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.
Posts: 815
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by anonjedi2 » Tue Oct 20, 2015 5:48 pm

Selene wrote:A Dino Hoax is to me just as strategic, non-existing and sneaking into the real truth seeking community as Flat Earth. And both too silly to maintain as the invalidity of them are proven so easily
Sillier than the idea of millions of Giant Lizards roaming the Earth with strange bodies that make no anatomical sense whatsoever (ie, tiny arms) and not to ever be discovered until the mid 1800s?


Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by SacredCowSlayer » Tue Oct 20, 2015 9:16 pm

Selene wrote:

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


That is a very thoughtful and challenging question. Allow me to present a similar one to you and let's see if we can find a distinction, if any.

History classes across the country (the US as an example) teach 9/11 according to the official story. In science classes students are taught that NASA landed men on the moon in 1969.
So all these teachers/ professors are either 1. completely stupid or 2. evil, lying, well paid puppets?

Is this a fair comparison to the question of this topic? Or is it distinctly different? If so, why?

It seems to me that there is a combination of these things going on in any given hoax.
The evil ones create official institutions where morons, cowards, and opportunists go to be "educated" and indoctrinated, and in turn they carry the lies forward. The lie becomes an institution unto itself, and thus too important to question.

Sorry I'm not talking about dinosaurs. I don't know much about them. Mods please feel free to put this in the Derailing Room if I have gone off track.

Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by Seneca » Tue Nov 03, 2015 8:37 pm

I'm going to visit the "Royal Scientific Institute" of Brussels with my family. They are most famous for their Iguanodon collection. I have become suspicious of dinosaurs but not yet conviced they are all fake. Are there any clues I could look for?

Posts: 815
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by anonjedi2 » Wed Nov 04, 2015 4:01 pm

Ornithomimus dinosaur with preserved tail feathers and skin tightens linkages between dinosaurs and birds

Well, they've been trying so hard to link dinosaurs to birds and I guess this now makes it official! :rolleyes:

An undergraduate University of Alberta paleontology student has discovered an Ornithomimus dinosaur with preserved tail feathers and soft tissue. The discovery is shedding light on the convergent evolution of these dinosaurs with ostriches and emus relating to thermoregulation and is also tightening the linkages between dinosaurs and modern birds.
How exactly do feathers and soft tissue survive 75 million years of Earth events? How convenient is it that these paleontologists just happen to find "linkages" between dinosaurs and modern birds to confirm their far-fetched theories?
"We now know what the plumage looked like on the tail, and that from the mid-femur down, it had bare skin," says Aaron van der Reest. This is the first report of such preserved skin forming a web from the femoral shaft to the abdomen, never before seen in non-avian dinosaurs. "Ostriches use bare skin to thermoregulate. Because the plumage on this specimen is virtually identical to that of an ostrich, we can infer that Ornithomimus was likely doing the same thing, using feathered regions on their body to maintain body temperature. It would've looked a lot like an ostrich." In fact, this group of animals—referred to as ornithomimids—is commonly referred to as "ostrich mimics."
I see. So, it's an ostrich, and they're dressing it up to look like a dinosaur.
Although the preserved feathers are extremely crushed due to sediment compaction, scanning electron microscopy reveals a three-dimensional keratin structure to the feathers on the tail and body. van der Reest made the initial discovery during his first year as an undergraduate student, supervised by Philip Currie, Canada's leading palentologist."It's pretty remarkable. I don't know if I've stopped smiling since."
Remarkable, indeed. How exactly does this scanning electron microscopy work? Is this something that the public has access to?
This new specimen—one of only three feathered Ornithomimus specimens in the world—is shedding light on the animal's evolutionary adaptation to different environments. "We are getting the newest information on what these animals may have looked like, how they maintained body temperatures, and the stages of feather evolution." van der Reest notes that the findings may be used to further understand why animals have adapted the way they have and to predict how animals will have to adapt in the future in order to survive environmental changes.
And there you have it. Not only are they pushing their false monkey evolution story, but they insist on bringing in the climate change scam into the mix as well, by highlighting the "environmental changes" part of the story.
"This specimen also tightens the linkages between dinosaurs and birds, in particular with respect to theropods," says Alex Wolfe, second author on the paper. "There are so many components of the morphology of this fossil as well as the chemistry of the feathers that are essentially indistinguishable from modern birds."
They are essentially indistinguishable from modern birds, you see. Meaning that nobody can tell the difference except for these highly specialized and trained [indoctrinated] paleontologists who can figure it out with their scanning tools. :puke: ... -skin.html

Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2015 8:21 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by tokyojoe1 » Wed Dec 09, 2015 8:06 pm

Has anybody watched the documentary Dinosaur 13 on Netflix? I watched the first 30 minutes last night.
The film depicts the event of 1990, when American paleontologist Sue Hendrickson working with Pete Larson and his team discovered the largest and most complete Tyrannosaurus rex ever found (nicknamed "Sue") while digging in the badlands of South Dakota. The skeleton was seized from Larson by the federal government, followed by a ten-year-long battle with the FBI, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Maurice Williams, the landowner on whose property the bones were discovered. Pete Larson also spent 18 months in prison.
I just had a weird vibe watching it the entire time. It was too "perfect". They had a video of them excavating it in 1990 and the video and actors felt staged, like they shot the video last year and edited it to look 25 years old. Every single thing they mentioned had some sort of video or document or picture or whatever of it. It also had the full Hollywood documentary story arc. It was just too perfect. And a few of the actors raised my suspicions.

If anybody here has Netflix, check it out.

Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by ICfreely » Tue Dec 22, 2015 6:12 am

Kudos to Faux News for keeping my dinomorbid delusions alive!

'Extinct' no longer? Brontosaurus may make a comeback ... eback.html
Published April 07, 2015

The Brontosaurus is back. Or at least it should be, according to a new analysis of the long-necked dinosaur family tree.
The study researchers suggest the dinosaur currently known as Apatosaurus excelsus is different enough from its Apatosaurian kin as to be a different dinosaur altogether. Because A. excelsus was famously first known as Brontosaurus until 1903, the species would revert back to that original name and become Brontosaurus once again.
It's a proposal that excites some paleontologists and leaves others skeptical, but researchers say it's entirely possible that Brontosaurus may eventually regain its place in the scientific nomenclature.

"The big picture is, there are independent groups of researchers looking at these dinos and these relationships, and they are independently arriving at the same conclusion, that the diversity of this family of dinosaurs is greater than previously recognized," said Matthew Mossbrucker, the director and curator of the Morrison Natural History Museum in Colorado. Mossbrucker was not involved in the new study, but is "wholly in favor of bringing the genus Brontosaurus back," he said.
From Mossbrucker’s lips to Godzilla’s ears.

Brontosaurus background
The saga of Brontosaurus is as long as this sauropod's snakelike neck. In 1877, the geologist Arthur Lakes sent paleontologist Othniel Charles Marsh some fossilized bones, which Marsh described as a new late-Jurassic sauropod, Apatosaurus ajax. In 1879, Marsh's team found another long-necked dino in the same era rock, which Marsh concluded [DECIDED] was a different genus and species altogether — Brontosaurus excelsus.

The Brontosaurus name was not long-lasting, however. In 1903, the paleontologist Elmer Riggs determined [DECIDED] that A. ajax and B. excelsus were more closely related than Marsh had believed. Apatosaurus, being the first named, took precedence, and Brontosaurus was no more. Instead, the dinosaur species once known as B. excelsus became A. excelsus. The Brontosaurus moniker persisted in popular culture, but not among scientists.

Not among most scientists, anyway. There have been occasional calls to re-examine the species. Paleontologist Bob Bakker, the curator of paleontology at the Houston Museum of Natural Science, has argued for a revision of the A. excelsus name since the 1990s.

"These guys should never have been lumped [together] back in 1903 or '04," Bakker told Live Science. He cites differences in the A. excelsus shoulder blade, head and neck that separate it from other Apatosaurs. But the only systematic analysis of Apatosaurus traits, published in the National Science Museum Monographs in 2004, upheld the current naming conventions.
Brontosaurus excelsus, come on down!
Revising the family tree
The new research examines not only Apatosaurs, but all long-necks in the Diplodocidae family, the group that includes Apatosaurs and Diplodocuses. The researchers examined 477 different morphological traits from individual specimens found in museums in Europe and the United States. The study started simply, said lead researcher Emanuel Tschopp, a paleontologist at the Universidade Nova de Lisboa in Portugal.

