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.
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by lux »

^ Good work!
anonjedi2
Member
Posts: 860
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by anonjedi2 »

'Biggest dinosaur ever' discovered in Argentina

Fossilised bones of a dinosaur believed to be the largest creature ever to walk the Earth have been unearthed in Argentina, palaeontologists say.

Based on its huge thigh bones, it was 40m (130ft) long and 20m (65ft) tall.

Weighing in at 77 tonnes, it was as heavy as 14 African elephants, and seven tonnes heavier than the previous record holder, Argentinosaurus

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environ ... 13?SThisFB
Evil Edna
Banned
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 2:32 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by Evil Edna »

The Google Doodle for today is in recognition of Mary Anning, the posthumously revered fossil-hunter from the south-west of England.

Image
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 06691.html

Anning was never recognised in her time. Shunned as doo-lally; the result, some say, of being struck by lightning as a child. Or perhaps she was ignored as a crank simply because she was one. Back then, resistance to the Dinosaur Hoax was stronger than it is now, with the Church condemning dinosaurs as fake and an assault on the Creationist view.

Either way, it's apparently Anning's 215th birthday. Bit of an arbitrary anniversary that one - the 215th; Google struggling to find new doodle subjects? Or are we scraping the barrel for any excuse to rake-up the dinosaur hoax?

Image

As for Anning - 'the greatest fossilist the world ever knew' - she exudes a certain simmy feel; as if she was created much more recently.

Her entire life was supposedly dedicated from a young age to fossil-hunting during which, she apparently made "many great discoveries, including several..fine ichthyosaur skeletons." But, says this page at Berkeley, perhaps her most important find, from a scientific point of view, was her discovery of the first plesiosaur..."

Image
Plesiosaur

And yet "comparatively little is known about her life" and there are no contemporary references to Anning.. Except this (according to wonkypedia)...
"In 1839 she wrote to the Magazine of Natural History to question the claim made in an article, that a recently discovered fossil of the prehistoric shark Hybodus represented a new genus, as an error since she had discovered the existence of fossil sharks with both straight and hooked teeth many years ago... The extract from the letter that the magazine printed was the only writing of Anning's published in the scientific literature during her lifetime."
Was "Mary Anning" just another sim; manufactured later to sell the hoax?
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by simonshack »

Evil Edna wrote:The Google Doodle for today is in recognition of Mary Anning, the posthumously revered fossil-hunter from the south-west of England.
I just find it a bit funny that, in Swedish, "Jag har ingen aning" means "I haven't got a clue". :lol:
Evil Edna
Banned
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 2:32 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by Evil Edna »

Suitable name, she's certainly leaves me baffled and clueless! <_<

A Google news search indicates that today's (?) doodle has already spawned a whopping 20,700 news articles on Anning. Not bad going for someone who probably didn't exist!

Noteworthy that the Fabian Left is now re-fashioning Anning into a feminist folk hero - unknown in her day simply because she was a woman, so they claim. Which fits usefully into their populist theme about the absence of women figureheads today. The feminist meme affording them plenty more column inches to plug Anning and, more importantly, 'her' Dinosaur Hoax.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/the- ... ry-geology
anonjedi2
Member
Posts: 860
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by anonjedi2 »

Coincidentally (or not), the word "Dinosaur" has a numerology values of 11 and 47. <_<
daozen
Member
Posts: 178
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:12 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by daozen »

If anyone is interested in buying real dinosaurs fossils...

https://web.archive.org/web/20130722145 ... ssils.html
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

daozen wrote:If anyone is interested in buying real dinosaurs fossils...

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/fossils.html
Interesting choice of name, and marketing. "Taylor Made Fossils" on an archaic and obscure Angelfire hosting site. Do they sell the traditional joke souvenir "dinosaur poop" as well?

It is something like this that makes me doubt the existence of dinosaurs even more.
daozen
Member
Posts: 178
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:12 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by daozen »

hoi.polloi wrote:
daozen wrote:If anyone is interested in buying real dinosaurs fossils...

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/fossils.html
Interesting choice of name, and marketing. "Taylor Made Fossils" on an archaic and obscure Angelfire hosting site. Do they sell the traditional joke souvenir "dinosaur poop" as well?

It is something like this that makes me doubt the existence of dinosaurs even more.
Yeah the brand name is very very :lol:

but hey... " If we don't have it we will find it for you! We can find real fossils or replicas and get you the lowest price anywhere. "

:P :lol:
guivre
Member
Posts: 206
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 9:48 pm
Contact:

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by guivre »

New spin on the asteroid story reads suspiciously like today's ecology news:


Asteroid's 'bad timing' killed off dinosaurs, new evidence shows

Edinburgh University experts say asteroid hit Earth at a time when ecosystems had been weakened by a loss of biodiversity

If the asteroid had hit a few million years earlier, or a few million years later, dinosaurs probably wouldn’t have gone extinct.' Photograph: Don Davis/AFP/Getty Images

Dinosaurs might have survived the catastrophic impact that ended their reign had the devastating asteroid that slammed into the Earth arrived at a "more convenient time", a scientist has claimed. As a result humans would probably not exist.

