The idea that dinosaurs existed has about as much weight to it as dragons existing.
Okay it's time to straighten things out -The "Flips" would happen once every year at the rate you specify. If this "explanation" were true, I would personally have experienced over 40 of these "flips" without going extinct. How did one "flip" kill hundreds of species, another break apart continents, but 40 of them do me no harm?
Time for The Flat Earth Flipper theory to save the day. Dinosaurs went extinct during the great Flip that happens when the earth gets almost to light speed (due to it accelerating at 9.8m/s^2). I explained this better in Flat Earth Flipper Theory General a few months ago. When the Earth flips right before light speed to start its acceleration cycle again back "down", it causes a lot of friction, heat, and extinction, with especially large creatures (such as dinosaurs) dying out. One of the great flips also caused Pangaea to slit.
Anyway, I hope this explains Dinosaurs!
Most FE believe dinosaurs existed. They even built boats!Some even believe that dinosaurs are still among us.
The idea that dinosaurs existed has about as much weight to it as dragons existing.
The idea that dinosaurs existed has about as much weight to it as dragons existing.
You've been asked several times to explain what the bones people find actually are. So far, you have failed to answer, because you're a liar.
Perhaps you missed the thread on the subject in which you posted many times and within which I answered.The idea that dinosaurs existed has about as much weight to it as dragons existing.
You've been asked several times to explain what the bones people find actually are. So far, you have failed to answer, because you're a liar.
The earth is infinite or non-euclidean current research states. Who else thought the earth infinite? Flatists like Charles Johnson and Samuel Rowbotham. I find it odd that only round earthers, as far as I have seen, come here and talk like this: "lele hurr durkie uddoo OOGOO AGGAA the aerTh iS ROUNDZ lelelelelele"The idea that dinosaurs existed has about as much weight to it as dragons existing.
You've been asked several times to explain what the bones people find actually are. So far, you have failed to answer, because you're a liar.
You're arguing with John Davis, the same person who says "lele hurr durkie uddoo OOGOO AGGAA the aerTh iS iNfIniTe lelelelelele" ::)
Dinosaurs existed, however they were larger creatures, and so unlike Crocodiles and other smaller animals the Dinosaurs died.
Perhaps you missed the thread on the subject in which you posted many times and within which I answered.The idea that dinosaurs existed has about as much weight to it as dragons existing.
You've been asked several times to explain what the bones people find actually are. So far, you have failed to answer, because you're a liar.
The idea that dinosaurs existed has about as much weight to it as dragons existing.
I have no idea what you are banging on about, but if its dragons? No thanks. Right out of that nonsense.
If you wish to believe in such malarky, more power to you. They make fun kids toys and shows. Now and then you get a Jurassic Park.
Or this kinda thing:
(https://fsmedia.imgix.net/01/81/0b/55/39e3/41ec/923c/296d596a56dc/dino-riders-the-complete-animated-series-2-dvd-set-8c978.jpeg)
Or a Yoshi, or something. Maybe Jesus riding one?
(http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/0/02/Jesus_on_raptor.JPG/revision/latest?cb=20061206215848)
So people tend to like it, but its completely bonkers. Just nuts.
(https://i2.wp.com/www.blogcdn.com/www.aoltv.com/media/2011/04/dinosaurs-everettcollection-636.jpg)
This feisty fellow's head would explode as he dove underwater for fish!
(http://www.toptenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Tanystropheus.jpg)
Look at him go!
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/Tanystropheus_longobardicus_4.JPG/2880px-Tanystropheus_longobardicus_4.JPG)
Totally legit reconstruction.
If you can't look at that and say "bonkers!" I don't know what you tell you. Its complete nonsense. Let's find another random dinosaur!
(http://www.dododex.com/media/creature/therizinosaurus.png)
"I can't eat without blinding myself, and falling over!"
Makes sense:
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5f/cb/10/5fcb101d9806659745b846227abe6ddd.jpg)
I see a ribcage, a lizard tail, some large feline feet, with various bird and lizard parts.
Its as much a Frankenstein as the nonsense you see in cartoons and movies.
Selective perception detected.
Bones like the Piltown chicken? I think I've made it clear where they come from
This feisty fellow's head would explode as he dove underwater for fish!
(http://www.toptenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Tanystropheus.jpg)
Gwyneth, any normal person knows that all those fossils are manufactured in China, and planted for the sole purpose of perpetuating the globe lie.
I gotta be honest, I kinda agree with John Davis, some of these Dinosaurs do look ridiculous...Its hard for me to take any part of a 90% lie as truth. Especially given that most the non-ridiculous ones were 'found' during the Bone Wars, when paleontologic misconduct was at an all time high.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/cloud.scoutmob.com/shoppe/products/94928/original/Giraffe-Anatomy-Art-Print-linton_3_0_Giraffe_(2).jpg)
A chicken body, with a snake neck and a bird beak??? Also what's with the Kangaroo legs in the back and the human legs in the front?!??!?!
I still believe some dinosaurs existed, but I concede that 90% were fake, like the above! John Davis, what do you think?
You mean when a farmer now and then digs up some bones and sells them?Bones like the Piltown chicken? I think I've made it clear where they come from
Where? Where's you explanation of when someone digs up a dinosaur, what those bones are if they aren't dinosaur bones? What are they? Don't you know? If you know, why won't you tell us? Are you trying to look like a troll on purpose, or are you one for real?
Another much more serious problem, however, is posed by forged, faked and manipulated specimens – such as National Geographic’s Archaeoraptor – which are becoming increasingly common. Farmers who dig for fossils do so to supplement their meagre incomes and are well aware that complete and spectacular specimens are worth far more than the fragmentary remains. Some don’t even realize they are faking specimens and combine pieces of different fossils found at the same locale. In the most extreme cases, this manipulation is intentional, involving fossils found at disparate locations. It sounds crude, but even the experts have to look carefully to detect the trickery when master forgers have been at work.
Fossils can be faked in a variety of ways. Sometimes they’re hewn from parts from the same species but come from different individuals, so you might have a Microraptor skull, tail and body all from different individuals. Another method involves combining the parts of different species to make a complete fossil that appears to be a new animal. ‘Dinosaurs are very similar to birds, so sometimes these fossils combine different birds, different dromaeosaur specimens, or even birds with dinosaurs’, Xu says. But the most extreme kind of forgery takes fragmentary fossils and carves out the missing parts from the stone.
Professor Phil Currie, at the University of Alberta in Canada, agrees. ‘The Chinese are excellent craftsmen and they have a long, long history of this. If part of the specimen is missing, many of these poachers and amateurs in fact will just restore them or mix specimens together’, he says. ‘If it gets in the wrong place and gets published, then it’s a big problem.’
In rare cases fossils are completely manufactured from scratch. Currie saw one example in China while on a research trip with Xu. ‘He got a call that a very nice specimen had been found and it looked like Archaeopteryx’, he says. ‘And so we flew to another part of China … and when we got there, it took just seconds to realize that it wasn’t a real fossil at all. It had been basically ground-up bone, glued back together in a certain way to look like the Archaeopteryx.’
It’s a significant hurdle to good science, and one that can’t easily be solved. ‘Fossil forgery in the last decade highlights some troubling trends in Chinese vertebrate paleontology’, wrote Xiaoming Wang, a paleontologist at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County in an opinion piece for the journal PNAS. “While fossil forgeries unfailingly stoke public fascination … the widespread damages that forgery causes are often not sufficiently recognized. Amid the renaissance of Chinese paleontology evidenced by stunning discoveries of inconceivable riches of fossils, paleontologic science is treading a path never experienced elsewhere: commercialization of fossils and all that goes with a quasi-free market of fossil trade that has simultaneously become the boom and bane of Chinese vertebrate paleontology.”
(https://i2.wp.com/www.blogcdn.com/www.aoltv.com/media/2011/04/dinosaurs-everettcollection-636.jpg)But your only argument seems to be, some fossils were found to be fake so the entire field is a fraud and made up.
Of course that is not my only argument.(https://i2.wp.com/www.blogcdn.com/www.aoltv.com/media/2011/04/dinosaurs-everettcollection-636.jpg)But your only argument seems to be, some fossils were found to be fake so the entire field is a fraud and made up.
Does that about cover it?
...and now ALL paleontologists are in on the conspiracy...Nope, they are just gullible. They might as well have spent their life studying alchemy.
Are you suggesting that alchemy never produced anything useful?...and now ALL paleontologists are in on the conspiracy...Nope, they are just gullible. They might as well have spent their life studying alchemy.
Ok some fakes and some look silly.Of course that is not my only argument.(https://i2.wp.com/www.blogcdn.com/www.aoltv.com/media/2011/04/dinosaurs-everettcollection-636.jpg)But your only argument seems to be, some fossils were found to be fake so the entire field is a fraud and made up.
Does that about cover it?
Never forget:
(https://i0.wp.com/listverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/picture-1-139.png)
That little chomper would bite through the top of his mouth as he ate!
But ok, looking silly and would kill themselves simply by existing doesn't mean they don't exist, right? There's plenty of more evidence - so much so that we can be dainty in our selection. Here are two great reasons to stop believing that dinosaurs existed:
Food Sources
Dinosaurs were too big to be able to feed themselves! Elephants have to eat around 18 hours a day. The brontosaurus, supposedly at least 5 times larger would have to eat for an impossible 90 hours a day! Given they can eat this impossible amount or somehow much faster, they would have depleted their food sources. At over 10 tons, a Mamenchisaurus would have to eat over 1000lbs of vegetation each day. This would destroy the ecosystem.