"The idea was to identify some new skeletons that there are in a museum in Switzerland down to the species," Tschopp told Live Science. "At some point, we figured out that in order to do this, we also had to revise the species taxonomy of the group because it was not known in enough detail to really see where our new specimens would belong."
-They’ve figured out that that in order to keep their jobs, they must continually devise/revise fantasy family trees.
Tschopp and his colleagues cataloged the differences in various bony features of Diplodocidae dinosaurs and used a statistical method to quantify how different each dino was from the others. From there, they separated the specimens into individual species and genera, or closely related groups of species.
-If you use the term ‘statistical method’ and sprinkle the sentence with binomial nomenclature, lay readers will get the impression that you’re a real scientist.
The most provocative result was how much A. excelsus stood out.

"We found [DECIDED] that the differences between the genus Brontosaurus and the genus Apatosaurus are so numerous that they should be kept apart as two different genera," Tschopp said.

Most notably, he said, Apatosaurus would have had a wider, more robust neck than Brontosaurus. The findings appear April 7 in the open-access journal PeerJ.
Dino debate
Tschopp's work did not take into account Apatosaurus excelsus' skull, because paleontologists disagree about whether a true skull of this animal has ever been found. Bakker and Mossbrucker argue there is good evidence that true skulls have been found; other paleontologists are skeptical of the field drawings and diagrams of Arthur Lakes, who found the original Apatosaurus specimens in the late 1800s.

If you’ve read this thread, then you’re already familiar with the elusive dino skulls.

If Bakker and Mossbrucker are right, the skulls of A. excelsus and other Apatosaurians bolster the Brontosaurus claim. The nasal chambers in A. excelsus' probable skull fossils are larger than in other species, Bakker said, which would have made its bellows higher-pitched. Its muzzle, shoulders and neck joints are different, which would have altered its maneuverability and posture, Bakker added. All of these changes mattered ecologically.

Probable skull fossils?

"It's important to recognize the distinctions, because this group of critters, the long-neck Apatosaurs, evolved faster than we've been giving them credit for, and they evolved in sectors of anatomy that are really interesting," Bakker said. "Why would they change their head-neck posture? Why?

I’m not sure, Bob! Maybe because a bunch of your, desperate to get published, colleagues DECIDED they would?

I suspect part of it might be social behavior, the way they signaled to each other with head flips and chin bobs."

-Orale homes! That explains their abnormally strong pimp claws and gangsta lean posture! Why didn’t I think of that?
But discerning behavior and evolution from bone shapes and features is a tricky [DIRTY] business.

-Paleontologists can play faster and looser than ever with their fairy tales thanks to the deoxyribonucleic acid double helix safety net.

"The question for me is when we look at these changes, and we say the shape of this bone is different, the shape of that bone is different, it's hard for me to say that they are equivalent changes," said John Whitlock, a paleontologist at Mount Aloysius College, who was not involved in the study but who reviewed it for publication. For example, one change could require the alteration of 400 nucleotides of DNA, Whitlock told Live Science, and another just a couple of nucleotides.

"Evolutionarily speaking, those are not necessarily equivalent," he said.

Translation: :wacko:

If anything is certain, it's that bringing back Brontosaurus will require a lot more debate (and, ultimately, a ruling by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature).

The truth is whatever the learned elders of ICZN – the global arbiters of real and mythical animal names – decide!

"For sure, there will be other researchers that are maybe not convinced or have their own evidence against the separation of the two," Tschopp said.

This researcher, for one, is convinced that his MOBUS Theory is as valid as Bakker, Mossbrucker and Tschopp’s tall twisted tales!
"In the end, this is how [faux] science works."

Posts: 390
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:21 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by Farcevalue » Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:42 pm

I hope this doesn't affect my Dinopay app ;)


I guess Sinclair never got the memo:
At the Chicago World's Fair of 1933–1934, Sinclair sponsored a dinosaur exhibit meant to point out the putative correlation between the formation of petroleum deposits and the time of dinosaurs, now a largely discredited misconception.[9] The exhibit included a two-ton animated model of a brontosaurus. The exhibit proved so popular it inspired a promotional line of rubber brontosaurs at Sinclair stations, complete with wiggling heads and tails, and the eventual inclusion of the brontosaur logo. Later, inflatable dinosaurs were given as promotional items, and an anthropomorphic version appeared as a service-station attendant in advertisements. Some locations have a life-size model of the mascot straddling the building's entrance.

At the New York World's Fair of 1964–1965, Sinclair again sponsored a dinosaur exhibit, "Dinoland", featuring life-size replicas of nine different dinosaurs, including their signature brontosaurus. Souvenirs from the exhibit included a brochure ("Sinclair and the Exciting World of Dinosaurs") and molded plastic figurines of the dinosaurs featured. After the Fair closed, Dinoland spent a period of time as a traveling exhibit.

Posts: 199
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 9:48 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by guivre » Wed Feb 24, 2016 1:22 am

I saw this and thought it important enough to post:

This is not about dinosaurs, but great mammals; it addresses building and perpetuating a framework based on myth. All these little frauds and cons add up into one big lie.

Frozen Mammoth or Giant Ground Sloth Served for Dinner at The Explorers Club?

Jessica R. Glass,
Matt Davis,
Timothy J. Walsh,
Eric J. Sargis,
Adalgisa Caccone ... ne.0146825
Accounts of woolly mammoths (Mammuthus primigenius) preserved so well in ice that their meat is still edible have a long history of intriguing the public and influencing paleontological thought on Quaternary extinctions and climate, with some scientists resorting to catastrophism to explain the instantaneous freezing necessary to preserve edible meat. Famously, members of The Explorers Club purportedly dined on frozen mammoth from Alaska, USA, in 1951. This event, well received by the press and general public, became an enduring legend for the Club and popularized the notorious annual tradition of serving rare and exotic food at Club dinners that continues to this day. The Yale Peabody Museum holds a sample of meat preserved from the 1951 meal, interestingly labeled as a South American giant ground sloth (Megatherium), not mammoth. We sequenced a fragment of the mitochondrial cytochrome-b gene and studied archival material to verify its identity, which if genuine, would extend the range of Megatherium over 600% and alter our views on ground sloth evolution. Our results indicate that the meat was not mammoth or Megatherium but green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas). The prehistoric dinner was likely an elaborate publicity stunt. Our study emphasizes the value of museums collecting and curating voucher specimens, particularly those used for evidence of extraordinary claims
On a side note, using mammoth meat as a vehicle to perpetuate Catastrophism (which is not nearly as popular of a scientific mindset anymore) is an interesting reference here.
One of the first scientific accounts of a well-preserved woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius) frozen in Siberia described the meat as enticingly red and marbled but smelling so putrid that researchers could only tolerate a minute in its proximity [1]. Despite this initial review, numerous apocryphal tales exist of dinners made from centuries-old mammoths found frozen whole in clear blocks of ice [2,3]. These accounts have not only enchanted the public but also heavily influenced early scientific thought on Quaternary extinctions and climate; many resorting to catastrophism to explain the instantaneous freezing necessary to preserve palatable meat [3]. The possibility of cloning is now the major draw of frozen mammoths [4] but the public remains curious about eating prehistoric meat [5], especially because some modern paleontologists have credibly described tasting mammoth and extinct bison found preserved in permafrost [6,7]. Although less publicized today, eating study specimens was once common practice for researchers [8]. Charles Darwin belonged to a club dedicated to tasting exotic meats [9], and in his first book wrote almost three times as much about dishes like armadillo and tortoise urine than he did on the biogeography of his Galapagos finches [10].

One of the most famously strange scientific meals occurred on January 13, 1951, at the 47th Explorers Club Annual Dinner (ECAD) when members purportedly dined on frozen woolly mammoth [11–13]. The prehistoric meat was supposedly found on Akutan Island in Alaska, USA, by the eminent polar explorers Father Bernard Rosecrans Hubbard (Fig 1A), “the Glacier Priest,” and Captain George Francis Kosco (Fig 1B) of the US Navy [11,14]. This much-publicized meal captured the public’s imagination and became an enduring legend and source of pride for the Club [8,11,13,15–17], popularizing an annual menu of “exotics” that continues today, making the Club as well-known for its notorious hors d’oeuvres like fried tarantulas and goat eyeballs as it is for its notable members such as Teddy Roosevelt and Neil Armstrong

Tall tales like The Explorers Club “mammoth” can have a lasting impact on scientific thought and the public’s perception of natural history. A fictitious account of one frozen carcass written for a German children’s book in 1859 is cited heavily in early scientific literature and is still reproduced as fact in some paleontological textbooks today [47,48]. A story in McClure’s Magazine recounting the hunting of a live mammoth later donated to the Smithsonian proved so popular that the museum had to issue a public statement denying the specimen’s existence and challenging donors to fund an expedition to seek out a real frozen mammoth with which to replace it [49].

Fake Eater
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 4:15 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by Fake Eater » Wed Feb 24, 2016 7:44 pm

Its not dinosaurs, but if you think the left hand has something different from the right hand, think again. Free museums, but no free post-secondary education, what? Brought to you by the people who make over 100k a year. Get them while they still believe in Santa Clause (a red dude comes out of the fireplace and that's There is definitely some ridiculous speculation going on when it comes to groups of animals that are buried. 1 furry red flag. No rodents or scavengers, neat but no.

-Here are mammoths in a pond, put there by prehistoric hunters (duh) ... 3706e1370c

-Here, "Along with the mammoth bones, construction crews uncovered the bones of a bison and those of a horse or camel." ... b7d5443ddc
Their explanation; “Animals who were sick would often go to a body of water and die there, so it’s not unusual to find a group of bones like this,”
Total bs, says every scavenger.

-Not mammoths, whales and "these bizarre aquatic sloths":
" The best explanation is that these animals were all poisoned by the toxins that can be generated in some algal blooms." :mellow: The sloths were riding the whales, duh...

And here we have anonjedi2's kraken making an art project: ... hthyosaur/ :lol:
Just no...people who dream up artistic krakens for money dare not question it when people question their brand.

Just a bunch of "ists" making shit up to control the way you think, not buying it either... But hey, it's your tax money, you don't have a choice. An elephants kneecap can be a man, maybe an elephant is just a damn elephant. They kinda abused the elephant/trust ratio didn't they?

Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 12:20 pm

pinocchio rex

Unread post by fubarfuthark » Sun Feb 28, 2016 3:17 pm

Pinocchio rex: the new tyrannosaur. At George Square in Edinburgh, next to the university, there are hoardings listing the achievements of the university: Hepatitis B discovery (or vaccine) cannot remember, the Higgs boson and this 'discovery'. If you look at the google images of the paleontologist Steve Brusatte he looks very sim-my, seems to actually be a real living breathing individual!

In any case, i personally found this one quite hard to interpret. It is so blatant that it can surely only be understood as a raspberry blown in the face of anyone who has EVER believed in dinosaurs. Could possibly also function as a kind of psychological test i.e. are people paying attention to anything at all anymore? It also would seem (to me) to serve the paradoxical function of as acting as a kind of 'full stop' to the dinosaur question in the mind of the sceptic, that is to say that it would cause a person with doubts to consider those doubts not only justified but precisely confirmed which is, in a way just as much a form of credulity as believing in the 'giant lizards' themselves. 'King' Pinocchio? It is hardly as if it is an unintentional slipup...

Posts: 903
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: pinocchio rex

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Sun Feb 28, 2016 3:43 pm

fubarfuthark wrote:Could possibly also function as a kind of psychological test i.e. are people paying attention to anything at all anymore? It also would seem (to me) to serve the paradoxical function of as acting as a kind of 'full stop' to the dinosaur question in the mind of the sceptic [...]
This is of course a valid perspective.

In any case, what I see is a new chapter in the dinosaurs-evolved-into-birds meme, this time focusing on the evolutionary need for a transitional horny beak to go with the chicken-like body shape.

On the page you linked to, Pinocchio is illustrated in company with other fictitious dinobirds:
...The thinner teeth and lighter skeleton of Qianzhousaurus suggest it hunted smaller creatures, such as lizards and feathered dinosaurs.

...But this new species was lighter, less muscular. It breaks the mould.

...The horny-snouted predators appeared to come from an entirely new branch of the tyrannosaur family.

...With these "weird" creatures now accepted as being part of a whole family, more and more of their long-snouted relatives are expected to be unearthed.
The last quote is a promise, not a logical statement.

Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 12:20 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by fubarfuthark » Sun Feb 28, 2016 5:31 pm

"In any case, what I see is a new chapter in the dinosaurs-evolved-into-birds meme, this time focusing on the evolutionary need for a transitional horny beak to go with the chicken-like body shape."

This would nevertheless imply that the perps actually consider that the public's belief in these animals to be a necessary precondition to promoting such a birds/dinosaur link. If I were a perp and I wanted to promote such a link for some reason, i would not call my new specimens such intentionally revealing names. Unless they have SUCH contempt for their public that dont even think that plausibility matters. But I have a hard time believing this, they do these things for a reason. I think they are testing how completely droned out, boot-kissing and distracted the smartphone/facebook generation are. I have also been mulling over the idea that they are trying to widen the social gulf between the credible masses and the 'awakened' by introducing ever more absurd space footage/dinosaurs/news stories/science discoveries.

Whilst it is rather off-topic, look at the list of names in this article about FIFA candidates. ... g-20160226

Tokyo Sexwale? Gianni Infantino? Jerome Champagne? Sheikh Salman bin Ibrahim al-Khalifa?

To be fair, it is actually getting quite funny in a way.

Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 4:25 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by RyanMichael » Wed Apr 27, 2016 7:03 pm

I recently joined the forum after reading through this entire thread, and I wanted to extend a humble thank you to all who have contributed to this post. The original poster, Lux, is absolutely correct that it is difficult to find information about this that separates religion from the dinosaur question, and this was much needed!

While I have read most available material about the subject, the in-depth analysis provided here is greatly appreciated. In particular, the many break-downs of the language in "news articles" about "dinosaur finds" was especially enlightening. How transparent they really are ... I have bookmarked and will refer people back to this page for information about the evidence, and lack thereof, for dinosaurs.

The other thing about this thread (and forum) that I found impressive was the mutual respect shown by disagreeing parties, the lack of sarcasm and ad-hominem and the like. I hope to add useful information in the future (to this topic or others). For now, I simply wanted to express my gratitude for the exceptional information presented here and the time taken to provide said information and analysis. Mahalo!

Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:30 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by Kham » Sat Aug 20, 2016 12:09 am


Here are two images of replicas of fossils of unknown origin but are said to be, and more importantly, agreed upon to be those of a whale and a dino.

You could find out which is which with a quick reverse image search. But it is quite a bit harder to find out where the image originated from. Institutions are sharing images without giving credit which makes it is harder and harder to find out where the information is coming from being able to tell fact from fiction. And I am not just talking about images found on the internet, this includes text books, scholarly journals, educational videos, etc.


The differences between whale species is incredibly vast yet look at the similarity here. Dino people claim that slight differences in fossils require new species to explain them, instead of differences within species as an explanation, living or dead.

This supports my dino theory that If you are an Insider, then you are allowed to find/manufacture/just-say-you-have dino bones. If you are an outsider, than all you find are whale bones, or whatever fossil is being identified.

Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by TimR » Sun Nov 13, 2016 7:53 pm

My satirical piece that I posted was moved to the Art Corner thread, but I was asked to give some more concrete views on the topic, which I will post here...

At least, in abbreviated form.. At some future time I hope to write a longer or more thought out piece:

-Are any museum displays claimed to be real fossil skeletons? Or does the mainstream admit that they are all "reconstructed" or model skeletons, and the "real" fossils are in private storage?

-Many of the famous paleontologists have "red flags" all over them... but, this does not necessarily invalidate dinosaurs wholesale, could just be evidence of it being somewhat controlled and top-down, as most institutions

-The book "Hunting Dinosaurs" by Louie Psihoyos(sp) contains a bizarre chapter on a bizarre character called Jose Bonaparte... an Argentinean paleontology legend. He is portrayed in the text as a lazy bastard, a clod, a good-time Charlie, a self-promoter, etc. And yet he supposedly was funded by Nat Geo for about 15 years, finding major dinos, before (it is implied) these authors saw what a jerk he is, and his funding got cut

Post Reply