters badly when he gives his conclusion:
"… so, I think this…this...this...this...this...this will be a significant ...uh... specimen and we're going to learn a lot from it."
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Postby anonjedi2 on November 19th, 2014, 12:44 pm

Iffyosaurus Dinosaur skeleton exposed as fake

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2000 ... urs.uknews

For 116 years it graced the halls of the National Museum of Wales at Cardiff - the fossilised skeleton of a 200m-year-old predator that once cruised the Jurassic seas.

It survived the scrutiny of scientists who had known Charles Darwin, and Richard Owen, the Victorian scholar who coined the word dinosaur. It survived revolutions in palaeontology, arguments over evolution and scandals in the world of fossils.

Then curators at Cardiff decided the remains of the ocean-going carnivore ichthyosaurus needed a brush up - and realised that they had been taken in.

"When we stripped off five layers of paint we found it was an elaborate forgery," said Caroline Buttler, a conservator. "It was an amalgam of two types of ichthyosaurus plus a clever attempt at fake parts."

Ichthyosaurs were discovered by fossil collector Mary Anning on the Dorset coast in about 1809. Cardiff's specimen was presented by a local businessman, Samuel Allen, in 1884.

It will now go back on display as an example of a fake. Museum officials have dubbed it "iffyosaurus".


What is interesting about this is that if you go to Mary Anning's Wiki page, there is absolutely no mention of this at all, as if it never happened. The page lists all of her accomplishments and achievements in the field of paleontology, including the following:

Her discoveries included the first ichthyosaur skeleton correctly identified, which she and her brother Joseph found when she was just twelve years old; the first two plesiosaur skeletons found; the first pterosaur skeleton located outside Germany; and important fish fossils. Her observations played a key role in the discovery that coprolites, known as bezoar stones at the time, were fossilised faeces. She also discovered that belemnite fossils contained fossilised ink sacs like those of modern cephalopods. When geologist Henry De la Beche painted Duria Antiquior, the first widely circulated pictorial representation of a scene from prehistoric life derived from fossil reconstructions, he based it largely on fossils Anning had found, and sold prints of it for her benefit.

"DURIA ANTIQUIOR" - by Henry De la Beche (1830)
Image

:o

But if her largest and most famous discovery was exposed as a fake, 100+ years later, shouldn't all of her contributions now be called into question? The woman is obviously a fraud (if she exists), how can we take any of these other discoveries seriously? Why is there no mention of this ichthyosaur fakery on the Wiki page?

Well, I just added it, let's see how long it stays up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Anning#Ichthyosaurs

And what about the Wiki page for Ichthyosaurs? Will the controlled world of Wikipedia just completely ignore this as if it never happened?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyosaur



****
Added "Duria Antiquior" illustration for eye candy - (simon) ;)
Well done with your Wiki update, anonjedi - way to go!
Last edited by anonjedi2 on November 19th, 2014, 6:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
anonjedi2
Member
 
Posts: 718
Joined: December 31st, 2012, 6:50 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Postby lux on November 19th, 2014, 2:16 pm

^ I don't see your wiki edit. Has it been removed already?
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Postby anonjedi2 on November 19th, 2014, 6:19 pm

It looks like it has already been removed ... fascinating.

I was up late last night ... who is sitting around monitoring that page at that hour?

The comment that goes along with the edit says: "Thanks, but not really relevant to this article."

Oh? How is that not relevant?

I undid his edit and it's back now. I also noted that 113 people are following this page.

Let's see how long it stays up this time.

<_<
anonjedi2
Member
 
Posts: 718
Joined: December 31st, 2012, 6:50 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Postby hoi.polloi on November 19th, 2014, 7:30 pm

Looks like it would just need context to fit within their typical style. Something like a heading to the paragraph like

Faked ichthyosaur bones

Then, at the conclusion of the paragraph, they will expect you to be a faker apologist and say something like, "This discovery lends itself to the history of controversy within the field of paleontology" or maybe "but scientists agree there is no further suspicion about the ichthyosaur's existence."