The violent collision 66m years ago, which occurred in the area that is now Mexico, triggered tsunamis across the oceans, caused powerful earthquakes and released enough heat to start many fires.

Material thrown into the air descended as acid rain, and also blocked the sun's warmth, cooling the Earth temporarily, perhaps by tens of degrees celsius. A thick blanket of dust that was thrown up darkened the globe, affecting plants and other photosynthesising life.

The devastation wrought by the impact almost certainly explains the sudden death of the land-based dinosaurs, according to fresh analysis of the latest data.

But one scientist on the team said the beasts might have prevailed had the asteroid struck earlier or later than it did.

Steve Brusatte, a paleontologist at Edinburgh University, was in an international team of researchers who reviewed the evidence on dinosaur extinction. The group looked at work done on prehistoric climate and temperatures, changes in sea levels, volcanic activity and biodiversity, before reaching a consensus that the asteroid was the prime culprit.

"The asteroid almost certainly did it but it just so happened to hit at a bad time when dinosaur ecosystems had been weakened by a loss of diversity," Brusatte said. "If the asteroid had hit a few million years earlier, or a few million years later, then dinosaurs probably wouldn't have gone extinct."

The scientists' report, published in Biological Reviews, found that while, largely, the dinosaurs were faring well at the time of the asteroid impact, the big plant-eating types, including the horned triceratops and duck-billed dinosaurs, had suffered a loss of biodiversity.
Oh, I see. I wonder if this triceratopian lack of diversity stems from the fact that scientists have reduced the number of species, due to misidentifying juveniles. :lol: (Covered earlier in this thread.)

A simple web search of "loss of biodiversity" brings up a slew of doom porn from all areas of science:

Diet.
Disease.
The most common comparison is with Climate Change

Jobs in biodiversity, however are booming! This is how it's being posed to our young people:
Human activity and population growth are increasing the pressure on natural ecosystems and many biologists believe we are currently experiencing the sixth global mass extinction. If you want to help mitigate this trend and actively participate in the management and research of threatened species and communities, then this major is for you.
http://www.studyat.uwa.edu.au/courses/c ... on-biology

HURRY! HURRY! <_< At least it'll get people to take a biology course or two.
Libero
Member
Posts: 333
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by Libero »

-- A thought provoking choice to include a dinosaur on the roof of a Ripley Odditorium whose motto challenges the patron to "Believe it or not!"

Image

Image

https://web.archive.org/web/20130330004 ... tions.html


According to his wiki, founder Robert Ripley, among his many talents also appears to have been an amateur anthropologist and looks to have connected with a big media mogul.
With a proven track record as a versatile writer and artist, he attracted the attention of publishing mogul William Randolph Hearst, who managed the King Features Syndicate. In 1929, Hearst was responsible for Believe It or Not! making its syndicated debut in seventeen papers worldwide.
I suppose, of course that it couldn't have been a bad idea business-wise to have a "Believe it or not!" section to sway attention from savvy readers who eventually might have realized that the "information" provided throughout the entire paper should have been scrutinized with the same level of skepticism. <_<

Image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Ripley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripley%27s ... _It_or_Not!
gwynned
Member
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:12 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by gwynned »

BIG NEWS! They may have found the BIGGEST (cough, cough) dinosaur of all time, with the curious name of DREADNOUGHTUS (dread-not-us???).
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science- ... de-n195306
Lacovara and his colleagues estimate that the creature measured about 85 feet (26 meters) long, 30 feet (9 meters) tall, and weighed about 65 tons (59 metric tons). That weight is the equivalent of a dozen elephants, or seven tyrannosaurs. And an analysis of Dreadnoughtus' microscopic bone structure suggests that it could have gotten even bigger. "When it died, it was still growing," Lacovara said.
I have to hand it to Brian Williams for keeping a straight face. Weighed as much as a 737. Is there a message here?
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by lux »

This is a photo accompanying the above article showing paleontologist Kenneth Lacovara next to a portion of his find, said to be "the right tibia bone":

Image

I thought the photo looked odd and took a closer look. The edges of Lacovara's figure have that pasted-in "halo" around the edges:

Image

And, a FotoForensics analysis definitely suggests that Lacovara's figure and the rest of the "photo" have different source images:

Image
http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?i ... d0b3.73674

Since there seems to be fakery afoot here my guess is that the props in the above "photo" (brush,pen,jar,ruler) are miniatures.

So, my conclusion is that we cannot judge the size of this “find” by looking at the above manipulated image since the image appears to be intentionally falsified. And, I see that Lacovarna has also made a name for himself in other “landmark” dinosaur “finds” including one that “filled an important gap in bird evolution.” source
anonjedi2
Member
Posts: 860
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by anonjedi2 »

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 Wed Oct 29, 2014 3:53 pm, edited 4 times in total.
anonjedi2
Member
Posts: 860
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by anonjedi2 »

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
Post Reply