Impossible Sizes
Dinosaurs sizes are also inconsistent with what we know about 'gravity'. We know that any animal weighing more than 20,800lbs would not be able to lift its own weight thanks to Holden.
Long necked dinosaurs would not be able to lift their necks as well. Ignoring this, the blood pressure would cause their heart to explode. Consider the girafee who is at peak neck size - any longer and it would die from high blood pressure.
"And so we come to the sauropods and their gigantism. A sauropod needs to get a blood pressure of ~700 mm Hg to get blood to the top of its neck. For comparison, the average mammal has a blood pressure of 90 mm Hg. A fin whale produces “only” 100 mm Hg, although whales cheat by being in water. To produce a sauropod’s blood pressure, the whale would need a right ventricle that’s fifteen times heavier (up to two tons), with a wall five times thicker. This would effectively double the metabolic rate, meaning it would have to feed twice as much to be able to sustain itself. (See #1)
Here are a few more reasons also from older threads :
Unsustainable Size Would Require Decimation of Nearby Environment and Ecosystem
No Signs of Stress on Bones
An event that would kill off all dinosaurs would have destroyed ALL life on earth. This would be clear to see in evidence.
An extinction event like an Asteroid would not have killed off under-water dinosaurs
A full dinosaur skeleton has never been found
No evolutionary record of the supposed evolution into birds
Why is it that we have no dinosaur records from research before the 1800s?
Why have no native peoples discovered dinosaurs and incorporated them into their worldview?
Why is paleontology the only profession with such widespread hoaxes?
Why the disproportionate amount of headless dinofauxs in the 1800s Bone Wars and Rushes? Why were the ones they did find later found out to be faked?
The Bodies of Many dinosaurs make no sense with our knowledge of gravity
Not sure what this is supposed to mean.Ok some fakes and some look silly.Of course that is not my only argument.
But your only argument seems to be, some fossils were found to be fake so the entire field is a fraud and made up.
Does that about cover it?
Never forget:
(https://i0.wp.com/listverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/picture-1-139.png)
That little chomper would bite through the top of his mouth as he ate!
But ok, looking silly and would kill themselves simply by existing doesn't mean they don't exist, right? There's plenty of more evidence - so much so that we can be dainty in our selection. Here are two great reasons to stop believing that dinosaurs existed:
Food Sources
Dinosaurs were too big to be able to feed themselves! Elephants have to eat around 18 hours a day. The brontosaurus, supposedly at least 5 times larger would have to eat for an impossible 90 hours a day! Given they can eat this impossible amount or somehow much faster, they would have depleted their food sources. At over 10 tons, a Mamenchisaurus would have to eat over 1000lbs of vegetation each day. This would destroy the ecosystem.
Impossible Sizes
Dinosaurs sizes are also inconsistent with what we know about 'gravity'. We know that any animal weighing more than 20,800lbs would not be able to lift its own weight thanks to Holden.
Long necked dinosaurs would not be able to lift their necks as well. Ignoring this, the blood pressure would cause their heart to explode. Consider the girafee who is at peak neck size - any longer and it would die from high blood pressure.
"And so we come to the sauropods and their gigantism. A sauropod needs to get a blood pressure of ~700 mm Hg to get blood to the top of its neck. For comparison, the average mammal has a blood pressure of 90 mm Hg. A fin whale produces “only” 100 mm Hg, although whales cheat by being in water. To produce a sauropod’s blood pressure, the whale would need a right ventricle that’s fifteen times heavier (up to two tons), with a wall five times thicker. This would effectively double the metabolic rate, meaning it would have to feed twice as much to be able to sustain itself. (See #1)
Here are a few more reasons also from older threads :
Unsustainable Size Would Require Decimation of Nearby Environment and Ecosystem
No Signs of Stress on Bones
An event that would kill off all dinosaurs would have destroyed ALL life on earth. This would be clear to see in evidence.
An extinction event like an Asteroid would not have killed off under-water dinosaurs
A full dinosaur skeleton has never been found
No evolutionary record of the supposed evolution into birds
Why is it that we have no dinosaur records from research before the 1800s?
Why have no native peoples discovered dinosaurs and incorporated them into their worldview?
Why is paleontology the only profession with such widespread hoaxes?
Why the disproportionate amount of headless dinofauxs in the 1800s Bone Wars and Rushes? Why were the ones they did find later found out to be faked?
The Bodies of Many dinosaurs make no sense with our knowledge of gravity
Food. Wales are as big as dinosaurs and don't eat 90 hours a day so I have no idea where you got that bit of misinformation from.Bigger whales possess disproportionally larger mouths for the increase in engulfment capacity, pound for pound, of an individual. They feed by making use of these disproportionate mouths to capture huge bodies of prey at one time(Goldbogen et al). This is what allows them to be so large and still get the food they need, and they are nearing the physical limits to that system. This is not to mention their other feeding habits that aid them.
Complete skeletons have been found. Certainly as much as 90 %. Pretty impressive when you consider the amount of time we are talking about. So, again, not sure where you are getting your misinformation from.Where did you get your information that 90% of a skeleton is 100% of a skeleton?
We do know that there was a mass extinction that ended not only the dinosaurs but I believe 95% of all living species at the time. This was not the only great die off that has been discovered. Again, not sure where you are getting your misinformation from."I'm stating this as a fact, but I can't support it."
Given how you stated so many unsupported statements as fact that last line was pretty funny.Not sure what this is supposed to mean.Ok some fakes and some look silly.Of course that is not my only argument.
But your only argument seems to be, some fossils were found to be fake so the entire field is a fraud and made up.
Does that about cover it?
Never forget:
(https://i0.wp.com/listverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/picture-1-139.png)
That little chomper would bite through the top of his mouth as he ate!
But ok, looking silly and would kill themselves simply by existing doesn't mean they don't exist, right? There's plenty of more evidence - so much so that we can be dainty in our selection. Here are two great reasons to stop believing that dinosaurs existed:
Food Sources
Dinosaurs were too big to be able to feed themselves! Elephants have to eat around 18 hours a day. The brontosaurus, supposedly at least 5 times larger would have to eat for an impossible 90 hours a day! Given they can eat this impossible amount or somehow much faster, they would have depleted their food sources. At over 10 tons, a Mamenchisaurus would have to eat over 1000lbs of vegetation each day. This would destroy the ecosystem.
Impossible Sizes
Dinosaurs sizes are also inconsistent with what we know about 'gravity'. We know that any animal weighing more than 20,800lbs would not be able to lift its own weight thanks to Holden.
Long necked dinosaurs would not be able to lift their necks as well. Ignoring this, the blood pressure would cause their heart to explode. Consider the girafee who is at peak neck size - any longer and it would die from high blood pressure.
"And so we come to the sauropods and their gigantism. A sauropod needs to get a blood pressure of ~700 mm Hg to get blood to the top of its neck. For comparison, the average mammal has a blood pressure of 90 mm Hg. A fin whale produces “only” 100 mm Hg, although whales cheat by being in water. To produce a sauropod’s blood pressure, the whale would need a right ventricle that’s fifteen times heavier (up to two tons), with a wall five times thicker. This would effectively double the metabolic rate, meaning it would have to feed twice as much to be able to sustain itself. (See #1)
Here are a few more reasons also from older threads :
Unsustainable Size Would Require Decimation of Nearby Environment and Ecosystem
No Signs of Stress on Bones
An event that would kill off all dinosaurs would have destroyed ALL life on earth. This would be clear to see in evidence.
An extinction event like an Asteroid would not have killed off under-water dinosaurs
A full dinosaur skeleton has never been found
No evolutionary record of the supposed evolution into birds
Why is it that we have no dinosaur records from research before the 1800s?
Why have no native peoples discovered dinosaurs and incorporated them into their worldview?
Why is paleontology the only profession with such widespread hoaxes?
Why the disproportionate amount of headless dinofauxs in the 1800s Bone Wars and Rushes? Why were the ones they did find later found out to be faked?
The Bodies of Many dinosaurs make no sense with our knowledge of gravityQuoteFood. Wales are as big as dinosaurs and don't eat 90 hours a day so I have no idea where you got that bit of misinformation from.Bigger whales possess disproportionally larger mouths for the increase in engulfment capacity, pound for pound, of an individual. They feed by making use of these disproportionate mouths to capture huge bodies of prey at one time(Goldbogen et al). This is what allows them to be so large and still get the food they need, and they are nearing the physical limits to that system. This is not to mention their other feeding habits that aid them.
Dinosaurs do not share this quality, or any similarly disproportionate food gathering mechanism.QuoteComplete skeletons have been found. Certainly as much as 90 %. Pretty impressive when you consider the amount of time we are talking about. So, again, not sure where you are getting your misinformation from.Where did you get your information that 90% of a skeleton is 100% of a skeleton?QuoteWe do know that there was a mass extinction that ended not only the dinosaurs but I believe 95% of all living species at the time. This was not the only great die off that has been discovered. Again, not sure where you are getting your misinformation from."I'm stating this as a fact, but I can't support it."
Most FE believe dinosaurs existed. They even built boats!
I suspect John thinks he's been amusing, or "challenging our preconceived notions" or some such shit.
In reality he's just pushing another ludicrous conspiracy theory.
However, I do agree that this is fake, no such animal could ever exist. Just laughable.
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/cloud.scoutmob.com/shoppe/products/94928/original/Giraffe-Anatomy-Art-Print-linton_3_0_Giraffe_(2).jpg)
ShhhhhI suspect John thinks he's been amusing, or "challenging our preconceived notions" or some such shit.