The format of Wikipedia (or indeed any encyclopedias I've found) just isn't set up for real scientific truths, because it cannot be open-ended or unbiased as science really is or purports to be. It is like the politics of academia, where there must be some conclusion arrived at by peer pressure, which satisfies one or more religiously, politically and/or economically motivated initiatives. It's set up like a passive, journalistic endeavor where corporations and mighty organizations can exercise their sway, and where any and all controversy must be solved by its editors to satisfy those with the most articles written to the same brow-beating "standards" and circular reasoning. Encyclopedias are much more fail than an ongoing, live, diverse selection of forums of discussion, unless you want to know undisputed facts about mostly fictions and artworks. Hell, even dates of birth and death for famous figures hold some level of need to be proved these days. Look at the entry for Harriet Tubman, if you want an example, even if it must be taken into account that slave narratives are by their nature rife with recording issues (enslaved Africans had much of their history taken from them, an awful crime we at CluesForum should definitely try to appreciate, given our awareness of the importance of sovereign narratives). Or look at the birth and death dates of a "famous" vicsim to see how multitudinous are our errors.

But if they made an honest encyclopedia, where everything is as up for discussion and debate as it really is in the real world, people (besides a handful of truly scientifically curious, I guess?) would be very disappointed. We often seem to just crave the authority of having factoids to hit people with and get our way. Wikipedia is fine for keeping track of records and organizing them, but it has no real authority on the veracity of those records; its only authority might be the might of mostly online simulation. If you can fake it and get away with it, you own the topic in question. It basically seems to be a book of canon for the PseudoScience religion. Even their articles written about debates and controversies are embarrassing. Wikipedia is surely a sad representation of our species' usage of the Internet.

Having said all that, though, I hope they allow more edits like yours.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5047
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Postby anonjedi2 on November 20th, 2014, 12:40 am

Well stated, hoi. I absolutely agree.

What's interesting is that they don't deny the facts/content, they just don't think it's "relevant" ... but I think we can understand the real motive to control the narrative here.

In any case, a wiki talk page has been started between myself and the first individual.

Check it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: ... ary_Anning
anonjedi2
Member
 
Posts: 718
Joined: December 31st, 2012, 6:50 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Postby anonjedi2 on November 20th, 2014, 3:30 am

I found this from the Geological Curators Group.

http://www.geocurator.org/arch/Curator/Vol7No8.pdf

ICHTHYOSAUR TO IFFYOSAUR: FROM FACT TO FICTION

Geology is often presented in the media in a sensational manner, but how do these stories reach the public domain and how much of them are fabrication? Presented here is an account of how a project, concerning the conservation of a Jurassic ichthyosaur, made the news world-wide but in an effort to make it more dramatic accuracy was increasingly lost.

Introduction
We live in a media age. These days museums actively seek a high profile in order to make the public aware of what they do. But how far can we trust the media to get the message straight? In some quarters any publicity is seen as good publicity, but is this necessarily true? The following is a brief account of how a tale of interesting but straightforward palaeontological conservation in Wales spread world-
wide, and lost touch with reality - and all in less than a week!


Off the bat, it sounds like they're going to "set the record straight", on order to clean up the mess. My guess is that back then, it was possible to "leak" bits of truth and this is the PR campaign that points the finger at "irresponsible journalism."

Background
The story begins in February 2001 with the conservation of a 1.8m long ichthyosaur specimen, which had been in the collections of the National
Museums of Wales for over a century. The specimen and its plaster surround had begun to crack, and pieces were becoming dislodged. What was expected to be a short, straightforward job turned into a major conservation project that lasted 11 months.


Really? If the story "begins" in February 2001, then why did these reports of a fake fossil come out in December of 2000? According to wiki, Manning's brother found only the skull, which was 1.2m long and then she found the rest of the skeleton which was 5.2 meters long. How can the Geological Curator's Group have made such a mistake?

The specimen, seemingly in rock of Jurassic age, had been donated to the former Cardiff Municipal Museum in the 1880s. Unfortunately, like many others in the collection, it was not numbered, so that its status and provenance were unknown. Entries in the minutes of the Cardiff Library and Museum Committee suggested that a local benefactor, Samuel Allen, had donated it in 1886. No indication was given of its provenance but somebody in the last 35 years had suggested that it might be from Street in Somerset


So the Geological Curator's Group makes no mention of Manning whatsoever? Is it not a well-known and established "fact" based on many journals referenced in the Wiki that she was the founder of the fossil? Why no mention of her at all?