In reality he's just pushing another ludicrous conspiracy theory.
However, I do agree that this is fake, no such animal could ever exist. Just laughable.
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/cloud.scoutmob.com/shoppe/products/94928/original/Giraffe-Anatomy-Art-Print-linton_3_0_Giraffe_(2).jpg)
Isn't that a skeleton of giraffe?
...and now ALL paleontologists are in on the conspiracy...Nope, they are just gullible. They might as well have spent their life studying alchemy.
Isn't that a skeleton of giraffe?
Shhhhh
I gotta be honest, I kinda agree with John Davis, some of these Dinosaurs do look ridiculous...
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/cloud.scoutmob.com/shoppe/products/94928/original/Giraffe-Anatomy-Art-Print-linton_3_0_Giraffe_(2).jpg)
A chicken body, with a snake neck and a bird beak??? Also what's with the Kangaroo legs in the back and the human legs in the front?!??!?!
I still believe some dinosaurs existed, but I concede that 90% were fake, like the above! John Davis, what do you think?
I gotta be honest, I kinda agree with John Davis, some of these Dinosaurs do look ridiculous...
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/cloud.scoutmob.com/shoppe/products/94928/original/Giraffe-Anatomy-Art-Print-linton_3_0_Giraffe_(2).jpg)
A chicken body, with a snake neck and a bird beak??? Also what's with the Kangaroo legs in the back and the human legs in the front?!??!?!
I still believe some dinosaurs existed, but I concede that 90% were fake, like the above! John Davis, what do you think?
I suspect John thinks he's been amusing, or "challenging our preconceived notions" or some such shit.
In reality he's just pushing another ludicrous conspiracy theory.
However, I do agree that this is fake, no such animal could ever exist. Just laughable.
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/cloud.scoutmob.com/shoppe/products/94928/original/Giraffe-Anatomy-Art-Print-linton_3_0_Giraffe_(2).jpg)
Does that make its existence any less ridiculous?I suspect John thinks he's been amusing, or "challenging our preconceived notions" or some such shit.
In reality he's just pushing another ludicrous conspiracy theory.
However, I do agree that this is fake, no such animal could ever exist. Just laughable.
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/cloud.scoutmob.com/shoppe/products/94928/original/Giraffe-Anatomy-Art-Print-linton_3_0_Giraffe_(2).jpg)
once again this is a giraffe
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/cloud.scoutmob.com/shoppe/products/94928/original/Giraffe-Anatomy-Art-Print-linton_3_0_Giraffe_(2).jpg [/i m g ]
[img width=300]https://thumb7.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/1185467/446866321/stock-vector-giraffe-with-skeletal-system-illustration-446866321.jpg)
https://thumb7.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/1185467/446866321/stock-vector-giraffe-with-skeletal-system-illustration-446866321.jpg
It was brilliantIsn't that a skeleton of giraffe?Shhhhh
Hey! At least give me credit for the original post!I gotta be honest, I kinda agree with John Davis, some of these Dinosaurs do look ridiculous...
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/cloud.scoutmob.com/shoppe/products/94928/original/Giraffe-Anatomy-Art-Print-linton_3_0_Giraffe_(2).jpg)
A chicken body, with a snake neck and a bird beak??? Also what's with the Kangaroo legs in the back and the human legs in the front?!??!?!
I still believe some dinosaurs existed, but I concede that 90% were fake, like the above! John Davis, what do you think?
And let's talk a bit about how their bones have to be filled with air, just for them to lumber about and eat for 90 hours a day.Filled with air? Do you mean like the hollow bones found in modern birds?
Past their impossible physiology, they are made from ad hoc hypotheses after ad hoc hypotheses, all from those vying for contracts for their findings to be shown in museums and legitimize their career and add a bullet point to their resume. Paleontology is the biggest joke out there. You might as well believe that Penguins aren't walking lunch boxes.You have not shown it to be impossible merely that you don't understand.
No, all you've done is show that you don't know how whales can sustain their size and have not shown that these dinofauxs have ways past the cited physical limits.Past their impossible physiology, they are made from ad hoc hypotheses after ad hoc hypotheses, all from those vying for contracts for their findings to be shown in museums and legitimize their career and add a bullet point to their resume. Paleontology is the biggest joke out there. You might as well believe that Penguins aren't walking lunch boxes.You have not shown it to be impossible merely that you don't understand.
Yes! Let's talk about nazi penguins!
...another argument based on deception and conspiracy, with no evidence other than "it seems impossible".I didn't post a picture of giraffe at all, if that is what you are talking about rockstar.
Then, you post a diagram of a skeleton that you think is ridiculous, not knowing the creature actually walks the Earth TODAY!
John, you may not know this, but YOU are the biggest joke out there!
And let's talk a bit about how their bones have to be filled with air, just for them to lumber about and eat for 90 hours a day.I'd rather have a less retarded conversation, but you carry on.
No, you have merely claimed those were the physical limits. Then refused to look at any other possibilities.No, all you've done is show that you don't know how whales can sustain their size and have not shown that these dinofauxs have ways past the cited physical limits.Past their impossible physiology, they are made from ad hoc hypotheses after ad hoc hypotheses, all from those vying for contracts for their findings to be shown in museums and legitimize their career and add a bullet point to their resume. Paleontology is the biggest joke out there. You might as well believe that Penguins aren't walking lunch boxes.You have not shown it to be impossible merely that you don't understand.
Yes! Let's talk about nazi penguins!
And let's talk a bit about how their bones have to be filled with air, just for them to lumber about and eat for 90 hours a day.
No, you have merely claimed those were the physical limits. Then refused to look at any other possibilities.No, all you've done is show that you don't know how whales can sustain their size and have not shown that these dinofauxs have ways past the cited physical limits.Past their impossible physiology, they are made from ad hoc hypotheses after ad hoc hypotheses, all from those vying for contracts for their findings to be shown in museums and legitimize their career and add a bullet point to their resume. Paleontology is the biggest joke out there. You might as well believe that Penguins aren't walking lunch boxes.You have not shown it to be impossible merely that you don't understand.
Yes! Let's talk about nazi penguins!
Nazi penguins anyone?
Perhaps Alabama electing a Democrat broke the space-time continuum.And let's talk a bit about how their bones have to be filled with air, just for them to lumber about and eat for 90 hours a day.
It looks like Mr Davis beliefs have ventured into disbelief of time, it looks like he believes in a 90 hour day! Well I suppose that’s just one more fiction to add to his long list.
Perhaps Alabama electing a Democrat broke the space-time continuum.And let's talk a bit about how their bones have to be filled with air, just for them to lumber about and eat for 90 hours a day.
It looks like Mr Davis beliefs have ventured into disbelief of time, it looks like he believes in a 90 hour day! Well I suppose that’s just one more fiction to add to his long list.
Nope, I cited two sources that explained exactly why they were the limits, and why whales were riding on the edge of the limits and how they get around this. I was supplied with no counter theories or other possibilities aside from "Nuh UH!" and "NO you didn't!"No, you have merely claimed those were the physical limits. Then refused to look at any other possibilities.No, all you've done is show that you don't know how whales can sustain their size and have not shown that these dinofauxs have ways past the cited physical limits.Past their impossible physiology, they are made from ad hoc hypotheses after ad hoc hypotheses, all from those vying for contracts for their findings to be shown in museums and legitimize their career and add a bullet point to their resume. Paleontology is the biggest joke out there. You might as well believe that Penguins aren't walking lunch boxes.You have not shown it to be impossible merely that you don't understand.
Yes! Let's talk about nazi penguins!
Nazi penguins anyone?
You mean when a farmer now and then digs up some bones and sells them?
Some are fabricated for said pay off; some are mistakenly identified or reconstructed, like the iguanodon and Gideon Mantell's wife.
The bones of an iguanodon were mistakenly assembled many times. The history is quite humorous. They were assembled from the bones of several non-dinosaurs into something that looked like a dinosaur. When flaws and fakery were found (and they were) they adjusted their work to this.
You mean when a farmer now and then digs up some bones and sells them?
Some are fabricated for said pay off; some are mistakenly identified or reconstructed, like the iguanodon and Gideon Mantell's wife.
No, you cretin. Your explanation of them being fakes relies entirely on "someone else" finding them, i.e. deliberately faking them to sell them to others. What about real people who actually find one in the ground, buried in solid rock where nobody could possibly have planted it? As for "mistakenly identified" - that's just a circular argument. If the bones of an iguanodon aren't an iguanodon, then WTF are they? If an animal has the skeleton of an iguanodon, then maybe, perhaps, it IS an iguanodon?
I've found fossils in rock. They're not fakes, they've not been planted. I've never found a dinosaur, but plenty of other real people have.
https://www.thoughtco.com/why-were-dinosaurs-so-big-1092128 (https://www.thoughtco.com/why-were-dinosaurs-so-big-1092128)Nope, I cited two sources that explained exactly why they were the limits, and why whales were riding on the edge of the limits and how they get around this. I was supplied with no counter theories or other possibilities aside from "Nuh UH!" and "NO you didn't!"No, you have merely claimed those were the physical limits. Then refused to look at any other possibilities.No, all you've done is show that you don't know how whales can sustain their size and have not shown that these dinofauxs have ways past the cited physical limits.Past their impossible physiology, they are made from ad hoc hypotheses after ad hoc hypotheses, all from those vying for contracts for their findings to be shown in museums and legitimize their career and add a bullet point to their resume. Paleontology is the biggest joke out there. You might as well believe that Penguins aren't walking lunch boxes.You have not shown it to be impossible merely that you don't understand.
Yes! Let's talk about nazi penguins!
Nazi penguins anyone?
The bones of an iguanodon were mistakenly assembled many times. The history is quite humorous. They were assembled from the bones of several non-dinosaurs into something that looked like a dinosaur. When flaws and fakery were found (and they were) they adjusted their work to this.
You mean when a farmer now and then digs up some bones and sells them?
Some are fabricated for said pay off; some are mistakenly identified or reconstructed, like the iguanodon and Gideon Mantell's wife.
No, you cretin. Your explanation of them being fakes relies entirely on "someone else" finding them, i.e. deliberately faking them to sell them to others. What about real people who actually find one in the ground, buried in solid rock where nobody could possibly have planted it? As for "mistakenly identified" - that's just a circular argument. If the bones of an iguanodon aren't an iguanodon, then WTF are they? If an animal has the skeleton of an iguanodon, then maybe, perhaps, it IS an iguanodon?
I've found fossils in rock. They're not fakes, they've not been planted. I've never found a dinosaur, but plenty of other real people have.
I have no doubt fossils exist. I also have no doubt that a farmer might find a bone and think its a dinosaur when in reality its just a bone for another creature.
And look at some of those explanations - ancient gravity! Wow and people think we have odd beliefs. Best change gravity to make dinosaurs able to exist, in spite of it tainting their entire field of study.Actually the article specifically mentions that some non scientists have made that claim but that it is ridiculous. Did you even read them?
One of the first dinosaurs was in the lobby of an entertaining room, as a spectacle for foolish visitors. The attention of the public was caught by a Charismatic Creationist, in one fateful speech. The first was a bunch of teeth experts repeatedly confirmed were nothing, found by a quarry owners wife. He later found a gator skull, piltdowned it, and we now have the iguanodon.
One of the first dinosaurs was in the lobby of an entertaining room, as a spectacle for foolish visitors. The attention of the public was caught by a Charismatic Creationist, in one fateful speech. The first was a bunch of teeth experts repeatedly confirmed were nothing, found by a quarry owners wife. He later found a gator skull, piltdowned it, and we now have the iguanodon.
Full size concrete models of dinosaurs including iguanodon were made in 1852 and still stand to this day in Crystal Palace Park. When your next in London you can go and have a look.I live within walking distance of these and visit regularly - they are fantastic. There is an ongoing restoration project, so they are looking better than they have in quite a while.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Palace_Dinosaurs
All attempts are equally flawed to assemble them. Sure they found better ways to assemble dead reptile, bird and animal bones since they started, but its all nonsense that is built off nonsense.One of the first dinosaurs was in the lobby of an entertaining room, as a spectacle for foolish visitors. The attention of the public was caught by a Charismatic Creationist, in one fateful speech. The first was a bunch of teeth experts repeatedly confirmed were nothing, found by a quarry owners wife. He later found a gator skull, piltdowned it, and we now have the iguanodon.One of the first dinosaurs was in the lobby of an entertaining room, as a spectacle for foolish visitors. The attention of the public was caught by a Charismatic Creationist, in one fateful speech. The first was a bunch of teeth experts repeatedly confirmed were nothing, found by a quarry owners wife. He later found a gator skull, piltdowned it, and we now have the iguanodon.
Could you provide your sources for this story. Knowing a bit about the history of Paleontology I think you have read the story embelished It, mixed it up a bit and then made the rest up.
One thing that is true is that in the 19 Century when Paleontology was in its infancy people were not quite sure how all the bones went together and the bones of the iguanodon were indeed incorrectly assembled. I think your mockery of the early attempts at assembling what was a new discovery to science is rather puerile.
I think you may have been referring to the wife of Gideon Mantell, a country doctor and fossil collector. The story that was told was his wife found some teeth, but he admitted later, in 1851 that it was he discovered them.
It might surprise many to know some of the history of dinosaurs.
The Beginnings of the Myth
Gideon Mantell claimed his wife Mary Ann discovered some unusual teeth - clearly not ready to accept the blame of his own forgery. Once he gained fame for this, he then took credit in 1851, claiming them to be of a giant crocodile. Mantell also unearthed a largely incomplete skeleton, and rightfully concluded that the teeth did not belong to it. The plant eating teeth were dismissed as fish teeth or teeth of a rhinoceros by experts of the time.
He quickly changed his story after hearing of a 'larger than life' (literally) tale by a Richard Owen. The charismatic creationist Sir Richard Owen in 1842 invented the dinosaur, in a two hour captivating speech. Using fragments of bones from here and there he heaped fiction upon fiction to support his imaginative view of what were essentially dragons for a new age. Having had his imagination taken away by Owen he quickly pasted these two finds together.
This was used by Hayden when he found some random large bones in the Missouri River in 1854. These were largely just teeth again. How is it that Sir Owen described dinosaurs before their proper discovery in 1854? Until then all we knew about was a large crocodile and some fish teeth. It sounds like somebody found some teeth and wanted to get some fame out of it so made his discoveries fit the imaginative tales of a master story teller.
The First Dinosaur Hoax
The supposed first discovery of a dinosaur was by William Parker Foulke in 1858. Having heard of a fellow named Hopkins pulling bones out of a pit and putting them on display at his house, envious, he went and pulled out the first nearly complete skeleton of a dinosaur. Hopkins discovered his large bones in 1838. There is no evidence that these bones belonged to any type of large lizard.
As it turns out, the skull of Foulke was shown to be faked, and it was made using an iguana skull as reference. They replaced it with, I know you can't guess this - a duck bill. This was then shown to also be fake. Later it was shown that his impossible posture was also faked. However, the damage was done, and the American people captivated with the dinosaur myth, adding it dogmatically into their scientific religion, never to be questioned again.
The War of the Hoaxers
IN the late 1870s began the great Dinosaur rush. led by Cope and Marsh they quickly fell to greed and became mortal enemies. Using spies, armed thugs, and theft, they spent much of their time fighting each other to gain fame for their fanciful inventions highlighting the despicable mark of the scientist - "anything goes." They simply were not able to share the spotlight, it seems. These two are responsible for the largest majority of dinosaur findings of the time by FAR. They single handedly found as many bones as possible and tied them together in any way possible in one of sciences greatest pissing contests, ignoring logic and error that would only be discovered years later. Known as the 'bone wars' these two people are responsible more than anybody else for all the ridiculously fake dinosaurs we see continuing in the tradition of planting bones in locations and grafting together unrelated species to make their Frankenstein lizards.
The Second Dinosaur Rush
The second rush occurred in Canada, Alberta to be specific. Having dug up all the animal bones they could from the Missouri river they turned their attention to the well known bone harvest ground of the Red Deer River. In 1910 this area become the main collecting area for bones. Again we have another fight for fame this time between Barnum Brown and Sternberg.
This begs the question. Why is it that no Native Americans discovered any of these bones? Why are there no discoveries by any culture or any mention of these dinosaurs before 1842?! The area was very often inhabited by many native tribes. But beyond this, there are no mentions of dinosaurs at all before 1800s in any country or any culture. They are clearly very common to find during this time, so much so that Richard Owen pulled them out of a random pit. Additionally, no artifacts were reported from indigenous people - lending credence to the idea that they were transporting bones from other areas and planting them to further their fame.
Are we supposed to believe there were no quarries before the 1800s? Or that we as a species collectively ignored the giant bones lying around everywhere, especially near water where we are known to prefer to build cities? No, this is patently ridiculous.
So some people faked some stuff 150 years ago so everyone in that field since then is a fake and a liar.All attempts are equally flawed to assemble them. Sure they found better ways to assemble dead reptile, bird and animal bones since they started, but its all nonsense that is built off nonsense.One of the first dinosaurs was in the lobby of an entertaining room, as a spectacle for foolish visitors. The attention of the public was caught by a Charismatic Creationist, in one fateful speech. The first was a bunch of teeth experts repeatedly confirmed were nothing, found by a quarry owners wife. He later found a gator skull, piltdowned it, and we now have the iguanodon.One of the first dinosaurs was in the lobby of an entertaining room, as a spectacle for foolish visitors. The attention of the public was caught by a Charismatic Creationist, in one fateful speech. The first was a bunch of teeth experts repeatedly confirmed were nothing, found by a quarry owners wife. He later found a gator skull, piltdowned it, and we now have the iguanodon.
Could you provide your sources for this story. Knowing a bit about the history of Paleontology I think you have read the story embelished It, mixed it up a bit and then made the rest up.
One thing that is true is that in the 19 Century when Paleontology was in its infancy people were not quite sure how all the bones went together and the bones of the iguanodon were indeed incorrectly assembled. I think your mockery of the early attempts at assembling what was a new discovery to science is rather puerile.
I think you may have been referring to the wife of Gideon Mantell, a country doctor and fossil collector. The story that was told was his wife found some teeth, but he admitted later, in 1851 that it was he discovered them.
Yes, Mantell later tried to take credit for the teeth his wife found. You know, because he was a stand up guy.It might surprise many to know some of the history of dinosaurs.
The Beginnings of the Myth
Gideon Mantell claimed his wife Mary Ann discovered some unusual teeth - clearly not ready to accept the blame of his own forgery. Once he gained fame for this, he then took credit in 1851, claiming them to be of a giant crocodile. Mantell also unearthed a largely incomplete skeleton, and rightfully concluded that the teeth did not belong to it. The plant eating teeth were dismissed as fish teeth or teeth of a rhinoceros by experts of the time.
He quickly changed his story after hearing of a 'larger than life' (literally) tale by a Richard Owen. The charismatic creationist Sir Richard Owen in 1842 invented the dinosaur, in a two hour captivating speech. Using fragments of bones from here and there he heaped fiction upon fiction to support his imaginative view of what were essentially dragons for a new age. Having had his imagination taken away by Owen he quickly pasted these two finds together.
This was used by Hayden when he found some random large bones in the Missouri River in 1854. These were largely just teeth again. How is it that Sir Owen described dinosaurs before their proper discovery in 1854? Until then all we knew about was a large crocodile and some fish teeth. It sounds like somebody found some teeth and wanted to get some fame out of it so made his discoveries fit the imaginative tales of a master story teller.
The First Dinosaur Hoax
The supposed first discovery of a dinosaur was by William Parker Foulke in 1858. Having heard of a fellow named Hopkins pulling bones out of a pit and putting them on display at his house, envious, he went and pulled out the first nearly complete skeleton of a dinosaur. Hopkins discovered his large bones in 1838. There is no evidence that these bones belonged to any type of large lizard.
As it turns out, the skull of Foulke was shown to be faked, and it was made using an iguana skull as reference. They replaced it with, I know you can't guess this - a duck bill. This was then shown to also be fake. Later it was shown that his impossible posture was also faked. However, the damage was done, and the American people captivated with the dinosaur myth, adding it dogmatically into their scientific religion, never to be questioned again.
The War of the Hoaxers
IN the late 1870s began the great Dinosaur rush. led by Cope and Marsh they quickly fell to greed and became mortal enemies. Using spies, armed thugs, and theft, they spent much of their time fighting each other to gain fame for their fanciful inventions highlighting the despicable mark of the scientist - "anything goes." They simply were not able to share the spotlight, it seems. These two are responsible for the largest majority of dinosaur findings of the time by FAR. They single handedly found as many bones as possible and tied them together in any way possible in one of sciences greatest pissing contests, ignoring logic and error that would only be discovered years later. Known as the 'bone wars' these two people are responsible more than anybody else for all the ridiculously fake dinosaurs we see continuing in the tradition of planting bones in locations and grafting together unrelated species to make their Frankenstein lizards.
The Second Dinosaur Rush
The second rush occurred in Canada, Alberta to be specific. Having dug up all the animal bones they could from the Missouri river they turned their attention to the well known bone harvest ground of the Red Deer River. In 1910 this area become the main collecting area for bones. Again we have another fight for fame this time between Barnum Brown and Sternberg.
This begs the question. Why is it that no Native Americans discovered any of these bones? Why are there no discoveries by any culture or any mention of these dinosaurs before 1842?! The area was very often inhabited by many native tribes. But beyond this, there are no mentions of dinosaurs at all before 1800s in any country or any culture. They are clearly very common to find during this time, so much so that Richard Owen pulled them out of a random pit. Additionally, no artifacts were reported from indigenous people - lending credence to the idea that they were transporting bones from other areas and planting them to further their fame.
Are we supposed to believe there were no quarries before the 1800s? Or that we as a species collectively ignored the giant bones lying around everywhere, especially near water where we are known to prefer to build cities? No, this is patently ridiculous.
Is he claiming all the trackways are fake, made as part of a conspiracy to somehow benefit all the world’s Palaeontologists?....while at the same time believing moonlight is dangerous and Penguins are a result of a Nazi experiment that are being used to feed Antartic guards!When you put everything together like this, it becomes pretty clear that there are only two explanations for "why?". One, he could be extremely delusional or two, he could be enjoying the attention he gets from aggravating people with nonsense.
I think I see a pattern developing, do you?
All this sounds just like their excuses for claiming satelites don’t exist along with the Hubble telescope, all the space missions, moon landings, the list goes on...oh and of course all the resulting photographs. Apparently John doesn’t believe in photographs according to a statement he made on another topic.
The common denominator is they ignore evidence, play a conspirac card all in some bizarre and outlandish effort to shore up their fictitious beliefs. Why?
They aren't all liars; they just learned lies as facts and unwittingly continue to push them. This makes it all the more funny to watch them fill their dragon bones with air, and create other magical solutions to their impossibilities. Its a very similar situation to round earthers - they aren't all liars. They are wrong.So some people faked some stuff 150 years ago so everyone in that field since then is a fake and a liar.All attempts are equally flawed to assemble them. Sure they found better ways to assemble dead reptile, bird and animal bones since they started, but its all nonsense that is built off nonsense.One of the first dinosaurs was in the lobby of an entertaining room, as a spectacle for foolish visitors. The attention of the public was caught by a Charismatic Creationist, in one fateful speech. The first was a bunch of teeth experts repeatedly confirmed were nothing, found by a quarry owners wife. He later found a gator skull, piltdowned it, and we now have the iguanodon.One of the first dinosaurs was in the lobby of an entertaining room, as a spectacle for foolish visitors. The attention of the public was caught by a Charismatic Creationist, in one fateful speech. The first was a bunch of teeth experts repeatedly confirmed were nothing, found by a quarry owners wife. He later found a gator skull, piltdowned it, and we now have the iguanodon.
Could you provide your sources for this story. Knowing a bit about the history of Paleontology I think you have read the story embelished It, mixed it up a bit and then made the rest up.
One thing that is true is that in the 19 Century when Paleontology was in its infancy people were not quite sure how all the bones went together and the bones of the iguanodon were indeed incorrectly assembled. I think your mockery of the early attempts at assembling what was a new discovery to science is rather puerile.
I think you may have been referring to the wife of Gideon Mantell, a country doctor and fossil collector. The story that was told was his wife found some teeth, but he admitted later, in 1851 that it was he discovered them.
Yes, Mantell later tried to take credit for the teeth his wife found. You know, because he was a stand up guy.It might surprise many to know some of the history of dinosaurs.
The Beginnings of the Myth
Gideon Mantell claimed his wife Mary Ann discovered some unusual teeth - clearly not ready to accept the blame of his own forgery. Once he gained fame for this, he then took credit in 1851, claiming them to be of a giant crocodile. Mantell also unearthed a largely incomplete skeleton, and rightfully concluded that the teeth did not belong to it. The plant eating teeth were dismissed as fish teeth or teeth of a rhinoceros by experts of the time.
He quickly changed his story after hearing of a 'larger than life' (literally) tale by a Richard Owen. The charismatic creationist Sir Richard Owen in 1842 invented the dinosaur, in a two hour captivating speech. Using fragments of bones from here and there he heaped fiction upon fiction to support his imaginative view of what were essentially dragons for a new age. Having had his imagination taken away by Owen he quickly pasted these two finds together.
This was used by Hayden when he found some random large bones in the Missouri River in 1854. These were largely just teeth again. How is it that Sir Owen described dinosaurs before their proper discovery in 1854? Until then all we knew about was a large crocodile and some fish teeth. It sounds like somebody found some teeth and wanted to get some fame out of it so made his discoveries fit the imaginative tales of a master story teller.
The First Dinosaur Hoax
The supposed first discovery of a dinosaur was by William Parker Foulke in 1858. Having heard of a fellow named Hopkins pulling bones out of a pit and putting them on display at his house, envious, he went and pulled out the first nearly complete skeleton of a dinosaur. Hopkins discovered his large bones in 1838. There is no evidence that these bones belonged to any type of large lizard.
As it turns out, the skull of Foulke was shown to be faked, and it was made using an iguana skull as reference. They replaced it with, I know you can't guess this - a duck bill. This was then shown to also be fake. Later it was shown that his impossible posture was also faked. However, the damage was done, and the American people captivated with the dinosaur myth, adding it dogmatically into their scientific religion, never to be questioned again.
The War of the Hoaxers
IN the late 1870s began the great Dinosaur rush. led by Cope and Marsh they quickly fell to greed and became mortal enemies. Using spies, armed thugs, and theft, they spent much of their time fighting each other to gain fame for their fanciful inventions highlighting the despicable mark of the scientist - "anything goes." They simply were not able to share the spotlight, it seems. These two are responsible for the largest majority of dinosaur findings of the time by FAR. They single handedly found as many bones as possible and tied them together in any way possible in one of sciences greatest pissing contests, ignoring logic and error that would only be discovered years later. Known as the 'bone wars' these two people are responsible more than anybody else for all the ridiculously fake dinosaurs we see continuing in the tradition of planting bones in locations and grafting together unrelated species to make their Frankenstein lizards.
The Second Dinosaur Rush
The second rush occurred in Canada, Alberta to be specific. Having dug up all the animal bones they could from the Missouri river they turned their attention to the well known bone harvest ground of the Red Deer River. In 1910 this area become the main collecting area for bones. Again we have another fight for fame this time between Barnum Brown and Sternberg.
This begs the question. Why is it that no Native Americans discovered any of these bones? Why are there no discoveries by any culture or any mention of these dinosaurs before 1842?! The area was very often inhabited by many native tribes. But beyond this, there are no mentions of dinosaurs at all before 1800s in any country or any culture. They are clearly very common to find during this time, so much so that Richard Owen pulled them out of a random pit. Additionally, no artifacts were reported from indigenous people - lending credence to the idea that they were transporting bones from other areas and planting them to further their fame.
Are we supposed to believe there were no quarries before the 1800s? Or that we as a species collectively ignored the giant bones lying around everywhere, especially near water where we are known to prefer to build cities? No, this is patently ridiculous.
Got it.
I use the same logic with medicine. During that same time period there were a lot of so called wonder drugs sold by fake doctors.
Clearly every drug since then is a fake.
So the team working on cleaning a giant leg bone at our local museum are just wrong. Ok.They aren't all liars; they just learned lies as facts and unwittingly continue to push them. This makes it all the more funny to watch them fill their dragon bones with air, and create other magical solutions to their impossibilities. Its a very similar situation to round earthers - they aren't all liars. They are wrong.So some people faked some stuff 150 years ago so everyone in that field since then is a fake and a liar.All attempts are equally flawed to assemble them. Sure they found better ways to assemble dead reptile, bird and animal bones since they started, but its all nonsense that is built off nonsense.One of the first dinosaurs was in the lobby of an entertaining room, as a spectacle for foolish visitors. The attention of the public was caught by a Charismatic Creationist, in one fateful speech. The first was a bunch of teeth experts repeatedly confirmed were nothing, found by a quarry owners wife. He later found a gator skull, piltdowned it, and we now have the iguanodon.One of the first dinosaurs was in the lobby of an entertaining room, as a spectacle for foolish visitors. The attention of the public was caught by a Charismatic Creationist, in one fateful speech. The first was a bunch of teeth experts repeatedly confirmed were nothing, found by a quarry owners wife. He later found a gator skull, piltdowned it, and we now have the iguanodon.
Could you provide your sources for this story. Knowing a bit about the history of Paleontology I think you have read the story embelished It, mixed it up a bit and then made the rest up.
One thing that is true is that in the 19 Century when Paleontology was in its infancy people were not quite sure how all the bones went together and the bones of the iguanodon were indeed incorrectly assembled. I think your mockery of the early attempts at assembling what was a new discovery to science is rather puerile.
I think you may have been referring to the wife of Gideon Mantell, a country doctor and fossil collector. The story that was told was his wife found some teeth, but he admitted later, in 1851 that it was he discovered them.
Yes, Mantell later tried to take credit for the teeth his wife found. You know, because he was a stand up guy.It might surprise many to know some of the history of dinosaurs.
The Beginnings of the Myth
Gideon Mantell claimed his wife Mary Ann discovered some unusual teeth - clearly not ready to accept the blame of his own forgery. Once he gained fame for this, he then took credit in 1851, claiming them to be of a giant crocodile. Mantell also unearthed a largely incomplete skeleton, and rightfully concluded that the teeth did not belong to it. The plant eating teeth were dismissed as fish teeth or teeth of a rhinoceros by experts of the time.
He quickly changed his story after hearing of a 'larger than life' (literally) tale by a Richard Owen. The charismatic creationist Sir Richard Owen in 1842 invented the dinosaur, in a two hour captivating speech. Using fragments of bones from here and there he heaped fiction upon fiction to support his imaginative view of what were essentially dragons for a new age. Having had his imagination taken away by Owen he quickly pasted these two finds together.
This was used by Hayden when he found some random large bones in the Missouri River in 1854. These were largely just teeth again. How is it that Sir Owen described dinosaurs before their proper discovery in 1854? Until then all we knew about was a large crocodile and some fish teeth. It sounds like somebody found some teeth and wanted to get some fame out of it so made his discoveries fit the imaginative tales of a master story teller.
The First Dinosaur Hoax
The supposed first discovery of a dinosaur was by William Parker Foulke in 1858. Having heard of a fellow named Hopkins pulling bones out of a pit and putting them on display at his house, envious, he went and pulled out the first nearly complete skeleton of a dinosaur. Hopkins discovered his large bones in 1838. There is no evidence that these bones belonged to any type of large lizard.
As it turns out, the skull of Foulke was shown to be faked, and it was made using an iguana skull as reference. They replaced it with, I know you can't guess this - a duck bill. This was then shown to also be fake. Later it was shown that his impossible posture was also faked. However, the damage was done, and the American people captivated with the dinosaur myth, adding it dogmatically into their scientific religion, never to be questioned again.
The War of the Hoaxers
IN the late 1870s began the great Dinosaur rush. led by Cope and Marsh they quickly fell to greed and became mortal enemies. Using spies, armed thugs, and theft, they spent much of their time fighting each other to gain fame for their fanciful inventions highlighting the despicable mark of the scientist - "anything goes." They simply were not able to share the spotlight, it seems. These two are responsible for the largest majority of dinosaur findings of the time by FAR. They single handedly found as many bones as possible and tied them together in any way possible in one of sciences greatest pissing contests, ignoring logic and error that would only be discovered years later. Known as the 'bone wars' these two people are responsible more than anybody else for all the ridiculously fake dinosaurs we see continuing in the tradition of planting bones in locations and grafting together unrelated species to make their Frankenstein lizards.
The Second Dinosaur Rush
The second rush occurred in Canada, Alberta to be specific. Having dug up all the animal bones they could from the Missouri river they turned their attention to the well known bone harvest ground of the Red Deer River. In 1910 this area become the main collecting area for bones. Again we have another fight for fame this time between Barnum Brown and Sternberg.
This begs the question. Why is it that no Native Americans discovered any of these bones? Why are there no discoveries by any culture or any mention of these dinosaurs before 1842?! The area was very often inhabited by many native tribes. But beyond this, there are no mentions of dinosaurs at all before 1800s in any country or any culture. They are clearly very common to find during this time, so much so that Richard Owen pulled them out of a random pit. Additionally, no artifacts were reported from indigenous people - lending credence to the idea that they were transporting bones from other areas and planting them to further their fame.
Are we supposed to believe there were no quarries before the 1800s? Or that we as a species collectively ignored the giant bones lying around everywhere, especially near water where we are known to prefer to build cities? No, this is patently ridiculous.
Got it.
I use the same logic with medicine. During that same time period there were a lot of so called wonder drugs sold by fake doctors.
Clearly every drug since then is a fake.
We do know that there was a mass extinction that ended not only the dinosaurs but I believe 95% of all living species at the time. This was not the only great die off that has been discovered. Again, not sure where you are getting your misinformation from.Look, more nonsense! The mass extinction apparently not only killed off 95% of species, but also instead made penguins larger. Oh boy.
Eric Dubay suggests they come from Giants. I'd have to see the actual bone to be able to say. It could be a fake, or some other animal entirely, or some third option.Did t you claim that penguins were created by nazis as a food source.We do know that there was a mass extinction that ended not only the dinosaurs but I believe 95% of all living species at the time. This was not the only great die off that has been discovered. Again, not sure where you are getting your misinformation from.Look, more nonsense! The mass extinction apparently not only killed off 95% of species, but also instead made penguins larger. Oh boy.
http://time.com/5062266/giant-penguin-fossil-new-zealand/
Full size concrete models of dinosaurs including iguanodon were made in 1852 and still stand to this day in Crystal Palace Park. When your next in London you can go and have a look.I live within walking distance of these and visit regularly - they are fantastic. There is an ongoing restoration project, so they are looking better than they have in quite a while.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Palace_Dinosaurs
Of course in John's sad conspiracy addled world, they are all part of some grand hoax.
If you're interested in this sort of thing, there is a BBC Radio show "In our Time", which has 3 academics discussing feathered dinosaurs in this episode:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b099v33p (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b099v33p)
Fascinating how much understanding of dinosaurs has come along in the last 20 years.
All attempts are equally flawed to assemble them. Sure they found better ways to assemble dead reptile, bird and animal bones since they started, but its all nonsense that is built off nonsense.One of the first dinosaurs was in the lobby of an entertaining room, as a spectacle for foolish visitors. The attention of the public was caught by a Charismatic Creationist, in one fateful speech. The first was a bunch of teeth experts repeatedly confirmed were nothing, found by a quarry owners wife. He later found a gator skull, piltdowned it, and we now have the iguanodon.One of the first dinosaurs was in the lobby of an entertaining room, as a spectacle for foolish visitors. The attention of the public was caught by a Charismatic Creationist, in one fateful speech. The first was a bunch of teeth experts repeatedly confirmed were nothing, found by a quarry owners wife. He later found a gator skull, piltdowned it, and we now have the iguanodon.
Could you provide your sources for this story. Knowing a bit about the history of Paleontology I think you have read the story embelished It, mixed it up a bit and then made the rest up.
One thing that is true is that in the 19 Century when Paleontology was in its infancy people were not quite sure how all the bones went together and the bones of the iguanodon were indeed incorrectly assembled. I think your mockery of the early attempts at assembling what was a new discovery to science is rather puerile.
I think you may have been referring to the wife of Gideon Mantell, a country doctor and fossil collector. The story that was told was his wife found some teeth, but he admitted later, in 1851 that it was he discovered them.
Yes, Mantell later tried to take credit for the teeth his wife found. You know, because he was a stand up guy.It might surprise many to know some of the history of dinosaurs.
The Beginnings of the Myth
Gideon Mantell claimed his wife Mary Ann discovered some unusual teeth - clearly not ready to accept the blame of his own forgery. Once he gained fame for this, he then took credit in 1851, claiming them to be of a giant crocodile. Mantell also unearthed a largely incomplete skeleton, and rightfully concluded that the teeth did not belong to it. The plant eating teeth were dismissed as fish teeth or teeth of a rhinoceros by experts of the time.
He quickly changed his story after hearing of a 'larger than life' (literally) tale by a Richard Owen. The charismatic creationist Sir Richard Owen in 1842 invented the dinosaur, in a two hour captivating speech. Using fragments of bones from here and there he heaped fiction upon fiction to support his imaginative view of what were essentially dragons for a new age. Having had his imagination taken away by Owen he quickly pasted these two finds together.
This was used by Hayden when he found some random large bones in the Missouri River in 1854. These were largely just teeth again. How is it that Sir Owen described dinosaurs before their proper discovery in 1854? Until then all we knew about was a large crocodile and some fish teeth. It sounds like somebody found some teeth and wanted to get some fame out of it so made his discoveries fit the imaginative tales of a master story teller.
The First Dinosaur Hoax
The supposed first discovery of a dinosaur was by William Parker Foulke in 1858. Having heard of a fellow named Hopkins pulling bones out of a pit and putting them on display at his house, envious, he went and pulled out the first nearly complete skeleton of a dinosaur. Hopkins discovered his large bones in 1838. There is no evidence that these bones belonged to any type of large lizard.
As it turns out, the skull of Foulke was shown to be faked, and it was made using an iguana skull as reference. They replaced it with, I know you can't guess this - a duck bill. This was then shown to also be fake. Later it was shown that his impossible posture was also faked. However, the damage was done, and the American people captivated with the dinosaur myth, adding it dogmatically into their scientific religion, never to be questioned again.
The War of the Hoaxers
IN the late 1870s began the great Dinosaur rush. led by Cope and Marsh they quickly fell to greed and became mortal enemies. Using spies, armed thugs, and theft, they spent much of their time fighting each other to gain fame for their fanciful inventions highlighting the despicable mark of the scientist - "anything goes." They simply were not able to share the spotlight, it seems. These two are responsible for the largest majority of dinosaur findings of the time by FAR. They single handedly found as many bones as possible and tied them together in any way possible in one of sciences greatest pissing contests, ignoring logic and error that would only be discovered years later. Known as the 'bone wars' these two people are responsible more than anybody else for all the ridiculously fake dinosaurs we see continuing in the tradition of planting bones in locations and grafting together unrelated species to make their Frankenstein lizards.
The Second Dinosaur Rush
The second rush occurred in Canada, Alberta to be specific. Having dug up all the animal bones they could from the Missouri river they turned their attention to the well known bone harvest ground of the Red Deer River. In 1910 this area become the main collecting area for bones. Again we have another fight for fame this time between Barnum Brown and Sternberg.
This begs the question. Why is it that no Native Americans discovered any of these bones? Why are there no discoveries by any culture or any mention of these dinosaurs before 1842?! The area was very often inhabited by many native tribes. But beyond this, there are no mentions of dinosaurs at all before 1800s in any country or any culture. They are clearly very common to find during this time, so much so that Richard Owen pulled them out of a random pit. Additionally, no artifacts were reported from indigenous people - lending credence to the idea that they were transporting bones from other areas and planting them to further their fame.
Are we supposed to believe there were no quarries before the 1800s? Or that we as a species collectively ignored the giant bones lying around everywhere, especially near water where we are known to prefer to build cities? No, this is patently ridiculous.
Eric Dubay suggests they come from Giants. I'd have to see the actual bone to be able to say. It could be a fake, or some other animal entirely, or some third option.I really think you are confused over dates and times, not surprising as you recently thought there was 90 hours in A day.We do know that there was a mass extinction that ended not only the dinosaurs but I believe 95% of all living species at the time. This was not the only great die off that has been discovered. Again, not sure where you are getting your misinformation from.Look, more nonsense! The mass extinction apparently not only killed off 95% of species, but also instead made penguins larger. Oh boy.
http://time.com/5062266/giant-penguin-fossil-new-zealand/
an impossible 90 hours a day!
Goldbogen et al, and HoldenAre you talking about Ted Holden? Please tell me that's not the source you are citing. This is the guy who claims that Saturn once hovered over the North Pole and that's why gravity was less back then.
I personally believe he's trolling, but I won't pretend I have conclusive proof of that. Either way, not really worth the trouble of engaging. Someone this delusional doesn't have the ability to respond logically and someone trolling like this refuses to respond logically, so there's just no point.
And let's talk a bit about how their bones have to be filled with air, just for them to lumber about and eat for 90 hours a day.
Not all pants are fake, but surely, some are "
Here to laugh at you".
Also, get a real name.
Not all pants are fake, but surely, some are "
Here to laugh at you".
Also, get a real name.
Also, get a real name.
If you say so.
Also, get a real name.
John Davis isn't your real name.
If you say so.
Also, get a real name.
John Davis isn't your real name.
No, Eric is his middle name and John Davis real smart, a real Smart Aleck.And let's talk a bit about how their bones have to be filled with air, just for them to lumber about and eat for 90 hours a day.
Oh John, smart is really not yor middle name......momentary lapse of reason?
His name is 'here to laugh at you.' Am I really supposed to take that seriously? How can I answer questions to someone named like that?
And yes, I am John Davis. I don't particularly care to prove this, so feel free to believe I'm using someone else's name and picture if you'd like.
His name is 'here to laugh at you.' Am I really supposed to take that seriously? How can I answer questions to someone named like that?
And yes, I am John Davis. I don't particularly care to prove this, so feel free to believe I'm using someone else's name and picture if you'd like.
His name is 'here to laugh at you.' Am I really supposed to take that seriously? How can I answer questions to someone named like that?
And yes, I am John Davis. I don't particularly care to prove this, so feel free to believe I'm using someone else's name and picture if you'd like.
What are you doing for living? As a profession?
His name is 'here to laugh at you.' Am I really supposed to take that seriously? How can I answer questions to someone named like that?
Seriously though John, tell me you aren't citing Ted Holden as a source.
His name is 'here to laugh at you.' Am I really supposed to take that seriously? How can I answer questions to someone named like that?
And yes, I am John Davis. I don't particularly care to prove this, so feel free to believe I'm using someone else's name and picture if you'd like.
By the way, my name really is Dinosaur Neil, and I am an actual dinosaur, disproving John's theories entirely.John has theories? I though he just made shit up.
By the way, my name really is Dinosaur Neil, and I am an actual dinosaur, disproving John's theories entirely.John has theories? I though he just made shit up.
A silly old dragon myth.Why are you ignoring me John? I was just trying to confirm your source.
http://idobi.com/podcast/017-alien-abductee-josh-harvey-john-davis-flat-earth-dino-hoax/
A silly old dragon myth.
http://idobi.com/podcast/017-alien-abductee-josh-harvey-john-davis-flat-earth-dino-hoax/
And yes, I am John Davis.So you say, but you're a well know liar - why should we believe you?
I really am not a liar, I am John, and I believe what I believe; and frankly this abuse is getting a bit old. You guys are just a bunch of school yard bullies.Still nothing?
I really am not a liar, I am John, and I believe what I believe; and frankly this abuse is getting a bit old. You guys are just a bunch of school yard bullies.If you want to come here and talk crap then that's up to you, but don't get all upset when people call you out on your faux sincerity.
When not coding like a rockstar, John enjoys playing guitar, sipping craft beers and spending time with his two children, Donovan and Connor, and his wife, Margaux. His interests include philosophy of science, epistemology, playing with math and researching the history of odd ideas.:-X
You are just being a shit human.Nice ;)
You are just being a shit human.Nice ;)
Well, while we are at it: you are pompous, self-righteous, dishonest, thin skinned and smug. Or at least that's how you come off here. I doubt you are a "shit human" however, just someone being a bit of dick on a forum.
You clearly don't believe this grand paleontology conspiracy theory, as you'd have to be severely mentally ill to believe such utter dribble. I don't believe you are mentally ill, therefore you are spouting shit.
I really am not a liar, I am John, and I believe what I believe; and frankly this abuse is getting a bit old. You guys are just a bunch of school yard bullies.
Except I'm not coming here and talking crap. You are just being a shit human. Why you feel the need to do this is beyond me. I suppose it must make you feel good about yourself in some way.
One for John.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/dec/28/top-fossil-discoveries-of-2017
Yes, it's the conspiracy and "official policy".One for John.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/dec/28/top-fossil-discoveries-of-2017
I get the feeling he didn’t like the link. I think he finds evidence difficult to deal with.
He could tell me why FE belief is all based on selective acceptance, by which I mean anything that impacts negatively on FE belief is automatically rejected.
Here is another great story John can ignore
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/08/nodosaur-dinosaur-fossil-study-borealopelta-coloration-science/
Looks like National Geographic are in on it.
Here is another great story John can ignore
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/08/nodosaur-dinosaur-fossil-study-borealopelta-coloration-science/
Looks like National Geographic are in on it.(https://www.dropbox.com/s/o1tfapmy1v3iegf/Smiley-%20Dark%20Glasses.gif?dl=1) Required wear for flat-earthers when leaving their basement - in case they accidently stumble on contrary evidence. (https://www.dropbox.com/s/o1tfapmy1v3iegf/Smiley-%20Dark%20Glasses.gif?dl=1)
Here is another great story John can ignore
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/08/nodosaur-dinosaur-fossil-study-borealopelta-coloration-science/
Looks like National Geographic are in on it.(https://www.dropbox.com/s/o1tfapmy1v3iegf/Smiley-%20Dark%20Glasses.gif?dl=1) Required wear for flat-earthers when leaving their basement - in case they accidently stumble on contrary evidence. (https://www.dropbox.com/s/o1tfapmy1v3iegf/Smiley-%20Dark%20Glasses.gif?dl=1)
They don't need to be 'in on it' to be wrong or fooled. Why is it that every globularist that comes here is obsessed with conspiracy? I get why flatists might be, but this is getting silly folks! The only conspiracy at play is a conspiracy of imagination and ignorance.Here is another great story John can ignore
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/08/nodosaur-dinosaur-fossil-study-borealopelta-coloration-science/
Looks like National Geographic are in on it.(https://www.dropbox.com/s/o1tfapmy1v3iegf/Smiley-%20Dark%20Glasses.gif?dl=1) Required wear for flat-earthers when leaving their basement - in case they accidently stumble on contrary evidence. (https://www.dropbox.com/s/o1tfapmy1v3iegf/Smiley-%20Dark%20Glasses.gif?dl=1)
They don't need to be 'in on it' to be wrong or fooled. Why is it that every globularist that comes here is obsessed with conspiracy? I get why flatists might be, but this is getting silly folks! The only conspiracy at play is a conspiracy of imagination and ignorance.Here is another great story John can ignore
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/08/nodosaur-dinosaur-fossil-study-borealopelta-coloration-science/
Looks like National Geographic are in on it.(https://www.dropbox.com/s/o1tfapmy1v3iegf/Smiley-%20Dark%20Glasses.gif?dl=1) Required wear for flat-earthers when leaving their basement - in case they accidently stumble on contrary evidence. (https://www.dropbox.com/s/o1tfapmy1v3iegf/Smiley-%20Dark%20Glasses.gif?dl=1)
You will also note the evasive tactics of refusing to address certain questions - notably whenever dinosaurs are discussed, scoffing at the idea of their existence but quite happily agreeing that "alternative" giant animals existed, but never going into detail about what those giant animals are supposed to be or why they are feasible when dinosaurs are not, even when directly questioned.
They don't need to be 'in on it' to be wrong or fooled. Why is it that every globularist that comes here is obsessed with conspiracy? I get why flatists might be, but this is getting silly folks! The only conspiracy at play is a conspiracy of imagination and ignorance.Because without a massive conspiracy your flat earth would be dead and buried almost 50 years ago!
| (http://mentallandscape.com/CS_Zond05_1.jpg) September 18, 1968 | (http://mentallandscape.com/C_Zond07_9.jpg) August 9, 1969 | (http://mentallandscape.com/C_Zond07_6.jpg) August 9, 1969 |
| (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/images/135918main_bm1_high.jpg?itok=2I8-uSUB) December 7, 1972 View of the Earth as seen by the Apollo 17 crew -- astronaut Eugene A. Cernan, commander;astronaut Ronald E. Evans, command module pilot; and scientist-astronaut Harrison H. Schmitt, lunar module pilot -- traveling toward the moon. This translunar coast photograph extends from the Mediterranean Sea area to the Antarctica South polar ice cap. This is the first time the Apollo trajectory made it possible to photograph the South polar ice cap. Note the heavy cloud cover in the Southern Hemisphere. Almost the entire coastline of Africa is clearly visible. The Arabian Peninsula can be seen at the Northeastern edge of Africa. The large island off the coast of Africa is the Malagasy Republic. The Asian mainland is on the horizon toward the Northeast. Image Credit: NASA |
They don't need to be 'in on it' to be wrong or fooled. Why is it that every globularist that comes here is obsessed with conspiracy? I get why flatists might be, but this is getting silly folks! The only conspiracy at play is a conspiracy of imagination and ignorance.Here is another great story John can ignore
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/08/nodosaur-dinosaur-fossil-study-borealopelta-coloration-science/
Looks like National Geographic are in on it.(https://www.dropbox.com/s/o1tfapmy1v3iegf/Smiley-%20Dark%20Glasses.gif?dl=1) Required wear for flat-earthers when leaving their basement - in case they accidently stumble on contrary evidence. (https://www.dropbox.com/s/o1tfapmy1v3iegf/Smiley-%20Dark%20Glasses.gif?dl=1)
You think incorrectly. You guys really just strive to follow me around, purposefully misunderstand what I say, then strawman it eh?They don't need to be 'in on it' to be wrong or fooled. Why is it that every globularist that comes here is obsessed with conspiracy? I get why flatists might be, but this is getting silly folks! The only conspiracy at play is a conspiracy of imagination and ignorance.Here is another great story John can ignore
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/08/nodosaur-dinosaur-fossil-study-borealopelta-coloration-science/
Looks like National Geographic are in on it.(https://www.dropbox.com/s/o1tfapmy1v3iegf/Smiley-%20Dark%20Glasses.gif?dl=1) Required wear for flat-earthers when leaving their basement - in case they accidently stumble on contrary evidence. (https://www.dropbox.com/s/o1tfapmy1v3iegf/Smiley-%20Dark%20Glasses.gif?dl=1)
I think you must be confused John. I think you recently mentioned that the whole dinosaur thing is a conspiracy, along with space travel, astronomy, the Hubble telescope and basically science in general. Without conspiracy you have nothing. The only conspiracy around here is the one you perpetrate, or do you now believe in space travel?
So do you think there is no big conspiracy regarding these things?You think incorrectly. You guys really just strive to follow me around, purposefully misunderstand what I say, then strawman it eh?They don't need to be 'in on it' to be wrong or fooled. Why is it that every globularist that comes here is obsessed with conspiracy? I get why flatists might be, but this is getting silly folks! The only conspiracy at play is a conspiracy of imagination and ignorance.Here is another great story John can ignore
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/08/nodosaur-dinosaur-fossil-study-borealopelta-coloration-science/
Looks like National Geographic are in on it.(https://www.dropbox.com/s/o1tfapmy1v3iegf/Smiley-%20Dark%20Glasses.gif?dl=1) Required wear for flat-earthers when leaving their basement - in case they accidently stumble on contrary evidence. (https://www.dropbox.com/s/o1tfapmy1v3iegf/Smiley-%20Dark%20Glasses.gif?dl=1)
I think you must be confused John. I think you recently mentioned that the whole dinosaur thing is a conspiracy, along with space travel, astronomy, the Hubble telescope and basically science in general. Without conspiracy you have nothing. The only conspiracy around here is the one you perpetrate, or do you now believe in space travel?
There's no dinosaur conspiracy, anymore so than there was a snakeoil conspiracy. The popularity of error is virtually all permeating. I usually stand on the side of no conspiracy in general for the flat earth - hence my work towards the non-euclidean model. Science in general you can argue in the way that it is actively being used by the government to control us - this aligns more with a view like Popper's however for the need for an Open Society, rather than some 'conspiracy.'So all the paleontologists are simply wrong in exactly the same way. Btw John, why do you keep avoiding my question about your sources? You respond to me, but never about that. Are you ashamed that you claimed part of your evidence comes from a guy who thinks Saturn hung above the North Pole and so offset gravity on earth? You are the one who originally claimed them as a source now you run away from any mention of them. Why is that?
I usually stand on the side of no conspiracy in general for the flat earthRubbish! No conspiracy means at least satellites are real because
hence my work towards the non-euclidean model.What non-euclidean model?
How do you get the fortitude and stamina to come here every day and complain about things you self-admittedly don't understand?
How do you get the fortitude and stamina to come here every day and complain about things you self-admittedly don't understand?Why don't you bother answering quite valid objections to your claims?
When you field some, I'll be happy to. I estimate that about 75% of the confusion here lies in the inability for a round earther to pick up a reference source, and should he miraculously complete this - 25% to his inability to make use of the strange symbols he is surprised to find inside!
I usually stand on the side of no conspiracy in general for the flat earthRubbish! No conspiracy means at least satellites are real because
so many countries own satellites in orbit and a dozen or so countries of all political and religious persuasions have launched their own.
These include lunar missions from at least USSR, (now Russia), USA, Europe, Japan, China and India.
Make no mistake about it: No conspiracy = no flat earth.Quote from: John Davishence my work towards the non-euclidean model.What non-euclidean model?
That pipe-dream based only on a "thought experiment" with absolutely no physical or theoretical backing, other than your deceptive claim that
EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY PROVES THE EARTH IS FLAT, May 23, 2016 JohnDavis (https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/einsteins-relativity-proves-earth-flat) when EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY, Special or General does nothing of the sort.
My understanding is that Paleontologists are wrong in different ways, and they get together and publish journals to argue about how each other is wrong. I have no issue with the sources I listed.Then why dodge the question so many times when I simply asked you to confirm if that was who you were talking about. Really sounds like you do have a problem with your own sources.
When you field some, I'll be happy to. I estimate that about 75% of the confusion here lies in the inability for a round earther to pick up a reference source, and should he miraculously complete this - 25% to his inability to make use of the strange symbols he is surprised to find inside!
I get the feeling he didn’t like the link. I think he finds evidence difficult to deal with.That is the mindset of the conspiracy theorist. They are incapable of admitting that their preconceived ideas do not fit observations, therefore they simply have to ignore anything that might contradict their bullshit.
He could tell me why FE belief is all based on selective acceptance, by which I mean anything that impacts negatively on FE belief is automatically rejected.
No clue what you are talking about. As you can imagine, I'm not hanging on the edge of my seat to read every single thing you post at me. I have no issue with any of the sources I posted.No, it shows that I read what is written. I have already addressed the issue of your ridiculous sources. There is nothing of merit there. You are just too ashamed to actually say, yes your source claims Saturn hovered above the North Pole among other idiotic things.
The fact you say I presented zero evidence, just shows you aren't ready for a 'big boy' conversation on the matter.
You really couldn't. I don't come here to complain about the flat earth theory, something I believe in. You might have a point if I was actively visiting and whining at round earth physics forums or something. I come here, and participate in the flat earth community and research at large, because I care about it. You come here to shit in someone else's punchbowl.