The fossil comprises a mandible, most of the vertebral column, one front paddle, ribs and part of the pelvic girdle. Interestingly the mandible was inverted whilst the rest of the skeleton was the right way up. The specimen was set in plaster, which had been painted to resemble the rock matrix and mounted in a wooden frame. Since its original preparation it had been restored at least twice, resulting in further layers of paint and plaster being applied.

Removal of up to five layers of paint showed that parts of the skeleton, including the ends of the ribs had been restored in plaster and painted to resemble bone. It also became clear that some of the genuine bones were not in their original positions. Removal of the paint quickly showed that the skeleton had become disarticulated over the sea floor after death.

The original preparators had apparently relocated the bones in order to restore the skeleton to its original state. The front paddle had been reconstructed, vertebrae had been slotted back into place, while the lower jaw had been obtained from another fossil altogether, and belonged to a different species of ichthyosaur!

To conserve the specimen, the wooden frame and all the surrounding plaster had to be removed and replaced with modern, lightweight alternatives. The project revealed a great deal about the techniques and skills of Victorian preparators, and showed how modern conservation practices can make new discoveries about old specimens.


They go on to conclude that it was the media who blew the entire story out of proportion. Is it as simple as that or is this PR spin? Why did they wait a full year to correct these numerous media reports? Why did the museum curator (who is co-author of this piece) not sue the newspapers for libel and misquoting her?

She is quoted by the BBC in this article: "It was quite a shock to find that the creature was not what it had seemed over all these years but was a botch-up" ... the article also says the creature was 5 feet long (versus 17 feet, quoted by Wikipedia sources).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/1059825.stm



Thoughts?

EDIT TO ADD:

Caroline Buttler
Head of Paleontology
Phone: (029) 2057 3359
E-mail: http://www.museumwales.ac.uk/email/?e=183
anonjedi2
Member
 
Posts: 718
Joined: December 31st, 2012, 6:50 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Postby lux on November 25th, 2014, 2:42 pm

The dinosaur tech consultant on Jurassic Park, arguably the most popular dinosaur movie of all time, was paleontologist Jack Horner.

In this “making of” documentary about the film (starting at about 11:00) we learn about the influence Horner had on the making of this movie.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9bKxRQfvs8

“Horner's research has been instrumental in changing our view of dinosaurs. He contends that birds, not reptiles, represent their closest living link,” says narrator James Earl Jones. “For Jurassic's design team, maintaining scientific accuracy would mean breaking the reptilian stereotypes associated with dinosaurs.

Image
Horner adds, “The whole idea is to get people to look at dinosaurs more like birds than as reptiles.

Gee, I thought it was just a movie, not a public mind-set changing device.

Anyway, Horner continues …

“In one of the scenes some of the model makers had made a tongue come out like a lizard or a snake.”

Then one of the model makers himself says that Horner “came down on it like a ton of bricks.”

Horner's comment on this is:

“Had that [flicking tongue] been left in the scene all the work on making these things birdlike would have been gone.”

Did he say MAKING these things birdlike? An odd choice of words. I thought the idea of science was to simply uncover the truth, not to MAKE ideas.

Anyway, my point is that the Jurassic Park movie was clearly made with the intention of influencing the public's concept of dinosaurs and those involved have no qualms about admitting it.

I can't say WHY they seem bent on establishing this bird connection to dinosaurs in the public mindset but the effort to do so is clearly evident here and elsewhere.

*******************************************************************************************

By the way -

- in 2012 Jack Horner, age 68, married one of his 19-year-old students, Vanessa Williams, in Las Vegas. Congratulations, Jack!

- In 2013 Horner won “the Romer-Simpson Prize*; the highest honor a paleontologist can receive from the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology.”
source


*The Romer Simson Prize is not to be confused with the Homer Simpson Prize, a pink frosted candy sprinkled donut, obviously a far more honorable reward.

Image
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Postby Sophia Perennis on November 30th, 2014, 12:44 pm

The trailer to the latest in promoting the dinosaur hoax:

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFinNxS5KN4

Three key ideologies were promoted in the trailer alone:

1. The authenticity of Dinosaurs and their remains.
2. The possibility of reviving extinct species.
3. The inevitability of genetically hybridizing species.

Bravo Steven Spielberg, the deception continues.
Sophia Perennis
Member
 
Posts: 16
Joined: November 28th, 2014, 12:32 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General World Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron